by Matt Williams
Specifically lets look at another commodity that we all value . . . our home. Since everyone who is a rate payer is also the owner of a home (or business) there is a very direct parallel between our decisions about home ownership and our decisions about water use.
-
For both home ownership and water use we start by deciding what our level of need is.
-
We then choose to buy the amount of house / water that meets our need.
-
With respect to our house we have periods of peak use and we have periods of off peak use.
Many Davis residents are empty nesters living in a house with 3 or 4 bedrooms. Unless we have visiting friends or family, our use of our home is almost always “winter” use. Only when those visitors come to stay, do we find ourselves in a “summer” use pattern with bodies in all 3 or 4 bedrooms.
When we took out a mortgage when we bought our house, did the bank ask us what our relative proportions of “winter” and “summer” use of the house were going to be? No. The price of the house essentially assumed we would make optimum use of the house 365 days of the year, otherwise we would be buying a different house with less “summer peak” capacity. The monthly mortgage payment for the house we bought is the same month after month regardless of how much of our house we use.
Note: If you are lucky enough to have paid off your mortgage, put yourself in a time machine and think about the time in your life when you had a monthly mortgage payment.
Further, if we go on vacation, whether the vacation is a weekend or multiple weeks, our use of our house drops to zero. Does our monthly mortgage payment drop even a penny?
If any one of us tries to convince a bank that our mortgage payment should adjust each month based on how often we take vacations or how often we have house guests, the bank will laugh and say we are playing fast and loose with numbers that have no relation to reality.
Now some of you are saying, “I don’t own. I rent.” This model applies to you too. Simply replace the word “mortgage” with the words “annual rent” and the word “bank” with the word “landlord.”
Using the water math provided in the column, the cost of a mortgage on a per day basis is “two times as high” during a month where the owners are on vacation for two weeks. That rises to “four times as high” if the vacation extends to four weeks . . . and if you rent the exact same situation applies. The only difference is that the monthly payment is for rent rather than for mortgage.
The Supply Charge in the CBFR rate structure is simply each rate payer’s mortgage payment for the peak water system capacity that that rate payer decides is needed during the summer irrigation season.
With a house or apartment, the mortgage/rental payment doesn’t change based on month to month usage changes. The only way we can reduce our mortgage/rental payment is to downsize to a smaller house with less “summer” capacity, and when we do our monthly payment goes down.
The Supply Charge in CBFR works the exact same way. If a rate payer decides to downsize their use during the May to October irrigation season (when all the metaphorical bedrooms are full of bodies), then their monthly Supply Charge mortgage payment the next year will be lower each and every month. Why? Because just like moving to a smaller home/apartment, they will have downsized their use of the water system’s peak capacity.
Those are the facts ma’am . . . only the facts.
like your analogy Matt, but think it lacks the ‘seasonal value’ that the water argument has. If I have it right, our water rates will vary partly on the summer use which I think has to be higher than our winter use (vegetable gardens, hotter weather, etc etc). Your home analogy has the benefit of the owner controlling the use of bedrooms, different than the summer water tho agree we all can do better in water conservation (and am sure we will!). How about empty nesters with 3 kids in college who come home in summer and on school vacations? Then it’s more similar to your example, right?
David (says above he) wrote (something that I bet Matt Williams wrote):
> Since everyone who is a rate payer is also
> the owner of a home (or business)
Most people that “rent” (not own) homes in Davis also pay directly for water (and other charges on the city services bill) and all renters in the city pay indirectly for water.
> Bob’s use of his house drops to zero. Does Bob’s
> monthly mortgage payment drop even a penny?
This entire rant makes no sense (especially since Bob has been working for the Enterprise for 40+ years and probably paid off the mortgage on his little home years ago and does NOT pay a mortgage when he travels to Oregon)…
I thought this whole article was nothing more than mumbo jumbo. To me it did nothing but further confuse the whole rate picture.
Joe Friday is a “Dragnet” TV character of the 50’s, a time when social conformity and political correctness were the unchallengeable backbone of our popular culture. Most people today are more familiar with the more recent movie “Dragnet” parody starring the team of Dan Ackroyd as a driven, uptight intellectual Joe Friday and Whalberg as his “human” partner who just cannot buy into his partner’s world view.
Matt, why not use the entire prior year to establish rates? I’ve read the information you kindly provided when this question was asked before, but I’m still struggling.
I understand that the system has to be built for peak needs (as well as anticipating additional customers offset, perhaps, by some reduced use due to estimated conservation). However, if rates themselves were based on 12-month history instead of summer only, it seems that the would incorporate the peak and eliminate the concern that the summer-based rates are somehow unfair.
What am I not understanding?
SODA said . . .
[i]”I like your analogy Matt, but think it lacks the ‘seasonal value’ that the water argument has. If I have it right, our water rates will vary partly on the summer use which I think has to be higher than our winter use (vegetable gardens, hotter weather, etc etc).” [/i]
Actually SODA the only seasonal variation you will experience in your water bill under CBFR is in the 20% of the bill that is the Variable Use Charge. That portion of the rate works exactly the same as the current rate structure does. You multiply your use times a $/ccf value. In summer when you use more the result of that multiplication is a higher number, but the $/ccf rate is exactly the same in all 12 months of the year. In the current rate structure the rate is $1.50/ccf and in 2015 (the first year of CBFR billing) the rate per ccf is $0.86.
Each rate payer’s monthly Supply Charge (mortgage payment) is the exact same amount each month of the year. There is no ‘seasonal value’
SODA said . . .
[i]”How about empty nesters with 3 kids in college who come home in summer and on school vacations? Then it’s more similar to your example, right?”[/i]
During the years when my son was away in college, I thought of him as “visiting family” when he came home and occupied one of our otherwise empty rooms.
It really doesn’t matter who uses the empty room. It could be an exchange student from DHS or UCD. It could be a visiting dignitary. It could be absolutely anybody. The key is that when the otherwise empty bedroom is in use, you are in a “summer use” pattern and when it is empty you are in a “winter use” pattern.
The same is true if you are a renter. Bedrooms are bedrooms regardless whether you are paying a mortgage or paying rent.
[quote]I thought this whole article was nothing more than mumbo jumbo. To me it did nothing but further confuse the whole rate picture.[/quote]
I agree. In the Prop. 218 notice (where the words Proposition or 218 never appear), the supply charge is described to cover “certain fixed costs related to water supply. . .”
Fixed costs, by definition, are unrelated to the use of water. If nobody in the City turned on their faucets for an entire year, we would still have to pay these costs. So, why base these costs on summer use? It just doesn’t make any sense.
