The City of Davis will see its water rates triple in the next five years, barring something highly unusual and difficult to achieve – a successful Prop. 218 water challenge.
In November of 1996, Proposition 218 ostensibly required the local government to have a vote of affected property owners, for any proposed or new assessment before it could be levied.
Adding to the confusion of the process was a Davis Enterprise article that reported, “Before rates can go up, however, Davis property owners have a chance to vote on the increases. Under Proposition 218, the city must notify and mail ballots to property owners. If a majority of returned ballots oppose the increases, the city will not be able to impose them.”
While this is, in very rough and technical terms, correct it is misleading in that they used the term “vote” and the term “ballot.” On a very technical level, that may be somewhat true. But in reality, that is not how the process works at all.
The draft notice from the city is a bit more accurate, “Davis residents have an opportunity to comment on proposed rate changes at the May 17, 2011 public hearing… Residents unable to attend the meeting may file a written protest with the City Clerk at or before the public hearing… If a majority of affected property owners file written protests, the proposed rate changes will not be implemented and 2010-2011 rates will remain in effect…”
Unfortunately, what will happen is that people will get a pamphlet in the mail. Most people will not know what it is or what they need to do with it. It is not like an election scenario where the public at least knows they have the right to vote.
Most people will take the pamphlet and never open it. They will never see the proposed water rates and they will never know they have to power to stop it by filing a written protest (not voting) with the city.
My understanding of this process is that Proposition 218 requires the City to provide notice and allow opportunity for a written protest, prior to implementing a water rate increase; if a majority in protest is received, then the rate increase cannot be adopted. If no written protest is received, then the City may adopt the rate increase.
Only home owners are allowed to protest. It will not arrive in the form of a ballot.
As I said at the outset, this is an extremely onerous process. It requires 50% of property owners to actually protest. The chance of that happening, even with a sustained and organized campaign, is almost zero.
A few years ago, however, El Marcero had a Prop 218 protest, but the area was much smaller and therefore active members in the community were able to go door to door and secure the number of protests that they needed.
Davis as a city has tens of thousands of home owners, and there is only a limited amount of time to file a challenge.
Moreover, the required notice does not even really indicate to the public the power that they have to actually stop a rate increase.
This is what the notice looked like last year:
We would be tempted to blame the city again for having an ineffectual outreach program to the citizens – but, then again, this is legally permissible and probably standard. We cannot realistically blame the city here, since it follows statutory requirements and besides, why should they make it easy for people to properly exercise their right of protest for the new water rates, which would put the city in a bit of a pickle?
Lest you think I am letting the city off too easy, I do think they could do better than the floor in terms of transparency and open government, even if the state law requirement is totally inadequate for serving the purposes intended by the statute.
But there we have it, buried in the middle of the form is the notice that residents may file a written protest with the city at or before the public hearing.
Making it more difficult is that the protests must include written evidence that the signer is the owner of the property.
And at the bottom, they finally show the power, that “if a majority of affected property owners file written protests, the proposed rate changes will not be implemented and 2010-2011 rates will remain in effect.”
This is such a watered-down process – it may as well not exist at all. The fox is guarding the henhouse here, with such a ridiculously watered-down required notice to inform people of their rights, buried deep in a heavily-filled two-page pamphlet, under the guise of “notice of public hearing.”
Bottom line here, there is probably about a zero chance that a majority of property owners will protest this. To make it work, an organized campaign would have to print up their own protest forms, organize at the neighborhood level, and see to it that all members of the public filled out protest forms and returned their proof of ownership forms along with it.
There is probably a better chance to put the water supply project itself on the ballot for referendum via more traditional means.
Unfortunately, not only is the process arcane, but the newspaper did not help matters by failing to accurately describe the process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This article came out of an email discussion I had with dmg. I was very confused about the process, and dmg was kind and patient enough w me to help me research this issue so that I could get it clear in my head exactly how this process was supposed to work. My concern started bc of the mis-statement I spotted in the Davis Enterprise, which I then referred to dmg which started the email discussion. That is what is so important about this blog – it helps clarify difficult issues like this. Thanks dmg for doing this article, which I believe is doing a vital public service to educate citizens.
What is even more complicated about this issue is Prop 218 itself. There is a 1996 version, and a 2009 version. I’m still not clear on what is the difference between the two. And how anyone would know to look at the Prop 218 1996 version, as opposed to the 2009 version on the issue of Davis water rate increases, is beyond me. In our email exchange, dmg corrected me for referring to the Prop 218 2009 version.
