This week for the first time, the city council put actual numbers on the magnitude of water rate hikes. The numbers remain jarring, to consider moving the rates to three times the current rate by 2015/16. How that will impact the average resident is unsure.
We will be critical of the past council’s lack of foresight on this issue. As one member pointed out to me, we have known for at least as long as I have been following that we were going to undertake this kind of project. Indeed, the planning for this project easily goes back ten years and, really, something has been in the works for twenty years.
The real concern is that costs will continue to go up. Indeed, when the Joint Powers Authority was formed, the city staff was talking in terms of the costs of water doubling.
By last December, Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza published a guest commentary in the Vanguard entitled “Rebuilding Davis’ Water Utility.”
At that time, they wrote, “Our current average residential bill of about $40 per month is approximately half the statewide average. Assuming current demand levels, our average is projected to climb to $90 per month by 2020, when the statewide average is predicted to be $100 per month. This news isn’t great, but without a new system we delay the inevitable and costs will increase.”
Less than three months ago, they were talking about increasing our water rates to $90, about 2.4 times the current rate.
According to Mayor Joe Krovoza, those numbers came directly from staff and he had asked them to give him a full and accurate figure to present to the public.
Now we are talking about not $90 by 2020, but $111 by 2016.
Moreover, the increase will not put us near the state average. We are already at the average among comparable cities, and the increases will take us into a position of having the highest water rates among those cities.
What changed in the cost estimations in just three months? Staff has not said. But those are the numbers that they gave.
The Mayor, in his comment on the Vanguard Tuesday, wrote, “The rate information here was the best summary at the time. I am optimistic that the current increase estimates will ultimately be viewed as conservative. But I want to be cautious here so there are no surprises down the road, and all incentives — political and otherwise — are present for us to find ways to reduce the estimated rate increases.”
He continues, “All efforts are being made to use financing and construction/operation cost reduction systems to lower the rates from those projected in the current staff report.”
Right now, unfortunately, I do not see any efforts by the staff or council to reduce the rates. I saw a lost of chest bumping last December as they rammed through the water agreement with Tsakopoulos, but I do not see anything articulated on how rates will be reduced.
He continues, “Be assured, no one at the city (staff or council) is taking these rates lightly. In particular at our last meeting, Council ask staff to bring back ideas to help lower income rate payers. However, there are state laws that prohibit us from doing this with funds collected from other ratepayers. Conservation programs available to all are one key option.”
He raised the issue of conservation during the campaign and he is doing it again. The problem with conservation is that these are capital improvements, meaning they are fixed costs and not dependent on usage.
I partly agree with the Mayor that a lot of this is based on poor decisions made in the past. Council should have banked a good deal of money the past five to ten years at least, if not longer. They did not and that is on them.
However, Joe Krovoza has been an unabashed supporter of this water project. That puts onus on him to take responsibility for what these rate hikes will do to Davis citizens.
The worst part here is the irresponsible handling of the rate hikes by both staff and past councils. How much higher are costs really going to run here, and how are we going to mitigate these costs on low and fixed income residents when state laws prevent lower income rate payer help? That has to be a huge concern.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“How that will impact the average resident is unsure.”
I’m “sure” how it will impact the average resident, it’s going to “HURT”.
CalPERS board holds line on return forecast.
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/17/3481765/calpers-board-holds-line-on-return.html#mi_rss=State Politics[/url]
[quote]
The CalPERS governing board agreed Wednesday to keep the pension fund’s official investment-return forecast stable.
The decision means state and local governments won’t have to contribute hundreds of millions of additional dollars to CalPERS, as they had feared.
[/quote]
This is a tempest in a teapot. I repeat: $100 a month for a reliable supply of good clean water is a bargain. Other communities in California pay this and more already. (See San Diego.) The process may not have been perfect, but what in politics is? DM, there are other fish to fry. Move on.
“This is a tempest in a teapot. I repeat: $100 a month for a reliable supply of good clean water is a bargain.”
Not according to what all the other local cities will be paying, our rates will be the highest in the area. How’s that a bargain?
“DM, there are other fish to fry. Move on.”
This is a huge issue for Davis and worth much discussion. It’s not like wasting our time with trying to ban plastic bags, this will greatly impact every resident of Davis. David is right to bring this to our attention so the public can give input.