The reason given is to satisfy peak demands. But we know that scaling up the size of the project or scaling down the size of the project will not affect the costs very much. For example, when the project went from 40 mgd to 30 mgd (a 25 percent reduction), costs dropped by less than 10 percent. If summer users cause the project to be bigger, then they should pay the incremental costs between a smaller and larger project to satisfy their demand. It is hard to argue that this incremental cost is as large as the CBFR method imposes.
The crux of Dunning’s argument is that paying $7.80 per ccf in the (extended) summer (in 2018) vs. $1.32 in the non-summer months violates Prop. 218. He cites the case City of Dublin vs. County of Alameda, where there “needs to be a reasonable relationship between the fees to be charged and the estimated cost of the service.”
Dunning writes, “Charging six times as much in the summer as in winter is by no stretch of the imagination a reasonable relationship.”
Matt has failed to address this in any meaningful way.
In addition, the home mortgage analogy is not a good one. If you decide to buy a very expensive house that you don’t need for at least a decade or more (and perhaps never), it is your decision. By voting yes on Measure I, you are forcing everyone else in this town to buy this same expensive house. In my mind, the burden of proof that we all really need this expensive house should be much higher than the proponents of Measure I have been able to muster.
[i]”…the burden of proof that we all really need this expensive house should be much higher than the proponents of Measure I have been able to muster.”
[/i]
The case for the surface water project has been made with much more substance and evidence than the case against it. Water quality, peak capacity, long-term supply issues, and especially the risk to our groundwater supplies have been documented thoroughly. What we’ve all been waiting for is any well-reasoned argument against it, or any reasonable alternative that meets the water quality and long-term supply needs.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”I agree. In the Prop. 218 notice (where the words Proposition or 218 never appear), the supply charge is described to cover “certain fixed costs related to water supply. . .”
Fixed costs, by definition, are unrelated to the use of water. If nobody in the City turned on their faucets for an entire year, we would still have to pay these costs. [b]So, why base these costs on summer use? [/b]It just doesn’t make any sense.”[/i]
Regarding your bolded question, the reason is to align the design/construction decisions with the payment methodology. If the design is aligned with what you desire, and is based on annual consumption, then the plant will have a monthly capacity of 758,323 ccf per month (the average of 406,965 and 574,151 and 960,838 and 1,187,577 and 906,695 and 513,712). That means in the July/August bi-monthly period there will be 429,254 ccf of demand that can not be met. There will be lots of Davis residents who will be standing in the shower in the morning with no water coming out of the showerhead because the irrigation systems all around the City have grabbed 100% of the available system capacity.
So, we don’t design/construct a system for annual demand (unless you are in a city like Chicago where there is no irrigation component to speak of), we design/construct the system for the 1,187,577 ccf of bi-monthly demand in July/August. So we incur the costs based on a peak logic. Shouldn’t we defray those costs on the same peak logic? Why do you want a misalignment between how the costs are incurred and how they are paid for?
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”If summer users cause the project to be bigger, then they should pay the incremental costs between a smaller and larger project to satisfy their demand. It is hard to argue that this incremental cost is as large as the CBFR method imposes.” [/i]
That is exactly what is being done. To illustrate, lets assume that the first account has two residents and uses 10 units of water in the six winter months and 40 units of water in the six summer peak months. The second account has two residents and uses 10 units of water in the six winter months and 10 units of water in the six summer peak months.
If these were the only two accounts in the system, then the engineers would design system capacity to meet the summer demand for 50 units of water (10 plus 40). That 50 units would more than meet the winter demand of 20 units of water (10 plus 10).
If the bricks and mortar construction costs of 50 unit plant are $50,000,000 then the 40 unit account is responsible for $40,000,000 of that and the 10 unit account is responsible for $10,000,000.
Our great grandparents would have paid for the plant in cash, but in this day and age we take out a mortgage to pay for the buildings/infrastructure/homes we build. So the 40 unit account has a $40,000,000 mortgage and the 10 unit account has a $10,000,000 mortgage. The annual mortgage payment @ 4.3% for the 40 unit account is $2.4 million. The annual mortgage payment @ 4.3% for the 40 unit account is $0.6 million.
How will the 40 unit account typically spread that $2.4 million of annual payments? Typically it is done through equal monthly payments of $200,000. However, if they wanted to, I’m sure the bank would be willing to receive $100,000 payments in the six winter months and $300,000 in the six summer months. All that matters to the bank is that the payments add up to $2.4 million at the end of the year.
Here’s one more piece of calculation that will no doubt make some people’s eyes glaze over . . .
If the mortgage payment per year for the whole system is the $3 million in the example above. What proportion of that $3 million is paid for by Single Family Residences if you use the summer peak values to allocate the $3 million?
The answer is $1,692,135. The way you get that is to divide the Single Family Residence peak consumption by the total system peak consumption and then multiply that by the $3 million. (1,723,219 ccf divided by 3,055,110 ccf times $3 million)
If you use annual consumption to calculate your proportions the answer is $1,692,135. The way you get that is to divide the Single Family Residence annual consumption by the total system consumption and then multiply that by the $3 million. (2,530,612 ccf divided by 4,549,938 ccf times $3 million)
So the assertion that using summer peak makes all the homeowners’ bill go up is simply wrong. The $25,576 difference ($1,692,135 minus $1,692,135) represents a 1.4% increase for the Single Family Residences as a group . . . and I can guarantee you that virtually 100% of that $25,576 comes from homes that are outside the City limits.
Matt,
We don’t have surface water now, and nobody is “standing in the shower in the morning with no water coming out.” We meet current demand, and with some conservation, like following the Natural Resource Commission recommendation of 134 gallons per person per day, our total demands will not increase over the next 30 years even with population growth of 0.5 percent or so per year. If we cut per capita usage by 20 percent and the population grows by 20 percent over the next 30 years, then total water demand is constant.
If daily demand is the issue, build another water tank (and encourage people to buy plants and landscaping that use less water at Redwood Barn Nursery!)
If peak hourly demand is what you are worried about, then just wait a few years for the City to install smart meters, and charge a very high hourly charge during peak hours. I (and thousands of others) can certainly change when we water our lawns to reduce peak hourly demands.
All of the big numbers with ccfs and stuff are impressive, but you still haven’t addressed the issue of proportionality between rates and costs.
