That the council approved water rate hikes on September 6 has not diminished the amount of contention over the issue of water in Davis. Earlier this week, a group of citizens announced they would be filing papers to put the water rate hike to a vote of the people.
According to a city press release, the forum will provide residents with an opportunity to learn more about the City’s plans and to ask questions of City staff and other professionals responsible for water supply and reliability in Davis.
The two-hour session will consist of a presentation about the surface water project, an explanation of the City Council’s recent actions related to the water rates, and a chance for questions and answers.
Generally, these types of releases are pro-forma and thus not controversial.
However, the city’s release continued: “The regional surface water project is being designed to largely replace Davis’ deteriorating groundwater supplies with safe, more reliable surface water supplies from the Sacramento River. The goals of the project include provision of a new water supply to meet existing and future needs, improve drinking water quality and improve the quality of treated wastewater.”
This prompted Councilmember Sue Greenwald to respond to staff and members of the media, stating that “council formally agreed at an open-session council meeting (the one on revising the prop. 218 notice) to keep the arguments for the surface water project fact-based.”
She continued, “Council formally agreed to stick to the arguments of ‘sustainable long-term supply,’ control of subsidence, better tasting water, less calcium build-up on faucets, etc.”
“We took out the arguments such as ‘safe’ water, and ‘clean’ water, because there is no credible evidence that Sacramento River water is safer or cleaner,” she added. “In fact, the river water obviously has far more ‘dirt’ in the form of run-off and sewage. Both supplies are currently ‘safe,’ and both have constituents that might require more treatment in the future.”
“There is no credible evidence that we currently have a problem with ‘deteriorating quality’ of groundwater,” she stated. “We could as easily say that we have a problem with decreasing quality and quantity of river water, and hence the project might bring less benefit than expected. Concerns about future deterioration of ground water are subsumed under the ‘sustainable long-term supply.’ “
“Until council has another open-session council meeting in which the council votes to change the instructions that we agreed to, I am asking you to rescind the attached press release and release a corrected version,” Councilmember Greenwald said. “Scare tactics have no place in the City of Davis.”
Is this the opening shot of the referendum campaign?
On Wednesday, Councilmember Greenwald was a guest on Vanguard Radio, where water was the topic of conversation. (You can listen to the full interview here).
At that time she somewhat downplayed her interest in a referendum, stating that right now her interest is more along the lines of, “What are our options and do we have options?”
“After studying this to death and talking to dozens and dozens of people, I think that our options are to make it more affordable so that we can do all of our projects in a way that can be affordable – and that will require phasing in.”
“So, do I think a referendum has a role in all of this?” she asked. “Sure, if it gives us breathing room and if it gives the council a message that people do want options looked into, then I think it is has a role.”
“Our issue’s solving problems, not just saying no,” the Councilmember continued. “If it had been technically possible for the group working on it to do an initiative alongside it that gave the positive steps that we could do, I think that would be a preferable approach.”
Earlier this week, the Vanguard learned that the Committee for the Protection of Taxpayer Rights has been formed and they are expected to collect the number of required signatures of registered Davis voters in the next 30 days to place on the June 2012 ballot a repeal of the City Council’s September 6, 2011 water rate hikes.
In the meantime, the rate hikes would be stayed, pending the election results.
The Enterprise quoted longtime Davis resident Ernie Head as one of the organizers spearheading the referendum.
“I prefer that they don’t do the fees,” Mr. Head told the Davis Enterprise. “Let the project fall where it may.”
Supporters of the Clean Water Project argue that the city is likely to be out of compliance with discharge requirements by 2017, the current supply of groundwater is increasingly laden with minerals and becoming unreliable, and that fines imposed by state regulators would exceed the costs of the new project.
Ken Landau, the Deputy Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, argued that appeals and variances were not possible.
“If you have a violation that qualifies for a mandatory penalty, it’s $3,000 a violation,” he informed the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency on June 30. “The only discretion the Regional Board has is making a factual determination as to whether you violated it, and whether that violation fits the statute. If it does, we assess you the $3,000 per violation.”
“A change in the law that went into effect in January of this year is, if you have used up your first five years of mandatory minimum protection, if we can make findings that you have a project, you have been diligent during that first five years in trying to achieve compliance, and a number of other things that go along with that, then we can, at the Regional Board’s discretion, grant you up to an additional five years,” Mr. Landau told the JPA.
Others have claimed that Mr. Landau’s answers were far more nuanced than either he or the Clean Water Agency has acknowledged, and the city has considerable wiggle room to apply for a variance.
That was the key point that Sue Greenwald made over and over again on Wednesday. She argued that there was no reason that the city could not apply for a variance and that they had nothing to lose by waiting and seeing.
Proponents of the project have argued we must exercise our 40-year water rights now or lose them. But Mr. Landau provided a much more subtle view, acknowledging that “That’s something that doesn’t happen very often.”
The state may revoke water rights, but they have only done it under extreme circumstances.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The Wednesday water forum should be a great place to gather signatures to ensure that voters’ rights are protected and that they have a chance to vote on those huge water rate increases?
If you want to demand that you have a right to vote this $500 million dollar project (including expected cost overruns), come on down!
The referendum is being promoted by the Committee to Protect Voters’ Rights. It is a broad coalition of Davis voters, being led by Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg and many others.
LOL, great idea, I’ll bet that’s not what the City had in mind for the forum.
BTW, we have heard “the goons are coming.” Be on the lookout for a bunch of Sacramento area political carpet baggers hired by the water project private vendors to protect the huge flow of your rate payer cash that will rain down on their heads for nearly 10 years if the rate increases are approved.
Also, you should be aware that the City has spent more than $100,000 to promote this project via a private PR firm. I have asked for the contract, and status of accounting, and have been met with silence.
“Also, you should be aware that the City has spent more than $100,000 to promote this project via a private PR firm. I have asked for the contract, and status of accounting, and have been met with silence.”
Are you kidding me? We’re hurting for funds and you say they’re paying $100,000 for PR? If this is true don’t they have to divulge that info to the public?
Michael: “[i]$500 million dollar project (including expected cost overruns)[/i]”
Please provide the basis for your estimate of $500 million.
From the city FAQ: “Davis’ cost share of the project facilities is estimated at $160-180 million.”
[quote]BTW, we have heard “the goons are coming.” Be on the lookout for a bunch of Sacramento area political carpet baggers hired by the water project private vendors to protect the huge flow of your rate payer cash that will rain down on their heads for nearly 10 years if the rate increases are approved. [/quote]
[quote]”In fact, the river water obviously has far more ‘dirt’ in the form of run-off and sewage.[/quote]
Now who is using scare tactics?
Michael: Are you considering, planning, etc. another run for city council?
[quote]At that time she somewhat downplayed her interest in a referendum, stating that right now her interest is more along the lines of, “What are our options and do we have options?”
“After studying this to death and talking to dozens and dozens of people, I think that our options are to make it more affordable so that we can do all of our projects in a way that can be affordable – and that will require phasing in.”
“So, do I think a referendum has a role in all of this?” she asked. “Sure, if it gives us breathing room and if it gives the council a message that people do want options looked into, then I think it is has a role.”[/quote]
A “nuanced” position?
The Committee to Protect Voters’ Rights.[quote]… a broad coalition of Davis voters, being [u]led[/u] by Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg [u]and many others[/u].[/quote]I sure would know who these “leaders” are that are protecting our voters’ rights.
