There has been no bigger critic of the Davis Enterprise’s Bob Dunning than myself. However, I will say, when he’s right, he’s right. Today he comes out with one of his most scathing criticisms of city council that I have seen, calling the city, “not honest about water rate increase.”
He writes, “Much of the animosity could have been avoided had the Davis City Council and city staff simply been completely honest with us from the get-go.”
“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,” he writes.
He continues: “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.”
He goes on to tell the story that when the water project was announced, opposition was ready to storm city hall. However, after a long series of meetings and public outreach, the council announced “the water rate increase would only be 14 percent annually. The city had heard our concerns, rolled up its sleeves and found us all some significant cost savings.”
Or had they?
Writes Mr. Dunning, “Predictably, much of the opposition melted away and the project sailed through on a 4-1 vote. I was one of those who believed the city was being honest with us about the 14 percent figure, though I realized that even 14 percent a year for five years might nearly double our family’s bill.”
As Mr. Dunning points out, 14 percent is largely a fictitious number.
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.”
Then he goes down the line and shows what his family is paying now versus what they would pay under the new scheme.
Writes Mr. Dunning, “No one has even attempted to directly answer my question.”
He adds, “The mayor referred me to the city water guru, who basically asked me if I’d checked out the city’s rebate program.”
Furthermore: “Councilman Dan Wolk responded to my question by saying ‘The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some.’ “
And more: “The principal civil engineer in the Public Works department wrote ‘I know that the way this is presented is not the easiest to follow. I’d like to meet with you in person. We need to be able to explain this to the public in a way that makes sense and I welcome your input.’ “
I strongly recommend people read Mr. Dunning’s column for themselves to get the full picture that he offers. I largely agree with his assessment of the situation, but will add that I believe there is spin mixed with ineptitude involved in this fiasco.
Fact is, I met with the Public Works Director, Finance Director and Chief Consultant to the project, and the city is basing their figures on an “assumption” of a 20 percent conservation rate, as I reported on Thursday
The actual implementation of the rate hikes will depend on future consumption patterns.
Both the finance director and interim public works directors conceded that the current rate structure is not the only way to skin this cat, and that if they can find a better structure, they can change it.
Of course, as Mr. Navazio acknowledged, he did not have all the answers that day, and there may be a different rate structure at the end of the day, at the same time, and that new rate structure would require a new Prop 218 notification process.
There are clear problems here. The first is that, like all rate hikes, the tiered usage is determined per household. That becomes problematic, because it means that a household of one is expected to have the same usage as a household of six.
Obviously, there is simply going to be more water usage by the larger households, and that means that they are more likely to get bumped into the second tier. The tier system does not take into account such cases, as it don’t measure water use per person in the household, but rather per household.
Defenders of the city and the city themselves will argue nothing has been hidden. But they are wrong.
These defenders will show us the staff report, where page 1 of the September 6, 2011 Staff Report says the following:
“Overall revenues requirements are projected to increase by 100% over the five-year period, with the average single-family residential customer experiencing an increase in their monthly cost of water from $34.75 to $77.18 in Year 5. These estimated monthly water bill impacts assume an overall 20% reduction in single family residential water consumption over the five-year period. Customers with below average water use now will experience lower-than-average monthly water bill impacts, while customers with above average water use would see higher than average monthly water bill impacts. The individual water bill impact will vary depending on a customer’s current water use and their future conservation efforts during the five year period.”
Sounds good for the case that the city is not lying here, but there are two serious problems for that point of view.
First, why not give the true rate increase and then encourage people to conserve? Why not tell people that people’s rates are going up 28 percent, which was the initial rate hike, unless they conserve, and tell them we have enough margin that if everyone who conserves 20 percent will pay as low as 14 percent rate hikes. That would be an honest tale of the tape.
But the second problem illustrates that the city, if not outright being deceptive, was not on the ball to immediately correct misstatements in the press.
The day after the September 6 meeting, Crystal Lee, then the Enterprise reporter, wrote: “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.
Instead it argues, “For single-family residential customers, monthly water bills may rise from $34 to $40 in the first year. Each subsequent year, the bill could rise to $46, $53, $60 and $68.”
But that bears little resemblance to what the actual rate hikes are.
It is not that the number was unknown, as buried in the middle of the September 2 Op-Ed by Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza was this line: “The city’s estimate above for an average single-family bill assumes 20 percent conservation over today’s typical use level. Thus, monthly impacts on each ratepayer will vary depending on their current water use and their level of conservation.”
Thus they wrote: “If adopted, these increases would be 2.2 times our current water rates for an average single-family residence. An option for spreading the rate increases over a six-year period also will be considered by the council, resulting in 14 percent increases for all six years.”
But that statement, taken from the staff report, was completely lost after the rate increase, where the front page headline blared: “Council approves higher water rates” and goes on to report “no more than 14 percent.”
I go to these lengths to show that the city was honest about the assumptions, but that honestly almost amounts to the fine print on a weight loss ad where you see model after model with 100 pounds in weight losses, and the fine print reads, “actual results vary.” The truth is that those are atypical results, sold as if they were the norm, with only the tiny print that you can read on your large screen TV with the DVR on pause.
If you want to talk about honesty, not one person from the city council wrote in to correct Crystal Lee’s story. Stephen Souza took the time to defend his actions in a letter to the editor, but neither he nor Mayor Joe Krovoza took such time to make sure that the voters and rate payers knew that the number was actually 14 percent with an asterisk.
A big asterisk, as Mr. Dunning points out, making it far more difficult for a larger family to conserve.
The Joe Krovoza – Stephen Souza piece appeared on September 2, Crystal Lee’s article appeared on September 7, and the next time the Davis Enterprise reported on the water conservation component of the rate was this morning, when Bob Dunning finally had enough and hand-blasted the council for their dishonesty.
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.
One of our posters asked yesterday “Where does our individual responsibility begin?”
I think they ask the wrong question. The average person is not going to attend a lengthy water forum or workshop. It is the responsibility of the city to make sure the people have the proper facts and to correct the media when the media gets it wrong or tells only part of the story. I don’t see any evidence that council or the city was itching to get that record corrected.
So, looking at the record, it is easy to conclude that the facts were there, but it is easier to conclude that the fine print was not going to be illuminated by the city.
The city hoped this issue would go away. It is not going to. Our sources inform us that the referendum has enough signatures to qualify and they will turn those in tomorrow. Perhaps, at that point, the city can come forward and be honest about what these rate hikes will really look like for the typical person.
One thing that would also be helpful to understand is what a 20 percent conservation rate would look like and how the typical person could get there – and what the city is prepared to do if they cannot.
Bottom line, 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. That is on them and their responsibility.
Second, they decided to frame this rate increase as a 14 percent increase, rather than a 28 percent increase that could be reduced through 20 percent conservation. That would have been the most honest description of the rate increases.
Given that, the city was dishonest here and failed in their duties, and that is a serious breach of public ethics.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Rich Rifkin posted yeaterday some calculations of the rates. Here’s 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.
David, excellent follow up to Mr. Dunning’s Sunday article. I agree with everything you wrote.
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 [url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/conserve/[/url] 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, “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
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.
“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.”
I guess he’ll just have to cut whatever it takes to get to that magical 14% figure.
[quote]“Cost overruns in the order of 50 percent in real terms are common for major infrastructure, and overruns above 100 percent are not uncommon,” Bent Flyvbjerg, a professor of major program management at the University of Oxford’s Said Business School, writes in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy. “Demand and benefit forecasts that are wrong by 20-70 percent compared with actual development are common.”[/quote]
[quote]It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.” Yogi Berra[/quote]
Cost overruns are very common in public works projects. Has anyone factored this in?
Once the project is built we will need to pay whatever it costs and if it is more than 14% someone is on the hook for that, unless we default on the bonds.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”I guess he’ll just have to cut whatever it takes to get to that magical 14% figure.”[/i]
Yes rusty, that is what water conservation is all about. Ideally he would get well below 26 ccf. That would be good for the environment . . . and his pocketbook.
This is at least partially my fault for bringing up the question of how people can reduce water usage – at least some people. The problem presented here in this article is the degree to which the public was mislead on what the actual rates were and what the basis for those rates would be.
[quote]The tier system does not take into account such cases, as it don’t measure water use per person in the household, but rather per household.[/quote]Why should this matter, except from the perspective of someone who has a large family? How would this be monitored? At what cost? Rental SF houses could easily fit 5 students in (or at least the landlord could say that to ensure the greatest consumption at the lowest tier). Since most of the money that needs to be generated by the increases are to cover fixed design/construction costs (which would be there for facilities that deliver 0.5 mgd, or 6.0 mgd) each property should be assessed by their highest and best use. For SF, arguably, that should be the average ~2.5 people/unit, times the average consumption per person (with perhaps a factor, based on lot size, to account for landscape consumption). That assessment would be per lot. THEN for operational costs that ARE dependent on the quantity of water drawn, processed and delivered, the tier system would be used. That would negate the need for monitoring the number of people at each property.
“Why should this matter, except from the perspective of someone who has a large family?”
I think you answer your own question here. It is a matter of fairness.
But David, in the typical household outside the house water use far exceeds inside the house water use. Getting people to not be wasteful in outside usage is the primary reason for a tiered structure.
With that said, how would you adjust the rate structure to accomplish the # of residents in a household issue you raise? Interestingly enough, a similar problem exists in the sewer rate structure.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”One of our posters asked yesterday “Where does our individual responsibility begin?”
I think they ask the wrong question. The average person is not going to attend a lengthy water forum or workshop. It is the responsibility of the city to make sure the people have the proper facts and to correct the media when the media gets it wrong or tells only part of the story. I don’t see any evidence that council or the city was itching to get that record corrected.
So, looking at the record, it is easy to conclude that the facts were there, but it is easier to conclude that the fine print was not going to be illuminated by the city.”[/i]
David, first, you could have used my name as the poster in question. If I post it I have to stand by it. Second, you are painting this as an either/or situation rather than a both/and situation. I don’t disagree with you that the City could have been more proactive in correcting the Enterprise’s “narrow” story. That would have been very wise for them to do. It would have also have been good government.
However, whatever the shortcomings of the City may have been, that doesn’t absolve the City’s residents from stepping up and discharging their own responsibilities to themselves.
We need both citizens and government exercising due diligence. Democracy works best if the electorate takes the time to be informed.
[quote]The tier system does not take into account such cases, as it don’t measure water use per person in the household, but rather per household.[/quote]Nice thing about “fairness”… it is in the eye of the beholder. I disagree with your approach as it reflects personal “choices” (whether to have two children or eight, which places the fixed costs more heavily on the two person elderly couple, hardly “fair”). I am NOT saying the proposed rate structure is ideal/fair, I believe in another approach (which I don’t think you fully read, based on your dismissive response), which I believe is orders of magnitude more “fair” than what you seem to propose. You and Dunning want to have big families, fine. Pay for that. Don’t shift a disproportionate share of the fixed costs to the smaller households.
“Councilman Dan Wolk responded to my question by saying ‘The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some.’ “
Was Dan Wolk “surprised” too?
“You and Dunning want to have big families, fine. Pay for that.”
Yeah, those darn families that take in foster kids and have more than their fair share of children will just have to take less showers.
Bob Dunning , Is the best thing for Davis ! Besides apple pie , burning wood in my fireplace , putting criminals where they belong .
Long live the Bob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you Rusty. Besides I thought we were lamenting the loss of school children in this community, I am just doing my part.
“Pay for that. Don’t shift a disproportionate share of the fixed costs to the smaller households. “
How does charging every person equally put a “disproportionate share of the fixed costs to the smaller households?”
