Attorney Bill Kopper, former mayor of Davis and a member of the city’s Water Advisory Committee, issued a strong rebuttal against the editorial of the Sacramento Bee from December 9, “Is Davis set to scuttle Woodland water deal?”
He continues, arguing that the Bee avoided looking at affordable options “that allow Davis to meet its effluent requirements at this time without surface water.”
Mr. Kopper sets the capital cost of the two project at “more than $13,000 per Davis house.” And notes, “The $13,000 figure does not include bond interest, the cost of surface water and operating costs.”
“The capital cost per ratepayer for the incinerator that bankrupted Harrisburg, Pa., and the sewer project that plunged Jefferson County, Alabama, into default is in the same range that The Bee asks Davis taxpayers to bear,” Mr. Kopper writes.
He also notes, “To pay for the two water projects, the city will have to triple its water revenues to a point about equal to the city’s entire general fund which pays for police, fire, parks, administration, and other city programs and services. Tripling the current utility rates will severely harm seniors, low-income residents, restaurants and many other businesses, and will make it nearly impossible to pass tax overrides to fund schools and other needed city services.”
He further argues that Davis well water remains in good quality – “It is clean and meets all state and federal drinking water standards with virtually no treatment. As Davis has developed deep wells, the water has become softer, and the salinity is much less. This trend will continue as two new deep aquifer wells are completed.”
He argues, “Davis water usage has also gone down dramatically through conservation and is expected to decrease further. In the near future, most Davis household water will be deep aquifer water, which is softer and tastes better. “
Finally, he argues, “A third to one-half of the salinity in Davis’ effluent is from salt-based water softeners. With the softer water from the deep aquifer, water softeners are not required in Davis.”
Mr. Kopper concludes, “If necessary, the city can meet the proposed salinity standards by regulating water softeners. For fiscal survival, Davis must postpone the surface water project until it has paid for the new wastewater treatment plant.”
Mr. Kopper is only the latest to criticize the Sacramento Bee editorial. Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning noted that the Sacramento Bee had made use of the long-since discredited 14% figure.
He writes, “The Bee did fall for the city’s long-ago discredited ’14 percent’ rate hike figure in an editorial, blasting our esteemed council for rescinding the water rate increase in response to nearly 4,000 signatures on a referendum petition.”
As Mr. Dunning notes, “Had The Bee done its homework before coming across the river, it would have learned that even the city of Davis has now admitted the 14 percent figure was a work of pure fiction.”
He cites an op-ed from the City’s interim public works director Bob Clarke, who “issued an official mea culpa last month in the form of an Enterprise op-ed where he wrote, ‘References to rates rising an average of 14 percent per year were thus in error.’ “
Added Mr. Clarke: “As many people have correctly observed, the maximum rates shown in the Proposition 218 notice and adopted by the council represent more than a 14 percent increase for each year.”
“Good for Clarke for owning up to the obvious,” Mr. Dunning snipes, “too bad it took him so long to do so.”
Writes Mr. Dunning, “Simply put, while there were several rate increases of varying size depending on which ‘tier’ you find yourself in, the very lowest increase was from $1.50 per ccf to $1.90 per ccf in year one … I’ve done the math on that increase at least 100 times and every time I do, it comes up to 26.67 percent … but I did that one in my head with the assistance of my daughter, the third-grade math whiz, and maybe The Bee has more sophisticated calculators that can chop that rate down to 14 percent to fit their editorial argument …”
Mr. Dunning notes that the rates range from 26.67% to 64%.
Notes Mr. Dunning, “Democracy can be a messy business and it sometimes produces disastrous results… but it’s the best system we’ve been able to come up with … I mean, if you can’t trust the people, then by default you have to trust the politicians …”
I cannot emphasize this point enough. Where the Sacramento Bee, Woodland Daily Democrat, Woodland City Council and Supervisor Matt Rexroad all get this wrong is that the city council screwed up, not the citizens of Davis. And the citizens of Davis, at least 3800 of them, called them on it.
At some point we need to allow democracy to work and then see where we are.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Mayor Kopper’s editorial went a long way to publically showing how screwed up the water rate process was in Davis.
