By John R. Pike

I have attended two of the public hearings concerning the proposition made by the city of Davis Public Works Department to raise Davis’ water rates. Based upon the comments made by those attending and the responses received, there appears to be a significant gap in the information flow about what is really being proposed, and some of the responses to key questions raised appear to be evasive and somewhat defensive.

The overriding theme among attendees at these meetings has been the cost of this massive proposed infrastructure and the rate hikes that inevitably will ensue at a time when people are struggling financially and the country is at a very low ebb economically.

Put in perspective, of the estimated 20,000 homes, apartment units and offices in the city, each will face an average capital cost share of $,8,250. To what end? The proposed system will draw already polluted water from the Sacramento River, clean it up and distribute it to each customer as drinking quality standard to meet current regulations.

Why it needs to be at that standard is the key question. Why does one need to have drinking water quality to sprinkle a lawn, wash a car, clean dishes or irrigate land when just 2 to 3 percent of water consumed is for drinking? It simply does not make sense nor does it take account of modern technology that would enable every user to have a dedicated water supply that provides 99.9 percent pure drinking water at an average capital cost of $1,250, a $7,000 saving for each consumer compared with the present proposition.

An atmospheric water generators unit is capable of producing between 3 and 8 gallons of water per day depending on relative humidity. That volume should take care of most normal-sized families. Offices, industrial, commercial and institutional establishments could have larger commercial units installed to satisfy workers’ needs at some modest additional cost. They can be powered through a regular power point, solar, wind or other power alternative available. No piping or plumbing is required.

This particular issue is one the Davis Public Works Department does not wish to discuss, given the chance on a number of occasions. Atmospheric water generators provide the only long-term, sustainable solution to water supply and offer the greatest flexibility by installing further units in each home or place of business as the city population expands.

AWGs are far more advanced today, with sensing and recycling technologies that enable extracting air moisture at optimum times during the day when air moisture is at its peak and power consumption is minimal. All water originates from air moisture, whether from ground sources, rivers, lakes or elsewhere. The key is to harvest it before it hits the ground and suffers all forms of pollution that is very costly to clean up and adds to the infrastructure bill.

What remaining impurities exist in air moisture are quickly removed through carbon filtration and two ultraviolet processes that will kill off any bacteria. With advanced recycling technology, an AWG dispenser will maintain the water captured in a pristine state of freshness and serve hot or cold.

Other advantages of this system are that no salts or solids are generated that feed back into the public water system, as is the case with reverse osmosis. Moreover, for all those people who buy bottled water and have the task of carrying heavy caseloads or flagons of water to and fro plus the inconvenience of recycling residual plastic waste, this system eliminates that altogether and at a fraction of the cost per gallon compared to bottled water.

There is much to be said for a more technically advanced system that overcomes the decision made many years ago not to have a dual purpose distribution system that kept drinking water supplies separate from other general uses. Another important aspect of such systems aside from flexibility is very low maintenance cost, with one filter change per year that takes minutes to accomplish.

By all means, a budget is needed to upgrade the water treatment plant, but at what cost when microbiological application is inexpensive and perfectly able to clean up solid waste to a standard that is commonly accepted? Thus, what does the proposed $100 million for the water treatment plant really provide when all that is really needed are areas of lagoons or ponds that are fed with microbes that will naturally do the cleanup job?

That aside, the world will face increasing problems associated with water shortages over the next decade, with an estimated 3 billion people seriously affected by the year 2025. Much greater effort needs to be applied to get all users to conserve available water supplies to reduce demand and waste.

Given the proposed timetable of the city to ratify the present proposal on Sept. 6, there is little time to waste if this proposition is to be defeated. It will require 50 percent plus one water bill payers to veto the proposition and protests must be registered in the required format before Sept. 6, or face the consequences of the present proposition.

— John R. Pike is a Davis resident.

Comments

comments