In other words, if Bob Dunning uses 27 ccf for his six people and you use 20 for your two people (don’t take this literally just creating an example), his six are actually being more efficient than your two. You (ion that example and for illustrative purposes) are actually the one causing the problem, not Dunning.
David, IMHO we should be looking to right size our schools to meet our population rather than lamenting the loss of school children. Population declines are a fact of life.
Rusty… as I understand the system, the “state” reimburses at least a stipend for taking in foster children. I know of NO water agency that sets rates based on size of household. PG&E does give some ‘credits’ if size of family AND lack of income is an issue.
I have NO issues with Greenwald’s and/or Dunning’s choices. Obviously you did not read my ‘before-last’ post either. Or are not willing/capable of understanding. As “fairness” goes, having the fixed costs spread over a fixed portion of the utility bill, and the operational costs spread over the consumption portion will be more “fair” to the seniors, the Greenwald’;s/Dunning’s, and even to my ancestors who had 11 kids (but they lived on farms, pumped their own water, and were responsible for their choices).
Matt: School policy aside, I think I prefer a good mix of ages in a community.
David/Rusty/whoever… you obviously ignore anything said that does not fit with your world view. If the fixed costs (which are there without regard to how much water flows) are spread by property being benefited, and operational/delivery costs are spread by consumption rates, is that unfair?
Should (David’s “efficiency” comment) a hybrid car owner pay less per gallon of gas than the Hummer owner?
David, our preferences aside, that isn’t going to happen unless we leave 65,000 far in the rear view mirror . . . and if we do that, Davis will no longer be Davis. According to Wes Irvin, Yolo County’s Economic Development Manager, Davis has a jobs/housing ratio of 1.02. A “healthy” community has a jobs/housing ratio of 1.50 or above. We already are a “housing rich community” and any serious initiative for getting more students in the schools will drive that jobs/housing ratio well below 1.0. Do you really want that?
Can we focus on rates rather than school yields and jobs/housing balances? I doubt it.
hpierce said . . .
“If the fixed costs (which are there without regard to how much water flows) are spread by property being benefited, and operational/delivery costs are spread by consumption rates, is that unfair?”
hp, you highlight one of my biggest problems with the rate structure as adopted. It is highly skewed toward variable rates revenue. However, the costs for our water are heavily fixed. The rate structure should mirror the cost structure. Such a structure would support what you have discusssed.
hpierce said . . .
[i]”Can we focus on rates rather than school yields and jobs/housing balances? I doubt it.”[/i]
Yes. Digression ended.
hpierce: I’m hearing what you are saying, but my understanding at least from Bob Dunning is that the problem he has is internal water usage, not external. But I guess it also means that single home dwellers are allowed to have lawns and gardens, but not families.
[quote]The average person is not going to attend a lengthy water forum or workshop. It is the responsibility of the city to make sure the people have the proper facts and to correct the media when the media gets it wrong or tells only part of the story. I don’t see any evidence that council or the city was itching to get that record corrected.[/quote]
What an outrageous statement! The city has absolutely no control over what the Davis Enterprise prints. NONE. As it turns out, Bob Dunning essentially/inadvertantly brought his own employer, the Davis Enterprise to task for a failure at full disclosure – but deflected blame towards the CITY instead of his own employer, the EDITOR of the Davis Enterprise. And now the Vanguard is compounding the problem by piling on criticism towards the CITY for what was the FAULT OF THE DAVIS ENTERPRISE.
Secondly, the city has a water calculator on its website, that allows a homeowner to plug in their current usage to see what their future bills will look like. It doesn’t get any more straightforward than that.
Thirdly, the Vanguard concedes the city has been honest, then completely contradicts itself:
[quote]The city may not have been dishonest in their staff report about the rate hikes…
I go to these lengths to show that the city was honest about the assumptions…
…the city was dishonest here… [/quote]
You cannot have it both ways – the city was honest but it wasn’t!
[quote]One of our posters asked yesterday “Where does our individual responsibility begin?”
I think they ask the wrong question. The average person is not going to attend a lengthy water forum or workshop.[/quote]
If the citizens fail to become informed, whose fault is that? Certainly not the city’s! Again, this reminds me of the woman in a water forum, who complained about being blindsided by the rate increases, at the same time she admitted she did not own a computer, nor did she read a newspaper. But interestingly enough she DID COME TO A WATER FORUM. She probably did LESS THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON IN REGARD TO BEING INFORMED, yet she somehow made it to a water forum.
Elaine, my position is that the City was honest, but shot itself in the foot by not being vigilant to be sure that the honesty in their 9/6 Staff Report was carried forward intact. David’s “fine print” assertion is both inaccurate, and at the same time telling. [i]Perception is Reality[/i] and a huge proportion of the Davis populace [u]perceive[/u] that the City has failed in its communication responsibilities to its citizens. That is the unfortunate [u]reality[/u] of the situation.
With that said, David your comment about the City’s ethics implies that they were willful in what they did. I don’t think that is the case. They simply didn’t do a thorough enough job in communicating.
[quote]But I guess it also means that single home dwellers are allowed to have lawns and gardens, but not families. [/quote]Again, you seem to be defensive, rather than listening. I allowed as how the size of lot/landscaping choices should factor in. A family of five who uses a reasonable amount of outside water (including gardening vegetables to save money)and uses a reasonable amount of inside water should, IMO pay less than a five person family who has lus landscaping, and in order to keep it so, has irrigation water flowing over the sidewalks, wasted, and/or the same family that has two teenage girls who insist on washing their hair twice a day.
[quote]Elaine, my position is that the City was honest, but shot itself in the foot by not being vigilant to be sure that the honesty in their 9/6 Staff Report was carried forward intact.[/quote]
What do you mean by “carried forward”? The city should have made sure the Davis Enterprise got it right? First of all, how do we know they didn’t, and the Davis Enterprise refused/neglected to correct the article? The city has NO CONTROL over what the Davis Enterprise prints. Secondly, but I’m sorry, if the Davis Enterprise got it wrong, THAT IS ON THEM. First of all, because of Souza and Krovoza’s op-ed piece in the Davis Enterprise, the Davis Enterprise knew perfectly well the rates were based on 20% conservation. Now that the Davis Enterprise made the mistake of omitting that fact, through incomplete reporting, they have their hatchet man, Bob Dunning, point fingers at the CITY instead of at the DAVIS ENTERPRISE itself for getting it wrong.
The city cannot be held responsible for every publication that gets the water rate increase information wrong. That is not their responsibility. The city has held enough water forums and put out enough official information, including a water rate calculator, that any citizen should be fairly well informed in regard to the water rate increases.
The rates actually go down if the conservation assumption doesn’t pan out. The project cost will be spread out over more units of water and the city will adjust the rates and tiers. That said, it is more prudent, not less prudent to assume there will be significant conservation. Dunning’s approach in ignoring demand elasticity indicates that he doesn’t have much experience in designing, constructing, or financing infrastructure projects.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
[quote]But I guess it also means that single home dwellers are allowed to have lawns and gardens, but not families.[/quote]
This is an incorrect conclusion. What really should be concluded here is that those of higher income will be able to afford more water consumption and have lush lawns, regardless of family size. That is because most of the savings that can be achieved is through the irrigation component, which is where most of the water usage takes place. A large family uses no more water for irrigation than a single person. If the single person is a senior on a lower fixed income, s/he will have to think about taking out their water guzzling lawn, and replace it with drought tolerant plants and a drip irrigation system. If the large family has income from both mom and dad, they very well may be better able to afford keeping their lawn than the single person on a lower fixed income.
One more (and probably last) ‘swing’ at the “fairness” issue David and Bob seem to be concerned about… what is a household. Should a family of four who have two children in college out of the area, have the same ‘baseline’ tiers as a family of four who reside 24/7? Dunning raises the issue of Thanksgiving… should his “baseline” be determined by the maximum people in the house using the maximum amount of water? In any event, how would flexible first tier limits be established? Visits/census by the city? Self-reporting? If the latter, how would the City verify over time? What if the “census” was done in the summer when the college kids are in town, but the tier baseline was good for the year? What would be the way to revise the tier baseline when those two college students “left the nest”?
Rusty/David/Dunning, can ANYONE show me large private/public water purveyors, who have tiered systems, who use different base tiers depending on occupancy levels? If so, how do they answer the questions about verification/monitoring? Promise: no more posts from me on this subject, tho’ I plan to return to read if anyone chooses to respond to the above.
Lack of transparency in rate hikes is bad, true, but is it perhaps a smoke screen? The REAL poison in this deal is that our public water will become privately owned. DBO is Design, Build, OWN. The company that builds the transport system will own our water. Why isn’t there more of an outcry over this? Maybe the Grand Jury should investigate how this plan to privatize public water got pushed through.
“What really should be concluded here is that those of higher income will be able to afford more water consumption and have lush lawns, regardless of family size. ” Lawns have long been a sign of suburban prosperity, showing that the land owner didn’t need a vegetable garden to feed his family and leading to many cities, including mine, to ban front yard gardens !
The Grand Jury? So now it’s criminal to privatize infrastructure? The Davis City Council is far from being the first to privatize water supply and will hardly be the last. There are advantages and disadvantages to privatizing infrastructure, good examples and bad examples (the same is true of publicly operated infrastructure).
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
To Varzil: A good article on the subject of privatization versus public ownership can be found at the following link:
[url]http://www.pacinst.org/publications/essays_and_opinion/public_or_private_editorial.pdf[/url]
[i]Lack of transparency in rate hikes is bad, true, but is it perhaps a smoke screen? The REAL poison in this deal is that our public water will become privately owned. DBO is Design, Build, OWN. The company that builds the transport system will own our water. Why isn’t there more of an outcry over this? Maybe the Grand Jury should investigate how this plan to privatize public water got pushed through. [/i]
Varzil – DBO means design build OPERATE. The JPA will own the water facility, not the builder. If we’re going to have direct democracy, voters are going to have to get themselves educated, not spew uninformed rhetoric.
Laziness, Damn Laziness…and 14% Rates
I think the real story line here, David, is that neither you nor Dunning did your homework but instead relied on the statements of a junior writer at the Enterprise to get your initial facts. When it turned out those “facts” were only half true, you then started howling about lies and deception and conspriacies even though the real facts were right in front of you on page 1 of the Staff report the whole time…you just never bothered to read it. These types of salacious articles will get you and Dunning a lot of readers but it certainly is not the type of top-shelf, in-depth reporting people expect from you. To blame your and Dunning’s collective uninformed status on the City when they had the facts in front of you in black and white the whole time is just self-serving and audacious…do you expect the City to pin a note explaining it all to your and Dunning’s foreheads ? C’mon, David, admit that YOU did not do your job on this issue initially in reporting it and quit trying to shift the blame!
ERM wrote: “Secondly, the city has a water calculator on its website, that allows a homeowner to plug in their current usage to see what their future bills will look like. It doesn’t get any more straightforward than that.”
ERM, problem is, that calculator is based on CURRENT rates, not future. I asked Mr. deBra about this weeks ago, and he acknowledged that the calculator would not compare current, to future with the rate hikes. (I am assuming they did not recently change the calculator.)
What a mess. Well, back to counting signatures!
[quote]Lack of transparency in rate hikes is bad, true, but is it perhaps a smoke screen? [/quote]
Let’s keep our eye on the ball, instead of paying too much attention to red herrings. From the 9-29-11 minutes of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency:
[quote]Ken Landau, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, responded to questions and made the following statements:
* The cities are required to comply with their Regional board waste discharge requirements by 2016 (Woodland) and 2017 (Davis) or face enforcement and time schedule orders (fines and a timeline for compliance).
* An extension for compliance may be granted if the cities could demonstrate due diligence toward compliance (i.e. the cities must show continued progress on the project(s) that will achieve compliance).
