In the last few weeks we have finally seen the outcry from the left that has been muted far too long, based perhaps on their misplaced faith or misplaced admiration for Barack Obama.
The true elements of the left, such that they still exist in this country, actually have far more in common with the reactionary elements in the Tea Party, deep in their mistrust for government, the feeling of political impotence, and anger directed at the status quo and manifested with an anger directed mainly toward the marriage between big business and big government.
At the local level, forces like Occupy Davis attempt to replicate the nationalized anger directed toward Wall Street bankers who helped plunder this nation into near depression, as the corporatist government attempted to bail them out even as they rewarded those who nearly put this country six feet deep with six and seven figure bonuses.
I will argue here that, while the small contingent calling themselves Occupy Davis attempts to emulate the national counterparts by staging “takeovers” of the park and banks, the real forces are manifesting themselves in the water referendum and, to a lesser extent, the sea change in Davis politics, moving away from growth-based battles and toward battles over the budget.
The water referendum is particularly telling. The mainstream in this community favors the water project. They can argue with purpose and credibility that we need clean, reliable and affordable water. That if we do not build this project, we will be in violation of clean water standards and could face fines.
What has emerged in the face of that mainstream support is the undercurrent – those on the right who are Tea Party elements, angry at the high taxes and fees to run government that they see as inefficient at best, and an unnecessary intrusion in the private sphere at worst. This is the Tea Party element.
They are joined by the progressive left of past days, such as remains intact these days. These are primarily the slow-growthers, leery of big business and big developers. These are the Occupy crowd, the angry left who see big business and corporate greed at the root of this nation’s problems, and the water project locally as manifestation of it all.
Moreover, those on the left are concerned that the average person is being tremendously burdened, their livelihoods threatened by the need for city government to support big business.
When it comes to big business, in California there is none that more exemplifies that than the water industry.
The left sees a national government built for the benefit of rich corporations that have turned a bad recession into something a whole lot worse, that does not appear to be ending any time soon.
What has happened here is class warfare. Davis is becoming the tale of two cities, one being those who are long-time residents who live on fixed income, those who are renters and struggling to get by, those burdened and looking for work in an economy that could not care less. They see government about to put them out of their homes and threaten their livelihoods.
In past times, those are the people who would take to the streets, strike out against their capitalist oppressors through strikes and boycotts. In a very real sense, this water referendum is exactly that – anger at their impotency and the ability of the average person in Davis to finally lash out and say enough is enough.
They are pitted against those who have more to lose by not having a reliable supply of water and can afford the increase in water rates.
Those who argue that this water project might cost more in five years than it does now are ignoring the Tea Party/Occupier mentality of the average person in this community, who is clearly fed up and likely to take it out on a bunch of other targets that have little to do with their actual source of frustration.
This joining of the left and the right is not completely new in Davis. It has often manifested itself against growth and development – unlikely and shaky allies of convenience, who oppose growth for perhaps very different base reasons.
Moreover, it is the force behind the movement to create a more sustainable budget. The far right seems right at home on this dimension – opposing excessive government spending and distrusting organized labor.
Many observers seem baffled by the progressive left in Davis’ willingness to go after public employee unions. However, they should not be. People need to stop analyzing these issues as left-right and look at the establishment – anti-establishment dichotomy.
In short, not only are the left unlikely to look at government workers making $150,000 per year in total compensation very sympathetically, but the public employees union in Davis has hardly been the voice of progressivism.
The firefighters union, that embodies the power of the union in Davis, controlled the council to the tune of 7 of 9 councilmembers over a stretch of time from 2002 to 2008. They supported the establishment, pro-growth, pro-spending councilmembers in Davis and opposed the voices of progressivism and change.
In 2010, the message of 2007 to 2009 was won. The public, and in particular the public candidates – Joe Krovoza, Rochelle Swanson, and Dan Wolk – embraced the message of the left, and the right and were willing to, at least on the issue of the budget, do what these forces could not do by themselves.
But the election, while generally positive for a lot of issues in Davis including moving us away from the bitter divide of the last decade, nevertheless is tone deaf, apparently, to the concerns about the affordability of the water project and the rate hikes.
One thing that everyone needs to recognize is that, to a large degree, the rate hikes have been completely mismanaged by a novice council and a blundering city staff. That the bid process may be compromised as well, should be cause for alarm.
All of this is icing on the cake, fuel to the rising anger of those on the left and the right who feel that government has forgotten them, that government officials now live in a different world, and that they are the representatives of the people but have defended the big corporate mass far more vigilantly than the average family – left or right on Main Street.
To make matters worse, the structure of government has failed us, both in terms of the anti-democratic structure both in the US Senate and the California Legislature, and in terms of the bitter partisan divide over how to move forward, with a blame game that helps nothing.
