Ordinance Number 2381 was attested by the City Clerk after hours on Thursday, September 22, 2011. Therefore, the official day of attestation shall be Friday, September 23.
The clock has started and those who seek a referendum or initiative to overturn the city’s water rates now have less than 30 days to file to put it on the ballot. By October 24, 3705 Davis voters need to have signed a petition in order for the voters to have a chance to weigh in on the decision.
The council would also have the choice to bypass an election by repealing the ordinance.
By our calculations, five years of 14% rate hikes mean that within five years the rates will have nearly doubled – increasing by 92.5%.
The rate increases take effect after December 1, 2011.
In this morning’s Davis Enterprise, Former City Councilmember Mike Harrington argued that the council has missed the mark by failing to put the water rates to a public vote.
“At this time, the price is too much for what they’re describing as the project and, even more importantly, the people of the city of Davis really prefer to vote on big-ticket projects and policies,” Mr. Harrington told the Enterprise.
The Prop 218 process, as we have argued numerous times, is undemocratic.
The City of Davis sent out Proposition 218 notices to property owners only, who are the City’s utility customers. Anyone returning their protest forms – which the city expanded in scope to facilitate protesting – would have their protest counted. Anyone failing to return the form would be assumed to be supportive of the rate increase.
The city received 4860 protests – a huge number, but nowhere near the majority of all parcels that were necessary to nullify the rate increase.
In Davis there are roughly 15,800 parcels that were eligible for protest, and, again, about 4800 people (some with the ability to vote more than once, owning multiple parcels) turned in protest forms.
This led Councilmember Stephen Souza to argue that 72% of the voters supported the rate hikes – presented in such a fashion, that sounds overwhelming.
“4800 protests was a message heard loud and clear by the council,” Mayor Krovoza said on Vanguard radio. “It was very, very impressive.”
On the issue of who were eligible protesters, the Vanguard had argued that owners were not the only ones eligible to vote in the Prop 218 protest.
Government Code section 53755(b) states “One written protest per parcel, filed by an owner or tenant of the parcel, shall be counted in calculating a majority protest to a proposed new or increased fee or charge subject to the requirements of Section 6 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.”
Then-City Manager Paul Navazio argued that “Only if the tenant is directly responsible for the bill ( i.e. is the customer) does the notice also go to the tenant.” And added, “This tenant protest right only applies to the situation when, under Proposition 218, the tenant is directly liable to pay the fee.”
“That is not the case in Davis, as only property owners are directly liable to pay the water, sewer and solid waste fees,” Mr. Navazio told the Vanguard.
The problem is that the impact of the rate hikes reaches much farther than only to property owners. It is likely that higher water rates will get passed along to both tenants of rental units, as well as customers who frequent places of business.
Moreover, as Councilmember Sue Greenwald pointed out, all of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income.
On Wednesday, Stephen Souza said that not a day goes by when he does not think of ways to cut costs and of the impact on the residents. He pointed out he, too, is a ratepayer and therefore he is well aware of the pain this may cause residents.
But in fact, Mr. Souza, though he is making less income than he made prior to when he was on the council, still enjoys the income from two well-paying jobs. He has no children. And one wonders if he really understands the plight of people struggling to make ends meet each month.
The persons utterly disenfranchised by the rate hikes and the Prop 218 vote are those who are renters. Renters who were not afforded the right to protest. Renters who will likely have higher rates passed down to them. Renters who may be living week to week.
The worst part is that, while the city is looking into some sort of subsidy plan, which Councilmember Sue Greenwald has already stated is not going to work, the renter is not eligible for any kind of subsidy because the renter is not a rate payer.
In short, the Prop 218 process did not give a large percentage of people, who have as much stake in the rate hikes as anyone else, the opportunity to have their voices heard.
As Mr. Harrington pointed out to the Davis Enterprise, the city was willing to put Target before the voters, why not water?
“That project was a tiny, minuscule thing compared to the surface water project,” he told the Enterprise, adding, “(The council is) out of touch with the long-standing Davis tradition of voting on the bigger projects and policies.”
Win or lose, by putting the measure on the ballot, democracy will have prevailed and the people will have decided whether or not they want to pay more for water.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get out and sign the referendum. We have 4 weeks to get the needed signatures. The people need to ultimately decide this.
I just hope that, if the referendum/initiative is certified, the vote will take place in a General Election rather than a Special one.
From today’s Reuter’s:
BERLIN – Germany’s opposition Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens called on Sunday for European Union citizens to get more direct influence in European affairs via plebiscites on key policy issues — and even a direct vote for top posts in Brussels.
“plebiscites on key policy issues”.. The Davis citizen referendum on the surface water/rate hike plan joins this growing global movement.
At the Farmer’s Market yesterday, I spoke with an engineer from Woodland whose specialty was water and waste treatment. It was his observation that the citizens of Woodland,by and large,were not politically engaged in, nor adequately informed about the surface water plan and its rate consequences.
When asked about UCD having special ground water rights, he confirmed that
with ground water there are no special rights. So much for the false claims/narratives that we have been reading from posters whose motivations( financial gain, political PR professionals) are suspect.
“I spoke with …” More heresay. Sources that are never named giving expert information that supports a political agenda.
“Posters whose motivations are suspect.” Vilify your opponents. Attack the messenger. Polarize.
This is nothing more than the tired old progressive coalition trying to return to relevance. The fact that they have co-opted a legitimate political debate as a campaign tactic for Sue Greenwald (and, as I’ve predicted in previous posts) Michael Harrington (if things get sufficiently rancorous) is cynical and more than a little slimy.
If you want to question motives, ask yourself why the environmental thought leaders in this community are so willing to manipulate the electorate and game the regulatory system so that we can continue to dump our pollution into the delta.
Those opposing the project badly need help getting signatures. We are not going to get 4,000 signatures out of nowhere in 30 days or just because 4,800 people filed Prop 218 protest votes. This takes hard grassroots work and I have my distinct doubts as to whether the task is possible.
In retrospect the rejection of Covell Village seems like a sure thing. As one who was involved with that fight at the core level for a year I can assure you it wasn’t. And the fight was much closer than people realize with most of the credit going to a nucleus of about 20 or so people who did most of the work. We had circa one year.