* Fines for non-compliance may include mandatory minimum penalities of $3000/violation and discretionary fines of as much as $10,000 per day and $10/per gallon discharged. If a city is not diligently pursuing a project to comply with its WDRs, then the Regional Board is more likely to impose higher fines. If a city suspended or abandoned work on a project to come into compliance with its WDRs, the fines typically would be at least equal to the money saved by the city by not implementing the project.
* The City of Tracy’s situation has no relevance to Davis and Woodland because Tracy is south of the Delta and has fewer options for improving its source water.
* Even if future salinity/EC limits are reduced, the amount in Davis and Woodland’s effluent will still be above any limit allowed by the state.
* Failure to comply with the regulations could open the cities to third-party lawsuits.
* Mr. Landau cautioned the Board that if they didn’t continue moving forward with the project, its newly acquired water rights from the State Water Resources Control Board could be in jeopardy.[/quote]
Also, as Varzil has pointed out, the DBO process needs to be looked at carefully…
[quote]ERM, problem is, that calculator is based on CURRENT rates, not future. I asked Mr. deBra about this weeks ago, and he acknowledged that the calculator would not compare current, to future with the rate hikes. (I am assuming they did not recently change the calculator.) [/quote]
I would suggest you return to Mr. DeBra, and have him explain it to you again, with your ears open this time. If you look at the water calculator, it states right on there:
[quote]The bi-monthly/monthly calculations include the proposed base and variable rates (2012-2016).[/quote]
“First, why not give the true rate increase and then encourage people to conserve? Why not tell people that people’s rates are going up 28 percent, which was the initial rate hike, unless they conserve, and tell them we have enough margin that if everyone who conserves 20 percent will pay as low as 14 percent rate hikes. That would be an honest tale of the tape.”
David, that was the best point in your article, that says it all.
Game, set, match.
DT Businessman is making an important point about the difference between rates and costs. Rates are what you pay per unit of water used. Your monthly water bill is dependent on rates and usage. To understand whether the city was “honest” or not, you need to read what they wrote (was it about rates or monthly cost).
By forecasting conservation and lower water use, I believe the city had to forecast higher rates than if they had forecast no change, or even an increase in water usage (the infrastructure has to be paid for regardless of water use). So, if you want to say that there will be no conservation is water use, the city will adjust the rates down accordingly. When that is done, I imagine that Bob Dunning and others will find that the city has been more truthful than he writes.
I have not verified this with the city, but it should be easy enough to do. They should be able to confirm their forecasted rates under a no conservation assumption. Then we can have an honest and factual discussion about this matter.
[quote]Why not tell people that people’s rates are going up 28 percent, which was the initial rate hike, unless they conserve, [/quote]
Because it would not be accurate. The 28% figure was a worst case scenario, and also included a 20% conservation rate, in so far as I am aware. Then a citizen advisory committee met with the Dept of Public Works, to try and find some way to decrease the water rate increases (to about twice the current rate), which WERE prohibitively high (3.3 times the current rate). As a result, a compromise was hammered out – 14% rate increase (for average residential user) each year for 5 years, with the 6th year 14% increase subject to another Prop 218 process. The new assumptions for the decrease in the water rate increases were threefold: the interest rate assumption was 5.5% instead of 6.6%; parts of the surface water project would be delayed; and some of the funding would come from what has already been collected on the wastewater treatment side. However, the 20% conservation assumption was still kept in place for either scenario of 28% increases or 14% increases.
I take back what I optimistically said a few days ago about the people of Davis being smart enough to see the value of an adequate water supply. If these posts represent the common view in Davis, then this project is DOA. I hope someone is working on Plan B.
[i] ERM, problem is, that calculator is based on CURRENT rates, not future. I asked Mr. deBra about this weeks ago, and he acknowledged that the calculator would not compare current, to future with the rate hikes. (I am assuming they did not recently change the calculator.)
I would suggest you return to Mr. DeBra, and have him explain it to you again, with your ears open this time. If you look at the water calculator, it states right on there:
The bi-monthly/monthly calculations include the proposed base and variable rates (2012-2016).[/i]
Just one more in a long list of lies and misleading hysterical comments from the referendum side. If we want to compare the list of misleading statements from the “sides”, I think we’ll find Michael Harrington’s group has an insurmountable lead.
[quote]If these posts represent the common view in Davis, then this project is DOA.[/quote]
The opponents on this blog seem determined to kill the project at all costs, and twist facts to suit their argument. However, the SWRCB has spoken as to what the fallout will be if Davis chooses not to come into compliance with the new standards. This is why I keep asking the opponents what their back-up plan is? But my question is met with deafening silence – which is very telling. However, I don’t think we can assume that the opponents stating their opinions here on the Vanguard necessarily represent the “common view”. They may or may not. What I do know is they don’t seem to have any answer for the steep fines that may be coming our way…
ERM, you miss the point. David was saying just tell the public the actual rate hikes and let the customer determine themselves what they can save through conservation measures. We didn’t need the rate hike percentages with the conservation numbers baked in. I’d bet you a dollar that most of the public agrees.
@Observer: I assume Plan B is to rewrite the water rate increases with a higher Tier 1, shifting even higher costs to the higher users.
BTW, for anyone reading this who is being paid by the opponents of the refernedum, you have a filing deadline of October 31. Cheers!
I think people are missing an important point here. Conservation will NOT solve the rate problem–it will only make it worse. The project has to be paid for in full, and construction costs have nothing to do with water usage. If people conserve, their bills decrease. If their bills decrease, the city takes in less revenue. If the city takes in less revenue, it has to raise its water rates even higher to make up the difference. The more we conserve, the higher our rates will go! The city is going to squeeze us dry to pay for their water project, and there’s no getting around it.
“BTW, for anyone reading this who is being paid by the opponents of the refernedum, you have a filing deadline of October 31. Cheers!”
That should be interesting. Will that be public info? If so, Mike will you let that be known?
Varzil said . .
“The REAL poison in this deal is that our public water will become privately owned. DBO is Design, Build, OWN. The company that builds the transport system will own our water. Why isn’t there more of an outcry over this? Maybe the Grand Jury should investigate how this plan to privatize public water got pushed through.”
I could be wrong, but DBO is Design, Build, [b][u]Operate[/u][/b]. The water right will always be owned by the JPA (and its owners, the City of Davis and the City of Woodland)
Observer said . . .
“I take back what I optimistically said a few days ago about the people of Davis being smart enough to see the value of an adequate water supply. If these posts represent the common view in Davis, then this project is DOA. I hope someone is working on Plan B.”
I don’t think it is DOA, but we still should be looking at Plan B. Here’s what I have come up with so far as the broad outlines of Plans A and B (and C)
[b]DRAFT for review and comment[/b]
This draft is the basis for an educational handout created to help Davis residents more easily understand the tradeoffs associated with the decisions we face as a community in the realm of our Water supply and our Treatment of Wastewater.
Currently, the residents of Davis have three options for dealing with Water/Wastewater.
1) We can choose to proceed with the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA) project, and then proceed with a Wastewater Treatment plant upgrade approach that capitalizes on the significantly reduced levels of certain components that exist in our current well water. 2) We can choose not to proceed with the WDCWA project, and then proceed with a significantly more expensive Wastewater Treatment plant upgrade approach that must address the significantly elevated levels of certain components that exist in our current well water. 3) We can choose not to proceed with the WDCWA project, and then proceed with a well head treatment approach that removes the significantly elevated levels of certain components that exist in our current well water at each of the 21 individual wells, and then be able to proceed with the base Wastewater Treatment plant upgrade approach that capitalizes on the well head treatment of our current well water.
These three options each have different Capital requirements as follows:
[b]Option 1[/b]
$255 million total Capital Costs. The key components of this total are:
$155 million for the Davis portion of the Surface Water project. [u]Plus,[/u]
$100 million for a base level Wastewater Treatment Upgrade to meet the Federal and State requirements of Davis’ State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) permit, as well as the Title 22 Requirements for Satellite Water Reclamation and Reuse.
[b]Option 2[/b]
$180 – $225 million total Capital Costs. The key components of this total are:
$25 – $50 million for the 5-10 additional Deep Water Aquifer wells needed to fully replace the current 16 selenium-rich Intermediate Aquifer wells in the Davis system. Each Deep Aquifer well will cost $3 million to drill plus $2 million for well head treatment to achieve potability standards. [u]Plus,[/u]
$15 – $25 million for subsidence damage remediation for Deep Aquifer wells. The subsidence history with Well 18 in Davis that resulted in the forced abandonment of that well in the system is one example of the cost of a susidence incident. [u]Plus,[/u]
$100 million for a base level Wastewater Treatment Upgrade to meet the Federal and State requirements of Davis’ SWRCB permit as well as the Title 22 Requirements for Satellite Water Reclamation and Reuse. [u]Plus,[/u]
$50 million for an incremental addition to the base Wastewater Treatment Upgrade providing reverse osmosis (RO) removal of both the Salinity and Selenium from the well water. NOTE: This process will produce a concentrated brine slurry that will have to be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate process, which will add significant operational costs to this Option 2.
[b]Option 3[/b]
$180 – $250 million total Capital Costs. The key components of this total are:
$25 – $50 million for the 5-10 additional Deep Water Aquifer wells needed to fully replace the current 16 selenium-rich Intermediate Aquifer wells in the Davis system. Each Deep Aquifer well will cost $3 million to drill plus $2 million for well head treatment to achieve potability standards. [u]Plus,[/u]
$15 – $25 million for subsidence damage remediation for Deep Aquifer wells. The subsidence history with Well 18 in Davis that resulted in the forced abandonment of that well in the system is one example of the cost of a susidence incident. [u]Plus,[/u]
$50 – 75 million (approximately, more research being done to document this cost prior to publication) for well head treatment of water at each individual well to remove Selinium and other designated contaminants. This process will produce a significantly increased amount of concentrated brine slurry that will have to be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate process. [u]Plus,[/u]
$100 million for a base level Wastewater Treatment Upgrade to meet the Federal and State requirements of Davis’ SWRCB permit as well as the Title 22 Requirements for Satellite Water Reclamation and Reuse. NOTE: This process will produce a concentrated brine slurry that will have to be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate process, which will add significant operational costs to this Option 2.
As you can see, the Capital Costs for Plans A, B and C are very much in the same ball park.
Crilly said . . .
[i]”I think people are missing an important point here. Conservation will NOT solve the rate problem–it will only make it worse. The project has to be paid for in full, and construction costs have nothing to do with water usage. If people conserve, their bills decrease. If their bills decrease, the city takes in less revenue. If the city takes in less revenue, it has to raise its water rates even higher to make up the difference. The more we conserve, the higher our rates will go! The city is going to squeeze us dry to pay for their water project, and there’s no getting around it.”[/i]
Actually Crilly it isn’t the City that is going to squeeze us dry, it is complying with the environmentally-responsible constituent limits that are going to do so.
That is a good thing though. We simply are playing catch-up on expenses that other cities have already complied with.
Crilly, apparently you’ve been missing my posts and those of Adam Smith. And rust49 appears not to understand my posts because he keeps lauding comments made by DG and BD which are arithmetically incorrect. Maybe our hard well water has something to do with it.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
Rusty: The 10/31/11 filing deadline is set by this code:
§ 84202.3. Campaign statement filing dates
(a) In addition to the campaign statements required by Section 84200, committees pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 82013 that are primarily formed to support or oppose the qualification, passage, or defeat of a measure and proponents of a state ballot measure who control a committee formed or existing primarily to support the qualification, passage, or defeat of a state ballot measure, shall file campaign statements on the following dates:
(1) No later than April 30 for the period January 1 through March 31.
