85 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

I'll be upfront and admit I don't understand the aerojet water deal - what does aerojet need 30% of our water for?

The aerojet water deal is very confusing. I'll share my limited understanding.

Years ago before most of us were around the City of Folosm was having budget problems, so they sold some of their water to Aerojet. At the time Folsom was a very small town without any plans to grow and probably had 6 times as much water as they needed, so it was a wise choice to raise money.

This water was to be used by Aerojet for manufacturing purposes. We as a city didn't have to provide treated water and could have sent them reclaimed water since they were using it for manufacturing.

About 2 years ago, the city renegotiated this deal with aerojet whereby we got 2900 AF of the 5500 AF we were contractually obligated to provide them until the year 2036 returned to us NOW, in exchange for giving them 2600 Af ( of treated water from our 1914 water rights) for enternity. We also got the rights to some "GETT" water that aerojet is pumping, provided they and the county ( or some other agency) reached their agreement to allow us to have access to this water.

Do the math.... We would have gotten all of our 5500 AF of water back without any conditions after 2036, Instead we lost 2600 AF FOREVER. We could have provided them with non potable water until 2036, now we have to treat 2600 AF for Aerojet.

Some will try and confuse the citizens by attempting to add in the GETT water, but its my understanding the other agencies haven't reached an agreement yet to allow that to happen, so its not ours. More importantly there isn't infrastructure in place to bring the GETT water from Aerojet to the city.

As more citizens look at this deal, more questions are being asked. There wasn't any compelling reason for Folsom to make this deal. Yes we do get some water back now, but we could have found another short term source if we were running low.

This deal probably won't affect you & I but it gives away our childrens water and their childrens water forever.

This was a terrible deal! I can only speculate as to why this deal was made and I'm thinking it was to provide a permanent treated water source for Aerojets housing development and then they would be annexed into the City.

[petro]

I think that the aerojet water is their treated ground water which has high levels of perchlorate, which no one has set a safe standard for.

[Darthvader]

The aerojet water deal is very confusing. I'll share my limited understanding.

Years ago before most of us were around the City of Folosm was having budget problems, so they sold some of their water to Aerojet. At the time Folsom was a very small town without any plans to grow and probably had 6 times as much water as they needed, so it was a wise choice to raise money.

This water was to be used by Aerojet for manufacturing purposes. We as a city didn't have to provide treated water and could have sent them reclaimed water since they were using it for manufacturing.

About 2 years ago, the city renegotiated this deal with aerojet whereby we got 2900 AF of the 5500 AF we were contractually obligated to provide them until the year 2036 returned to us NOW, in exchange for giving them 2600 Af ( of treated water from our 1914 water rights) for enternity. We also got the rights to some "GETT" water that aerojet is pumping, provided they and the county ( or some other agency) reached their agreement to allow us to have access to this water.

Do the math.... We would have gotten all of our 5500 AF of water back without any conditions after 2036, Instead we lost 2600 AF FOREVER. We could have provided them with non potable water until 2036, now we have to treat 2600 AF for Aerojet.

Some will try and confuse the citizens by attempting to add in the GETT water, but its my understanding the other agencies haven't reached an agreement yet to allow that to happen, so its not ours. More importantly there isn't infrastructure in place to bring the GETT water from Aerojet to the city.

As more citizens look at this deal, more questions are being asked. There wasn't any compelling reason for Folsom to make this deal. Yes we do get some water back now, but we could have found another short term source if we were running low.

This deal probably won't affect you & I but it gives away our childrens water and their childrens water forever.

This was a terrible deal! I can only speculate as to why this deal was made and I'm thinking it was to provide a permanent treated water source for Aerojets housing development and then they would be annexed into the City.

You are correct here. The Steele Partners (or Pirates as Aerojet employees know them as) who own the Board of Directors have no interest in Aerospace or defense. They are slowly chipping away at the union there and could care less if F-22 goes away or several other contracts they have, such as EKV and THAAD. The "president" of Aerojet is a puppet and recently they have stopped 401k matches, etc. Somehow they did manage to dish out 1.3 million in bonuses for a job well done after ~100 people were laid off a few months back. They want the employee base to get pissed off and leave. It will happen soon enough.

Then they can build their high-density housing over buried barrels of toxic chemicals....nice.

[Robert Giacometti]

You are correct here. The Steele Partners (or Pirates as Aerojet employees know them as) who own the Board of Directors have no interest in Aerospace or defense. They are slowly chipping away at the union there and could care less if F-22 goes away or several other contracts they have, such as EKV and THAAD. The "president" of Aerojet is a puppet and recently they have stopped 401k matches, etc. Somehow they did manage to dish out 1.3 million in bonuses for a job well done after ~100 people were laid off a few months back. They want the employee base to get pissed off and leave. It will happen soon enough.