I’m happy to pay a reasonable price for water & sewer. Just because I will have to pay more does not make the price unreasonable. I would like to see a fairly concise table of components of the cost as these have been added to the equation, indexed by date. So, across the top of the table we see the big ticket items in our water/sewer costs. The left hand column of the table is the date that the item entered consideration and how the cost has changed as staff updated and revised the estimates. Top row, most recent times, will have more big ticket items; the early years will have blanks in those cells because the costs were not anticipated back then. The early years, say beginning a decade ago, should be given by year. More recent updates and revisions should be give over shorter, aprroprieate time periods.
Is this table something that the People’s Vanguard could request from Joe or his staff? Who else could produce the table.
It would be very interesting to learn, from city staff, just how much of anticipated water price increases will be fixed and how much will be based on consumption. When I started passing along the water consumption portion of city fees to the tenants in my rentals, water consumption for those properties dropped in half.
Obviously, if X dollars are required to pay off the surface water purchase and construction costs,and folks try to lower their bills by conserving even more water, the required amount will not be met unless fees are added on to the flat rate portion of our bills.
This leaves me in the position of having to raise rents to cover the flat rate portion, or go out of business. I suppose rents for single family houses, with yards that require irrigation, across the board, will have to raise.
Access to the proportion of bill data will help me determine weather to further reduce or remove any lawns, maybe even other landscaping amenities from my rentals in order to be able to remain competitive in rent prices, and still provide affordable housing in the Davis single family rental market.I sure hope I don’t have to pave over nicely landscaped yards in order to stay in business.
dmg: “Right now, unfortunately, I do not see any efforts by the staff or council to reduce the rates.”
Actually, if you listened carefully, you would have heard what the efforts to reduce rates by staff are: obtaining grants and lower interest rates, phasing in of both the water and sewer projects over time, and some sort of low income pool of funding will be at least investigated.
dmg: “” Conservation programs available to all are one key option.” He raised the issue of conservation during the campaign and he is doing it again. The problem with conservation is that these are capital improvements, meaning they are fixed costs and not dependent on usage.”
I agree with you dmg, that water conservation will not help pay for the capital costs of the water project. But it could assist with lowering the cost of the sewer project or at least keep it from getting more expensive has always been my understanding.
dmg: “I partly agree with the Mayor that a lot of this is based on poor decisions made in the past. Council should have banked a good deal of money the past five to ten years at least, if not longer. They did not and that is on them.”
And the “fault” lays squarely at the feet of the past City Council, if one wants to lay “blame”. But bottom line is city staffer Bob Weir, former head of Public Works, tried to get City Council to begin putting money aside for the water project by raising water as well as sewer rates. However the complaints from City Council and the public were that citizens could not pay for both projects at the same time. In consequence the City Council made the decision to raise only the sewer rates. However, that delay allowed Councilmember Sue Greenwald to bring forth two UCD water experts, which resulted in a million dollar savings on the waterwater treatment plant upgrade.
As far as I am concerned, as I have said before, the real “blame” if blame one must, lays with the federal legislators that set unreasonable water quality standards back in 1972. In discussions w Bob Weir, he advised me that no cost/benefit analysis was ever done when these stringent standards were introduced all those many years ago.
Secondly, what is the alternative here? If the city does not meet the new water quality standards, the city can be fined up to $10,000 per day for noncompliance. Two independent experts have insisted that the water project and a limited sewer project were the best solutions to the city’s water quality problem of not meeting the new federal standards, which is what was decided on. For those who are complaining, do you have any other better solutions? I was never fully in favor of the water project, and wonder if there are not better ways we could have addressed the problem. But that horse is already out of the barn – the water project has been approved, and no one seems to have any other feasible alternatives.
At this point, I think the wisest course of action, and I say this w great reluctance, is to bite the bullet. Institute the rate hikes now rather than put them off anymore; let citizens know exactly what the rate increases will be; encourage/prod/push city staff to decrease costs as much as possible; and let the chips fall where they may. My hope is city staff can set up some sort of “fund” for low income folks that would have to move from Davis if they don’t get some sort of minimal financial assistance. Perhaps it will come in the form of gov’t grants, who knows? But city staff should at least investigate this possibility – but no promises bc of the abysmal economy.
