Twenty years ago, a political mentor of mine taught me the that way you see the truth, through cleverly-wordsmithed and dressed-up rhetoric, is to see if they are playing offense or defense. If they are playing defense, defending their policy, changing the subject, they are in trouble.
They write, “On Tuesday, Sept. 6, the Davis City Council will conduct a public hearing on proposed water rates. This article addresses the reasons and process that have led to the design of our new water supply. Our op-ed piece next Sunday will focus on the required investments and how we are keeping the rates as low as possible.”
Want to see some defense?
“The rate proposal has led some to assert that the City Council has run amok, missed a cue from state and federal regulators, or misread one report or another. Those arguments are far too simplistic for our citizenry and detract from the real issues,” they write.
Want to see them change the subject?
The question we should be evaluating is, “Can we continue to rely solely on a low-quality groundwater supply that requires increasingly expensive treatment, is proven to replenish slowly, threatens or has begun irreversible land subsidence, and will violate environmental discharge requirements come 2017?” They ask this rhetorically and then respond, “No thanks.”
In so doing, they miss the question and the point. No one really doubts that eventually the city cannot rely on the current groundwater supply to bring us good enough water quality on a sustainable basis.
However, those are not the questions that we should be asking. The questions that we need to be asking now are when do we have to switch our water system, are there ways to postpone the inevitable, and how can we reduce the costs so that we do not end up tripling or quadrupling our water costs and pricing businesses and residences right out of town?
Toward that end, we can ask why the city was unable to build in the costs of the wastewater treatment plant over a period of time to moderate the impact of rate hikes.
Second, we can ask why the city ignored the advice of experts Tchobanoglous and Schroeder, who seemed to suggest that the city could build the water supply project first, thus reducing some of the out-of-compliance discharges and avoid having to build the expensive water supply project concurrently with the wastewater treatment plant.
Finally, we need to be looking at ways to cut costs. The city brought in Tchobanoglous and Schroeder to advise on wastewater, and they were able to find ways to cut the costs of the project drastically.
Why have we not taken a similar approach with water?
These are all far more critical questions than the ones that the mayor and councilmember are addressing. But it is also telling that they have had to go back to the start to sell the public on the basics of this plan. That tells you that they do not feel that the average member of the public understands why we are embarking on this expensive project that will triple residential rates in the next five years.
Here are several key selling points that they make.
First, they argue, “Davis’ antiquated system has allowed us to keep water rates far lower than other urban areas. Perhaps our low rates have helped us accept the taste of our water (though some are just fine with it), or the trouble it causes our water-using appliances, plumbing and certain plants, or the need for in-home filter systems.”
They then make the argument that groundwater alone costs us much more than what we pay in our water bill.
They argue, “Replacement of appliances and fixtures are additional household costs. So, too, are the costs of water softeners, filters and bottled water for drinking.”
They do not, however, state what the city once propagandized, that we will pay less in the future with these changes than we do now.
The key point that they make is not in dispute, “Water supply reliability concerns are compounded by increasingly strict regulatory requirements that limit nitrates, selenium, manganese and salts in our drinking water and wastewater discharge. Our drinking water supply and wastewater discharge are inextricably linked, because what comes in must meet environmental standards before being discharged to our environment.”
This is what prompted Tchobanoglous and Schroeder back in 2009 to recommend that we “proceed with the water supply while looking at other cheaper options that could delay the building of a new wastewater treatment plant….”
How much impact would that have had? Well, we would not be trying to finance a $100 million wastewater treatment with our sewer rates at the same time we are financing the water supply project with our water rates.
But we have not done that, and so we may have to consider another of their recommendations, “Proceed with the regional board and seek redress with these very restrictive limits.”
The water discharges changes take effect in 2017, so could the city get a five-year extension, based on the fact that the community is balking at financing the water supply project? We do not know. The mayor would argue that other cities have tried and failed.
They write, “If our overall supply quality doesn’t improve, we risk heavy fines come 2017. Compounds like hexavalent chromium, of the Erin Brockovich case and that can naturally occur in groundwater, will soon be regulated. Costs will be high if we are required to treat each affected well.”
This is misleading, as it cites the Brockovich case as though we have risk to public safety from our drinking water, which we do not.
They continue, “Other cities in our region already are paying discharge fines. Woodland, for example, pays $14,000 per month for violating selenium limits, and the maximum that could be charged is far, far higher. Dixon voted down higher rates for a new water system. The city is subject to heavy fines and still will be required to build modern water works.”
