Committee Postpones Vote Until Next Week – But Handwriting on the Wall
For most of the night, city staff seemed to push the Water Advisory Committee toward the inevitable – the Woodland JPA option. Whether it was Attorney Jill Willis warning the WAC that transferring or severing water rights would mean several years of delays, the environmental considerations laid out by Erich Fisher or the rate comparison laid out by Doug Dove of Bartle Wells – it was clear what direction staff was pushing.
The terms risk and certainty were laid out on the table, and the consensus, at least among a majority core of WAC members, seems to be that the Woodland-Davis JPA is the less risky and more certain proposition.
Alf Brandt promised a motion and delivered on that after several members expressed preemptive support for his motion, and after Michael Bartolic’s ill-fated effort to recommend a one-year Prop 218 measure.
In his long prelude to his motion, Mr. Brandt, like others, acknowledged that there were substantial details still to be worked out. He also believes that there is considerably less risk involved in the Woodland-Davis option.
His motion was “to direct staff to begin drafting a recommendation to adopt Option A, the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project.” However, he also added three interesting stipulations to that motion.
First, Woodland would have to share the costs of delivering water from the treatment plant. Second, “Adjust the sharing of the costs to reflect the percentage of the project as it’s now envisioned.” And third, the project must be bid on as a Design-Build with an option to operate by a private entity.
Earlier in the evening Jill Willis noted that while the eventual splitting of water rights and taking the point of origin from a different spot will likely not be a difficult process, she argued that it would be difficult to predict how long the process will take and she argued it could delay the process by three to four years.
Moreover, while again she believes it is likely the city would get the permit, she believes that the terms would be different and more restrictive.
Meanwhile, Dennis Dove made a presentation on the rates of four project alternatives – one of them West Sacramento, one of them the main 12 mgd Woodland-Davis project, and the other two with either delayed financing or phased implementation.
What the models make clear is that any delay, whether in financing or phasing, substantially increases the costs on the back end. That part is not surprising.
Both the annual costs and billing show that the West Sacramento option starts out initially as the least expensive project alternative, and the main Woodland Project starts out as the most expensive. However, this analysis changes in terms of costs by 2021 and billing by 2026, and the two projects at that point are said to be equal.
It is important to note that in terms of the bill – according to their analysis, Davis’ water rates nearly triple between now and 2020 under the Woodland plan. That build-up is more gradual in the West Sacramento plan, and it takes until nearly 2026 for water rates to triple.
Of course, these are not standardized figures. So the next chart shows the impact of inflation. Under that model, we can see that the main Woodland option is most steep in terms of costs in the next six years. West Sacramento remains cheaper until 2026 and is then basically the same as Woodland for the remainder of the period.
The peak costs under Woodland are in 2020, while West Sacramento basically flattens at 2022 and never reaches the costs of Woodland.
However, these are based only on the unspecified assumptions of the model, and critics like former Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Michael Harrington disputed the model last night.
“It’s hard for me to believe that the $126 million in total capital costs estimated for the Woodland project, that the West Sacramento project would only come in at $20 million less than that,” Ms. Greenwald told the WAC during public comment.
She pointed out that Woodland would call for an entirely new wastewater project intake as well as all the pipes. On the other hand, she pointed out West Sacramento would only cost “$12 million to use some of their excess capacity.”
“I simply don’t believe these figures,” she said, arguing that we underestimated the cost of the Woodland project and overestimated the cost of the West Sacramento Project.
Michael Harrington wanted to know what assumptions were underlying these models. “Why is West Sacramento, where we don’t have this huge start up that we’re doing in Woodland… why is it almost as expensive as the JPA?”
He noted that, at the previous meeting, questions were asked about the sky-high assumptions and there were not answers forthcoming.
Alternate Matt Williams noted that the risk and uncertainty involving the West Sacramento project remains far higher than in the Woodland project. He expressed disappointment that staff had not gotten answers to critical questions at this point.
