Should Veolia’s Ties to the Palestinian Controversy Disqualify Them From Building the Woodland-Davis Water Supply Project?
Back in early June, the Clean Water Agency announced that, in an RFQ (Request for Qualifications) process, “three firms have been identified as the most highly qualified to receive the project RFP [Request for Proposal].”
Almost from the start there was controversy. Three Davis residents, Mikos Fabersunne, Mary Wind and Mike Pach, spoke and argued that they “wanted to ensure that companies with whom the City of Davis and the Agency do business with, have corporate codes of ethics that serve as a guide for socially responsible behavior as corporate citizens and follow such codes in their conduct of business.”
The minutes continue: “They read and submitted a statement that was critical of Veolia Environment, which is the parent company of proposer Veolia Water North America.”
In a letter to the Directors of the JPA dated July 18, Mr. Fabersunne, et al, argued, “Contracting with firms that are actively complicit in human rights violations or environmental damage, would dishonor the City of Davis and violate the ethical principles encompassed by the nine statements of Function and Purpose of the Davis Human Relations Commission (DHRC)…”
The opposition to Veolia stems from support for a bus line operation. They claim the company is operating buses “solely for Jewish passengers traveling on Jewish-only roads” that travel into the Occupied West Bank of Palestine.
They write, “As you are probably aware, settlements constructed for citizens of an occupying nation-Israel in this case- and built on occupied land (the West Bank) are illegal under international law, in violation of the 4th Geneva Conventions and the advisory opinion of the International Criminal Court.”
“Given the complicity of Veolia in Israel’s violation of international law, and, therefore, Veolia’s violation of its own code of conduct, as well as its violation of the non-discrimination principles established by the Human Relations Commission, we request that the Board of the Clean Water Agency disqualify Veolia from participating further in the bidding, design and construction process,” they continue.
The issue apparently was raised at the time of the meeting (though the letter is over a month later). The minutes reflect, “Director Dote asked if Eric Mische could get an answer to the question of whether Veolia Water actually owns the transportation system or if they are just operating the system for the government in Israel, as mentioned earlier in public comment.”
The minutes do not reflect an answer on this matter.
A letter dated June 16 to Jim Yost from James Good, President of Veolia Water North American Operating Services, responds that the statement regarding Veolia’s operation of Jewish-only bus lines is “without merit. Veolia Transport operates the 109 and 110 bus lines without any discrimination between the Israeli and Palestinian populations.”
He adds, “Road 443 serves both Israeli and Palestinian vehicles and is open for free use and movement to all.”
He further responds, “Veolia made it clear from the beginning that participation in the operation of this light rail system was conditional upon all parties observing a non-discriminatory policy, as well as compliance with international law.”
To illustrate how far behind on such issues the local Davis media are, the issue made a blog on August 24 entitled, “Veolia keeps silent about two bus services to illegal settlements,” and the author was Adri Nieuwhof.
Among other things, Adri Nieuwhof argued that the claim “that Route 443, which is used by the two bus lines, ‘serves both the Israeli and Palestinian populations’ is false.”
Nieuwhof sites “Israeli human rights organization B’tselem writes about Road 443 on its website,” which claims, “[T]he army continues to improperly discriminate against Palestinians, whose use of the road is greatly limited, while Israelis are permitted to travel along it freely.”
Moreover, Kairos Palestine coordinator also commented on the non-discrimination claims and wrote, “Palestinians live under apartheid in the most technical definition of the word. It is impossible to ‘avoid’ discrimination when the entire occupation is predicated on it. Using the language of ‘discrimination’ whitewashes the reality of occupation itself, which is a matter of colonialism, not simply prejudice. In any case, the state of Israel systematically discriminates against Palestinians; a company cannot distinguish itself from the rules and workings of the state.”
Nieuwhof further reports, “Veolia tries to throw dust in the eyes of Davis City by stating that the company ‘does not operate other bus services in the West Bank.’ ” In fact, “Who Profits found that Veolia operates two other bus services to settlements in the West Bank. Bus service 7 runs from Modi’in to the settlements of Hashmonaim and Kfar Ha’oranim.”
Whichever side you fall on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, the involvement of Veolia in such a polarizing issue is troubling, as is their apparent lack of forthrightness as to their true level of involvement.
