The water project itself is complicated and the analysis of the politics of the water project is an even more difficult nut to crack. On Saturday, I gave some basic analysis, and I believe that a water project that raises rates quickly and painfully over a short burst of time is going to be more difficult for people on modest incomes than a phased project or a delayed financing project that costs more over the long run.While I stand by that analysis from Saturday, I think that Matt Williams and Elaine Roberts Musser made some points that should be considered.
Counting to Six or Eight?
In a strict sense, the WAC needs to get to the number six, but as we have maintained all along, getting to six only gets us into the bitterly divided political realm. So when Matt Williams writes, “I respectfully disagree with David. I personally believe that 8 is the real number . . . or shall we say the realistic number. The reason for that is simple . . . the citizens of Davis will get a much clearer message about how the WAC feels if the vote is no less than 8-2. 10-0 or 9-1 would be even better, but 8-2 probably fits into the old adage of ‘reasonable people can agree to disagree reasonably.’ “
I don’t think he is disagreeing with me so much as focusing on a different number. I agree with this analysis, and wrote two weeks ago: “A further issue will be whether the WAC can reach a unanimous verdict. If the verdict is unanimous or near unanimous, the project has a better chance of succeeding. But if there are three or four dissenters, it could fan a heated battle into the spring.”
Unfortunately, the chair dismissed that view as a threat, but clearly Matt Williams sees it similarly.
Nevertheless, I agree with the chair that counting votes is a bit more tricky than it appeared at first glance.
Matt Williams wrote: “Right now I believe there are 4 WAC members who have assessed the risks and uncertainties associated with the West Sacramento alternative, and believe that those risks and uncertainties are too great to make the West Sac alternative viable, either now or in the long run. I also think there are two WAC members who believe the risks and uncertainties associated with the West Sac alternative are manageable and want more study before any decision is made. There is one WAC member who also wants more study, but for a different reason.”
He comes to this point: “That accounts for seven members with 4 votes for and 3 votes against making a recommendation at this time. I believe the other three votes fall into what I will call the “8 to 2 group.” My speculation is that these three votes feel that an 8-2 majority is needed to avoid political complications come March, and if I am right none of those three will vote to make a recommendation until after the thorough discussion of DBO takes place on August 23rd.”
But Elaine Roberts Musser points out, and I think accurately here, “Only a very few members (2) have clearly staked out their position at the last WAC meeting. Most of the members had little time to say anything. Until they speak, I don’t think there is any way to know who will vote what way. This is especially true [because] if nothing else, it is not clear as yet what the exact language of the motion will end up being after various WAC members have had a chance to weigh in.”
She also noted, “A motion was placed on the floor for the Woodland project without conditions that didn’t even get a second. The motion that is on the floor for a Woodland option [with] conditions has had no opportunity to even be discussed.”
She added, “The Vanguard has no idea how WAC members would vote on such a motion; has no idea whether this motion will pass legal muster; has no idea if it will be amended, modified, voted down, or whatever. In short the Vanguard seems to be merely guessing as to what it thinks will happen based on its own biases or whoever the Vanguard happens to be listening to at the moment, a very flimsy if nonexistent basis at best.”
I take issue with the “flimsy if nonexistent basis,” as I still believe that we will get an 8-2 vote of some sort on the Woodland project, but I think that Ms. Musser is correct that members are not there yet and have more questions that need to be addressed. Where I think we disagree is that I don’t see anything of these issues as unbridgeable, and unfortunately I think that staff convinced the WAC that the West Sacramento option was too risky.
Woodland
Finally, I think going back to Woodland with the JPA project re-opens the can of worms that could have been more effectively mitigated with a West Sacramento project.
Before I begin this analysis, I will actually state my position on Woodland. I have come to believe in the necessity of the surface water project, but I view my goals as minimizing costs, minimizing rate shocks, and maintaining as much autonomy as possible.
I am probably less risk-averse here than others and believe that West Sacramento probably provides us with the best opportunity. However, unlike some, I am not philosophically opposed to Woodland, I simply have concerns about it.