The supply charge is supposed to cover the fixed costs. If the plant and water capacity are larger to satisfy these summer demands, then residents should be charged the incremental cost between a smaller and a larger project. We know that the incremental costs from making a plant larger are not very large (you still have to build an intake, a treament facility, and pipelines, and changing the diameter of pipes, etc. does not affect costs much). The differences in costs are certainly not large enough to justify charging six times more per ccf in the summer than in winter. If I’m wrong, provide me with evidence on costs.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Matt, why not use the entire prior year to establish rates? I’ve read the information you kindly provided when this question was asked before, but I’m still struggling.
I understand that the system has to be built for peak needs (as well as anticipating additional customers offset, perhaps, by some reduced use due to estimated conservation). However, if rates themselves were based on 12-month history instead of summer only, it seems that the would incorporate the peak and eliminate the concern that the summer-based rates are somehow unfair.
What am I not understanding?”[/i]
JS, the key is alignment with A) cost creation and B) cost recovery . . . as shown above.
Part of the problem is that people are thinking about summer consumption only in absolute terms. They see their own personal consumption being much higher in summer and they forget that everyone’s consumption in summer is much higher. The key is proportional use. As noted above the aggregate Single Family Residence proportion of the summer consumption is virtually identical to the Single Family Residence proportion of the annual consumption. Any difference that exists is being paid for by El Macero and Willowbank because those areas of the water system have lots of customers who [u]choose[/u] to irrigate muchmore than other Davis residents do.
H. Seldon: so I assume from your description that you propose we continue pumping groundwater from the intermediate and deep aquifers indefinitely? Aside from the supply issues, that leaves subsidence and contamination problems continuing into the future. Continuing to use the groundwater has many undesirable consequences. We would also have to ban water softeners.
Happy to sell low-water landscape plants! I am concerned about our ability to meet the NRC guidelines, as we have already reduced water use locally. There is a point of diminishing returns, especially in a community with such a high percentage of renters. I do know that property owners can conserve water very effectively by reducing lawn areas, watering correctly, changing their irrigation practices, and selecting landscape plants more carefully. But there is a point of diminishing returns. Eventually communities that want to significantly reduce water use have to go to tiered rates to encourage conservation. Voluntary incentives only go so far.
Actually, regardless of the outcome of the election, among the good that has come from this robust discussion of water issues is much greater awareness of water use by Davis residents.
H. Seldon: Your reasoning and questions are very interesting.
Without all of the hyperbole, posturing, electioneering, and generally poking a stick at the basket of cobras to keep them stirring, I just want to say something.
The current rates, and the BWA two year rates, are unfair to ratepayers and do not meet the Prop 218 proportionality standards. I won’t go into the reasons now, but the City has absolutely clear data and analysis that the WAC and CC ignored.
The CBFR system also has its problems, but of the three systems, I think the CBFR has by far the most promise so long as the structural issues are addressed. If they are not, then back to the drawing boards.
I think Frank and Matt’s system in its original state had more merit than what it had morphed into by the time it came out of the CC sausage factory on January 15, 2013. The City staff, CC, and rate consultant spanking machine produced a questionnable product, but the one I believe has the most promise.
I attended most of the WAC and CC meetings on rates, and I saw the process up front and close. The CBFR system was not given a fair shake, and for political purposes, and to address hypothetical and mystical and unnamed “bond broker” concerns, the fairly simple initial CBFR system was turned into the mess that Dunning hits on over and over; accurately, if I might add.
Matt is trying his best to defend the product, but I view it as the CC’s product more than his in some ways.
We filed the rate case as a procedural method to ask a neutral arbitrator to help the community figure out and adopt a constitutionally valid and fair rate system. The legal case gives us a seat at that table; we were kept out of the political room that produced the mess that the court case challenges. The CC was hell-bent on allowing Woodland’s false water emergency to become our emergency, and thus drove the Measure I and rate process too fast.
Don’t view the rate case as a negative: view it as a positive for the community. We will get past this, with the best rate system California has ever seen.
ps: BTW, we also believe that Woodland’s rates are constitutionally deficient, but that is another story another day.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”Matt, We don’t have surface water now, and nobody is “standing in the shower in the morning with no water coming out.” We meet current demand, and with some conservation, like following the Natural Resource Commission recommendation of 134 gallons per person per day, our total demands will not increase over the next 30 years even with population growth of 0.5 percent or so per year. If we cut per capita usage by 20 percent and the population grows by 20 percent over the next 30 years, then total water demand is constant.”[/i]
H. Seldon, those are all plant size issues that are independent of the billing method.
If we do not build the surface water plant we will still have significant fixed supply infrastructure costs for our six deep aquifer wells, our two above ground storage tanks and the mortgage for the Conaway Protection Group Water Right. The total of the annual mortgage for those existing fixed supply infrastructure costs will be less, but there still will be a mortgage . . . and therefore a Supply Charge. A smaller Supply Charge, but a Supply Charge nonetheless.
When the third above ground storage tank is added to the system as you suggest, its costs will be added to the supply costs in place.
The intermediate aquifer wells are part of the current infrastructure, but for the most part they were drilled so long ago that they are 1) fully amortized and 2) their mortgage is fully paid off. So currently they contribute vey little to the system’s fixed supply costs. However, if we proceed with redirecting their high selenium content, high hardness water to irrigation uses, the capital construction costs that are incurred to get their water to the sites around the city where irrigation demand exists, will be funded by debt and added to the monthly mortgage payment . . . the Supply Charge.
Bottom-line, the Supply Charge greatly increases the transparency of the water system for the rate payers. Each of us can clearly see on our water bill exactly how much the system’s supply infrastructure is costing us personally. No longer are those supply costs hidden in the fixed fee and the variable fee. CBFR increases the fiscal accountability of the water system to its customers.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”In addition, the home mortgage analogy is not a good one. If you decide to buy a very expensive house that you don’t need for at least a decade or more (and perhaps never), it is your decision. By voting yes on Measure I, you are forcing everyone else in this town to buy this same expensive house. In my mind, the burden of proof that we all really need this expensive house should be much higher than the proponents of Measure I have been able to muster.”[/i]
Again you are focusing on the plant construction decisions we face. Those decisions affect what the system’s costs are. The incurring of systemwide costs is a process that is independent and separate.
A water billing rate structure, whatever it may be, takes the annual revenue requirement (that is driven by the costs incurred, whatever they may be) and generates the necessary revenue to cover those costs . . . ideally to the penny, not a penny more, not a penny less.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”Dunning writes, “Charging six times as much in the summer as in winter is by no stretch of the imagination a reasonable relationship.”