“Risk and uncertainty with regards to West Sac, I have not come away with any sense that there is any less risk and uncertainty than there was two weeks ago,” he said. “That’s a disappointment to me.”
Michael Bartolic expressed concern “that we would be working on the most immediately expensive option, the one that most immediately hit people in their wallets. It would triple within four years of implementation the average residential water bill.”
He noted it would take water bills from roughly $420 a year to close to $1300 a year.
“I don’t think that seems quite what I would have hoped would have come out of this eight months of work,” he added.
“Costs are a huge huge issue,” Bill Kopper told the WAC. “It’s certainly going to cause a lot of pain to the people in the community who are fixed incomes and don’t have that much money.”
“I think when you do triple the rates in four years it’s going to be very very hard to get any sort of [revenue or tax increases] through for schools and parks and things like that,” he said. “We’re talking about something here that’s very serious.”
At the same time, he acknowledged that they have done a good job of reducing costs. He noted that Alf Brandt’s motion might further reduce the cost, though it remains uncertain by how much.
The WAC agreed to bring the matter back next Thursday for further discussion, as the late hour precluded a full analysis. It was suggested that the members come forward with questions that staff can address.
Without editorializing too much here, there are some important questions that remain at this point.
The first question is whether the underlying assumptions of the model are accurate. Sue Greenwald and Michael Harrington note that the discrepancy is enormous for the start-up model for Woodland starting a new project, while West Sacramento would merely siphon off excess capacity. And yet the costs are comparable – how is that derived?
Second, and related, is that the bill projects are based on those costs. Woodland would more immediately ramp up costs, but several members pointed out both projects figured to have painful rate increases.
Third, will Mr. Brandt’s ideas about cost sharing be acceptable to Woodland?
Fourth, can Davis segment off the question of Design-Build versus Design-Build-Operate? That is a critical point because private operation will drive dissent.
In the end, the first question is paramount because the point about risks and uncertainty, while well taken, may be mitigated by costs. And immediate costs are more damaging than long-term costs that can be planned for and mitigated against.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The JPA proponents know that if we study West Sacto option, its much lower costs and simplicity will eliminate the JPA for Davis. So their are trying to dry up the data gathering and cut the WACs research off before the WAC has rock solid data, which would be coming in months.
There is no rush for a conjunctive use water project.
Basically, Alfs motion to stop WAC analysis of West Sacto option is a hail-Mary pass to try and save the JPA
It’s about politics , not water quality or savings to ratepayers
It’s about ownership, self determination, reliability, envionmental impacts, quality and long term lower costs. Facts are facts and you need to stop using fear Mike to continue to drive the cost up that all Davisites will have to pay to be good stewards of the environment.
Stephen Souza 08/10/12 – 09:04 AM… “It’s about ownership, self determination, reliability, envionmental impacts, quality and long term lower costs. …”
Too bad it is not about science and engineering. Placing the surface water intake structure E of Woodland and immediately S of the discharge of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District into the Sacramento River at Knights Landing is like placing your water well downgradient from your septic system. In either case you will be drinking wastewater. Have you had your daily dose of rice herbicides today?!?
[quote]Alternate Matt Williams noted that the risk and uncertainty involving the West Sacramento project remains far higher than in the Woodland project. He expressed disappointment that staff had not gotten answers to critical questions at this point.[b]- Matt[/b][/quote]That is, indeed, very disappointing. It must be quite frustrating and demoralizing to WAC members who wish to truly research the alternatives.
If the [i]true[/i] costs of all alternatives are not adequately researched, the WAC will necessarily be prevented from making a well-informed recommendation.
Steve: Ownership? Oh really? Aren’t you and Joe the two that approved the DBO process with the JPA, closed the bidding pool after you had three interested companies, and kept in United Water and Veolia Water? THis is well after I sent all of you and the JPA the criminal indictment documents from US District Court, N. Dist. Indiana? You and Joe endorsed the strong possibility that we would get our water from a private plant, run by United Water? Joe is qouted in JPA minutes as concluding that all 3 bidders were “ethical.”