If the laws are so convoluted, it is not surprising that the public largely remains uninformed. Sometimes I wonder if legislators wanted it that way (call me a cynic). However, I do think the Prop 218 Public Notice the city puts out should make it very clear 1) what citizen protest rights are and 2) what they can expect for water rate increases.
That said, to protest under Prop 218 is difficult, but not impossible. I think the real key issue here is many citizens believe that the water project is necessary. Certainly two UCD experts that Council Member Sue Greenwald invited to participate in the decision making on this issue think the water project is absolutely necessary. If we as a city fail to do the water project, and our water discharge is not in compliance with state and federal clean water mandates, the city could be fined as much as $10,000 per day, for every day the city does not meet the new standards.
On the other hand, Davis water rates are going to be some of the most expensive rates in all of Northern CA. I don’t have any answers here. Everyone will have to “vote” their conscience by deciding whether to turn in a written protest or not…
If the unlikely happens and a majority of property owners DO object to the increased fees, what will be the future of water in Davis? Can we keep drilling deeper to use more groundwater? Would it be cheaper for the city to pay the $10,000 daily fine listed above? As the saying goes, “Be careful for what you wish for — you may get it.”
Very interesting article from David and comment by Musser. For the purposes of this post I don’t have time to do any “legal” research on the issue. I do have some comments and questions:
1) David can you tell us the name of the 2009 proposition that modified 218?
2) Certainly with respect to 218, and maybe its 2009 successor or modifier, there must be a significant case law history that would cast light on the legality of the “underhand,” for want of a better word, means by which cities conduct “votes” under 218;
3) In terms of the potential $10,000 a day fine, I think the operative word is that Davis “could” be liable to this fine. This brings me back to a theme running in my past posts on this issue. How many cities have actually had this $10,000 daily fine imposed on them? How many cities out of compliance have not had this fine imposed upon them? Dixon? How likely in this grim federal, state, and local state of fiscal crisis is it that today or in the future these penalties would be imposed?
4) Who can say with total confidence that the water rates will merely triple? There is the prospect of major cost overruns that could make that estimate very low ball and we are not even sure we will get enough water from this project.
5) However difficult it may or may not be the case for delaying immediate implementation of the fees and project is good. The longer we hold out the more chance that cheaper alternatives can be devised and that the mandate in terms of provisions and enforcement may be relaxed.
To repeat what I have said in past posts. Yes, I’d love to have a cleaner better and a more reliable supply of water, but current property owners, and renters for that matter, have had the problem dumped in their laps after many many years of neglect by the city council and staff. And, in these dire economic times for public entities, and for a significant numbers of individuals, I just don’t think we should go forward with the project as presently constituted.
Simple , take your ” 501 ( C ) (3 ) ‘ status , and print a mailer to send to all residents of the City of Davis .
To stop rate increases, does Prop 218 require a majority of property owners to protest or does it require a majority of responding property owners to protest?
I am surprised that the City hasn’t scheduled the ramming of the rate increase for the week before Christmas 2012. As I remember, the week before Christmas 2010 was the Council’s favorite time for approving a major and costly water quality/water right decision. In this case, timing doesn’t appear to be everything.
Make that Christmas 2011.
This is the information I have been told regarding our water problem.
The need to use Sacramento River water is driven by the fact that the State will not allow us to continue to use our well water and then discharge the waste-run off water into the river system. The chemical make up of our well water is such that it can not be put into the river. We have plenty of water beneath us, it is not a matter of quantity but of quality. The State has given us a temporary discharge permit and told us to make progress on another source or they will not renew the permit. We have looked at options from Clear Lake, Indian Valley and the Colusa Canal. These would be gravity flow but the first two have a water shortage and the Colusa Canal stops at Dunnigan. Both have long range possibilities. At this time the best option appears to be the Sac. River.
Another option would be to distill our ground water before letting the citizens use the water. This process is twice as costly and we end up with a hazardous material to dispose of. It is a difficult circumstance with not an easy or inexpensive solution.
————————————————————————–
Since the EPA has increased the water quality standards shouldn’t we ask the EPA to help fund this costly venture?
One would think since the EPA has been so active in cleaning up groundwater contamination since the 1980’s, we could qualify for EPA Super Fund money. If we don’t qualify, why not???
If the EPA cannot at least partially fund this boondoggle of a project perhaps we need to start pounding on our elected officials.
What assurances do we have that the EPA will not require stricter and more costly water quality standards further on down the road?
[quote]This is the information I have been told regarding our water problem.