To make these matters more complicated, according to Lynanne Mehlhaff of the Clean Water Agency, while CDM, CH2MHill and Veolia are the lead firms, “Each of the three teams is comprised of at least two large firms that specialize in various aspects of the design, build and/or operation processes.”
United Water is part of the CDM team.
An August 18 letter from UWUA Info (who are apparently the Utility Workers Union of America) brings attention to a 26-count federal indictment issued last December against United Water and two of its managers for alleged environmental felonies at a wastewater treatment plant in Gary, Indiana.
According to the letter, which was widely received, “The company and the two managers have pleaded not guilty in the case, and United Water asserts that the charges are ‘unfounded.’ “
“We are also writing to advise you about internal company emails recently released by prosecutors showing that certain other United Water managers were aware of evidence of improper E. coli sampling practices at the Gary plant as early as 2003. Even so, prosecutors allege that United Water management in Gary continued those practices until 2008, when federal agents executed a search warrant at the facility,” they write.
According to a December 8 federal grand jury indictment, “United Water and two of its managers at the Gary plant intentionally manipulated water quality monitoring results at the facility over a five year period between 2003 and 2008. The indictment charges the company with 25 counts of Clean Water Act violations and one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government by tampering with E. coli bacteria monitoring results.”
According to the letter, “The indictment alleges that United Water engaged in a scheme to routinely reduce chlorine levels used to keep E. coli concentrations in wastewater discharged from the plant within federal limits. According to the indictment, the company temporarily increased chlorine levels shortly before taking daily monitoring samples, and then reduced the levels after taking the samples. Prosecutors allege United Water did this to cut its chlorine chemical costs.”
The Gary Sanitary District terminated its contract with United Water earlier in 2010, stating the City would save money by operating the plant itself.
United Water responded to the letter, with President Robert Iacullo stating that “the government’s claim is, at best, a disagreement about operating and monitoring methods, with no allegation of environmental harm.”
The UWUA letter indicates, “In our view, this effort to discount the seriousness of the allegations contained in the indictment is deeply disturbing. United Water stands accused by federal prosecutors of having intentionally tampered with E. coli monitoring tests at the Gary plant over a five year period in order to boost its profits. If convicted, the two indicted managers could face decades in prison, and the company subjected to a significant fine, probation, or both.”
They add, “We believe that, if true, these allegations represent far more than a mere ‘disagreement’ about ‘operating and monitoring methods,’ as claimed by the company.”
A June 2003 email was released by federal prosecutors in which one manager wrote, “In my opinion, this procedure is a recipe for disaster – ethical issue – best effluent all of the time. If IDEM [the Indiana Department of Environmental Management] or EPA [the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] takes a grab sample outside the higher hypochlorite feed time you would definitely have a problem!”
Two days later, the United Water manager receiving that email wrote to the company’s project manager in Gary: “I have heard that there is a proposed modification on dosage during testing. This is contrary to the ‘rules of the game’ and should not be modified for short durations. Call me if you have questions.”
In August 2003, a United Water supervisor wrote to the Gary project manager under instructions from United Water manager Tom Brown: “Tom Brown had asked me to investigate the e-coli exceedence that was observed in Gary last week. . . . Best management practices would dictate that a dosage be established and allowed to remain in effect throughout the day. This data would indicate that the chlorine is adjusted higher somewhere around 8:00 am when the e-coli sample is taken and adjusted back down after the compliance sample is taken. Can you explain why the residual chlorine varies so much in the contact tank on a daily basis?”
The supervisor forwarded this email to Brown, who then wrote to the Gary manager: “This is very disturbing. I want a complete explanation why these chlorine residuals spike every day.”
In our view, Veolia’s practices in the occupied territories in Israel and CDM’s involvement with United Water make both unsuitable for Davis, as a progressive and environmentally-conscious community.
That leaves just one company, who at this time appears not to have controversy surrounding it. That leaves us without a competitive bid process. It would seem that a new RFQ should be sent out.
This matter came before the Davis Human Relations Commission back in July, my first meeting as an alternate member, and the HRC recommended the City of Davis look into its ethical policies regarding the companies who bid on various projects that come before the city.