Steve: think about how Alf’s hail Mary pass is going to fly in this town. Let’s see: the WAC is charged with researching the best options for Davis, and when they are close to getting the West Sacto information together, Alf and friends (that would include you and Joe and Saylor) cut off that basic research, and announce that the Taj Mahal Saylor project in Woodland is the best and only option? Meaning, in a town filled with research specialists, you guys are going to basically cut off the basic research and announce a pre-destined conclusion in your study?
You and Saylor gave us Covell Village on a 4/1, and it was rejected on a 60/40 citywide ballot.
You and Joe gave us the 4/1 for huge rate increases based on fraudulent data last Sept 6, and you knew those rates were bogus. The voters overwhelmingly endorsed the referendum, and they will overwhelmingly reject a tricky procedure to cut off basic research so the WAC on a 6/4 split vote can announce a conclusion that Alf would have voted for on the first day of the WAC.
Your team is overreaching, and the results will show it.
[i]”The voters overwhelmingly endorsed the referendum”
[/i]
Nonsense. You barely got enough signatures, and you paid $10000 out of your own pocket to pay people to gather them. God only knows what your paid signature-gatherers were saying to the public, if your comments on here are any indication.
Steve: water wells are routinely placed “downgradient” from septic systems. They are at different strata. My septic is about 200 feet above my well. If you’re trying to make a point about the quality of the water at the WDCWA site, your metaphor isn’t very apt. Are you purporting that rice farmers are polluting the water Sacramento is drinking? That the water, once treated for domestic consumption, will be less safe than the groundwater we are presently drinking?
A hail mary pass is a football term where the ball is thrown high into the air hoping that someone down field catches it. This analogy doesn’t fit the hours and hours of work and the thoughtful decision making of the WAC.
Covell Village is off-topic.
Mike has been asked to stop using the term “fraudulent” in his posts. He continues to do so. He now implies trickery and and that there is some sort of team working to build a “Taj Mahal Saylor” project.
This is just offensive and immature and is an example of exactly what we don’t want in our community leadership.
[i]”It’s hard for me to believe that the $126 million in total capital costs estimated for the Woodland project, that the West Sacramento project would only come in at $20 million less than that. … I simply don’t believe these figures.”[/i]
I don’t believe them, either.
Moreover, I cannot understand the political naïveté at work, here. When they put this boondoggle in front of the voters in Davis next March, it stands no chance of passing. None. Are they completely blind to that fact?
It seems pretty clear that the group pushing the Woodland JPA has been wedded to that idea for a long time and that they have not given the West Sac alternative a fair hearing.
With all due respect to two men I have known for a long time, Bill Streng and Jerry Adler, who argued that we cannot afford to delay this Woodland project much longer because (each said something to the effect of) “I am old and will be dead before too long!,” there could not be much worse of an argument for getting started with the Woodland project before we know all the facts on the W. Sac proposition.
Another terribly weak argument was made by Helen Thomson and echoed by others on the WAC: that we will have more ‘certainty’ if we are an owner* of the water works, as opposed to just being a customer. There is absolutely no logic or truth to this canard. It all depends on the contract terms we would work out with W. Sac. If we get into the Woodland project and, let’s say, Woodland goes belly up (note that the finances in Woodland are [i]worse[/i] than we have now in the City of Davis), all that supposed ‘certainty’ of ownership is out the window. Moreover, if you have a solid contract as a water customer, you face far less risk if unforseen damage occurs to the owner’s capital infrastructure. I could go on for days arguing this point. There simply is no truth to the idea that being an owner puts you in a position of strength in this sort of relationship to a water works.
(*Note that this is the kind of nonsense that Marxists argue: That owners of capital are exploiters, where workers and customers are the exploited. It is complete and total bullsh!t and everyone with a brain knows that.)
One point is unclear to me: Davis now has a share of water rights for Sacramento River water. The Woodland JPA cheerleaders seemed to be saying that by going with the W. Sac option, we would be “giving up” those water rights. What I don’t understand is why we cannot transfer our share to W. Sacramento. It is the same water source. Does anyone know?