They continue, “Lastly, Davis prides itself on good environmental stewardship and its reputation for being green. We cannot, in good conscience, violate environmental wastewater discharge requirements at the expense of the natural environment.”
But this argument appeals to emotion, not logic. Is the amount of selenium we are discharging dangerous to the environment? Or is it simply that we have made the regulations in that regard overly-stringent?
There is also the practical and that is, what happens if people were to oppose the Prop 218 vote, what would the city do then?
While that seems unlikely, there remains at least a possibility that the city may have to put the matter for a vote via referendum, and if the city voters balk at the rate hikes during what is quickly becoming another possible economic downturn, what plans do the council and city staff have to rectify the situation?
So, let us all proceed on the assumption that there are good reasons to move eventually to the Sacramento River, problems notwithstanding, and figure out a way to more comfortably finance this project so that residents and businesses are not strained like the current proposal strains them.
They write, “Controlling costs and keeping rates as low as possible is the second huge piece of our water puzzle. Input from residents during the city’s neighborhood meetings this summer and strong dialogue with the business community are leading to excellent progress in that arena. Next Sunday, our op-ed will explain the opportunities for reducing costs and setting the lowest possible rates over a period of years.”
The problem is getting there. And unfortunately, Mr. Souza bears a good deal of blame here. He has been pushing the water project forward since he arrived on the council in 2004, and yet, neither he nor his colleagues set aside one cent to ease the rate increases and the impacts on business and the residents.
That’s the real issue here, and until the city and council address that, this project remains dubious.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
…and good debate continues. As it turns out, I don’t feel defensive at all. To the waiting idea, the Enterprise article that added to that idea focuses on the purported views of Ken Landau of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Here he is, directly on point, and discussing other issues. [url]www.wdcwa.com/board/board_meeting_videos/[/url] Scroll down to the 6/30/2011 special meeting and at about minute three Mr. Landau begins his comments and then questions from the WDCWA directors follow.
Regarding all of the citing of professors S. and T. and what they think/thought and when, it’s likely best to hear from them directly.
As a general statement, I believe this commentary is a bit too quick with conclusions with respect to what hasn’t been studied. This is a very complex issue. I greatly appreciate everyone hanging in and working to digest and connect all of the aspects of a join supply and discharge system.
Stephen and I simply couldn’t fit in all we wanted to say to one op-ed, so we broke it up, and the staff report on the rates won’t come out until next week, so the final numbers won’t be known until then.
[quote]Toward that end, we can ask why the city was able to build in the costs of the wastewater treatment plant over a period of time to moderate the impact of rate hikes.
Second, we can ask why the city ignored the advice of experts Tchobanoglous and Schroeder who seemed to suggest that the city could build the water supply project, thus reducing some of the out-of-compliance discharges and avoid having to build the expensive water supply project concurrently with the wastewater treatment plant.
Finally, we need to be looking at ways to cut costs. The city brought in Tchobanoglous and Schroeder to advise on wastewater, they were able to find ways to cut the costs of the project drastically.[/quote]
1) The water rate increases were not built in over time bc of the push to bring in the two UCD experts before any decisions were made. The Dept of Public Works was all set to ramp up the water rate increases long ago, but were stopped by the clamoring demand to bring in the experts to get their opinion ahead of any rate increases. As a result, now the water rate increases have to be increased over a much shorter period of time (5 years).
2) The city is implementing exactly what the two UCD experts advocated – build the surface water project first and foremost. Then see if that won’t cut costs of upgrading the wastewater treatment plant.
3) The Davis Dept of Public Works and citizen groups are currently looking at ways to cut costs to the water rate increases in Davis.
[quote]They do not however state what the city once propagandized, that we will pay less in the future with these changes than we do now.[/quote]
If the surface water project is approved and built, there will no longer be a need for water softeners. It is my understanding there may be a push to outlaw them in the city limits. Not totally sure about this…
[quote]The water discharges changes take effect in 2017, could the city get a five year extension based on the fact that the community is balking at financing the water supply project? We do not know. The Mayor would argue that other cities have tried and failed.[/quote]
Other cities have tried and failed. The SWRCB very well may ramp up fines if they think too many cities refuse to comply with the new standards. We just have no way of knowing what the SWRCB will do. The more pertinent question is “Do we want to find out?” – in other words take our chances in not building the project, not having a reliable source of water supply, in the hopes that the fines will be less than the cost of the project and there will be no drought conditions in the next 25 years.