That said, I think there are people who are philosophically opposed to Woodland and I think Woodland can be relatively easily defeated electorally if the concerns, that people like me have about it, are not addressed.
I have re-examined Matt Williams’ heuristic and I think that, while he captures objections, most people are not going to vote against the project based on any one of those heuristics.
That said, I think an effective campaign can tap into several of those dimensions.
The strongest trump card is going to be cost. There are, as Matt Williams identified, a number of people who will simply vote no on any tax increase. That number is small though. Parks only yielded 16% opposition, schools, 26%. But even if that number is 20 to 25%, that’s half or nearly half of you figure.
The numbers we saw on Thursday show a short-term rate hike of 200% (that is nearly three times the monthly costs, presently). That is going to be a huge hurdle that the proponents have to pass.
I can see their thought process at work here. They’ll argue that doing nothing has a cost – which it may very well. They will argue that all alternatives are painful.
But in politics the simplest and cleanest argument wins. If you are explaining, you are losing because you cannot reach enough voters and hold their attention for the ten minutes it takes to explain.
The proponents will have to quickly explain why we went with (A) the more expensive option, and (B) why the numbers weren’t right on West Sacramento.
Adding to that argument will be the argument that added water capacity will enable growth in Davis – and more importantly and I think electorally effective, the idea that those pushing the water project are doing so in order to enable growth. Then it becomes an exercise of pin the tail on the developer and there are plenty around for such a pinning.
I don’t think people are going to vote against this because of doubts of competence of city staff or council, but that may be used as a reason to disbelieve the city’s story.
The JPA factor will come into play, with my concern about the loss of autonomy and the difference in Woodland Davis values. There are really two dimensions at play here. Those who will object to costs and those who will object to form. So you have the issue of the JPA, the public versus private water system, concerns about the ethics of the DBO process, etc.
For the most part, I think this is a small number, and it will be a build on argument. If we end up with United Water, then it becomes a matter of competency.
Veolia is a different matter altogether. Because of the Palestinian connection – no matter how tenuous – an effective campaign could tap into that divide in this community, it could tap into energy from progressive groups on the UC Davis campus, and it could be a huge mess.
Of the peripheral issues, Veolia and Veolia alone is the only one that I could see derailing this process by itself.
Otherwise, I see this coming down to costs, autonomy and governance. And then the question becomes whether you believe you can defeat Sue Greenwald and Michael Harrington and a few others on the merits of the project in the face of the material you hand them about going to Woodland.
The calculation will drastically change if you go to West Sacramento.
Now Matt Williams wants to know how many people there are. I don’t know how many people there are, that’s the big mystery. What we do know is that it does not take a tremendous amount of money and organization to defeat these kinds of proposals.
They are all different, but we saw Covell Village handily defeated despite the 4-1 council majority for it. We saw Wildhorse Ranch even more handily defeated despite council approval. We saw that Target was narrowly approved, largely with the help of students votes.
Do any of these elections factor in?
Another x-factor is whether the unions will try to weigh in as they did this June. That could change the equation.
My assessment here is that, while we cannot know the numbers in Matt Williams model, we know that Woodland will be a dogfight and might not ultimately prevail.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Other than raw politics pushed by those who stand to gain the huge amounts of money and political career resources from the JPA, there is no logical reason to push the WAC to reach a hasty decision. The March 2013 city ballot is a political construct and not based on facts on the ground.
Of course the JPA is about growth. Look how Saylor and Krovoza had us paying for over 2x as much water as we will ever need, arguably even 4x as much.
David, please post the JPA water usage map showing the service areas around Davis and Woodland. Enormous increase in urban areas.
All I have to do is post that map up in ads at the Varsity and the JPA is dead.