[i]”If we get into the Woodland project and, let’s say, Woodland goes belly up (note that the finances in Woodland are worse than we have now in the City of Davis), all that supposed ‘certainty’ of ownership is out the window.”[/i]
The project is rate-payer financed.
Back to basics, Don:
(1) Intake should be above the GCID outfall, not below.
(2) Meeting drinking water standards using water from the Woodland-Davis SWP intake site will be made gratuituously more expensive because the site is located below the GCID discharge (a major, regulated, point source of irrigation return water). Because taste and odor issues are regulated in drinking water, the use of rice herbicides within the GCID will be an issue among others.
(3) Dilution would be the (partial) solution to pollution in this case. The West Sacramento option is further away from the GCID.
Hope this helps!
PS My metaphor is relevant and apt because rural people understand it.
So again: are you purporting that the water WDCWA will provide to the residents of Davis and Woodland will be unsafe to drink? You’ve repeatedly commented on the water quality issue, so is it your contention that we should be concerned about the safety of that water?
Dear Saylor and Team: you are overreaching. Maybe I should just sit here, and let you do it. Then run the opposition to the JPA ballot measure, and knock you down for years and years. Make the City start over.
But you know, that political/litigation strategy is not in the best interests of the poor and middle class ratepayers and households that would have been screwed the worst by the Sept 6 rates, and who will also suffer the most with the JPA plan advanced by Alf last night. What is best is we try to bring some sense to the process, and keep the WAC going on its research with all options. So I will continue to put my volunteer time into the water project evaluation process and encourage other volunteers to fully gather and vet data from all options.
I will say one thing: as I listened to the WAC last night, and looked around the room, it was clear that the opposition to the “cut off the WAC research now and throw the Hail Mary Pass strategy” by Alf and friends will be the most broad based coalition I have ever seen in Davis: the business community that wants low cost options (with all due respect to my friend Bill Streng and the GRC who have been encouraged by pro-JPA consultants and staff to worry about certainty, when the JPA probably carries the most); the poor and middle class ratepayers; the students; the “progressives” for whatever that means; the ratepayer advocates; and those who do not trust the city government and will vote down anything considered suspicious, like a prematurely selected JPA Taj Mahal that obviously will cost the most by far, over West Sacramento. (We even saw that lower cost last night at the WAC, but it didn’t slow down the pro-JPAers at all.)
Correction: the JPA carries the most UNcertainty.
Don Shor 08/10/12 – 11:24 AM “… So again: are you purporting that the water WDCWA will provide to the residents of Davis and Woodland will be unsafe to drink? You’ve repeatedly commented on the water quality issue, so is it your contention that we should be concerned about the safety of that water….”
As I stated previously (at 11:08 AM) “…gratuituously more expensive”…
Steve Hayes has a point, one that I don’t believe was well addressed in the CEQA analysis for the WDCWA project. With respect to constituents of concern in the Colusa Drain (which is upstream of the proposed surface water intake for Woodland/Davis), the latest impaired water body list for the State of California includes the Colusa Basin Drain for numerous pesticides, E. coli, low dissolved oxygen, mercury, and unknown toxicity. See: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/impaired_waters_list/index.shtml
If you are interested in the quality of surface water in the Sacramento River in the vicinity of the proposed Woodland/Davis SWP intake, there is a very comprehensive reference titled, Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey, 2010 Update. You can access it on the city of West Sacramento website, I just can’t paste the URL because it is truncated in Google. This is the third update. There’s one in 2006 and another in 2001. Each update focuses on certain constituents…
The data used in Dennis Dove’s presentation will be on the city web site next week, but city staff sent me a copy in response to a request:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/CostAlternativeshandout.pdf[/url]
So, Steve, to double down on this point, your statement “In either case you will be drinking wastewater” was a misrepresentation. The water is safe. It will be treated. You are concerned about the cost of treatment, not the safety of the water. Do you have evidence that the water will require more costly treatment than any other source of water? Or will it be subjected to any specific treatments that are unique to the source?
eastdavis: I saved that one because the link wouldn’t work. So I uploaded it to my server:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/SacRiverwaterupdate.pdf[/url] (2.22 MB)
Again, the key question: do those constituents being present in the source water render the water unsafe once it is treated for municipal use?