At the time, the minutes from June reflect: “Vice-Chair Souza asked about RFP language regarding consideration of business ethics. Richard Shanahan, Agency Counsel, said he would check with attorney Eric Peterson who is part of the Facilities Procurement Committee for the RFP process.”
Furthermore, “Director Dote stated she supported putting in language in the RFP on considerations of business ethics. She also would like to see this project benefit the local labor pool and that language be included in the RFP regarding employment of local labor.”
There was a provision passed at the behest of Mayor Krovoza, that “once the RFP is released and if one of the three short-listed bidders drops out, could the fourth ranked firm be allowed to step in. Staff responded that they could invite the fourth ranked team, Balfour Beatty, to submit an RFP if they wish after a team drops out.”
However, given the records of two of these companies, perhaps the RFQ process should begin again.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Having ANY private water company run our water system, even for just the first few years, leaves me uneasy. Dave, you can see a video of the meeting at the WDCWA site.
Readers may want to consult the 2011 Report by Food and Water Watch titled Veolia Environment: A Profile of the World’s Largest Water Service Corporation available at http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/veolia-eur.pdf. Veolia Water is a French-based global multi-national; the American subsidiary is Veolia Water North America.
In 2010, Paris, France took back, that is, took public, their municipal water system that had been run and mis-managed for many, many decades by Veolia and Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux!
AND, I urge everyone to go to http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/private-vs-public/ and read any one of the reports and factsheets about on the privatization of water. A contract with a private for-profit corporation to manage and operate a public water system IS PRIVATIZATION. IT IS A PPP3 – a Public-Privatie Partnership with the public left to shoulder the costs so the private sector can profit. It would be a major embarasment is the great progressive city of Davis caved in to such a bad deal, when other cities in the US have rejected such bad deals.
The City Council is leading the city down a very dangerous path that has been rejected by hundreds of millions of people across the globe AND in the US.
It is time to organize and for many reasons stop the privatization of Davis’s public water utility.
Nancy Price
Typical of the left-wing anti-Semites. They have never once called for any boycotts against the bad countries of the Middle East. When was the last time Mikos Fabersunne, Mary Wind and Mike Pach boycotted a company from Syria, where the government has murdered approximately 50,000 of its own citizens since the Hama Genocide? Ever heard these Jew-haters call for a boycott of Saddam Hussein in his day? Or Moammar Gadhafi?
Mikos Fabersunne and his fellow travelers certainly include Israel among groups they despise. It is odd that the Vanguard features admiringly a pro-terrorist site such as “electronic intifada”, the blog you quote. As for the credibility of Mikos Fabersunne’s accusations, they are, to put it kindly, in conflict with the facts. To judge his credibility, it is interesting to note as the tenth anniversary of 9/11/01 approaches, that he is also convinced that the World Trade Center was not brought down by the planes that flew into them – see for example his comments at
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
“Together these factors suggest that the cause of collapse was an intentional deployment of a professionally designed and executed demolition process utilizing systematically and remotely detonated, thermal cutting charges strategically situated throughout the buildings on key structural support members and their joints.”
To Rifkin re: “Typical of the left-wing anti-Semites…”
Actually, the most famous and venemous anti-Semites in history have been right-wingers – Henry Ford, William Randolph Hearst, Joseph McCarthy, Adolf Hitler…the list goes on.
To alanpryor: One of those is unlike the others.
I need to make something clear: I am not saying anyone or everyone who criticizes Israel or a Jewish company is anti-Semitic.
I am saying all of those in today’s world–principally the left in Europe and the United States and the vast majority of Muslims (see public opinion polls) in most countries all over the world–who campaign against the Jewish state and who get very upset over what they perceive as human rights violations or some sort of discriminatory practices or what they believe are unwarranted security measures or unwarranted reprisals after Israel is continually attacked by terrorists who are supported by Arab and other Muslim regimes and never, ever condemn or boycott or march or speak out or write letters in opposition to the savage dictatorships in the Middle East (save until the revolts against those horrible governments have been won), those folks are, by definition, anti-Semites.
That element does not love fair play, free speeech, human rights, civil rights or democracy. That element does not abhor dictatorship, torture, the abuse of human dignity. That element is motivated by a hatred of Israel, and only because Israel is a majority Jewish state.