If you want to volunteer to gather signatures, come on down to City Chambers at 6:30 pm Wednesday night, before the Water Forum, and sign up!
We need your help, ASAP.
With the expected interference from the Sacramento area goons hired by the water vendor firms living off this project, we need 100 signature gathers to get the appx. 5000 we need, in just 30 days.
Make your voice heard! Get loud! Get those signatures to make sure that the rights of Davis voters are protected. Make sure you can vote on this project!
Don’t let the goons and their rich water company masters stop you from using your right to vote!
This is pathetic, Michael. Seriously. Is this the way you plan to run this campaign?
Voter 2012: “Michael: Are you considering, planning, etc. another run for city council?”
Not at this time. I am just coming out of my political retirement since Nov 2005 defeat of Measure X to assist in getting this water project on the ballot. Protect voter rights, since the CC majority is trying to defeat our right to vote on this large fiscal commitment.
Michael: Are you considering, planning, etc. another run for city council?
Yes, no, or maybe would suffice.
Voter2012: “I sure would know who these “leaders” are that are protecting our voters’ rights.”
I told you. A broad coalition of business, fiscal conversatives, middle of the road voters, and so-called progressives, led by Ernie and Pam.
Don Shor: “Please provide the basis for your estimate of $500 million.
From the city FAQ: ‘Davis’ cost share of the project facilities is estimated at $160-180 million.'”
We just found out that our partner in the project, Woodland, has been hiding its fiscal commitment from the voters by using large amounts of commercial paper to fund the initial stages of the project. Our Davis CC knows that it is committing to a project and a partner where Woodland’s fiscal ability to pay for this is largely uncertain.
If Woodland voters turn down their share, Davis will be stuck with all of it.
The overall project is about $320 million (last I heard), and with the huge cost overruns that these projects experience, my best educated guess is we are looking at up to a half of a BILLION dollars in fiscal disaster.
The Davis CC hid from us the fact that its partner, Woodland, was duping the voters to get their share of this project. What else don’t we know about?
I am starting to wonder if the Davis CC majority rush to jam these rate hikes through without a vote is because they know things we dont know at this early stage of analysis. Like the dirt on Woodland duping its voters so far.
Put it on the June 2012 ballot, and make it contingent on Woodland voters approving their full and fair share before out commitment is binding.
To my friends Don and Elaine:
My comment a minute ago: “Put it on the June 2012 ballot, and make it contingent on Woodland voters approving their full and fair share before out commitment is binding.”
Tell me, why is it so difficult for the two of you to support putting this on the ballot? I am not asking you to vote for it; just put it on the ballot.
I was right in 2000 about Measure J being a good policy that promotes democracy;
I was right in Nov 2005 about Covell Village being a fiscal disaster when we worked to defeat Measure X (if those guys had started building in 2006, they would be all bankrupt about now, and we would be stuck with 400 acres of half-built streets);
And I am right about putting this on the June 2012 ballot. Let the voters decide, after a fair and spirited campaign.
@ Michael Harrington: “Not at this time. I am just coming out of my political retirement since Nov 2005 defeat of Measure X to assist in getting this water project on the ballot.”
“Not at this time” sure sounds like a non-denial denial. Are are waiting to see if the rate payer revolt you are promoting gets traction before you make a decision?
Also, your efforts to assist the Wildhorse Ranch developers don’t count as coming out of retirement?
[i]my best educated guess is we are looking at up to a half of a BILLION dollars[/i]
You are making this up.
Evidence for your accusations about Woodland? This is going to be a long campaign, I can see.
[url]http://www.delrioadvisors.com/assets/r2c3_OS_Woodland_Water.pdf[/url]
Don: just put it on the ballot.
Voter2012: a lot of former CC members participate in the public discourse without running again. Mayor Maynard Skinner is everywhere, and adds to the town. Mayor Rosenberg was in the Friday paper, supporting a charity event. Mayor Wagstaff helps in several local organizations and speaks at CC meetings when needed. Stan Forbes particiapted in the citizens panel to redraw the political boundaries. Me, I am just doing this.
Michael: So the buzz that you are running again is not true? Are you categorically taking yourself out of the race?
Voter2012 said: “Michael: So the buzz that you are running again is not true? Are you categorically taking yourself out of the race?”
What buzz? I haven’t heard any. I am a little tone deaf from being an aviation mechanic on loud jets before I went to UC Davis and law school, but I can still hear buzzing.
Buzz created by my merely posting on this Blog and promoting local democracy before the City vastly raises my water rates? How silly.
If you are right about a buzz that I have never heard, then it must be a very slow news week amongst the chattering political classes and Blogs.
[quote]Tell me, why is it so difficult for the two of you to support putting this on the ballot? I am not asking you to vote for it; just put it on the ballot. [/quote]
If people choose to put this on a ballot for a vote, that is their right. I have never said any differently. However, I do object to the “tone” of your campaign…
[quote]We just found out that our partner in the project, Woodland, has been hiding its fiscal commitment from the voters by using large amounts of commercial paper to fund the initial stages of the project. Our Davis CC knows that it is committing to a project and a partner where Woodland’s fiscal ability to pay for this is largely uncertain. [/quote]
Please explain how Woodland is doing anything differently than Davis is going to do…
Woodland’s notice of water rate increases:
[url]http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7043[/url]
City of Woodland water rate information:
[url]http://www.cityofwoodland.org/gov/depts/pw/water_rate_info/default.asp[/url]
“If Woodland voters turn down their share, Davis will be stuck with all of it.”
It isn’t going on the ballot in Woodland. The rate increases, as far as I can see, are already in place there.
Michael, here are the bylaws of the WDCWA.
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Final_signed_JPA.pdf[/url]
Please tell me where in the provisions you see Davis being responsible as a member of the WDCWA if our partner reneges on their contractual obligations.
[quote]In fact, the river water obviously has far more ‘dirt’ in the form of run-off and sewage.— [b]Sue Greenwald[/b][/quote]Elaine Musser’s response:[quote]Now who is using scare tactics?—[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]No, Elaine. I have always maintained that both well water and river water are safe, and that both have constituents that might need to be treated.
I was pointing out the inherent dishonesty about defining river water as “clean”, implying that well water is “dirty”.
According to wikipedia, which tends to reflect common usage, “dirt” is defined as (first 4 definitions:
1) A substance, such as mud or dust, that soils someone or something
– his face was covered in dirt
2) Loose soil or earth; the ground
– the soldier sagged to the dirt
3) Earth used to make a surface for a road, floor, or other area of ground
– a dirt road
4) Excrement
– a lawn covered in dog dirt
Yes, Elaine, according to common use of the word “dirt”, river water is “dirtier” than well water. That does not mean that it is safer. They are both safe.
This is getting sad. Folks in Woodland, who by and large are less affluent than those of us in Davis, are not complaining about the proposed improvement in water quality or the cost of providing it. I find it interesting that they tax themselves to the 8% rate to provide city services while we are at 7.75%. How much revenue would be raised if we increased our sales tax to 8%? Could it be used to subsidize the water bills? Or can we not afford it?
[quote]Evidence for your accusations about Woodland? This is going to be a long campaign, I can see. — [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Woodland has incorrectly told people that they have already done their prop. 218 hearing. They have not. The link you give refers to a hearing that raised rates, but not enough to cover the project.
In order to raise rates to cover the project as currently estimated by the JPA staff, they will have to increase their water rates by at least 80%, and probably more. I would not be surprised if they have to double their rates, because they are still using their 2009 rate study which assumed development impact fees.
