The Vanguard has learned from several sources well connected that the referendum committee has collected enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. Supporters of the referendum will turn the signatures in to the city clerk’s office this morning.
The Davis Enterprise reported on Thursday that they had counted about 4500 names, but were taking the last few days to remove ones that were incomplete or had bad addresses.
The referendum puts before the voters a simple up or down vote on the rate hikes. The city clerk will turn the signatures over to the county, who will spend 30 business days verifying the signatures.
Should the county certify the referendum, a petition would be brought before the city council, which at that point would decide whether to place the ordinance on the ballot or repeal the rate hikes altogether.
The act of referendizing the issue will freeze any rate hikes until the vote of the people.
To the surprise of many, on October 7 the Davis Enterprise came out in favor of putting the water rates to a vote.
They argued: “The project is expensive – estimated at $325 million, with Davis’ share of the cost an estimated $155 million. But engineers and city officials from Davis and Woodland say it is necessary.”
However, the Enterprise asks: “Is it necessary? Many local ratepayers are not convinced, and therein lies our concern. This water project is much bigger, much more important and much more long-lasting than a housing development or an underpass or a retail store. It deserves the kind of public discussion for which Davis is known.”
“And it deserves a public vote,” they concluded.
But not everyone is convinced of this. While four members of the council supported the water rate hikes on a vote, Councilmember Stephen Souza is the only one who has actively opposed a referendum.
His efforts led to charges that Mr. Souza had been attempting to interfere with the signature-gathering process.
While the Vanguard found a lack of evidence to support the most serious allegations, it is clear that Mr. Souza opposes putting this process to a vote of the people.
Councilmember Souza told the Vanguard a few weeks ago, “We were handing out a flyer that said on top to ‘think before you sign.’ We were exercising our right of free speech in a respectful manner.”
He provided the Vanguard with a copy of that flier, in an image taken with a cell phone camera.
It read at the top: “Think before you sign! Forcing a vote on the clean water project is a delay which will cost rate payers more money.”
At the bottom it read: “Failing to act now could result in a loss of our water rights.” It continued: “The state water right is conditioned on the active use of the water. Delaying could jeopardize that state right.”
Mr. Souza was also concerned that outsiders were paid to gather signatures, despite having no stake in the outcome.
“These paid people have said things that are not true. They do not know the issue nor do they have a stake in our town. They are here only to make a buck and leave,” he told the Vanguard.
But apparently the outsiders are not the only ones misleading the public.
Further controversy erupted this week, culminating on Sunday with a Bob Dunning column in which he said that the city was “not honest about water rate increases.”
His chief complaint was the lack of acknowledgement, publicly, that the advertised 14 percent rate hike was only a 14 percent rate hike for the average person with 20 percent water conservation.
He writes, “Turns out, 14 percent has absolutely no relation to reality. The actual figures are much, much higher. Worse yet, the city made the conscious decision to balance the water project budget on the backs of larger families through an onerous ‘tier’ system.”
In the Vanguard’s assessment, in the most technical sense, the city did not lie about the rate hikes being based on a 20 percent conservation assumption. That was contained both in the op-ed by Krovoza-Souza and in the staff rerport.
However, the city failed to correct the public record following the meeting when the news reports got it wrong. In particular, the Davis Enterprise article, which read: “Hours of discussion that began Tuesday night culminated in the Davis City Council’s 4-1 decision at 3:20 Wednesday morning to raise water rates by no more than 14 percent annually over the next five years.
Nowhere in the article does it mention conservation, or that the 14 percent rate hikes are conditioned by a 20 percent conservation assumption.
As the Vanguard opined on Sunday, that is on them and their responsibility.
Some commenters disagreed, arguing that the City of Davis and the city council have no control over what the Enterprise reports. We agree that the city has no control over what the Enterprise reports. However, when the paper gets it wrong, the city does have a responsibility to ensure that the public is not misled.
In their pocket were options to call for a retraction and correction, a letter to the editor or an email to the Vanguard.
The city may not have been dishonest in their staff report about the rate hikes, but they have not been forthcoming in correcting misleading news reports.
Despite what defenders have argued, the city does have a responsibility to make sure correct information gets to the public.
Defenders have countered that the public has a responsibility to inform themselves, as well – we do not disagree – however, the question now is, having been informed about the true nature of the rate hikes, should they not vote to repeal the rate hikes if they are concerned about the impact on their families’ finances?
The Vanguard argued that the city should not have framed this rate increase as a 14 percent increase, but as a 28 percent increase that could be reduced through 20 percent conservation. That would have been the most honest description of the rate increases.