I dont say this lightly, but there might be more screw ups that involved the Woodland CC, and that were also not caught by the Woodland Democrat.
I watched the meeting from the East Coast (thanks to the streaming video service), and was stunned to see one Woodland CC member after another all lined up, and taking their turns addressing the same issue that is a current and important political topic before the Woodland City Council.
Was that appropriate under the Brown Act? Just wondering. Anyone know?
I remember from being on the Davis CC 2000-04 that the Brown Act prevented more than two of us from addressing the same topic other than in a noticed public meeting. Also, we were not allowed to hold the CC meeting outside of City limits.
Here, we have all five of them, obviously planned ahead of time, addressing the water plant topic, in one room, not at a duly noticed public meeting within the city limits of Woodland.
Also interesting, here our City Attorney sat, saying nothing about it while her client hosted the event.
[quote]Mr. Kopper concludes, “If necessary, the city can meet the proposed salinity standards by regulating water softeners. For fiscal survival, Davis must postpone the surface water project until it has paid for the new wastewater treatment plant.”[/quote]
It is my understanding from what we were told by the City Clerk, members of the Water Advisory Committee are supposed to keep an OPEN MIND in regard to all issues surrounding the surface water project.
[quote]At some point we need to allow democracy to work and then see where we are.[/quote]
In what way are “we” not allowing democracy to work? The City Council has directed staff to come back with a proposal tonight that will allow voters to have a direct say by voting on whether citizens want the surface water project or not…
“…proposal tonight that will allow voters to have a direct say by voting on whether citizens want the surface water project or not…”
The only appropriate voter response to this kind of proposal that is meaningless is to vote NO on the proposal(we can always start over after this project is truly examined and analyzed) and NO to the June candidates who vote for it to protect their election prospects.
Mr. Kopper is wrong, in fact and by omission, about several things, all of which have been discussed in detail on this blog.
If Mike Harrington wants to lodge a formal Brown Act protest, he should do so. He should stop maligning people on this blog and elsewhere.
[quote]The only appropriate voter response to this kind of proposal that is meaningless is to vote NO on the proposal(we can always start over after this project is truly examined and analyzed) and NO to the June candidates who vote for it to protect their election prospects.[/quote]
Don’t you think it would be wise for you to see the ballot proposal first, before condemning it?
[quote]Was that appropriate under the Brown Act? Just wondering. Anyone know? [/quote]This, given the fact that Mr Harrington served on the Council (arguably having the benefit of some training on the Brown Act), is the stupidest question/ploy I’ve seen in quite some time. The Brown Act’s purpose is to ensure that the business of the public is conducted openly. There was no possible “action” that the Woodland folks could have taken at that meeting. Brown Act was not only not violated, it didn’t even apply! I suspect Mr H knows this, but appears to like to fling bovine fecal matter and see what “sticks”.
Just to clarify, the ballot proposal may not be brought back tonight specifically… the actual ballot proposal and its exact wording will likely be for another day…
Hoirrce: the brown act applies to three discussing a topic before the
Question: where has the monies come from that has paid for the development of the surface water project to date, without a specific rate increase in place? Has it come from the current revenue stream which will now have to be be replaced as part of the rate hike now proposed to maintain the current water system?
This Davis fiscal shell-game is not unlike Woodland paying for its share with “commercial paper” as both are designed to get “the camel’s nose under the tent” without generating voter scrutiny.
At least Bill Kopper stated very clearly what he finds wrong with the plan. I appreciate that.
We asked Mike Harrington to do this many, many times and he has seemed incapable of doing this. However, he seems very capable of maligning people. He managed to malign all of the people from Woodland who came to speak during public comment and also the City Attorney for not stopping them from speaking at public comment. He’s an attorney, yet feigns ignorance, or rather, stupidity. It is a strange strategy.
In order to achieve acceptable selenium content in our effluent, we would replace most of the water from intermediate wells with water from deep wells. This would require essentially continuous running of the pumps in the deep wells and would reduce our total capacity to below what we need during average peak demand. In order to make up the difference during peak demand, we would increase the pumping from the intermediate wells.