I think a key question is what is the cost of treating the water supply to drinking water standards at the intakes for the two projects: E of Woodland vs West Sac. Has that sort of analysis been done?
EastDavis: very good questions. I hope to see some answers.
To All: the fiscal presentations last night were striking in that they pushed the costs of West Sacto nearly up to the costs of the Woodland JPA, but the pretty color charts and graphs lacked any references to supporting factual data or sources, and failed to include the assumptions in footnotes, as professionals and academicians in Davis are accustomed to see. The JPA consultants were the main ones who came up with these vague graphs and charts. Those same consultants worked hard to back up staff with pushing for the JPA, sorry to have to say.
(I looked around the WAC room, and most of the staff and consultants present were the same ones who gave us the original Saylor JPA Taj Mahal at +20 million gallons per day and the bogus Sept 6 water rates, and all of they were pushing the WAC hard to dump West Sacto and go for the JPA. Seriously. It was so obvious that I had to stand up at public comments and say something about it.)
One
[i]… but the pretty color charts and graphs lacked any references to supporting factual data or sources, and failed to include the assumptions in footnotes, as professionals and academicians in Davis are accustomed to see.[/i]
I just provided that above. [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/CostAlternativeshandout.pdf[/url] It wasn’t hard to get them from the city. You just have to ask. They’ll be on the city web site next week.
Have not watched yet as I was out of town (and cannot get streaming video on iPad :sad:…….but what was the reason given for not having the W Sac facts available to make a informed analysis? That astounds me.
Documents and reports from August 9 meeting: [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/on-going-committees/water-advisory-committee/agenda—august-9-2012[/url]
Regardless of the systems chosen or who wins this battle, the rates are going to be painful for Davis families. We should have done better 10 years ago to prepare for this and build reserves. I agree that it will make it very much harder to vote for school and parks bonds and, if they do pass, will be an overwhelming burden for some families. I think that whenever we begin to build this project, whatever this project ends up being – JPA or West Sac or whatever – there will be a deterioration of the quality of life for the middle class in Davis and these families will begin to look elsewhere to live.
There are a couple of aspects of the West Sac option that seem to be missing from the discussion here.
First, West Sacramento does not have the legal right to sell water to Davis. We can’t buy what they are unable to sell and it may well take several years before West Sacramento is able to change the point of use of their water rights to allow the sale.
Second, while it is reasonable to assume that the point of diversion of the Davis held rights can be changed, it is also reasonable to assume that it will take years to accomplish, and the rights may well be further restricted as a consequence.
In short, the West Sacramento option will result in more years of delay. I know that is exactly what some people want, but it is not a responsible way of handling our obligations.
Could the JPA work and financed in a way that the rates could be less steeply raised and extended further out? Or can other City services be lowered, i.e. sewer, trash collection, etc. to offset the raise in water rates?
This question has probably been asked before, but here goes anyway: On the city’s Water Bill Comparison chart, which extends to 2035, all of the options except the JPA (Alt. 4b) are flat from around 2030 forward. The JPA bill, however, begins increasing steeply in 2027 and its upward trajectory never abates. When does the JPA curve flatten out?
[img]http://members.dcn.org/jhframe/Water Bill Comparison.jpg[/img]
.
[i]”… it is reasonable to assume that the point of diversion of the Davis held rights can be changed … it is also reasonable to assume that it will take years to accomplish …”[/i]
If it is reasonable to assume that the Davis water rights can be transfered, then it is unreasonable for virtually all of the pro-Woodland members of the WAC to have literally said that a reason to not go with W. Sac is because they said doing so means losing our water rights.