Now it is in the hands of the residents. Proponents of the project will be able to make their case to the public during a public campaign. If the public buys into that vision, then the water project can go forward. That is how it should be and how democracy should work.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Proponents of the project will be able to make their case to the public during a public campaign. If the public buys into that vision, then the project can go forward”
Unfortunately, the opponents will also be making their case at the same time. If the posts here from some of the opponents with their unsubstantiated smear tactics (Souza blockers with no evidence), inflammatory rhetoric ( gold plated project with no estimate of how similar goals could be met more economically), dubious linkage to other costs ( parks and schools), and accusations of deliberate lying on the part of members of the city council ( despite the fact that the information was readily accessible but misrepresented by the press) are predictive of what we will be seeing, the citizens will have quite a job wading through the distractions, half truths, and distortions to get to the truth.
To me this is neither “how it should be” nor ” how democracy should work”.
David, take another look at Dan Wolk’s Sept. 15 op-ed in the Enterprise
http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/lets-make-sure-we-get-this-water-project-right/
[quote]however, the question now is, having been informed about the true nature of the rate hikes, should they not vote to repeal the rate hikes if they are concerned about the impact on their families’ finances?[/quote]
The irony is that if the voters choose to not approve the water rate increases, they very well may be asking for fines that will be equal to the costs of the surface water project without anything to show for it. So they will end up paying just as much OR MORE – with no improvements. More, because now added to the cost of the surface water project will be the costs of fines, digging new wells, keeping the current crumbling infrastructure going, etc.
[quote]Unfortunately, the opponents will also be making their case at the same time. If the posts here from some of the opponents with their unsubstantiated smear tactics (Souza blockers with no evidence), inflammatory rhetoric ( gold plated project with no estimate of how similar goals could be met more economically), dubious linkage to other costs ( parks and schools), and accusations of deliberate lying on the part of members of the city council ( despite the fact that the information was readily accessible but misrepresented by the press) are predictive of what we will be seeing, the citizens will have quite a job wading through the distractions, half truths, and distortions to get to the truth.
To me this is neither “how it should be” nor ” how democracy should work”.[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]In their pocket were options to call for a retraction and correction, a letter to the editor or an email to the Vanguard.[/quote]
How do you know that the city didn’t do this, and the Davis Enterprise neglected/refused to do so? Especially in light of the Davis Enterprise’s position on the issue (in favor of the referendum – after all, higher water payments means less money for homeowners to purchase a newspaper)? And especially in light of Bob Dunning pointing fingers towards the city – instead of at his own EMPLOYER (EDITOR of the Davis Enterprise) where the REAL BLAME BELONGS.
Furthermore, the Davis Enterprise knew of the 20% conservation assumption, since it appeared in the op-ed piece by Krovoza and Souza.
“Unfortunately, the opponents will also be making their case at the same time.”
That’s how democracy works. Fortunately renters, who will most likely see their rents go up, will finally have a say.
“If the posts here from some of the opponents with their unsubstantiated smear tactics (Souza blockers with no evidence), inflammatory rhetoric ( gold plated project with no estimate of how similar goals could be met more economically), dubious linkage to other costs ( parks and schools), and accusations of deliberate lying on the part of members of the city council ( despite the fact that the information was readily accessible but misrepresented by the press) are predictive of what we will be seeing, the citizens will have quite a job wading through the distractions, half truths, and distortions to get to the truth.”
As I don’t use The Davis Enterprise to get facts on anything I vote on and comments on the Vanguard quickly making this an untrustworthy source, I don’t think an email from the City to either would help clarify. I used the calculator provided on the City’s website and figured out my own bill and then figured out what my bills would be going forward.
I wish previous City Councils had raised rates a tad over the last many years so we had a reserve built up to pay for this. It was just irresponsible for them to punt it, which is resulting in the huge increases now. But, as I remember, any talk of doing this was shot down by the same people leading the referendum as “growth inducing.” Personally, I am tired of putting off repairs and upgrades to our infrastructure for fear that more houses will be built in Davis. Now we are faced with fines (like Dixon and Woodland) unless we act decisively on fixing this. I would like to see extending the timeline to 7 or 8 years, instead of 5 so the increases are not so steep.
Medwoman: you are concerned about alleged misstatements made by volunteers concerning the surface water project? Match whatever misstatements made by volunteers in the heat of the moment to those carefully made by our highly paid city leaders: the rate structure is not what was in the motion approving the ordinance; and the JPA has three qualified bidders. One, United Water, is indicted for felonious fabrication of water plant testing for e-coli in Indiana and going to trial next year.
Sorry, medwoman, your concern and anger are misplaced: go to public comments and tell the CC and senior water staff.
Per Michael Harrington (verbatim):
•We just found out that our partner in the project, Woodland, has been hiding its fiscal commitment from the voters
•Now it has morphed into a deal with just Woodland, and their finances are extremely shaky.
•If Woodland voters turn down their share, Davis will be stuck with all of it.
•The Davis CC hid from us the fact that its partner, Woodland, was duping the voters to get their share of this project.
•Those wells will “suddenly” be viable again after the surface plant is done, and guess what? 68,000 plus 85,000 equals 153,000.