If they hated dictatorship, where were they when Saddam or Moammar or the Assad clan was raping and pillaging and terrorizing Muslims? Where were they when Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia had brutal authoritarian regimes which had jails filled with political prisoners nearly as full as Cuba’s jails full of political prisoners who are tortured and brain-washed by that communist dictatorship. (Oh, wait, the left does not criticize the Cuban dictatorship. My bad.)
If they love democracy, free speech, civil and human rights and so on, where is their praise for Israel, the one country with liberty and rights for all of its citizens, including its Arab minority?
Alan Pryor is correct that historically hatred of Jews was often found on the extreme right (though Stalin and Russian communists show that it also occurred on the far left).
Today anti-semitism and hatred of Jews exists mainly on the far left, often disguised as hatred of Israel. While it still exists among some extreme conservatives, it is far rarer in those circles than it used to be.
Veolia currently provides staffing for our YoloBus service. Perhaps if individuals have issues with Veolia’s bus services in Israel, they should start by looking at their comparable services right in this county, as opposed to water projects.
[i]”Fabersunne is also convinced that the World Trade Center was not brought down by the planes that flew into them …”[/i]
There is a strong cross-over among the lunatic fringe “9/11 truthers” and the rabidly anti-Semitic Israel haters.
For anyone interested in a strong argument against the 9/11 truther nonsense, I suggest you read this from the editors of Popular Mechanics ([url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842[/url]).
Even better, read their book on the subject, Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts ([url]http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Debunking-9-11-Myths/David-Dunbar/e/9781588165473?r=1&ugrp=2&if=N&cm_mmc=Skimlinks-_-k186085-_-j12871747k186085-_-Primary&cm_mmc=AFFILIATES-_-Linkshare-_-TnL5HPStwNw-_-10:1[/url]).
[img]http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/112450000/112457104.JPG[/img]
[i]”Alan Pryor is correct that historically hatred of Jews was often found on the extreme right …”[/i]
Historically, anti-Semitism in Europe was a mainstream point of view. Even in the United States up until World War II, anti-Semitism was widespread. I don’t know if a majority of Americans held anti-Semitic views in the 1930s and before, but holding them did not make one unpopular.
Famous men like Ford, Lindberg and Henry Adams made their antipathy toward Jews well known and did not risk any public rebuke for having those views.
That said, just like there were some white Christian churches and individuals who made better treatment of black Americans their cause, there were also many Christians in American public life up to WWII who fought against the institutions which forbade Jews.
After the War, because of Hitler and the Holocaust, anti-Semitism fell out of favor and became a fringe minority viewpoint in the U.S. and in Western Europe. Milton Friedman once famously said: “If we could return to the days of my childhood when everyone discriminated against the Jews in this country but avoid having had Hitler in power, I would prefer America was still anti-Semitic. Yet that’s the one thing we can thank Hitler for–he made hating the Jews unpopular.”
First, I suggest you simply close comments on this poorly written and marginally researched piece. Secondly, to those who have decided that the topic of the day is the Middle East rather than the very real process problems of the water project, congratulations for hijacking this thread. And you all managed the feat (including the writer) in less than four comments. Finally, as to the suitability of the multinational, French-based corporation that somehow got past the gatekeepers of the project, the WSJ reports they seem to be having problems: [url]http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110804-711344.html[/url].
It is amazing to me how a totally flawed bidding process could be so screwed up in so little time by so very, very few individuals, expecting the public to just trust them.
I agree that it would be best if commenters could keep to the topic of the proposed contractor and the company in question, rather than a broad debate about anti-semitism.
From fbi.gov
[quote]The Clean Water Act makes it a felony to tamper with required monitoring methods at a permitted facility like the Gary Sanitary District. If convicted, Bowie and Ciaccio face up to five years in prison on the conspiracy count and two years on each of the Clean Water Act counts, as well as a criminal fine of up to $250,000 for each count. The company may also face fines and/or probation.
