Another multi-author commentary on the water project makes the argument, “If Davis fails to implement a conjunctive use project, the city would not be acting in a fiscally responsible manner.”
Why, they argue? They write, “The city of Davis cannot sustain its present course of action. The city has been borrowing money on an existing line of credit to pay for its crumbling water infrastructure. This is because necessary water rate increases have been put on hold while decisions are being made on the best course of action.”
They continue, “Wells had to be taken offline because of contamination or subsidence problems. This predicament will increase over time as existing wells continue to be taxed far beyond their intended life span. It can be extremely expensive and infeasible to treat existing wells out of compliance with regulatory standards.”
In fact, one of the critical contentions by proponents of the project are that water rates will rise considerably, regardless of whether we do the surface water project or not.
“The days of cheap water are over,” Elaine Roberts Musser told the Vanguard last week, and she is largely correct. The question is exactly how much we will have to pay.
The city continues to drag its feet at disclosing this critical information. We reported that Herb Niederberger suggested a 62% rate increase, absent the surface water project. We have seen other figures that suggest that number is actually far too low and we may be looking at the doubling of the rates.
Matt Williams cites data provided to the WAC by Bartle Wells on 4/2/2012. According to that data, the city’s water revenues are just under $10 million per year. On the other hand, costs – and these do not include what we will owe to the JPA – are at $13 million.
Matt Williams writes, “The result was a $3 million draw down of the Water Enterprise Fund’s reserves.”
That presumably means we are borrowing $3 million per year from the city’s sewer fund, which the city had accumulated because, on that side of the ledger, they planned ahead and banked funding for the wastewater upgrade.
What really should gall us, however, is that this $3 million per year in deficit spending does not include deferred maintenance. Matt Williams estimates we have to pay $37 million (which is nearly one-third of the cost of the surface water project) in capital expenses for repair and remediation of our current system.
If all of this leads you to scratch your head for a bit, there is a big question that is not being talked about here – exactly how did we get to this point?
The op-ed benignly suggests, “This is because necessary water rate increases have been put on hold while decisions are being made on the best course of action.”
This is likely true in terms of the past year. If you recall, then-Councilmember (now Mayor Pro Tem) Dan Wolk made the motion, during the infamous September 6 decision, to have a one-time 10 percent water rate increase while allowing time to explore various options and approaches.
Three months later, Dan Wolk and then-Mayor Pro Tem (now Councilmember) Rochelle Swanson suggested directing staff to bring back a one-year Prop 218 motion, based on the needs to cover current deferred maintenance and ongoing needs, rather than being based on the surface water project.
Had the council followed Mr. Wolk’s recommendations at either point in time, the city would be on more solid fiscal footing. Unfortunately, while the council rescinded the water rates, they failed to impose a rate increase that would have reduced deferred maintenance.
However, this is not the only point of error.
In May of 2010, the council at this point, still led by the council majority of Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza, made the determination to raise water rates only 5% rather than their originally-planned 10%.
They put off the heavy lifting at that time. They voted to approve a relatively modest 5% increase, but that number increased to a 23% increase in 2011/12, and then 20% for each of 2012/13 and 2013/14.
The projected numbers would only increase in the coming years, with it becoming clear that rates wouldn’t double, they would triple. But, whatever you may think of the numbers proposed back then, they were never implemented other than the very small increase in 2010.
During May 2010, even the modest increase resulted in protest from those in the business community and those on fixed wages.
Stephen Souza and Don Saylor largely defended the proposals, based on changes to discharge requirements.
Then-Mayor Pro Tem Saylor said, “These rates are a reasonable way to capture the costs we are going to incur and experience during the next year.”
He continued, “The rate changes that we have now, need to go forward now. It’s a process that’s been underway for some time and in order for them to be effective in August, it is my understanding that this is the time when we need to make that adoption.”
“Here are the challenges,” he said, “We have costs, it’s a city service, it’s not free. It’s not a matter of us making choices that we want to charge people more money for some purpose. The idea here is pretty strong, delivering water and taking wastewater away and taking garbage away costs money. And it’s costing more money and will in the future primarily because the standards changed and the water supply is lessening and becoming less quality.”
Unfortunately, the council has been discussing the issue of a water project for some time. By the time the Vanguard arrived on the scene, the talks were already a decade old.
In 2007, discussion of the water project began in earnest, as we moved toward the eventual Woodland-Davis joint water project.
It has now been six years since the Vanguard published its first article on the water project, but the council never had the foresight to raise rates (other than the 5% increase in 2010) either to fund current maintenance or to bank for the eventual need for surface water.
The result is that we have built up an increasing amount of deferred maintenance, and we are borrowing money at the rate of $3 million per year against the wastewater project.
When the Vanguard spoke with some of the employees in public works last June, they told the Vanguard that the city’s water system infrastructure was badly in need of repair.
Whatever your view of the city’s surface water project is, this is not fiscal prudence or sound public policy. It represents mismanagement.
We have lost six years of time, at least, where we could have either built up the city’s enterprise fund or at least kept up with deferred maintenance.
Back in 2010, Lamar Heystek, who was about to exit the council, had strong words for the proposed rate hikes at that time – which appeared to defer the heavy lifting and large rate increases to future councils. That is exactly what has happened.
But it is worse than just a political calculation, in fact. Not only did they defer difficult decisions, they allowed the situation and the city’s wells and infrastructure to further deteriorate until we may have no choice but to replace it all.
There is a term in the world of development: demolition by neglect. In some ways, what has happened to the city’s water system is beginning to resemble exactly that.
One of the questions the Vanguard has is not just how much the no-project option will increase water rates, but how much of this system will we have to upgrade and replace, on top of the surface water project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Let me see … Now the Yes on I Committee is trashing our current water supply system, therby creating another “sky is falling” need to heavily increase our rates?
Until this week, I have never heard of or read about our system falling apart
The City overspent money in the JPA project without asking the voters first, then set up a $10 million LOC at Wells Fargo to pay for their spending, then at the last minute they are trying to scare ratepayers into panicking and writing a blank check, again.
[quote]“Once we have the rate structure and current system repair and long term improvement plan in place, and we know whether, and how much, supplemental water we might need from a conjunctive use supplemental water supply system, we can publicize a Request for Proposals where the City reaches out to neighboring jurisdictions to enter into thoughtful, deliberate, and professional discussions for long term supply of those well-documented water needs,” he adds[/quote]
Perhaps you could help me understand a seeming discrepancy in your previously published statement above from December 2012 where you seem to acknowledge that there are current system repair costs, and your current statement “until this week, I have never heard of or read about our system falling apart” ?