• The surface water plant is one of the cleverest strategies I have ever seen: soak the rate payers so the potable water is available for the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis and Woodland.
•I am sure there was a discussion amongst a few elites about 15 years ago, and the surface water system was the chosen way to make sure that Davis had the water for a much larger population while enriching the border land owners.
•the City CC, staff, and others can be very punitive withough being overt about it.
•I also will point out that the very people who have been pushing surface water or bust for 15 years are the ones who designed, set up, conducted, and interpreted the studies that have been done that are allegedly supportive of surface water being the only viable option.
•enablers of the water project….
•My take on it is the water interests are alrady spending to oppose the referendum via various hidden channels using community members.
And then we have the goons, grand juries, and threats of lawsuits.
Everyone: 11:30 am this morning, witness our turning in the referendum petitions. Office of City Clerk, 23 Russell Blvd. I would like to especially invite Ryan Kelly, ERM, Voter2012, medwoman, DT Businessman: come on down and join us in this unique display of how direct democracy is alive and well in our fine community.
I promise that during the campaign the fiscal and technical issues concerning this project will be fully aired and examined, and the voters will get to chose.
Oh, sorry Don, inadvertently left you off the list of special invitees. You are definitely on it! Come on down!
[quote] I would like to see extending the timeline to 7 or 8 years, instead of 5 so the increases are not so steep.[/quote]
Unfortunately it is not optimal to extend the timeline 7 or 8 years, bc there must be sufficient funding in place to go after favorable financing. The Public Works Dept wanted to start increasing the water rates long ago, but was stymied by calls to bring in other experts to look at the issue. Ironically the two UCD experts brought in emphatically stated the surface water project should be done first and foremost to save money on the wastewater treatment side…
[quote]Sorry, medwoman, your concern and anger are misplaced: go to public comments and tell the CC and senior water staff.[/quote]
Concern about misinformation being put out there by opponents of the project is somehow MISPLACED? How convenient a position for you to take – a rabid opponent of the project! If you are complaining about alleged “misinformation” being put out by proponents of the surface water project, then YOU SHOULD NOT BE STOOPING TO SUCH TACTICS YOURSELF…
Mike Harrington: 10/24/2011 – 8:34 AM: “Match whatever misstatements made by volunteers in the heat of the moment…”
And that’s what he said.
And will rusty49, Michael Harrington, et al pay for the fines and construction cost overruns created by this exercise in democracy ? By the way, thanks for this brilliant soap opera. I’m working on a screenplay now .
[quote]And will rusty49, Michael Harrington, et al pay for the fines and construction cost overruns created by this exercise in democracy ? By the way, thanks for this brilliant soap opera. I’m working on a screenplay now .[/quote]
LOL Well said!
Well said Medwoman. Oh that the Davis Emptyprise had been on the ball and informed the public of what was happening long ago. Would that it would be doing so now! I dropped my subscription when it dawned on me during the the high school basket ball bla bla bla that the Emptyprise really had no concern for the city of Davis or its citizen. Abject dereliction on the part of a small town paper. I am willing to conserve: am checking my water bills, replacing my old toilets, upgrading the irrigation for my garden, and switching my lawn to California native bunch grasses. And, I’m looking forward to that surface water. Where do we drop off the obsolete, polluting water softeners? Will there be a pile to dump them in at the landfill?
biddlin: Good comment. Hope to see you here more frequently.
“And will rusty49, Michael Harrington, et al pay for the fines and construction cost overruns created by this exercise in democracy ? By the way, thanks for this brilliant soap opera. I’m working on a screenplay now .”
This is a vote going to the people of Davis, why shouldn’t they have a say? Why shouldn’t renters who will also share in the cost also have a vote? If the referendum passes it will be because of the will of the majority of the people, not just a few who have voiced their opinions on a blog.
OK, someone please give me the definitive answer (like you Don given your post today). Without getting into the issue of the fiscal stability and health of Woodland, tell me what the JPA says should either Davis or Woodland no longer be able to meet their obligations. A priori it would seem to me that we are joined at the hip even if the two cities issue separate bonds. If one defaults then the other picks up the tab or has to stop the project right???
“The surface water plant is one of the cleverest strategies I have ever seen: soak the rate payers so the potable water is available for the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis and Woodland.”
There is little doubt, IMO, that developers along with the Davis Chamber of Commerce(DT businessman blogger) have a keen financial interest in putting this surface water conduit in place ASAP. Water is needed for massive population growth(read consumers as viewed by the Davis Chamber…) that is part of massive residential peripheral development. On that note, should we be concerned about Councilperson Dan Wolk’s strained contradictory statements about his position on this issue along with his recommendation to have , as citizen overseers to this project, people who are closely allied politically to his mother, Lois Wolk? Let us not forget Mayor Lois Wolk’s public advocacy for major population growth in Davis when she sat on the CC dais(to 80-90,000, as I remember it, at that time) as well as her aggressive public stance that Davis voters should reject the last citizen-launched referendum that called for renegotiating the flawed Wild horse development agreement…not to be confused with the more recent Measure R Wild horse RANCH vote.