[i]”… the West Sacramento option will result in more years of delay. … it is not a responsible way of handling our obligations.”[/i]
I don’t see why you would conclude it is ‘not responsible’ to delay.
There does not appear to be a regulatory threat against the people of Davis if we would be in the process of changing from well water to Sacramento River water by way of W. Sac.
There are certainly cost advantages to being a customer, and those advantages are almost certainly much, much larger than the amount that the pro-Woodland partisan consultants and cheerleaders have claimed. Their numbers just don’t pass the smell test in the least.
And if the W. Sacto option is much cheaper, and it results in the same benefit with regard to drinking water quality and salinity discharge quality, then it would seem most irresponsible to me to not choose the W. Sac option. Our responsibility is not to the old people who are threatening to die if we don’t immediately jump on board with Woodland. Our responsibility is principally with the residents of Davis and the businesses of Davis who will be paying the bills for the water for the next 30 and more years.
One thing which, surprisingly to me, seems to have many otherwise intelligent people terribly confused is the difference between real and nominal money. They make nonsensical statements like, “If we don’t act now, it will be more expensive in 5 or 7 years.” But then digging deeper I find that there is no truth to their claim. They simply have real and nominal money confused (or rather, they don’t understand what real money means).
These same wizards also have claimed that we need to start up with the construction as soon as possible, because (real) costs are lower now due to the sad state of California’s economy. In saying this, they hope their listeners do not understand that the trade unions–the ones who helped drive Sue Greenwald to defeat–allow no competition at all when it comes to construction of a water works. The unions will decide the wages, the work rules, the vacation days we pay for, the paid time off for union business, the suppliers who can only bid if they meet the union’s demands, the amounts the unions want for medical benefits and for retiree medical and for pensions, and so on. Don’t fool yourself: It does not matter that the economy is in bad shape. The unions will rape us for every last nickle, and all the Democracts that Davis elects (from Feinstein and Boxer all the way down to Yamada) will proudly take those union dollars and make sure we get maximum pleasure from being raped.
Rifkin: “Rate Rape” is another term for your concerns?
Thanks for getting into the economics.
There was so much Voodoo Economics built into those pretty color charts and graphs that lacked citations and footnotes at the Thursday night WAC meeting that I worried about what might come from above when I was biking home!
It makes no sense not to finish the research and communications with West Sacramento. The CC charged the WAC with that research, and now via Alf and his motion, the JPA proponents are going to cut it off?
And, has Alf considered how it will damage the WAC as an institution if the WAC splits significantly, Alf wins, and later the CC on August 21 on a 3/2 vote instructs the WAC to go back to its West Sacto research?? It will make the WAC look like stooges of the Saylor JPA Project.
Why would Alf take that chance?? He is not stupid.
Because: Don and Ryan: Alf’s motion is a Hail Mary pass. They know how the numbers are going to come out if West Sacto is thoroughly researched. After all, the project proponents stand to make tons of money on this, and you had better believe it that they have it figured out 10 different ways from Sunday, and anything involving West Sacto means they lose their “fat hog,” as our friend Delaine Eastin said about the City Attorney and the DACHA mess that the DACHA mess that the CA either created or nursed along for years.
Rich Rifkin: “[i]One point is unclear to me: Davis now has a share of water rights for Sacramento River water. The Woodland JPA cheerleaders seemed to be saying that by going with the W. Sac option, we would be “giving up” those water rights. What I don’t understand is why we cannot transfer our share to W. Sacramento. It is the same water source. Does anyone know?[/i] “
It is important to understand that water rights are not the same as widgets. Water rights can specify not only the amount of water that may be taken (and the time of year it may be taken), but [b]where[/b] the water is removed from the source, and [b]where and how[/b] it is used (among a multitude of other things). The water rights that Davis owns have a specified area where the water may be removed from the river and the location of the West Sacramento plant is not within that location. I believe (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that the West Sacramento location is considered to be part of the Sacramento Delta, not the Sacramento River, and (if that is true) the Delta has a whole other layer of regulations that would have to be considered. While it is possible to get water rights changed, doing so takes time, and there is no certainty, especially if a water source is ‘over allocated’ as the Sacramento River and Delta both are.