The allegations in the indictment are mere accusations and all persons are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.[/quote]
From fame2012.org:
[quote]In December 2010, a federal grand jury issued a criminal indictment charging that United Water intentionally manipulated E. coli bacteria monitoring tests at a wastewater treatment plant in Gary, Ind. between 2003 and 2008. The company has pleaded not guilty in the case.[/quote]
From wikipedia:
[quote]Veolia Water
Main article: Veolia Water
Veolia Water is the world leader in water services. It handles water and wastewater services for clients in the public sector and in various industries. It also creates and constructs the required technology and infrastructure. In 2009, Veolia Water recorded revenue of €12.56 billion and employed 95,789 people. The Water division operates in 66 countries around the world.[8][/quote]
From electronicintifada.net:
[quote]In California, the Davis Committee for Palestinian Rights (DCPR) has called on Yolo County Transportation District to do no business with Veolia. In addition, the activists have challenged Veolia Water ‘s participation in bidding for a contract of the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency Project. DCPR criticizes Veolia for its involvement in the Jerusalem Light Rail project , for operating bus services 109 and 110 to illegal settlements in the West Bank and for its involvement in Tovlan landfill in the occupied Jordan Valley.[/quote]
1) I would prefer, if feasible, using American companies and U.S. citizen labor for any contract we put out for bid on the surface water project.
2) Companies that are under indictment for questionable practices should certainly be given a hard look, and preferably not used.
3) I don’t think the city of Davis surface water project should determine its choice of contractors based on concerns of one, single issue (irrelevant to expertise on building water projects), politically motivated group.
ERM
I am in complete agreenent with your first two points.
I am more ambivalent on the third. For instance, let’s suppose for the moment that a company with expertise in building water projects were suspected of supporting a foreign dictatoship with it’s profits, that would be a single, non related issue, but I would still not support using that company.
[quote]ERM
I am in complete agreenent with your first two points.
I am more ambivalent on the third. For instance, let’s suppose for the moment that a company with expertise in building water projects were suspected of supporting a foreign dictatoship with it’s profits, that would be a single, non related issue, but I would still not support using that company.[/quote]
In this particular case, I don’t find the political concerns compelling at all… it reminds me of the nonsense about a group that wanted to make it forbidden for the Davis Co-op to purchase anything made in Israel.
[i]” let’s suppose for the moment that a company with expertise in building water projects were suspected of supporting a foreign dictatoship with it’s profits, that would be a single, non related issue, but I would still not support using that company.”[/i]
How far do you take this stance in your own life? For example, do you boycott Citgo and all of its subsidiaries because of Citgo’s relationship with the Hugo Chavez dictatorship in Venezuela? Do you boycott Canadian companies like Sherritt International, which do business with the brutal communist regime in Cuba ([url]http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/cuba/report-2010[/url])? Or in the case of Cuba, are human rights not all that important to you? And what about China? China has a terrible human rights record–do you boycott the Chinese? Do you boycott foreign companies like Honda, Hyundai and Mercedes-Benz which have invested heavily in China? Or how about Russian companies? Russia has a poor human rights record on its own soil for Russians, and is even worse toward its minority Muslim population centers like Chechnya. Moreover, Russia has a terrible foreign policy record of supporting dictatorships. Does that make you botcott Stolichnaya? Do you boycott France and Germany for their long-held policies of selling small arms and chemicals and so on to foreign dictatorships?
Huey Long famously said that “if you look hard enough, you will find the sinner in all of us. Once you find it, exploit it.” Applied to businesses, you can probably find something to hate about every one of them if you look hard enough.
[i] a group that wanted to make it forbidden for the Davis Co-op to purchase anything made in Israel.[/i]
This is the same group.
Rich
You may have inadvertently hit on something here. Maybe this is what underlies JBs perception that I am antibusiness. And on a slightly less facetious note, yes, I do have a tendency to try to shop locally, and as green as I can. Am I perfect? Far from it. Do I try to at least be mindful, and eliminate the most egregious when I can ? Yes.
Also, there is one other distinction that I would make. In the case of my own personal preferences, and in the case of the Coop, we are discussing private choices and actions. When we are discussing contracting by the city, we are talking about the economic choice of a public entity that is acting on behalf of all of it’s citizens. I do not believe that these are directly comparable.
[i]”When we are discussing contracting by the city, we are talking about the economic choice of a public entity that is acting on behalf of all of it’s citizens.”[/i]
I agree with the distinction. I think it is perfectly fine for you as an individual (or any private group) to boycott whatever companies or countries you choose to boycott, even if your boycotts are not consistent with your stated values.