Mike, is this what you’re remembering? It’s is from the 2007 draft EIR:
[img]http://www.wuala.com/en/api/preview/jhframe/Photos/DWWS Project Service Area.jpg/[/img]
Well, that didn’t quite work out the way I intended. Stay tuned…
[quote]All I have to do is post that map up in ads at the Varsity and the JPA is dead. [/quote]I, for one, am tired of Mr H’s rants and threats. Just DO IT, Mike… put up or shut up! The rest of us can refute your logic. I’ll give you credit, though… you have verified that it is not about cost, nor equity, nor protecting the lower income folks. Even if the West Sac option is ‘selected’, it is clear you will find ways of opposing it if one gallon of water, not currently available from the City system, is allowed to be put “into play”.
BTW, Ag consumes more water/Ac than residential.
Mike H, Here is the cost of running an ad at the Varsity. “The cost of running a slide ad is $160/mo. Slide specs are: 1024 by 768;
300 dpi or greater; jpg, tiff or pdf format.”
However, you run the risk of annoying people who just want to go see a movie.
Mike… you ought to go for it… $160 is chump change to an attorney…
I’m still waiting for Mike Harrington and David Greenwald to post the questions they have for the WAC. Perhaps they’ve submitted them already. But it would be useful to know what research Mike thinks is still necessary, and what questions David has about the Woodland option.
Don: I’ve already expressed my concerns.
Jim: the usage map is on the JPA site. You want the one from about Feb 2011, the latest. The green outline shows the obscene amount of farmland and habitat the water plant would provide urban development water for. We thought Covell Village was bad ? Check out that usage map that Saylor and Krovoza voted for.
Also, Veolia Water just got wiped out for the sewer plant operation over in Navato, I believe. Nancy Price has the info. A referendum killed the contract by popular vote.
Joe and Alf: just a little foreshadowing of the JPA outcome if you leave United Water and Veolia Water in the bidding pool.
I assume this is the map Michael is referring to:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/SurfacePlantWaterUsageMap.jpg[/url]
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/SurfacePlantWaterUsageMap.jpg[/img]
Before this [i]complete misrepresentation[/i] goes any further, here is what the green lines are:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/WoodlandSphere.png[/img][img]http://davismerchants.org/water/DavisSphere.png[/img]
The LAFCO Sphere of Influence is not an urban limit line. It is not the area which will suddenly be available for development if the surface water project goes through. Any developer could propose a development right now based on the current water supplies. And any developer would find that the Davis voters have final approval of development proposals.
Michael Harrington knows this. So if he posts his map, here or at Varsity or anywhere else, and implies that it is the growth boundary of the city, and that new water supplies will somehow enable that growth, he is deliberately misrepresenting the map.
Michael, post the map or put it up in the theater. I think it would be a powerful tool to get voters to realize that there’s what many believe to be a developer element to this whole project.
Take those two troubled companies out of the pool, and the JPA has to reopen the pool, under their rules
So, Alf and Joe, what’s your rush ?? TheJPA is at least a year from having three qualified bidders, so no hurry.
What am I missing here?
Don, as you know, without guaranteed water, those huge parcels around Davis and Woodland can never meet state law. Those developers never even get a step to first base.
So yes, that green map represents the dream of the sprawl developers who have mostly wrecked Woodland, mostly bankrupted them , and would explode Davis borders if they could
Yes, Virginia, the JPA is all about massive sprawl throughout Eastern Yolo County
There are no development plans for those “huge” parcels around Woodland and Davis. [i]As you know. [/i]This is a complete distortion of yours.
The JPA has nothing to do with “massive sprawl.” As you know.
Any developer who wanted to build housing in Davis or Woodland right now could prove sufficient water. As you know.
And the green areas around Davis [i]are already in the planning process[/i] and would be subject to a Measure J vote. Most were vetted during the Housing Element process. [i]As you know. [/i]
Stop your distortions, Michael, and stick to the real issues.
[quote]Before this complete misrepresentation goes any further, here is what the green lines are: [/quote]
The legend lists the green lines as Place of Use Boundary, not sphere of influence. Place of Use Boundary would seem to be synonymous with service area.