Then they can build their high-density housing over buried barrels of toxic chemicals....nice.

With a Folsom zip code, these high-density units will have an even higher value and make even more money. Of course that means the City of Folsom will have to annex a toxic dump into its city. Great legacy to leave for our children.

I hope people wake up before its too late.

[ducky]

With a Folsom zip code, these high-density units will have an even higher value and make even more money. Of course that means the City of Folsom will have to annex a toxic dump into its city. Great legacy to leave for our children.

I hope people wake up before its too late.

I always thought Aerojet was considered a 95670 zip code and was in Rancho Cordova. Why would Folsom annex it?

[Robert Giacometti]

I always thought Aerojet was considered a 95670 zip code and was in Rancho Cordova. Why would Folsom annex it?

These homes that they are planning on building are located in the county NOT Rancho Cordova. I suspect Folsom will annex the land arguing it gives us control over the car dealership's expansion across Folsom Blvd. ( if the economy picks up).

Aerojet would love to have the 95630 zip code on these properties before selling as it would create more value.

[eVader]

These homes that they are planning on building are located in the county NOT Rancho Cordova. I suspect Folsom will annex the land arguing it gives us control over the car dealership's expansion across Folsom Blvd. ( if the economy picks up).

Aerojet would love to have the 95630 zip code on these properties before selling as it would create more value.

So the city council (minus 1) doesn't want a bridge named after a country western singer with a very famous song about the Folsom (excuse me, Represa) Prison but is OK with housing development built over toxic waste being "Folsom"?

Rhetorical question...

[melloguy]

Thank you for providing the link. Admittedly, I haven't looked through all 160 pages, but I couldn't find the figure you cited. Do you have the page number handy?

Also, it's not just Kikkoman. In addition they list the large water users as Gekkeikan, Aerojet, and Intel. Also, there is a table for what they call unaccounted for water I'm just wondering what the real number would be if you took all that out along with parks, schools, medians and had just a purely household usage number.

The number is in the executive summary, not sure the exact page.

As for removing all Folsom's businesses from our average water use, you'd have to do the same for other localities if you wanted an apples-to-apples comparison.

For those with water meters who are billed a metered rate, you can get an estimate of your "winter" per capita usage rate by a simple calculation from your current bill. Not a good estimation because on average summer use is much higher. Not sure what the volume measurement they use on the bills is, but I can convert to ac-ft/year if someone posts their usage.

[ducky]

The number is in the executive summary, not sure the exact page.

As for removing all Folsom's businesses from our average water use, you'd have to do the same for other localities if you wanted an apples-to-apples comparison.

For those with water meters who are billed a metered rate, you can get an estimate of your "winter" per capita usage rate by a simple calculation from your current bill. Not a good estimation because on average summer use is much higher. Not sure what the volume measurement they use on the bills is, but I can convert to ac-ft/year if someone posts their usage.

So does Davis have comparable big water users and about the same percentage of unaccounted for water as Folsom so that it is an apples-to-apples comparison? Am I at least right that if you use that 0.5 acre foot per person per year figure and our population that it would add up to more than the acre feet Folsom is allotted per our water rights?

I don't have a meter yet, but it will be interesting to find out what our usage is.

Thanks, melloguy for your patience.

[melloguy]

So does Davis have comparable big water users and about the same percentage of unaccounted for water as Folsom so that it is an apples-to-apples comparison? Am I at least right that if you use that 0.5 acre foot per person per year figure and our population that it would add up to more than the acre feet Folsom is allotted per our water rights?

Not sure about Davis or other municipalities in the area, but I do know that large areas of irrigated land (lawns or crops) typically consume much more water than densely developed areas. A person irrigating properly should put about 5 feet of water on their lawns each year (fescue, bermuda less). For each 1,000 square feet of lawn (500 front, 500 back), this equals 0.11 acre-feet/year. However, most of us overwater. That number will explode with runoff.

As for our water rights, the same report I cited before states we have 34,000 and are using 22-23,000. Ashland area (north of river) has a separate water right that is "wheeled" through San Juan and not included in population. Could not confirm whether prison has a separate right, but its population is also not included.

[cw68]

I spent yesterday in San Francisco attending PG&E's Water Conservation Showcase. I spent hours in sessions and looked at all the exhibits too. A most interesting day.

Two factiods I've been chewing over: the Chevron plant is switching to reclaimed water, which is good because they go through 8 million gallons everyday to cool their towers. They've been using potable water for that. Every day in the US 6.8 million gallons gets flushed down toilets. Most of that water is potable.