In the continuing vein of asking for an answer to a very simple (but important) question (s). What efforts precisely have been made by whom to secure some state or federal funding? Relatedly, what prospect is there of securing such funding if a concerted effort were made by our council, state and congressional reps.? Have other communities, like Davis and Woodland got state and federal funding (assistance) for such projects in recent years?
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”There is little doubt, IMO, that developers along with the Davis Chamber of Commerce(DT businessman blogger) have a keen financial interest in putting this surface water conduit in place ASAP. Water is needed for massive population growth(read consumers as viewed by the Davis Chamber…) that is part of massive residential peripheral development.”[/i]
davisite, is there no limit to your personal paranoia? As you well know, ever since I decided to take an interest in Yolo/Davis land use I have actively been on the same side of the growth issue as you. I’ve fought for Measure J’s extension and the “proper” interpretation of the 1% Growth Cap (as opposed to a Target). I pointed out just yesterday that according to Wes Ervin, Yolo County’s Economic Development Manager, Davis’ Jobs/Housing ratio is 1.02 and the general rule is that a “healthy” sustainable community should have a ratio of 1.5 or higher. We are already housing rich.
With that said, I have faith in 1) the voters of Davis, 2) the provisions of Measure J/R, and 3) the Pass Through Agreement as curbs to the kind of growth you appear to be in fear of. Why don’t you have faith in those three pillars of our community?
On that note, should we be concerned about Councilperson Dan Wolk’s strained contradictory statements about his position on this issue along with his recommendation to have , as citizen overseers to this project, people who are closely allied politically to his mother, Lois Wolk? Let us not forget Mayor Lois Wolk’s public advocacy for major population growth in Davis when she sat on the CC dais(to 80-90,000, as I remember it, at that time) as well as her aggressive public stance that Davis voters should reject the last citizen-launched referendum that called for renegotiating the flawed Wild horse development agreement…not to be confused with the more recent Measure R Wild horse RANCH vote.
Don Shor, please delete the final paragraph from my post above. I inadvertantly didn’t delete the second half of davisite’s quoted post. Thanks.
For readers who see my post above before Don edits it, please diregard the final paragraph that begins with “On that note …”
“With that said, I have faith in 1) the voters of Davis, 2) the provisions of Measure J/R, and 3) the Pass Through Agreement as curbs to the kind of growth you appear to be in fear of. Why don’t you have faith in those three pillars of our community?
Call it “paranoia”… I call it realistic assessment. As I have noted before, the voters of Davis will be caught between a “rock and a hard place” when it comes to being offered a way to reduce their unsustainable utility bills, ie approve massive development to increase the tax base,when they have the opportunity to exercise their Measure R vote. I have great faith in the Davis voters when their gonads are not in a potential fiscal vice- grip. As to the pass-through agreement, we just recently saw how tenuous and fragile that agreement with the County can be.
Reasonable point.
The problem is that if we choose to continue on our current groundwater sources the capital requirements are still huge, so the “fiscal vise” will exist regardless. Going forward means a $255 million capital requirement. Not going forward means a $180 – $225 million capital requirement plus significantly higher operating costs to get rid of the selenium brine extracted from the ground water to comply with EPA and SWRCB compliance requirements.
So “realistically” the threat you describe is going to be there regardless.
Matt states: “With that said, I have faith in 1) the voters of Davis”
Thank you Matt, well said. I’m sure they’ll do the right thing on the referendum vote.
Davisite:
“Call it “paranoia”… I call it realistic assessment. As I have noted before, the voters of Davis will be caught between a “rock and a hard place” when it comes to being offered a way to reduce their unsustainable utility bills, ie approve massive development to increase the tax base,when they have the opportunity to exercise their Measure R vote. I have great faith in the Davis voters when their gonads are not in a potential fiscal vice- grip.”
LOL….so true and well stated.
MATT: [i]”For readers who see my post above before Don edits it, please [b]diregard[/b] the final paragraph that begins with “On that note …” [/i]
No problem, Matt. I am happy to diregard it. I love to diregard just about everything Dullardite2 posts.
[quote][i]”Water is needed for massive population growth(read consumers as viewed by the Davis Chamber…)” [/i][/quote]
I am amazed by the paranoia and the thinking that delaying repairs and upgrades to our infrastructure will result in prevention of more houses. If the rates were raised slightly years ago, we could have built a reserve to pay for repairs and upgrades, but this paranoia about housing growth has consumed every process in Davis to the point of irrationality.
Ryan, I agree with you that some people are irrationally paranoid to think that the motivation for the surface water project is a desire for more housing in Davis.