The posted map is really old and doesn’t show the current urban lines. It doesn’t show Wildhorse or development in Davis out to the Mace Ranch curve, which is where the green lines were drawn for Davis. I know that Woodland already has developed to the West and South, which this map doesn’t show. So saying that the project is part of the plan for “enormous development” is just wrong. But, putting this map up for 30 seconds in a movie theater might confuse people into thinking this. But maybe that’s the intention. I suspect so.
Next time, Mike, show the map and be more honest about what and where. If you need help posting it, I’m sure Don can help you.
Thank you, Jim. You know how to read a survey map !!
Jim:This is what the green line means:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/WoodlandSphere.png[/img]
That is a screen capture from the map.
So, to put it another way, the Place of Use Boundary is the LAFCO Sphere of Influence.
Place of Use Boundry says it all, doesn’t it?
I’ll write a major article in this issue later.
The JPA makes Covell Village Costs to the City look like chump change.
“I’ll write a major article in this issue later.”
Don’t make me laugh.
“I’m still waiting for Mike Harrington and David Greenwald to post the questions they have for the WAC.”
I was going to do that as a future article this week, though they have already been submitted.
I, too know how to read maps. The green line is ALSO identified on the map as the sphere of influence as approved by LAFCO.
BTW Mr H, that ain’t no survey map!
My sense from this article is that the Vanguard believes the WAC should opt for the West Sac alternative, bc “we know that Woodland will be a dogfight and might not ultimately prevail”. Is this truly the basis upon which the Vanguard believes the WAC should make its decision?
Let’s see if I can make this point another way. Covell Village, which would have added about 2000 housing units to Davis, was able to certify sufficient water supplies [i]without[/i] surface water. They were going to drill a well at their expense. And guess what: the city has gone ahead and drilled wells.
No developer who has any proposal that might conceivably be put before the Davis voters within the next couple of decades would have any problem demonstrating a sufficiency of water supplies.
Elaine: Can you should me where I said that the WAC should opt for anything? I intended this as a follow up analysis looking at the politics of a Woodland option.
Here is the map Jim was trying to post earlier:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/DWWSProjectServiceArea.jpg[/img]
I now have it saved on my server: [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/DWWSProjectServiceArea.jpg[/url]
Don: good point on wells. But you cannot have it both ways. The premise of the surface water plant is the city area wells are going to heck.
If that is true, then our well supply capacity won’t allow for another Covell Village, let alone the thousands of new rural acres included in The Green Zone on that JPA map, right? So Covell Village, and Con Agra, and the rest of the sprawl sites desperately need that JPA surface water plant to make their EIRs pencil out, right?
Which is it?
What am I missing?
I think the pieces fit the sprawl puzzle, don’t you ??
(“The Green Zone”. Where have I heard that before …? )
THE MAP – it is a map from more than 20 years ago – prior to the development of much of anything East of County Road 113/East Street in Woodland (including Spring Lake), prior to the finish of the Vic Fazio Freeway, prior to the completion of El Macero, Wildhorse, Mace Ranch, the apartments on the West side of Hwy 113, URC and Sutter Hospital. It also is prior to UC Davis expansion. It clearly states that the green lines are “areas of influence” adopted by LAFCO. It also says that this was the map submitted with the “water rights application.”
It is a real cop out to take an out dated map from a bygone past and use it to claim that the water project will result in enormous development.
Is Mike stating that we should reduce our application for water rights for the City?
[quote] It is not the area which will suddenly be available for development if the surface water project goes through.[/quote]
The question at the heart of this particular subject, at least in my mind: How much urban/suburban development area beyond what currently exists are the various alternatives currently under consideration sized to serve?
.
It must be tough for the JPA crowd to have their project slammed to a stop, and now their global plan is being outed, piece by piece. No more fat hog.
Alf and his JPA/Saylor Team: relax and just let the WAC do its job for a few months. If the JPA plan is so superior, what are you so afraid of ? That the WAC gets up to speed and gets the same data you already have in terms of the West Sacto project costing far less to the ratepayers ?
[i]That the WAC gets up to speed and gets the same data you already have in terms of the West Sacto project costing far less to the ratepayers ?