This is information I obtained after asking Paul Navazio to look more closely at where Woodland stands in its Prop. 218 process.
Don Shor: I do agree with Mike Harrington that we will be in trouble if Woodland runs into trouble, on a variety of grounds. We can’t issue our bonds until they issue their’s, or we could be stuck with interest payments for bonds and no project. We could also run into trouble if they have problems collecting their fees and run into problems paying for their share of operations and maintenance. The old saying: You can’t ring blood from a stone.
[quote]A “nuanced” position? –[b] E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, why are you constantly being so waspish? David described quite clearly my nuanced, as he calls it, position on the referendum.
I said that I preferred a more positive approach. That would be an initiative that detailed constructive alternatives than a referendum that said no to the rates.
My preferred initiative would require council to vigorously pursue a variance, which means getting involved now in helping form the variance parameters — a process that cities were invited to participate in. It would include a commitment to completing the project in a specified period of time after the waste water treatment plant is paid off.
And it would include interim measures such as conservation, replumbing the intermediate aquifer for landscape needs. It would involve hiring Dr. George Tschabonoglous to study additional interim measures (he and I have talked about alternatives if the project is infeasible at this time). And finally, it would involve purchasing easements so that the project would be ready to go quickly if necessary.
Then I said that a referendum had its place in terms of slowing down the project (and giving council a message that we must get to work on the variance process at its formative state, so that at least we have options!)
[quote]This is pathetic, Michael. Seriously. Is this the way you plan to run this campaign?–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I agree with Don Shor that the referendum will be in big trouble if Mike Harrington does not adopt a more positive and fact-based approach. I cannot endorse a campaign that doesn’t lay out positive alternatives, that isn’t fact-based and that relies on accusatory rhetoric.
My view is that the surface water project will probably be necessary eventually, but that it is a project that we can’t simply can’t afford right to complete now, given the waste water treatment plant and the substantial down-payment that we have already made in the project, and that we can and should complete it in a fifteen to twenty-five years when we have paid off all or part of our wastewater treatment plant.
[quote]This is pathetic, Michael. Seriously. Is this the way you plan to run this campaign?–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I agree with Don Shor that the referendum will be in big trouble if Mike Harrington does not adopt a more positive and fact-based approach. I cannot endorse a campaign that doesn’t lay out positive alternatives, that isn’t fact-based and that relies on accusatory rhetoric.
My view is that the surface water project will probably be necessary eventually, but that it is a project that we can’t simply can’t afford right to complete now, given the waste water treatment plant and the substantial down-payment that we have already made in the project, and that we can and should complete it in a fifteen to twenty-five years when we have paid off all or part of our wastewater treatment plant.
Sue,
The rate increases that I linked here [url]http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7043[/url] are more than 100% between 2009 and 2012 in nearly all categories. Those were to cover a variety of things, including the early costs of the surface water project.
They did, of course, do a Prop 218 notice for those rate increases. Any rate increase effective after July 2012 will require another Prop 218 notice.
[i]Don Shor: I do agree with Mike Harrington that we will be in trouble if Woodland runs into trouble, on a variety of grounds.[/i]
If either party completely fails to pay its obligations, of course the water agency is in trouble. But those situations are covered in the bylaws of the joint powers agency. This statement by Michael Harrington, [i]“If Woodland voters turn down their share, Davis will be stuck with all of it,[/i]” is untrue.
“Any rate increase effective after July 2012 will require another Prop 218 notice.”
So it sounds like we really don’t know how the citizens of Woodland are going to react to probable future rate hikes after 2012 especially after just having their rates doubled, do we?
@ Sue Greenwald: “My view is that the surface water project will probably be necessary eventually, but that it is a project that we can’t simply can’t afford to complete right now …”
Sue: Your arguments sound plausible until one takes the time to do independent research. I’m at the point in my learning curve where the talking points you keep repeating have lost credibility. Here are some of my questions:
(1) How is it that we can afford a $100M waste water treatment plant — plus a bunch of deep aquifer wells at $3-4M a pop (most of which will become obsolete when the surface water come online) — but we can’t afford our $155M share of the surface water project?
(2) Why are you claiming that there will be inevitable cost overruns on surface water project but there is no discussion of potential overruns on the waste water project?
(3) Why should we accept as true the claim that the bill for the waste water project has truly dropped from $200M to $100M? You take credit for this on a regular basis so maybe you could point us to the appropriate evidence. Is there a staff report, public hearing, or other documentary evidence that you can reference?
(4) If it was possible to rework the design on the wastewater plant to save 50%, why do you dismiss the possibility that something similar will happen on the surface water project (as Joe has argued) as the process moves forward?
(5) And how exactly does one “save” $100M on a project that hasn’t been built. That seems a little bit premature.
It makes no sense to build an expensive waste water project before we get much further down the road on our our potable water infrastructure.
rusty: [i]So it sounds like we really don’t know how the citizens of Woodland are going to react to probable future rate hikes after 2012 especially after just having their rates doubled, do we?[/i]
“Woodland is halfway through a series of rate hikes that by next year will have increased water bills by 80 percent, Deven said later Wednesday. Yet the rate increases, approved in 2009, provoked about 400 written protests under provisions of Proposition 218, compared with the approximately 4,700 protests received in Davis, he said.”
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/08/3892640/woodland-to-consider-water-rake.html#ixzz1YFsDM7U0
[b]Don Shor[/b]: Regarding Mike Harrington’s comments on the Woodland rates and the commercial paper loan issue: We are, in fact, way ahead of Woodland on the Prop. 218 hearings. Davis has authorized all but 14% of the rate increases estimated to be needed, whereas Woodland needs to authorize at least 80% more.
It is true that until recently, Woodland had authorized 3 years of commercial paper to cover payments.
In their own words, they said that they would not need to raise rates for three years due to the commercial paper loans. Mike Harrington is right, this clearly would have been an issue if we are about the start a project. It is very dangerous to start a project before you have the long-term financing in place.
You can see both the streaming media of the May 3 Woodland council meeting segment on the commercial paper loan(very short) and the staff report by going to the following link: http://www.cityofwoodland.org/gov/meetings.asp and then clicking on the may third streaming video and the staff report.
Woodland has a very good council meeting archive system (one we should emulate) [b]BUT[/b]you have to click okay on two boxes that say you can’t access the page first. Don’t be deterred, the page comes up after clicking the two boxes that say it won’t.
Here is the staff recommendation on the use of commercial paper to temporarily fund the project costs. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. This is a non-issue.
[url]http://cityofwoodland.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=101&meta_id=3426[/url]
It has always amazed me how even critics of the Davis-Woodland water project have overlooked the issue of whether Woodland can pay its share and the consequences if it should not be able to. I am not an expert, and have not embarked on doing detailed research into the Woodland’s financial situation, and I welcome evidence to the contrary. Sure, Woodland has big box retail revenues, but real estate values have plummeted in Woodland. According to Zillow the median price of a house there fell from $375K in 2007 to $198,700 7/31/11.
It’s hard to believe that many residents will not struggle to pay the much higher water rates necessary to cover the project in the longer term, and to support other city services.
There are many reasons for the apparent apathy of most residents of Woodland on this issue including the fact that they tend to be even less informed and more deferential to their city leaders than Davis voters. An additional factor is that a large percentage of Woodland residents have not had, or only just had, water meters installed.