We would have:
•a reduction of usage of the intermediate wells from 14 to 6.
•loss of capacity from intermediate wells of 78% (from 8500 gpm to 1842 gpm)
•Deficiency in capacity at peak demand: 4630 gpm
This would require that:
•we run the new deep wells continuously.
•most of our water (87%) would be from the deep aquifer. The deep aquifer was not intended as a long-term source of water for the city.
•we probably run old wells at nearly full capacity during peak hour demand (18 hours a day, instead of 6) to replace deficiency in capacity.
•we continue to use the oldest well, #20, which was drilled in 1976 (it is low Se).
Issues:
•It is not yet known whether the reduced number of wells would provide sufficient pressure and distribution for peak demand throughout the city; i.e., whether you could get the current level of service with a smaller number of wells.
•During peak hour, with heavier usage of the intermediate wells, we run the risk of violating selenium limits and face fines.
[i]Running wells 24/7/365 is not recommended for sustained use.
[/i]
An additional issue is that boron in deep wells is higher than in intermediate wells. Current discharge is 1800 ppb; future discharge limit expected to be 700.
Bill Kopper: “[i]For fiscal survival, Davis must postpone the surface water project until it has paid for the new wastewater treatment plant.”[/i]
This is essentially Sue Greenwald’s proposal: go to the deep wells for 20 to 25 years.
It does not address the tightening regulatory standards for salinity, selenium, boron, chromium, et al.
It assumes we can deal with the lack of peak capacity by achieving even greater conservation, somehow without rate increases (mandatory conservation?).
It proposes a quadrupling (at least) in total usage of the deep aquifer when you add what the city and UC Davis would be doing.
It assumes no growth in Davis or UC Davis over the next two decades.
And then, after all of that, the next generation gets to pay for the surface water project anyway.
Don. You’ve provided arguments against all of Kopper’s contentions except one: “The capital cost per ratepayer for the incinerator that bankrupted Harrisburg, Pa., and the sewer project that plunged Jefferson County, Alabama, into default is in the same range that The Bee asks Davis taxpayers to bear.” How do Davis households pay for these two concurrent and very expensive projects?
@ Crilly: By raising rates, which the council should have started at least five years ago. We’ve had many, many years of warning about the tightening regulations for our discharge. Davis water rates have been unusually low for decades.
There are many problems with delaying the surface water project by going to the deep aquifer. There are substantial costs associated with that as well as all the other alternatives. Doing nothing is not an option. Pumping the deep aquifer heavily is a very risky choice. I consider it irresponsible to rely on the deep aquifer for two decades, and we can’t continue using the intermediate wells.
hpierce: I remember as a Davis CC member that three of us could not meet outside of a noticed meeting about an issue that was before or would likely come up to the CC. These 5 Woodland CC members were not at a cocktail party, one each in the four corners of the house, and one in the garden, all holding forth about the problems with the deal with Davis.
No, those 5 Woodland CC members by plan and design, met in one room (Davis Community Chambers), not noticed to the Woodland public, and outside of the Woodland city boundaries, and all of them participated in a single group event where their views on a current and hot topic worth upwards of $500 million USD were forcefully expressed.
Anyone want to take a stab at this issue, or am I the only one who thinks that elected officials should be held to legal process and wonders if those 5 members followed the law?
Mr H… how could the Davis Council’s deliberations or decision “come before” the Woodland Council for any decision? They are independent acts.
hpierce: I understand what you mean. Yes, it’s a weird thing, what those 5 did. I havent pulled up the case annotations to the Brown Act; it’s not really my area of law. But something seems amiss.
Woodland and Davis are not independent entities in this project:
Think: “JPA.”
Think: shared contracts.
Think: if independent, why did the entire Woodland CC line up and speak as a group?
No, the two cities are linked on this issue, and all 5 Woodland CC members came into Davis and spoke on the same issue.