However, it is logical* to think that, once we need the surface water to meet salinity standards and other quality concerns, housing growth becomes much more attractive. This could happen in a few different ways:
1) If we add 35,000** more people to Davis, the cost of the water works per household is cut by one-third;
2) A developer who owns a large tract of land abutting Davis might make an attractive offer to us, where, say, he would agree to pay down our bonds by $100 million if we agree (through a Measure R vote) to re-zone his land to residential and commercial and we approve a map which includes, say, 1,800 new houses. That alone would cover the entire cost of our new wastewater treatment plant. It would save an average family in Davis around $1,200 per year; or
3) a combination of No. 1 and No. 2. If a developer will kick in a lot of money to get the voters of Davis to agree to his housing plan, and the new residents pick up a big share of the costs by diluting how much the water project costs new residents, then growing new housing in Davis becomes very attractive.
*The logic of the argument breaks down if the water from the Sacramento River is insufficient for substantially much growth in Davis and or Woodland. Mike Harrington’s claim that river water will allow Davis to grow to 150,000 does not hold up to scrutiny, once the well water dries up and does not meet regulatory standards.
**It seems dubious to think that there is sufficient demand for housing in Northern California to add 35,000 people to Davis. But maybe over the next 20 years that would be possible.
I don’t know if the Chamber of Commerce has taken an official position on the water project or the rate increase (I’m not a member). Michael Bisch aka DT Businessman is co-president of the Downtown Davis Business Association, which is not the same as the Chamber. I don’t think the DDBA has taken an official position on anything regarding this issue, either, but Michael could address that.
So davisite’s statement [i]”developers along with the Davis Chamber of Commerce (DT businessman blogger) have a keen financial interest in putting this surface water conduit in place ASAP”[/i] implies several things for which there is no evidence.
The main thing is that DDBA is not a membership organization. You can’t opt out of it, or join it. If you own property or a business in the BID district, you pay the assessment and are a member.
Tarring local businesses with your anti-development brush is not appropriate.
Herman: [i]tell me what the JPA says should either Davis or Woodland no longer be able to meet their obligations.[/i]
The project is funded by the ratepayers. In theory, at least, both cities could even go bankrupt and the JPA would continue to function. But if either city chooses to opt out of the JPA, that is covered in the agreement:
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Final_signed_JPA.pdf[/url]
Look for the provisions about default.
Joe Krovoza is an attorney with expertise in water policy, and so is Dan Wolk.
Filed the petitions today. Now we wait for the County Elections Office to examine them.
Congratulations Mike. You’ve worked hard to do what you think is best. Whether we agree with you or disagree, it is clear that there’s no shortage of effort on your part.
Now do you have time to answer some of the questions I asked you in earlier threads?
Not now, Matt.
Got to salvage my law office clients for a few months. (They understand I go off on these Davis things sometimes, but got to come back to my profession now.)
Folks, I know you will miss me, but my work is done for now. VOTER2012, Ryan Kelly, ERM, I shall miss all of you guys!
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Not now, Matt.
Got to salvage my law office clients for a few months. (They understand I go off on these Davis things sometimes, but got to come back to my profession now.)”[/i]
Understood, but you need to designate someone on your team to flesh out and participate in a thorough public discussion of what your Plan for addressing water and wastewater is if the voters side with you against the JPA project.
You have started this ball rolling. It isn’t stoppable now.
“Folks, I know you will miss me, but my work is done for now. VOTER2012, Ryan Kelly, ERM, I shall miss all of you guys!”
Isn’t that just peachy. Architect a train wreck between the city and the regulators by demagoguing a critical infrastructure issue … and then run for the nearest exit.
davisite2, I’m not sure how I made your hit list. I’m a bit dense when it comes to political conniving so you’ll have to bluntly spell out for me how I stand to gain financially from the water project. As you do so, you might keep in mind my public stance against peripheral development.
And Mike H., how exactly did I merit the special invite to City Hall today? Was it because I inquired about the identities of the referendum backers or was it my pointing out some of the goofy statements made by referendum supporters, the compounding interest argument for instance? Obtaining 4,700 signatures doesn’t change the fact that the statements are goofy.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
What is most amusing and amazing to me, is that at least 3700 Davisites took the seemingly un-baited hook !
“The logic of the argument breaks down if the water from the Sacramento River is insufficient for substantially much growth in Davis and or Woodland.”
I seem to remember that Councilperson Souza made the public statement not too long ago that MORE water should flow into Davis through the pipeline in the future, beyond what is currently being spoken about. My recollection is that this was VERY quickly publicly dismissed by the Davis project consultant, Mr. Yost. Let’s remember that Councilpersons Saylor and Souza were the “force” that drove this project over the past decade and they both were most identified as being the “voice” of developer interests on the Council.
davisite . . . two words . . . Measure R
Repeat those two words 100 times
Cannot resist !! The water plant is set up for 85000 people in Davis area and it will be easily expanded, according to Davis senior water staff
This plant is growth machine inside and out
Oh. And remember those pesky unclean “dirty water” wells remain. Good enough for over 60000 people
Yes sir, lots of water for sprawl out there !