In circa 2004 am I right in recalling that the Woodland City Council approved the 4,000 unit Spring Lake development in spite of a strong vote against it by the planning commission? Among other things, this project is built in the 100 year flood plane.
At the end of the day, the wisdom of going forward with this project depends CRUCIALLY on Woodland’s ability to meet its long term financial obligations.
For a couple of references see:
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8974
http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CA-Woodland-home-value/r_48569/
Don Shor: “This is pathetic, Michael. Seriously. Is this the way you plan to run this campaign?”
Please no personal attacks. I warn you the moderator may censor your posts.
Sue Greenwald: “Elaine, why are you constantly being so waspish? “
Please no personal attacks. I warn the moderator may censor your posts.
Sue Greenwald in reference to Woodland: “I would not be surprised if they have to double their rates, because they are still using their 2009 rate study which assumed development impact fees. “
This is my point if we sell development rights we can reduce rates using development impact fees.
[quote]Sue Greenwald: “My view is that the surface water project will probably be necessary eventually, but that it is a project that we can’t simply can’t afford to complete right now ….. Your arguments sound plausible until one takes the time to do independent research. I’m at the point in my learning curve where the talking points you keep repeating have lost credibility. Here are some of my questions: –[b]Voter 2012[/b][/quote] Voter 2012: I will answer your questions one by one:
[quote][b]QUESTION:[/B] How is it that we can afford a $100M waste water treatment plant — plus a bunch of deep aquifer wells at $3-4M a pop (most of which will become obsolete when the surface water come online) — but we can’t afford our $155M share of the surface water project? [b]–Voter 2012 [/b][/quote][b]ANSWER[/b]: First, we don’t know how many deep water wells we would need for the interim period: That would depend on the variance and negotiations with the SWRCB. But think quantitatively for a second. $3 to 4M each compared to $155M (or much more, we don’t even have biddable specs yet). Even 10 wells would only cost $30 million of the $155M or more. And we will have to dig many of these wells anyway both to replace old wells and to supply summer water. We have to pay for the additional summer water one way or the other: Purchase even more or dig more deep wells.
[quote][b]QUESTION[/b]: Why are you claiming that there will be inevitable cost overruns on surface water project but there is no discussion of potential overruns on the waste water project? – [b]Voter2012[/b][/quote]
[b]ANSWER:[/b] I didn’t say “inevitable cost overruns. I said that we don’t know what the project will cost yet because biddable specs haven’t even been released yet, and that professionals in the field have told me that they think it will cost more. Of course the wastewater project could cost more as well. That is why the potential fiscal impact to the city is so dangerous.[quote][b]QUESTION:[/b] Why should we accept as true the claim that the bill for the waste water project has truly dropped from $200M to $100M? You take credit for this on a regular basis so maybe you could point us to the appropriate evidence. Is there a staff report, public hearing, or other documentary evidence that you can reference?[b]Voter 2012[/b][/quote] [b]ANSWER:[/b] This is a well-established part of the record. You can look it up yourself. Additionally, former city manager Bill Emlen told me that the $200 million contract was on his desk ready to sign. His statement is verifiable.
PART 1 TO BE CONTINUED……
PART 2 CONTINUED:
[quote][b]QUESTION:[/b] If it was possible to rework the design on the wastewater plant to save 50%, why do you dismiss the possibility that something similar will happen on the surface water project (as Joe has argued) as the process moves forward?—[b]Voter 2012[/b][/quote]
[b]ANSWER:[/b]: Because many of the same unidentified professionals who warned me that we were about to pay twice as much as necessary for the wastewater treatment plant have also told me that they think we are underestimating the costs of the surface water project.
Again, we don’t even have biddable specs yet. If we can save money, great. In the very unlikely event that we could save enough money on the total water/wastewater project to bring rates within some normal range relative to the region or the state, great. If we can proceed with both projects simultaneously in a way that is remotely affordable for the half or our households who make under $60,000 a year, great.
But what I am arguing is that we should be moving forward aggressively in the variance process in order to give us flexibility to postpone the project. By refusing to do so, council is creating a situation whereby we will have to do the project on the current schedule no matter how much our cumulative bill comes to. [quote][b]QUESTION:[/b] And how exactly does one “save” $100M on a project that hasn’t been built. That seems a little bit premature. [b]Voter 2012[/b] [/quote][b]ANSWER[/b]: Drs. George Tchabonoglous and Ed Schroeder are experts in wastewater treatment plant design, and that is their opinion. If the plant comes to more than $100M, that would significantly strengthens my argument that we should take necessary steps to postpone the project.
What exactly is your motive, 2012? To prove that we can’t postpone the new surface water project, or to argue that I was not instrumental in saving $100 million?
Your arguments/rhetorical questions seem to be more personally/politically motivated than analytically motived, as does your pseudonym.
[quote] It makes no sense to build an expensive waste water project before we get much further down the road on our our potable water infrastructure.—[b]Voter 2012[/b][/quote]
[b]ANSWER[/b]: This comment shows that despite your claim to have successfully completed independent research, you have a complete lack of understanding of the water/wastewater issues.
Unfortunately, the wastewater project is absolutely required by the SWRCB to meet constituent standards that cannot be addressed in other ways. The surface water project predominantly addresses the salinity issue, and there are processes in place which could, in fact, result in regulatory relief for salinity.
Sue: I wrote a detailed response to your post but just deleted it. There’s no point (e.g. see ERM’s attempt to get you to lucidly engage on the wavier regulations). Your arguments are not persuasive to me, and most of the professionals that are openly and publically dealing with this problem disagree with you. The best you can do on this point is to make the claim that there are other experts that talk to you in secret. This is no way to make public policy … particularly when the aggregate bill for the two projects will be more than $10,000 per parcel. Hence, my prior conclusion that “12 years is enough.”
[quote]Elaine, why are you constantly being so waspish? [/quote]
Personal attacks are usually the result of frustration when the attacker knows an arrow aimed at the attacker’s fallacious arguments has pierced the fog created to deceive – and hit its mark square on target.
[quote]Yes, Elaine, according to common use of the word “dirt”, river water is “dirtier” than well water. That does not mean that it is safer. They are both safe. [/quote]
If you concede river water is “safe” and it isn’t subject to “subsidence” or some of the contaminants found in well water, then which is a more reliable source of water that will help us come into compliance with the new water quality standards, our wells or the river water?