[quote]But this argument appeals to emotion not logic. Is the amount of selenium we are discharging dangerous to the environment? Or is it simply that we have made the regulations in that regard overly stringent.[/quote]
Blame this on the environmentalists, who were clamoring for these more stringent standards. Well now they have gotten what they wished for. Now the rest of us have to deal with the high costs…
[quote]There is also the practical and that is, what happens if people were to oppose the Prop 218 vote, what would the city do then?
While that seems unlikely, there remains at least a possibility that the city may choose to put the matter for a vote via referendum and if the city voters balk at the rate hikes during what is quickly becoming another possible economic downturn, what plans do the council and city staff have to rectify the situation.[/quote]
If the surface water project is not approved, for whatever reason, then what? What is the suggestion by the Vanguard for a back-up plan? It is easy to criticize, much more difficult to make constructive suggestions…
[quote]The problem is getting there. And unfortunately, Mr. Souza bears a good deal of blame here. He has been pushing the water project forward since he arrived on the council in 2004, and yet, neither he nor his colleagues did not set aside one cent to ease the rate increases and the impacts on business and the residents.[/quote]
As I pointed out before, there was an insistence on bringing in the two UCD experts, BEFORE raising rates. So how can you lay the blame for the non-institution of increases on City Council member Souza or the Dept. of Public Works, who wanted to ramp up rates a lot sooner?
[quote]No one really doubts that eventually the city cannot rely on the current groundwater supply to bring us good enough water quality on a sustainable basis.
However, those are not the questions that we should be asking. The questions that we need to be asking is when do we have to switch our water system, are there ways to postpone the inevitable, and how can reduce the costs so that we do not end up tripling or quadrupling our water costs and price businesses and residences right out of town.[/quote]
You concede we need this project, but you are just unwilling to pay for it. You state the city is not asking the right questions. So I pose the following question to you: Then WHAT IS THE PLAN if we don’t build this project?
David, your response here is very distorted to the point that I don’t even feel like doing a point by point rebuttal. I think Elaine has done an excellent job of that. So I’ll just stick with this:
[i]So, let us all proceed on the assumption that there are good reasons to move eventually to the Sacramento River, problems notwithstanding, and [b]figure out a way to more comfortably finance this project[/b] [/i]
Any suggestions?
Opponents of this project have argued for delaying it or figuring out some other way to pay for it. So I think it’s time to put up, as they say.
Delay it how long?
What metric will you use to determine that we can now afford it?
What other financing options do you have in mind?
You keep putting the onus on the council majority to “defend” this water project. You need to defend your position, because your answers to Elaine’s questions are — in spite of over a dozen blog articles on this topic — nowhere to be found.
Finally, I want to ask you how you square this question with what I assume to be a strong environmentalist position on most issues:
[i]is it simply that we have made the regulations in that regard overly-stringent?[/i]
Which other water quality standards would you like to relax due to cost? I am sure there are any number of industries and farmers that would love to hear that environmentalists are now advocating reducing water quality standards due to the cost of compliance.
[quote]Opponents of this project have argued for delaying it or figuring out some other way to pay for it. So I think it’s time to put up, as they say.
Delay it how long?
What metric will you use to determine that we can now afford it?
What other financing options do you have in mind? [/quote]
All excellent questions. I would also urge the Vanguard and its readers to listen to a representative from the SWCRB speak to the issue of future fines and the dangers of noncompliance at the link Mayor Krovoza has provided above BEFORE RUSHING TO JUDGMENT IN SUGGESTING NONCOMPLIANCE AS A “CHEAPER” ALTERNATIVE…
The crucial,final Davis City Council vote approving the Project occurred just before Christmas, 2010, when most Davis citizens were busy, preoccupied, or away. December 2010 was also the only month the surface water right offer from the developer was available. Does a hurried vote under the cover of darkness so to speak pass the transparency “sniff” test to you? It smells “fishy” to me!
ER Musser, claiming to be just an undecided party who is looking at all facts when called out previously on this blog as an advocate for the surface water project, has here clearly shown her hand . For example, her comment that the surface water project would remove the need for water softeners is bogus as there will be large portions of Davis that will be paying for the new water project but will not be tied into it, having to still relying on current ground water supplies. As the Sept 6 date approaches, we can expect similar unfounded arguments aggressively put forward as well as “mushroom cloud” scare tactics, much like the last 2 weeks of previous citizen referendums, ie Covell Measure X citizen referendum. Those who have already given this issue long and serious thought need to counter this well-established political strategy by calmly discussing it with your neighbors, family and friends.