One of the frequently seen aspects of a political discussion in Davis is that individual statements are taken as gospel, and the pendulum of the debate swings back and forth between rather extreme positions. There is a bit of that in David’s article. when he states, [i]”When the Vanguard spoke with some of the employees in public works last June, they told the Vanguard that the city’s water system infrastructure was badly in need of repair.”[/i]
I don’t know who the employees were in public works, and as a result I don’t know if they had an agenda when they spoke to the Vanguard, but based on the homework I have done and the information I have gathered, characterizing the city’s water infrastructure as “badly in need of repair” is hyperbole. That kind of extreme statement belittles the hard work that the water department employees do each and every day to maintain the system.
Kennedy Jenks Consultants and Brown and Caldwell extensively assessed the system in 2011. Their 478 page report is available on the city website at [url]http://public-works.cityofdavis.org/Media/PublicWorks/Documents/PDF/PW/Water/Documents/Davis-Water-Distribution-System-Optimization-Plan-Report.pdf[/url].
The bottom-line is that what has been done to date has resulted in a system that is in good condition, but that there is a need to do more in the future if the system is to be kept in that same good condition. The pay as you go capital budget for “doing more” is $37 million. Here are some excerpts from the report:
[i]– This Plan describes the hydraulic model tool, water demand projections, condition assessment, hydraulic evaluation, and recommended capital improvements.
— The Plan presents recommended improvements that would deliver surface water throughout the City and address rehabilitation, replacement, and upgrades that are needed for the existing water system.
— There are 180 miles of water distribution system pipelines – 2-in to 14-in in diameter
— Major water distribution system assets were rated and ranked according to condition to provide a quantifiable basis for evaluating and prioritizing facility operations.
— Water Distribution Pipelines Condition Assessment Findings
. . 1. Review of available records suggest the distribution system in general, is in good condition.
. . 2. 12-inch and greater diameter pipelines are in good condition as few repairs have been required.
. . 3. Pipeline deterioration rates should be expected to increase over the next 20 years as 58% of the City’s pipelines installed prior to 1970 continue to age.
— Pipe repairs have averaged between 0.04 to 0.13 breaks per mile of pipe per year since 2003, which is a relatively low occurrence rate for a water utility. This indicates the distribution system is currently in good condition. It is recommended the City continue to gather specific factors causing breaks and monitor breaks per mile of pipe for trends, which will provide useful operational performance data and a gauge if the pipeline replacement program is adequate to maintain a water distribution system in good condition.
— Overall, review of the available data suggests that the City’s 12-inch and 14-inch diameter water mains appear in good condition. There have been 4 recorded main failures on 12-inch diameter pipelines since 1977, representing about 1% of all recorded failures. There have been no recorded failures in the City’s 14-inch pipelines.
— Pipeline deterioration rates should be expected to increase over the next 20 years as 58% of the City’s pipelines installed prior to 1970 continue to age.
— The City’s current level of pipeline replacement is not keeping pace with the inventory of aging infrastructure.
— The City’s current level of pipeline replacement is not keeping pace with the inventory of aging infrastructure.
— The majority of pipeline failures is associated with cast iron pipe and have occurred in pipe installed prior to 1970.
— Corrosion is a key contributing factor to pipe failure within the City.[/i]
If our present water system is really in the stage of crisis (that at least by implication has existed for many years) that is claimed by proponents of Measure I, why was is that no-one (not even opponents of Measure X) raised this issue during the Covell Village debate of 2004-2005? Surely, if things are/were as bad as they are made out to be Covell Village should have been defeated on grounds of a lack of water infrastructure alone. And, if the situation is so bad why has the Council continued to support steady growth? If it’s as bad as they claim, then there should have been a moratorium on growth long ago and until a new water supply system was in place. It’s also interesting to note that many of the leading supporters of Measure I were either supporters of Covell Village (and subsequent growth), or at least they sat on their hands when the issue came up.
Probably one reason this did not come out was precisely that – it would have interfered with the council majority’s growth agenda if there was suspect sources of water. as i understand, the location of a well on site, allowed them to side step some of those issues.
Good question Herman, which is exactly why I posted the link to the 2011 Kennedy Jenks Consultants and Brown and Caldwell evaluation. The word “crisis” is not in any way supported by the expert evaluation of KJ and B&C, which said, [i]”Overall, review of the available data suggests that the City’s 12-inch and 14-inch diameter water mains appear in good condition. There have been 4 recorded main failures on 12-inch diameter pipelines since 1977, representing about 1% of all recorded failures. There have been no recorded failures in the City’s 14-inch pipelines. However, pipeline deterioration rates should be expected to increase over the next 20 years as 58% of the City’s pipelines installed prior to 1970 continue to age.[/i]
That isn’t a crisis. What that is a message that what Davis has been doing has been good to date (probably better than good), but that in the future Davis is going to have to do more.
matt: it should be noted that Herman, not David, used the term crisis.
what you posted seems consistent with the overall point that David was trying to make…
[quote]— Pipeline deterioration rates should be expected to increase over the next 20 years as 58% of the City’s pipelines installed prior to 1970 continue to age.
— The City’s current level of pipeline replacement is not keeping pace with the inventory of aging infrastructure.
— The City’s current level of pipeline replacement is not keeping pace with the inventory of aging infrastructure.
— The majority of pipeline failures is associated with cast iron pipe and have occurred in pipe installed prior to 1970.
— Corrosion is a key contributing factor to pipe failure within the City.[/quote]
the point i think is that the previous councils did not take care to fund the current system and thus we have increasing deferred maintenance and while the system is still in good shape, it won’t be in another 20 years.
GI, I completely agree with you, and stand corrected.
I didn’t mean to take exception with David’s funding points, only with the fact that (for reasons that may indeed be personal in nature) some people are taking the funding failure and extrapolating that out to say that the system itself is in a state of failure.
“Crisis” was indeed Herman’s word. David made the point, “The result is that we have built up an increasing amount of deferred maintenance.” According to David, “employees in public works told the Vanguard that the city’s water system infrastructure was badly in need of repair.”
To this reader, the KJ B&C assessment doesn’t appear to support any of those three. What it does support in my opinion are your final words “while the system is still in good shape, it won’t be in another 20 years.”