[quote]Don Shor: I do agree with Mike Harrington that we will be in trouble if Woodland runs into trouble, on a variety of grounds. We can’t issue our bonds until they issue their’s, or we could be stuck with interest payments for bonds and no project. We could also run into trouble if they have problems collecting their fees and run into problems paying for their share of operations and maintenance. The old saying: You can’t ring blood from a stone. [/quote]
Scare tactics again? It would seem to me the city not holding up its end of the bargain is Davis, who is far behind in raising its water rates than Woodland. It is Woodland that should be worried about Davis – Davis that touts itself as being strong advocates for the environment but only pays it lip service thus far – LOL
[quote] It would include a commitment to completing the project in a specified period of time after the waste water treatment plant is paid off. [/quote]
Variances are only granted for 10 years AT MOST according to state law. If they can be granted for a longer period of time, please point me to the SPECIFIC STATUTE that allows for variances beyond 10 years at most. Secondly, you have persistently refused to tell us how you would use the necessary SWRCB Resolution 92-49 criteria to argue for any kind of variance. A city has to have very legitimate reasons in order to be able to obtain a variance for 5 years. To renew it for another 5 years is even more difficult. A representative from the SWRCB in public has pretty much nixed the idea of a variance, yet you keep insisting on “unnamed sources “higher” up than him” that say we can obtain variances until the wastewater treatment plant upgrade is paid off in 25 or more years, on some vague hope/wishful thinking the gov’t will somehow change its mind and loosen water quality standards in regard to salinity, but never explain how the gov’t would also change their minds about other polluting constituents…
As I said once before, I find discussing this issue w you is much like trying to argue with jello – the minute I put my finger on an argument/issue, the jello squishes out from under and goes all over the place in different directions, so that the initial query is never answered…
[quote]And it would include interim measures such as conservation[/quote]
But you just argued the other day conservation will not do us any good! You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]And it would include interim measures such as conservation, replumbing the intermediate aquifer for landscape needs. It would involve hiring Dr. George Tschabonoglous to study additional interim measures (he and I have talked about alternatives if the project is infeasible at this time). And finally, it would involve purchasing easements so that the project would be ready to go quickly if necessary. [/quote]
You mean the two UCD experts whose opinion it was that the city should build the surface water project first and foremost, in order to save as much money as possible on the wastewater treatment plant? The two UCD experts you yourself insisted be consulted and do not agree with your opinion to table the surface water project for 25 years or more?
[quote]Then I said that a referendum had its place in terms of slowing down the project (and giving council a message that we must get to work on the variance process at its formative state, so that at least we have options!)[/quote]
“slowing down the project” for 25 or more years? That is not “slowing it down” – that is putting it off indefinitely…
[quote]I agree with Don Shor that the referendum will be in big trouble if Mike Harrington does not adopt a more positive and fact-based approach. I cannot endorse a campaign that doesn’t lay out positive alternatives, that isn’t fact-based and that relies on accusatory rhetoric. [/quote]
I would say this is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black…
[quote]My view is that the surface water project will probably be necessary eventually, but that it is a project that we can’t simply can’t afford right to complete now, given the waste water treatment plant and the substantial down-payment that we have already made in the project, and that we can and should complete it in a fifteen to twenty-five years when we have paid off all or part of our wastewater treatment plant.[/quote]
Why would we be any better able to afford the project in 15 years, when we are still paying for the wastewater treatment plant as you have claimed. Again, think jello…
[quote]So it sounds like we really don’t know how the citizens of Woodland are going to react to probable future rate hikes after 2012 especially after just having their rates doubled, do we?[/quote]
The same is true of the citizens of Davis. And right now, Woodland is the one who has to worry about Davis not being willing to fulfill its obligations… Davis who supposedly can better afford this project…Davis who is supposed to be so concerned about the environment…
[quote](1) How is it that we can afford a $100M waste water treatment plant — plus a bunch of deep aquifer wells at $3-4M a pop (most of which will become obsolete when the surface water come online) — but we can’t afford our $155M share of the surface water project? [/quote]
Don’t forget to mention the costs of any steep fines imposed if we are unable to obtain a variance, as Sue has been trying to claim she is certain we can get – because unnamed experts told her it was “possible”…
[quote](2) Why are you claiming that there will be inevitable cost overruns on surface water project but there is no discussion of potential overruns on the waste water project? [/quote]
Don’t forget to mention the cost overruns due to having to dig deep wells, apply for variances we are not likely to get, and the cost savings we will lose because the wastewater treatment plant was built BEFORE the surface water project…
[quote](3) Why should we accept as true the claim that the bill for the waste water project has truly dropped from $200M to $100M? You take credit for this on a regular basis so maybe you could point us to the appropriate evidence. Is there a staff report, public hearing, or other documentary evidence that you can reference? [/quote]
According to the two UCD experts, in so far as I am aware, that $100 million savings on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade was predicated on building the surface water project first and foremost.
[quote]It makes no sense to build an expensive waste water project before we get much further down the road on our our potable water infrastructure.[/quote]
BINGO!
[quote]It is frustrating to me that people are calling Woodland’s reliability into question. They are no less reliable than Davis on this issue.[/quote]
Right now, I would say Davis is looking a lot more unreliable than Woodland…
Can anyone address the earlier allegation that the city has hired a PR firm to promote this project? If so, how much is the contract and to whom is it being paid? I would think that David would be all over something like that if it is fact.
[quote]ANSWER: First, we don’t know how many deep water wells we would need for the interim period: That would depend on the variance and negotiations with the SWRCB. But think quantitatively for a second. $3 to 4M each compared to $155M (or much more, we don’t even have biddable specs yet). Even 10 wells would only cost $30 million of the $155M or more. And we will have to dig many of these wells anyway both to replace old wells and to supply summer water. We have to pay for the additional summer water one way or the other: Purchase even more or dig more deep wells. [/quote]
You answer is you don’t know; you want to add to the costs of the surface water project an extra $30 million to dig additional wells? Really?
[quote]ANSWER: I didn’t say “inevitable cost overruns. I said that we don’t know [/quote]
Again, you don’t know…
[quote]ANSWER:: Because many of the same unidentified professionals who warned me [/quote]
Unnamed sources again?
[quote]In the very unlikely event that we could save enough money on the total water/wastewater [/quote]
But I thought you said we were guaranteed to save $100 million wastewater treatment plant? Now I really am confused…
[quote]But what I am arguing is that we should be moving forward aggressively in the variance process in order to give us flexibility to postpone the project. [/quote]
And how do we argue “economic infeasibility” to put off the project the more than 25 years you are advocating for, based on the SWRCB Resolution 92-49?
[quote]ANSWER: Drs. George Tchabonoglous and Ed Schroeder are experts in wastewater treatment plant design, and that is their opinion.[/quote]
Yes, much to your chagrin your own two selected experts are not in agreement with your position we should put off the surface water project until we have fully paid off the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. Their advice was to build the surface water project first and foremost in order to be able to save costs on the wastewater treatment plant.
[quote]What exactly is your motive, 2012? [/quote]
Did Voter2012 questions hit too close to the mark?
[quote]Your arguments/rhetorical questions seem to be more personally/politically motivated than analytically motived, as does your pseudonym. [/quote]
“Accusatory rhetoric” that you so decried with respect to Mike Harrington?
[quote]ANSWER: This comment shows that despite your claim to have successfully completed independent research, you have a complete lack of understanding of the water/wastewater issues. [/quote]
Or perhaps the commenter just doesn’t happen to agree with your assessment?
[quote]Unfortunately, the wastewater project is absolutely required by the SWRCB to meet constituent standards that cannot be addressed in other ways. The surface water project predominantly addresses the salinity issue, and there are processes in place which could, in fact, result in regulatory relief for salinity. [/quote]
“Could”? More wishful thinking?
Good afternoon to anyone reading this and not taking a walk on a gorgeous afternoon.
I want to say that I was misinformed about some of the Woodland city funding issues. It’s not as simple as I tried to make it. I will get some documents and more information before I comment again, if I do. I am sorry if I offended anyone.
Also, I am not a spokesperson for the referendum to put the water rate increase on the ballot. I post just my own comments. The campaign has or soon will have someone who will be the spokesperson, and will be identified as the “go-to” person for the Vanguard bloggers.
Finally, my thing here is just to get this large rate hike on the ballot. It’s a matter of good public process to put huge fiscal issues on the ballot for a majority vote.