Maybe they have a legal technicality that excuses what they did; I don’t know. What I am doing here is comment on the DV’s article about Kopper’s piece in the Bee, and how the process and public communications are screwed up. All 5 CC members showing up and talking on this extremely hot topic was odd, and I am just asking what the DV readers think.
Maybe Supervisor Rexroad or JPA Chair Souza would care to comment, or the Mayor of Woodland?
hpierce: What I would have recommended if I was the Woodland City Attorney is that at the Woodland CC meeting BEFORE Davis’ 12/6 meeting, they vote to send a letter of concern to the Davis CC.
Did the Woodland City Attorney bless all 5 showing up as a group and speaking here? I dont know.
I’m not sure there the 5 members’ First Amendment right to speak intersect with the Brown Act.
I just find it legally interesting and thought I would toss it out and see if anyone else thinks its interesting.
My god, Mike, it took about 3 minutes to Google the answer. It looks to me like there is no violation, so you can drop this. Go to: http://caag.state.ca.us/publications/2003_Main_BrownAct.pdf , page 10.
“When a majority of the legislative body attends an open and noticed meeting of another legislative body of the same or a different local agency, the legislative body is not deemed to be conducting a meeting, so long as the members in attendance do not discuss, among themselves, other than as part of the scheduled meeting, issues of a specific nature related to the subject matter jurisdiction of the body. (§ 54952.2(c)(4).)”
Crilly said . . .
[i]”Don. You’ve provided arguments against all of Kopper’s contentions except one: “The capital cost per ratepayer for the incinerator that bankrupted Harrisburg, Pa., and the sewer project that plunged Jefferson County, Alabama, into default is in the same range that The Bee asks Davis taxpayers to bear.” [b]How do Davis households pay for these two concurrent and very expensive projects?[/b]”[/i]
Crilly, as we continue to consider the best way to approach the planning for the optimal solution to our water/wastewater challenges, I believe the biggest planning flaw is that the Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrade isn’t being sequenced to follow any project that changes our water sources (either surface water or wellhead treatment of existing groundwater). If we wait for the water source change to come live, most of the “bad” constituents (selenium, salinity, boron, manganese, etc.) will be removed from our water source, and therefore from the inputs to the wastewater treatment plant. It will also mean that the City can aggressively work toward eliminating water softeners from all Davis residences. I believe that will mean that the only remaining wastewater treatment plant upgrade needed will be the tertiary filtration, which currently isn’t required until October 2017.
Further, if we can present a “holistic” water/wastewater implementation plan to the SWRCB, it is possible that the Wastewater Project can be further delayed until after 2017. Then the current stream of “capital set-aside” dollars from the existing Sewer fees can be used to defray the capital costs of the surface water project in the early years. It is my understanding that the annual sewer “capital setaside” is in the $8 million to $10 million per year range, and that there is already something like $20 million already accrued. If the cash requirements of the Wastewater project can be delayed until at least 2017, then the first $76 – $90 million ($20 million plus 7 years of $8 – $10 million) of the Surface Water project costs could be paid off from the existing Sewer fees. That would substantially reduce the amount of the “capital set-aside” that would have to come from any increased Water fees.
If the SWRCB buys into Davis’ holistic water/wastewater plan, it is even possible that the whole $150 million for the Surface Water project could be paid off from the two combined “capital set-aside” stream before the capital costs for the Wastewater project need to begin sometime after 2017.
M.Harrington
Maybe they have a legal technicality that excuses what they did; I don’t know. What I am doing here is comment on the DV’s article about Kopper’s piece in the Bee, and how the process and public communications are screwed up. All 5 CC members showing up and talking on this extremely hot topic was odd, and I am just asking what the DV readers think.
Since you are “just asking what the DV readers think”, I will tell you what one reader thinks about this. I think it is long past time for you to stop making unfounded accusations and innuendos about the motives, intentions, tactics, strategies and actions of others. I would be more than happy to hear any substantiated opinions, facts, arguments,
or concerns that you might have. However, I find your continued portrayal of others as acting illegally or at least somehow disreputably to be repugnant. Putting a question mark at the end of your sentences and claiming only
“interest in others thoughts” does not make it less so.