[/i]
You have data that shows the West Sacto project will cost far less? I doubt it. Please provide it if you do. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke. Again.
[i]So Covell Village, and Con Agra, and the rest of the sprawl sites desperately need that JPA surface water plant to make their EIRs pencil out, right? [/i]
No. They do not. That statement is provably false.
“No. They do not. That statement is provably false.”
Don: I think you are wrong here. My understanding was that water was an issue for WHR but the city managed to find enough water. Seems to me that Con Agra would with onsite water is okay but Covell may not be depending on how they examine the issue in 50 years when Covell comes up again.
[quote]“It must be tough for the JPA crowd to have their project slammed to a stop, and now their global plan is being outed, piece by piece.”[/quote]
Mike, I have been watching the WAC meetings online, including your public comments. The difference between your public comments and your posts here in tone and content is remarkable.
True. I wasn’t thinking on a 50 year planning horizon. Note, of course, that Covell Village did certify sufficient water in their EIR.
Problem with this whole line of reasoning (water project = growth) is that the West Sac project is just as logically growth-inducing as Woodland-Davis. So anyone who is arguing against the Woodland-Davis project on the basis of development must also oppose the West Sac project — and must be arguing that we continue with wells only. Yet that same individual persistently urges that the WAC continue to study the growth-inducing West Sac project as an alternative to the growth-inducing Woodland-Davis project.
Don: I will have to get clarification on that, but my understanding is that specific and contradictory issues arose during the WHR process with regards to the issue of water.
Don Shor: “[i]or they plan to intentionally constrain water supplies to prevent growth.[/i]”
Exactly!
“… And any developer would find that the Davis voters have final approval of development proposals.”
Don.. Yes, any developer can offer a development proposal but it would never get to be placed before the voters UNLESS the proposal identifies where it will get the water required for a large peripheral residential development. At this time, the water to meet such an increase in demand cannot be met with Davis’ current water resources.
“Note, of course, that Covell Village did certify sufficient water in their EIR.”
As I remember it, the configuration of the Covell Village apartments planned has to be reconfigured to reduce that anticipated number of toilet flushes to just get “under the wire” as to adequate water supply available.
“Problem with this whole line of reasoning (water project = growth) is that the West Sac project is just as logically growth-inducing as Woodland-Davis. So anyone who is arguing against the Woodland-Davis project on the basis of development must also oppose the West Sac project”
A plant bought and paid ,for the most part, by current Davis voters with excess capacity would be able to pass under the political radar when a large peripheral residential development proposal is brought forward when the housing market returns to a semblance of its former self in about a decade. Having to negotiate purchasing more water from West Sac. for a large peripheral development would make the issue much more politically sensitive as well as placing the cost of the water plus any additional infrastructure needs as part of the proposal would more clearly demonstrate the appropriate impact fees.
To those who say this is not about growth: name the major pro-growth figures in Davis over the last decade-plus who are against the surface water project. I can’t think of a single one.
Is growth the only issue? Clearly not. Look no further than Elaine, Matt Williams, Alan Pryor, Don Shor – people who have been noted slow growthers.
But you can’t look at the list of supporters and argue growth is not a factor, it’s simply not the only factor.
Jim: [i]How much urban/suburban development area beyond what currently exists are the various alternatives currently under consideration sized to serve? [/i]
I’m not sure how to answer that question. From what I have seen of the project proposals and our current well configurations:
The Woodland and West Sac project are both designed for 12 million gallons per day.
That is our current average water use (monthly average production 367,325,674 gallons).
So both surface water alternatives are designed to replace our well water use, with the wells available as backup supply.
Davisite2: exactly!! Buy only what we need. If CV wants approval, they can ask the city to order it up and pay more, and we will bill them for every dollar. Transparent, and current residents aren’t soaked by the developer’s profits
Mike, Do you like the West Sacramento plan, because the City can then carefully order only the exact amount that it currently needs and setting up a system where growth would be too expensive and therefore improbable? Is that the strategy?