In the end, public officials should be watching the referendum closely, because if it succeeds in halting the water project, it will mark both a drastic change and a drastic message delivered from people on both the left and the right.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The referendum has certainly focused a whole lot more attention on the water project and our water rates. That has been for the good. Otherwise there would have been a lot of people who would have called themselves “surprised.” The press coverage has caused them to pay attention.
Matt, is that your little shot at me? I’ve gathered signatures in my neighborhood and yesterday happened to chat with a few of my neighbors and they were also “surprised” to learn that their rates will go much higher than 14% per year unless they cut back 20% on their water. They said all they had been hearing is 14% a year for 5 years, they had no idea that they had to cut their usage on top of that. I guess they all have lives, jobs, children and chores to take up their days. Little did they know that they should be watching the council meetings on TV and logging on to the city’s website.
David opines, “rate hikes have been completely mismanaged by a novice council and a blundering city staff.” I fear that not only our rate hikes but our service will be managed in the future by a very savvy private firm. And that those rates and poor service will be on top of fines imposed by the government owing to the salty water that we dump into the river (not to mention the junk on top of the salt coming in my city water from the wells).
Occupy the Vanguard!
I didn’t know I was such a leftie ?
David, I agree with almost all you say above. I do, however, want to reinforce one point. As a volunteer signature gatherer, I have not infrequently encountered the argument from people that we can trust our council to act in our best interests; they are elected to make decisions on issues like the water project; and I don’t believe in initiatives and referendums. Indeed, as you say, it is assumed by all too many (especially the better-off) that people like Wolk, Swanson, and Krovoza are objective experts we can trust. It is worth reminding people that not only did the council make a massive misjudgment on Covell Village in 2004, but that as far back as the 1980s if the “expert” city council had had its way WE WOULD HAVE NO CENTRAL PARK, AN ALMOST UNIMAGINABLE THOUGHT. Here for those who do not get the Davis Enterprise I think it is worth reprinting in full an excellent letter on this story from Nancy and Don Price that appeared in yesterday’s DE. I’d like to hear the response of those who put all their faith in an elected council to make wise decisions for us over their FOUR year terms.
LETTER TO DAVIS ENTERPRISE OCT. 21, 2011
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE
Please sign the petition circulating to put the water rates to a vote of the people. Stop by the table at the Farmers Market on Saturday.
What we gain is time for communitywide discussions on the need, scope and cost of the water pipeline and associated projects to fully explore alternatives to save money, keep water under public control and protect the environment.
Newcomers to Davis may not realize that it was a vote of the people that saved Central Park. Yes, it’s true! In the mid-1980s, the City Council at the time voted 4-1 to convert the block between Third and Fourth, B and C streets to a three-tiered shopping mall of chain stores and underground parking.
A small group with a different vision met in the park and imagined something radically different — a beautiful community central place. Signatures were gathered to place a referendum on the ballot and the people voted to save the park. Now, after more than 20 years, Central Park is a Davis jewel, the Farmers Market is acclaimed throughout the state and beyond, there are the Hattie Weber Museum, the U.S. Bicycling Hall of Fame, the bicycle-powered carousel and new gardens and garden programs.
What a place to meet and go with your family and friends on Saturday mornings or Wednesday evenings. How lucky we are that a few people were inspired, and along with many others after the referendum passed, worked together to realize their vision for the park.
Nancy and Don Price
Davis
Another perspective on the Central Park issue…. there was, as I recall a plan B…. to build a modern City Offices facility, and letting the old City Hall (F street, Bistro 33, today) be ‘recycled’ for other uses. Instead, the city paid a lot of money to DJUSD to relieve the district of an ‘albatross’ (old high school, current city offices) and the city has paid lots and lots of money to refurbish the building multiple times, and yet it still has issues as far as efficient usefulness.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Matt, is that your little shot at me?” [/i]
rusty, I think you can check with anyone who posts regularly here and confirm that I don’t “take shots.” I try and focus on objectives rather than subjectives. My comment was not directed at any single person, rather at the tried and true pattern that all our respective lives are incredibly full, and more often than not we only pay attention at the last moment when a deadline looms.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”I’ve gathered signatures in my neighborhood and yesterday happened to chat with a few of my neighbors and they were also “surprised” to learn that their rates will go much higher than 14% per year unless they cut back 20% on their water. They said all they had been hearing is 14% a year for 5 years, they had no idea that they had to cut their usage on top of that. I guess they all have lives, jobs, children and chores to take up their days. Little did they know that they should be watching the council meetings on TV and logging on to the city’s website.”[/i]
And everything you have just said is 100% consistent with what I said above.
Just out of curiosity, what steps would you have taken to get the public to be more engaged? What communication vehicles would you use if you were a Council Member?