One of my previous employers had a 12 acre-feet per year water right for use on a property they owned. The rights specified that the water could be used for fire suppression only, and not for irrigation. They requested a change in usage to allow for irrigation instead, with no other changes. This was considered to be a fairly simple request, but it took more than four years and resulted in the water rights being reduced to 4 acre-feet per year.
Both the Davis owned water rights, and the West Sacramento owned water rights have problems associated with them in regards to Davis sourcing water from West Sacramento. Davis’ rights are impacted by the specified location of removal (not West Sacramento) and West Sacramento’s by location of use (again, not West Sacramento). Both may be changed, but either request will take several years to determine even assuming that there are no serious challenges. With the well publicized disagreements about water coming from the Delta and how it is used, we can assume that serious challenges are almost a certainty.
[i]There was so much Voodoo Economics built into those pretty color charts and graphs that lacked citations and footnotes[/i]
Interesting. I’ve posted the supporting materials twice now in this thread. Do you need me to post them again?
Michael H. has stated multiple times that we don’t need surface water at all. With that in mind, I would bet dollars to donuts that he and/or the [s]referendum[/s] ‘block the water project at all costs’ committee will be first in line to file a protest against changing the water rights. Selecting the West Sacramento option is exactly what the ‘blockers’ want, since their opportunities to muck up the works increase exponentially.
The responsible thing to do is move forward with the project, and the only project that has any certainty of moving forward is the one with Woodland, using our own water rights. West Sacramento may have been the best option 5 years ago, and it might even be the best option 5 years from now. It is not even an option today. Time to move on.
SODA said . . .
[i]”Have not watched yet as I was out of town (and cannot get streaming video on iPad :sad:…….but what was the reason given for not having the W Sac facts available to make a informed analysis? That astounds me.[/i]
SODA, as reported by Council Member Brett Lee, and available at [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/Agendas/20120809/Packet/08-West-Sacramento-Meeting-Summary.pdf[/url] I have bolded certain words for effect. 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.
[i]”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.
[b]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.[/b]
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.”[/i]
The reason that the above report by Brett makes me concerned is that beginning [u]now[/u] the process of expanding the “point of service” of West Sac’s two water contracts/rights yo include Davis (and Woodland) is not a difficult step for West Sac to take. It will have a cost, and beginning the process of determining that cost would appear to be a [u]tangible[/u] piece of evidence that West Sac is truly, actively interested in working with Davis. Armed with that cost estimate, Davis and West Sac’s respective leaders can then decide who should pay for what in taking these initial steps.
Successful achievement of the point of service expansion of one or both of West Sac’s water contracts/rights would only be a positive for West Sac, with absolutely no downside risk. If they are truly interested in working with Davis, it should be a no brainer. If they choose not to do it at this time, then that would seem to be an indicator that when push comes to shove, their interest in working with Davis is only talk, and will never translate into action.
So if I understand this, Davis cannot determine the cost of working with West Sacramento until Davis commits to West Sacramento. Understandable from their point of view, but it does make it difficult to proceed.
What I read in their statement is that they recognize what has been clearly demonstrated by the article above. Namely, that Davis(read those who appear to hold a majority CC vote to press ahead with this developer-interest project plan ) is not really interested in pursuing a West Sac option. What does “commit” actually refer to anyway other than demonstrating a truthful and genuine interest? Putting a hold on any further JPA decisions and expenditures and NOT terminating the analysis of the West Sac option could very well be ample evidence of this commitment they are seeking.
Sorry I have come so late to the discussion. Could not get two of my browsers to work inre Vanguard. Gave up. Then tried Firefox, which seems to be working for now.