Matt has failed to address this in any meaningful way.”[/i]
That is a cash flow issue. If you wanted to have your annual mortgage payments be twice as high in the summer as in the winter, so that they matched your consumption patterns, I’m sure that the City would have no problem setting up the billing system to do that, just as long as the total of your payments is equal to your annual mortgage amount.
The realities of the marketplace are that (as demonstrated by PG&E’s “budget billing” offering) are that consumers find it a whole lot easier to construct their personal budgets with 12 equal payments rather than with payments that vary substantially from month to month. Which do you prefer for your mortgage (or rent) payment . . . an equal monthly amount or a variable monthly amount?
Maybe off topic, but rates are supposed to pay for a project, so the project is relevant.
Is it just me, but is there something … really gross … about the image of Woodland’s powdered waste products blowing south across a narrow road and into the open ponds of our “clean” drinking water??
Since reading the DE article the other day, I just cannot get that image out of my mind. We will have to boil our own city water, like a third world country.
The No on I Committee is getting reports from the field precinct teams that the public is aware of this shocking plant siting problem that was overlooked by staff. Just another good reason to vote NO.
ps Send in those Prop 218 protest ballots! Deadline is the CC hearing on March 19.
“Maybe off topic, but rates are supposed to pay for a project, so the project is relevant.”
I’m not sure you’re correct here.
Hm. City still not served with lawsuit.
“When asked why he and the parties suing the city — John Munn and Don and Nancy Price are the only named plaintiffs — haven’t served the complaint yet, Harrington cited “strategic purposes” on which he would not elaborate.” — Davis Enterprise
What strategic purposes?
[quote]“In addition, the home mortgage analogy is not a good one. If you decide to buy a very expensive house that you don’t need for at least a decade or more (and perhaps never), it is your decision. By voting yes on Measure I, you are forcing everyone else in this town to buy this same expensive house. In my mind, the burden of proof that we all really need this expensive house should be much higher than the proponents of Measure I have been able to muster.”
[/quote]
I have yet another take on the “home mortgage” analogy and a “yes” vote forcing every one else n town to buy this same expensive house. One thing that the opponents and the proponents of Measure I have agreed upon is the eventual need for conjunctive use. So in effect, both sides have agreed that a larger, more expensive house will be needed at some point in time. The difference as I see this analogy is that the proponents are saying, there is this particular house available, we know approximately when we will be able to move in and we have at least an estimate of what the cost will be and we believe that we should start putting away the money to pay for the house now. What the opponents seem to be saying is, yes we know we will need a bigger house, but we don’t like this one, so instead of actively seeking out another house, evaluating the logistics of obtaining it and estimating what its costs will be, we are going to ask you just to trust us that a suitable house will be available as soon as it is needed and that it will prove less expensive than the current model.
To me, the first approach is reasonable and responsible. The second is a matter of closing ones eyes and passing off the payment for the agreed upon need to future generations. This is not what I consider to be responsible behavior.
And I still await a response that I have posed to those on the “no” side a number of times. You consider this project too expensive. Fine, what amount would be acceptable to you to pay for what you have agreed is necessary ?
Mike, both the rates and the [u]rate structure[/u] are independent of the project. The project only determines the cost. The decision whether to do the project or not do the project does not affect the rate structure.
The neither the rates nor the rate structure pay for the project. You can take the exact same rate structure with its specific rates, and if you plug in different consumption volumes you get very different revenue streams. Depending on the actual numbers you input, the revenues that are produced may, or may not cover the costs.
Don,
I do not advocate relying solely on ground water forever. I also don’t see the urgency of this particular project now. I don’t believe that the West Sac option, and better yet, a Davis-West Sac-Woodland option were given proper study and consideration. We have time. We should also study the deep water aquifer, like is being done in the Los Angeles area.
Woodland refused to allow Carrollo to even provide costs estimates for a three-city project. Woodland cannot afford to do the current project by themselves without much higher rates and another Prop. 218. If Woodland builds an 18 mgd plant by themselves, it will cost them around $50 more than they are currently paying. If we vote no, then all three cities have an incentive to work together to find a better, cheaper solution. West Sac doesn’t want to be blamed for defeating the project, so they are saying it’s not an option now, but that is a 180 degree turnaround from a few months ago. They have huge excess capacity now and the ability to expand that capacity in the future.
I am fearful that the proposed project will end up costing more than the current estimates, perhaps far more. Two of the three bidders have dropped out (and one has been coaxed back in for the time being) over concerns that the project will cost more than $245 million, among other concerns.
Why is the discussion only focused on the risks of not doing the project now? What about the risks associated with the project?
There is no doubt that conjunctive use is better than just ground water alone (and better than just surface water alone). We know that the costs are enormous. Are the benefits of moving ahead now greater than the costs? I’m not convinced that they are. The debate always ends up being cast as this project now or ground water forever. There are a multitude of other possibilities.
One hopes the rate structure once applied to the actual use does cover the costs for the project and services associated with it, but they are actually independent entities. Cost estimates for the project and services have been made on which the proposed rate structure is based, to hopefully recover those costs. And as long as people don’t conserve more than the 20something% accounted for in the estimates and/or the project cost estimates were not significantly too low, all should align.
H. Seldon, good points all around.
But does W Sac have enough water for Woodland too? I don’t think so without expansion, but not sure. Also ownership and control is usually a good thing.
As to cost only being able to go so low and then it hits a plateau, I guess it is
like the fact that even a small house has a minimum cost in the current market? But I asked Matt and here is
Matt’s answer to me:
There are three other factors that cause the costs not to go down . . . 1) the size of the water right, 2) the fact that the plant serves two communities, and 3) the fact that there is no deep aquifer under Woodland.
The size of the water right means the design of the intake facility and the raw water pipelines takes into consideration future events that may cause there to be more water uptake than is currently planned. The actual pumps that are in the intake facility structure are downsized to match the initial volumes, but the structure itself can hold a full complement of 45,000 acre feet of water flow.
The two community issue arises because the reduction from 12 mgd to 6 mgd isn’t really a 50% reduction, but rather a 20% reduction from 30 mgd to 24 mgd. The other aspect of the two community issue is that if either community decided to build a plant and pipelines all by themselves the costs would skyrocket.
The deep aquifer issue puts Woodland in a situation where they have no choice but to need (and use) 18 mgd. Our 12 mgd is really 25 mgd of available water when you add the surface water palnt and the deep aquifer wells together. Their addition is 18 mgd of surface water plus 0 mgd of well water.
I hope that helps.