Matt: speaking for myself, and not Rusty, but this water project should have been on the ballot long ago. It was not because the CC majority knew that they could nurse it along with year after year of rate hikes, but not high enough to really make people go to the mats about it. I told senior staff in 2001 or so, after losing yet another CC vote to raise rates to pay for planning, that that when they needed the really big money to build it, they would have to face the voters. Time’s up, and here we are.
I took the kids for ice cream after attending Dan Wolk’s great party last night, and we asked some of the Central Park Occupiers why they stayed there. Answer: to try and make Davis aware of improvements, but unspecified. Seemed like a nice group there. Saw them mixed in with some of the regular drug and alcohol abusers that hang around the park, but all in all, a well-mannered group of thoughtful people whom are bringing another perspective to the public discourse.
DV, I think the power of the referendum is more complex, and diffuse, than your article describes. But you make a good first effort at tackling the analysis.
I think anyone running in support of the water rate ordinance that is the subject of the repeal is going to be political toast; much more powerful forces in favor of the repeal, then those in favor of stopping Measure J (the Susie Boyd bullet voters in 2000) She blew in as Mayor from her NO on J position.
It will be interesting to see how Dan Wolk handles it. His speech last night clearly endorsed the project and, effectively, the giveaway of local ownership and control to Woodland and the JPA.
He spoke about maintaining Davis’ affordability for families, but the surface water project that he voted for is contrary to that message.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: speaking for myself, and not Rusty, but this water project should have been on the ballot long ago. It was not because the CC majority knew that they could nurse it along with year after year of rate hikes, but not high enough to really make people go to the mats about it. I told senior staff in 2001 or so, after losing yet another CC vote to raise rates to pay for planning, that that when they needed the really big money to build it, they would have to face the voters. Time’s up, and here we are.”[/i]
Mike, I understand your perspective, but can’t help but wonder what the ballot question would have been.
For instance, should it have been about the fact that 12 of the City’s well’s have selenium levels that are anywhere from twice to 9 times the allowable permit level?
Or should the ballot question have been about the possible technical alternatives for removing the selenium from our waste water?
Or should the ballot question have been about the 2005 deep water aquifer EIR that only granted Davis 4,500 gallons per minute from the deep aquifer?
Or whether there are economies of scale by pursuing a combined jurisdiction water strategy?
Just exactly what should have appeared on the ballot?
For that matter, what question(s) do you expect to appear in the upcoming ballot?
Michael Harrington said . . .
“It will be interesting to see how Dan Wolk handles it. His speech last night clearly endorsed the project and, [b]effectively, the giveaway of local ownership and control to Woodland and the JPA.[/b]”
Mike, you have repeated the bolded words above in many forms. Exactly what control is it that you see Davis giving away?
What control is it that you see Woodland usurping from Davis?
Why do you see JPA — with its well defined proportional ownership by Woodland and Davis (and possibly UC Davis) based on actual water volume used — as not being “local ownwership”?
The following is a general political maxim that calls for the citizen-initiated referendum to be put on the ballot:
This project was shaped by the following:
1.Special interests that exert their power and influence to benefit their “bottom line”,indirectly with their money, not readily transparent to the voters2.City bureaucratic inertia, both at the staff and Council level that is inclined to take the easier route rather than controversy,complications and more work.3.An issue that is complex with the electorate also inclined to take the easier route and not become informed and involved.IMO, the result of the above is ALWAYS that the electorate gets “screwed”.
Challenging and halting the initial proposal and demanding full information and transparency always results in a plan that offers greater benefits to the voter and less to the special interests. The “consent of the governed” is, in the last analysis the real power in a democracy.
Matt, simple, I would’ve put out the true percentage of the rate increases. Not the percentage based on conservation. There, done, not hard.
A good vehicle to reach out to people in Davis is The Enterprise. I would’ve made sure that the Enterprise put in their articles the true rate increases. If they put 14% per year they should’ve made sure to state that it was based on 20% conservation.
Check out these two water rate DE articles, I quickly perused them but didn’t see any mention of the 20% conservation.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/city-staff-recommends-new-water-rates-lower-than-initial-proposal/
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/water-ratepayers-have-a-chance-to-ask-questions-on-wednesday/
rusty, the Enterprise, like the Vanguard decides what the content of its stories are/will be. The City doesn’t write the stories.
Water Conservation has been a major City initiative for many years. This isn’t new. Similarly price elasticity has been a core component of microeconomics for over a century now. If the price goes up, those who have to conserve are going to do so. The information that was presented by Staff to Council was upfront and explicit.
You seem to feel that citizens have no responsibility to inform themselves. Is that correct?
rusty, if you go to [url]http://cityofdavis.org/[/url], you will see under [b]What’s New[/b] a link for [b]Water Conservation Workshops[/b].
