A remarkable thing happened Thursday on one of the more polarizing issues facing the City of Davis in recent years – the water supply project and the water rate hikes. In the face of the proposal by Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson and Councilmember Dan Wolk, there was relative calm.
Michael Harrington initially indicated to the Vanguard that he needed to take the proposal back to the group to examine, while he told the Enterprise that the referendum backers were not opposed to the motion. This was a major coup for the backers of this motion.
This was part of the goal of the proposal, to take a step back and simply evaluate the project and see if we can move forward in a manner that is more likely to foster cooperation instead of acrimony.
Councilmember Dan Wolk said on Wednesday, “As someone who has tirelessly worked to find a middle ground on this issue, I have been very disheartened by the divisive and acerbic nature of the debate surrounding it.”
One of the goals for the early release of this proposal was to generate a discussion on the issue. The Vanguard purposefully decided not to talk to colleagues in advance of this release. For one thing, there are concerns about Brown Act violations.
However, the Enterprise did talk to both Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Sue Greenwald.
In a statement to the Enterprise, Mayor Krovoza said: “The council certainly appreciates that the community isn’t as comfortable with the rates for a more sustainable water supply as the council was in September. The referendum receiving enough signatures to qualify demonstrates the community hesitation very clearly. That level of concern needs to be paramount and addressed as the council acts next Tuesday night.”
In a comment on the Vanguard, Sue Greenwald noted, “I am not opposed to the project. I think that the financial burden of proceeding with about $300 million worth of water-related capital improvement projects simultaneously is an extraordinarily high fiscal burden for a city of only 65,000 and that it would probably be wiser to phase the projects in. I am not opposed to the project at all.”
She added, “Far from it. If we didn’t have to build a new $100 million wastewater treatment plant now, I would be in favor of proceeding. My only concern is total debt burden per household.”
Two comments highlight the still volatile nature of the project.
One referenced Mayor Pro Tem Swanson’s comment: “It was clear then, by the number of protests, that the community was requesting more information regarding an increase.”
And it noted, “Because of trouble-makers spreading lies and enflaming uninformed voters, we have to take the time to calm everybody down so we can go forward with the surface water project without so many political consequences.”
Another comment responded, “Because we tried to cram this project through without really looking at all the alternatives and also with the unclear rate raises we tried to introduce we now have to take the time to calm everybody down so we can go forward with the surface water project without so many political consequences.”
A third person added, “I think you both make points well worth thinking about.”
That divide is the bottom line as to why this proposal or something like it makes a good deal of sense.
The Vanguard in this debate has taken on the role of a watch dog, questioning every aspect of the project. We believe that this project was ironically rushed through and mistakes were made along the way. A lot of these mistakes resulted from mistakes made by the previous council, as well as mistakes by inexperience on the part of the current council and staff.
It is well noted that the council never ramped up rates in advance of the water project, as it did for the sewer project.
What is less well understood is that the council failed to do a rate study, which is apparently commonplace to such projects. The rate study would help the council set more idealized rates, studying the impact of those rates on both the ratepayer and the economy.
Absent a rate study, the council and city have been almost flailing about. The original rate increases were 28% over five years, a number that alarmed many and forced the city to re-examine itself number. They then came in with a 14% rate.
The problem with that rate is that it was not a true number, but rather a number based on an assumption about water conservation. That was a huge political error by the council because it made it seem like the numbers and true impact were being hidden.
The fact of the matter is, we need to have experts look at the rate structure, figure out what the tiers should be, what the impact will be, and how to lessen the impact on people with both fixed and low incomes.
The motion by Mayor Pro Tem Swanson and Councilmember Wolk for the first time recognizes that the current rates are not ideal and they believe we can do better.
A big and important portion of this is the belief, by both now, that we have the time to do this without substantially ramping up the costs. That has been one of the huge fears that has pushed this project forward.
At the same time, both Councilmembers recognize that there was a mistake made in pushing the project forward in the face of 4800 Prop 218 protests. They had attempted to address the issue at that time through Mr. Wolk’s motion from September 6. But they did not have three votes to do it.
That failure to gather three voters inspired the referendum effort. It is remarkable that Michael Harrington has suggested that he and others find the proposed motion acceptable even without a public vote on the referendum – which becomes a moot point with the rescission of the rate increases.
Some can blame scare tactics and deceitful arguments, but I think it is more basic than that. The opposition was based strictly on the high rate increases at a time when everyone’s pocketbook is being pressed.
Going forward, this offers a chance to reexamine the rates. In the Vanguard’s meeting with the city, both Bob Clarke and Paul Navazio admitted that they did not know if these were the ideal rates. In fact, it is unclear where the rates came from. Much was made about the 20% conservation assumption, but a better approach would be a chart that shows water bills at current usage and at 20% rate increases.
Two additional steps that we believe should be contemplated. First, given that 55% of residents are rent payers, we need to meter rental units’ water usage and allow renters to participate in future water debates.
Second, we believe the JPA could use some change at this time. It is now fairly clear that the two representatives on the JPA – Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza – are probably the strongest proponents for the current plan. It is clear that Councilmembers Swanson and Wolk are somewhere in the middle, and that Sue Greenwald is on the other side.
It would seem reasonable that one of the two members be replaced by Councilmember Swanson or Wolk, to give a new perspective and better reflect the city’s views on water.
The motion is obviously not the end of the story, as they need a third vote and there are a number of revisions likely to occur. But this represents the best chance the city has to move forward, minimizing a polarizing vote on water, and allowing the city to focus on other critical issues, most notably the budget and compensation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
I agree with almost everything in this article. I do have to take one exception based on his own statements. You stated “Some can blame scare tactics and deceitful arguments, but I think it is more basic than that. The opposition was based strictly on the high rate increases at a time when everyone’s pocketbook is being pressed.” This might be true for some backers of the referendum. But Michael Harrington has stated outright that his purpose is to stop the surface water project. I think that is more than concern about the timeliness of rate increases.