The need to use Sacramento River water is driven by the fact that the State will not allow us to continue to use our well water and then discharge the waste-run off water into the river system. The chemical make up of our well water is such that it can not be put into the river. We have plenty of water beneath us, it is not a matter of quantity but of quality. — craised[/quote]This is not necessarily accurate information. I have been trying to get more accurate information to the public, but it is like swimming through jello.
Cities in our region have successfully fought the draconian salt limitations. Most recently, the City of Tracy had a favorable proposed tentative ruling regarding its salt limits, which are similar to ours. Tracy has most likely won. There is too much selenium in some of our intermediate aquifer wells, but we have known all along that we will have to move to the deep water aquifer for all but our irrigation water.
Actually, the most legitimate problem is concern over the long-term supply of water in the deep aquifer, and potential subsidence problems.
Sue Greenwald,
[quote]Actually, the most legitimate problem is concern over the long-term supply of water in the deep aquifer, and potential subsidence problems. [/quote]
The concern over long term water supply, is it based on population growth in the area or the degradation of water quality due to salts and other nasty stuff??
Pay all that money for polluted water that tastes like shit and kills your plants? I don’t think so.
Why don’t they charge extra money to all the farmers that refuse to use water saving technologies.
If they can’t afford drip or spray irrigation, then they should get some sort of a subsidy to implement the technology. If they refuse to do it, the farmers that refuse to use less water and take advantage of the subsidies should be made to pay for all the water that they use.
This will solve the water problem.
In my opinion, this is just the citie’s way to raise more money for it’s coffers. There’s no way in hell the costs to bring water to Davis cost THAT much. It’s so polluted any way, they should be paying US for disposing of the toxic crap.
PS. UC DAVIS HAS JUST RECENTLY FOUND MORE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN A COUPLE OF ‘RESEARCH” BUILDINGS.
HEY PPL…DON’T YOU FEEL SO SAFE LIVING IN THIS CLEAN GREEN HEALTHY TOWN?
Heh heh, you’re all fools if you really think you’re safe and if you really think that the government officials give a crap about your safety, you’re sadly mistaken.
this place is a DUMP!~!!!! Literally
Sue,
I’m surprised that you’re standing up for the city. The salt limitations are not “draconion”. They are there to make sure we are safe..that aside, we’re not safe. The water has a helluva lot more in it than just sodium..
manganese, radon, radiation, uranium, tcp, mercury, etc etc etc etc etc.
i’m sorry but i’m against this new fee. If Yolo County was truly interested in solving the water problem, it would make a strong move towards forcing the farmers to conserve water, by subsidising drip and spray technologies that every other country uses.
using flood and fallow irrigation to feed our plants hails back to the dark ages.
we use technologies to farm our food in every other capacity except WATER.. WHY?
wasteful polluting farmers and UCDAVIS researchers are to blame for this one, and why the heck should I pay more. I’ve already had to sacrifice my health and happiness, and now I have to sacrifice my money? FUCK THAT
Perhaps we can get the money from PGE… remember they do have a yard here and HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM has been found in our water too…
remember Erin Brokavich? Hexavalent Chromium was the chemical that was killing ppl.
I think the polluters should pay for distilling our water. They should also pay to store the waste.
We can’t trust the city of davis public works union to keep our water safe.
they idea of cleaning our water is to drive to wells all over the town once a week and dumping a bunch of bleach in it.
CLEAN? I think no. Filter it and distill it.. that’s the only thing that will make Davis water clean.
BK: “To stop rate increases, does Prop 218 require a majority of property owners to protest or does it require a majority of responding property owners to protest?”
To stop the rate increases, Prop 218 requires a majority of property owners to turn in a written protest against the rate increases, is my understanding…
[quote]I’m surprised that you’re standing up for the city. The salt limitations are not “draconion”. They are there to make sure we are safe..that aside, we’re not safe. The water has a helluva lot more in it than just sodium.. [/quote]I am not taking a position; I am just trying to bring perspective to some of the exaggerated claims made by the city about certain aspects of the rationale for the project.
The salt limits are not “there to make sure we are safe”. The aim is to protect aquatic life in the Delta, but the amount that the city adds compared to agricultural runoff could be said to be negligible.
Exaggerated? Hmmm..well obviously they set the limits for a reason. If aquatic life in the Delta isn’t safe, well then neither are we. The city has ucdavis to help pollute the water.
like I said, UCDAVIS and the farmers are the big polluters in this game.
ucdavis is part of the city and is there fore guilty of adding huge amounts of runoff and pollution to the delta.
salt limits are good..we need more limits to pollution.. boron salts, manganese, etc etc.. not good at all..
the city “treats” this already dirty water by dumping chlorine into the drinking water. the water needs to be distilled.
it’s that bad.