(2) No later than October 31 for the period July 1 through September 30.
******************
My take on it is the water interests are alrady spending to oppose the referendum via various hidden channels using community members. If they raise money or pay anyone for any services to oppose the referendum, they have to file the committee form with the Sec of States office, copy to the City Clerk.
This is notice to anyone taking money from them, or spending it: you had better file the committee formation, and disclose, by 10/31.
Notice to the Souza Blockers: we will be looking for your disclosures on 10/31.
I’m a living breathing being in Davis not signing the petition. Does that unknowingly make me a Souza Blocker? None of the overwhelming video proof has been posted yet, so I don’t know what Souza Blocking is.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
Michael: ” the water interests are alrady spending to oppose the referendum via various hidden channels using community members”
Name one, Michael. Name one person you think is being paid to oppose the referendum.
“What an outrageous statement! The city has absolutely no control over what the Davis Enterprise prints.”
I never said that they did. What I said is that they had an obligation to correct the misleading report from the Enterprise, which they could have done by simply writing a letter to the editor or an email to the Vanguard. They chose not to do that.
I’m not having anything both ways. I made the point that the city was honest in disclosing the conservation point but at the same time it was in the fine print and they never bothered to correct the record, adding all that up, they were not forthcoming with information that would have countered the 14% claims and therefore they were less than honest.
[b]Elaine,[/b]
The salinity variance program is being set up now. I made a motion that would have committed the council and staff to do the utmost to pursue flexibility on the timing of the project through the salinity variance procedure. The commitment on the part of council was not there at that point in time. It didn’t get a second (although staff has been given permission to pursue regulatory flexibility, which is a good thing).
Since cities have been invited to help set the parameters of the salinity variance, Ken Landau doesn’t know what the parameters will be yet. The major statement that cam from the board was that “feasibility” would be a determining factor. According to Porter-Cologne, economic feasibility counts in the “feasibility” equation.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Landau said we have proven that the project is “feasible” because we have planned to do it. That is definitely one man’s opinion and one man’s logic.
Mr. Landau is one administrator. The decision is made by the Board, not the administrators. It is as if the City Manager said that the council would vote to build the parking structure. The City Manager doesn’t make the decision, the council does.
I made a motion to do everything possible to pursue the maximum flexibility in timing including pursuing the ability to postpone the project through the new salinity variance.
I think that this is our fiduciary responsibility. We don’t even know what the costs of the new project will be. We don’t know what hitches might develop. We don’t know what interest rates will be, and we don’t know what is going to happen with the new stormwater treatment requirements that the EPA is working on, or how much they will cost.
Even those who can afford the water rates/sewer/garbage rates and who strongly support the project should see the wisdom of retaining our flexibility in the face of such big unknowns. The window of opportunity is rapidly closing on pursuing the variance. I wish that council would give staff more support as they pursue regulatory flexibility.
Matt:
“With that said, David your comment about the City’s ethics implies that they were willful in what they did. I don’t think that is the case. They simply didn’t do a thorough enough job in communicating.”
It seems to me that anyone who read the Enterprise article should have seen the omission and they should have made sure to correct the correct. It’s not like the councilmembers are not reading this debate both in the Vanguard and the Enterprise.
Elaine:
“That is NOT what I heard Ken Landau say”
I pulled this from the transcript of their meeting:
“The State of California doesn’t have enough water to go around, and by law if a community is not diligently pursuing use of its water rights, the State Water Board can take those back.”
However, he acknowledged, “That’s something that doesn’t happen very often, and certainly for communities where it’s recognized that, in most cases you get a water right for growth over the next several decades, so it wouldn’t make sense to take the water right back if you don’t use the water right away because you don’t have a need for it yet, but you need it for long-term growth.”
Mr. Landau did say, “If the City, this group, the cities decide ‘let’s delay this for 10 years,’ I’m not part of that decision making process, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if somebody went back to the State Board and said, ‘Excuse us, they’re not using the water. Can we have it?’ I don’t know the chances of the State Water Board actually doing that, you know, agreeing to that and taking it away. It does happen occasionally, usually under extreme circumstances. But again, looking at the risks that go along with delay, that would be one for you to think about.”
Basically he said it does happen but it only happens “occasionally” and under “extreme” circumstances. I don’t see that it’s going to happen here.
And even if it does happen, if you look at place of origin rights, it seems likely they could get the water right back.
They are not going to take away water rights if the residents balk at a rate hike and under those conditions the city believes it would even get a variance.
” First of all, how do we know they didn’t, and the Davis Enterprise refused/neglected to correct the article? The city has NO CONTROL over what the Davis Enterprise prints. “
So let me get this straight Elaine, the Enterprise is not going to print a correction if the Mayor calls them and presents them with factual evidence that their article was misleading? At the same time, Krovoza could have simply written a letter to the editor. Furthermore, I know for a fact he did not attempt to contact me to get the public record corrected – and that is something he has frequently did. Add it all together, I think we do know. The city is not responsible for what the Enterprise prints, they are for the communications getting out to the community.
Alan: “I think the real story line here, David, is that neither you nor Dunning did your homework but instead relied on the statements of a junior writer at the Enterprise to get your initial facts”
I hadn’t even read her article until this morning when I looked to see what had been reported in the newspaper.
So David, you think the Mayor should have contacted the Enterprise asking that they report that the rates will actually be lower if the conservation targets aren’t met?
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
Yes. He should have corrected the public record on that.
You want the evidence for why he should have done it – read Dunning’s column.
The actual rates are not a small point.
You missed my point. The rates get adjusted lower if the ratepayers don’t conserve. In other words, the city erred to the cautious side.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
You are correct: the rates could get adjusted lower (eventually) if people do not conserve water.
David, I’ll expand on my point a bit since I suspect it’s not translating. The city is assuming that the ratepayers will conserve because of the higher rates, which results in even higher rates (the ones reported in the Enterprise). However, the rates will be adjusted lower (the water bills will be lower) if the anticipated ratepayer behaviorial change doesn’t pan out. This means the city has erred on the conservative side, i.e. they’re doing the exact opposite of lying and screwing the public. You and Dunning have it exactly backwards.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
No, I understand that point, that is the same point that was made by the city to me last Wednesday.
Where Dunning and I are coming down is here:
1. differentials in the ability to reduce usage
2. Lack of communication on what the result of base results produces
3. disparate impact of some people over others
4. lack of explanation about the changes in the tier rate structure – in other words they are not just assuming people will adjust their usage, they are punishing those who do not or cannot. In other words, how many people’s usage is largely fixed unless they start doing things like showering less, only flushing No.2s, storing shower water for outdoor plants, replacing laws with rock gardens.
And finally, the fact that larger families using less water per person than smaller families are the ones that could get hit the hardest here, particularly if those people are fixed or modest incomes.
“You are correct: the rates could get adjusted lower (eventually) if people do not conserve water.”
Ain’t gonna happen. This project, as suggested before, is going to end up costing a LOT more than the rosy numbers being bandied about by the council. Conserve or not, we’re going to get taken to the cleaners.
I can afford to pay more for water, and I’m an “empty nester”. Just the two of us now. I’ll tear out my lawn and put in rock and gravel. Most of my back yard is rock and gravel anyway. I just feel for those who are on fixed incomes or just starting out. It’s hard enough to afford to live in Davis as it is. This’ll be the nail in the coffin.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”It seems to me that anyone who read the Enterprise article should have seen the omission and they should have made sure to correct the correct. It’s not like the councilmembers are not reading this debate both in the Vanguard and the Enterprise.”[/i]
I don’t disagree with you in principle David. They should have taken steps to expand on the article (IMHO, it wasn’t incorrect, rather incomplete). I honestly don’t know why they didn’t, nor do I know why Sue Greenwald consistently chooses to talk about the salinity variance situation while remaining consistently silent about the much more critical selenium situation in 12 of our intermediate aquifer wells.
The reality is that their omission has done an excellent job of pointing out to the community just how valuable the Vanguard is. Kudos to you for being the news source and debate forum that you are.
DT Businessman said . . .
“So David, you think the Mayor should have contacted the Enterprise asking that they report that the rates will actually be lower if the conservation targets aren’t met?”
Actually Michael I would hope that the Mayor wouldn’t act unilaterally on behalf of the Council. I would prefer him to fast track the item to the very next Council agenda to be sure that what he was saying for the Council was indeed what the Council would want said.
It would be irresponsible for the city NOT to plan on some level of conservation as the rates increase, because that is what people do. The amount people conserve has been studied. The city used a fairly conservative value for how much they think people will conserve as the rates go up: about 20%. They used that as they calculated how much money would be needed for the infrastructure that is causing the rate increase.
The public pays based on usage. If the public prefers to pay for infrastructure some other way, I guess somebody could propose an equitable means of doing so. But in a town with a large rental population, it would be very difficult to come up with an equitable means of doing so. Charging individuals on a per-gallon rate rather than charging household on a per-gallon rate would be very unusual, and would only appeal to those with a high number of people in the household.
If you know of a fairer method of charging for the cost of the surface water project, by all means suggest it. Fair is very subjective. One of the costs of having a large family is that household water use tends to be higher. One of the costs of having a large yard is that outdoor water costs tend to be higher. Those are choices we make.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The actual rates are not a small point.”[/i]
David, in the long run when we look into our rear view mirror, I think the actual rates wilol end up being a small point. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that I should run over to Reno and put a bet down that the rates in the Ordinance will not be the final rates once the dust settles.
“t would be irresponsible for the city NOT to plan on some level of conservation as the rates increase, because that is what people do”
This is not a point that is in question.
Matt: I don’t think this is a small point, but I do agree with you these will not be the final rates, i think they will be a good deal higher.
DT Businessman said . . .
[i]”David, I’ll expand on my point a bit since I suspect it’s not translating. The city is assuming that the ratepayers will conserve because of the higher rates, which results in even higher rates (the ones reported in the Enterprise). However, the rates will be adjusted lower (the water bills will be lower) if the anticipated ratepayer behavioral change doesn’t pan out. This means the city has erred on the conservative side, i.e. they’re doing the exact opposite of lying and screwing the public. You and Dunning have it exactly backwards.”[/i]
To expand on Michael’s point, that is exactly why the mandatory annual reviews are built into the process. If conservation doesn’t happen, a surplus of revenue will be generated, and then the currently projected rates set for the year following the surplus will be adjusted downward by the amount of the surplus.
Matt: I understand all of that, but I think the most likely outcome is for variable results – some people will conserve a lot and others won’t be able to conserve much. Keeping the mean cost and usage at the same level can still produce much greater variances in actual impacts.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Where Dunning and I are coming down is here:
1. differentials in the ability to reduce usage
3. disparate impact of some people over others”[/i]
David, we have had this tier system for a significant number of years. Differentials in what is being charged and the ability to reduce usage has been there ever since the tiered rate structure was implemented. However, to date no one has complained. Care to elaborate on that?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”2. Lack of communication on what the result of base results produces”[/i]
We’ve beaten that one to death. Communication clearly could have been better.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]4. lack of explanation about the changes in the tier rate structure – in other words they are not just assuming people will adjust their usage, they are punishing those who do not or cannot. In other words, how many people’s usage is largely fixed unless they start doing things like showering less, only flushing No.2s, storing shower water for outdoor plants, replacing lawns with rock gardens.[/i]
Out of curiosity, what proportion of the Davis water connections do you think fall into your category above? Is there any reason why the people who fall into the pattern of usage you describe can’t be addressed through initiatives outside the tier structure. Is there anything wrong with incentivizing people to start to do things like showering less, only flushing No.2s, storing shower water for outdoor plants, replacing lawns with rock gardens. Montecito has been doing that since the mid 80’s.