Now we have less than 30 days!!! Get out there and help if you seriously want to have any chance of getting this project put on the ballot. It will be your last and only chance. Once this project has stated there will be no going back.
Regarding ground water rights, here is the citation I posted in an earlier thread:
[url]http://aic.ucdavis.edu/events/outlook05/Sawyer_primer.pdf[/url]
This is posted for everyone to read. It is real. It can be debated. It is not an anonymous “expert” that no one can question.
My reading of the document is that UCD is an “overlying user” and the city is an “appropriative user.” This means that UCD and the other overlying users (like farmers) get first rights to the deep aquifer. As a consequence, if/when the rate of usage exceeds the rate of recharge, UCD’s rights to the water would supersede ours.
It would be very useful for a qualified water attorney to weigh in on the issue, since access to this water is central to the opponents’ plan.
“Posters whose motivations are suspect.” Vilify your opponents. Attack the messenger. Polarize.
This is nothing more than the tired old progressive coalition trying to return to relevance. The fact that they have co-opted a legitimate political debate as a campaign tactic for Sue Greenwald (and, as I’ve predicted in previous posts) Michael Harrington (if things get sufficiently rancorous) is cynical and more than a little slimy.”
Maybe Voter2012 should practice what he/she preaches.
[quote]When asked about UCD having special ground water rights, he confirmed that with ground water there are no special rights.[/quote]This may be correct, and it may not be. There are documents that show that UCD has asserted rights, and have let it be known that the City will have to provide extensive CEQA documentation that Davis’ use of the deep aquifer does not adversely affect their supply. Even if such documentation is provided, it is likely that it would be challenged, with the likely result of adjudication.
“the city was willing to put Target before the voters, why not water?”
I have one simple answer to this question. The presence or absence of a Target in our community was completely optional. One cannot say the same for the presence or absence of water. It is obviously critical that we secure access to adequate and sustainable water sources.
While I give credit to Sue Greenwald and others for attempting to address alternatives, or at least alternative timelines, I have found that the proposed options seem to have more speculation than I am comfortable with. I would favor a referendum if it were a choice among options. I would consider signing a petition if the people proposing it would state clearly what they see as the viable alternatives. As it is now, this signature gathering appears to be coming from folks who simply do not want to pay rate increases to ensure adequate availability of water in the future.
Perhaps some of the same folks who are opposed to more taxes regardless of the need ?
[quote]There are documents that show that UCD has asserted rights, and have let it be known that the City will have to provide extensive CEQA documentation that Davis’ use of the deep aquifer does not adversely affect their supply. Even if such documentation is provided, it is likely that it would be challenged, with the likely result of adjudication.[/quote]hpierce: Thank you for clarifying this.
Can you give us some general idea about the time and cost of the CEQA process you just outlined? If we decided to go adversarial with UCD, any ideas about the likelihood that we would prevail? Do you think that the CEQA documentation would require the city to prove that the deep aquifer is sustainable?
[quote]There are documents that show that UCD has asserted rights, and have let it be known that the City will have to provide extensive CEQA documentation that Davis’ use of the deep aquifer does not adversely affect their supply. Even if such documentation is provided, it is likely that it would be challenged, with the likely result of adjudication.[/quote]hpierce: Thank you for clarifying this.
Can you give us some general idea about the time and cost of the CEQA process you just outlined? If we decided to go adversarial with UCD, any ideas about the likelihood that we would prevail? Do you think that the CEQA documentation would require the city to prove that the deep aquifer is sustainable?
[i]”Councilmember Sue Greenwald pointed out, all of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income. …
Mr. Souza … still enjoys the income from two well-paying jobs. He has no children. And one wonders if he really understands the plight of people struggling to make ends meet each month.”[/i]
This is a ridiculous comment, David. Sue has a similar family, money situation with Stephen. She can understand perfectly well how threatening extremely high utility rates are for other people without having them decimate her and her husband’s lifestyle.
I don’t think it is decent or reasonable to attack someone’s political conclusion based on the notion that his family or financial circumstances make him or her incapable of empathy.
Think about someone like Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer. He was and she is rich as holy f%*k. Yet pretty much every piece of legislation either has authored was designed to tax the rich and give to the poor. On the other hand, there are unlimited examples of people in Congress with no real money whose legislative record is just the opposite.
Stephen may be wrong on this issue. Sue may be right. But it’s unfair to attack someone’s conclusion because of his or her personal family circumstances when you have no idea how that shapes his or her views.
[i]”Councilmember Sue Greenwald pointed out, all of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income. …
Mr. Souza … still enjoys the income from two well-paying jobs. He has no children. And one wonders if he really understands the plight of people struggling to make ends meet each month.”[/i]
This is a ridiculous comment, David. Sue has a similar family, money situation with Stephen. She can understand perfectly well how threatening extremely high utility rates are for other people without having them decimate her and her husband’s lifestyle.
I don’t think it is decent or reasonable to attack someone’s political conclusion based on the notion that his family or financial circumstances make him or her incapable of empathy.
Think about someone like Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer. He was and she is rich as holy f%*k. Yet pretty much every piece of legislation either has authored was designed to tax the rich and give to the poor. On the other hand, there are unlimited examples of people in Congress with no real money whose legislative record is just the opposite.
Stephen may be wrong on this issue. Sue may be right. But it’s unfair to attack someone’s conclusion because of his or her personal family circumstances when you have no idea how that shapes his or her views.
I should add that when commenters on this site have attacked your views on various tax measures, claiming that because you rent you don’t care about the financial damage such a measure would cause, I have come to your defense, saying that there is no evidence you have acted out of self interest or that your views would not be the same if you were a home owner. I think it is unkind and unwise to believe that someone disagrees with you on an issue does so because that person is too rich or too poor or has kids or doesn’t have kids, etc. I think the fair route is to let the person expressing his views to say why he has concluded what he has.
I should add more thing: if someone has a personal financial stake in an issue–such as a developer who wants his land rezoned for his own profits or an employee or family member of that developer–then it would be unreasonable not to question his motives. But save those kinds of cases, I think it best to not question the empathy of someone who decides differently than you.
I should add that when commenters on this site have attacked your views on various tax measures, claiming that because you rent you don’t care about the financial damage such a measure would cause, I have come to your defense, saying that there is no evidence you have acted out of self interest or that your views would not be the same if you were a home owner. I think it is unkind and unwise to believe that someone disagrees with you on an issue does so because that person is too rich or too poor or has kids or doesn’t have kids, etc. I think the fair route is to let the person expressing his views to say why he has concluded what he has.