What part of Davis will be paying and not getting benefits? Thx.
‘David, your response here is very distorted to the point that I don’t even feel like doing a point by point rebuttal. I think Elaine has done an excellent job of that. So I’ll just stick with this:”
Not surprisingly, Don echos Elaine’s arguments. In reply to Don’s question about future funding, it is entirely possible that the future, beyond 2012, will bring a revival of the policy of Federal funds being funneled into local public projects to help our anemic economy which looks like it will drag on for another decade without major Federal “pump-priming”. Recent court ruling that consequences to communities for infrastructure costs to meet stringent water-quality standards MUST be taken into consideration when levying fines for non-compliance has recently been added to the policy mix. IMO, this significantly weakens the weight of the public position of the concerned agencies that are quoting current policy that will be reshaped in future court rulings.
I do believe that when very complex issues like the one being considered need to be addressed, there is a strong tendency for part-time elected reps who have limited experience, knowledge, energy, and time to devote to their public duties to gravitate towards answers that resolve the issues quickly and definitively. Administrative bureaucracies, similarly, strongly gravitate towards supporting decisions that minimize difficulty and complexity while maximizing certainty and finality. IMO, the complexity of the water project and its impacts on Davis’ future does not lend itself well to these political/bureaucratic realities and , IMO, a prop 18 result or subsequent citizen referendum that at least halts the momentum of this surface water project will be of benefit when it creates the time and political space to continue exploring policies that best serve the Davis community.
‘What part of Davis will be paying and not getting benefits? Thx.’
David discussed this issue some time ago and my recollection is that North
Davis was the area that was, with certainty, going to be tied in to the project with South Davis NOT receiving surface water. When the city administration was pressed to clarify this issue, they responded that engineering solutions were being investigated (but, pointedly, did not say that solutions were currently in the plan or in existence).
Here are some of the many documents I have read on this subject so far starting with Professors Schroeder and Tchobanoglous Study.
Schroeder Tchobanoglous Study-February 2009
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/docs/Schroeder-Tchobanoglous-study.pdf[/url]
Final EIR-October 2007
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/docs/Final_Environmental_Impact_Report.pdf[/url]
Summary of Alternatives
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Summary_of_Alts_for_DWWSP_051310_with_Cover.pdf[/url]
JPA Agreement-September 2009
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Final_signed_JPA.pdf[/url]
NWRI Panel Report-July 2008
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/docs/NWRI-Final-Panel-Report-on-the-Davis-Project-20080718.pdf[/url]
Water Workshop-April 2011
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20110412/05 Water Workshop.pdf[/url]
It is great to read the rational thoughts of Elaine and Don Shor. At the risk of being somewhat repetitious, I would like to offer the following:
[quote]However, those are not the questions that we should be asking. The questions that we need to be asking now are when do we have to switch our water system, are there ways to postpone the inevitable[/quote],
Like home or auto maintenance, postponing the inevitable is rarely a wise choice. Interest and labor rates are now at an all time low. It is not going to be cheaper or easier in the future.
[quote]and how can we reduce the costs so that we do not end up tripling or quadrupling our water costs and pricing businesses and residences right out of town?[/quote]
What evidence is there to support this assumption? Even after our water rates are raised, will it be so much cheaper in other communities that relocating would be worth it? Davis has rambled on about restaurants, apartments, and Sudwerk. Will people really stop living in Davis because the cost of water increases? Will we all really have to drive down to Dixon or up to Woodland for an evening out because of water rates? I can see a high water usage business like a brewery being impacted, but again, how much would they save by moving the brewery? Could the city not offer some concessions to offset the cost of the water?
[quote]Toward that end, we can ask why the city was unable to build in the costs of the wastewater treatment plant over a period of time to moderate the impact of rate hikes.[/quote]
Second, we can ask why the city ignored the advice of experts Tchobanoglous and Schroeder, who seemed to suggest that the city could build the water supply project first, thus reducing some of the out-of-compliance discharges and avoid having to build the expensive water supply project concurrently with the wastewater treatment plant.[/quote]
History. Interesting, but doesn’t solve the problem at hand.
I find it interesting that, for the first time I am aware of it, David and Bob Dunning are of the same mind. They are also both wrong.
Can with Joe or Stephen explain what part if Davis will not benefit yet pay for the water project?