[quote]A big and important portion of this is the belief, by both now, that we have the time to do this without substantially ramping up the costs. That has been one of the huge fears that has pushed this project forward.[/quote]
The irony here is that Swanson and Wolk are advocating “kicking the can down the road” for another 9 months. Yet critics of the surface water project (including the Vanguard) have lambasted city staff/prior city council for doing just that – “kicking the can down the road”. So should this compromise proposed by Swanson and Wolk be approved, that does in fact “kick the can down the road” another 9 months, it would be highly inappropriate for opponents of the surface water project to make complaints any longer of “kicking the can down the road” (including the Vanguard)… Proponents of the project, however, may complain about “kicking the can down the road” to their hearts content, and with much justification… LOL
[quote]Second, we believe the JPA could use some change at this time. It is now fairly clear that the two representatives on the JPA – Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza – are probably the strongest proponents for the current plan. It is clear that Councilmembers Swanson and Wolk are somewhere in the middle, and that Sue Greenwald is on the other side.[/quote]
Perhaps the reason Krovoza and Souza are in favor of the project is because they have done more research, and are more closely attuned to this project, so honestly believe it is the best choice. What if it turns out these two are exactly right? Would the Vanguard call for their ouster with that sort of hindsight? It also appears as if the Vanguard is calling for the ouster of either Souza or Krovoza just because the Vanguard does not agree with their positions and wants the deck stacked in favor of the Vanguard’s position. Sounds a lot like the Queen of Hearts in Alice and Wonderland – “off with their heads”! Why does the Vanguard get to decide who goes and who stays? The Vanguard (that was not elected by the people by the way) does not necessarily speak for the majority of citizens of Davis on this issue…
Secondly, there is a water advisory committee that has been set up, that will take a very close look at the entire project and its economic implications. Opponents/doubters of the project are on that committee. People are going to look to/expect the water advisory committee to make some very objective realistic recommendations based on thorough discussion/research.
But please note, the “studies” that opponents are clamoring for will most definitely add costs to the surface water project/wastewater treatment plant upgrade. As Jeff Boone noted yesterday, a decision to not make a decision is also a decision, and it has ramifications too…
Personally, I have not made up my mind on the Swanson/Wolk suggestion. I have to think long and hard about it. But I applaud any effort at toning down the nasty rhetoric that has been ginned up out of all proportion to any reasoned discussion of the issues…
[quote]But Michael Harrington has stated outright that his purpose is to stop the surface water project. I think that is more than concern about the timeliness of rate increases.[/quote]
Excellent point!
Medwoman: Part of the problem here is that while Michael Harrington speaks, I never felt like he spoke for the majority of the people signing the petition. That’s not a shot at him and he would probably admit it himself. Mr. Harrington was simply one of a few people who organized the effort.
Perhaps the reason Krovoza and Souza are in favor of the project is because they have done more research, and are more closely attuned to this project, so honestly believe it is the best choice.
Also a very good point. I am not sure what, if any special knowledge or expertise Souza brings to this issue, however Krovoza does have extensive knowledge of water issues long preceding his election as mayor and so brings that expertise to the table.
Elaine:
I really disagree with this strongly:
“The irony here is that Swanson and Wolk are advocating “kicking the can down the road” for another 9 months. Yet critics of the surface water project (including the Vanguard) have lambasted city staff/prior city council for doing just that – “kicking the can down the road”.”
I see no parallel here. What Swanson/ Wolk are doing is taking a step back because proper planning was not done. If the Vanguard has criticized prior council/ staff it has been because they have displaced responsibility by putting the onus on future councils to make the tough choices.
“Perhaps the reason Krovoza and Souza are in favor of the project is because they have done more research, and are more closely attuned to this project, so honestly believe it is the best choice. “
That is a possibility. But by allowing fresh eyes to examine it, it might avoid the other possibility which is that they became married to their own work and could not view it from a vantage point of disinterest.
“What if it turns out these two are exactly right? “
Then that should be borne out in the next nine months, but I already know that they are acknowledging some mistakes , not with the core project but in terms of rate structure.
“Would the Vanguard call for their ouster with that sort of hindsight?”
It is not an outster it is having someone else look at it.
“Why does the Vanguard get to decide who goes and who stays? “
The Vanguard can say whatever it wants, it has no power to decide who goes and stays. No offense but that is just a nonsensical argument. Nowhere did the Vanguard claim to have the authority to carry out its suggestions.
“But please note, the “studies” that opponents are clamoring for will most definitely add costs to the surface water project/wastewater treatment plant upgrade. “
But you’re talking about adding cents on the dollar. Tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands are less than a few cents compared to a $155 million project.
[quote]It is not an outster it is having someone else look at it. [/quote]
YOUR WORDS:
[quote]It would seem reasonable that one of the two members be replaced by Councilmember Swanson or Wolk, to give a new perspective and better reflect the city’s views on water.[/quote]
You are asking that one member on the JPA be ousted in favor of someone more inclined to favor YOUR VIEW…
[quote]I see no parallel here. What Swanson/ Wolk are doing is taking a step back because proper planning was not done. If the Vanguard has criticized prior council/ staff it has been because they have displaced responsibility by putting the onus on future councils to make the tough choices. [/quote]
Make no mistake – delaying 9 more months is “kicking the can down the road” 9 more months… so I don’t feel it would be appropriate for the Vanguard or any other opponent to tar Swanson/Wolk/city staff with the a complaint of “kicking the can down the road” later on… since “kicking the can down the road” is what the Vanguard is advocating for…
[quote]The Vanguard can say whatever it wants, it has no power to decide who goes and stays. No offense but that is just a nonsensical argument. Nowhere did the Vanguard claim to have the authority to carry out its suggestions. [/quote]
With all due respect, and I do not mean what I am about to say as harsh, but the Vanguard is calling for the “replacement” of a Davis member of the JPA… just as in the past the Vanguard has called for the ouster of various staff members or whoever does not happen to agree with the Vanguard. Personally I have never agreed with those sorts of draconian judgment calls. I would much prefer a statement of opinion as to the person’s actions, then let the chips fall where they may. Only in extreme circumstances would I call for anyone’s ouster. Now that is my personal opinion, and you are certainly entitled to feel differently, as obviously you do. But I just do not feel perfect enough myself to sit in judgment on others employment/appointments unless actions are so extreme to warrant such censure…
David
Mr. Harrington was simply one of a few people who organized the effort.