I should add more thing: if someone has a personal financial stake in an issue–such as a developer who wants his land rezoned for his own profits or an employee or family member of that developer–then it would be unreasonable not to question his motives. But save those kinds of cases, I think it best to not question the empathy of someone who decides differently than you.
I agree with Rich that comments about Stephen Souza’s income is completely out of line and urge that David remove it from the commentary.
Regarding the deep aquifer:
“Because the deep aquifer has been found only under the southeastern portion of the County (i.e. in the vicinity of Davis), and [b]has limited or no natural recharge (Scott, 1990)[/b], it is not considered as significant or reliable a supply source for the County as the main aquifer or other surface supplies (though it is used by the University of California, Davis and may become important for the city of Davis).”
I agree with Rich that comments about Stephen Souza’s income is completely out of line and urge that David remove it from the commentary.
Regarding the deep aquifer:
“Because the deep aquifer has been found only under the southeastern portion of the County (i.e. in the vicinity of Davis), and [b]has limited or no natural recharge (Scott, 1990)[/b], it is not considered as significant or reliable a supply source for the County as the main aquifer or other surface supplies (though it is used by the University of California, Davis and may become important for the city of Davis).”
@ Voter2012: Since neither MIchael nor Sue have declared for election, your comments about their political tactics are not particularly relevant. Let’s stick to the topic and avoid issues of council campaign strategies until there actually is a council campaign.
@ Voter2012: Since neither MIchael nor Sue have declared for election, your comments about their political tactics are not particularly relevant. Let’s stick to the topic and avoid issues of council campaign strategies until there actually is a council campaign.
Here is another reference about Yolo County water: [url]http://openlibrary.org/books/OL20424693M/Yolo_County_investigation_of_groundwater_resources[/url]
The deep aquifer water supply is not reliable. Repeat: not reliable. It does not recharge. It is basically prehistoric water that is being mined. To adopt it as our primary water source, along with UC Davis, would be irresponsible.
Here is another reference about Yolo County water: [url]http://openlibrary.org/books/OL20424693M/Yolo_County_investigation_of_groundwater_resources[/url]
The deep aquifer water supply is not reliable. Repeat: not reliable. It does not recharge. It is basically prehistoric water that is being mined. To adopt it as our primary water source, along with UC Davis, would be irresponsible.
[i]” It does not recharge. It is basically prehistoric water that is being mined.”[/i]
Do hydrologists know why it does not recharge? Is it because there is some physical barrier which prohibits rainwater and irrigation water and subterranian river and lake water from making it that far down?
Or, perhaps, is it the case that it does recharge, but it takes so long–say thousands of years–that for our purposes such recharge is equivalent to no recharge at all?
Note: I have not read “Scott, 1990.” If reading that will answer my questions, tell me so and I will read it.
[i]” It does not recharge. It is basically prehistoric water that is being mined.”[/i]
Do hydrologists know why it does not recharge? Is it because there is some physical barrier which prohibits rainwater and irrigation water and subterranian river and lake water from making it that far down?
Or, perhaps, is it the case that it does recharge, but it takes so long–say thousands of years–that for our purposes such recharge is equivalent to no recharge at all?
Note: I have not read “Scott, 1990.” If reading that will answer my questions, tell me so and I will read it.
Scott 1990 was a memo to the chancellor by Verne Scott, one of the authors cited in the previous text I linked. The references, along with many others, are in this article:
[url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/preface.html[/url]
I remember when I was taking soil science, one of my professors (probably Dr. Reisenauer) made the comment that it was prehistoric water. He joked that dinosaurs bathed in it.
Scott 1990 was a memo to the chancellor by Verne Scott, one of the authors cited in the previous text I linked. The references, along with many others, are in this article:
[url]http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/preface.html[/url]
I remember when I was taking soil science, one of my professors (probably Dr. Reisenauer) made the comment that it was prehistoric water. He joked that dinosaurs bathed in it.
[quote]The Prop 218 process, as we have argued numerous times, is undemocratic.[/quote]
The Prop 218 process was created and approved by the CA legislature, no? Then why is it any more or less democratic than the referendum process? It is my understanding that there was a “stuffing of mailboxes” with copied Prop 218 protest forms; there was also Pizzagate on Measure X and it seems to me I remember some problems with the last school parcel tax with respect to Ranch Yolo. No system is perfect – but both processes – Prop 218; referendum – were voted and approved by a democratic process.
[quote]The Prop 218 process, as we have argued numerous times, is undemocratic.[/quote]
The Prop 218 process was created and approved by the CA legislature, no? Then why is it any more or less democratic than the referendum process? It is my understanding that there was a “stuffing of mailboxes” with copied Prop 218 protest forms; there was also Pizzagate on Measure X and it seems to me I remember some problems with the last school parcel tax with respect to Ranch Yolo. No system is perfect – but both processes – Prop 218; referendum – were voted and approved by a democratic process.
[quote]The problem is that the impact of the rate hikes reaches much farther than only to property owners. It is likely that higher water rates will get passed along to both tenants of rental units, as well as customers who frequent places of business.[/quote]
“It is “likely””? Essentially what you are saying it is your guess. According to apartment owners I have spoken with, who were on our water rate increase advisory committee that got the rates down to being only double current rates as opposed to the proposed Prop 218 rate increases of 3.3 times the current rate, these apt owners do not feel they can pass the total cost of the water rate increases on to their customers, else they will risk their renters going elsewhere. Businesses will also have to be very careful about raising their costs of merchandise/food/services, or customers will go elsewhere, driving the businesses literally out of business. Businesses/landlords seem to think water rate increase costs will have to be shared at best…
As a result, business people and interested citizens alike approached the Dept of Public Works, to collaborate on ways to lower the water rate increases. I was brought in towards the end of the discussion. Together the two groups hammered out a solution, that was more palatable for residents and businesses alike. It made a lot of sense to me. It was a compromise solution I felt citizens/businesses could live with.