[b]A few questions for Matt Williams:[/b]
I understand your point about an 8-2 or better vote being realistically necessary. Do you think Alf Brandt sees it that way? What happens if a vote is taken on Thursday and it comes up 6-4? (Or 5 in favor with an abstention or two?) At that point, it seems, the die will have been cast and the WAC will have to recommend the Woodland project despite a significant dissent bloc, no?
Or do you believe that Alf Brandt will withdraw his motion or allow it to be tabled if supermajority support does not appear to be in the cards? That wouldn’t make sense to me, given that Brandt has already made a motion in favor of his preferred project before the WAC has adequately investigated the West Sac option. If – as it appears – he wants to end the selection process ASAP, it seems that he will call the question as long as he believes it will pass by any majority.
Also, what’s with Brandt’s condition that Woodland must share the cost of the pipeline to Davis? Sure he must realize that that is unlikely. Do you suppose that he has added that condition to make his motion more attractive, knowing that it will be too late to go back by the time Woodland says no?
BTW, has the Krovoza/Lee delegation even met with West Sac principals yet?
David Suder: Come on down to WAC public comments!
David Suder: Matt posted this very late on another recent thread.
“As reported by Council Member Brett Lee, …. The West Sac words put us IMHO in a Catch 22. They want a commitment in order to get specific and we need some specifics in order to decide if a commitment is appropriate.
“City of Davis meeting with City of West Sacramento to discuss possibility of a joint water project
On Tuesday July 31, 2012
Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza,
Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton and
Davis City Council Member Brett Lee met with
the Mayor of West Sacramento Christopher Cabaldon,
West Sacramento City Manager Martin Tuttle,
West Sacramento Council Member William Kristoff and
West Sacramento Public Works Manager Greg Fabun.
The meeting was held at the West Sacramento City Hall.
Meeting Summary
The representatives from Davis gave a brief overview of where Davis was in its process of determining what project it was going to pursue in order to bring surface water to Davis. At the end of the overview, the Davis representatives expressed their interest in finding out what the City of West Sacramento thought about the possibility of working with Davis to provide Davis’ surface water needs.
The West Sacramento reps expressed an interest in working with Davis. They felt having Davis as a large customer would be of benefit to them and they also seemed quite comfortable with the idea of a long-term water supply agreement.
In terms of capacity and size of the water supply agreement, it was discussed that one way to approach would be for Davis to have a permanent ongoing supply of 12mgd. If West Sacramento were to ever expand their plant, then Davis would be given the option to share in the expansion cost if Davis wanted a larger quantity of water. This was mentioned as part of a larger discussion on the current West Sacramento 12 MGD model under consideration by Davis and the WAC.
The City of West Sacramento reps made it clear that they would not interfere in the internal workings of Davis’ local water supply system (-)istribution, conservation, rates, etc.) and they would expect the same in return. They wish to maintain their sovereignty over the water plant and their community’s water use.
The City of West Sacramento felt that preliminary discussions were appropriate at this time, but did not feel that any expenditure should be made on their part for more in depth feasibility studies until the City of Davis had a better sense of which direction it planned to move forward on.
Once Davis has firmed up its desire to pursue a West Sacramento water option, costs could be shared by the two parties to perform the necessary feasibility and design studies. If either party decided to withdraw from the partnership, it would be expected that the withdrawing party would reimburse the other party its share of the expended costs.
The overall tone of the meeting was friendly and cordial. Both groups expressed willingness and an openness to work together should that be the path that Davis chooses. West Sacramento rightfully expressed some reservations about putting too much time and energy into the venture until it was more confident that Davis had made a firmer commitment to the venture, since Davis is currently just in an exploratory information gathering phase.”
[quote]Once Davis has firmed up its desire to pursue a West Sacramento water option, costs could be shared by the two parties to perform the necessary feasibility and design studies…West Sacramento rightfully expressed some reservations about putting too much time and energy into the venture until it was more confident that Davis had made a firmer commitment to the venture[/quote]
The word “commitment” in this context doesn’t mean an irreversible pledge to buy West Sac water, it means “spend the money necessary to determine feasibility and cost,” exactly what’s being done with the WDCWA proposal. Is anyone claiming that due diligence for the West Sac proposal has been performed?