No answers for your Plan B though, Mike.
To my special invitees today : I waited fior you all afternoon Especially DT businessman He works close to city hall and I thought fir sure being a good American that he would like seeing the first referendum filed in nearly 15 yrs direct democracy is good, right ?
Michael, to some on here democracy is good only if they get their way.
Postings since “retirement” – 2
rusty, I have no problem with democracy. With it comes the obligation to do our very best to be sure the electorate is as informed on the issues as possible. We should be doing that every single day from today until election day.
I am concerned that Mike doesn’t appear to see it that way.
Herman said: [i]Have other communities, like Davis and Woodland got state and federal funding (assistance) for such projects in recent years? [/i]
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) proposes to implement the NBA Alternate Intake Project to improve water quality and to provide reliable deliveries of State Water Project (SWP) supplies to its contractors, the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) and the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Napa County FC&WCD). The Solano County Water Agency and CA Department Water Resources are preparing an EIR for later this year on an alternate intake for the North Bay Aqueduct in the Sacramento River (see http:[url]http://www.water.ca.gov/engineering/Projects/Current/NBA/[/url]). This project includes a new alternative intake structure and pump station on the Sacramento River with positive barrier fish screens;a new pipeline segment to convey the water from the alternative intake to a point of connection with the existing NBA near the North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant; and other project-related support facilities including, but not limited to, surge tanks, etc.
Proposed project facilities would be located in predominately rural portions of Solano and Yolo Counties southeast of Interstate 80, west of the Sacramento River, north of Barker Slough and south of the City of West Sacramento and Davis.
No, Mike. I’m no advocate of direct democracy. I like the system we have right now. We elect the council. The council makes decisions. The people can vote the council out of office if they don’t like the decisions OR they can overturn specific decisions via the referendum process. The process has proceeded according to design.
All of the foregoing in sharp contrast to you and Dunning who have insisted that the council punt on a tough decision by abdicating their duty. Just because previous councils have abdicated their duty, Target for instance, doesn’t mean this council should do so.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
[i]…
Cannot resist !! The water plant is set up for 85000 people in Davis area and it will be easily expanded, according to Davis senior water staff
This plant is growth machine inside and out
Oh. And remember those pesky unclean “dirty water” wells remain. Good enough for over 60000 people
Yes sir, lots of water for sprawl out there !
[/i]
This is a non-issue. None of this happens in Davis without Measure R vote. Mike – you’re not concerned about direct democracy are you? It’s the best, right? Then no worries about future growth – the only way future growth happens is if our very intelligent community decides if they wish to grow to grow or not. And if by direct democracy we decide to grow, then that is the way it is supposed be. I’m looking for an “amen” from rusty49, a leading proponent of direct democracy.
@rusty49 – now that we’re on the growth topic and direct democracy – you’d be ok with growth if direct democracy lead us there? You trust the people, right?
[i]”I seem to remember that Councilperson Souza made the public statement not too long ago that MORE water should flow into Davis through the pipeline in the future, beyond what is currently being spoken about.”[/i]
D2, I realize that you never let facts get in your way. Your ideology is what drives you. Yet the facts are the opposite of what you say. The WDCWA is the rights holder to a maximum of 45,000 acre feet* of Sacramento River water. That is it.
In the summer, and especially in drought conditions, [i]the Sacramento River water will be insufficient for our current population.[/i] That is why we will still need to use some deep aquifer well water and, I think, spot market purchases (I suppose from farmers).
*Does anyone know how many acre-feet of municipal water are used by people in Woodland, Davis and UC Davis now in a year’s time? My guess is it must be much [i]more[/i] than 45,000 a-f, because the water pricing plan presumes a large amount of water conservation. It would make sense that if the Agency thinks people will use 25% less water with the rapaciously higher prices, then we must be using 60,000 a-f or more per year, now.
Michael Harrington
What anger?
I am truly at a loss to understand what in my post made you think that I am angry.
I am a firm believer in democracy, both representative and direct. I just happen to believe that there needs to be a balance between the two. While direct democracy may be appropriate for relatively uncomplicated issues such as a local Target, or maybe even a housing development, I believe that very complicated issues are best dealt with by representative democracy. And many of your posts provide support for my opinion. I believe that unfortunately many voters rely too much on sound bites instead of factual information and are too swayed by emotional diatribes and unfounded accusations. You have had many opportunities to present factual information,
alternative estimates of cost structures or options that you would prefer, and have ignored virtually all of the genuine queries that have been directed to you. I do not have to be angry to disapprove of your tactics. I simply do not feel that you have been willing to engage in any honest debate, and do not think this is worthy of the democratic process whether direct or representative.