Wait for federal dollars, and wait for the courts to throw out the water quality standards. Got it.
“Wait for federal dollars and wait for the courts to throw out the water quality standards.”
Exaggerated hyperbole is often the refuge of a weak argument. Federal dollars MAY be available as part of,IMO, the second Federal stimulus that will be part of Obama’s second term and AJUSTMENT of the water quality standards similar to the way that the Arsenic level was adjusted,during the Clinton presidency, I believe, when SouthWest communities made their case that they could not afford the local water treatment facilities necessary to remove the Arsenic from their water supply to the level mandated by the Feds.
There are infinite complexities to this issue, and it is difficult to know where to begin. I’ll start with the easiest.
[quote]E. Roberts Musser: I will The water rate increases were not built in over time bc of the push to bring in the two UCD experts before any decisions were made.[/quote]— I don’t know where this comes from, and it isn’t true. The surface water project has been in the works for about two decades. Schroeder-Tchobanoglous were brought in recently, and there were only a few months before they were first hired and their report was issued.
[quote]E. Roberts Musser: The city is implementing exactly what the two UCD experts advocated – build the surface water project first and foremost.[/quote]Yes, that would be the preferred alternative, if it is financially feasible. Dr. Tchobanoglous does not necessarily support proceeding with the water project now, at any cost and regardless of a Woodland’s demonstrated ability to pay.
Due to time constraints, I’ll just give you a brief summary of my take on some key points:
1) Our well water is safe to drink. We could describe Sacramento River water in very scary terms as well if we had an agenda to use groundwater (I recently talked with someone from Santa Monica who told me about the lengthy legal battle that they went through to be able to rely exclusively on their “good, clean groundwater” so that they wouldn’t have to use “dirty” river water. No kidding!) When it comes to river vs. groundwater, there is no clear winner in terms of health.
2) We do have options that could allow us to postpone the project if it is not feasible, and financial impacts can most certainly count in the feasibility department. Prior councils have not made it easier for us by neglecting to negotiate flexibility into our plans when dealing with the regional water board, but there is still a process if we were committed to it.
3) It appears disingenuous to state that our current water rates are unusually low, while neglecting to point out that our combined sewer/water rates will be unusually high if we proceed with both projects at the same time.
4) We also have large looming storm water costs ahead which have not been factored into the fiscal feasibility of doing both projects at once.
5) I have been told that we are way out ahead of Woodland in terms of our prop. 218 notice, and I think we should slow down and wait for them to catch up. I am very concerned about Woodland’s ability to finance their share. The Woodland council is prepared to finance the first three years of their share of this project with commercial paper. I have grave concerns about this approach, and feel strongly that we should undertake due diligence regarding their fiscal situation, and assure that they have raised their own rates to cover their future sewer and surface water costs before we proceed to endorse our 218 notice.
6) When I first got on the council in 2000, the surface water project seemed like a good idea. But a number of important things have changed since then. In 2000, the University was paying for 20 percent of the project. They pulled out. In 2000, we were told that we would get substantial state and federal funding help. This help is not available during these most difficult economic times. In 2000, we had recently completed a new wastewater treatment plant, and were not facing huge wastewater plant costs. Then we were told that we had to completely rebuild it. In 2000, the city and the state were in solid fiscal condition. Today, we are facing a “lost decade”. In total, this project was feasible and desirable in 2000, today it is desirable but not feasible.
7) The alternative is to work with the regional board to try to get a postponement of this project, and to work on an interim plan which includes more intermediate-term reliance on the deep water aquifer which is far lower in salts and selenium. The cost of digging more deep aquifer wells would be chump change compared to proceeding immediately with the surface water project.
To the extent that we can phase in our two humongous capital improvement projects – the new wastewater treatment plant and the surface water plants, the more feasible the long-term solution is from a fiscal perspective. Our water rights are secured for 40 years. We have already made more than enough progress to demonstrate our determination to complete the project well within the 40 year period.
I would support buying our needed easements for the surface water conveyance when good opportunities arise. I would support participating in our 20% share of the Conway intake if the owners receive their federal grants for the remaining 80%. This way, we would be ready to proceed to complete the project quickly if absolutely needed.
In general, the way to keep costs controllable is to phase in huge projects to the extent possible. If we try to do them both at the same time (and deal with pending federal wastewater mandates as well), our sewer/water costs over the next 40 years or so will be far, far higher than any in the region, and even unusually high by statewide standards. Given our changed situation, I do not believe it is feasible to complete both projects within the time-frame currently anticipated.