.
[quote]Once Davis has firmed up its desire to pursue a West Sacramento water option, costs could be shared by the two parties to perform the necessary feasibility and design studies…West Sacramento rightfully expressed some reservations about putting too much time and energy into the venture until it was more confident that Davis had made a firmer commitment to the venture[/quote]
The word “commitment” in this context doesn’t mean an irreversible pledge to buy West Sac water, it means “spend the money necessary to determine feasibility and cost,” exactly what’s being done with the WDCWA proposal. Is anyone claiming that due diligence for the West Sac proposal has been performed?
.
Nothing like mentioning the obvious words “developer induced sprawl” to liven up a technical discussion of Taj Mahal water plants and senior-bankrupting water rate increases! Great ideas and comments all day today! I’ve been flying, so a bit sporadic. I’ll catch up later from the airport.
Without the Vanguard we would not have these same conversations.
Jim: since the West Sac option came into the discussion very late in the game, my main question was whether it is significantly cheaper than the Woodland-Davis proposal. It isn’t. If it was, it might be worth spending a lot of time and effort to look further into it, so long as continued delays don’t add significantly to the cost of the Woodland-Davis plan. Or lead Woodland to proceed without us, which is a distinct possibility.
Since it isn’t much cheaper, especially with some of the other approaches to the WD JPA timing and financing, in my opinion the other issues — water quality, ownership, long-term benefits to the city, water rights transfer concerns — lead me to feel it isn’t worth doing much more to pursue it. Whether the WAC members share my view remains to be seen. But I’d be curious what you feel would be the benefits of expending time and effort on the West Sac option.
[quote] my main question was whether it is significantly cheaper than the Woodland-Davis proposal. It isn’t.[/quote]
$23M (about 15%) looks pretty significant to me. And that’s before tacking on what may be another $5M-$7M for the Woodland contribution to the Davis treated water line, a “hoped-for” subsidy the rationale for which I can’t fathom.
.
Jim Frame: “$[i]23M (about 15%) looks pretty significant to me.[/i]”
I agree completely. We can choose to rent water from West Sacramento for a finite period of time, or we can spend 15% more own our own. Not a hard choice.
[quote]Jim Frame: The question at the heart of this particular subject, at least in my mind: How much urban/suburban development area beyond what currently exists are the various alternatives currently under consideration sized to serve? [/quote]
According to the staff report the 12 mgd figure is based on a “.5% growth rate for the next five years and a 1% growth rate thereafter to project water demand in the future”.
The West Sac expense are probably way overstated. I heard myself the JPA favoring consultantayatollah the last WAC way overstating the West Sacto risks and uncertainties.
The same consultants were involved with planning the JPA project, so what do you expect them to say?
Also, our staff are all pushing the JPA, and staff approve those consultant bills for payment. Sorry to say it, but let’s not be naive, shall we ?
[quote]dmg: Elaine: Can you should me where I said that the WAC should opt for anything? I intended this as a follow up analysis looking at the politics of a Woodland option.[/quote]
Your quotes:
[quote]I believe that a water project that raises rates quickly and painfully over a short burst of time is going to be more difficult for people on modest incomes than a phased project or a delayed financing project that costs more over the long run.
I think that staff convinced the WAC that the West Sacramento option was too risky.
I think going back to Woodland with the JPA project re-opens the can of worms that could have been more effectively mitigated with a West Sacramento project.
I will actually state my position on Woodland. I have come to believe in the necessity of the surface water project, but I view my goals as minimizing costs, minimizing rate shocks…
I am probably less risk-averse here than others and believe that West Sacramento probably provides us with the best opportunity.
I think Woodland can be relatively easily defeated electorally…
The strongest trump card is going to be cost…
The proponents will have to quickly explain why we went with (A) the more expensive option, and (B) why the numbers weren’t right on West Sacramento…
The JPA factor will come into play, with my concern about the loss of autonomy and the difference in Woodland Davis values. There are really two dimensions at play here. Those who will object to costs and those who will object to form. So you have the issue of the JPA, the public versus private water system, concerns about the ethics of the DBO process, etc.
we know that Woodland will be a dogfight and might not ultimately prevail.