The truth is that we do not know whether any significant maintenance has been deferred. We do know that reserve funds have been drawn down by $3 million to deal with the fact that expenses of $12.9 million exceeded revenues of $9.9 million.
With all the above said, it is very clear that if we make a decision now to not step up our investment in maintenance/repairs/replacement, then we will indeed be making a very bad mistake.
Davis wells, as of a couple of years ago:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/DavisWellInfo.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/DavisWellInfo.png[/url]
Typical well life 30 – 50 years. Note dates wells were drilled.
We have added wells 32 – 34, all deep wells. Well 31 has distribution problems, interferes with a UCD well per my notes. My notes showed well 32 off-line. Things happen with wells.
By the way. the boron content of these new deeper wells is as high or higher than our existing intermediate wells.
Here’s a chart showing what we’re doing to reduce the selenium content of our water.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/Daviswells.jpg[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/Daviswells.jpg[/url]
The city is increasingly relying on the six deep wells because their selenium content is lower.
Note that we will be increasing our boron content somewhat this way.
This requires very heavy use of a much smaller number of wells, pumping them at a rate (hours per day) that is much higher than the others and will cause wear. Why not drill more deep wells? We can’t. They interfere with UCD’s use of that deeper water, and we have an agreement with UCD that precludes any more capacity (we can drill more wells if we want, but we can’t pump more water than we already are).
If one of these new wells interferes, it will have to be taken off-line. Monitoring practices are in place, with thresholds set to trigger compliance.
So without the surface water we would be:
— supplying the city from a much smaller number of wells.
— running the risk of contamination of the deep aquifer.
— running the risk of conflict with UCD use of that aquifer; they have priority.
— continuing to maintain a small number of very old intermediate wells.
— using the new wells at a very high pumping rate, increasing wear and tear.
— getting water with a higher level of boron, which is a state-regulated constituent.
I have a major problem with the assertion of “demolition by neglect. In some ways, what has happened to the city’s water system is beginning to resemble exactly that.”
I do not believe it is anything of the sort. In fact it looks as if maintenance has been good, just the money to pay for it has been borrowed and that is not good. Nothing lasts forever and for things to last they need maintenance and sometimes replacement a little at a time. The idea of needing a clean sweep and to start over is a gross exaggeration and to me at least, very inflammatory. It’s fine to try and put out a clear picture of what our needs are but to grossly exaggerate the situation is irresponsible. Nothings gets up my ire more than the concept of tear it down and start over because something was not maintained, whether it be a building or a water system. And don’t get me wrong, I am not a proponent of irresponsible drilling and extraction just to keep water cost down. I am just trying in all this to find the balance between need and “pork”(as it has been referred) .
My use of the word “crisis” to describe the situation Davis allegedly faces, according to Measure I proponents, was based on: 1) The repeated posts of pro I advocates on the Vanguard; 2) On other materials written by Pro I advocates in the DE, including and especially, today’s Op-Ed. If you read this article and accept all that’s in it at face value “crisis” is hardly too strong a word. And if it is the case it is not an immediate crisis, but one that is impending, then why cannot (or was not) time be taken to: 1) Have a vote that would include a detailed description of the rate structure and inform voters how much their water bills will increase over the next five years; 2) To wait for accurate estimates as to the real costs of the projects so that we in fact have a real idea of how much it will cost and indeed how much water bills will go up. At the most this would have taken one year, and much less if CC had moved earlier. But no, instead there is this frantic rush to meet Woodland’s timetable regardless of any attempt to give Davis voters the ability to have a really informed vote on this hugely costly project. Either it is a crisis, or there is or was time to postpone the vote, or it is a manufactured “crisis.”
[quote]Either it is a crisis, or there is or was time to postpone the vote, or it is a manufactured “crisis.”[/quote]
I do not see these as the only three possibilities. I think that it may simply be that some of us believe that there has been plenty of looking into, evaluating, weighing and measuring of options, and that it is now time to move forward.
i would suggest we simply have a problem. we can either spend money fixing existing infrastructure or we can spend it creating new infrastructure. regardless it appears rates are going up, i agree i would like the city to disclose how much however.
Note that prettymuch the same bunch of water staff, consultants and politicians pushing the new surface project are the ones crying 911 about our current supply system
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”We have added wells 32 – 34, all deep wells. Well 31 has distribution problems, interferes with a UCD well per my notes. My notes showed well 32 off-line. Things happen with wells.”[/i]
Good information Don.
Well 32 was off-line while they added the multi-million dollar magnesium treatment system to it before putting it into service. It is the well with the big white tank next to it underneath the Dave Pelz bicycle overpass on the south side of I-80 on Chiles.
Well 29 one of the new deep aquifer wells drilled in 1997 has now been abandoned due to the following problems, [i]deep aquifer well, poor condition and produces sand, low overall efficiency, able to equip with a VFD, significant maintenance, space to add treatment if required, set-up for portable standby generator operation, moderate to high DWSAP rating, and low hardness, TDS, Se, Cr 6, and nitrates, and semi-high Arsenic.[/i]
Herman said . . .
[i]”My use of the word “crisis” to describe the situation Davis allegedly faces, according to Measure I proponents, was based on: 1) The repeated posts of pro I advocates on the Vanguard; 2) On other materials written by Pro I advocates in the DE, including and especially, today’s Op-Ed. If you read this article and accept all that’s in it at face value “crisis” is hardly too strong a word. And if it is the case it is not an immediate crisis, but [b]one that is impending[/b], then why cannot (or was not) time be taken to: 1) Have a vote that would include a detailed description of the rate structure and inform voters how much their water bills will increase over the next five years; 2) To wait for accurate estimates as to the real costs of the projects so that we in fact have a real idea of how much it will cost and indeed how much water bills will go up. At the most this would have taken one year, and much less if CC had moved earlier. But no, instead there is this frantic rush to meet Woodland’s timetable regardless of any attempt to give Davis voters the ability to have a really informed vote on this hugely costly project. Either it is a crisis, or there is or was time to postpone the vote, or it is a manufactured “crisis.”[/i]
Another excellent post Herman. Your use of the word “impending” is spot on IMHO.
Regarding your call for [i]”accurate estimates as to the real costs of the projects so that we in fact have a real idea of how much it will cost” [/i] I encourage you to open the Kennedy-Jenks Brown and Caldwell document and check out pages 179-182 of the pdf [b]Section 8.2.2 Project Cost Estimates[/b] in which project cost estimates were developed for each of the 60+ recommended existing system improvement projects. Table 8-14 in that section provides a summary of the project cost estimates. Detailed backup for each project cost is included in the Section 9 CIP Appendix G on pages 360-403 of the pdf file.