And finally, the fact that larger families using less water per person than smaller families are the ones that could get hit the hardest here, particularly if those people are fixed or modest incomes.
[i]1. differentials in the ability to reduce usage [/i]
Unsolvable.
[i]2. Lack of communication on what the result of base results produces [/i]
No argument here.
[i]3. disparate impact of some people over others [/i]
Unsolvable.
[i]4. lack of explanation about the changes in the tier rate structure – in other words they are not just assuming people will adjust their usage, they are punishing those who do not or cannot.[/i]
That is true under the current rate structure. I know of no solution. Do you?
[i]In other words, how many people’s usage is largely fixed unless they start doing things like showering less, only flushing No.2s, storing shower water for outdoor plants, replacing laws with rock gardens.[/i]
Achieving 20% reduction by changing outdoor watering practices is not difficult. Given the 80/20 ratio of outdoor to indoor water use, I urge most people to focus on the landscape water use. A thousand square feet of lawn uses a thousand or more gallons of water a week.
[i]And finally, the fact that larger families using less water per person than smaller families are the ones that could get hit the hardest here, particularly if those people are fixed or modest incomes.[/i]
Yes, it is expensive having children. Sorry to be blunt, but this is just one of many things that costs more if you have a large family. I don’t have a solution to this, either.
The problem is that any policy that might arise from your perceived inequities will simply shift the cost burden to others, and will make their rates disproportional.
@ Crilly: your back yard is a great model for others!
Matt: I suspect the tier rates were high enough and rate differntial low enough that it may not have registered that many complaints. Usually change is what signifies problems.
Just google “water conservation and water rate hikes” and you’ll see that across CA and elsewhere with water conservation comes less water used – a great savings for the environment – and less water is paid for – a problem in paying for the public service through the municipal public works department and thus the need for higher rates to meet those basic costs. OR: paying a higher rate to a private operator not only to meet the basic costs, but the percent needed for the for-profit corporation to pay investors and shareholders and meet their quarterly benchmarks and reports to investors and shareholders. Take your pick on public management and operation vs private management and operation.
[quote]So let me get this straight [b]David[/b], the [b]Vanguard[/b] is not going to print a correction if the Mayor calls them and presents them with factual evidence that their article was misleading?[quote]Similar question back to you…
Everyone: we are filing the petitions tomorrow, Monday, at 11:30 am, City Clerk, 23 Russell Blvd. Everyone is invited to attend. Please pass the word around. I’ve got to run and count now!
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt: I understand all of that, but I think the most likely outcome is for variable results – some people will conserve a lot and others won’t be able to conserve much. Keeping the mean cost and usage at the same level can still produce much greater variances in actual impacts.”[/i]
Of course there will be variable results. Given that there are upwards of 65,000 different water consumption decision points, how could there be anything other than variable results.
How would you structure the rates to eliminate the variable results?
“Everyone: we are filing the petitions tomorrow, Monday, at 11:30 am, City Clerk, 23 Russell Blvd. Everyone is invited to attend. Please pass the word around. I’ve got to run and count now!”
Good job Mr. Harrington, the people owe you great thanks. Isn’t Democracy a beautiful thing.
nprice said . . .
[i]”Just google “water conservation and water rate hikes” and you’ll see that across CA and elsewhere with water conservation comes less water used – a great savings for the environment – and less water is paid for – a problem in paying for the public service through the municipal public works department and thus the need for higher rates to meet those basic costs. OR: paying a higher rate to a private operator not only to meet the basic costs, but the percent needed for the for-profit corporation to pay investors and shareholders and meet their quarterly benchmarks and reports to investors and shareholders. [b]Take your pick on public management and operation vs private management and operation.[/b]”[/i]
Nancy, if Davis (or the JPA) had a great enough critical mass to be able to keep tenured employees when they reach the point where they want to step up the career path ladder to more responsibility and higher pay, I would be all for running the plant ourselves. However, it is crystal clear (to this observer) that we don’t have that critical mass, and that is going to result in 1) a “brain drain” of our best talent at the point where we have maximized our training investment in them and also not gotten significantly leveraged value from that training investment. They will leave for larger jurisdictions and/or private firms. Then we will have to start the recruitment and training cycle at the beginning again.
Where private firms have an advantage is that when a key employee reaches their local career ceiling, they have other larger, more challenging clients where they can transfer/promote the key employee. Similarly they will have an internal pipeline of already trained lower level employees whose career trajectory has positioned them to be ready and able to step into the departing employee’s shoes. Bottom-line, no brain drain and infinitely more seamless and less expensive transitions.
[quote]Just google “water conservation and water rate hikes” and you’ll see that across CA and elsewhere with water conservation comes less water used – a great savings for the environment – and less water is paid for – a problem in paying for the public service through the municipal public works department and thus the need for higher rates to meet those basic costs.– N[b]ancy Price[/b][/quote]In our case, further conservation will not save significant amounts of money unless it is part of a program to postpone the completion of the surface water project until we pay for the wastewater plant and the first phase of the surface water project.
Our main source of river water is free. Our groundwater is free. We have already paid a fixed rate for supplementary river water, whether we use it or not, and we now have enough water at today’s conservation rates if we do not grow rapidly.
Using less river water will be better for the environment if the state curtails population growth. If they don’t, any water saved will go towards population growth and will not particularly help the environment.
Our expenses are now in fixed costs and operations and maintenance, not in water purchase, so conservation will make a minimum difference in water cost to our residents. Also, the browner the city gets, the less carbon is removed from the atmosphere. Even the expert who addressed the Yolo County Water Resources Association said that he didn’t know which was better for the environment: using less water or having more green landscaping.
Davis water usage is already going down dramatically. I think the talk of conservation is a distraction from the current discussion unless we decide to postpone the project, and which case it would conserve our groundwater supply during the interim period before we complete the surface water project.
Maybe I am missing something. How are we financing the Revenue Bonds for the surface water project – the D and B part? How does the stated calculation of 20% reduction in water use come in? If every household were to make it into Tier 1 and stay there, just as a though experiment, were would the needed revenue come from? And then there is the O part going forward, not just the years before the O kicks in after the project is built, but afterwards, for the estimated 20 or so years of private operation.
Someone just pointed out to me that the ordinance probably violates Prop 218’s restriction to increases not greater than the actual cost of delivering the water. The ordinance uses higher than cost rates to try to manipulate ratepayer conduct. I haven’t done the legal research yet, but I just wanted all of you to know this issue is under review. Any comments?
As Alan Pryor noted in his article on Davis Vanguard on September 5, 2011, the Conaway Ranch deal with Woodland Davis CWA (referred to as the Tri-City Agreement) needs State Water Board approval. As Alan noted in his article, “[i]The State Water Board must also approve this agreement and that is a wrinkle. The existing licenses covering these senior water rights now held by Conaway Ranch must be split. In June, an application to allow for such a split was made to the State Water Board by Conaway Preservation Group…Such water transfer applications are subject to protests filed by other parties and during the allowable protest period 5 protests were submitted from the US Bureau of Reclamation, the California Department of Water Resources, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Natural Resources Defense Council jointly with Defenders of Wildlife, and a private individual. Conaway Preservation Group has 180 days to settle these protests through negotiations with the protesters or the protests must be considered and evaluated by the State Water Board when considering the license split application early next year. While it is standard with any water rights applications that many parties will protest, if the protests are not settled in this case, the approval for the license split could be in doubt.[/i]
The Tri-City Agreement includes an easement across the Yolo Bypass for the Woodland Davis SWP conveyance, relocation of railroad tracks from the Sierra Northern Railway through the Conaway Ranch (in order to reduce the impact on street traffic in Woodland), a reasonably forseeable plan to transfer up to 80,000 acre-feet of Conaway Ranch water to Metropolitan Water District in Southern California, and drilling +/- 18 new groundwater wells adjacent to Willow Slough which runs through the Conaway Ranch. Willow Slough is tributary to the Sacramento River and the argument made by the protesters is that this is like sticking another straw into the Sacramento River since they are hydraulically connected.
I just finished reading the protest letters. All of them noted there was insufficient information to adequately evaluate the impacts of the action. I’ve got to say, in my layperson’s opinion, resolving these protests quickly and easily will not be simple. Which begs the question, if the protests are not resolved, what happens to the SWP including the easement for the pipeline to the River? Seems like a lot is riding on this petition with the State Water Board. And if the petition is not approved, what is the CW Agency’s Plan B?
Mike, I don’t know the legal issues, but my guess is that the cost of delivering the water wasn’t changed in the various rate scenarios considered (with various conservation assumptions and various mixes of fixed and variable rates).
Something to consider: Tskapolous will have his hand on the spigot that controls the amount of water flowing through the surface water pipeline. He will have control of where(his massive residential development proposal south of the causeway and east of El Macero?)and whether there will be additional water to meet the legally required requirements for a new peripheral development. Does anyone really believe that once the surface water infrastructure is in-place, additional water, far exceeding Davis’ current needs, will not be flowing in the future?
davisite, that is what measure J/R is for.
If Angelo needs water for the land east of El Macero he will simply drill his own wells with his pocket change.
The volunteer production of 244 today put us over the top We are in for tomorrow
Is there any way we can ball up the tri cities deal ? It smells, somehow
I think the problem here is that everyone is basing the water rate percentage changes based on the total bill instead of on the metered water rate charge. Which is somewhat more realistic to the bill payer but somewhat disingenuous when representing the change in rate.
I was a longtime Davis resident, and too advantage of the unusually low water rate for years. I now live in San Ramon. I looked at my most recent water bill for October 2011, and I currently pay $3.00 per unit (ccf of 748 gal) for up to 20 ccf of usage, $3.35 per unit for 21-34 ccf, and $3.67 per unit for over 34 ccf. This is significantly higher than what Davis will see after year one. And my rates, and the water rates for most water customers, will be going up significantly in the coming years.
Tiered water rates DO help to promote conservation. Some people DO pay more, but they pay more because they use more. If you are charged more, it is expected you will use less, which was the basis for the City’s assumption. The City was just a little too subtle in saying that the average total water bill payment (including the meter charge, surcharges, and other stuff) would go up by only 14%. Almost every other entity uses the metered water rate as a metric for calculating either the numeric value of the change (in cents per ccf) or the percentage.
If I still lived in the City of Davis, paying $2.46 per unit for water would represent about a 33% reduction in my metered water rate. It would be nice to pay that little for water.
Curtis
But Curtis, Davis rates are currently estimated to rise $120 percent within six years. They will probably be significantly higher than San Ramon’s rates in six years.
“davisite, that is what measure J/R is for.”
I can hear the pro-development measure J/R campaign on TSK’s massive residential proposal already. Davis voters, you can rather easily REDUCE your now unsustainable water bills by just increasing the Davis population tax base by 50%.Should Davis voters decide their measure J/R vote based upon what they consider best for the future of their community or how their vote will impact their utility bills?
But Sue, Davis rates are currently $1.50 per unit (ccf or 748 gal). At the end of Year 1 the rate will be $1.90, Year 2 will be $2.28, Year 3 will be $2.78, Year 4 will be $3.41 and Year 5 will be $4.05.
As Curtis noted “I currently pay $3.00 per unit (ccf of 748 gal) for up to 20 ccf of usage. And my rates, and the water rates for most water customers, will be going up significantly in the coming years.”
He is at $3.00 per unit now, I seriously doubt his “going up significantly in the coming years” will only result in an aggregate 33% increase over 5 years. Sometimes I wonder if you listen to yourself before you speak.
Sue:
If only that were true. SFPUC (the largest water wholesaler in the Bay Area) is projecting water rate increases of 9.5% per year for the forseeable future ONLY if water sales are high. They will increase by 18 to 34% per year if there is a lot of water conservation (i.e. lower sales). So the situation in Davis with regard to conservation is not unique.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District (the water wholesaler for Santa Clara County – San Jose) is projecting rate increases of 9.4% per year for a while, and are fighting off lawsuits to continue these increases.