Secondly, apartment dwellers do not have individual meters, so can use as much water as they want, and refuse to conserve – long showers and the like. We are trying to work out some mechanism by which tenants can join in the push to conserve water. Perhaps if it saves the landlord water costs, a renter could get a rebate check for conserving water. There are all sorts of innovative ways, if we put our minds to it, to try and soften the economic blow to renters. This is exactly the reason for the citizen advisory committee…
[quote]The problem is that the impact of the rate hikes reaches much farther than only to property owners. It is likely that higher water rates will get passed along to both tenants of rental units, as well as customers who frequent places of business.[/quote]
“It is “likely””? Essentially what you are saying it is your guess. According to apartment owners I have spoken with, who were on our water rate increase advisory committee that got the rates down to being only double current rates as opposed to the proposed Prop 218 rate increases of 3.3 times the current rate, these apt owners do not feel they can pass the total cost of the water rate increases on to their customers, else they will risk their renters going elsewhere. Businesses will also have to be very careful about raising their costs of merchandise/food/services, or customers will go elsewhere, driving the businesses literally out of business. Businesses/landlords seem to think water rate increase costs will have to be shared at best…
As a result, business people and interested citizens alike approached the Dept of Public Works, to collaborate on ways to lower the water rate increases. I was brought in towards the end of the discussion. Together the two groups hammered out a solution, that was more palatable for residents and businesses alike. It made a lot of sense to me. It was a compromise solution I felt citizens/businesses could live with.
Secondly, apartment dwellers do not have individual meters, so can use as much water as they want, and refuse to conserve – long showers and the like. We are trying to work out some mechanism by which tenants can join in the push to conserve water. Perhaps if it saves the landlord water costs, a renter could get a rebate check for conserving water. There are all sorts of innovative ways, if we put our minds to it, to try and soften the economic blow to renters. This is exactly the reason for the citizen advisory committee…
[quote]Moreover, as Councilmember Sue Greenwald pointed out, all of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income.[/quote]
Since individual citizens have had a say in the water rate increases/tiered structure for quite some time, and will continue to do so, this statement is completely inaccurate. Since the above wording is paraphrasing Council member Greenwald, I think she should be permitted to clarify her statement, if she cares to. It may not have been exactly what she meant or might have taken out of context.
[quote]Moreover, as Councilmember Sue Greenwald pointed out, all of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income.[/quote]
Since individual citizens have had a say in the water rate increases/tiered structure for quite some time, and will continue to do so, this statement is completely inaccurate. Since the above wording is paraphrasing Council member Greenwald, I think she should be permitted to clarify her statement, if she cares to. It may not have been exactly what she meant or might have taken out of context.
[quote]Can you give us some general idea about the time and cost of the CEQA process you just outlined? If we decided to go adversarial with UCD, any ideas about the likelihood that we would prevail? Do you think that the CEQA documentation would require the city to prove that the deep aquifer is sustainable? [/quote]These questions are best addressed by hydrogeologists and/or attorneys… I am neither.
[quote]Can you give us some general idea about the time and cost of the CEQA process you just outlined? If we decided to go adversarial with UCD, any ideas about the likelihood that we would prevail? Do you think that the CEQA documentation would require the city to prove that the deep aquifer is sustainable? [/quote]These questions are best addressed by hydrogeologists and/or attorneys… I am neither.
[i]”The Prop 218 process was created and approved by the CA legislature, no?”[/i]
It was authored and supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. In 1996, it was approved by the voters 56.55% to 43.45%.
I think those who say it is undemocratic focus on the fact that it was passed by a regular majority but in various respects requires popular super-majorities to approve some types of taxes and it takes away the power from legislative majorities to impose taxes and fees.
[i]”The Prop 218 process was created and approved by the CA legislature, no?”[/i]
It was authored and supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. In 1996, it was approved by the voters 56.55% to 43.45%.
I think those who say it is undemocratic focus on the fact that it was passed by a regular majority but in various respects requires popular super-majorities to approve some types of taxes and it takes away the power from legislative majorities to impose taxes and fees.
@ Rich: nitrate and tritium can be considered markers for groundwater recharge, as they are evidence of surface-level contamination. In a USGS survey of 15 wells in Yolo County, the deep wells contained zero detectable tritium; all the shallower ones contained detectable levels. According to the City of Davis web site, the UCD water contains nitrate at substantially lower rates than City water (there are also natural sources of nitrate, but usually it is from agriculture).
I’ll leave it to a hydrologist to explain in more detail, or to correct me (email me privately if you prefer to remain anonymous; donshor@gmail.com). But those two markers indicate that the deep aquifers recharge so slowly that the last hundred years of surface activity have not affected them. Thus the deep aquifer is, for all practical purposes, not recharged and any use of that water amounts to mining it.
So using the deep aquifer amounts to depleting a non-renewable resource. Punching more and more bore holes into it also risks contamination from aquifers above.
@ Rich: nitrate and tritium can be considered markers for groundwater recharge, as they are evidence of surface-level contamination. In a USGS survey of 15 wells in Yolo County, the deep wells contained zero detectable tritium; all the shallower ones contained detectable levels. According to the City of Davis web site, the UCD water contains nitrate at substantially lower rates than City water (there are also natural sources of nitrate, but usually it is from agriculture).
I’ll leave it to a hydrologist to explain in more detail, or to correct me (email me privately if you prefer to remain anonymous; donshor@gmail.com). But those two markers indicate that the deep aquifers recharge so slowly that the last hundred years of surface activity have not affected them. Thus the deep aquifer is, for all practical purposes, not recharged and any use of that water amounts to mining it.
So using the deep aquifer amounts to depleting a non-renewable resource. Punching more and more bore holes into it also risks contamination from aquifers above.
[b]E. Roberts Musser:[/b]Yes, I will verify that I said [quote]” All of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income.[/quote]I wanted to remind everybody that we think of Davis as a wealthy down, but half of our households have incomes under $60,000 and average water/sewer/garbage rates are currently estimated to be $2,000 a year in six years. After talking with a lot of folks in the industry, I think they will be far higher than that.
I am not concerned with my own ability to pay these rates, but the impact on half of our households that earn below $60,000 a year will be profound.
[b]E. Roberts Musser:[/b]Yes, I will verify that I said [quote]” All of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income.[/quote]I wanted to remind everybody that we think of Davis as a wealthy down, but half of our households have incomes under $60,000 and average water/sewer/garbage rates are currently estimated to be $2,000 a year in six years. After talking with a lot of folks in the industry, I think they will be far higher than that.