True, but incomplete. Mr. Harrington was the voice of the referendum on this blog and in the Enterprise. If he did not speak for other backers of the referendum, they certainly had the opportunity to put forward their own posts. They had the opportunity to state their own fact or information backed opinions and chose not to do so. For those of us who have not followed this issue for years as Elaine, Sue Greenwald and Don Shor have done, what is most valuable, is a non emotional, non accusatory, and certainly non vitriolic statement of the facts and reasoned arguments both for and against both the project and proposed rates. What is not useful are inflammatory comments, name calling, and innuendo which is essentially all that Mr. Harrington ( and by the way, some of the signature gatherers with whom I had direct conversations) have been putting forth. I feel that their silence implies at least tacit support of these tactics by other referendum supporters.
“Make no mistake – delaying 9 more months is “kicking the can down the road” 9 more months… so I don’t feel it would be appropriate for the Vanguard or any other opponent to tar Swanson/Wolk/city staff with the a complaint of “kicking the can down the road” later on… since “kicking the can down the road” is what the Vanguard is advocating for…”
Show me specific examples within context when the Vanguard has used this term on this subject.
“but the Vanguard is calling for the “replacement” of a Davis member of the JPA.”
You are twisting words and choosing to see this as an outster, where the Vanguard is suggesting and said as much that it was time for a different perspective and someone closer to the center of the council’s view on water. I fail to see the problem with such a suggestion.
Elaine
” Only in extreme circumstances would I call for anyone’s ouster. Now that is my personal opinion, and you are certainly entitled to feel differently, as obviously you do. But I just do not feel perfect enough myself to sit in judgment on others employment/appointments unless actions are so extreme to warrant such censure…”
I realize, as you clearly do, that where to draw the line on what constitutes cause for ouster is a matter of opinion. I agree with you that ouster should be reserved for extreme circumstances, such as incompetence or acting illegally, and then only after full investigation and agreement on the circumstances. In our community we are currently seeing another very dramatic example of this difference of opinion about the appropriateness of a ” rush to judgement” in the calls for the resignation and or firing of Lt. Pike, the police chief and the chancellor prior to a full independent investigation. While I realize that ” innocent until proven guilty” applies only to our justice system, I cannot help but feel that we would accomplish much more in our society both as individuals and as a whole if we would apply this principle to all interactions. Think what we could accomplish if we were to stop the name calling and finger pointing, accept that those who disagree with us may be acting according to their own carefully considered principles and beliefs and not some nefarious hidden agenda and collaborate to find a path forward that is acceptable, if not the first choice, for all.
medwoman: You guys are using the term ouster here as though it were punitive. I think sometimes the members of a board need to shuffle to get different perspectives. I don’t think either member of the JPA did anything that warrants their removal, however, I think the city would benefit if Swanson or Wolk would replace one of the members.
[quote] I feel that their silence implies at least tacit support of these tactics by other referendum supporters. [/quote]
This is an important observation. I was actually contacted by referendum supporters privately, who complained about some of my comments as “misinformed”. I directed them to put their complaints on the blog, and refute any of my statements. They never did so by recognizable name. I respect the right to disagree on an issue, but the name calling and incendiary rhetoric is highly inappropriate and does not contribute to a reasoned discussion. But my guess is that some opponents were perfectly willing to allow such tactics bc it supported/fed their cause, but it has resulted in much acrimony/divide within the community that is not healthy/good.
In counter balance, I have been participating in the transportation group (TAG), which has people with many different and strong views. Yet we have been able to come to agreement/compromise beautifully on some very controversial issues. And I believe that is because we are all committed to carrying on a civil discussion for the benefit of the community, and are not so wedded to our positions that we are unwilling to compromise one iota on anything. Polarization at all costs is neither productive nor particularly useful.
Elaine
“. Opponents/doubters of the project are on that committee”
Your words. My question. Who would you characterize this way?
David
I think you are choosing to split hairs, either deliberately or inadvertently, with regard to word choice.
1) Whether you choose the word ” ouster” or you choose the word ” replace” the result is the same. You are advocating for a CC member in agreement with your position taking the place of one with whom you disagree. I probably should not speak for Elaine, but I believe that this is what she was pointing out, and if I am correct, I am in agreement with her position. The question I would ask you, with no disrespect intended, is would you advocate for ” reshuffling” at this particular point in time if both representatives agreed with you ?
2) ” Kicking the can down the road” ( an expression that I dislike so much that you will never see me use it), delaying, deferring, considering at a later date, all have the same real world impact. So while you may never have come out and said you favor ” kicking the can down the road” that would indeed be the effect of the actions you have actively promoted repeatedly.
[quote]medwoman: You guys are using the term ouster here as though it were punitive. I think sometimes the members of a board need to shuffle to get different perspectives. I don’t think either member of the JPA did anything that warrants their removal, however, I think the city would benefit if Swanson or Wolk would replace one of the members.[/quote]
From Merriam Webster Dictionary:
[quote]Definition of OUSTER
1
a : a wrongful dispossession
b : a judgment removing an officer or depriving a corporation of a franchise
Definition of REPLACEMENT
1
: the action or process of replacing : the state of being replaced
2
: one that replaces another especially in a job or function[/quote]
If they have done nothing wrong, then why should they be replaced/ousted by others who more closely align themselves with a differing view? Isn’t that “punishing” one or the other of the two for holding a particular viewpoint, “punishing” them for exercising their own independent judgment?
[quote]While I realize that ” innocent until proven guilty” applies only to our justice system, I cannot help but feel that we would accomplish much more in our society both as individuals and as a whole if we would apply this principle to all interactions. Think what we could accomplish if we were to stop the name calling and finger pointing, accept that those who disagree with us may be acting according to their own carefully considered principles and beliefs and not some nefarious hidden agenda and collaborate to find a path forward that is acceptable, if not the first choice, for all.[/quote]
Nicely said!