How many people to you think attended the most recent Workshop on October 21st? Did you attend? Have you attended any of the many similar Workshops the City has held in the past?
Have you attended any of the many Irrigation Workshops the City has held in the past?
WATER CONSERVATION WORKSHOPS
The City of Davis is hosting free water conservation workshops for all water customers.
A workshop for residential customers, “How to reduce your water use without impacting your lifestyle,” will be held October 21, from 3pm-5pm at the Davis Hallmark Inn, 110 F Street.
Another workshop for businesses owners and apartment property managers will be held Friday, October 28 from 3:00pm to 5:00 pm at Sudwerk, 2001 2nd Street.
No registration or RSVP is required for either workshop.
At the workshops, Public Works staff will discuss indoor water use, water saving tools and appliances, rebate programs available, water leak loss and detection, and conservation assistance options. The workshop will also highlight the biggest drain on water supplies—irrigation! Workshop attendees will learn about various options to conserve water outdoors through plant selection, planting techniques and irrigation schedules.
The commercial workshop will focus on conservation measures specifically for businesses, including property management, restaurants and more.
For more information on water conservation, visit [url]CityOfDavis.org/PW/Water/Conserve[/url].
Water Conservation Workshop Flier
————————————————————————–
Water Conservation Program
Water Conservation:
Landscape & water conservation
Watering your lawn
Fix that leak!
Water use in your home
Clothes washer rebate
General water conservation tips
Water 3 times a week
Water Wise Presentation (click here to open in a separate window)
Helpful Links
Water conservation is a cost-effective and
environmentally-sound way to reduce our demand for water. Using water carefully is always important. For most single family residential customers, focusing on outdoor water use can result in easy water savings. About 60%-70% of the water consumed during the summer months is used for landscape irrigation.
Inside the home, the most reliable way to reduce water use is to make sure you have water efficient appliances. Replacing toilets and clothes washers with more efficient models and using lower flow showerheads (2 gallons per minute or less) will reduce your overall water use year round.
Also make sure that all your leaks are fixed and that lawns and gardens are not overwatered. Saving water is not only good for your pocketbook, but also will help reduce your carbon footprint.
Where does our individual responsibility begin?
Ok… if I sign the petition, and the voters approve the actions of the CC will Mike, Rusty, etc. shut up and accept the decision, or will they continue to badger and fight it until they “get their own way?
Matt, try to deflect all you want. But I do know when the average citizen picks up their newspaper and sees 14% with no mention of it being based on water conservation then finds later that their rates are way higher are going to be very “surprised”. I would think that the City would have asked the Enterprise to correct their stories if that facet of the rate hikes wasn’t included in the article. I would say the DE is the probably the biggest source of news in the city and many times the city gets their message out through the newspaper.
Hpierce,
You’ve got a deal as long as all the water project backers also shut up and accept the people’s will if the project is rejected.
Matt: it’s simple I want three CC and our city manager and our employees to be 100% responsible for providing our water. Who brought Woodland’s Mr Marbles and Unuted Water (indicted on multiple felonies for falsifying water plant data) into our water supply system ?
Mr Souza is the Chair of the JPA. So naybe he and Mayor Krovoza brought us United Water ?
The chickens are coming home to roost now ?
[quote]The mainstream in this community favors the water project. They can argue with purpose and credibility that we need clean, reliable and affordable water. That if we do not build this project, we will be in violation of clean water standards and could face fines.[/quote]
This is a broad brush generalization in regard to the use of the term “mainstream” that is just not accurate. It appears what is being said here is that if one supports the water project, one is somehow “mainstream”, whatever the heck that means.
Not for one second do I consider myself “mainstream”. I often do not go along with city staff/city council recommendations, and anyone who knows me knows that is the case. I have frequently and vigorously clashed with both the CC and city staff (and the Vanguard) on many issues, e.g. Carlton Plaza Davis, the Zipcar contract, the elimination of the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, Covell Village, the Conagra project, the Conaway Ranch deal, and earlier on the surface water project itself. I base every decision I make on individual projects themselves, w no ideological mindset involved. I have been known to change my mind as more facts come to light.
In short, I am an independent thinker with no particular allegiance to party affiliation, elected officials, or anything else other than my own sense of integrity and logic. Sometimes this drives people crazy, especially politicians, because they know I cannot and will not be “bought”. I have remained vigorously independent and intend to remain that way.
I find it ironic that the next sentence above states “They [the mainstream] can argue with purpose and credibility that we need clean, reliable and affordable water. That if we do not build this project, we will be in violation of clean water standards and could face fines.”
If the “mainstream” as you label the proponents of the surface water project can argue with purpose and credibility, then where’s the problem? We are taking a principled stand, based on solid evidence, that our view is an eminently sensible one. What in heaven’s name could possibly be wrong with that?