Matt
[i]If we vote no, then all three cities have an incentive to work together to find a better, cheaper solution.[/i]
This has been the crux of Sue Greenwald’s argument. That, in effect, we can force the other cities around us to bend to our will.
That we didn’t really negotiate with West Sac (Sue made that point three times in the forum).
That the negotiators weren’t serious (apparently Brett Lee is ’emotionally invested’ in the surface water project). That UCD will somehow agree to modify the EIR about the deep aquifer.
That Woodland, which has clearly embarked on the surface project with or without us, will somehow come back to us to start the whole planning process over — even though they face regulatory deadlines in 2016.
At this point I’d be very surprised if Woodland will do business with Davis if the voters reject Measure I. We aren’t looking like very reliable partners. They are facing fines in the near term, and don’t have other options to pursue. They don’t have time to try and to a three-city project.
There are many problems with the West Sac option. Most immediate is that they have clearly said it isn’t an option any more. So the only incentive that will exist, should the voters reject Measure I, will be for them to sell us water at their price, on their terms, when it’s convenient for them.
As I noted on a previous thread, what makes this urgent is the capacity issues facing us in a very few years. The link you provided there, to the updated study, merely shows how we could achieve the capacity by running six wells 24/7, going full-tilt on the deep aquifer for an indeterminate period. That consultant didn’t make a recommendation. It would put us on very fragile footing with a high likelihood of harm to the deep aquifer, subsidence, and abrupt water shortages in the event of equipment failure or evidence of harm to the deep aquifer or interference with UCD wells. Note that one of those six deep wells has problems and can’t be relied on 24/7, even though the consultant showed it as part of the capacity.
H. Seldon
[quote]There are a multitude of other possibilities. [/quote]
If you believe this to be true, please state what you think this are….specifically, rather than just some generalized statement that West Sacramento and Woodland will be willing to renegotiate. A position that I see as highly speculative at best.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”There is no doubt that conjunctive use is better than just ground water alone (and better than just surface water alone). We know that the costs are enormous. Are the benefits of moving ahead now greater than the costs? I’m not convinced that they are. The debate always ends up being cast as this project now or ground water forever.[b] There are a multitude of other possibilities.[/b]”[/i]
Really good post H. Seldon. The excerpt I grabbed above really gets to the heart of the matter. What do you see as the other possibilities?
For me, here are some (but certainly not all) of them.
1) Since Woodland does not have a deep aquifer under its geography they are faced with the daunting prospect that the only alternative they have that will allow them to comply with their looming 2016 “Permit Cliff” is to come up with a water source for potable water that is different from their intermediate aquifer wells. Therefore, if Davis says no to Measure I, Woodland will have only two alternatives A) pay the $3,000 mandatory minimum fine for each wastewater discharge violation beginning in 2016. That will probably start at $9,000 to $12,000 per day, and escalate upward from there. or B) Proceed with an 18 mgd surface water plant. The only way that they can afford to do that is to scale back the size of the River Intake to 18 mgd, the raw water pipes to 18 mgd, the treatment plant to 18 mgd and the treated water pipes to 18 mgd.
2) After following Michael Harrington’s four point plan, Davis will decide if it needs any surface water, and if that analysis says it doesn’t, then we will abandon any plans for a conjunctive use system. Mike figures that the four step plan will take about three years, bringing us to 2016, the same year that the RWQCB “hammer” will come down on Woodland.
3) If the results of step 2) are that surface water is a desirable addition to the Davis water system, then we can turn to Woodland, but by 2016 they will have already built and come live on their scaled down 18 mgd intake, raw water pipeline, treatment plant solution. They simply won’t have any capacity other than the capacity they are using themselves.
4) Davis can build its own freestanding facility, including its own intake, raw water pipeline, treatment plant and treated water pipelines. For all the reasons you have cited in you post vis-a-vis Woodland, that would be a very expensive solution for Davis.
5) Davis can pay to have Woodland’s small intake, raw water pipeline and treatment plant solution expanded, but I can’t help but wonder how expensive expanding the concrete intake structure would be. How about digging up the too small raw water pipelines and replacing them or augmenting them to provide the combined Woodland and Davis flow capacity. Upgrading the the water treatment facility would be easier than the intake facility and the raw water pipelines, but in the end, I suspect that upgrading an 18 mgd Woodland system would be just as expensive as building a plant of our own.
6) If the Woodland upgrade and the Davis-only options are prohibitively expensive, that leaves us with the West Sac option. Do you think that West Sac will be eager to make a Davis-friendly deal if they know that both the Woodland upgrade option and the Davis-only option are prohibitively expensive?
So those are the six alternative scenarios that I see. Do you have others?
dlemongello said . . .
[i]”But does W Sac have enough water for Woodland too? I don’t think so without expansion, but not sure. Also ownership and control is usually a good thing.”[/i]
The simple answer to your question Donna is, “No, they do not.” Based on my meeting with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), where they pulled the West Sac permit documents, West Sac’s “water right development period is expired” So they have what they have and can not get more without initiating a whole additional permit application process.
Further, what West Sac has is remarkably similar to what the WDCWA has. They have a State of California-granted winter water right of 18,350 acre feet per year with no pumping allowed during either July or August. They have a Federal contract with the Central Valley Project for 5,000 acre feet of summer water that covers July and August. The SWRCB official pulled West Sac’s most recent water production report filings and they have a bit less than 16 mgd of “room” left in their combined water right/contract. If Davis used that 12 mgd, then West Sac would only have 4 mgd left for their own economic expansion plans. Needless to say 4 mgd would not cover Woodland’s 18 mgd requirement.
Matt, we have more proposals coming soon.
Meantime, everyone should vote this thing DOWN, and we will work with the City to come up with Plan C. Our Plan B is about a better public process.
The court case will fix the rate mess. It’s basically out of the hands of the politicians who screwed it up.
Meanwhile, we will work with the City on a better process that should produce a potable and irrigation water supply system plan that the community can get behind. When that plan is done, the rate system will be ready to go.
Michael Harrington: “The court case will fix the rate mess”
The lawsuit will take money from the tax payers and put it in Michael’s pocket. The only possible impact on our water rates will be to make them higher.
Matt,
Your list of alternatives is a good start, but there is a huge degree of speculation going on here (which is necessary since the details of any alternative plan have not been explored in any detail). When you say stuff like, “Based on my meeting with State Water Resources Control Board . . .” I wonder why this type of discussion was not part of the public process and public record? You are asking all of us to take your word for it. Just because you have talked with someone and made a conclusion based on that conversation doesn’t mean that everyone (or even most people) would come to the same conclusion.