Medwoman:
On the first point, I would point out that neither Wolk nor Swanson really agree with my position on water. I would also point out there are problems with the way the process has gone forward, I think both members of the JPA would admit that. As such I think we need a different perspective on there.
On the second point, I don’t think I have accused any one of kicking the can down the road, certainly not in the manner that is being suggested here on this issue. What I have argued is that the last council did not build in rates which is a problem. I think the current council is not kicking the can down the road, so much as making sure we are doing the right thing in the right way. I don’t think the rates were set properly and we need to do a rate study. Really we cannot go forward until that is done.
Elaine: I have stated my position and explained it, I think you twisting my words to imply something punitive that is not.
[quote]Show me specific examples within context when the Vanguard has used this term on this subject.[/quote]
Your words:
[quote]If the Vanguard has criticized prior council/ staff it has been because they have displaced responsibility by putting the onus on future councils to make the tough choices. [/quote]
Here and elsewhere you are/have been critical of prior council/staff for putting off making the tough choices/raising the rates…
[quote]Elaine: I have stated my position and explained it, I think you twisting my words to imply something punitive that is not.[/quote]
Ah, but you didn’t answer my questions:
[quote]If they have done nothing wrong, then why should they be replaced/ousted by others who more closely align themselves with a differing view? Isn’t that “punishing” one or the other of the two for holding a particular viewpoint, “punishing” them for exercising their own independent judgment?[/quote]
To “replace” (oust) one of them is going to feel like/appear to be “punishment” for exercising their own independent judgment. I don’t see how you can get around that…
Would you be calling for an ouster if you agreed with their position? I think not. I would not call for their ouster even if I disagreed with their position… bc they have done nothing wrong in exercising their independent judgment…
We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this one…
David
Fair enough as far as it goes. But I feel that you ducked my question. Whether or not mistakes were made ( they always will be since we are all human) would you be calling for a “fresh perspective” if both of the board members happened to share your perspective ?
I might, it would depend on the circumstances. Right now I see a gap between the representatives on the JPA and the rest of the council and perhaps the community, I think the whole process would benefit from changes. I have also suggested that we might consider bringing back Bob Weir, part time to help run this process. That is not meant as a shot at Bob Clarke, it just a matter of changing the mix and maybe getting some different perspectives in there. Much as a late inning relief appearance to get a better match up is not necessarily meant to imply that the previous pitcher had failed.
Medwoman: Under the present condition, it’s possible. I don’t think the JPA members have necessarily done anything “wrong” but I do think the process going forward has been filled with mistakes and I hope a fresh set of eyes might help that. Would I if I agreed with both members – perhaps not. I don’t know, it would depend on the circumstances.
[quote]ERM: “. Opponents/doubters of the project are on that committee”
SODA: Your words. My question. Who would you characterize this way?[/quote]
Opponents: Don’t want to name names, as I believe all will come with an open mind. However, I suspect at least three are currently in the opponents camp for sure.
Doubters: Most of the group. You would have to be crazy not to have at least some doubts about this project. I have MANY…
[i]”It would seem reasonable that one of the two members be replaced by Councilmember Swanson or Wolk, to give a new perspective and better reflect the city’s views on water.”[/i]
That is not a bad idea. It does seem to me, though, that the DWCWA would benefit more from having Sue Greenwald’s input. Despite being excluded from this committee by the last two councils, she has worked hard to inform herself and inform the public on our water and our wastewater issues. Sue would bring a different perspective from all of the others on the JPA, a perspective which has not heretofor been on that board.
[quote]To “replace” (oust) one of them is going to feel like/appear to be “punishment” for exercising their own independent judgment. I don’t see how you can get around that…
– ERM[/quote]
The Davis City Council has a very robust history of ousting or withholding committee appointments and liaisons for political reasons and/or personal animosity. Consider how the two previous Councils treated Sue Greenwald. Although clearly qualified, she was stripped of or denied key liaison and committee positions by the Council majority for reasons that could certainly be interpreted as “punishment” for disagreeing with them on a variety of issues.
Reassigning the City JPA members in recognition of the current members’ advocacy for a course of action that has been misrepresented (e.g., the “14%” myth) and that many in the community feel has not been appropriately planned or studied, would be far less petty than the reasons that have been used historically by the Council majority for replacing committee members, liaisons, or regional boards such as the JPA.
IMO, Davis would be better represented on the JPA by either Sue and Rochelle or Sue and Dan. Either pair would provide a more balanced perspective, presented by representatives who are likely to consider all alternatives and schedules.
I see no reason for [i]this [/i]council to change the appointment. If the [i]next[/i] council wishes to do so, that would be their prerogative.
I agree with Rifkin and Suder, Sue Greenwald should hold a position on the JPA.
I dont think the JPA has long to continue. We are putting into our water program initiative for the June 2012 ballot a requirement that the Davis city water supply system be 100% owned and maintained by the City, by City employees. We do not want Woodland politicians messing around with our water system anymore.
We are going to ask the CC to immediately halt funding for the JPA, pending review of the water project and how to proceed.
BTW, I am supporting the immediate repeal of the September 6 rate hike ordinance, and I am supporting the CC automatically putting to a ballot vote any future large project or big rate increases. Many who signed the referendum specifically told us that they had not made up ther mind as to HOW to vote on the project or rates, but that they wanted to vote. Everyone will get their chance to vote if the CC comes back with another big project or rate increase. The referendum leadership respect and honor that desire to have a citywide vote.
David Greenwald
I appreciate the honesty of your answers to me questions and willingness to stick with me through some very pointed questions. Integrity is always appreciated.