[i]I sure hope I don’t have to pave over nicely landscaped yards in order to stay in business.[/i]
There are lots of excellent local resources for low-water landscaping.
And one final word – I appreciate dmg bringing this issue to everyone’s attention. The public needs to be fully aware of what is coming in the form of extreme water rate hikes; to attend the May 17 public hearing on this; and voice concerns. I agree w Rusty49 – this issue is far more important than almost anything else the City Council will take up in the immediate future…
Question and comment:
1) Can anyone provide the specific name of the “1972 federal waste water mandate,” and/or a link to the law or mandate? This might be helpful to those few of us that are not absolutely convinced that some communities may have obtained, or bring in the process of obtaining, waivers, exemptions, exceptions, extensions etc. Yes, I know there have been examples of communities being penalized or threatened with penalties. But, as I argued yesterday, if enough communities balk at this mandate and the terms of it (as they face dire fiscal and economic problems with their budgets) as the 2014 deadline nears there may be more wiggle room than has been suggested, especially as the 2012 presidential election looms. We need to know what has happened elsewhere.
2) With, as far as I can see, the sole exception of Sue Greenwald, city councilors and city staff members have been a mix of incompetent, disingenuous, if not downright dishonest, re the costs to the tax/fee payers of Davis about the waste water/ water issue. There should be, and hopefully will be, a political price to pay when finally one day the populace of Davis is made aware of the costs of this project. Of course the DE has been complicit in all this.
3) Finally, I find the indifference of some people to those who can ill-afford such a huge increase in city fees distressing but not totally surprising. The incomes, means, and assets of a significant part of the Davis population often end up blurring the line between the so called progressives in our community and their more conservative counterparts.
To Herman: For a fairly simple explanation of the 1972 Clean Water Act go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act
For more detail try following website:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/33/usc_sec_33_00001313—-000-.html
Herman, that was my point yesterday. Supposedly Dixon has been out of compliance for the last decade and I don’t here any crying about huge water bills coming from them. I’d bet if all the cities that are out of compliance got together they could fight this mandate. In 1972 they didn’t know what the state of the economy was going to be in 2011.
[quote]CalPERS board holds line on return forecast.[/quote]This merely postpones the problem. It means that Davis will be in a deeper hole in the future.
Musser: [i] In discussions w Bob Weir, he advised me that no cost/benefit analysis was ever done when these stringent standards were introduced all those many years ago. [/i]
Maybe not, but according the EPA they have been required since 1996:
[i][b][url]Cost-Benefit Analysis[/url][/b]
US EPA must conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis for every new standard to determine whether the benefits of a drinking water standard justify the costs.[/i]
[Source: 1996 SDWA Amendments @ http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/pdfs/fs_30ann_sdwa_web.pdf ]
Admin note: I’d appreciate it if someone could explain how to embed a link on this site.
I don’t want to revisit the basic decision to go ahead with the surface water project at this time, since that decision has been made.
There are a lot of myths floating around, such as that it would necessarily cost us more for wastewater if we don’t do the surface water project, that our well water is unclean or unhealthy, and that our water rates will be around average in the future (they won’t — they will be much higher than average and that will affect affordability, business attraction, etc.) The legitimate arguments in favor of moving forward with the project are more long-term, and involve long-term water supply and subsidence issues.
My focus now is on keeping the costs of the surface water project under control. Clean Water JPA is an independent body with no direct council control. This is why, given my unique history of saving the city $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant, that I feel strongly that I should be one of the two Davis members appointed to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency.
[i]Admin note: I’d appreciate it if someone could explain how to embed a link on this site.[/i]
In the menu bar above the comment box you will see an icon that looks like a globe. Click on it and it will form the tags; paste in the URL of your link between the tags.
Don, the link above (Cost-Benefit Analysis) is the type I have a problem with, just comes back to the Vanguard. Unless you mean: [url=”http:// . . . .]?
Arrgghhh. That should have read: [ url = http:// xxx ] ?
You need to put the actual URL in: [ url] put here [ /url]
If you just paste in the URL without the tags, I can go in and make it an active link. I’ve never quite figured out why it sometimes links back to the Vanguard, because in that situation I can’t see the URL you intended.