I am not concerned with my own ability to pay these rates, but the impact on half of our households that earn below $60,000 a year will be profound.
You’re just delaying the cost, Sue. by delaying the project.
You’re just delaying the cost, Sue. by delaying the project.
Regarding my offering my opinion that water/sewer/garbage rates will ultimately be much higher than the $2,000 plus a month that is currently predicted:
Yes, I am offering my own prediction, it is to be taken is a personal prediction based on the personal predictions of people that I have talked to in the field; it is not fact nor is it meant to be taken as fact.
I made similar personal predictions about the effect of enhanced early retirement based on my own analysis in combination with similar discussions that I had with professionals in the field.
In that case I was right, in this case I might be wrong. Time will tell. But we should welcome a variety of thoughtful opinions and predictions.
My prediction is that the only way to keep rates somewhat lower is to attempt to phase in the projects in a responsible manner.
That means to continue to make progress on laying the groundwork for the surface water project, but to delay its completion until we can come closer to retiring some of our debt on the new waste water plant and the first phases of surface water project.
There is no risk to this approach if we can get approval through the variance process that is being set established.
Regarding my offering my opinion that water/sewer/garbage rates will ultimately be much higher than the $2,000 plus a month that is currently predicted:
Yes, I am offering my own prediction, it is to be taken is a personal prediction based on the personal predictions of people that I have talked to in the field; it is not fact nor is it meant to be taken as fact.
I made similar personal predictions about the effect of enhanced early retirement based on my own analysis in combination with similar discussions that I had with professionals in the field.
In that case I was right, in this case I might be wrong. Time will tell. But we should welcome a variety of thoughtful opinions and predictions.
My prediction is that the only way to keep rates somewhat lower is to attempt to phase in the projects in a responsible manner.
That means to continue to make progress on laying the groundwork for the surface water project, but to delay its completion until we can come closer to retiring some of our debt on the new waste water plant and the first phases of surface water project.
There is no risk to this approach if we can get approval through the variance process that is being set established.
[quote]You’re just delaying the cost, Sue, by delaying the project…[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Well yes, Don. That is what I am saying. A time-honored way to keep costs manageable is to pay off one huge project before starting another.
In this case I would be satisfied with paying off most of one huge project and parts of the other before starting to pay for the completion of the other, since costs are so huge and rates so high.
[quote]You’re just delaying the cost, Sue, by delaying the project…[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Well yes, Don. That is what I am saying. A time-honored way to keep costs manageable is to pay off one huge project before starting another.
In this case I would be satisfied with paying off most of one huge project and parts of the other before starting to pay for the completion of the other, since costs are so huge and rates so high.
Sue, your proposal requires using the deep aquifer for at least a decade. Please see my posts above.
Sue, your proposal requires using the deep aquifer for at least a decade. Please see my posts above.
“The deep aquifer water supply is not reliable. Repeat: not reliable. It does not recharge. It is basically prehistoric water that is being mined. To adopt it as our primary water source, along with UC Davis, would be irresponsible.”
Isn’t this an example of raising a “straw-man” argument, just to knock it down. No one is arguing that the deep aquifer would be our primary source indefinitely into the future but rather that it probably can supply us with near 50 years of water before it is significantly depleted, certainly enough water to phase in the surface water project so that the rate increases are less likely to impact Davis’ education system, property values and other elements of Davis’ “quality of life”.
“The deep aquifer water supply is not reliable. Repeat: not reliable. It does not recharge. It is basically prehistoric water that is being mined. To adopt it as our primary water source, along with UC Davis, would be irresponsible.”
Isn’t this an example of raising a “straw-man” argument, just to knock it down. No one is arguing that the deep aquifer would be our primary source indefinitely into the future but rather that it probably can supply us with near 50 years of water before it is significantly depleted, certainly enough water to phase in the surface water project so that the rate increases are less likely to impact Davis’ education system, property values and other elements of Davis’ “quality of life”.
[quote]I think those who say it is undemocratic focus on the fact that it was passed by a regular majority but in various respects requires popular super-majorities to approve some types of taxes and it takes away the power from legislative majorities to impose taxes and fees.[/quote]
Thanks for the minor correction as to how Prop 218 came about (which should have been obvious to me, but I had a verrrrrrry long day officiating at a wedding yesterday, which went late into the evening 🙂 ) – but nevertheless Prop 218 was passed by democratic process, and therefore to say it is undemocratic doesn’t make sense. One may not like a particular law and the way it operates, but it was approved and became CA law the proper way. If one doesn’t like it, then work within the system to change it. Many laws require supermajorities for good reason…
[quote]I think those who say it is undemocratic focus on the fact that it was passed by a regular majority but in various respects requires popular super-majorities to approve some types of taxes and it takes away the power from legislative majorities to impose taxes and fees.[/quote]
Thanks for the minor correction as to how Prop 218 came about (which should have been obvious to me, but I had a verrrrrrry long day officiating at a wedding yesterday, which went late into the evening 🙂 ) – but nevertheless Prop 218 was passed by democratic process, and therefore to say it is undemocratic doesn’t make sense. One may not like a particular law and the way it operates, but it was approved and became CA law the proper way. If one doesn’t like it, then work within the system to change it. Many laws require supermajorities for good reason…
No, davisite. It is not an example of a straw man.
The proponents of the deep aquifer solution have not addressed the problems with that approach.
Yes, the deep aquifer [b]would be[/b] our primary source, because the intermediate ones cannot continue to be used into the future.
You have no idea how much water is in the deep aquifer, nor how safe it is from further drilling.
[b]You[/b] don’t support a “phase in” of the surface water project. You have consistently opposed it every step of the way, always, in every post on the Vanguard.
No, davisite. It is not an example of a straw man.
The proponents of the deep aquifer solution have not addressed the problems with that approach.
Yes, the deep aquifer [b]would be[/b] our primary source, because the intermediate ones cannot continue to be used into the future.
You have no idea how much water is in the deep aquifer, nor how safe it is from further drilling.
[b]You[/b] don’t support a “phase in” of the surface water project. You have consistently opposed it every step of the way, always, in every post on the Vanguard.
