It’s official: Davis residents will not vote on the surface water project this fall.

The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to delay a citywide vote until the expected date of March 5. That special election date could change.

However, the postponement of the vote will not grant the Water Advisory Committee more time to advise the city on what project it should pursue to bring surface water to Davis.

The council still needs the WAC to make a decision on the surface water project by Aug. 21, the same deadline the committee was given to place a measure on the November ballot, so it can tell Woodland whether Davis plans to continue with the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency project.

Woodland faces deadlines to meet water regulatory standards sooner than Davis does, meaning it can’t wait any longer to start on the project. City Manager Steve Pinkerton has said Woodland is prepared to pursue the project alone if Davis isn’t on board.

But if the water committee can complete its work by the August deadline, the Davis City Council can tell Woodland that the city either will continue on with the joint powers authority partnership — at least until the public vote in the spring — or that it plans to pursue a partnership with West Sacramento instead.

“The Davis City Council, by our Aug. 21st (deadline), would like the WAC to advise us on the Woodland option or the West Sacramento option, or to tell us to keep our options open,” Mayor Joe Krovoza told committee chair Elaine Roberts-Musser.

The Woodland option refers to the joint Woodland-Davis project, in the works for several years, that would siphon water from the Sacramento River, treat and pipe it into both Davis and Woodland. The West Sacramento option would have Davis utilize the city’s existing intake facility in an undetermined capacity.

Woodland has asked Davis to pay its share of filling of the regional water treatment facility site — a part of the overall joint project — as Woodland must complete the site-fill by late next year to stay on schedule with the project. The process must begin this fall, Pinkerton explained.

The site-fill would cost Davis approximately $500,000. But the council voted unanimously to defer that payment until it gets the WAC’s recommendations.

However, council members are concerned that the committee may not be able to meet the deadline. The water committee has four meetings scheduled between Tuesday and Aug. 21.

“I am nervous that one month is enough time to get to the end of this decision and get it right,” Krovoza said. “I hope I am wrong. I want a decision. I want the community and the council to move forward, but I don’t want to rush the WAC. I would rather buy a little time and make sure we get it right.”

Councilwoman Rochelle Swanson said she agreed with the motion to defer the payment only because she believes the committee will get a decision made.

“My support of this motion is based upon that (Aug. 21 decision),” Swanson said. “It’s not about agreeing to look at the site-fill, but it is about deferring it until we know what the project description is because I know the WAC was very concerned, and I share that concern, about just agreeing to an open-ended dollar amount.”

Council member Lucas Frerichs reiterated that sentiment.

“It’s really imperative that the WAC meets as many times as it takes, frankly, between now and Aug. 21, particularly if we’re going with a motion like this,” Frerichs said. “It’s really imperative that they do the work that’s needed to get us the final outcome by Aug. 21.”

Council member Brett Lee also worries about the tight schedule.

“I do think there are some experts that would need to be called by the WAC, which may or may not be available in time for them to make a definitive decision on which project to recommend by the 21st,” Lee said.

But he explained that even if the WAC recommends keeping both options open, the council will be able to make a decision on the site-fill at that time.

“If, in fact, the WAC is not able to reach consensus or they are not able to get the experts that they need, because they will need a regulatory expert and a legal expert to help them determine the transferability of the water rights, there is a (third) answer, and that answer essentially puts us where we are today, which is we’re not really sure if we’re going to West Sac or Woodland,” Lee said.

Tom Sakash

Tom Sakash covers the city beat for The Davis Enterprise. Reach him at [email protected], (530) 747-8057 or @TomSakash.

View all my stories Email Me | Follow Me on Twitter