Thanks, and apologies for the side-shift on topics.
Don, while we are on the subject of pasting in things, what is the proedure for adding a photo image. On several occasions I have wanted to post an image that was truely worth a thousand words. Rifkin has done this on occasion. R.B.
You post a link to the photo (i.e., the URL of the photo on a site), not the photo itself, so it is the same procedure. Please make sure the photo is on topic!
Thanks Don,
Will do. r.b.
Don, I have an image, coppied from an old power point. I drug it into photoshop and reduced for web and devices. It has a URL within my computer that is sufficient for attaching it to an email. But I think what you are saying is that the image would have to be posted on a server somplace, like flikr, before it would have a url sufficient to post between the brackets on this blog comment box Yes?
Assuming I was able to accomplish that, would it show on this blog as photo art of just a link? I know that Rifkin sometimes adds images that actually appear on this page, adding a great deal of visual interest to the comments section. thanks r.b.
Yes, you can use Flickr or PhotoBucket.
Sorry, I made a mistake in my earlier directions for images, vs links. You use the icon [i]next to[/i] the globe-shaped one, which creates these tags: [ img] put it here [ /img]
Just for the record: Southern California water rates are higher than Northern California water rates. It is not quite kosher to compare our water rates with those of San Diego (we don’t have the perfect climate, either).
Our rates will be about the highest in Northern California. That will make us less competitive, for sure.
Also for the record: It looks as if the City of Tracy has won its case against the State for rigid salt requirements similar to those of Davis.
For the past decade,Steven Souza’s record of decisions as our Councilmember have not represented the popular will of the Davis voter. His vigorous support of the Covell Village project in 2004 was overwhelmingly rejected by the Davis voters in the Measure X referendum. He, along with Don Saylor, were guilty of an Enterprise OP-ED piece in that campaign that was contemptuous of the intelligence of the Davis voter with its obfuscations, distortions and untrue “facts”. Don Saylor has now been appointed, without full consideration by our Council, to sit on the Clean Water JPA.
The local Davis narrative here mimics, as it has so often before, the political narrative both nationally and now internationally, in the Middle East. People, with their ballot votes or their very lives, “voted” for CHANGE which looks like it will be frustratingly extremely slow in coming at best or, in a more cynical view, is not going to happen,….just same-o,same-o. Question? Is Mayor Krovoza really up to supplying the leadership for CHANGE that the Davis voters’ have put him on the dais to implement?
I could not agree with Davisite2 more. As for Joe Krovoza I have never had the faith in his supposedly wondrous impartiality, judgment, and expertise that he was coronated with when he ran for election, and for that matter to this day. His re-election slogan should be: “Vote for Joe: The Man who Helped Triple (or maybe Quintuple) your Water Rates.”
I also strongly agree with all Sue Greenwald’s comments of yesterday (BTW, while I generally agreed with Sue on most issues, there have been several on which I have not). It is absurd that that after engagement with the water issue for so long, and after so many of her predictions came true, that she should not be one of the two Davis members appointed to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency.
The fact that she has not been shows that the council majority, and doubtless relevant high ranking city staff, have absolutely no interest in mitigating this project in any way. It also shows a city council as out of touch with the voters as it was on Covell Village, and one that is forever engaging in various machinations be it development, water et al.
Finally Sue mentions that the City of Tracy “has won its case against the state for rigid salt requirements similar to Davis.” It would be interesting to know much more about this case and indeed probably many others like it. But from council members to city staff, and to the majority on this blog, there seems little interest.
If I ever needed reminding why I withdrew from playing an active role in city politics, I have been well reminded yet again
Herman: “But from council members to city staff, and to the majority on this blog, there seems little interest.”
I assure you there is great interest by members on this blog and in this city to keep our water rates as low as is humanly possible. I doubt anyone wants their water rates to go up if it can be reasonably avoided. But the real question boils down to what extent can the water rates be “reasonably avoided”. I’m all ears… so far, the only thing I have heard you propose is a massive protest by all the cities in CA. Now that is an ideal solution, but how practical is it to implement? Especially when so many in CA are pro-environmentalists who think these stringent federal water standards are the best thing since sliced bread!