David Suder
I also appreciate your points and opinion, but do not believe that previous perhaps more egregious politically based decisions on the part of the CC justify a milder attempt at the same type of political maneuvering now. Unless one of the current members of the JPA wants to step down, or can be shown to be incompetent or in malfeasance, then I would say that the community members already spoke when we elected them and should step back and let them do their job. And I say this as someone whose preference would have been to have Sue Geenwald and Joe Krovoza as our representatives, I did not get my “dream team” but fully acknowledge that Souza may be as knowledgeable , fair, and thoughtful and I simply am not aware of it because I know less about him. I feel this should not be about my personal preference., but about what is best for the community and unless someone can show me an objective reason, not their personal opinion, a out why we sould change, I will continue to hold that opinion that we should leave the current members in place.
The two JPA members from Davis are admittedly at odds with the large number of 218 protesters and referendum signers. As we go forward in whatever manner we go forward with this huge project it would seem prudent to have a more balanced duo represent ALL views of our electorate. That is not being punitive, etc and I would think both might be offering that. What am I missing??
@ SODA: I don’t know who could represent the viewpoint that the JPA should be dismantled, which is the stated position of the leadership of the referendum.
Don….I am not saying the representation should favor the dismantling of the JPA; certainly not all referendum signers felt that way when they signed HOWEVER many if not most wanted a slower, more deliberate review of the options including DBO, rates, etc. The current two reps are naturally pro on the work of the JPA and all that has gone on so I am just saying, given the number of folks who now have in many cases twice expressed themselves (218 + referendum) that new rep might be in order. You don’t agree with that reasoning?
Wolk’s and Swanson’s proposals go far beyond addressing the rates. The public/private issue, funding, pursuing a variance, are just a few of the issues that they included. If this is truly what they are advocating, rather than a political gambit to get past the June Council elections, it will take far longer than the 9 months that they are suggesting to really deconstruct this project and analyze and improve all of its component parts. As for replacing a Davis Council member on the JPA, Councilperson Souza, along with Don Saylor, were the architects of this project that now has been found seriously flawed. This, in addition to the fact that Souza’s public record demonstrates that his advocacy for major projects(Covell Village) as well as other Council initiatives that he attempted to launch, have been rejected by Davis voters suggests that his effectiveness on the Council probably is such that his most valuable contribution would be to declare that he would not be running for reelection and therefore would surrender his seat on the JPA now.
Soda
I cannot speak for Don, but I do not agree with that reasoning. From my point of view, as stated previously, we have already voted twice on this issue. Once when we elected the current CC members to represent us and again through the 218 process. What I see are Harrinton and others, in complete disregard for the above electoral processes, basically stating that they intend to throw up road block after road block until they have killed the surface water project. Now I am sure that not all signers of the referendum share that goal. But all signers of the referendum should have been aware that that was the stated goal of the most vocal proponent of the referendum.
So where does this kind of disregard of previous electoral outcomes stop ? Should we initiate a referendum, or threaten lawsuits every time an issue is not decided as we like? This kind of thinking extended to its logical conclusion can only lead to complete gridlock with nothing constructive being achieved.
@ SODA: the referendum has to do with the rates. The rates were set by the council, not the JPA. You can read the agendas and minutes of the JPA here: [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/board/agendas[/url]
I believe that Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza ably represent the City of Davis on the JPA, and see no point in changing representation at this time.
What fraction of the registered voters in Davis, or if you prefer, the number of voters who voted in the last municipal election, is represented by the valid referendum signatures? A majority? If not, how can anyone say that the referendum signers represent the opinion of the majority of the electorate?
Mike Harrington
“The referendum leadership respect and honor that right to have a citywide vote.”
And will you then respect the results of the election if they are against your stated position, or will you just continue to create obstacles to the demonstrated will of the voters ?
To Medwoman, ERM and other supporters of the surface water project: I dont get your acceptance of what the current CC and water staff have been feeding you: the same water consultants, attorneys, and City water staff who gave us false rates that did not conform to what they told the public, are the same ones who set up the “need” for this project, and who are set up to enrich themselves to the tune of millions of dollars from the DBO process. The entire process was set up with glaring conflicts of interest. Since we KNOW the rate structure was false, why do you as non-technical experts blindly accept the stated justification for the need for the project, or that it has to be done the way they did it, etc etc.? Why not relax, demand an independent study of the ground water supply system, and wait to see how it turns out? I’m not saying heck no to a surface water system, or partial system. I am saying that alternatives were never explored by non-conflicted experts.
What I am saying is that only a Davis owned system, whatever it is, operated by Davis W-2 employees, can be fully accountable to the political leadership in Davis, and the voters and ratepayers.
So whatever happens with our system, there is no place for the JPA, or Woodland politicians projecting their own political and financial aspirations for Eastern Yolo County urban development sprawl, into the calculus for a Davis water system. I am sorry for those people who invested their careers into the JPA, that I am nearly certain that the Davis voters will not tolerate the current situation much longer. The JPA system was just about ready to give us United Water, an indicted company that stands accused by the federal government of falsifying e-coli testing records for an Indiana city whose residents were either drinking e-coli clouded water, or chlorine-laced water, depending on the day of the month that the water went through the plant.
I gave these documents to the CC and water staff BEFORE the September 6 CC meeting, and I did not get one comment, not one, from Mr. JPA Chair Steve Souza or anyone else.
Also, the JPA was brief about UW a long time ago; I have a file-stamped copy of the letter that was delivered to the City, and JPA Souza, informing them of the UW issues, and nothing was done to take UW out of the bid pool.
So no, we are going to make sure that this type of negative JPA system is ended, either by the current CC, or on the ballot in June when JPA Chair Souza appears on the same ballot.
Don’t be so naive.
The “9 month study period” to be brought up by Swanson and Wolk at an early December meeting allows the two sitting members, Wolk and Souza, up for election and reelection in June(6 months) to take no campaign position other than they are awaiting the results of the studies. 9 months? … It usually takes at least 2 years for Davis city staff, Council and citizen committees to analyze the complexities of a proposed residential development. The 9 month study period is very suspect and suggests that this proposal is a political gambit to neutralize the approved citizen-initiated referendum and potential initiative now and get back to business as usual in September.