Signing a referendum form asking to put it on the ballot is NOT a statement that the signer is opposing the current project or will vote YES on the referendum to repeal the rate hike.
I read Dan Wolk’s excellent Op Ed piece today on the project, and I think he raises some valid process issues. He supports the project in concept; I am not certain that the project is the best route forward, and I do agree with Dan that the fiscal issues are a total mess.
Thanks, David, for running such a great Blog, and to Cecilia for loaning so much of his time away from family in order to serve the community with the Vanguard.
I wish
… all of you a great day!
[b]E. Roberts Musser’s string of 22 comments[/b] appear to be attempts at rebuttal to my two posts at 09/17/11 – 05:43 and 05:44 PM which, appear on the previous page of comments.
I urge readers to read these previous two posts, because the points that I am trying to make are important and most of Elaine’s objections are actually answered in the post itself.
I am not going to address most of Elaine’s objections, since she has raised them over and over again, and I have answered them over and over again.
I’ll briefly recap two of my previous answers to Elaine’s repetitive rebuttals:
I have explained to Elaine many times that the variance of up to 10 years is meant as interim measure since the SWRCB is working on a new salinity management plan for the region while the board considers more flexible permanent municipal discharge limits.
Also, I have presented pages and pages of well-documented explanation to Elaine Roberts Musser that SWRCB Resolution 92-49 has nothing to do with our ability to pursue a postponement of the surface water project through the variance procedure.
@ Michael (not considering a run for the city council “at this time”) Harrington: “Signing a referendum form asking to put it on the ballot is NOT a statement that the signer is opposing the current project …”
What a bunch of baloney.
If you support the water project, there is no point in signing the referendum. Please ask the petitioners that approach you what their preferred alternative is and how it meets future water quality requirements and provides a long-term sustainable water supply for Davis.
I would suggest to the petitioners that they explain to the public that the council should get involved in the variance process [b]NOW[/b], in order to allow the city an opportunity to phase in the surface water project after all or most of the new wastewater treatment plant is paid off.
They can explain that when the wastewater treatment plant is paid off, wastewater bills will go down. At that time, much of the preliminary phases of the surface water project will have been paid off as well. That is the time to raise surface water bills for the final phase of the surface water project.
Phasing in huge capitol projects is a time-honored way to upgrade facilities without overburdening the rate payer.
I would explain that if we go forward with both projects at once, we will have the highest utility bills in the region [b]BY FAR[/b] and our utility bills will be very, very high by statewide standards as well.
[i]That is the time to raise surface water bills for the final phase of the surface water project.[/i]
In about 25 years.
Don, anything between 15 and 25 years would be helpful. If we take out somewhat shorter term bonds, it would eliminate or radically decrease the time during which people are paying for both projects at once.
Why is this so shocking to you, Don? I moved here about 25 years ago, and it seems like yesterday. We have gotten our water rights, we have done the environmental work, we have purchased summer water (which we were assured that we could sell on the secondary market at a profit), we built the East area water tank, and we can proceed to buy our easements. We are good to go if we run into serious problems.
I don’t think you understand in quantitative terms just how out of line our utility bills are going to be if we don’t phase in these two projects.
Maybe this will illustrate my point:
San Diego was singled out as an astronomically high California water rate city. We were assured that our bills will of course be lower than those of San Diego. Well, I finally got hold of the San Diego public works department, and let me tell you what I learned.
San Diego’s annual average single-family water/wastewater bill is currently around $1,714. They have no rate increases planned for the next few years. They anticipate that if they have a rate increase, it will be in the 20% range. Hence, in six years, they anticipate that their rates will be around $2,059 a year, max. Citizens are not billed for garbage or storm sewer costs, those are picked up by the general fund.
So, in six years: San Diego –$2,059 a year; Davis –$2,300 (current estimate in six years).
But it is far worse than that:
First off, San Diego does not have much in the way of heat or air conditioning bills, so the total utility bills difference between Davis and San Diego will be much, much higher.
Secondly, the spokesman that I talked with did not think that the city had any supplementary taxes, and was not aware of any school district supplementary taxes. (I am going to have to confirm that).
And again, there are many professionals in the field who think we are underestimating Davis surface water project final costs.
Sue –
I don’t follow your point about SD vs Davis. The Jan 2011 cost of living index in SD is approximately 128. Davis is approximately 102. So the overall burden of living in Davis is significantly less than in SD. What does air conditioning cost or school taxes have to do with anything, if the overall cost of living index is 25% higher in SD than Davis? Further, the citizens of SD have been paying very high water rates for a many years, and therefore, a comparison of what they will be paying 6 years from now to what Davis will be paying is inappropriate. Davis is paying low water rates now, because we’ve chosen to avoid the problem for many years. You can’t compare the rates of cities that just aren’t comparable.
Adam Smith: I am not the one that brought up San Diego. The project proponents on the council have brought up San Diego.
The project proponents have said our rates are much lower than average and that they will not be higher than average if we undertake the surface water project simultaneously with the wastewater project.
In fact, our water/sewer/garbage bills will in fact be much higher than average if we undertake both projects simultaneously, and off the charts for our region.
Adam Smith, we don’t have the Ocean, the spectacular view and the spectacular climate of San Diego. And we have not seen a detailed cost of living analysis between Davis and San Diego, taking into account all projected utility rates and supplementary taxes. Actually, it would be interesting.
Adam Smith: Quick check on Zillow:
Median home price per s.f. San Diego: $257
Median home price per s.f. Davis: $255
So if it is true that San Diego has no city or school supplementary taxes and that their water related utilities are lower and that their heating and cooling costs are way, way, lower, I suspect that our cost of living will end up being higher. Cost of living is a moving target. Watch out.
Basically, Sue, you believe we should put off the water project for 25 years, pay to pump water from deep aquifers of unknown reliability, apply for multiple variances with no guarantee that they will be approved every five years or so (risking significant penalties), and have future generations pay for the surface water project that you and I believe is inevitable.
I believe we should start paying for the surface water project sooner, rather than later.
I believe your course of action is very risky and could lead to significant problems in 5 – 10 years as the city and UCD compete for deep water (and Woodland, if we back out of the surface water project at this time). I believe water standards are going to get stricter; you seem to believe they will be relaxed or we will achieve multiple variances.
“[i]…off the charts for our region.[/i]”
The other cities in our region made wise water use decisions many years ago. Davis chose to avoid those by continuing with groundwater, which essentially has no intrinsic cost. Now we pay the piper. Let’s not make that same short-sighted mistake again.
I grew up in San Diego, a city of over a million people. Any comparison with Davis is pointless at many levels, except one. My mother lives under a nearly constant state of extreme water conservation. It greatly reduces landscaping and gardening choices.
Sue –
Doesn’t matter who brought up SD, you used it as an example to make your point. Further, you made specific reference to the burdens with school taxes etc. The view of the ocean, weather has nothing to do with the issue, unless you are trying to change the discussion. Nothing in your email addresses historical water rates, which are important in the discussion.
Housing costs are a part of COL, but not all. Better to consider all aspects of COL, if you want to make your point. I used city-data.com, Jan 2011 data. Lets stay on point.
SEE YOU ALL ON WEDNESDAY AT 6:30 DOWN AT CITY HALL. SIGN UP TO GATHER SIGNATURES FOR THE REFERENDUM THAT WILL TAKE PLACE IN JUNE. WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO GATHER THE NECESSARY SIGNATURES.