Then in the next breath the article states:
[quote]They are joined by the progressive left of past days, such as remains intact these days. These are primarily the slow-growthers, leery of big business and big developers. These are the Occupy crowd, the angry left who see big business and corporate greed at the root of this nation’s problems, and the water project locally as manifestation of it all.[/quote]
So another broad brush is applied – all the opponents to the surface water project are suspicious of big gov’t, and is the vague reason for their opposition – they are the conspiracy theorists is the implication I draw from this statement. I honestly don’t think this is necessarily the case either. Council member Greenwald for instance feels strongly that the projects should be phased in as the best strategy – not because she has a suspicion of big gov’t, but because she thinks it is the best course of action in her view of the cost/benefit/risk analysis. Steve Hayes believes the project has been flawed as to process (which it has), so therefore the product shall be, etc.
Frankly, I don’t think it is particularly useful to lump together vasts groups of people and attribute their views to a single way of thinking. Each has their own way of viewing something, and their own set of motivations, values, biases and so forth that are unique to them. I am more than willing to allow the democratic processes to play out, without trying to read various motivations into the reasons why someone might take a particular stand. That is the democratic way…
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: it’s simple I want three CC and our city manager and our employees to be 100% responsible for providing our water. Who brought Woodland’s Mr Marbles and Unuted Water (indicted on multiple felonies for falsifying water plant data) into our water supply system ?”[/i]
Okay Mike that is what you want . . . and it prompts several questions:
How much more is your approach going to cost to accomplish that?
Are you willing to forsake the economies of scale that a regional solution provides?
What is it about Woodland that you don’t trust?
Can a free-standing Davis compete in the job market with other water/wastewater jurisdictions for the specialized talents needed? Larger jurisdictions and private companies will be able to outbid Davis for its needed talent which will mean a brain drain, and therefore a “challenged” operational environment.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]
“Matt, try to deflect all you want. But I do know when the average citizen picks up their newspaper and sees 14% with no mention of it being based on water conservation then finds later that their rates are way higher are going to be very “surprised”. I would think that the City would have asked the Enterprise to correct their stories if that facet of the rate hikes wasn’t included in the article. I would say the DE is the probably the biggest source of news in the city and many times the city gets their message out through the newspaper.”[/i]
Not deflecting at all rusty . . . simply holding myself and 65,000 others like me accountable for being informed citizens.
@ rusty: [i]You’ve got a deal as long as all the water project backers also shut up and accept the people’s will if the project is rejected.[/i]
As far as I know, the referendum doesn’t give the voters the ability to reject “the project.” They will be voting on the rates passed by the city council.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”You’ve got a deal as long as all the water project backers also shut up and accept the people’s will if the project is rejected.”[/i]
rusty, is that what is going to be on the ballot? The up/down of the project? Or is it going to be the up/down of the rates?
If the project is voted down, how do you propose to deal with selenium in our wastewater?
Hpierce,
You’ve got a deal as long as all the water project backers also shut up and accept the people’s will if the project (RATE HIKES) are rejected.
[quote]You’ve got a deal as long as all the water project backers also shut up and accept the people’s will if the project (RATE HIKES) are rejected.[/quote]
I, for one, will turn to opponents IF they succeed, and ask, NOW WHAT? WHAT IS YOUR BACK-UP PLAN? But if the water rate increases are approved, and things go bad down the line, e.g cost overruns, I will be the first to step up to the plate and raise holy heck, and admit I was wrong. No one has a crystal ball here. This is a cost/benefit/risk analysis, pure and simple.
If the rate hikes are rejected, I urge the council to approve other rate hikes. If the opponents want to stop the water project, they need to have the public vote on that. I am aware of people who support the project but oppose the way these hikes were structured.
I don’t know what is in the initiative Ernie Head is circulating.
rusty49, you don’t think people will conserve when faced with 200%, 300%, or higher water rate increases? And if they don’t conserve, guess what? The rates come down. When projecting the financials of a project one makes assumptions, generally base, best, and worst case. It would be foolhardy to not assume a certain amount of conservation. I do not know whether 20% is prudent. 0% conservation strikes me as imprudent.
davisite2, who are the special interests that you’re referring to? Please spell it out for us political neophytes.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
[i]”Matt, try to deflect all you want. But I do know when the average citizen picks up their newspaper and sees 14% with no mention of it being based on water conservation then finds later that their rates are way higher are going to be very “surprised”.[i]
I don’t blame rusty49 for feeling like he doesn’t understand the issues, even though he has stated in previous posts that he has been keeping abreast of the water/sewer issue. And the rate issue is pretty obvious, if you do any reading at all about the rates – the key is that you have to do the work.