[i]the second Federal stimulus that will be part of Obama’s second term [/i]
Conditioning the water project on a federal stimulus would be pointless for various reasons. First and foremost, a second stimulus is very unlikely under any conditions, as you well know from the political realities. Second, any stimulus dollars would be one-time, and the cost of these projects is ongoing. But since I know you have opposed this water project completely, in any form whatsoever, I understand that this is merely a way to delay it in the hopes of killing it outright.
[i]AJUSTMENT of the water quality standards[/i]
[i]Adjustment[/i] is a euphemism here for [i]weakening[/i] of the water quality standards. So just to clarify: [u]you believe the water quality standards that are part of the Delta restoration plan [i]should[/i] be weakened because of the cost[/u] of the Davis/Woodland water project? You specifically support weakening water quality standards due to cost? I also hope David will answer this question.
[quote]you believe the water quality standards that are part of the Delta restoration plan should be weakened because of the cost — Don Shor[/quote]Don, one of the reasons that the State Water Resources Control Board is revamping the salinity management plan for the Delta is because it was never particularly envisioned that the salinity would be managed through draconian municipal waste water requirements. The fiscal impact on cities IS considered to be important. [quote]Second, any stimulus dollars would be one-time, and the cost of these projects is ongoing.– Don Shor[/quote]Actually, the bulk of the cost is one-time. We are just paying for it with bonds which allows us to spread out the payment over forty years or so because we don’t have federal funds which could pay for it up front.
Don:
“Adjustment is a euphemism here for weakening of the water quality standards…”
Adjustment is an accurate description rather than the hyperbolic “throwing-out” phrase you offered.
“…you believe the water quality standards that are part of the Delta restoration plan should be weakened because of the cost..”
Actually, I believe that the Delta restoration plan is contingent on approval of a massive bond which better informed sources than I suggest is politically extremely unlikely, living the Delta restoration plan “dead in the water” for the foreseeable future, for similar economic considerations to those that we are discussing concerning the Davis water project.
Does anyone know where our current sewage wastewater goes after treatment?
I know some of the stormwater goes to North Davis ponds and Putah Creek; where does the rest of it go?
Has an option of artificial recharge (to aquifers) of some of the stormwater been evaluated?
jimt: don’t confuse sanitary sewer discharges with storm ‘sewer’ discharges… they are different systems, but ‘at the end of the day’, they both end up in the Sacramento River, far south of Davis, and end up in SF Bay and then, in the Pacific Ocean… for both systems, in Davis, they do not end up recharging water aquifers, except (perhaps) in the shallowest AG wells (not domestic)… given the nature of urban stormwater (contaminants from motor oil, etc.,) we do not want to inject that “stuff” into ag or domestic aquifers.
@SODA: “What part of Davis will be paying and not getting benefits? Thx.”
Joe Krovoza and Steve Souza – please respond.
Is the surface water going to be equitably distributed to the entire city? Yes or no?
[i]Is the surface water going to be equitably distributed to the entire city? Yes or no?[/i]
Some parts of west and south Davis would still get well water.
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4200:will-new-water-project-unequally-benefit-davis-residents&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url]
“Federal dollars MAY be available as part of,IMO, the second Federal stimulus that will be part of Obama’s second term”
Second term? Don’t count your chickens just yet, not going to happen according to the polls.
Don: Thanks for the link.
I would still like a reply from Krovoza and/or Souza. I know they are reading this thread. C’mon guys. How about a response?
According to David Greenwald on 3/23/11:[quote]Mayor Joe Krovoza declined comment on this issue until he could be better versed on the issue.[/quote]Five months is more than enough time for our Mayor to have gotten up to speed.
I’d also challenge David Greenwald to publish the anonymous letter he received.[quote]The Vanguard received an anonymous letter purporting to be from a member of city staff.[/quote]
[quote]The crucial,final Davis City Council vote approving the Project occurred just before Christmas, 2010, when most Davis citizens were busy, preoccupied, or away. December 2010 was also the only month the surface water right offer from the developer was available. Does a hurried vote under the cover of darkness so to speak pass the transparency “sniff” test to you? It smells “fishy” to me![/quote]
I agree w you that this was an abuse of process. But now, it is what it is. So the real question becomes, are we better off with or without the surface water project? If we decide to go forward with the surface water project, should it be delayed and for how long? All important questions, and probably with no good answers…
It was decided that the letter would make it obvious to city staff as to who the author was and they took enough pains to avoid detection, that it was felt by myself and those I talked to, that it would not be appropriate to publish the letter. Moreover, the details in the letter are fully spelled out in the article.