[quote]I wanted to remind everybody that we think of Davis as a wealthy down, but half of our households have incomes under $60,000 and average water/sewer/garbage rates are currently estimated to be $2,000 a year in six years. After talking with a lot of folks in the industry, I think they will be far higher than that. [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. But again, “folks in the industry” is another unnamed source. “I think” is just nothing but your guess, and not an unbiased one, since you have decided the surface water project should be delayed – for 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years, depending on which post you have given on the subject.
[quote]I wanted to remind everybody that we think of Davis as a wealthy down, but half of our households have incomes under $60,000 and average water/sewer/garbage rates are currently estimated to be $2,000 a year in six years. After talking with a lot of folks in the industry, I think they will be far higher than that. [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. But again, “folks in the industry” is another unnamed source. “I think” is just nothing but your guess, and not an unbiased one, since you have decided the surface water project should be delayed – for 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years, depending on which post you have given on the subject.
[quote]” All of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income.[/quote]
To me, the author of the above quote sounds like what they are saying is that all those people on the JPA, Dept of Public Works, consultants, etc. who are making decisions on the water rate increases, are making well over the median income, with the implication as follows – what do they care, they can afford to pay! Unless I am really too punchy this morning to read things straight, which is entirely possible. I did not think Council member Sue Greenwald had ever made any such statement, and it is the reason why I asked her to clarify.
[quote]” All of the people who have been making the decisions on the water rates are making, in most cases, well over the median income.[/quote]
To me, the author of the above quote sounds like what they are saying is that all those people on the JPA, Dept of Public Works, consultants, etc. who are making decisions on the water rate increases, are making well over the median income, with the implication as follows – what do they care, they can afford to pay! Unless I am really too punchy this morning to read things straight, which is entirely possible. I did not think Council member Sue Greenwald had ever made any such statement, and it is the reason why I asked her to clarify.
Or what do they care, they probably don’t live here, so they don’t have to pay the increased rates! Or they are so wealthy they are only looking out for their own self interests and don’t give a fig for how water rate increases effect the lower socio-economic classes. Dmg, is that really what you meant?
Or what do they care, they probably don’t live here, so they don’t have to pay the increased rates! Or they are so wealthy they are only looking out for their own self interests and don’t give a fig for how water rate increases effect the lower socio-economic classes. Dmg, is that really what you meant?
[quote]So using the deep aquifer amounts to depleting a non-renewable resource. Punching more and more bore holes into it also risks contamination from aquifers above. [/quote]
That is precisely how I see it…
[quote]So using the deep aquifer amounts to depleting a non-renewable resource. Punching more and more bore holes into it also risks contamination from aquifers above. [/quote]
That is precisely how I see it…
Concerning the University and deep aquifer rights:
All this could be moot since it is not clear how much additional deep aquifer water we would need if we obtained agreement from the SWRCB to postpone completion of the project for only 15 or 20 years. That is something that would remain to be worked out in our negotiations with the regulators.
That said said, regarding University water right claims:
The University has an aggressive legal team that works on water rights. They can and will make claims that assert their rights. This does not mean that the claims will prevail. Groundwater rights are murky and competing claims usually end up in compromise agreements.
It is in the University’s interest to have us pay for bringing surface water to campus and then paying only for the tiny amount they plan to use. That is a given. It is also in the University’s interest to keep as much of the deep aquifer water as they can.
They are making a lot of claims. In a move I opposed, the CWJPA hired a university lawyer to arrange the Conaway deal. This was a conflict of interest in my view. That attorney told the city council that we would be likely to lose our surface water rights if we postponed the project for 6 years – a statement that was pure malarkey but did serve the University’s interest in attempting to convince us not to postpone the project.
The city is going to have to fight this battle anyway since our plan is to use both sources and since new wells will be going into the deep aquifer.
Aggressive claims are routine in the California water world. We had to fight legal challenges from other entities to get our river water rights as well.
Concerning the University and deep aquifer rights:
All this could be moot since it is not clear how much additional deep aquifer water we would need if we obtained agreement from the SWRCB to postpone completion of the project for only 15 or 20 years. That is something that would remain to be worked out in our negotiations with the regulators.
That said said, regarding University water right claims:
The University has an aggressive legal team that works on water rights. They can and will make claims that assert their rights. This does not mean that the claims will prevail. Groundwater rights are murky and competing claims usually end up in compromise agreements.
It is in the University’s interest to have us pay for bringing surface water to campus and then paying only for the tiny amount they plan to use. That is a given. It is also in the University’s interest to keep as much of the deep aquifer water as they can.
They are making a lot of claims. In a move I opposed, the CWJPA hired a university lawyer to arrange the Conaway deal. This was a conflict of interest in my view. That attorney told the city council that we would be likely to lose our surface water rights if we postponed the project for 6 years – a statement that was pure malarkey but did serve the University’s interest in attempting to convince us not to postpone the project.
The city is going to have to fight this battle anyway since our plan is to use both sources and since new wells will be going into the deep aquifer.
Aggressive claims are routine in the California water world. We had to fight legal challenges from other entities to get our river water rights as well.
[quote]Do hydrologists know why it does not recharge? Is it because there is some physical barrier which prohibits rainwater and irrigation water and subterranian river and lake water from making it that far down? [/quote]Actually, rich, it is hydrogeologists who understand aquifers and their characteristics. I know just enough that aquifers were laid down like the rest of the valley… in layers. Some aquifers “daylight” up by the vaca mountains. No rainfall that occurs in Davis percolates into any aquifers except the shallowest (which are not used for domestic water, just ag.). There are very thick layers (hundreds of feet) of heavy clay (aquitards) between the intermediate aquifers and the deep ones… and a darn good thing, too! My knowledge of the source of recharge for the deep aquifers is limited, so I will defer to others.
“You have no idea how much water is in the deep aquifer, nor how safe it is from further drilling.
You don’t support a “phase in” of the surface water project. You have consistently opposed it every step of the way, always, in every post on the Vanguard.”