There are so many things we can do to lower our water consumption. A lot of it requires consumer education though. For instance, when I mentioned low-flow toilets a while back, Camay immediately responded that you had to flush them multiple times. It's a myth that simply isn't true anymore. In 1992 when 1.8 gallon toilets were mandated, the technology wasn't up to par. Now it is. Now a HET (high-efficiency toilet) works better with 1.6 gallons than the old 5 gallon toilets do.

In food service, old pre-wash rinse sprayers use up to 2.2 gallons per minute and they are often ran for hours a day. Federal standards now require 1.6 gallons per minute (used two-hours a day they save 120 gallons), but new technology sprayers that spray less than .6 gallons per minute pass the "cleanability" tests IF they are used correctly. (They put out an arc of water like a pressure washer.) Think about how many restaurants are out there. This is a simple, cheap upgrade (est. cost $100 installed), not like dumping $25k into a new conveyor dishwasher. There are over 61 thousand eating establishments in California. Do the math. We have a lot of potential ways to save lots of water.

[Robert Giacometti]

Every day in the US 6.8 million gallons gets flushed down toilets. Most of that water is potable.

Potable water? We call it Old Milwaukee.

[cw68]

Potable water? We call it Old Milwaukee.

Ha!

[ducky]

Not sure about Davis or other municipalities in the area, but I do know that large areas of irrigated land (lawns or crops) typically consume much more water than densely developed areas. A person irrigating properly should put about 5 feet of water on their lawns each year (fescue, bermuda less). For each 1,000 square feet of lawn (500 front, 500 back), this equals 0.11 acre-feet/year. However, most of us overwater. That number will explode with runoff.

As for our water rights, the same report I cited before states we have 34,000 and are using 22-23,000. Ashland area (north of river) has a separate water right that is "wheeled" through San Juan and not included in population. Could not confirm whether prison has a separate right, but its population is also not included.

Thank, melloguy. So I guess to find the population they used you would take 23,000 and divide by 0.5, which means they used a population of 46,000? Our current population even minus 7,500 for the prison would be approximately 62,000 (or possibly more). Do that many people live in the Ashland area?

You don't have to keep answering me, melloguy. I'm just rambling. I guess I should leave it alone because when we're metered we will look really good on paper if those figures aren't right.

[Robert Giacometti]

I spent yesterday in San Francisco attending PG&E's Water Conservation Showcase. I spent hours in sessions and looked at all the exhibits too. A most interesting day.

Two factiods I've been chewing over: the Chevron plant is switching to reclaimed water, which is good because they go through 8 million gallons everyday to cool their towers. They've been using potable water for that. Every day in the US 6.8 million gallons gets flushed down toilets. Most of that water is potable.

There are so many things we can do to lower our water consumption. A lot of it requires consumer education though. For instance, when I mentioned low-flow toilets a while back, Camay immediately responded that you had to flush them multiple times. It's a myth that simply isn't true anymore. In 1992 when 1.8 gallon toilets were mandated, the technology wasn't up to par. Now it is. Now a HET (high-efficiency toilet) works better with 1.6 gallons than the old 5 gallon toilets do.

In food service, old pre-wash rinse sprayers use up to 2.2 gallons per minute and they are often ran for hours a day. Federal standards now require 1.6 gallons per minute (used two-hours a day they save 120 gallons), but new technology sprayers that spray less than .6 gallons per minute pass the "cleanability" tests IF they are used correctly. (They put out an arc of water like a pressure washer.) Think about how many restaurants are out there. This is a simple, cheap upgrade (est. cost $100 installed), not like dumping $25k into a new conveyor dishwasher. There are over 61 thousand eating establishments in California. Do the math. We have a lot of potential ways to save lots of water.

I heard an interesting piece of tidbit regarding the City of Folsom and wasted water.

I was told that a few years ago the city hired a consultant to do a study on the efficiency of the water delivery system, i.e. how much water is lost during delivery. I was told that the report indicated that Folsom was loosing nearly 20% of its water through its delivery system. It was explained to me that the an acceptable number should be below 4% for agencies.

I was told this report wasn't broadcast and in fact was sorta kept quiet. I don't know if the council was informed about this. It was said that there hasn't been much activity directed towards reducing this number.

Since I don't seem to have ANY luck at getting RFP's or Consultant reports from the city, maybe with your passion and tenacity, you could get a copy of the report and confirm if what I was told is accurate. At a minimum it would provide you with more knowledge and insight, so it wouldn't be a total wild goose chase.

I'll try and get some more Info for you, but if I ask too many questions people get nervous.