[quote]ER Musser, claiming to be just an undecided party who is looking at all facts when called out previously on this blog as an advocate for the surface water project, has here clearly shown her hand . For example, her comment that the surface water project would remove the need for water softeners is bogus as there will be large portions of Davis that will be paying for the new water project but will not be tied into it, having to still relying on current ground water supplies. As the Sept 6 date approaches, we can expect similar unfounded arguments aggressively put forward as well as “mushroom cloud” scare tactics, much like the last 2 weeks of previous citizen referendums, ie Covell Measure X citizen referendum. Those who have already given this issue long and serious thought need to counter this well-established political strategy by calmly discussing it with your neighbors, family and friends.[/quote]
First, I have not completely made my mind up yet about the surface water project, your commentary and suppositions on my views notwithstanding. Secondly, I specifically stated I was not sure about the water softener issue. I heard from the dais (I believe Souza said it, but not completely certain) that once the surface water project was completed, there would be no need for water softeners, and that the city might consider outlawing them altogether. Since some folks will still be relying on well water rather than surface water, I would assume those people will still want water softeners. But if the city continues with the current number of water softeners which discharge salt, it is my understanding the discharge water will be too saline to meet the new water quality standards. So something would have to be done about the large number of water softeners I would think.
[quote]E. Roberts Musser: I will The water rate increases were not built in over time bc of the push to bring in the two UCD experts before any decisions were made.
S. Greenwald: I don’t know where this comes from, and it isn’t true. The surface water project has been in the works for about two decades. Schroeder-Tchobanoglous were brought in recently, and there were only a few months before they were first hired and their report was issued. [/quote]
Actually I believe I am correct. Bob Weir from Dept of Public Works and the Gang of Three in the CC were more than ready to ramp up water rate increases long ago based on two mammoth projects funded at the same time, water and sewer. There was a clarion call by you, Council member Greenwald, to bring in two UCD experts, which stopped the process of ramping up the water rate increases, whereas the sewer rate increases were gradually instituted. The two UCD experts recommended going ahead with the surface water project first and foremost, thinking that would reduce the cost for the wastewater treatment plant by about $100 million. Only when the CC finally adopted the mode of thinking of the two UCD experts and Council member Greenwald in saving at least a $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, so there was a formal approval of the surface water project, could the water rate increases go forward.
[quote]Dr. Tchobanoglous does not necessarily support proceeding with the water project now, at any cost and regardless of a Woodland’s demonstrated ability to pay.[/quote]
If he has changed his position, then he should come forward and say so.
David: Your 3/23 article is not clear. You write:[quote]According to the letter “not everyone in Davis is going to get the “good” water.” Writes the anonymous author, “He [Mr. Pryor] explained that some people in West and South Davis will still only get well water, yet pay twice as much while the rich folks in Mace Ranch get all the good, low TDS [total dissolved solids] water for their yards and homes.”[/quote]If I take this text at face value, you are stating that Mr. Pryor is the source of the claim that the surface water will not be equitably distributed city-wide and that your whistle-blower is just spreading the allegation. Is this interpretation correct?
Given the seriousness of the issue and the huge amount of money involved, I would hope for a clear and unambiguous statement from Krovoza and/or Souza.
[quote]1) Our well water is safe to drink.[/quote] I agree.
[quote]2) We do have options that could allow us to postpone the project if it is not feasible, and financial impacts can most certainly count in the feasibility department.[/quote] And what process would that be, and what risks would that entail?
[quote]3) It appears disingenuous to state that our current water rates are unusually low, while neglecting to point out that our combined sewer/water rates will be unusually high if we proceed with both projects at the same time. [/quote] Agreed.
[quote]4) We also have large looming storm water costs ahead which have not been factored into the fiscal feasibility of doing both projects at once. [/quote] Fair point.
[quote]5) I have been told that we are way out ahead of Woodland in terms of our prop. 218 notice, and I think we should slow down and wait for them to catch up.[/quote] This is a good point. I would like to know where Woodland is in their process, and whether they will be able to be a good financial partner in this.
[quote]In 2000, the University was paying for 20 percent of the project. They pulled out. In 2000, we were told that we would get substantial state and federal funding help. This help is not available during these most difficult economic times.[/quote] This is a valid point, but what is the alternative and its attendant risks?