Why did the Water Advisory Committee get the cost estimates from W. Sac and vote that night to dismiss it? Due diligence, in my opinion, required more analysis. W. Sac gave us a proposal in writing for permanent rights to 12 mgd of treated water that was $23 million less, at the very least, than the Woodland-Davis option. If the Woodland-Davis option will be more costly than expected (and we have indications that it very well could be based on the concerns of potential bidders), then W. Sac becomes even relatively less expensive. With W. Sac, there is also the opportunity to phase in our water purchases or to purchase less, saving an additional $1.6 million for each reduction in mgd.
Also, getting to one of Don’s points, water rights are not adjudicated and adjudication would take at least twenty years (according to Rob Beggs). Rob also said at the March 24 WAC meeting that any deep wells east of F street would not have much impact on UCD. Another solution to alleviate Don’s concern about capacity is to drill one more deep well east of F street (at a cost of $3 million) to serve as a bridge to surface water.
Proponents want to have it both ways. In some instances, they claim that all groundwater is part of the same system since they say there will inevitably be seepage from the intermediate to deep aquifer. In a legal sense, however, they argue that the deep aquifer is distinct from the intermediate one so that the City of Davis does not have rights to it.
UCD relies on the same aquifer as the City of Davis. Why is the City of Davis rushing forward with this project while UCD is not? Don, isn’t UCD being short-sighted and irresponsible? Why aren’t both entities (UCD and the City of Davis) equal partners (or near equal partners) in paying for this surface water project? If the residents of Davis move primarily to surface water, then this is a huge benefit to UCD since they will have the aquifer to themselves. This doesn’t seem fair to Davis ratepayers.
Re: Medwoman
If a person wants the SWP but objects the billing structure because he thinks that the billing structure is unfair and accountability is not established, what should that person do?
a) Vote YES despite leaving loopholes that may be exploited
b) Inform the designers to fix the loopholes. Once the loopholes are fixed vote YES. If they are not fixed, vote NO.
c) Vote NO because it is too late to fix the proposal for this round of the ballot. Inform the designers about the loopholes so that they may resubmit the proposal for another round of ballot.
[i]Don, isn’t UCD being short-sighted and irresponsible? Why aren’t both entities (UCD and the City of Davis) equal partners (or near equal partners) in paying for this surface water project? If the residents of Davis move primarily to surface water, then this is a huge benefit to UCD since they will have the aquifer to themselves. This doesn’t seem fair to Davis ratepayers[/i].
UCD is currently selling some water to the City of Davis. They are buying water from the Solano project for potable water on campus. They plan to purchase surface water from the City of Davis when the Woodland-Davis project comes on line. All of that is in their EIR. The concern is over-use of the deep aquifer, and their current problems with effluent. So they are augmenting their deep water with surface water, using the relatively saltier deep water mostly for irrigation.
They aren’t equal partners because they wouldn’t use anywhere near as much water as the City of Davis.
As to drilling another well east of F Street, that doesn’t mitigate the possible overuse of the deep aquifer, the possibility of contamination, the possibility of subsidence. You are far too sanguine about the major increase in use of the deep aquifer that we have already initiated, a five-fold increase in pumping by my estimate. And why on earth would we go to the major expense to drill yet another deep well when we can’t increase the total water pumped beyond what is in the EIR, and are going to go to surface water eventually anyway?
[i]they claim that all groundwater is part of the same system since they say there will inevitably be seepage from the intermediate to deep aquifer.[/i]
The aquifers are distinct. Actually, they are more like interconnected blobs of water in different sediments, separated by various other sediments. We know that the age of the water differs, and they have different constituents. But it is possible that water will move downward as we bore holes through the sediment layers. And if we overdraft the deep aquifer, saltier water can percolate upward. We simply don’t know how safe it is to pump as heavily as you want us to pump for as long as you want us to do it. I note that most of the experts testifying before the WAC simply don’t share your casual attitude about use of the deep wells.
[i]”UCD relies on the same aquifer as the City of Davis.”
[/i]
No. UCD relies on the deep aquifer, to which they have prior rights. The City of Davis primarily relied on the shallower (intermediate) aquifer, and has now begun tapping the deep aquifer. In order to do that, the City of Davis and the University developed an EIR which set an upper limit on the amount the City could pump. The reason for the upper limit, which was reduced by half from the original proposal, is concern about the impact of the city’s wells on UCD. There are monitoring procedures in place. Should any of the benchmarks indicate that the deeper water is being contaminated, or UCD wells are being adversely affected, various mitigation practices are implemented. One of those is to stop pumping from the City wells.
Hence the first possible instance of brownouts.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”Matt, Your list of alternatives is a good start, but there is a huge degree of speculation going on here (which is necessary since the details of any alternative plan have not been explored in any detail).”[/i]
Your response is interesting H. Seldon. You comment on the first pass list, but put forward no alternatives of your own. Why is that?
Do you have a plan for reducing the amount of speculation? Is it even possible to reduce the amount of speculation? Graham Fogg’s and jay Lund’s testimony before the WAC, and most recently in their respective Ask the Expert articles in the Enterprise appear to be saying (from their informed scientific perspective) that there is no way in our life time to eliminate the speculation. It appears that we are in a classic conundrum of Decision-Making under Uncertainty.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”When you say stuff like, “Based on my meeting with State Water Resources Control Board . . .” I wonder why this type of discussion was not part of the public process and public record? You are asking all of us to take your word for it. Just because you have talked with someone and made a conclusion based on that conversation doesn’t mean that everyone (or even most people) would come to the same conclusion.”[/i]
Throughout the WAC process I took it on myself to pursue the Joe Friday route and supplement the information that we were provided within the time constraints of the WAC meetings. I personally would have extended the scheduled time of each WAC by 90 minutes so that the meetings would have started at 6:30 and lasted until 10:00, but that would have resulted in howls of protest from quite a few WAC members, with Bill Kopper at the forefront of those howls. But of course I am a more is more kind of person. I went and met with Tom Howard and Phil Crader at the SWRCB at the suggestion of Sue Greenwald. Tom is Pam Gunnell’s husband. So if I were even tempted to misinterpret the very factual data that Tom and Phil provided during our meeting I would be a very foolish man. Tom and Phil came to the meeting very prepared because I clearly spelled out why I wanted the meeting and what I was looking for, first in an e-mail as follows, [i]”Tom, thank you for taking my call this morning and agreeing to meet with me to talk about the water situation Davis is currently wrestling with. I am an alternate on the Water Advisory Committee, but my discussion with you will be as a private citizen. I believe the situation of decision making in situations of risk and uncertainty comes with a strong mandate to do one’s homework. My desire is to get your expert and experienced opinion about certain aspects of risk and uncertainty with respect to the West Sacramento alternative Davis is considering for its source of Sacramento River water. By way of background I have copied and pasted several pertinent passages below that will give you a sense of my current level of knowledge. Given that as input, when is it convenient for the two of us to meet? Thank you for your consideration of this request.”[/i] and second in a telephone call when Tom called me to set up the meeting time.