[quote]What fraction of the registered voters in Davis, or if you prefer, the number of voters who voted in the last municipal election, is represented by the valid referendum signatures? A majority? If not, how can anyone say that the referendum signers represent the opinion of the majority of the electorate?[/quote]
Excellent point!
[quote]The 9 month study period is very suspect and suggests that this proposal is a political gambit to neutralize the approved citizen-initiated referendum and potential initiative now and get back to business as usual in September.[/quote]
Swanson is not up for reelection…
To Mike Harrington: If you don’t trust city staff, then why would you want them to operate a surface water project? You cannot have it both ways: you do not trust them; but you trust them enough to operate the project…
[quote]We are putting into our water program initiative…[/quote]
Mr. Harrington, just out of curiosity, who is the “we”?
Mike Harrington
As I have previously posted, I have not followed the water issue as closely as many others and so would still consider myself , not as a supporter of the surface watereoject as you are stating, but rather, still in the information gathering stage. There has been a lot of information put forward by others on both sides of this issue, notably Sue Greenwald. Don .shor, Elaine Roberts Musser to name three, and there have been others. When you began posting, I had high hopes of hearing both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, you have shown no interest at all in thoughtful consideration of the issues. You have chosen to focus your posts on demonizing anyone whose opinions differ from yours, name calling and threats. I am not so naive as to accept the water project without question, and I am certainly not naive enough to believe someone who uses your tactics.
“What fraction of the registered voters in Davis, or if you prefer, the number of voters who voted in the last municipal election, is represented by the valid referendum signatures? A majority? If not, how can anyone say that the referendum signers represent the opinion of the majority of the electorate?”
I think the council knows how the majority of the voters feel about the rate hikes. Why do you think they are now backstepping and not just putting the referendum to a vote?
rusty49
Maybe because they know from Mike Harringtons repeated statements that regardless of the outcome of a referendum his intent would be to continue to hound with legal maneuvers until he has gotten his way, which admittedly, is probably not the intent of many of the signers of the petition but I doubt he cares one bit about the ” will of the voters” unless it matches his.
Mike, I am still listening for your response to some very specific questions I addressed to you or for any fact or information based discussion you would care to share.
And Rusty, since you seem to agree with Mike, maybe you would like to weigh in on those questions as well.
[quote]I think the council knows how the majority of the voters feel about the rate hikes. Why do you think they are now backstepping and not just putting the referendum to a vote?[/quote]
How do the majority of voters feel in your opinion? How do you know? I certainly don’t feel I know…
I just dont get the personal attacks on me, over and over. Have I said one word in a personal and negative way against the opposition (ie, the lovers of the false and fraudulent rates that came within a few signatures of becoming law) who blog here? No.
What I do point out it how the CC majority supported the bid by United Water, etc. And the false rates. And the $300K for a PR firm to sell these false rates. And that there was not a water rate study. And there was not a ground water study of our system. Etc etc etc.
And the moderator on this Blog leaves up the hatred and negativity against me, but God forbid if I said something really nasty against another known attorney on here, Elaine or ERM.
But you know, it’s all OK. Some people hated me for using my 2000 campaign to walk and knock every door with Measure J literature; they hated me for being the swing vote to take Covell Village out of the 2010 General Plan’s allowed urban development; they hated me and the other No on X leadership in Nov 2005; Now it’s the sacred cow called the surface water plant and its false premises and fraudulent rate structure.
Keep it up; the more shrill all of you are, the more you demonstrate to all readership that my and the referendum leadership’s shots are hitting the mark. Why do you think that nearly 5000 people signed those Prop 218 protests, and the referendum petitions?
Michael Harrington
I think you are confusing hatred and negativity with desire for honest communication and information. It is your tactics, not yourself that I find objectionable. I have repeatedly asked you to post information, not just restatements of your opinion, of why you feel there should not be a cooperative project between Woodland and Davis, why you would entrust completing and running a project to city leaders and staff when you have repeatedly said that you do not trust them to choose and establish funding for the project, why you would trust voters in a referendum when you clearly do not trust the judgements they have already made, and how you would address our water issues and funding problems.
You have not chosen to respond to any of these questions. If you did not have time to address them, I would fully understand. However, you seem to have time to post derogatory posts with unsubstantiated accusations of bullying, lying and fraud.
If anyone else, say Elaine or Sue Greenwald or Don Shor or Rich Rifkin had used the tactics you choose, I would have had the same questions for them. They haven’t. That is the sole reason that I have singled you out for these questions, not because anything you are doing is “hitting the mark”.
It’s been my observation on this blog that most of the personal attacks have come from posters here who support the water project.
rusty49
Do you equate requests for information and requests to stop the vitriolic comments in Mr. Harrington’s posts, ” lying, bullying, fraudulent” being a few of the terms be has used, with personal attack? If so, I would stand guilty for I have certainly asked questions and requested an end to these tactics.
Medwoman, my post wasn’t directed at you. You are always civil with your comments. There are others who haven’t been though.
Medwoman: why would you believe anything they tell you, when they tried to lift + $200 m out of your wallet? I dont have to justify anything else. If you think you should have paid those false rates starting Dec 1 as the CC planned for you to do, I have some great real estate to sell you slightly west of the Malibu Beach.
Medwoman: Speaking of “bullying,” a word you seem to like to use, how would you describe the CC pushing this project through in spite of nearly 5000 Prop 218 protest votes, and doing it in a rush, at 3 am?? Why dont you analyze any of that?
Well, if you did your research, you would find out that the vast majority of referendum drives fail to qualify. We had basically about 3 weeks, including facing Souza Blockers in front of our tables and everything else. Yes, I had to be tough about some things, but the data are there to support those charges. Why don’t you go research United Water or something? Maybe ask JPA Chair ouza why he actively supported United Water? Want to see the documents he and the CC had in their possession when they voted at 3 am on Sept 6 meeting to keep the plan going? (The same plan that had UW as a nearly done deal in the bid pool??)
I’m tired of the bickering, and you and your project enablers and all your excuses for these people that nearly succeeded in hosing down the public. I’m going to work on the initiative.