The question of how much water is in the deep aquifer has strangely NOT been studied and it can be determined with some accuracy. The question can be raised, WHY hasn’t this been part of the data collection?… or are the proponents more satisfied with leaving this data as a fear-mongering “unknown” and then offering up “mushroom clouds” that have our taps run dry suddenly one morning if we use the deep aquifer as our primary water source for the next decade or two. As to your second, rather hyperbolic rant, I have ALWAYS been for phasing this project in within a time frame that allows Davis to adequately create a plan to assess developers for the infrastructure costs of this surface water project that they need for any significant future residential development as well as giving the economy time to recover so that the “hit” will not be so damaging to voters’ resources that will be needed to support our “quality of life”. Davis voters being “trapped” in a situation where they have little choice but to double Davis’ population with massive residential development, dramatically expanding the taxing base in order to deal with their unmanageable utility taxes may be avoided by phasing in the water project with other slated future city major capital expenditures.
davisite: [i]The question of how much water is in the deep aquifer has strangely NOT been studied and it can be determined with some accuracy.
[/i]
Notwithstanding that your sentence doesn’t make sense, the data is available. How many links would you like? But I assume you’ve looked into this.
[i]The question can be raised, WHY hasn’t this been part of the data collection?… or are the proponents more satisfied with leaving this data as a fear-mongering “unknown” and then offering up “mushroom clouds” that have our taps run dry suddenly one morning if we use the deep aquifer as our primary water source for the next decade or two.[/i]
Talk about hyperbolic. If there is no recharge, it will be a simple matter for UCD to demonstrate that increased pumping by the City of Davis will affect their supply. The issue of cross-contamination is also very real.
[i]I have ALWAYS been for phasing this project in within a time frame that allows Davis to adequately create a plan to assess developers for the infrastructure costs of this surface water project[/i]
I don’t believe you’ve ever actually said that, but just to play along: you favor postponing the project by 25 years or so, and having developers that propose development projects (that you will oppose) somehow pay for it. Meanwhile, we tap into the deep aquifer for decades, possibly contaminating it, and hope that we keep getting variances.
Don,
It is not even clear whether we would have to use more deep aquifer water than we otherwise plan on using if we postponed the project for a limited period of time. Even with the surface water project, we are digging more deep aquifer wells, and are planning to use a combination of surface water and ground water.
It is premature to make assumptions about this. I have said that using the deep water aquifer would probably solve our effluent issues except for salinity. However, that doesn’t address the exact mix of deep and intermediate aquifer water we would need as an interum measure. If council will seriously commit to exploring postponement, we will learn more about it. And we wouldn’t have the answer until obtained a variance and finished negotiating with the WRCB.
“the data is available.”
Don…please refer me to a public Council presentation that detailed the study that tells us what the capacity and lifespan of the deep water aquifers that we are considering.
“…having developers that propose development projects (that you will oppose)”
Don… how iare your speculations about my motivations relevant? The voters of Davis, not me, will make the decision(through Measure R) and my desire is that they be as “free” as possible to make their own informed choice, without being “trapped” by unmanageable utility rates.
@ davisite:
What an odd request. Why would you want a Council presentation? They aren’t transcribed, so I would have to review endless amounts of video. The data you want regarding the groundwater resources is available online. I assumed, since you (and other supporters of the referendum) support going to the deep aquifer for an indefinite period of time, that you have a strong comfort level with that resource. So I assume you have done ‘due diligence’ that it is reliable, long-term, and would not be overdrafted by the City of Davis substantially increasing the usage of it.
But if I assumed that, I would clearly be wrong. You haven’t done that research.
If you are in fact proposing that developers’ fees be a substantial part of how the surface water project is paid for, please identify for me where and by whom you would support projects sufficient to support that. If you don’t have any in mind, then proposing developers’ fees is disingenuous. You are proposing something you wouldn’t support.
@ Sue: [i]It is not even clear whether we would have to use more deep aquifer water than we otherwise plan on using if we postponed the project for a limited period of time.[/i]
I don’t consider 20+ years a limited period of time.
“Prop 218 was passed by democratic process, and therefore to say it is undemocratic doesn’t make sense.”
That’s a pretty limited notion as to what is and what is not a democratic process. Is it your belief that somehow everything that transpires out of the democratic process, by definition democratic? Would it be democratic to take the right to vote away from a section of people legislatively?
The reason I see Prop 218 undemocratic is the process it sets up, not the process by which it was created. Only homeowners are entitled to protest a rate increase even though they are clearly not the only ones impacted by the rate increase. Moreover the process counts non-voters as yes voters.
[quote]Regarding my offering my opinion that water/sewer/garbage rates will ultimately be [u][b]much higher than the $2,000 plus a month[/b][/u] that is currently predicted:
[/quote]Much higher than $24,000 per year? I think not….
[quote]The reason I see Prop 218 undemocratic is the process it sets up, not the process by which it was created. Only homeowners are entitled to protest a rate increase even though they are clearly not the only ones impacted by the rate increase. Moreover the process counts non-voters as yes voters.[/quote]
ONLY RATEPAYERS ARE ENTITLED TO PROTEST… which makes perfect sense. In so far as voters in a referendum making the decision, there will be some voters making the decision who do not pay utility bills at all; renters may not pay their fair share of the water they use, etc. So the referendum process by your def’n will not be completely “democratic” by your definition either.
“ONLY RATEPAYERS ARE ENTITLED TO PROTEST”
Elaine: Government Code Section 53755 (b): “One written protest per parcel, filed by an owner or tenant of the parcel….”
[quote]All this could be moot since it is not clear how much additional deep aquifer water we would need if we obtained agreement from the SWRCB to postpone completion of the project for only 15 or 20 years. That is something that would remain to be worked out in our negotiations with the regulators. [/quote]
Variances can be had for at most 10 years in so far as I am aware, assuming the city could even successfully argue “economic infeasibility”, which is highly unlikely IMO. Yet you throw out the number of years we can delay this project in various posts as 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, or better yet – until we fully pay off the wastewater treatment plant. So I have to assume what you are really arguing is that your pitch to the SWRCB would be it is economically infeasible for the city of Davis to pay both projects at once, so we want some sort of “special” SUPER DUPER variance that no other city has even remotely received, that allows us to put off the surface water project indefinitely unless and until we fully complete and pay off the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. To me, this appears to be going beyond wishful thinking into the realm of pie in the sky dreaming…
Meanwhile we run the risk of subsidence and contaminants in the deep level aquifer. Already UCD is tapping into this aquifer, and paying fines bc they cannot meet water quality standards. Standards are more likely to become STRICTER, not less strict. Water is becoming a very sought after commodity, so it would behoove Davis to not miss this opportunity to create a clean, reliable source of water that will comply with the new standards that will be kicking in right around the corner in 2017 (or earlier for some constituents if what I heard was correct).
