Comments on: This cause is becoming sickening

By: Rich Rifkin

Rich Rifkin — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:54:34 +0000

“Oregon investigators have traced an outbreak of norovirus to a reusable grocery bag … ” The noro- in norovirus comes from Nor(walk), O(hio). It was so named after a 1968 outbreak of food poisoning at an elementary school in that town, 50 miles west of Cleveland. … And more FWIW, Norwalk, Ohio is named for Norwalk, Connecticut, because the government of Connecticut, which once owned the Ohio Territory (its “Western Reserve”), resettled residents of Norwalk, CT to “the Firelands” of Ohio after the British burned Norwalk and other Connecticut towns in the Revolutionary War.

By: Donald Shor

Donald Shor — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:47:18 +0000

Dear Joe,
The original project has been substantially scaled back, and the West Sac project is still being explored. I don’t know what else he wants. Doing nothing is not an option, and there aren’t any other sources of water. The WAC has been working hard and reviewing all options for size and cost of the water project, and it’s getting down to the wire. I’d urge you, Joe, and your readers to get informed by reviewing the WAC minutes and videos on the city’s web site.

By: Matt Williams

Matt Williams — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:19:39 +0000

I’m glad you posted Joe’s comment Bob, because it illuminates a trap we as voters/citizens can fall into just as easily as Council can . . . specifically that we frequently focus on the people (and their evolution over time) much more than we focus on how the issues are evolving. . . . . . . . . . With respect to the optimal sizing of the plant, when Dianna Jensen posted her graphic from Page 8 of the Demand Capacity Analysis http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-07-26-item4-staffreport-demand-capacity.pdf she presented to the WAC, I felt a strong desire to drill down into the numbers that fed that graphic, and created an excel model to see how “robust” her scenario was. Bottom-line, I firmly believe that the 12 mgd plant scenario does as good a job of balancing the many competing factors as is possible. For me those factors are::::::::::::::::::::
— Affordability (downward size pressure)
— Desire not to build capacity that will never be used (downward size pressure)
— Realistic population growth projections (downward size pressure)
— Realistic continued water conservation attainment (downward size pressure)
— UCD’s planned enrollment growth (upward size pressure)
— Water availability preparedness for new jobs coming to Davis (upward size pressure)
— Elimination of the need for and cost of water softeners in Davis (upward size pressure)
— Elimination of the need for and cost of bottled water in Davis (upward pressure)
— Source water effects on wastewater discharge electro-conductivity (upward pressure) see WAC documentation at http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-07-26-item4-attachment-surface-water-needs-wastewater.pdf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The fact that there are just as many arguments/concerns currently being expressed that 12 mgd is too low as there are that 12 mgd is still too high, tells me that 12 mgd may be the Goldilocks solution. My excel model tells me much the same thing . . . . . . .

So if 12 mgd is the right size, regardless of whether it comes from West Sac or Woodland, then our focus needs to be on making sure the cost for those 12 mgd is the best possible. The Council last night gave us every appearance that their focus is very much in the right place.