I fully agree with you that “at the most this would have taken one year.” In fact, Dianna Jensen and the water department staff have already accomplished exactly what you have asked for.
[quote]i agree i would like the city to disclose how much however.[/quote]
I agree that it would be nice to have this level of certainty. However, I as I remember it, when the community was debating whether or not to accept a local Target, projections were made about how much would be generated in sales tax that people who supported the Target frequently put forth. The vote was, I believe,
51% to 49% with a number of people I spoke to citing the projected sales tax as their deciding factor. The Target was built, and as I understand it, fell substantially short of the projected sales taxes. As an individual who had been adamantly opposed to the Target for a number of reasons, it occurred to me that projections are just that, they are estimates, in this case erroneous, of what one may expect, and in many cases of what one hopes will be the case. They are not, in my opinion, to be taken as absolutes. And what any projection of cost must be weighed against, as Matt, Don and others have stated previously is the cost of not moving forward.
So let’s say the staff were to put forward a number, what are the discriminatory factors that are going to allow us to decide whether it is too much, too little and therefore not a realistic number implying that there will necessarily be overruns, or just right. Or is it possible that demanding a number is, for some opponents, just a matter of another delaying tactic ?
Mike Harrington: [i]Note that prettymuch the same bunch of water staff, consultants and politicians pushing the new surface project are the ones crying 911 about our current supply system[/i]
The Davis Enterprise op-ed was written by the following:
“Elaine Roberts Musser chairs the Water Advisory Committee; Helen Thomson, Jerry Adler, Alf Brandt, Steve Boschken and Jim West are WAC members; and Jane Rundquist is a WAC alternate.”
Growth Issue…
“i would suggest we simply have a problem. we can either spend money fixing existing infrastructure or we can spend it creating new infrastructure. regardless it appears rates are going up, i agree i would like the city to disclose how much however.”
As I have come to understand it, we will need both. The project as it stands now is conjunctive use, neither system alone can meet our needs. There will not be enough supply from the river in the summer and we do not have a plan in place to store water in the winter and then use it in the summer, so we are set up to use both systems together. I am sure someone will jump in and refine my post if I still don’t have it quite right.
Don Shor, the voce of reason and level-headedness in all things Vanguard writes,
“[i]Why not drill more deep wells? We can’t. They interfere with UCD’s use of that deeper water, and we have an agreement with UCD that precludes any more capacity ([b][u]we can drill more wells if we want, but we can’t pump more water than we already are[/i]”. [/u][/b](emphasis added by me)
That says to me that producing the quantity of water currently being consumed by Davisites, without resorting to a huge public works project that threatens to triple our water bills, is entirely possible by replacing existing wells with deeper ones, as long as we do not dramatically increase our consumption of water, thus infringing on U.C. Davis water rights. With water prices on the rise, causing residents to dramatically reduce their water consumption, it sure seems like the most logical conclusion is that, [b]importation of river water is really only [/b][b]necessary to support major population growth in Davis. [/b]
[quote]it sure seems like the most logical conclusion is that, importation of river water is really only necessary to support major population growth in Davis.[/quote]
And I would agree with you if you are only choosing to look at the present and next few years. If one is taking a longer look towards future needs of this community, I do not see that as the most logical conclusion. Personally, if my own children were to choose to settle here, I would not want to leave them facing this same situation because we were too short sighted to consider their needs as well as our own.
Sorry, Roger, but [b]we cannot replace existing wells with deeper ones. [/b]We are pumping as much water as we are allowed from the deep aquifer. Any shallower wells that we remove from service will simply reduce our current capacity to critical levels.
It is my opinion that our current use of the deep aquifer is not responsible or sustainable. With the increased pumping by the city as well as what UCD needs (and will need to sustain their student population increase) we have already greatly increased the extent to which we are using that deep water.
Moreover, well water from both aquifers contains constituents of concern to state regulators. The most urgent situation is the selenium, a problem which we have solved by shifting from the high-Se intermediate aquifers to the lower-Se deep aquifers. But the deeper water contains boron, among other constituents that are at levels the state will be regulating more tightly in coming years.
Finally, I don’t know how you define ‘major population growth’. But the university is planning to bring an additional 5000 students to UC Davis in this decade, and have already increased enrollment substantially this year. Those students will either live on campus or in town. The campus does not have plans to increase student housing any more than West Village has already done. Whether they live on campus or in town, they need water.
UCD is counting on the city eventually bringing in surface water. They have made stop-gap plans that involve Solano Project water and the afore-mentioned deep wells; those plans give them ten years of supply. Beyond that, they’re part of the surface water equation, although as customers rather than as partners. If there is no surface supply, they will need to increase their deep well usage. And they have priority for that.
Roger, to expand on Don’s comment above, we can indeed replace a deep aquifer well with another deep aquifer well Given that one of our deep aquifer wells, Well 29, has been abandoned due to sanding and other quality and efficiency problems, the plan is to replace it with a new well in the 2018-2020 period. The flow of the new well will be restricted to 1,500 gallons per minute by the terms of the original Well 29 EIR. The new wells (31-34) are all pumping at a rate of between 2,250 and 2,700 under their EIR terms.
The legal restrictions that the City faces are based in water rights law. Rob Sawyer gave a very clear presentation to the WAC on April 12th that described why. The reason is that the Water Department of the City is what is known as an [u]Appropriative User[/u] because it extracts water from the deep aquifer and delivers it to properties that it does not own, away from the well. The water rights of Appropriative Users stand secondary to the rights of [u]Overlying Users[/u], who have the highest priority rights because they own land that lies over the groundwater and use the groundwater on that land.
Appropriative Users, are entitled only to groundwater that is “surplus” to the reasonable and beneficial needs of Overlying Users. If there isn’t enough groundwater for the Overlying Users, the Appropriative Users may be cut off completely. That means that when and if the City wants to drill a new well into the deep aquifer that will extract additional water beyond what has already been allocated to the City, it must go through the CEQA EIR process and demonstrate that the new well will not adversely affect the existing (and future) wells of the Overlying Users. The studies done as part of the last EIR clearly showed that the UCD wells were being adversely affected by the City’s wells and UCD exercised its rights as an Overlying User to force the City to eliminate 50% of the proposed pumping volume the City was requesting.