[quote]7) The alternative is to work with the regional board to try to get a postponement of this project, and to work on an interim plan which includes more intermediate-term reliance on the deep water aquifer which is far lower in salts and selenium. The cost of digging more deep aquifer wells would be chump change compared to proceeding immediately with the surface water project. [/quote] And how likely is it to get a postponement? Did you look at the video footage as suggested by Mayor Krovoza? Did you listen to the representative from the SWRCB?
[quote]Conditioning the water project on a federal stimulus would be pointless for various reasons. First and foremost, a second stimulus is very unlikely under any conditions, as you well know from the political realities. Second, any stimulus dollars would be one-time, and the cost of these projects is ongoing. But since I know you have opposed this water project completely, in any form whatsoever, I understand that this is merely a way to delay it in the hopes of killing it outright. [/quote]
Excellent points.
[quote]Is the surface water going to be equitably distributed to the entire city? Yes or no?[/quote]
I believe the answer is NO.
[quote]”Federal dollars MAY be available as part of,IMO, the second Federal stimulus that will be part of Obama’s second term” [/quote]
These are huge assumptions…
(Steve Hayes)
The crucial,final Davis City Council vote approving the Project occurred just before Christmas, 2010, when most Davis citizens were busy, preoccupied, or away. December 2010 was also the only month the surface water right offer from the developer was available. Does a hurried vote under the cover of darkness so to speak pass the transparency “sniff” test to you? It smells “fishy” to me!
(Elaine Roberts Musser)
I agree w you that this was an abuse of process. But now, it is what it is.
(Steve Hayes)
Thank you Elaine. The abuse of process is driving some of the opposition to this project. Siting the Project surface water intake on the Sacramento River south of the discharge point of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (at Knights Landing) is another concern of mine. (Please see Hayes, S.P. et. al. 1978. The impact of irrigation return water from the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District on the water quality and periphyton in the Sacramento River at Knights Landing, California. California Water Resources Center Contribution No. 167. University of California, Davis, California. 75p.) Thank you again for your comment.
[quote]If I take this text at face value, you are stating that Mr. Pryor is the source of the claim that the surface water will not be equitably distributed city-wide and that your whistle-blower is just spreading the allegation. Is this interpretation correct? [/quote]
Yes. And the city confirmed the claim.
[quote][b]E. Roberts Musser says:[/b] “Actually I believe I am correct. Bob Weir from Dept of Public Works and the Gang of Three in the CC were more than ready to ramp up water rate increases long ago based on two mammoth projects funded at the same time, water and sewer. There was a clarion call by you, Council member Greenwald, to bring in two UCD experts,” [/quote]Elaine, please read my comment again. There was only a period of a few MONTHS between the time that council paid ANY attention at all to my long-standing request to bring in the two UCD experts and their final report, so the hiring of the two UCD experts couldn’t possibly have had a significant effect on the timing of the rate increases.
@David Greenwald:[quote]And the city confirmed the claim.[/quote]Sorry. Still not clear. Are you saying that (1) the city confirmed that Mr Pryor made the claim, or (2) Mr Pryor’s claim is factually correct – i.e. that the staff is proposing an extraordinarily expensive new water system that will be paid for by the entire city but will only benefit a portion of the residents?
I think the entire surface water and sewer project should be put on a ballot for a formal vote of the people, before the CC commits to paying over $255 million.
I personally think the city should live within its means and geographical area.
The CC put Target on the ballot; shouldnt it do the same for this huge expense?
Opinion by Dr. Schroeder in today’s Enterprise:
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/better-water-is-needed-now/[/url]
Excerpts:
“…the condition of the city’s wells and the quality of water in the intermediate aquifer is deteriorating.”
“…the city has developed several new wells in the “deep aquifer” at depths of more than 1,500 feet. The deep aquifer is believed connected to the upper intermediate aquifer and pumping could result in drawing contaminants from higher elevations into the deep wells as well as additional ground subsidence and loss of aquifer capacity.”
“More important is the unknown sustainability of the deep aquifer…”
“Based on the available information, we concluded, and I continue to believe, that prudence demands developing a surface water supply at this time.”
“Competition for surface water is increasing from other users and the demands that maintaining delta water quality place on supplies. Obtaining rights to Sacramento River water may not be possible in the future and the cost of buying water rights is expected to increase dramatically in coming years.
“Postponing development will reduce future options and may require more expensive alternatives….”