Michael:
Previously you have said you “don’t believe” reports, studies, etc. I’ve asked you to respond to these.
Here is the city water quality report:
http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfs/2010_waterqualityreport.pdf
Testing of the city water is conducted as regulated by the EPA and the state. Here is the city’s discharge permit:
http://davismerchants.org/water/CityofDavisdischargepermit2010.pdf
It makes it very clear what the regulatory and technical problems are that are at the heart of this whole issue.
Please tell me what you don’t believe.
Previously I also gave you the following; you haven’t addressed any of them:
“Here are some assumptions involved in delaying or cancelling the surface water project. Feel free to address any of these on which you have any expertise or opinion.
We will get a series of variances for salinity.
We will skate by on selenium limits by diverting a small amount of high-selenium water to city irrigation, and using deeper aquifer water to dilute our intermediate supply enough to barely get under the discharge limit.
The deep wells won’t interfere with the UC Davis wells.
The deep aquifer won’t get contaminated from above.
The deep aquifer can sustain a significant increase in pumping without declining in quality or quantity.
The existing wells will hold out without requiring repair or replacement for two decades or more.
It is acceptable that continued pumping from the intermediate aquifer will cause continued subsidence at one-half to one inch per year.
UC Davis will continue pumping from the deep aquifer and will have to increase their use of it to provide water for future campus housing growth. Davis won’t grow, Woodland won’t grow, UC Davis won’t grow.
Woodland will manage on its own to develop the surface water it needs; if not, Woodland will also try to pump from the deeper aquifer.”
Finally, Elaine and medwoman have both asked you the following question, which you haven’t answered.
“If you don’t trust city staff, then why would you want them to operate a surface water project? You cannot have it both ways: you do not trust them; but you trust them enough to operate the project…”
I note that in response to my series of assumptions for discussion above, Herman posted an excellent list of questions for me, which I answered to the best of my ability. I thought it was a good starting point for dialogue. It is useful to discuss these issues. We can agree on facts, disagree on analysis, and further disagree on recommended policy. But first we need to know if we even agree on facts. Some things are provable or falsifiable.
[quote]It makes it very clear what the regulatory and technical problems are that are at the heart of this whole issue.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, I don’t think the “regulatory and technical problems” are at all clear.
For years, we have been told that we have an insurmountable selenium problem without surface water; now I am finding out that we will meet the selenium limits just by going forward with our current groundwater and wastewater treatment plans even if we do not import surface water.
We have secured our surface water rights, which are good for forty years. The salinity requirements are being reexamined. It won’t hurt us if Woodland builds its own project without us; it will always be in their best interest to let us buy in when we are ready (just as we will let the University buy in when they are ready). However, I really doubt that Woodland would go it alone, since they have their own voters’ rates concerns to contend with if they decide to build a project without us. No city’s plans are set in stone; they are all subject to the next council election.
If anything, the regulatory and technical issues are open to discussion.
Good comments, sue I share your analysis
Sue: “I am finding out that we will meet the selenium limits just by going forward with our current groundwater and wastewater treatment plans even if we do not import surface water.”
First of all, you haven’t found out that we will meet the selenium limits. It is possible that you have concluded on your own that we could possibly meet the selenium limits if we pumped from the new wells at full capacity. Yield from our newer wells usually runs about 60% of capacity. We don’t pump 24/7/365.
Your conclusion, if that is what it is, is also based on a variety of assumptions.
11 of the wells have high selenium that causes our discharge to violate water quality standards. Can we get rid of all those wells and replace them with deep wells? Or are we going to use the new water to dilute the effluent?
How many wells would we replace, and which ones?
If you remove the high-Se wells, our total capacity goes down by more than half. The new deep wells don’t give us enough water to replace them.
We have problems with three wells that are not high-Se. Their combined pumping capacity is almost as much as we are getting from the new wells.
We have added, with the new wells, all the pumping capacity that we are allowed under our EIR and mitigation/management agreements with UCD. We can’t get more water from the deep aquifer without redoing that. The current amount was a reduction from the first plan.
The current increase from the deep aquifer, along with the amount UCD is increasing their pumping, represents a four-fold increase in the amount being drawn from that aquifer. Use of the deep wells was not intended to be a long-term solution to Davis water problems.
The water isn’t there with the addition of two more wells into the deep aquifer to sustain our current or projected usage without a very narrow margin of error. And that alone represents a significant increase in pumping from the deep aquifer, a proposal which carries several known and unknown risks.
For those who want to see the numbers and issues with Davis wells, here is a spreadsheet snapshot:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/wellspreadsheet.jpg[/img]
And here is the link if you want to look at it without squinting:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/wellspreadsheet.jpg[/url]
Don, I have already explained why we can meet our selenium discharge limits with our current groundwater management plans, without needing additional surface water. The only thing that has changed is that staff is finally looking at the actual numbers and confirming.
Please provide me with a quote from any city staff person, or independent expert, who believes that we can meet our selenium discharge limit with the current groundwater management plan. I have listed a number of problems with your statement above.
I have posted a more detailed explanation of the problems with the city wells on the bulletin board here:
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=41&Itemid=192#41[/url]
Mike Harrington
“you and your project enablers and all your excuses for these people that nearly succeeded in hosing down the public”
Perhaps you have not read my posts, or perhaps you simply do not care, but I have stated numerous times that I am not sure of my position on the water project since I have come late to the discussion. I would challenge you to find any quote from any of my posts that in any way could be interpreted as enabling anyone. What I have done again and again is ask you to support your position which you repeatedly choose not to do. What else can I conclude but that you do not have information supporting your position, do not care to share it or find the questions too trivial to address. In any event, with no information, but plenty of accusations against others ( CC member Souza for example) with no supporting evidence why would I believe anything that you say ?
Medal an: just read rhe blog and Davis enterprise and get informed
Sorry!! Pecking on my little iPhone screen
@MH: “Well, if you did your research, you would find out that the vast majority of referendum drives fail to qualify. We had basically about 3 weeks, including facing Souza Blockers in front of our tables and everything else.”