So any new City initiated EIR that proposes to extract more water from the Deep Aquifer has to demonstrate that UCD’s existing and future wells will not be adversely affected, and we already know that the scientific data shows that UCD’s existing and future wells will indeed be adversely affected. Under California water law that gives UCD the right and ability to block any additional City wells into the deep aquifer.
Don: Let me see if I understand this: The City Council agreed with UCD about limiting our volume of water pumped from the deeper wells? The CC was hell-bent on the surface water project, and supremely confident that they will get it, so they walked away from our RIGHT to the water under our feet?? We are coming back to this issue later, I can assure you. The Saylor/Souza CC did this, and we are definitely coming back to this political malpractice.
In the meantime, city water consumption per capita is falling, actually in freefall, with no bottom in sight. The deep well limits Don described are more than enough for the long run.
As I have been saying for years, this project is to supply huge quantities of new potable water for population growth in Eastern Yolo County, including Davis proper.
Actually, Mike, Matt Williams answered your question. The city’s right to the water under UCD is secondary to UCD’s right to that water. We (Davis) did not have a ‘right to the water under our feet’ because it isn’t under our feet.
Although I’ve been harsh on you in the past, on this issue I have no real quarrel with your misunderstanding. The ins and outs of UCD’s water supplies, their participation in the surface project, the issues they have with their effluent, and the various EIR’s they operate under are complicated and not easy to piece together. But the bottom line that matters for this discussion is: they have higher rights to the deep water than we do. We can’t pump more from the deep aquifers.
The good news is that in a few years, they will be customers of the Woodland-Davis JPA. And it seems UCD is going to grow no matter what the city might prefer.
[i]The deep well limits Don described are more than enough for the long run. [/i]
Nope. Not even really for the short run. If we rely on the deep wells and gradually shut down the intermediate ones, we will water shortages in 5 – 10 years. Guaranteed.
I am learning a lot. Thanks Don and Matt.
Also, I am going to be a bit blunt here. UCD has a major water waste problem. I see it everyday, the way they irrigate, the way people waste on an individual basis and the automatic toilets that flush twice almost every time one uses one. It drives me utterly nuts.
Don, here are the gallons per day numbers using the current wells, the UCD Inter-tie and the two above ground storage tanks. The 2013 through 2016 numbers represent more supply availability than peak demand. Starting in 2017 there is more peak demand than there is available supply. All the numbers from 2025 onward do not include the planned third above ground storage tank, which will reduce the shortfall by 6,000,000 gpd. The 1,000,000 gpd UCD inter-tie goes away in 2021.
2013 (1,047,657)
2014 (1,326,133)
2015 (1,608,205)
2016 (393,903)
2017 2,316,746
2018 2,178,057
2019 2,033,464
2020 6,882,860
2021 9,191,689
2022 9,503,605
2023 9,818,641
2024 10,136,828
2025 10,458,196
2026 10,782,778
2027 12,110,606
2028 12,441,712
2029 12,776,129
2030 13,113,890
2031 14,455,029
2032 14,799,580
2033 15,147,575
2034 15,499,051
2035 15,854,042
2036 16,212,582
2037 16,574,708
2038 16,940,455
2039 17,309,860
2040 17,682,958
Why is peak demand projected to be skyrocketing?
“….as long as we do not dramatically increase our consumption of water, thus infringing on U.C. Davis water rights.”
I believe that there are no “water rights” with regard to ground water. Davis has a right to drill as many deep aquifer wells as it wishes. UCD withdrew from partnership in building the infrastructure, citing its cost, and got our Mayor to agree that Davis would not compete with UCD for the deep aquifer water so that UCD could handle its water quality issues with deep aquifer water, nor contribute to the building of the surface water project and purchase water from Davis’ increased water supply in the future if they need it. It is not clear what advantage Davis “won” in this agreement.
I believe that UCD remains a member of the JPA board even though it is not contributing a cent to the building of this project.
dlemongello asked . . .
[i]”Why is peak demand projected to be skyrocketing?”[/i]
Donna, peak demand is not skyrocketing. Here are the peak demand numbers for those same years.
2012 32,727,252
2013 32,452,343
2014 32,173,867
2015 31,891,795
2016 31,606,097
2017 31,316,746
2018 31,178,057
2019 31,033,464
2020 30,882,860
2021 31,191,689
2022 31,503,605
2023 31,818,641
2024 32,136,828
2025 32,458,196
2026 32,782,778
2027 33,110,606
2028 33,441,712
2029 33,776,129
2030 34,113,890
2031 34,455,029
2032 34,799,580
2033 35,147,575
2034 35,499,051
2035 35,854,042
2036 36,212,582
2037 36,574,708
2038 36,940,455
2039 37,309,860
2040 37,682,958
It is the net difference between peak supplies and peak demand that is skyrocketing, and that is because supplies are steadily decreasing as follows:
2016 Removal of Well 20 (drilled in 1976)
2017 Removal of Wells 21 and 22 (both drilled in 1977)
2020 Removal of Well 23 (drilled in 1980) and Wells 24 and 1 (both drilled in 1982)
2021 Removal of Well 25 (drilled in 1987) and Well 27 (drilled in 1989)
2021 End of the UC Davis Intertie
2027 Removal of Well 26 (drilled in 1987)
2031 Removal of Well EM3 (drilled in 1991)
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”I believe that there are no “water rights” with regard to ground water. Davis has a right to drill as many deep aquifer wells as it wishes.”[/i]
You belief is incorrect. The following is a direct quote from the legal memo entitled [b]”Legal Basics Related to Municipal Appropriation of Groundwater in Shared Basin”[/b] provided to the Water Advisory Committee on 4/12/2012 by Rob Sawyer a water rights attorney
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of Davis relies entirely on groundwater wells for its municipal water service. Water from the City’s wells can vary in quality and quantity, depending upon each well’s location and depth, and the City’s wells are of various ages and operating conditions. For purposes of well reliability and water quality, the City has been investigating drilling new wells, either within the City itself, or on property owned by the City, but located in unincorporated areas of Yolo County. It is expected that any new well or wells (as well as current wells) will extract water from the regional Yolo Basin, an aquifer (groundwater basin) already being used by other pumpers. The purpose of this memo is to provide general information on groundwater rights as they may apply to water wells in shared basins.