Zone 7 Water (where I live) is one of the few water purveyors to hold down water rates, but since get lots of water from the Delta, their rates will be going up to help with the “Delta Solutions”, or whatever comes out of that.
The short story is that everyone will be paying more for water, wherever they live, and for whatever amount they use.
Gee, I don’t know. Do you not have faith in the ability of Davis voters to make rational decisions?
[b]Marconi (Curtis)[/b]:
The following quote is from the San Ramon Patch:[quote]EBMUD officials said the average residential customers who use 270 gallons of water a day will see their monthly water bill rise from $38.66 to $40.98 on July 1. Next summer, that bill will jump from $40.98 to $43.45.
The board also approved an increase in its wastewater service charges. The average bill for those customers will rise from $15.10 to $16.94 over the next two years.[url]http://sanramon.patch.com/articles/water-rates-going-up-2[/url][b]San Ramon Patch June 14, 2011[/b][/quote]So it looks like next year, the average single family house in San Roman will be paying around $700 a year for water and wastewater, and the average Davis household will be paying almost $1,000 a year for water/wastewater.
And Davis households will only be in their first year of six years of these increases.
Curtis, if you took advantage of Davis’ low rates for many years and now live in San Ramon, you got a very, very good deal indeed.
Sue:
EBMUD serves the part of San Ramon across Dougherty. I live in the Dublin San Ramon Services District – their rates are here:
http://www.dsrsd.com/your_water_services/water_ratescharges.html
You have to add the Zone 7 wholesale water rate to the DSRSD retail water rate to get the total water rate.
Here is the rate schedule for EBMUD. EBMUD’s metered water rates start at $2.28 and go to $3.47/hcf. Which is still more than next years Davis rates. And EBMUD’s rates are going to go up in the future to help pay off their Freeport project (and other capital improvements).
Best of luck with your rate conundrum. Just remember that Davis’s rates are still on the low side.
Curtis
http://www.ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/SchedA 070111.pdf
And for EBMUD, the customers on the East side of the hills, typically pay more than the Bay side because our lawns are bigger. So I don’t know if those unit projections for water use are typical for my area or the EBMUD service area as a whole, which includes some very large urban areas with minimal lawns. Thus, we have more irrigation water and higher per capita water usage as a result.
[b]Marconi (Curtis):[/b]
So now you acknowledge that Sam Ramon rates will be much lower than ours, so you bring up the SFPUC.
Well, I have looked into the SFPUC.
The SFPUC is expected to be one of the most expensive districts in the State, due to the huge currently planned infrastructure projects. Yet I called a number of cities in this district, such as Palo Alto, Brea and Daly City, and our expected water/sewer/garbage rates six years from now were as high or higher than theirs. And remember, they have virtually no heating and air-conditioning costs.
“Should Davis voters decide their water rate referendum vote based upon what they consider best for the future of their community or how their vote will impact their utility bills?
Yes… halting the rate hike through the referendum is the only way to force the city and CC to seriously pursue a variance, according to the current director of Davis Public Works. Pursuing a variance and postponing the surface water project to allow a phasing in of the costs to the taxpayer while reworking it to include developer contribution to the infrastructure costs can be considered(by a Davis majority?) to be what is “best for the future of their community”.
Sue, do the math. 270 gallons per day is only 10.98 ccf per month. It is very clear that Water Conservation is in place in the EBMUD in a big, big way.
At that volume the consumption portion of the Davis user’s bill next year would be $20.86. In Year 5 it would only be $44.47. EBMUD will be at $43.45 in our Year 2.
Have you ever lived in the Bay area, Matt? I did for many years and I can tell you that you don’t have to water the lawns at all due to cool summers and lots of fog.
You can’t compare water per gallon or whatever; you have to look at the cost for an average household.
Sue:
I don’t know garbage or storm rates, just water and sewer. That’s sort of what I do for a living. Not sure what you are referring to with regards to how San Ramon water rates are lower, but whatever.
It’s not that hard to get water rates for neighboring communities or whomever you want to compare to. I just picked the big ones from where I live.
For example, here are the water rates for Dixon, Woodland, Vacaville, and Napa.
http://www.calwater.com/rates/rates_tariffs/dix/Residential_Metered_Service.pdf
http://www.cityofwoodland.org/gov/depts/pw/water_rate_info/default.asp (woodlands rates are increasing faster than Davis’s for the metered portion)
http://www.cityofvacaville.com/departments/public_works/__documents/Billing Sample 051510.pdf (they paid for all their major improvements years ago, when capital costs were lower)
http://www.cityofnapa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=368&Itemid=466 (highest rates of the four – note that these rates are per 1000 gallons instead of per 748 gallons)
Cheers,
Curtis
[i]I can tell you that you don’t have to water the lawns at all due to cool summers and lots of fog. [/i]
That is not true even in Sunset Zone 17, much less 16 or 15 which comprise a good portion of EBMUD. Parts of EBMUD are even Zone 14, like Davis.
[b]Marconi/Curtis[/b]: I still don’t see any indication from examples that you have given that our average residential water/wastewater/garbage will not be the highest in the region (not including Woodland, of course) by the time that we have ramped up to pay for the $300 million or more in new water/wastewater related ninfrastructure and Conaway purchase, and high by statewide standards.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]
“Have you ever lived in the Bay area, Matt? I did for many years and I can tell you that you don’t have to water the lawns at all due to cool summers and lots of fog.
You can’t compare water per gallon or whatever; you have to look at the cost for an average household.”[/i]
I think you need to talk to a few people in EBMUD’s eastern service area (e.g. Walnut Creek) about the need for watering lawns. If you go to the EBMUD’s WaterSmartCenter page the very first message is “[i]Adjust Your Irrigation Schedule
Now that we have had some rain and the daylight hours are shorter, it’s time to reduce the number of days that you water your lawn and garden. Also, be prepared to turn your irrigation system off completely when the rainy season begins in earnest. Self-adjusting irrigation controllers change watering schedules automatically in response to actual weather conditions. Get up to a $200 rebate for replacing your irrigation timer with a qualifying model.[/i]”
davisite: [i]”Yes… halting the rate hike through the referendum is the only way to force the city and CC to seriously pursue a variance, according to the current director of Davis Public Works. Pursuing a variance and postponing the surface water project to allow a phasing in…”[/i]
Passing the referendum doesn’t force the city council to do anything at all except cancel the rate hike.
[i]Have you ever lived in the Bay area, Matt? I did for many years and I can tell you that you don’t have to water the lawns at all due to cool summers and lots of fog.
You can’t compare water per gallon or whatever; you have to look at the cost for an average household. [/i]
Careful Sue, I’m calling in a fact check, which is often needed for posts of those against the water project. I lived in SF for several years and had a lawn. While living there, I watered my lawn 1 – 2x per week for 6 – 7 months/year. It doesn’t rain in SF from March to November – of course you have to irrigate the lawn and the shrubs. Certainly, you irrigate less than here, but way more than “not at all”. Please don’t stretch the facts or tell outright untruths – its embarrassing for us all to have CC members that can’t stick to facts.
Finally, I think maconi has provided the first of many comparisons which will show that water rates are higher than Davis’ rates in many places in CA and they are rising, despite your unsupported claims. Current cost of water anywhere in CA is inappropriate for comparison 5 or 10 years from now – it is all going to get much more expensive. In the end, because of this fact, I believe that Davis will have little chance of getting out of fixing our water quality problems because it is too expensive. The only out (other than draining our children of deep well groundwater) is a variance for salinity, which means that we are siding with killing off the Delta (there may well be no way out for selenium). If that is the way we go, then no more arguments about water usage in SoCal or losing the Delta way of life – we progressives in Davis will be responsible for killing off part of our own county.
[b]Don Shor:[/b] I was talking about the SFPUC. That is a coastal climate.
Here is the service area of EBMUD:
[url]http://www.ebmud.com/about-ebmud/our-story/service-area-map[/url]
Here are the Sunset climate zones: [url]http://www.sunset.com/garden/climate-zones/sunset-climate-zone-bay-area-00418000067175/[/url]
Lafayette, Moraga, Danville, and San Ramon are all in Sunset Zone 14, as is Davis. The evapotranspiration (ET) rates are comparable to here. Water use is in direct correlation to ET rates. Those communities make good direct comparisons to Davis.
SFPUC is in Zone 17. ET rates are about half of what they are here. But you still have to water your landscape in most cases. As in Davis, there are people who don’t. And as in Davis, it is possible to have a nice landscape without much irrigation. But most people don’t have xeriscapes in either community, and they aren’t to everyone’s liking.
[i]Marconi/Curtis: I still don’t see any indication from examples that you have given that our average residential water/wastewater/garbage will not be the highest in the region (not including Woodland, of course) by the time that we have ramped up to pay for the $300 million or more in new water/wastewater related ninfrastructure and Conaway purchase, and high by statewide standards. [/i]
Why does garbage cost matter in this discussion?
I don’t think maconi has taken upon himself to prove that Davis will have either low or high rates. He just provided evidence that others have higher rates than we have or will have – and that will be a very important issue in the debate regarding why Davis should or should not be granted a variance.
[b]Adam Smith:[/b] I didn’t claim that you didn’t water your lawn in S.F. I said that it is not necessary to water one’s lawn in the Bay Area, due to the fact that the summers are cool and their is plenty of fog.
In terms of cost comparisons, what I did was to call up a number of cities in expensive areas and ask them what their five year rate projects were. Just like we have long-term rate projections, so do they. Most of them also calculated them in terms of cost per average single family house.
So I asked them what their average projected water/sewer/garbage costs were going to be in five years, and I asked them if there were any large new capitol expenses on the horizon after that, and I asked them if their projected rates included all planned new capital projects. Everybody was, of course, including projected water cost increases.
This approach is the only valid comparison.
Sue, we were talking about the EBMUD rates and you cite irrigation frequency for the other side of the Bay . . . San Francisco. That is priceless. Even Master Card won’t help you on that leap of logic.
Sue, it will be a valid comparison once Davis residents embrace Water Conservation the way the other cities have (Montecito started its Water Police in the 80’s). Until then you are comparing apples and oranges . . . unless you compare like units. Davis consumers will be consuming more by choice . . . and therefore paying more per household.
SFPUC actually provides water to more customers than just SF – they provide water to much of the Peninsula and parts of the South Bay – over 2 million customers total. SFPUC wholesales water to about 24 different water retailers, including the City and County of San Francisco.
Oh, and I can’t wait to read and hear all about the water vote and the project over the next year or so. Should make for great theater. And I have an interest in it since my folks still live in town.
Curtis
[i]Adam Smith: I didn’t claim that you didn’t water your lawn in S.F. I said that it is not necessary to water one’s lawn in the Bay Area, due to the fact that the summers are cool and their is plenty of fog.
[/i]
So now you are suggesting that all those folks irrigating their lawns in SF are doing so needlessly, including me? This really epitomizes the struggle I have with your approach. You are told facts, and you ignore them because your focus seems to be to win the argument instead of gathering relevant facts and making a good decision. I admire you for the amount work and research that you do, but it all seems to be in an effort to prove yourself right as opposed to learn something. We have an ex president living in a village in Texas who did the same thing. The more you do this, the more credibility you lose.
[quote]SFPUC is in Zone 17– [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Yes, Don. I spent many years living in Zone 17, and you can have a green, beautiful landscape and green, beautiful neighborhoods with little or no watering. It is nothing like Davis; it is a completely different gardening environment. There is no comparison in the amount of landscape watering.