[/quote]
[i]The West Sac expense are probably way overstated.[/i]
Offer us some proof. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke. Again.
[quote]“Jim: since the West Sac option came into the discussion very late in the game, my main question was whether it is significantly cheaper than the Woodland-Davis proposal. It isn’t.” [b]- Don[/b][/quote]If the costs of the West Sacramento option are uncertain, then we don’t yet know whether it is significantly cheaper, right?
For that matter, the costs of the Woodland option(s) should not be considered entirely certain. The Woodland project would be significantly more complex than the West Sacramento option, and complex public works projects are notorious for overruns. After construction, the operation costs may also prove to be higher than predicted.
[quote]“We can choose to rent water from West Sacramento for a finite period of time, or we can spend 15% more own our own. Not a hard choice.” [b]- Mark West[/b][/quote]“Rent water” from West Sacramento for what length of contract? At what price? Without having reasonable estimates of those things, as well as the uncertainty bounds for the estimated costs of both projects, the choice would seem ill-informed, if not difficult.
[quote]David Suder: Matt posted this very late on another recent thread. [b]- Don[/b][/quote]Thank you, Don. I’m still interested in Matt’s thoughts on my questions, though.
“Offer us some proof. Otherwise you’re just blowing smoke. Again.”
I don’t think the burden of proof is on Mike here.
[quote]I don’t think the burden of proof is on Mike here.[/quote]
I think the burden on complainers is to at least point in some direction where they think the problem lies with the figures if they don’t think the figures are accurate. Just saying “I don’t believe the figures” is blowing smoke IMO…
[quote]If the costs of the West Sacramento option are uncertain, then we don’t yet know whether it is significantly cheaper, right?
For that matter, the costs of the Woodland option(s) should not be considered entirely certain. The Woodland project would be significantly more complex than the West Sacramento option, and complex public works projects are notorious for overruns. After construction, the operation costs may also prove to be higher than predicted.
“Rent water” from West Sacramento for what length of contract? At what price? Without having reasonable estimates of those things, as well as the uncertainty bounds for the estimated costs of both projects, the choice would seem ill-informed, if not difficult.[/quote]
All fair points. But are you ever going to know any/all of these things for certain? And how much money is the city going to expend trying to discover essentially the unknowable, before it finally decides a decision must be made come h_ll or high water (pardon the pun)? I’ve heard folks complain bc we opted out of getting water from Lake Berryessa many, many years ago when we had the opportunity. So in your opinion, how much longer do you feel we need to cogitate before we make a decision? Or perhaps rather than giving a time line, what details must we know before you feel we must make a decision?
Example, how can one possibly know if either project will have cost overruns until the project is actually started? For instance the pipeline from West Sac to Davis is apparently going to be tricky because of the Yolo Bypass…
A couple of questions that occurred to me today:
1. Does the West Sac alternative provide for Davis permitting, building and owning the intake? It seems that doing so would provide at least the potential for Davis to build its own treatment plant proximate to the WS site (maybe optioning land for that purpose at the outset) if the WS contract were to become untenable in the future.
2. The O&M costs for the West Sac (2c) alternative don’t kick in until FY20-21. Is that because construction is projected to be delayed that long?
To Jim Frame:
1. I don’t think the West Sac alternative provides for Davis permitting, building and owning the intake, but don’t quote me on that. I do know the West Sac site does not have a whole lot of room to grow – the site is limited in space. Secondly, for Davis to build its own site later down the road would be terribly expensive even if there is room to do so, which there may not be (not sure about that).
2. I believe the O&M costs for the West Sac option don’t kick in until FY 20-21 because it will take 4-6 years for the permitting and CEQA/EIR process, and then a couple of years (or more) to build the pipeline, intake, etc. So you are very likely looking out 8 years.