B. GROUNDWATER V. SURFACE WATER
1. General: California water law generally divides water into two major categories: Groundwater (e.g., water that is extracted via wells or that flows from springs) and surface water (e.g., rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, and water diverted from those sources and stored in reservoirs). But whether groundwater or surface water, all water in California belongs to the people of the state, (see Water Code § 102) and the ownership of “water rights” in California refers to a right to use water, not to ownership of the water itself. (ee, e.g., the United States Court of Federal Claims’ December 2011 decision in the Constitutional takings case of [i]Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States[/i])
2. Surface Water: The diversion, storage and use of surface water is subject to the jurisdiction of the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”), an agency of Cal EPA, under a statutory framework that goes back to the Water Commission Act of 1913. (While water diverters and users with facilities in operation prior to 1914 are recognized to have rights that differ from – and in many respects are superior to — those that began diverting and using after the effective date of the Water Commission Act, all surface water users and diverters are subject to one extent or another to the Water Code and the State Board’s authority.)
3. Groundwater: For historic legal, political and cultural reasons, groundwater is treated differently. While, as discussed below, certain groundwater adjudication proceedings may be referred to the State Board, the State Board is essentially without authority to regulate groundwater unless the groundwater is part of a “subterranean stream[ ] flowing through known and definite channels.” (see Water Code § 1200) In other words, “underground rivers.” Again for historic legal, political and cultural reasons, what has been defined as such “underground rivers” in California case law bears little resemblance to what most hydrogeologists understand to be the manner in which surface water and groundwater are typically connected. Going back to a California Supreme Court decision in 1899 (see [i]Los Angeles v. Pomeroy, 124 Cal. 597[/i]) the judiciary has relied primarily on traditional legal arguments rather than hydrogeologic science to define very narrowly what may be such an “underground river.”
C. USE PRIORITIES
1. General: In connection with priority among water users, California uses one or the other (or in some situations a combination) of either a “first come – first served” philosophy, i.e., priority in time (generally expressed in judicial decisions as “first in time – first in right”) or a “correlative use” doctrine, under which all users share equal priority, and if supplies are diminished all users must proportionately cut back. The former is generally applied to “appropriations” of surface water, i.e., to water users that divert surface water at one location and use it at another. The latter is generally applied to groundwater users and to “riparian” surface water users, i.e., users of rivers and lakes who own land that fronts those bodies of water, and who use the water only on that adjoining land. Beyond these general priorities, however, are Constitutional and statutory restrictions and preferences. E.g.:
a. Under a Constitutional amendment adopted by the voters in 1928, (see California Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 2) all water must be used “beneficially” and “reasonably.” “Waste” of water is prohibited. A use that is not “beneficial” may be deemed wasteful, as may be a use that is otherwise beneficial, but achieved in an unreasonable (i.e., wasteful) manner.
b. “Domestic” use of water (i.e., water used for drinking, washing and other household use) is not only deemed “beneficial,” but is deemed the highest use of water. Use for irrigation is deemed the next highest. (see Water Code § 106)
c. Not only is domestic use deemed the highest and best use, but such use by municipalities is legally recognized as worthy of protection “to the fullest extent necessary for existing and [u]future[/u] uses (see Water Code § 106.5 — Emphasis added); however, the same statute confirms that municipalities may not waste water, and goes on to provide that a municipality may prevent others from using water that may be “in excess of [the municipality’s] reasonable and existing needs …”
[b]2. Groundwater Priorities:[/b] California law looks first to overall priority based upon the pumper’s relationship to the groundwater itself. Pumpers are categorized as follows:
[b]a. Overlying users:[/b] The highest priority belongs to pumpers that own land that lies over the groundwater, who use the groundwater on that land. Typical overlying owners are farmers. So long as there is sufficient groundwater for all overlying owners, each may pump as much as it needs for reasonable and beneficial use, without regard to the amounts being pumped by others. If, however, there isn’t enough groundwater to go around, based on a 1903 Calfornia Supreme Court case, (see Katz v. Walkinshaw, 141 Cal. 116, which rejected the English common-law theory of absolute groundwater ownership, a theory that may have worked in the wet English climate, but not in most parts of California). California has developed the law of correlative rights, which means simply that if there isn’t enough to go around, each overlying owner may pump only a “fair and just” proportion of the available groundwater, regardless of who began pumping first.
[b]b. Appropriative users:[/b] Next in priority are pumpers that extract water and deliver it to properties they do not own, away from the well. Generally, municipalities are appropriators, not overlying owners, as they pump and sell water through municipal water systems. (Municipalities may be overlying owners when using groundwater for purposes such as irrigating parks, where the municipality actually holds title to the parkland, and the water is pumped from a well located within the park itself.) Under appropriative rights, the water need not even stay in the geographic area of the groundwater, but may be delivered to distant places. Appropriative users, however, are entitled only to groundwater that is “surplus” to the reasonable and beneficial needs of overlying users. If there isn’t enough groundwater for the overlying users, the appropriative users may be cut off completely.
” Not only is domestic use deemed the highest and best use, but such use by municipalities is legally recognized as worthy of protection “to the fullest extent necessary for existing and future uses (see Water Code § 106.5 –“
It appears that it is far from a clear-cut case that UCD has priority rights to this groundwater.
In addition to Matt Williams’ contradiction of your legal opinion, it is worth noting that none of the experts recommended increased or long-term reliance on the deep wells for the city of Davis water supply.
Matt, what assumptions are built into those numbers about growth of the city and conservation?
“The CC was hell-bent on the surface water project, and supremely confident that they will get it, so they walked away from our RIGHT to the water under our feet??”
The “agreement”(legally binding”), negotiated by Mayor Krovoza was clearly done in the mindset of the above quote. Now, with the scaled-back version being offered for voter consideration, where will this extra water come from to meet Davis’ future growth needs as well as future UCD needs? I fear that we will witness inevitable “project creep” if the Davis voters give the JPA the “green light” to proceed.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]” Not only is domestic use deemed the highest and best use, but such use by municipalities is legally recognized as worthy of protection “to the fullest extent necessary for existing and future uses (see Water Code § 106.5 –”
It appears that it is far from a clean-cut case that UCD has priority rights to this groundwater.”[/i]
davisite, you would be right if UCD was not using its deep aquifer water for domestic use as well. In applying the “correlative use” doctrine noted in the General section above, since both UCD and the City are domestic users, neither one trumps the other on that criteria. However, UCD is an overlying user, while the City is an appropriative user, so UCD’s water rights in the deep aquifer have seniority over the City’s. Further, when determining water right priority between UCD and the City, the “first come – first served” philosophy, i.e., priority in time (generally expressed in judicial decisions as “first in time – first in right”) also puts UCD ahead of the City, because UCD drilled its first two deep aquifer wells in 1952, its third in 1969, its fourth in 1971 and its fifth in 1988. The City drilled its first deep aquifer well in 1991. So UCD is in a position of “first in time – first in right” with five wells in the deep aquifer prior to the first City well in the deep aquifer.