Harrington has been attempting to frame the referendum qualification as a heroic accomplishment. The fact is that it should have been a slam dunk but they just squeaked in under the wire. Given the circumstances — a major tax issue, complex public policy, long-standing controversy fostered by Greenwald and Greenwald, 218 vote, 14% fiasco, local control issue, Great Recession, Dunning-to-the-rescue, terrible communication from the JPA and city staff, paid signature gatherers, and Harrington’s campaign of lies, distortions, and cynical political manipulation — the margin of qualification was remarkably pathetic.
Michael Harrington
“Medal an: just read rhe blog and Davis enterprise and get informed
I am trying to do just that. The difficulty that I am having is that while what you call “the enablers” including I presume Don Shor, Elaine, and a number of others have posted actual information as have folks on the “other side of the issue” such as Sue Greenwald , who also does not seem to oppose the project but rather is just urging caution with regard to timing, implementation, and means of funding, you have not.
What that leaves me with is factual information on the pro side of the conflict but none from those who oppose the project. This leaves me with opinion based on actual numbers ( with regard to well output, selenium levels, salinity factors, water demand ) on one side vs accusations, innuendo, name calling ( naive, dupe, liar, fraud, enabler, blockers as a few examples from your posts) on the other. It is very hard to become fully educated when only one side is presenting any facts. This is leading me to the conclusion that perhaps you do not have any facts to present.
If this is the case, the next logical conclusion is that you do not have a factual basis for opposing the project, but rather just want to see it stopped for some other reason. Since you do not respect the previous democratic choices of the majority in terms of representation by our elected CC or the 218 process, I cannot believe that the reason is your interest in the democratic rights of the voters of Davis. This leaves me wondering what your real interest in blocking this project could be. I don’t anticipate that I will get an answer, but with you putting yourself forward so prominently on this issue, I think it is fair to ask.
[quote]It won’t hurt us if Woodland builds its own project without us; it will always be in their best interest to let us buy in when we are ready (just as we will let the University buy in when they are ready). [/quote]
With all due respect Sue, do you understand how arrogant this sounds (I’m sure you did not mean it that way)? Let me ask you some questions:
1) If Davis fails to approve water rate increases and backs out of the surface water project now, have we not broken the JPA contract w Woodland?
2) Could not Woodland rewrite the contract to charge us considerably more, for putting them through water h_ll so to speak? In other words, could they not agree to let us back in unless we paid a larger percentage of the project than originally agreed upon? If I were them, that is what I would do…
Elaine: On Woodland “buy-in” …
This is one of the most bizarre arguments advanced during the entire debate.
UCD has rights to a nominal percentage of the project (less than 5% … sorry but I don’t recall the exact number). The agreement with the JPA does not give them any special rights or privileges, and they have provided a reasonable quid pro quo pro for for the right to buy-in if the JPA ever gets its act together (time-limited access to Berryessa surface water). This only works because (1) UCD is a willing partner that has to pursue other options because of the risk that the JPA cannot perform, and (2) the amount of capacity that they would consume is small – and the JPA can accommodate UCD without building excess capacity.
In contrast, Davis will consume about 45% of the project capacity. The idea that Woodland would assume the risk of overbuilding a surface water project so that there is sufficient excess capacity to allow Davis the option to buy-in at a future date is simple nonsense. Why would anyone think that Woodland would assume the financial burden and risk of being left holding the bag?
This is a very good example of why Sue Greenwald should not be one of our representatives on the JPA. While I understand the perception that her colleagues were being unfair and mean to her when they denied her a role in the process, the facts are that she just doesn’t meet the minimal standards of competency and professionalism that the position demands. Decorum prevents this issue from being openly discussed at the dais, but it is (unfortunately) the elephant in the room.
I mailed in my protest form. I am one of the 4800. Mike Harrington claims he represents me. Yet he has called the project “my dream project” on this blog. I am a voter, yet he calls me an “enabler” without a vote ever taking place. He doesn’t care about my opinion, my vote, my family. His politicking consists of spreading false information, lies, rumors, degradation of people opposing him, etc. until people start believing that these are truth. Don’t expect him to answer direct questions asking for an alternative plan. He doesn’t understand the science behind the project. He doesn’t understand public finance. He is only interested in stopping the project because he believes that it will lead to development. Look at the list he gives: Measure J, blocking Covell Village’s inclusion in the general plan, Measure X, etc. This is all he is.
[quote]In contrast, Davis will consume about 45% of the project capacity. The idea that Woodland would assume the risk of overbuilding a surface water project so that there is sufficient excess capacity to allow Davis the option to buy-in at a future date is simple nonsense. Why would anyone think that Woodland would assume the financial burden and risk of being left holding the bag?
[/quote]
OUtstanding point!
Michael:
[i]”We are putting into our water program initiative for the June 2012 ballot a requirement that the Davis city water supply system be 100% owned and maintained by the City, by City employees. We do not want Woodland politicians messing around with our water system anymore.”[/i]
The WDJPA provides water to the cities. The cities own their own water systems. You can read the Joint Powers agreement here (pdf): [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Final_signed_JPA.pdf[/url]
Section 6.4.1:
“The Individually-Owned Project Facilities (as described on Exhibit A) may be included as part of the Project and financed and constructed by the Authority.
Upon completion of construction of any Individually-Owned Project Facility, the Authority will convey all of its right, title and interest in the completed Individually-Owned Project Facility to the Project Participant that is served by that Project Facility (as shown on Exhibit A) and that Project Participant shall accept the conveyance of the completed Project Facility and thereafter be responsible for the ownership, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, modification and improvement of that Project Facility. The Authority shall have no obligation to operate, maintain, repair, replace, modify or improve any Individually-Owned Project Facility.”
Authority = WDCWA
Project Participants = Woodland, Davis, and UCD (subject to a separate agreement).
Individually-Owned Project Facility = each city’s water system.
They will build it. They will then hand it over to each city. Each city is then responsible for it.