It is nearly impossible for normal citizens to spend the time studying, researching and thinking through the issues at hand with respect to the water project and then making a well-reasoned decision about whether this project should be built or not. And this has nothing to do with how intelligent they are. They just don’t have time. Heck, many people who are capable of doing their taxes don’t do them because to do it really well, you need to beecome an expert, which takes many hours. The same is true for this matter. It is why we elect a city council and they guide staff about preparing materials and obtaining qualified advice.
Well said Adam. I have been highly motivated to try and understand the issues very well ever since I was asked to join the citizens advisory committee that was meeting prior to September 6th.
What I have found is that the issues are extremely complex, and that there is significant disagreement amongst the people who are closest to those issues. For me, the most important consideration is that Water and Wastewater are conjoined issues; however, there are others who strongly believe those two should be dealt with independent of one another. The term “due diligence” truly does apply.
Sorry, enablers of the project Read dunning just posted on the web site
What’s your response ?
Rich. , you have a good eye for numbers. Can you copy in dunnings numbers and tell us what you think ? Maybe in a sunday article ??
I assume conservation is built into the city’s calculations that yield 14% increase per year. I get 15 – 16% increase, but close enough. It assumes that people will conserve about 20% over the time period of the rate increase. If you do, your overall rate increase will be sort of like what the city says. If you don’t, it will be what Bob Dunning came up with.
Why does the city assume you will conserve 20%? Because that is what is observed when rates go up. For example, the conclusion from this study:
“On average, in the United States, a ten percent
increase in the marginal price of water can
be expected to diminish demand in the urban
residential sector by about 3 to 4 percent. (This
is equivalent to saying that U.S. residential water
price elasticity is in the range of –0.3 to –0.4).”
Source: Sheila M. Olmstead and Robert N. Stavins
Managing Water Demand
Price vs. Non-Price Conservation Programs
A Pioneer Institute White Paper July 2007
People who don’t or can’t change their behavior when the water rates go up will see higher percentage increases. Overall, the city’s aggregate rate increase is likely to be what they say. But your rates will differ, depending on how readily you can conserve.
[quote]Sorry, enablers of the project Read dunning just posted on the web site.
What’s your response ? [/quote]This makes it clear, in my opinion. Mr. Harrington is unalterably opposed to the “project”. Has nothing to do with the rates. Any R&D to kill the project appears to be ‘fair game’. Mike, that is your right to an opinion. Just say it straight out, please. Reminds me of the “discussion” re: a battered women shelter in Davis where it was attacked on the basis of traffic generation. BS
[i]”Rich, you have a good eye for numbers. Can you copy in dunning’s numbers and tell us what you think? Maybe in a sunday article?”[/i]
First, let me share my conclusion, based on my own water bill.
From 2011 to 2016, if I do not substantially lower my water usage, [b]my water bill will go up by 255%[/b], maybe more depending on how much the base rate increases in 2016*.
The average annual compounded increase for me will be 20.63% per year. My current bill for two months is $75.50. In 2016, all else held equal, it will be $192.88
Here, then, is my take on what Bob Dunning describes in his column, using my single family house as my example:
We used [b]35 ccf[/b] from 7-6-11 to 9-9-11. (Note that the billing period is actually from 10-1 to 12-1-11.) Under the current single family metered rates, with Tier 1 capped at 36 ccf, our entire water usage was in Tier 1. So my 2-month bill was this:
Tier 1 = $1.50 per ccf; 35 x $1.50 = $52.50
Tier 2 = $1.90 per ccf; 0 x $1.90 = $00.00
My total metered water bill = $52.50. On top of that, we pay $23 for two months of “base rate.” (Note that the base rate is going up in price, as well.) Total water bill = $23 + $52.50 = $75.50.
Under the adopted rates, which begin January 1, 2012 and (as Dunning reports) cap Tier 1 at 27 ccf, here is what my same metered water bill will look like, if we use at my house the same 35 ccf:
Tier 1 = $1.90 per ccf; 27 x $1.90 = $51.30
Tier 2 = $2.46 per ccf; 8 x $2.46 = $19.68
My total metered water bill will be $70.98. The new base rate charge for two months will be $29.60. Total water bill = $29.60 + $70.98 = $100.58.
That is a 33.2% increase (100.58/75.50 = 1.332) over my current rate, all else held equal.
Starting January 1, 2013, again using 35 ccf, with a new Tier 1 cap at 25 ccf, my metered water bill will be:
Tier 1 = $2.28 per ccf; 25 x $2.28 = $57.00
Tier 2 = $2.95 per ccf; 10 x $2.95 = $29.50
My total metered water bill will be $86.50. The new base rate charge for two months will be $35.20. Total water bill = $35.20 + $86.50 = $121.70.
That is a 21.0% increase (121.7/100.58 = 1.210) over my 2012 rate, all else held equal.