The case is absolutely clean-cut. However, lets look at what the process is for resolving a non clean-cut water dispute in an aquifer.
[i]E. DISPUTES OVER SHARED GROUNDWATER
1. Introduction: So long as no pumper experiences any difficulties that may be attributed to any other pumper’s well, such as a drop in groundwater level (that may require that a deeper well be drilled, or that more energy be expended to bring water to the surface), a reduction in the well’s rate of production or recovery (e.g., “drawdown” characteristics), or degredation of water quality, there should not be dispute. But whenever any pumper feels that its use of groundwater is somehow threatened by another’s pumping, an adjudication may result.
2. Adjudication: Adjudication is the method by which individual pumping rights are determined, fixed, and managed. Nearly all adjudications are conducted by the court system.12 Before a court may restrict and allocate pumping, it must first determine whether or not current or threatened pumping is having – or will have – an adverse affect upon the basin’s “safe yield.” Safe yield is not simply a question of whether or not groundwater elevation levels are dropping (indicating more water is being pumped out than is going back in), as many basins contain so much water, and are so little used, that an elevation drop may be negligible over the long term, and other basins may drop and recover in wide swings, depending upon their geologic characteristics and local climate.[/i]
If you take a moment and talk to any water rights lawyer you will quickly find that the historical costs associated with adjudicating an aquifer run into the many tens of millions of dollars.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”The “agreement”(legally binding”), negotiated by Mayor Krovoza was clearly done in the mindset of the above quote. Now, with the scaled-back version being offered for voter consideration, where will this extra water come from to meet Davis’ future growth needs as well as future UCD needs? I fear that we will witness inevitable “project creep” if the Davis voters give the JPA the “green light” to proceed.”[/i]
What “agreement” are you referring to? There is no agreement between UCD and the City regarding the deep aquifer.
Any agreement about the deep aquiver under Davis was agreed to by the California Legislature and Governor when they passed The Water Commission Act in 1913, which was a bit before Mayor Krovoza’s time. All water in California belongs to the people of the state, and the ownership of “water rights” in California refers to a right to use water, not to ownership of the water itself. We are all governed by water law.
“…since both UCD and the City are domestic users, neither one trumps the other on that criteria”
A reasonable argument can be made that UCD and the City of Davis are NOT equivalent “domestic users” and that the municipality of Davis is “worthy of protection “to the fullest extent necessary” , or at least,equal claim with UCD. The agreement that I recollect described was that Davis would voluntarily relinquish any claim to equal groundwater rights. My recollection is that this appeared to be part of the package agreement that included UCD’s plan to purchase water from Davis in the future. Since this was premised upon the original plant production volume, whether this part of the package has unraveled is open to question with the scaled-back version now being considered.
I get the distinct impression that when Davis was selected as the site for the University farm in 1905, they had some idea already of where water law was going and quite wisely selected where to put it.
Davisite2: “[i]A reasonable argument can be made that UCD and the City of Davis are NOT equivalent “domestic users[/i]”
You are right, they are not equivalent. As Matt pointed out above, UCD has precedence with regards to ground water rights because UCD is using the water on property that it owns. Davis is selling the water to its customers. Maybe you are having difficulty with the distinction, but as far as water law is concerned that is the crux. UCD has primary rights to the ground water. The City of Davis has secondary rights, and your beliefs on this matter have absolutely no bearing.
“Not only is domestic use deemed the highest and best use, but such use by municipalities is legally recognized as worthy of protection “to the fullest extent necessary for existing and future uses (see Water Code § 106.5”
This appears to challenge the premise that land ownership trumps all other claims. I’ll let the water lawyers “duke it out”.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”This appears to challenge the premise that land ownership trumps all other claims. I’ll let the water lawyers “duke it out”.”[/i]
You are willing to go the adjudication route? You do realize that that typically is a decade long process that costs tens of millions of dollars in legal fees, don’t you?
[quote]Generally, municipalities are appropriators, not overlying owners, as they pump and sell water through municipal water systems.[/quote]
It’d be interesting to hear the legal arguments and decisions that resulted in this interpretation, since a municipal water system is a public utility paid for by and operated for the benefit of the taxpayers who, were they to drill their own wells, would be considered overlying users. It seems to be a distinction without a difference, except to relegate municipal taxpayers to second-class status with regard to water rights.
.
The history of water (and water law) in California is worth a good read. I suggest, for those who have a hard time understanding the difference between appropriative rights, and riparian or the rights of those who drill on their own land, take a look at “The Great Thirst” by UCLA historian Norris Hundley (http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520224568). As Matt points out, many of the decisions about water law go back over a century. The decisions about who gets to use water and take it elsewhere are long gone. The idea that the City of Davis could take UCD to court (actually the Water Board) and get some of their water because Davis’ use of it is “more” beneficial, is to say the least, pie in the sky (and an expensive one to boot). Matt can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe one of the benefits of getting Conaway ranch water is that it is riparian and thus we will have senior water rights. This is like gold for Davis and Woodland. Junior users cannot take it away. One does not come by senior water rights very often in this day and age.
Jim Frame said: ” except to relegate municipal taxpayers to second-class status with regard to water rights.”
Domestic water, as has been pointed out, is considered the most beneficial. Some cities, however do not have enough water underlying them to provide for their citizens and thus need to import water from somewhere else. Importing water whether for domestic or agricultural use is junior to riparian rights. But among junior water users domestic users (for instance the Metropolitan Water District in Southern California) take precedence over agricultural users (such as ag districts in the San Joaquin Valley who rely on California Water Project water – as does the Met). Some cities (San Francisco and Los Angeles are the biggest and best know examples) buy land to get the water rights. Davis does not have that luxury and thus we pay for the water rights themselves, in this case from the Conaway Ranch.