So if you doubt my word, please feel free to contact Tom or Phil. They can confirm the factual information I provided. Further, I’m curious what “conclusion” you see me making in the information I provided. All I reported was the numerical and demographic data that Tom and Phil provided me. I leave any and all conclusions to those who read the data presented.
I reported what I learned first to Dianna Jensen, and together we agreed that I should prepare a written report for the WAC. Since my visit to the SWRCB was on my own initiative, any report on my findings was not on the official agenda. Under Roberts Rules of Order the contents of my report had to be provided in the context of an agendized portion of the WAC meeting, but that never happened because Bill Kopper crafted the 60-40 $6 million motion that was voted on and passed. Reading the tea leaves at that meeting, nothing that I discovered in my SWRCB meeting would have changed the trajectory that Bill put into motion.
I reported back to Sue how much I appreciated her pointing me in Tom’s direction. She shared with me her surprise about Bill’s motion, and we both agreed that the information I had gathered was moot as a result of the motion and vote.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”Why did the Water Advisory Committee get the cost estimates from W. Sac and vote that night to dismiss it? Due diligence, in my opinion, required more analysis. W. Sac gave us a proposal in writing for permanent rights to 12 mgd of treated water that was $23 million less, at the very least, than the Woodland-Davis option. If the Woodland-Davis option will be more costly than expected (and we have indications that it very well could be based on the concerns of potential bidders), then W. Sac becomes even relatively less expensive. With W. Sac, there is also the opportunity to phase in our water purchases or to purchase less, saving an additional $1.6 million for each reduction in mgd.”[/i]
The answer to your question is pretty straightforward. First, your $23 million did not include the $14.66 million of Local Costs that are needed to connect any surface water treated water pipelines into the existing Davis distribution system. So that brings your $23 million down to $9 million. Then West Sac did not accept the WAC’s connection fee reduction from $12 million down to $6 million, but rather came back with the $19.4 million amount for permanent customer status. That brings your $9 million down to $3 million. Finally, the WAC had tasked Rochelle and Dan to extract more money out of Woodland, the amount of which would have put the Woodland alternative on significantly better financial terms that West Sac’s latest offer. As a result Bill Kopper took the initiative and made the motion to approve the Woodland/Davis alternative as the preferred, under conditions, and that motion passed 8-2 with Helen Thompson and Jerry Adler dissenting. Bill, Mark and Michael Bartolic all voted in favor of that motion. Dan and Rochelle only extracted $3 million from Woodland, but that made the final WAC numbers as follows, and those numbers speak for themselves.
[b]Alternative 2c: 12 mgd Davis-Only West Sacramento Alternative[/b]
$___ 309,000 — Agency Administration
$___ 000,000 — Program Management
$_2,258,000 — Environmental and Permitting
$_1,506,000 — Land/RW Acquisitions
$____ 37,000 — Capital Contingency
$13,499,000 — Engineering, Legal and Administrative
____________ — Construction
$___417,000 — Intake (includes 30% contingency)
$__ 000,000 — Raw Water Pipeline
$14,053,000 — Water Treatment Plant (includes 30% contingency)
$43,790,000 — Davis Treated Water Pipeline (includes 35% contingency)
___________ — In-Line Booster Pump Station (includes 40% contingency)
$_3,476,000 — Costs Expended (Sept. 2009 – June 2011)
$14,656,000 — Local Facility Costs
[u]$19,400,000 — West Sacramento Connection Fee [/u]
$113,401,000 — Total
[b]DWWSP Option A, WAC Alternative 4b: 30 mgd DWWSP Project w/ozone; Woodland: 18 mgd, Davis: 12 mgd [/b]
$_1,710,000 — Agency Administration
$_1,650,000 — Program Management
$_2,850,000 — Pre-Design
$__ 380,000 — Water Supply
$__ 770,000 — Environmental & Permitting
$2,000,000 — Land/RW Acquisitions
$3,510,000 — Capital Contingency
$1,450,000 — Permit Fees & Construction Counsel
___________ — Construction
___________ — Design, CM, Eng. Services During Const., etc.4
$_5,760,000 — Intake Facility Construction
$10,470,000 — Raw Water Pipelines Construction
$42,860,000 — Regional Water Treatment Facility Construction
$22,240,000 — Davis Treated Water Pipeline Construction
$_3,476,000 — Costs Expended (Sept 2009 – June 2011)
[u]$14,655,000 — Local Facility Costs[/u]
$113,781,000 — Total
Note: the total amount of Risk Contingency in the West Sac total is $12,879,248. The total amount of Risk Contingency in the Woodland/Davis total is $16,525,333.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”No. UCD relies on the deep aquifer, to which they have prior rights. The City of Davis primarily relied on the shallower (intermediate) aquifer, and has now begun tapping the deep aquifer. In order to do that, the City of Davis and the University developed an EIR which set an upper limit on the amount the City could pump. The reason for the upper limit, which was reduced by half from the original proposal, is concern about the impact of the city’s wells on UCD. There are monitoring procedures in place. Should any of the benchmarks indicate that the deeper water is being contaminated, or UCD wells are being adversely affected, various mitigation practices are implemented. One of those is to stop pumping from the City wells. Hence the first possible instance of brownouts.”[/i]
Don, I disagree with what you have said on a couple of levels. First, the City of Davis clearly does rely on the deep aquifer in order to tune its groundwater system to the point where the selenium levels at the wastewater plant are not regularly in violation.
Second, the City of Davis and the University did not develop the EIR together. The City developed the EIR. The University asserted its senior position in the deep aquifer (on two different legal grounds, “overlying status vs. appropriative status”, and “first in”) the Water Act of 1918 provisions of Article X of the California Constitution and filed a formal CEQA protest of the EIR. rather than abandon the EIR entirely, the City cut the amount of deep aquifer water it was asking for in half, and as a result UCD chose to withdraw their CEQA protest. If UCD had not withdrawn their protest, the City’s only recourse would have been to battle UCD in Court.