Starting January 1, 2014, again using 35 ccf, with a new Tier 1 cap at 24 ccf, my metered water bill will be:
Tier 1 = $2.68 per ccf; 24 x $2.68 = $64.32
Tier 2 = $3.46 per ccf; 11 x $3.46 = $38.06
My total metered water bill will be $102.38. The new base rate charge for two months will be $47.80. Total water bill = $47.80 + $102.38 = $150.18.
That is a 23.4% increase (150.18/121.7 = 1.234) over my 2013 rate, all else held equal.
Starting January 1, 2015, again using 35 ccf, with a new Tier 1 cap at 23 ccf, my metered water bill will be:
Tier 1 = $3.14 per ccf; 23 x $3.14 = $72.22
Tier 2 = $4.05 per ccf; 12 x $4.05 = $48.60
My total metered water bill will be $120.82. The new base rate charge for two months will be $54.40. Total water bill = $54.40 + $120.82 = $175.22.
That is a 16.7% increase (175.22/150.18 = 1.167) over my 2014 rate, all else held equal.
Starting January 1, 2016, again using 35 ccf, with the Tier 1 cap at 23 ccf, my metered water bill will be:
Tier 1 = $3.60 per ccf; 23 x $3.60 = $82.80
Tier 2 = $4.64 per ccf; 12 x $4.64 = $55.68
My total metered water bill will be $138.48. The base rate charge for two months is not posted, but I guess it still will be $54.40*. Total water bill = $54.40 + $138.48 = $192.88.
That is a 10.1% increase (192.88/175.22 = 1.101) over my 2015 rate, all else held equal.
*Assuming that the base rate from 2015 to 2016 will not increase is probably wrong. It probably will increase. However, if you look at the city’s adopted water rates ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/prop218/services.cfm[/url]), they don’t show any number for a base rate in 2016. But every year previous it goes up and up and up.
But, Rich… if you use your July/Sept. usage is your baseline, unless you have no irrigation, that would be a “worst case” analysis… was that your intent?
My intent was to show that, if I use 35 ccf, that is what will happen to my bill: it will go up by 20.6% compounded every year. Even worse, as I show, the base rate, which is the same whether one uses a lot of water or none at all, will rise 24% peer year compounded.
I have never said I am against the water project. I agree with Dunning that it is best to be perfectly honest. I think the 14% compounded number is not perfectly honest.
I also think that we need to consider the costs of not going forward with the water project. I think the dyed in the wool opponents of the water project tend to not think about those possible or likely costs.
So if you use 28 ccf, reflecting a 20% conservation value, what happens to your bill? That is what I was testing on the city’s calculator, except I tested 30 ccf reduced by 20% via conservation.
I assume that the city assumes you will conserve, because that is what is observed when water rates go up.
I guess like me Mr. Dunning is also “surprised” by the rate increases.
He states: “Somewhere along the line, however, someone in officialdom decided to silence the critics and mollify concerned citizens by throwing out a rate increase “percentage” that was flat out false. I’d like to be charitable and say this was merely a mistake made during a mathematical calculation, but the facts say otherwise. Yes, this deception was intentional.”
“Turns out, 14 percent has absolutely no relation to reality. The actual figures are much, much higher.”
“Issue a press release that tells the simple truth that rates will rise at least 240 percent in the next four years for all Davis ratepayers. And carefully point out that many ratepayers will see rates on a portion of their water rise by as much as 309 percent in four years due to the fact that Tier II pricing of water will kick in at a dramatically lower level. That would be honest.”
All this sounds a lot like what I’ve been saying. Maybe he didn’t know about the conservation factor either. But I’m sure some here will say that darn it, he just didn’t do his “due diligence”.
“I agree it is not a particularly honest way to present the rates, but it is, at least, based on observed behavior.”
Thank you Don.
*************NEWS FLASH*************
The price of gasoline will triple from $4/gallon to $12/gallon over the next 5 years which calculates to a 14% per year increase (*see below).
*Percentage increases includes observed behavior conservation discount
Seriously, are you kidding me?
[i]”if you use your July/Sept. usage as your baseline …”[/i]
If I have some time, tomorrow, I will look up my bills for the last year and plug in the ccf’s for each period throughout the year. That will overcome the problem HP points out with my methodology. I should note that I only used my most recent bill above, because it was convenient, sitting on my messy desk in a pile of papers labeled, “file these, you disorganized slob.”
[img]http://ajmccarthynz.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/messy-desk.gif[/img]
If gas goes to $12/gallon, you will use a LOT less.
“If gas goes to $12/gallon, you will use a LOT less. “
Unless your business doesn’t allow you to use a lot less, which means that there are people that would be crippled by such an increase. And even if I can drive a little less, perhaps i can’t drive enough less to save myself.
That’s the problem here as well.