I think we can generally trust the people to vote themselves more free stuff and to vote to not pay for stuff they believe they do not have to pay for. I think people line up for or against direct democracy when it benefits their cause. Considering this, I don’t buy any of the chest-beating over the collection of signatures. Any fool with a checkbook could exploit a fear of rate increases to get enough people to sign.
I wonder if our most-well-educated-city-on-the-planet is really up to the task of deductive reasoning and objectiviy.
@Jeff Boone[quote]Any fool with a checkbook could exploit a fear of rate increases to get enough people to sign.[/quote]That’s the elephant in the room.
Because of the way the referendum was promoted, I personally would have used the word “demagogue” rather than “fool.” Of course demagogues can also be fools …..
@ Rich: per Stephen Souza, Davis Enterprise, Sept 2 2011 comment:
“The Agency purchased the senior rights to 10,000 acre feet of surface water, for use during times when diversions would not be allowed under the Agency’s own water rights. The Agency’s junior rights to 45,000 acre feet of Sacramento River water that was approved by the State Water Resources Control Board in March 2011 is subject to Term 91 diversion limits.
The Project’s water right permits will prohibit diversions during most summer months and some other months during dry years, when unappropriated water is not available. During these times, the Project will use the senior 10,000 acre feet of surface water. Many years this 10,000 acre feet will not be enough to meet demand and we will be blending deep aquifer groundwater and surface water.”
In a followup comment:
“After a 24-year payment period, the Agency will own the senior 10,000 acre feet of surface water free and clear with no further payment obligation.
WDCWA was granted the 45,000 acre feet of Sacramento River water rights, we did [edited to add “not”] purchase it. Below is from the decision.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD DECISION 1650
Application 30358 was filed with the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or Board) on April 19, 1994 by the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District). On March 1, 2002, the application was split and re-assigned. Application 30358A was assigned to City of Davis (Davis) and University of California, Davis (UCD) and Application 30358B was assigned to the City of Woodland (Woodland). Davis and Woodland filed their notices of assignment on December 14, 2010. UCD filed its notice of assignment on December 22, 2010. Both Application 30358A and Application 30358B were assigned to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA). At the hearing on January 19, 2011, WDCWA requested Applications 30358A and 30358B be re-combined into one Application 30358.”
Jeff
In this case, I definitely share your viewpoint regarding the likelihood of people voting “themselves more free stuff and to vote to not pay for stuff they believe they do not have to pay for.” The problem in this case is that we will have to pay for water eventually. We can help defray the cost for future generations by starting to pay now,
or we can let our kids pick up our share of the cost, plus their share later.
Interesting and relevant piece about Greece heard on NPR while driving home tonight. Interview with a family dealing with the loss of both breadwinner’s jobs. Their 19 year old son when asked who he blamed for the current situation, blamed the politicians, but also blamed the older generations for not paying taxes and ducking their financial responsibilities even when it became obvious that the result would be financial disaster in the future.
I sincerely hope that my children and those of Dan Wolk will not be feeling the same way about us 20 years down the road.
Off the top of my head, Davis uses 15500 a-f. UCD uses 2300, drilling and swapping Solano water for a couple thousand more for West Village, etc., for an approved total of 5300. Woodland probably uses somewhat more than Davis. I could look it all up, but those are probably close enough.
[i][quote]”The Vanguard has learned from several sources well connected that the referendum committee….”[/quote][/i]I’ve done my best, David, tried three time, but just can’t get past the first sentence–even though I’ve been away all day and am just dying to read your story.
So, who are your several secret sources? Why are they secret? How many are there, really?
Why do you continue to be so complicit in maintaining the cloak of secrecy surrounding this campaign?
It’s been obvious since you started “reporting” the need for the referendum that you’re spending more effort promoting the Harrington campaign than in doing the harder work of reporting an important community issue.
I wasn’t long before your propaganda techniques were apparent to everyone but the person looking at you in the mirror. Your public arm’s length coziness with Michael Harrington couldn’t disguise the source of much of your inside scoops (including today’s) since he’s the only “authorized” by backers to speak out.
Why would you spend time repeatedly attacking Councilman Souza for giving his opinions on this project (“Councilmember Souza Needs to Let this Go,” “Dunning and Souza Clash on Water” plus every other general water article) when you could have been writing up the unseemly business relationships and fraudulent big-buck “donations” that are behind the referendum drive.
Don’t you think your readers would have been interested in whether there was any basis for Michael’s charges or claims? Or why he, and his behind-the-scenes cohorts, really took on this campaign?
Why would you ignore questions and comments about errors and outright lies in your articles, yet find plenty of time to tear apart Elaine’s thoughtful monthly “column” about the project?
Easy answer–it all depended on whether the various writers or the pieces of information were on your side of the issue or not. Would it have been appropriate for you to run corrections and apologies once you realized you had published several significant errors?