[quote]“I simply don’t believe these figures,” she said, arguing that we underestimated the cost of the Woodland project and overestimated the cost of the West Sacramento Project.[/quote]
[quote]Michael Harrington wanted to know what assumptions were underlying these models. “Why is West Sacramento, where we don’t have this huge start up that we’re doing in Woodland… why is it almost as expensive as the JPA?”[/quote]
[quote]The first question is whether the underlying assumptions of the model are accurate.[/quote]
[quote]It’s hard for me to believe that the $126 million in total capital costs estimated for the Woodland project, that the West Sacramento project would only come in at $20 million less than that. … I simply don’t believe these figures.”
I don’t believe them, either. [/quote]
For all of you who doubt the estimated costs for West Sacramento and Woodland as estimated by staff/consultants, please explain what data/information you are using to back up your contention the figures given are inaccurate. It is easy to say “I don’t believe it”; but quite another to back up your contention with some evidence. Please cite your evidence…
[quote]In the end, the first question is paramount because the point about risks and uncertainty, while well taken, may be mitigated by costs.[/quote]
How are “risks and uncertainty” “mitigated by costs”? I’m not following you here…
[quote](1) Intake should be above the GCID outfall, not below. [/quote]Yeah… and that supports the West Sac option…. NOT!
Another concept… since it is obvious that many against surface water are low/zero growth advocates, perhaps we should weight the votes by length of residence… if you lived here by 1960, you get one vote… by 1975, 0.75 vote… by 1990, 0.50 vote… by 2005, .025 vote… after that, sorry. First opportunity for proportional voting?
[quote]Placing the surface water intake structure E of Woodland and immediately S of the discharge of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District into the Sacramento River at Knights Landing is like placing your water well downgradient from your septic system. In either case you will be drinking wastewater. Have you had your daily dose of rice herbicides today?!? [/quote]
I meticulously went through the documents to research this issue. In the March 2011 Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the DWWSP, it states the following:
[quote]The two rice herbicides, thiobencarb and molinate, are of particular interest to this project because of past heavy use within the watershed and past detection in the river… Sampling for these two herbicides was conducted eight times over the course of the monitoring program. While both have been widely used within the watershed in the past, molinate is now banned and thiobencarb use requirements have become more stringent and methods of application have changed in ways that may reduce incidental contamination outside the rice fields themselves. At the present time (March 2011) neither herbicide was detected in the DWWSP monitoring program…
The City of Sacramento and the City of West Sacramento also collected water samples from the Sacramento River at their intakes and analyzed the samples for molinate and bolero, a herbicide with thiobencarb as the active ingredient… Both of these intake locations are downstream of the proposed DWWSP intake, and all samples had molinate and bolero concentrations below the analytical detection limit… and below their respective MCLs. Where these two pesticides are considered, conditions seem to be improving, particularly with the ban of molinate. Where thiobencarb is concerned, there is also reason for optimism but because of the compound’s adverse impact on the flavor of water, even when present at very low levels, prudence would suggest that the DWWSP treatment facility should be designed to address the need for its removal. [/quote]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”So if I understand this, Davis cannot determine the cost of working with West Sacramento until Davis commits to West Sacramento. Understandable from their point of view, but it does make it difficult to proceed.”[/i]
Don, for me personally the issue is much less about cost as it is about determining when West Sac will achieve the legal ability to deliver water to Davis . . . and the expected timing of the process of resolving the legal ability issues. If West Sac doesn’t start the water contract amendment process, then they can not complete the water contract amendment process. If they do not complete that process then they can not deliver any of their water to Davis.
Thank you Matt for providing Brett’s summary. If it was mentioned before and I missed it, I apologize. Think it is an important piece. I understand if W Sac needs assurance that we are serious since they have watched our relationship with the JPA. But it would seem the legal issues that you raise would have been important or now important to solve before proceeding? Have you given your analysis of W Sac viability currently. Do you feel WAC has the info necessary to discard W Sac as an option? The chemical and input question between the two seem contradictory after Elaine’s comments. Seems as though it is oe or the other.
To SODA: It has always come down to a risk/benefit/cost analysis with no easy answers.