Rich, may I make a suggestion that will simplify the discussion of the calculations. First, calculate the new fees at any point in time (and at any service volume) and then determine the ratio between the existing bill and those new calculated fees.
That ratio will be the amount of water conservation that needs to be achieved in order to “break even.” Conserve less than that and your percentage increase will be greater than what has been published as “the average.” Conserve more than that and your percentage increase will be less than what has been published as “the average.”
Using Rich’s example, his current usage is 35 ccf and his 2-month bill was $75.50. That means his Year One +14% bill would be $86.07, his Year Two +14% bill would be $98.12, Year Three +14% bill would be $11.86, his Year Four +14% bill would be $127.52, and his Year Five +14% bill would be $145.37.
He calculated that his Year One actual bill with no conservation would be $100.58, his Year Two actual bill with no conservation would be $121.70, his Year Three actual bill with no conservation would be $150.18, his Year Four actual bill with no conservation would be $175.22, and his Year Five actual bill with no conservation would be $192.88.
To bring his bills down to the +14% amount his water conservation (from his base 35 ccf) would need to be 16.9% in Year One, 24.0% in Year Two, 34.3% in Year Three, 37.4% in Year Four, and 32.7% in Year Five.
Said another way, to achieve the +14% fee increase level, after conservation his Year One water consumption would have to be 32.2, his Year Two water consumption would have to be 28.2, his Year Three water consumption would have to be 26.1, his Year Four water consumption would have to be 25.5, and his Year Five water consumption would have to be 26.4.
So his target conservation would be to go from his current 35 ccf to 26 ccf.
Good to see the math Matt, now the question – how realistic is that?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Good to see the math Matt, now the question – how realistic is that?”[/i]
David, in Year One I personally would concentrate on two things to accomplish the decrease to 30.0 (please note I had a typo on that one number in the above post).
First and foremost would be adjusting my irrigation. That is incredibly easy to do and costs absolutely no money. We all tend to water too much and water at the wrong times. Irrigation should be done just before dawn and should be done much less frequently than most of us do now. Start by going to http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/conserve/ where the City notes [i]”If you live in a home with an average sized lawn, you are probably using at least half of your water outdoors. Many people give their lawns too much water. Not only is that wasteful, but it can also damage your lawn and leave it more susceptible to pests and disease. A typical Davis home could save more than 50,000 gallons of water each year through improved lawn irrigation practices.”[/i]
Second would be to conduct a water leak audit. As the City says on its website, [i]”Leaks can be the biggest water waster of all. If you feel your water use is high, you can request assistance from the Public Works Department free of charge by calling 757-5686. Public Works staff will determine if there is a leak on your property and in most cases can quantify water losses. A trained technician will come to your home and check for indoor, outdoor and whole system leaks
toilets are checked for leaks—a running toilet can use as much as 4,000 gallons (5 CCF) per day!
shower head and faucet flow rates are measured
efficiency of the irrigation system is evaluated
technician may recommend an irrigation water schedule or identify irrigation leaks
a report is provided with findings and recommendations
water efficiency program materials and tips are provided
To request a free water leak check or water use analysis, please call Public Works at 757-5686 during business hours. (Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM)
Some leaks you can easily fix yourself:
Check for toilet tank leaks by adding a dye tablet to the toilet tank (You can also use food coloring). Dye tablets are provided free of charge to Davis residents at the Public Works Department. Stop by anytime M-F between 8 am- 5pm to pick up a free dye tablet to check for toilet tank leaks. You can also use food coloring. After adding the dye tablet (or food coloring) into the toilet tank, wait for 30 minutes. If the toilet is leaking, color will appear in the toilet bowl within 30 minutes (flush as soon as test is done, since food coloring may stain tank). Check the toilet for worn out, corroded or bent parts. Most replacement parts are inexpensive, readily available, and easily installed.
If the toilet flapper frequently sticks in the flush position, letting water run constantly, replace or adjust it.
Leak Losses (larger leaks can occur) Leak Size Situation Annual Loss
Drip Dripping Faucet 18,500 gallons
1/4 gallon per minute Running Toilet 131,400 gallons
1 gallon per minute Leaky pipe 525,600 gallons [/i]
So bottom-line David, I think it is very accomplishable if each of us pays attention. If we don’t pay attention, then we are likely to be “surprised” when we see our water bill.
Rich’s water consumption will be less than 35 ccf in the next billig cycle, and less even still in the cycle following. Rich’s 35 ccf is probably his peak annual usage since it comprises driest hottest time of the year – July and August. How does Rich’s numbers look on an annual basis? Meaning, his total annual water bill under existing rates versus those proposed. Then do Matt’s conservation math.
Of course, if Rich lives in a conrcete jungle with no irrigation demand, then his 35 ccf is probably the same regardless the time of year.