The rest of your post is indeed accurate.
H. Seldon said . . .
[i]”Also, getting to one of Don’s points, water rights are not adjudicated and adjudication would take at least twenty years (according to Rob Beggs). Rob also said at the March 24 WAC meeting that any deep wells east of F street would not have much impact on UCD. Another solution to alleviate Don’s concern about capacity is to drill one more deep well east of F street (at a cost of $3 million) to serve as a bridge to surface water.” [/i]
You are right, water rights are not adjudicated, aquifers are adjudicated. I agree with your assessment of the timeline of adjudication. Twenty years sounds about right. I believe that any adjudication would involve Vacaville because they have a position in the aquifer as well.
I agree that the further away from the UCD campus you get the less interaction is likely, but regardless of the distance, under CEQA UCD’s position is senior to the City’s anywhere in the deep aquifer. As noted above, UCD’s position is senior to the City’s under the Water Act of 1918 provisions of Article X of the California Constitution. Those two different legal grounds are “overlying status vs. appropriative status” and “first in.”
Good discussion everyone!!!
Matt,
Where can I find the costs you reported above? The October 18 WAC meeting had a staff report which had the total costs of the W. Sac option of $90.94 million, which may or not not have included local project costs. It’s hard to tell. Regardless, adding 14.7 million in local project costs to roughly $91 million still adds up to $105 million and not $113 as you report above. Also, the $43.8 million for a pipeline to W. Sac vs. $22.4 million for a pipeline to Woodland is not believable since W. Sac is only a mile longer, at best. Also, why $13.5 million for Legal, Administrative, and Construction for W. Sac? Where is the equivalent for the Davis-Woodland Project?
Don, I thought UCD was using the Solano Project water for experimental agriculture and was not using it for drinking water or selling it to Davis. Isn’t that correct?
Good night guys.
H. Seldon, the final Wolk-Swanson agreement number of $113.7 million Davis share of the $245 million total have been provided in numerous City documents to both Council and the WAC. I have them in a spreadsheet. I would go to the appropriate City Council meeting packet and you will find them there. The $113.7 million is in nominal dollars.
The bulk of the final West Sac numbers come from the 10/18 data you have. The NPV total from the spreadsheet Bartle Wells provided that night, including the original $12.556 million Connection Fee is $83.109 million. Bring that back to nominal dollars and it rises to $91.901 million. Add the $14.66 million in Local Costs and the $6.8 million uptick in the Connection Fee and you get to $113.4 million.
The $43.8 million for the pipeline is pretty straightforward. The 4.46 mile pipeline from the intake to the plant cost just over $41 million in the 40 mgd plant scenario, but came down to $25.6 million in the 30 mgd scenario. The 8 mile pipeline from the plant to Davis costs just over $26 million. The cost per mile of the raw water pipeline is almost double the cost of the treated water pipeline. The reason is very straightforward. The treated water pipeline does not have to go through the Bypass habitat. The West Sac pipeline is 9 miles long and the amount of Yolo Bypass habitat it has to go through is 3.8 miles, while the Conaway pipeline only has to go through 1.6 miles of Yolo Bypass habitat. Bottom-line the $43.8 million construction cost estimate is probably low for the West Sac pipeline. It certainly isn’t high given the terrain it traverses.
The $13.5 million is also easy to understand. First, in the Woodland alternative the costs in that category are subdivided into $1.4 million for Administration (leaving $309,000 behind as already spent), $1.6 million in Program Management, $2.9 million in Predesign, and $1.4 million in Permit Fees & Construction Counsel. That totals to $7.3 million for WDCWA. The remaining $6.2 million contains $3.5 million in the WDCWA cost category labeled Costs Expended (Sept 2009 – June 2011). So the net difference between the two scenarios is $2.7 million, which is well within the parameters of risk contingency.
I hope that answers all your questions.
No, that is not correct.
[url]http://envplan.ucdavis.edu/projects/documents/waterproject/uc-davis-water-project-noi.pdf[/url]

Good discussion and comments this thread.
As a bit of an aside, under the plan for the surface water project, what are the plans for groundwater pumping?
I was thinking that when water use is peak (during summer) and Sacramento River flow (and presumably river water quality) are lowest (July-October); would that not be a good period to draw less water from the Sac River and pump more from Davis wells? Presumably, with any kind of surface water project; we will continue to pump some groundwater from Davis wells, but at a greatly reduced annual usage rate (? less than half of current annual usage rate?)
A major reason for my question above was; cannot we supplement surface water with groundwater during summer peak usage periods; to reduce the maximum capacity required for the surface water project?
jim, there is not enough surface water capacity at 12 mgd to cover all our summer needs. We absolutely will have to pump from the deep aquifer wells during summer peak periods. There is a superb analysis of the river water vs. well water proportions that was presented to the WAC at [url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-07-26-item4-attachment-surface-water-needs-wastewater.pdf[/url]. It is easy to understand and makes for a good read.
With that said, I do not expect that there will be any difference in the water quality of the water we get from the surface water plant in any month of the year. The treatment design and chemistry will handle any minor variations in the raw water supply coming from the river.
With that said
A thought that dawned on me last night about rates/218; won’t the new rates be adopted even if measure I goes down to defeat as long as there are not >50% protesting the 218. We do need to start saving some money for the future so to raise rates and start collecting a “downpayment” for whatever we do next makes sense. But people keep saying in the next 5 years, double without the project triple with it, why?
No Donna they will not. Under the provisions of Prop 218 there needs to be an underlying cost-of-service study that clearly delineates the costs that justify the rates. Bartle Wells created the cost-of-service study with the surface water project costs included together will all the costs of maintaining and operating the current system. Therefore the Bartle Wells cost-of-service study “as is” can not be used to justify the rates if Measure I is defeated.
Matt-thanks for the info. Looks like on an annual basis, over half the supply will likely come from surface water and less than half from groundwater. This seems prudent; to greatly reduce groundwater pumped volume/year to save our groundwater supplies for emergencies, such as exceptionally dry summers and/or multi-year drought periods, which are bound to happen.
Will be interesting to see what happens with both distribution and residential pipes when the surface water comes on line–wonder if the low-TDS surface water (?also different pH?) will tend to dissolve and break up old hard water deposits in the pipes. For the older pipes; maybe these hard-water mineral deposits are helping to form part of the seal on corroded pipes; and if the deposits dissolve/break up; maybe older pipes will start to leak!