I woke up this morning and, before swinging my legs over the side of the bed, spent some time thinking about the dialogue between davisite2, Mark West, Don Shor and me. In fairness to davisite (and now to Jim Frame) there clearly could be a legal argument put together and argued. Whether that argument is “clean-cut” is speculation.
The only way that the City could find out whether they can, or can not, access additional water from the deep aquifer is to assemble and file an EIR, just as they did in 2004 when EIR 2004-102043 was filed. UCD would then have to make a decision, as they did in 2004, about whether to file an objection/protest to the EIR. Faced with a formal protest the City could negotiate with UCD, as they did in 2004 resulting in the reduction of the water right amount by 50% from the original 9,000 gallons per minute down to 4,500 gallons per minute. If the negotiations did not bear fruit, then the City would have the choice of abandoning the EIR or disregarding the protest and certifying the EIR. If they did the latter then UCD would have the choice of whether to take the City to court.
All of the above translates to substantial Risk and Uncertainty regarding whether the City can get more water from the deep aquifer. It also translates to substantial Risk and Uncertainty regarding the cost of that water from the deep aquifer.
Risk and Uncertainty was the #1 reason why the WAC voted unanimously to remove the Groundwater-only option from further consideration.
I wasn’t suggesting that the legal interpretations are worth contesting, only that I don’t see the logic behind them. (Which, to me, suggests that they may have been the result of legislative, rather than judicial, action.)
.
Many thanks to all the above commentors. This has been one of the most informative threads I have read to date regards the water project.
With the growing water demands of UC Davis Campus clearly impinging on the City of Davis’ ability to continue to use our customary water source, it seems patently unfair,( though possibly legal), for us to be forced to triple our water bills so that they can grow while we hold the line on growth.
Can somebody please explain why U.C. is off the hook for the expenses incurred by Davis for importing water while there exponential growth is the cause for us not being able to continue using our customary source of groundwater. U.C. talks a good game about being a good neighbor but when it comes down to mitigating for their uncontrolled growth, all bets are off.
Well, they won’t be off the hook completely, because they have to buy the water in ten years when their current water situation changes. Being partially in Solano County, owning land along Putah Creek, and being on top of the deep aquifer (with prior usage) gives them more options than Davis has. But they are counting on city surface water in a decade. And the price hasn’t been set.
A city that hosts a University of California gets the benefits and the drawbacks. Without UC, Davis would be Dixon. Most of us wouldn’t be here. The down side is, they can grow and have no obligation to provide for their enrollment increase. And wherever it occurs — on campus or in town — the students need water. So even if they built enough housing on campus for all of the 5000 new students this decade (which isn’t going to happen) they’d need water for it.
They have no obligation to conform their enrollment goals to the growth policies of their host city. And we have very little leverage over the university. City officials can complain and state their preferences regarding enrollment and housing growth, but they/we can’t tell UC what to do. Any attempt to do so by constricting water supplies will result in city-wide water shortages.
Roger, I’m a little confused by your last comments. UC has the same rights to pump groundwater underlying their campus as Davis does to pump groundwater underlying the city. From what has been said in this thread, it doesn’t seem to me that they are impinging on our ability to use our customary water source. The issue is the sharing agreement between the two entities. And in fact (Matt may be able to explain this better) more groundwater mining by Davis would impinge on UC’s right to adequately extract groundwater which they have the right to do.
Also, I am not so sure their growth in the next few years is “exponential” or “uncontrolled” as you state. A few years back the entire UC system had to divvy up the coming demographic “bump” in students that will appear by 2015 or so. UC Davis has embarked on the West Village project to accomodate these new arrivals. I think the number that was mentioned in this string was 5,000 new students, a growth spurt of about 20% over a number of years. I am probably off some on the numbers, but I think this is the general picture.
Don: the City has a lot of leverage over the university. Remember the Level 4 Biolab about 10 years ago? The warning was first raised to me by Jean Jackman, I pulled the item and brought it up on the CC, and we went on to a 5/0 CC vote opposing the project.
Or, prohibiting a direct traffic link of West Village to Russel west of Hwy 113. We stood up to UCD on that one, too.
I think Saylor and the CC rolled over on the deep wells. If I had still been on the CC, I would never have voted to allow UCD to tell us what to do with our own water under our feet. That would be complete madness, and indicative of a political climber wanting UCD support for higher office than representing the voters of Davis.
[i]I think [u]Saylor[/u][b] Sue Greenwald[/b], Ruth Asmundson, Ted Puntillo, Stephen Souza and Don Saylor rolled over on the deep wells.[/i]
I’m sure that’s what you meant to say.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Don: the City has a lot of leverage over the university. Remember the Level 4 Biolab about 10 years I think Saylor and the CC rolled over on the deep wells. If I had still been on the CC, I would never have voted to allow UCD to tell us what to do with our own water under our feet. That would be complete madness, and indicative of a political climber wanting UCD support for higher office than representing the voters of Davis.”[/i]
Mike, lets tease your proposed course of action out a bit. If your suggested course of action were supported by your fellow Council members, you would have rejected Staff’s recommendation to ratify the negotiated compromise reducing the 9,000 gallons per minute EIR “request” down to 4,500. Where do you go from there?
Under the CEQA process that governs the EIR, you essentially have two alternatives at that point. You can abandon the EIR altogether or you can proceed with the ratification of the EIR in spite of (and in the face of) the officially filed protest by UCD . . . a protest that is supported by the scientific field-testing data. If you did choose to proceed, your bill for supporting legal advice would not be small . . . but would be a wise expenditure.
UCD would then file a law suit to block and rescind the ratification of the EIR. More legal fees . . . lots more legal fees, with very low likelihood of a positive outcome.
All the while the 4,500 gallons per minute that we currently get from Wells 32 and 34 (6.5 mgd) would not be part of the Davis water delivery system.
Based on past precedents the Court’s likely decision would be in favor of UCD. Would you appeal that decision? More legal costs if you do.
The Court could decide that the best course is to adjudicate the deep aquifer. If the Court so chose, would you pursue that option, or would you abandon the effort? Historically, adjudication of an aquifer costs tens of millions of dollars and often takes as much as ten years. Is that Davis taxpayer money well spent?
All of the above leads me to wonder whether you wouldn’t have “rolled over” and avoided the cost and the risk. A 4,500 gallon per minute bird in the hand is worth . . .
Question for Matt; Does the export by U.C. Davis of water to the small city built west of 113 by them, to accommodate their growing student population, make them also an appropriative pumper?