David Greenwald (11/12/10):[quote]The city’s outside consultants on this issue, Tchobanoglous and Schroeder, 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.[/quote]
davisite2 (11/12/10):[quote]In the present economic climate and the budget crises that are being felt by CA city budgets, politically, it is, IMO, CERTAIN that a request for an extension in compliance with the CA waste-water treatment standards would be granted.[/quote](1) Build the surface water project first.
(2) Ask for regulatory relief to delay the construction of the wastewater project until (a) the economy recovers, (b) salinity standards are finalized, and (c) the improvements on our discharge resulting from the switch from ground water to surface water can be fully assessed and incorporated into the design of the plant.
(3) Complete the refresh of the city council that was begun in 2010 by dumping all multi-term incumbents in the next election.
The referendum halting the rate hike, IMO, is the only way to FORCE the Council majority to make an honest, full-court press towards obtaining a variance. At present, without a referendum halting the rate hikes, it is hard to see the Council and staff doing anything else other than just going through the motions of trying for a variance which would be counter to their current plans.
davisite2:
variance application = higher borrowing costs (borne by the rate payers)
[quote]The city’s outside consultants on this issue, Tchobanoglous and Schroeder, 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.–[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote] Thanks for bringing this up, David.
From their recommendations, it appears that George and Ed were worried about the financial impact of doing both projects at once, as I am, and suggested phasing them in at the time that they wrote the report.
George and Ed did their analysis before the SWRCB announced the salinity variance program and before they announced that they were revisiting salinity management, with a very real possibility that municipal salinity effluent limits will be relaxed. George and Ed did not know about this turn of events.
After talking with staff at the SWRCB, I was essentially told that we had no chance of getting regulatory relief on the constituents that our new wastewater treatment plant addresses, but that we had a real chance on getting regulatory relief on the constituents that the surface water addresses, i.e., salinity.
This is new information that was not available at the time that Ed and George did their report. I have had many long talks with George about the surface water project, and I think that he agrees that whether or not we can bear the cumulative costs at this time is a judgment call that involves thinking about our projected total utility fees and bills, our supplementary taxes, how we will stand in comparison with others in the state and region, etc.
[quote]variance application = higher borrowing costs (borne by the rate payers)–[b]Voter 2012[/b][/quote]This is an example of the total lack of quantitive thinking that has plagued the discussion of these mega-projects. $325 million and rising versus the cost of participation in the variance process?
Have you heard of the concept: Order of magnitude?
Davisite: [i]”The referendum….is the only way to FORCE the Council majority to make an honest, full-court press towards obtaining a variance.”[/i]
In your case, a variance is a disingenuous proposal because you have opposed the surface water project completely, at every stage of discussion. Unlike Sue, you do not believe it will be necessary at any time in the future. You have consistently proposed a course of action that would intentionally restrict Davis water supplies in order to prevent future growth. So in your case, the variance is merely a way of permanently derailing the water project. You apparently believe the water standards will be relaxed in the future, and that we just need to keep applying for variances until that occurs.
That is a massive gamble based on what I believe to be a very slim likelihood of a future change in federal water quality standards.
Sue: Lack of quantitative thinking? I think not. You totally missed the point. I’m astonished that I have to spell this out for you, but here goes …
The interest rate that we will have to pay to sell our bonds is affected by the risks perceived by investors. You are proactively fanning the flames of a rate payer revolt. This increases risk — which increases interests rates on our debt — which increases costs borne by rate payers.
Each quarter point works out to about $12M in added cost over 30 years. I will leave it to the economists to figure out just how badly you screwed the city once the dust settles.
Sue’s argument makes no sense. This is, at some level, about (1) her personal stake in her claim that she saved the city $100M on the wastewater plant, and (2) the fact that she was unreasonably frozen out of the surface water planning process by her colleagues.
In other words, wastewater is her pet project while surface water was/is dominated by Don, Joe, and Stephen.
At any rate, I’m of the opinion that the irrationality of her position is more about polarization politics and her upcoming re-election campaign than it is about public policy.
[quote]In your case, a variance is a disingenuous proposal because you have opposed the surface water project completely, at every stage of discussion. Unlike Sue, you do not believe it will be necessary at any time in the future. You have consistently proposed a course of action that would intentionally restrict Davis water supplies in order to prevent future growth. So in your case, the variance is merely a way of permanently derailing the water project. You apparently believe the water standards will be relaxed in the future, and that we just need to keep applying for variances until that occurs.[/quote]Don: I agree.
I would also add that this is an odd position for an environmentalist to take. It’s OK for the entire city to pollute the delta as long as it serves a progressive political agenda.
[quote]Also, I have presented pages and pages of well-documented explanation to Elaine Roberts Musser that SWRCB Resolution 92-49 has nothing to do with our ability to pursue a postponement of the surface water project through the variance procedure.[/quote]
Are you now shifting positions yet again (it is remarkably like dealing with jello), claiming SWRCB Resolution 92-49 does NOT set out the criteria for arguing “economic infeasibility” in obtaining a variance, despite its plain language to the contrary? Why are its standards irrelevant/don’t apply? If it is irrelevant, then show me the statute that lays out the criteria for obtaining a variance. Oh, that’s right, you said there are no criteria for obtaining a variance. If there are no criteria to obtaining a variance, are you telling me the SWRCB just decides on a whim? Do you really expect the public to believe that?
[quote]San Diego was singled out as an astronomically high California water rate city. We were assured that our bills will of course be lower than those of San Diego. Well, I finally got hold of the San Diego public works department, and let me tell you what I learned.
San Diego’s annual average single-family water/wastewater bill is currently around $1,714. They have no rate increases planned for the next few years. They anticipate that if they have a rate increase, it will be in the 20% range. Hence, in six years, they anticipate that their rates will be around $2,059 a year, max. Citizens are not billed for garbage or storm sewer costs, those are picked up by the general fund.
So, in six years: San Diego –$2,059 a year; Davis –$2,300 (current estimate in six years). [/quote]
Yes, San Diego’s costs are cheaper bc they wisely chose to address their water issues long ago… and did not put it off for 25 years… think about that when you keep advocating for delay, delay, delay…
[quote]In fact, our water/sewer/garbage bills will in fact be much higher than average if we undertake both projects simultaneously, and off the charts for our region. [/quote]
“In fact” there is every likelihood to delay the surface water project will make it MORE COSTLY bc:
1) Construction costs/financing are likely to increase over time;
2) Subsidence/contamination will necessitate the cost of drilling deep wells in addition to the cost of the surface water project;
3) If we cannot obtain variances for 25 years, which is not permissible under current law and not likely to be granted according to a representative from the SWRCB, we would have to pay fines that could be very steeep.
4) To realize the savings on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, it was predicated on building the surface water project first and foremost, according to 2 UCD experts you yourself insisted on being consulted.
[quote]George and Ed did their analysis before the SWRCB announced the salinity variance program and before they announced that they were revisiting salinity management, with a very real possibility that municipal salinity effluent limits will be relaxed. George and Ed did not know about this turn of events. [/quote]
Your statement is disingenuous at best. Ed Shroeder was well aware of the information with respect to salinity when he wrote his most recent op-ed piece in the Davis Enterprise, which still does NOT AGREE with your position of delaying the surface water project. He is still advocating for building the surface water project first and foremost, to realize the savings on the wastewater treatment side.