@Sue Greenwald:
This whole discussion started with maconi’s post. He lives in Contra Costa County, not SF. Your point about irrigation, which is incorrect even in SF, is incomprehensible for Contra Costa County.
Lets stick to facts, not to winning arguments, and we’ll all be better off.
[quote]Sue, we were talking about the EBMUD rates and you cite irrigation frequency for the other side of the Bay . . . San Francisco. That is priceless. Even Master Card won’t help you on that leap of logic.[b]–Matt Williams[/b][/quote]
Matt, perhaps you should read more thoroughly before launching into snide remarks.
Curtis had mentioned San Ramon as a city with higher rates than Davis, and I showed that our costs are going to be much by next year than San Ramon costs.
Then I added that I had even called a few cities in the SPUC area, whose costs are expected to be among the highest in the state, and our rates were comparable to and sometimes even higher than many of those cities.
[b]@Adam Smith[/b]: See above post.
[quote]Sue Greenwald
10/23/11 – 09:24 PM
…
[b]Marconi (Curtis):[/b]
The following quote is from the San Ramon Patch:
EBMUD officials said the average residential customers who use 270 gallons of water a day will see their monthly water bill rise from $38.66 to $40.98 on July 1. Next summer, that bill will jump from $40.98 to $43.45.
The board also approved an increase in its wastewater service charges. The average bill for those customers will rise from $15.10 to $16.94 over the next two years.http://sanramon.patch.com/arti…going-up-2San Ramon Patch June 14, 2011
So it looks like next year, the average single family house in San Roman will be paying around $700 a year for water and wastewater, and the average Davis household will be paying almost $1,000 a year for water/wastewater.
And Davis households will only be in their first year of six years of these increases.
Curtis, if you took advantage of Davis’ low rates for many years and now live in San Ramon, you got a very, very good deal indeed.”[/quote]
Sue, take a quick look at your post above. You yourself referenced EBMUD and then later hopped over the Bay.
Adam Smith said . . .
[i]”@Sue Greenwald:
This whole discussion started with maconi’s post. He lives in Contra Costa County, not SF. Your point about irrigation, which is incorrect even in SF, is incomprehensible for Contra Costa County.
Lets stick to facts, not to winning arguments, and we’ll all be better off.”[/i]
Well said Adam.
Sue did add some very useful EBMUD unit cost numbers.
@Sue Greenwald:
Lets recap. In counter to your claim regarding costs, maconi posted evidence that San Ramon rates were higher than Davis, and moving up. Matt posted evidence that if Davis used water like San Ramon, then our bills would be lower than theirs. You inexplicably posted in return that people in SF don’t have to water their lawns because its foggy. Don posted EtO evidence that the climate zone where maconi was referencing is the same as Davis, so in fact they would use water like we do. On the facts, the conclusion seem apparent. Quieres jugar mas?
Sue: [i]Yes, Don. I spent many years living in Zone 17, and you can have a green, beautiful landscape and green, beautiful neighborhoods with little or no watering. It is nothing like Davis; it is a completely different gardening environment. There is no comparison in the amount of landscape watering.[/i]
This does happen to be my profession.
Of course there is a comparison in the amount of landscape watering and it can be quantified; in fact, there is loads of data on the subject of water use by different species in different regions.
Lawns in the coastal zone (Sunset Zone 17) use about 60% of the water that lawns in the interior zones do. That approximate ratio holds for other landscape plants. There are plants with widely varying landscape coefficients with respect to the zone’s ET that can be selected within any of the climate zones.
EBMUD is mostly not in the coastal zone. The communities of EBMUD make excellent comparisons to Davis in terms of lot size, water use, and water rates because they are comparable in many ways.
[b]Adam Smith and Matt Williams:[/b] My post was very clear. I quoted the Sam Ramon Patch which official average household water and wastewater costs in San Roman for next year.
I then compared them to our staff information on Davis average household water and wastewater costs for next year.
The San Ramon average household water/sewer rates will be about $700 a year next year, the City of Davis average household water/sewer rates will be about $1000 a year next year.
And our huge water infra structure and water purchase costs increases have hardly begun.
This was a simple apples to apples comparison.
I might suggest if there are going to be more posts on water (probability of 100%) that the stock photo gets changed. I’m really tired of seeing that disembodied hand and glass of water under the faucet.
Can anyone posting here send David a better photo? Maybe of a toilet or a sprinkler or water running in a drain? Thanks!
This is not relevant to anyone who isn’t religiously following this thread. This is a tangent.
@Sue:
Sorry to go all nerd on you here, but EBMUD is not my utility provider. But even if it was, EBMUD provides just wastewater treatment and disposal, and the Cities within the EBMUD service area maintain the wastewater collection system. So though the EBMUD portion of the fees may total what is in that article you reference (I didn’t check it’s accuracy), you also have to add in the wastewater collection costs for the various cities EBMUD provides wastewater treatment to (Oakland, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, San Leandro, etc.). Newspaper articles generally aren’t the best references.
My wastewater provider is the Central Contra Costa Sanitation District, and my water provider is the Dublin San Ramon Services District. I pay for sewer through my property taxes at a rate of $341/year, which is cheap. Water is paid both through metered usage (bimonthly) and parcel taxes. I pay $170.74/year in parcel taxes for water, plus what I’m estimating to be about $750/year in water bills (I’ve only had two bills thus far). So in total, that makes it $1261/year for water and sewer only.
Oh, and our weather is basically similar to Davis, but generally 5-10 degrees cooler.
Cheers,
Curtis
p.s. I go by Maconi on this site (not Marconi) because that’s my middle name. Also, it’s not Macaroni.
[i]The San Ramon average household water/sewer rates will be about $700 a year next year, the City of Davis average household water/sewer rates will be about $1000 a year next year[/i]
I figured you continue to dig the hole you are in a little deeper.
The prices that that you are quoting for San Ramon clearly stated that the price was for users which used only 270 gallons per day. Matt posted a calculation that showed that a Davis resident that used a similar amount of water would actually pay less, not more. Did you misunderstand or disagree with the math, or would like to debate further about how much contra costa county residents need to irrigate or state that it is foggy sometimes in the summer in SF.
Further, for about the 4th time, maconi has posted evidence of what he pays for water and sewer, and it clearly shows that he is paying substantially more than davis residents pay.
I’m surprised this is so difficult to understand, unless of course, you aren’t really interested in facts that don’t support the argument you are trying to win.
[b]Adam Smith:[/b]
I am quoting the average household costs. Since most of the costs are fixed costs, if the average household use goes down, the costs will be only a little lower per household in San Ramon, and not lower at all in Davis. The biggest cost difference in San Ramon was wastewater, which is virtually all fixed cost.
By the way, if you want resort to childish, nasty put-downs, you should sign your name.
I don’t think apples have been compared to apples at all, as Curtis has shown. It is nearly impossible to directly compare Davis water/sewer/treatment/etc. rates to other communities. The provision of such services is divided up in ways that make direct comparisons difficult.
Sue has repeatedly said that Davis will have among the highest rates in the region, if not the state. I have had no reason to believe that, other than her assurances that she has called the various municipalities and made some calculations. As is often the case in these things, I don’t disbelieve what Sue did or what she was told. I just don’t think Sue has proven that the rates in Davis will, in fact, be that high compared to other areas. And we now have convincing evidence that is not true.
I also don’t think a five-year comparison is of much use. A twenty-five year comparison might be more apt. EBMUD made a major investment in the 1990’s to bring in Sacramento River water (they wanted American River water, but they couldn’t make that happen; the resulting lawsuit went on for decades). That infrastructure cost in today’s dollars would be quite high. They made an investment in future water supplies then. Solano County did the same in the 1960’s; it would be useful to know what the Solano project would cost in today’s dollars. Yolo County cities are just now getting around to developing that same long-term water supply. They made those investments. We decided to skate by pumping water out of the ground. How many other cities in California continue to rely on groundwater for all of their water supply?
Just in case any of you are interested, the City of Davis and UC Davis have a groundwater management plan. It entails mitigations for increased pumping. It isn’t that simple for Davis to go to the deep aquifer. UCD is already having to explain their mitigation of the possible effects of increased pumping on the deep aquifer. The City of Davis would have to increase pumping from that aquifer at levels that far exceed the current and planned use of the deep aquifer if the surface water project is delayed or scrapped.
I don’t believe the city would save that much money by postponing the surface water project. Wells are increasingly expensive, mitigation would be costly, wellhead treatment would be necessary, and we’d need a lot of them. 11 of our wells are at or near the end of their usual lifespan. Some wells end up having to be abandoned. Subsidence is taking its toll already. And we’d need the surface water project eventually anyway.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Adam Smith and Matt Williams: My post was very clear. I quoted the Sam Ramon Patch which official average household water and wastewater costs in San Roman for next year.
I then compared them to our staff information on Davis average household water and wastewater costs for next year.
The San Ramon average household water/sewer rates will be about $700 a year next year, the City of Davis average household water/sewer rates will be about $1000 a year next year.
And our huge water infra structure and water purchase costs increases have hardly begun.
This was a simple apples to apples comparison.”[/i]
Sue, you leave out one key component that makes the comparison not apples to apples. The average home in San Ramon uses less than half of the average water of the average Davis home.
Water Conservation is in full flower in San Ramon. Water Conservation is barely in bud in Davis.
The “redundant page gremlin” strikes again. What with all the excitement around here for the past few days (thanks to Dunning’s columns), I guess making sure the system works as it should is just too much to ask of the dedicated ‘programmers’.
“Passing the referendum doesn’t force the city council to do anything at all except cancel the rate hike.”
Here is the opinion of Davis Public Works director, Mr. Clark:
“In fact, the only reason that Mr. Clarke thinks that could constitute good cause [to grant a variance] is if the voters, through a referendum, vote down the rate hikes.”
The rate hike halts the project. It is inconceivable that the CC would not seek a variance if onerous penalties were anticipated.
correction : A referendum victory halts the rate hike and halts the project.
[i]By the way, if you want resort to childish, nasty put-downs, you should sign your name. [/i]
I apologize if I offended you, or anyone else who posts here. That wasn’t my intent, but I was trying to make a point that is different than whether water rates are higher or lower in San Ramon. I’ll try posit my very real concern in a more straightforward way, without any insinuations:
You’ve often posted your summary of the many off-the record conversations that you’ve had with various experts, regulatory officials and municipal officials, but the readers have not been privy to what was said in any of them. Last night, in the series of posts that maconi began, we were able to witness, first hand, your interpretation of facts offered by maconi, a resident and water/sewer professional from another water district. He offered clear evidence and records that San Ramon users pay a higher rate than Davis, and depending on usage, they would may pay a higher or lower bill. You processed that information, left out a very key issue (water usage) and reported that it meant something completely different than what the “expert” had told you.
That exchange, as a window into how you process and relate information, gives me great pause regarding your interpretation of the many other conversations about much more complex subjects that you’ve reported here.
Neutral said . . .
[i]”The “redundant page gremlin” strikes again. What with all the excitement around here for the past few days (thanks to Dunning’s columns), I guess making sure the system works as it should is just too much to ask of the dedicated ‘programmers’.”[/i]
You lost me Neutral. Would you care to restate your post?
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”The rate hike halts the project. It is inconceivable that the CC would not seek a variance if onerous penalties were anticipated.”[/i]
davisite, a variance for salinity is surely going to be pursued regardless, as Sue has regularly pointed out. However, salinity isn’t the most serious problem, selenium is, and there is no variance available or anticipated for selenium discharge in our wastewater.
Does that line up with your understanding?
Halting the rate hike does not halt the project. If you want to halt the project, you need to put that on the ballot. The voters are being asked to approve or reject the specific rate hike. Period. Any interpretation otherwise is wishful thinking.