On the other hand, public entities must be held to a standard of being perfectly even-handed when they choose to boycott or restrain trade with a given company or state or whatever. That is, unless the government boycotting is consistent in its boycotts, it should not engage in this sort of anti-market behavior. It would be unfair, for example, for Davis to boycott trade with South Africa because of the terrible foreign policy of the South African government toward Zimbabwe, while not boycotting China, which has a worse foreign policy of being friendly to despots.
Governments should, instead of boycotting, try to get the best price at a given quality it can for its taxpayers, regardless of where the product comes from. (The caveat, here, is that local governments are always bound by U.S. law.)
[i]”…public entities must be held to a standard of being perfectly even-handed …”[/i]
I believe this is the same story for hiring workers. I see no legal problem* with a private company which might want to give a few extra points to people who come from “under-represented minority” groups, as long as the company operates in the private marketplace. However, such racial or ethnic discrimination should never be allowed in the public sphere. Every individual, regardless of his race or ethnic background, deserves to be treated by government as an individual, not a race rep. That is why racism, masked as affirmative action, is wrong in public employment or contracting or scholarly endeavors.
*Aside from legal problems, I think there can be a moral problem with such discrimination in private discrimination. The most discriminatory businesses are often the small mom and pop shops or restaurants. That is because the few jobs they have usually go to friends or relatives who are most often the same race or ethnicity of the owners. Big companies normally don’t operate that way, though they may give advantages in promotion to the offspring or friends of higher-ups, even when that hurts the company’s bottom line. There has been a lot of scholarship on Anheuser Busch in this respect. The company eventually became un-profitable for a while, due to the incompetent leadership of the fouth August Busch.
[i]” I see no legal problem* …”[/i]
I need to retract that. Such actions probably violate our federal civil rights laws, unless they are masked by some other objective.
Whoa, hey! Let’s get back to the issue of privatization of our now public water utility. One issue is what company builds the pipeline and associated facilities. Another, is how the system is managed and operated after it is built….a private for profit multinational or the combined Davis/Woodland public utilities?
ERM: Let’s look at the record, not some Wikipedia description that the Veolia Water communications department posted. What do you expect Veolia or any other corporation would post about their company?
Read the research reports and factsheets. There is much to learn about the privatization of public water utilities. Why in the US and across the globe are people in cities large and small taking back their systems from private for-profit corporate management, or pre-emptively stopping privatization? The record is clear!
As I wrote earlier:
Readers may want to consult the 2011 Report by Food and Water Watch titled Veolia Environment: A Profile of the World’s Largest Water Service Corporation available at http://documents.foodandwaterw…a-eur.pdf. Veolia Water is a French-based global multi-national; the American subsidiary is Veolia Water North America.
In 2010, Paris, France took back, that is, took public, their municipal water system that had been run and mis-managed for many, many decades by Veolia and Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux!
AND, I urge everyone to go to http://www.foodandwaterwatch.o…vs-public/ and read any one of the reports and factsheets about on the privatization of water. A contract with a private for-profit corporation to manage and operate a public water system IS PRIVATIZATION. IT IS A PPP3 – a Public-Privatie Partnership with the public left to shoulder the costs, so the private sector can profit.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WATER RATES ARE GOING UP, TO BE SURE THERE IS A RETURN TO THE CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS. THAT IS WHY THE WATER RATE INCREASE WAS ANNOUNCED EARLY ON, SO BUILDING, MANAGING AND OPERATING THE SYSTEM WOULD BE ATTRACTIVE. AS I SAID IN AN EARLIER POST, THE TREND TODAY IS PUBLIC-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS WITH ONE PUBLIC UTILITY ASSISTING ANOTHER. WE DO NOT HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR FOR OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT.
It would be a major embarrassment if the great “progressive” city of Davis caved in to such a bad deal, when other cities in the US have rejected such.
The City Council is leading the city down a very dangerous path that has been rejected by hundreds of millions of people across the globe AND in the US.
It is time to organize to keep our water in public hands and for many reasons stop the privatization of the Davis and Woodland public water utilities.
To nprice: Have you contacted the Dept. of Public Works, and asked them specifically about your concerns? If yes, please share the answers you were given…