Musser: First let me thank you for the two web citations you gave me yesterday. Yes, I don’t like to be against clean water any more than anyone else. I have never trusted Davis water and have for 11 years bought all my drinking water at the Coop. Herein lies the massive irony, even contradiction, that has been pointed out before: Our Davis water is good enough for us to drink but not good enough to discharge. Boy would those loathsome Tea Partyers have fun with this.
As I recall, you have said at least two very wise things: 1) The City of Davis has disgraced itself, boxed itself into a corner, by ignoring this mandate for so long; 2) That notwithstanding the above, this is a terrible economic time to enforce this EPA mandate. To reiterate the latter point: Almost every state has serious budget problems to the tune of an aggregate $125 to $150 billion that was largely papered over last year by money from the Feds. Countless municipalities across the country face bankruptcy if you listen to a good source like NPR’s Marketplace regularly as I do, and the prospect of large scale defaults on municipal bonds in many places is very real.
And what will happen when, as looks likely, the Reps in the CA State leg. refuse to put Brown’s tax measures on the ballot and another $14 billion has to be cut on top of the $14 billion agreed to? In an economic climate like this is it so improbable that the Feds might not relax some mandates especially with the Obama admin. up for re-election and already accommodating the political right at every turn to try and pre-empt them.
The point of all this, as I have tried to make clear, is that the brutal economic environment may simply force states and the Feds to “soften,” whatever term you want come up with, some unfunded mandates. I do not think this a pipe dream but a very distinct possibility.
This leaves aside the issue of to what extent have entities obtained, or are in the process or trying to obtain, exemptions, waivers, extensions etc., from the Clean Water mandate in the last few years.
In sum, we need to know more about this, and assuming that there is some chance I may be right, we, the cities of Davis and Woodland (in conjunction with other cities in the same boat) need to lobby at the state and federal level for mitigation. This seems like an eminently practical way to proceed if there is the political will to do it. Isn’t this the way politics is supposed to work?
In the meantime Musser, we could use your considerable legal skills and energy to look for precedents and situations comparable to the ones Davis/Woodland face.
H: “In sum, we need to know more about this, and assuming that there is some chance I may be right, we, the cities of Davis and Woodland (in conjunction with other cities in the same boat) need to lobby at the state and federal level for mitigation. This seems like an eminently practical way to proceed if there is the political will to do it. Isn’t this the way politics is supposed to work?”
Very thoughtful comments. I would agree w you, except for one glitch: there is so much schizophrenia on this issue. Many (what percentage?)believe these clean water mandates are a great thing. So how do you work around that problem, to convince these diehard environmentalists the Clean Water Act is unreasonable at this point in time bc of the current economic crisis?
“….Many (what percentage?)believe these clean water mandates are a great thing.”
“Many” also are very vocal about a total ban on residential woodburning under any circumstances. I would venture to guess that the MAJORITY of Californians would support their local governments in resisting the implementation of these very strict clean water standards at this time, what with their own financial resources as well as their city’s coffers being in serious trouble at this time. What is lacking is political leadership behind which the Majority can mobilize and express their support. In Davis’ case, postponing this clean water project for a few years will probably see Davis better able to absorb these costs, bring more residents “on board” to foot the bill and demand that developers help foot the bill as part of their development agreement with the city.(?)Skcapoulos’ land holdings south of 80 and East of El Macero are the likely next Davis development and he can be “asked” to contribute to this water project without which his large tracts cannot be converted into residential developments.
Interesting and ironic discussions here.
It is true that it is a terribly difficult economic time to implement the new water standard. But, many industries have already been paying for several years to deal with the issues that you are just now focusing on….there is a huge battle ongoing in the delta regarding water and the use of it. Many households and industries south of the delta are being forced into bankruptcy because of the increase in cost of water,or the lack of water. Why…because of environmental conditions in the delta. So far, they’ve received no relief, and this blog has been replete with calls to “save the delta”. DMG has led the cause. Now, the citizens of Davis (as well as other cities) are finally, after many years, forced to face up to the cost of “saving the delta”. And you want to pass. I understand your reasoning. But for all you, who want a pass on meeting water quality standards now, and argue that it is too expensive, you should NEVER, EVER be allowed to write another word that argues for “saving the delta” again. You have to pay, if you want to play.