There are voters who support the water project who will vote against this rate hike.
Adam, this is Davis. We use numerous techniques to stand an argument on its head. Simply disregarding an inconvenient fact is quite common. Shifting the argument midstream another. Reversing a historical sequence of events another. Inventing new arithmetic rules another. “Yes” means “no” and “no” means “yes”. We can make the sun rise in the west if we argue long enough. It’s all subjective don’t you know?
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
Don
This referundum is the vehicle to foment a rate payer revolt. On the wave of that bitterness, Harrington et al will slip in their initiative to completely kill the surface water project forever. We’ve yet to see the language of this initiative, but we know it is to specify water policy for the city. It’s the initiative that is the real prize for no growthers that are leading this present revolt.
Sue
Please, for my childrens sake, stop this nonsense. Look to other ways to save this generation of rate payers a buck other than burdening future generations with such imprudence. Please stop it with this plan to kick this can down the road.
[quote]So let me get this straight Elaine, the Enterprise is not going to print a correction if the Mayor calls them and presents them with factual evidence that their article was misleading? At the same time, Krovoza could have simply written a letter to the editor. Furthermore, I know for a fact he did not attempt to contact me to get the public record corrected – and that is something he has frequently did. Add it all together, I think we do know. The city is not responsible for what the Enterprise prints, they are for the communications getting out to the community.[/quote]
How do you know that Mayor Krovoza or the city is not going to submit an op-ed piece to correct the Davis Enterprise’s omissions? How do you know the Davis Enterprise will publish/print it? Again, I repeat, the Davis Enterprise controls what gets printed within it, NOT THE CITY. The blame lies squarely on the DAVIS ENTERPRISE for the omission, and even more so bc Bob Dunning has the audacity to point fingers elsewhere for clearly what was the Davis Enterprise’s mistake – and the Davis Enterprise has no problem with blame being placed elsewhere rather than on itself where it clearly belongs.
[quote]The window of opportunity is rapidly closing on pursuing the variance. I wish that council would give staff more support as they pursue regulatory flexibility. [/quote]
If the referendum succeeds, and the voters choose to NOT approve the water rate increases, the window of opportunity to pursue a variance will have rapidly opened wide. If that should occur, it will be interesting to see just how successful Davis will be in arguing “economic infeasibility” as Woodland chooses to go it alone…
To Matt Williams: To your Option 2 and 3 must be added the costs of any fines imposed if Davis cannot come into compliance…
Matt Williams: [i]You lost me Neutral. Would you care to restate your post? [/i]
Pages 3, 4, & 5 all contain the same comments.
[quote]Matt Williams: You lost me Neutral. Would you care to restate your post?
Pages 3, 4, & 5 all contain the same comments.[/quote]
Yes, a definite glitch in the system that needs to be fixed. I think this is the first time it has been this bad. Usually it only happens on occasion with a first and second page. This time it repeated information on every page all the way to page 6 repeating almost entire pages, not just the first few comments…
Neutral said . . .
[i]”Pages 3, 4, & 5 all contain the same comments.”[/i]
I follow now. Even without that technical glitch, the comments often do have repetitive content. Objectivity is often in short supply.
Matt Williams: [i]Even without that technical glitch, the comments often do have repetitive content.[/i]
Well put.
It is amazing the amount of erroneous information that gets shared. Its kind of like herding cats.
Meow !
[quote]If the referendum succeeds, and the voters choose to NOT approve the water rate increases, the window of opportunity to pursue a variance will have rapidly opened wide. If that should occur, it will be interesting to see just how successful Davis will be in arguing “economic infeasibility” as Woodland chooses to go it alone…[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, this statement shows that you don’t understand what the salinity variance process is, why it was put into place, or when the windows of opportunies are.
Sue, please explain to the people who read this blog why is the salinity variance meaningful . . . and how any salinity variance will be affected by the presence of selenium in our wastewater and settling ponds.
Matt, I have explained that over and over and over again to you on the Davis Vanguard.
Sue, you have yet to tell anyone how we will get our current non-compliance situation for selenium into compliance. Just so we are clear, currently we have in our discharge permit Selenium limitations of 4.4 ug/L average month and 7.1 ug/L max day. We have an interim limit of 7.1 ug/L max day that is in effect until 2015. We are required to meet the 4.4 ug/L now, but until 2015 our fine level has been set at $0.00 for being over 4.4 ug/L. Additionally, in the wetlands we are required to monitor avian eggs and soils for selenium accumulation and must create a plan to reduce selenium if the geometric mean avian egg concentration exceeds 4.0 ug/L.
Compare 4.4 ug/L to the selenium levels of our current wells as reported in the current Water Quality Report
Well#µg/L
11___34
7____27
23___27
19___19
EM3__19
15___11
22___11
26___11
21___10
33___
Sue, you have yet to tell anyone how we will get our current non-compliance situation for selenium into compliance. Just so we are clear, currently we have in our discharge permit Selenium limitations of 4.4 µg/L average month and 7.1 µg/L max day. We have an interim limit of 7.1 µg/L max day that is in effect until 2015. We are required to meet the 4.4 µg/L now, but until 2015 our fine level has been set at $0.00 for being over 4.4 µg/L. Additionally, in the wetlands we are required to monitor avian eggs and soils for selenium accumulation and must create a plan to reduce selenium if the geometric mean avian egg concentration exceeds 4.0 µg/L.
Compare 4.4 µg/L to the selenium levels of our current wells as reported in the current Water Quality Report
Well#_ µg/L
11___ 34
7____ 27
23___ 27
19___ 19
EM3__ 19
15___ 11
22___ 11
26___ 11
21___ 10
33___ less than 10
1____ 9.4
24___ 8.6
14___ 4.4
27___ 4.1
25___ 3.5
20___ less than 2.2
32___ less than 2.0
30___ less than 2.0
28___ less than 2.0
31___ less than 2.0
Bottom-line, we are significantly out of compliance, but the “pain” for being so is mitigated (until 2015) by our fine level exception of $0.00.
The five deep aquifer wells are in compliance, but that still leaves 12 intermediate aquifer wells with values that are between double and 9-times the 4.4 µg/L limit. The current fine level exception will go away in 2015, so my question to you still stands, [b][i]”Given our current salinity levels, why is the salinity variance meaningful . . . and how any salinity variance will be affected by the presence of selenium in our wastewater and settling ponds.”[/i][/b]
Feel free to duck the question one more time.
Don please remove the first (incomplete) post of mine above. It appears the system chokes on the presence of a less-than sign, so I spelled it out in the second posting. Thank you.
Matt
Along the lines of your questioning Sue about selenium, I read this interesting bit from page 6 of the city’s wastewater permit fact sheet.
“The Discharger has projected that a new tertiary treatment system could be completed as early as 2015 or as late as the end of 2018 for facilities to provide a tertiary (or equivalent) level of treatment and year-round nitrification/denitrification. The Discharger anticipates the new treatment system would be able to comply with priority pollutant water quality standards for all constituents except selenium. Removal of the overland flow system as part of the upgrade to tertiary would improve the effluent quality for most constituents, [u]but would likely cause an increase in effluent selenium.[/u] Achieving compliance with the CTR effluent selenium limitations would most likely require a change in the City’s water supply.”
If the plan is still to remove the overland flow process at the existing treatment plant, the planned upgrade will result in an increase in effluent selenium concentration. In effect, the wastewater treatment plant upgrade will make the selenium problem worse. The city’s stated solution to this is water supply.
[quote]Elaine, this statement shows that you don’t understand what the salinity variance process is, why it was put into place, or when the windows of opportunies are.[/quote]
Sue, you wanted the city to go after a variance for salinity, and the referendum has now given you the opportunity/opening to convince everyone to do so, so have at it… of course you will have to discuss the selenium problem, “economic infeasibility”, and a few other “minor” details like that…
Elaine
You left off your list the fact that there is no salinity variance policy. Its just a proposal. It requires first that a policy for salinity variance be drafted, and ultimately approved by EPA. What’s the probability of all of this proposal for a salinity variance program becoming actual policy, I don’t know. But understanding that there is no variance policy now is an important fact.
That was a barely coherent post. The JPA’s attorney responded when questioned about the variance proposal that she was very hopeful that it would develop into actual policy. What does an attorney mean when they say hopeful? Surely, there are forces opposed to seeing the Regional Water Board develop a policy of allowing continued pollution of surface water, so there is no guarantee that there will ever be a variance for the city to apply.
Don posted a link to the variance proposal some time ago. The Regional Board is looking for a means of harmonizing NPDES permit salinity limits with an overall Central Valley salt control strategy, CV-SALTS.
[quote]Elaine
You left off your list the fact that there is no salinity variance policy. Its just a proposal. It requires first that a policy for salinity variance be drafted, and ultimately approved by EPA. What’s the probability of all of this proposal for a salinity variance program becoming actual policy, I don’t know. But understanding that there is no variance policy now is an important fact.[/quote]
Excellent point…
A policy IS being crafted and cities ARE invited to take part in crafting the policy. A policy WILL BE put in place. It would be prudent for the city of Davis to seek maximum flexibility through this process since we don’t even know how much the two projects will cost yet; so far we just have rough estimates.
[quote]If the plan is still to remove the overland flow process at the existing treatment plant, the planned upgrade will result in an increase in effluent selenium concentration. In effect, the wastewater treatment plant upgrade will make the selenium problem worse. The city’s stated solution to this is water supply.—[b]Davis Enophile[/b][/quote]Actually, we don’t have a selenium problem now. Our selenium levels are currently well below the target levels. We have already anticipated that the new wastewater treatment plant will not be as efficient at reducing selenium as the existing one.
Our selenium levels of the waste going into the plant are now at about 5.6 ppb. We need to get them down to 4.4 ppb. With the current overland flow wastewater treatment plant, selenium is down to about 2.2ppb. The new plant will not remove as much of the selenium, but it probably will remove some. It doesn’t appear that we will need too much more dilution to reach the 4.4 ppb level. The already planned replacement of a few of the high selenium shallow wells with deep wells might even be enough to bring us to the 4.4 ppb.
People who are posting all those lists of high selenium counts are confusing the selenium in our various wells with the selenium of the waste flow going into the treatment plant and the waste flow that emerges on the other side.
Again, the selenium in the waste flow going into the plant is currently 5.6 ppb. While it will not be reduced down to the current 2.2 ppb by the new wastewater treatment plant, it probably will be lower than the 5.6 going in.
[quote]If the plan is still to remove the overland flow process at the existing treatment plant, the planned upgrade will result in an increase in effluent selenium concentration. In effect, the wastewater treatment plant upgrade will make the selenium problem worse. The city’s stated solution to this is water supply.—[b]Davis Enophile[/b][/quote]Actually, we don’t have a selenium problem now. Our selenium levels are currently well below the target levels. We have already anticipated that the new wastewater treatment plant will not be as efficient at reducing selenium as the existing one.
Our selenium levels of the waste going into the plant are now at about 5.6 ppb. We need to get them down to 4.4 ppb. With the current overland flow wastewater treatment plant, selenium is down to about 2.2ppb. The new plant will not remove as much of the selenium, but it probably will remove some. It doesn’t appear that we will need too much more dilution to reach the 4.4 ppb level. The already planned replacement of a few of the high selenium shallow wells with deep wells might even be enough to bring us to the 4.4 ppb.
People who are posting all those lists of high selenium counts are confusing the selenium in our various wells with the selenium of the waste flow going into the treatment plant and the waste flow that emerges on the other side.
Again, the selenium in the waste flow going into the plant is currently 5.6 ppb. While it will not be reduced down to the current 2.2 ppb by the new wastewater treatment plant, it probably will be lower than the 5.6 going in.