Don.. at this point, it appears to me that we both believe that the other is presenting hyperbolic, half-truth and off-point statements in an attempt to discredit the argument of the other. I will leave it to the reader to decide what they make of this “debate”.
[quote][i]”Would it be democratic to take the right to vote away from a section of people legislatively? The reason I see Prop 218 undemocratic is the process it sets up, not the process by which it was created. Only homeowners are entitled to protest a rate increase even though they are clearly not the only ones impacted by the rate increase. Moreover the process counts non-voters as yes voters.[/i][/quote]I’m not sure how much time we should spend redefining what qualifies as “democratic process.” But, I’d think the answer to your question is “yes.” We [u]have[/u] taken away voting rights via democratic process–that doesn’t make the action right or constitutional.
We have all kinds of instances where every potentially, remotely affected person doesn’t get to vote on the matter–that doesn’t make the action wrong or undemocratic. Now, house and apartment renters; next, hotel room renters and frequent diners? After all, we’re a representative democracy.
Moreover, the 218 procedure is a protest process, not an election. We are not voting; we’re registering a protest against an action proposed by our elected representatives. What difference does it make whether non-participants might be considered as “yes votes” or “no votes”–they don’t count and don’t affect the size of the “electorate.”
[i]”I don’t believe you’ve ever actually said that, but just to play along: you favor postponing the project by 25 years or so, and having developers that propose development projects (that you will oppose) somehow pay for it.”[/i]
Don, I am pretty sure Davisite2 is planning on being dead in 25 years. Certainly the rest of us are planning on that outcome–for him.
davisite2: “I will leave it to the reader to decide what they make of this “debate”.”
Don has posted numerous links to authoritative sources, and has obviously dilligently researched this issue. His posts are articulate, well-reasoned, and to-the-point. On the other hand, davisite2 is basically parroting talking points from Sue. Any substantive content appears to be third-hand, at best, and of course no one can verify the claims/rherotic because the alleged sources are secret experts.
I can’t continue to repost my well-reasoned and well-researched posts every time Voter2012 anonymously engages in post slander, but I do encourage people to read my posts under David’s previous articles on water.
I don’t believe Sue’s arguments are either (in her words) well-reasoned or well-researched. In fact, in my personal opinion, they are rather sophomoric given the fact that she has been grappling with this issue for over a decade as a sitting member of the city council.
I will continue to anonymously point out the weaknesses and flaws in her arguments, and can only assume (based on past performance) that she will continue to be non-responsive to arguments from myself, ERM, DS and anyone else that challenges her position. If this qualifies as “post slander,” then guilty as charged.
Voter2012: I have answered every one of your substantive arguments. You sound like a professional political operative, casting general aspersions in response to specific, logical answers. Since you are anonymous, I am assuming that you are a professional political operative.
So…what specific questions do you claim that I have not answered. Ask them, and I will answer them — yet again.
Now I’m a professional political operative? You truly are a piece of work – 12 years is enough!
Voter2012 : Sue asked you for specific questions. Perhaps you could respond to that.
Don: What’s the point? It’s a waste of time.
You read the variance debate with Elaine. And are you satisfied with her responses on the deep aquifer discussion? What about the specific data on statewide water charges which she also dodged? Or Matt’s phasing idea?
I do hope people will take the time to look over my comments on the salinity variance process. Concerning the deep water aquifer, Voter2012 presented a predictable position paper by the University as if it were a legal decision, and in terms of the statewide comparative water rates, Voter2012 presented 2005 data and claimed that somehow it proved that Davis’ water rates would average in 6 years. Hardly, when Davis is undertaking way above average per capita capital improvements.
I think Matt’s idea about using money already being collected but unused from the wastewater fund has been already incorporated into our plan–the financing will be rolled together. The tweaking of this fund shift is ongoing.
Typical response from Sue. Dismissive, non-substantive, and non-responsive to the arguments being made.
(1) I did not present a position paper by the university as “if it were a legal decision.” This is a fabrication by Sue, and the posts are there for anyone to review. The point of my posts was to point out that land owners have rights to use ground water that supersede the rights of others to extract the water for resale. A post from hpierce suggests that UCD may have already begun the process of asserting these rights.
(2) On the rates issue, I cited published data from a credible source that showed that our rates are not out of line with the rest of the state. The data shows that if (1) the Davis rates were increased up to the prop 218 limit, and (2) the rates of the hundreds of other water districts in the state were frozen at the 2005 level … the water charges for Davis would not even reach the upper quartile of rates statewide. This debunks the rhetoric that the Davis surface water project is somehow “off the charts” expensive. Sue likes to cherry pick data that makes her case, but this is ultimately manipulative and deceptive. She also tries to sidestep the argument by invoking inevitable (and huge) cost overruns that the city staff, and her city council colleagues, are either (1) too stupid to see on the horizon, or (2) dishonestly hiding from the hapless rate payers that will ultimately be duped by their malfeasance.
(3) Regarding Matt’s proposal, Sue conveniently leaves out the centerpiece of Matt’s argument which is that we should delay the wastewater treatment plant. Since the cost of the wastewater infrastructure is already in the rate structure, using the savings from delaying this project to buy down the cost of the surface water project is a creative idea that should be explore. Sue dismisses it out-of-hand as something that is already in the works.
12 years is enough.
David et al,
I believe the increase is much larger than the 92.5% mentioned above. I calculate a factor of 2.40 or 140%!
The current Tier 1 and 2 rates are 1.50 and 1.90 [$/ccf] as stated in the Public Hearing Notice posted 6/24 . In the Ordinance these rates are given as 3.60 and 4.64 effective 1/1/16. So the 5 increases beginning 1/1/12 average close to 20%. Where am I wrong here?
Paul
If anyone wants a petition to sign or circulate I can forward mail with petition attachment. It originally came from Mike Harrington. My email:
pbradyus@yahoo.com
PS: Our latest water bill has Tier 1 and 2 rates as $1.50 and $1.90 per ccf [100 cu ft]. City [single-family] ordained rates on 1/1/2016 will be 3.60 and 4.64 for the two tiers – a factor of 2.40!