Sure, but apparently that would have gotten in the way of your role as Minister of Propaganda for the Committee to Confirm Davis Voter Rights. You’re not going to like what you see when time has passed and you look back at your odd performance on this particular issue, IMHO.
“So, who are your several secret sources? Why are they secret?”
They are not secret, only unnamed.
“How many are there, really?”
A handful.
“Why do you continue to be so complicit in maintaining the cloak of secrecy surrounding this campaign?”
I don’t think it’s secrecy when someone sends me an email with information, not to print their name without checking to see if they want to be attributed.
“It’s been obvious since you started “reporting” the need for the referendum that you’re spending more effort promoting the Harrington campaign than in doing the harder work of reporting an important community issue.”
Nice. I’ve also spent a number of hours meeting with city staff and going to meetings. Something no other media entity has done.
“Your public arm’s length coziness with Michael Harrington couldn’t disguise the source of much of your inside scoops (including today’s) since he’s the only “authorized” by backers to speak out.”
I disagree with your assessment.
“Why would you spend time repeatedly attacking Councilman Souza for giving his opinions on this project (“Councilmember Souza Needs to Let this Go,” “Dunning and Souza Clash on Water” plus every other general water article) when you could have been writing up the unseemly business relationships and fraudulent big-buck “donations” that are behind the referendum drive.”
I’m unaware of any such relationships. As far as I know the only money in this is coming from Head and Harrington.
“Don’t you think your readers would have been interested in whether there was any basis for Michael’s charges or claims? Or why he, and his behind-the-scenes cohorts, really took on this campaign?”
I have not found any basis for his charges or claims.
“Why would you ignore questions and comments about errors and outright lies in your articles, yet find plenty of time to tear apart Elaine’s thoughtful monthly “column” about the project?”
I’m sorry I had an adoption and have a 300 person event that I’m putting on next week. I don’t have time to respond to every comment, each day. I’ve most of the comments, I don’t agree with a lot of them.
“Would it have been appropriate for you to run corrections and apologies once you realized you had published several significant errors?”
I don’t believe I have published any significant errors. I’ve been very careful to check key facts.
“Sure, but apparently that would have gotten in the way of your role as Minister of Propaganda for the Committee to Confirm Davis Voter Rights. You’re not going to like what you see when time has passed and you look back at your odd performance on this particular issue, IMHO.”
I think your assessment is way off. I’ll leave it at that for now.
Frankly, dmg’s answers to Just Saying sound a lot like Mike Harrington’s responses – “gotta go now, my life is way too busy”…
[quote]I’m sorry I had an adoption and have a 300 person event that I’m putting on next week. I don’t have time to respond to every comment, each day…[/quote]
“Frankly, dmg’s answers to Just Saying sound a lot like Mike Harrington’s responses”
You of all people ought to understand my time constraints. Is it your view that it is my obligation to personally respond to each and every comment?
[quote]You of all people ought to understand my time constraints. Is it your view that it is my obligation to personally respond to each and every comment?[/quote]
It is my view that if you are going to take the trouble to respond, that you respond with more than “I’m too busy to respond right now”. No one expects you to respond to every comment, that is not possible. But when you do choose to respond, don’t give excuses (we all lead busy lives), just respond with your opinion, preferably backed up with FACTS. But most of your responses to JustSaying don’t seem very substantive, just “I don’t agree” and “I’m too busy”. I would think since you wrote an extensive article, and took the trouble to respond to JustSaying, you could come up with something a bit more solid on reasoning… just my opinion 🙂
Mike Harrington has employed the “I’m too busy” angle, and ducked every substantive question… which gives him no credibility IMO…
I would just suggest that JustSaying asks a litany of questions some of which are quite involved and insightful, some of which are particularly accusatory and almost akin to “have you stopped beating you wife lately”.
For example his questions about secret sources imply that I have secret sources. Not every unnamed source is secret.
He also accuses me of being at an “armed length coziness” with Harrington, I don’t even know what that means. I would suggest that other than him sending me emails, I have little contact with the man. Nor do I agree with a lot of what he writes.
What I have tried to do in this process is explore claims made by each side, meet with principles, and figure out what is going on below the surface (no pun intended).
If you are suggesting I should just ignore JustSaying, perhaps that is correct.
[quote]If you are suggesting I should just ignore JustSaying, perhaps that is correct. [/quote]
Let me give an example – when Mike Harrington ducks questions by saying he is too busy, but then spends the time afterwards conveniently answering only what he wants to, his commentary has no credibility. If he says he is too busy to answer the difficult questions, but then somehow finds the time to answer other posts, his credibility suffers. The same applies to you or any other commenter… if you have the time to answer “I’m busy”, then you had the time to answer substantively…
I just disagree. Just Saying asks ten questions, some of which involve a lot of thinking and a lot of time to respond.