3 comments:

• roy bitz posted at 12:44 pm on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

  Posts: 480

  The contract is for six thousand acre feet a year --- still a drop in the bucket compared to the over draft problem--- this project does next to nothing as far as solving the over draft problem but it sucks up a lot of rate payer money and always will.
  

  • Link

   

• Jackson Scott posted at 11:48 am on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

  Posts: 368

  Maggie, perhaps you or Wally can help me, I'm confused with this story. This new plant can process 10M gallons a day? Or 10M per year?

  One acre foot of water = 325,851 gallons. Lodi purchased six acre feet per year so that is only 1,955.106 gallons. Again, only 1.96M gallons per year. Granted, we've banked almost ten years of water so we would want a plant than can process more than we've purchased per year, but something in this story does not add up to me.

  If this plant could process 10M gallons per day X 365 days = 3.65 Billion gallons a year. NO chance this could be correct. Of course,this could be another "Fleecing of America."

  • Link

   

• roy bitz posted at 10:22 am on Wed, Apr 25, 2012.

  Posts: 480

  Let's be honest!
  The plant alone may only cost rate payers 36 million but total cost of this forty year project is closer to 200 million dollars.
  We were told this plant was needed because our ground water is being over drafted. True. However, the water contract is for 6,000 afa while the over draft is 200,000.
  This project amounts to just 3% of the over draft--- a drop in the bucket-- at great and ongoing cost to rate payers.

  • Link