[quote]This is an example of the total lack of quantitive thinking that has plagued the discussion of these mega-projects.[/quote]
Personal attacks usually are the result of/made out of frustration when the “attacker” is having difficulty making a reasonable response to someone’s very cogent argument…
Elaine: “Your statement is disingenuous at best. “
Elaine: “Personal attacks usually are the result of/made out of frustration when the “attacker” is having difficulty making a reasonable response to someone’s very cogent argument…”
While the first statement perhaps is not a personal attack (it is close to one suggesting that someone is being disingenuous is close to calling them a liar), I could point out a number of examples of a similar tone. I would suggest that if you are going to complain about other people making personal attacks, you attempt to tone down your comments. I have had a number of complaints about your tone in the last few weeks and have been too busy to say anything.
David
At the very worst, Elaine’s tone is keeping pace with overall tone of discussion. And at the very worst, its just passionate debate. At this time there is no need for censoring or public admonishment.
Elaine, thank you.
[quote]While the first statement perhaps is not a personal attack (it is close to one suggesting that someone is being disingenuous is close to calling them a liar), I could point out a number of examples of a similar tone. I would suggest that if you are going to complain about other people making personal attacks, you attempt to tone down your comments. I have had a number of complaints about your tone in the last few weeks and have been too busy to say anything.[/quote]
I do take exception to the above comment:
1) I have been called “nasty”, “hectoring”; “waspish” among other things, and have tried to ignore the personal attacks, and come back with a softer approach that is more general in nature… and you have not said one word about those personal attacks against me – NOT ONE.
2) The statements about me being “nasty”, “hectoring”, “waspish”, etc. were not censored by Don Shor (that is NOT A CRITICISM DON – I AM FINE WITH IT – I’M A BIG GIRL AND CAN TAKE IT – AND YOU DO AN ADMIRABLE JOB AS BLOG MODERATOR), and my statements are certainly considerably softer than what has been slung at me.
3) I have expressed an opinion that someone’s statement is in my opinion disingenous; you have called for someone to be ousted from their office, but somehow my comment is unacceptable and yours is not? Please explain…
4) Several times you have impugned my ability as an attorney on your blog, which is impugning my profession – but I have chosen to take it in stride. Why is that acceptable?
5) There seems to be a double standard here, quite frankly, that is beginning to appear politically motivated…
Thank you Davis Enophile… the steam is still coming out of my ears… can’t you see it coming through your computer? Arggggghhhhhh….
Oh well, let us just say dmg and I will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that 🙂
Like i’ve said, I’ve been too busy trying to keep up with city stuff and a new baby to stick my nose in, but the tone has deteriorated a bit in the last few weeks. I think you are right that you are not the only one and I apologize for singling you out.
[quote]Like i’ve said, I’ve been too busy trying to keep up with city stuff and a new baby to stick my nose in, but the tone has deteriorated a bit in the last few weeks. I think you are right that you are not the only one and I apologize for singling you out.[/quote]
Apology accepted 🙂 And a new baby should come “FIRST AND FOREMOST” 🙂 LOL Oh I do remember my days as a young mother – my ex left me with two toddlers and a newborn to raise by myself, and I chose to put myself through law school (sometimes I wonder what I was thinking!)… I almost have forgotten how hard it was – as a parent you live moment to moment just to survive the baby/toddler stage… GET SOME SLEEP!!!
[b]I hope that readers who are interested in the issues will go back and take a look at my comments and rebuttals on the previous pages[/b].
My substantive comments are continually buried by mountains of repetitive retorts by E. Roberts Musser and Voter 2012.
The positions of E. Roberts Musser and Voter 2012 have been thoroughly represented by staff and by the other council members.
I hope that readers will take the time to search through the mass of similar, repetitive posts by E. Roberts Musser, Voter 2012 and a few others to hear a different point of view.
[quote]The positions of E. Roberts Musser and Voter 2012 have been thoroughly represented by staff and by the other council members.[/quote]This appears to be some kind of lame attempt to discredit what Elaine and I have been saying.
My response is to also encourage everyone to read the record … not just Sue’s propaganda. A search of the Vanguard using the keyword “wastewater” yields 50 articles and captures most of the surface water posts as well. In addition, there are numerous editorials, staff reports, consultant reports, and other documents to be found online that that are very illuminating.
Any appearance of repetition from Elaine and I is largely due to our futile efforts to rebut the talking points that Sue incessantly repeats, including my favorites:
– I saved the city $100M
– Delay is the best path forward
– My secret advisers know more than everyone else
I would also point out that just because someone disagrees with Sue. it does not automatically make them part of the “machine.” This is just one of Sue’s rhetorical tactics that she uses to try and shore up a fundamentally untenable position and rally her political supporters.
To Voter2012: I wouldn’t call our efforts “futile”. We must be making some significant headway or Sue and the Vanguard wouldn’t feel the need to sharpen their claws…
Perhaps we can take David’s comments about the tone to heart and all adopt nicer phraseology (and I include myself in this mild critique).
[b]I hope that readers who are interested in the issues will go back and take a look at my comments and rebuttals on the previous pages.[/b]
Again, my substantive comments are continually buried by mountains of repetitive retorts by E. Roberts Musser and Voter 2012.
The positions of E. Roberts Musser and Voter 2012 have been thoroughly represented by staff, other commenters and by the other council members. I am not denigrating this view. I am offering a different view. The stakes are high, and I hope that readers will take the time to read my comments, because I am making some points that no one else has been making.
Thanks.
“I wouldn’t call our efforts “futile”. We must be making some significant headway or Sue and the Vanguard wouldn’t feel the need to sharpen their claws…”
Elaine: Futile was a poor choice of words. What I meant to communicate was that we were largely unsuccessfully in stimulating/provoking direct, to-the-point, substantive responses from Sue on most issues. She ignores, misdirects, or goes off on some non sequitur to the point that it is worthless trying to engage in any meaningful debate with her (per your “jello” analogy). I suspect this is part and parcel of why she was unable to get any of her motions seconded.
As you can see above, her latest response to us is to, once again, attempt to marginalize our questions/comments by dismissing them as a rehash of the position of staff and the council (4:1) majority, and appeals to anyone that’s paying attention to “just ignore those people and read my stuff.”
[quote]Again, my substantive comments are continually buried by mountains of repetitive retorts by E. Roberts Musser and Voter 2012. [/quote]
I would offer that my substantive comments and those of other supporters of the surface water project are continually buried by mountains of repetitive retorts by Council member Sue Greenwald. You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]Perhaps we can take David’s comments about the tone to heart and all adopt nicer phraseology (and I include myself in this mild critique). [/quote]
I will if others will 🙂 When deliberately baited with perjorative language, it is very difficult not to step up to the plate and defend oneself…
Correction: pejorative… sigh… can’t even spell right these days…
And by the way Don, I personally think you do an outstanding job as blog moderator. Trying to walk that fine line between freedom of speech and what “crosses the line” is a thankless job/not an easy task to be sure…
[b]I hope that readers who are interested in the issues will go back and take a look at my comments and rebuttals on the previous pages.[/b]
Again, my substantive comments are continually buried by mountains of repetitive retorts by E. Roberts Musser and Voter 2012.
The positions of E. Roberts Musser and Voter 2012 have been thoroughly represented by staff, other commenters and by the other council members. I am not denigrating this view. I am offering a different view. The stakes are high, and I hope that readers will take the time to read my comments, because I am making some points that no one else has been making.
Thanks.