The other factor is also time, the longer the articles have been up on the site, the more read they may be. The two most-read stories this year both focused on the water issue, but not the one that has dominated headlines late this summer and fall, rather the Conaway Deal from last winter.
County issues as a whole tended to dominate the top of our list, as the speed issue on Russell Blvd. before the Board of Supervisors. The redistricting issue also was heavily read.
AB 109 was a huge issue, and that checks in at No.7. Another big issue was the number of cases thrown out by appellate courts, checking in at No. 8.
Missing from the top ten most read are the water articles from this fall and the pepper-spray incident. They were close to the top 10, but perhaps missed out in part because there were so many articles chronicling those issues.
No.10 Are Funnel Clouds in Northern California, Severe Tornadoes in Midwest, A Sign of Climate Change? , June 2, 2011
Wrote the Vanguard: “An article in this morning’s Sacramento Bee suggests that ‘climate change may [actually] be cooling California.’ That is, of course, one person’s theory to explain nine tornadoes, cold weather, and rain in May and June in California. ‘It’s what I call global weirding,’ said Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. ‘This has been a very strange year all over the planet.’ The article goes into issues such as La Niña (a cooling of the Pacific Ocean) along with Artic oscillations. What has happened is that the Arctic was warmer than usual this year and pushed cold air and a strong jet stream into the US.”
No.9 DA Seeks Prison Time For Artz For Possessing Legal Porn on His Home Computer , January 22, 2011
From this article: “The question is now what will happen with Mr. Artz, who has no other criminal record, upon sentencing. Next Friday, Mr. Artz is possibly expected to take the stand for the first time. Right now, we know that the probation department is recommending prison time based on the fact that they found a large quantity of legal porn on Mr. Artz’ computer. Some of this porn allegedly contained violent sexual act depictions, including rape. Based on these factors, the probation department is claiming that Mr. Artz represents a threat to females.”
Mr. Artz would eventually be granted probation but forced to serve six months in county jail.
No. 8 Appellate Court Throws Out Yolo County Conviction for Pandering, January 17, 2011
“Now, just over two years later, the conviction has been thrown out due to insufficient evidence that Mr. Dixon committed that specific charge of pandering, and Mr. Dixon is free and cannot be recharged for this crime.”
No. 7 New Governor Proposes Radical Reforms to the Prison System, January 16, 2011
“According to the Governor’s budget, such a move would save the state nearly half a million next year, $1.4 billion annually on an ongoing basis, while at the same time dealing with the critical prison overcrowding and prison reform issues.”
No. 6. The Fight For Redistricting Runs into a Huge Problem for the GOP: Reality, March 28, 2011
“As the Sacramento Bee reports this morning, ‘Victory no longer is sweet for California Republican Party interests that helped strip the Democratic-controlled Legislature of the right to draw political districts.’ The Panel is made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four Independent or minor-party voters. Three votes from each bloc is required to approve a redistricting map. The Republicans are crying foul ‘over the hiring of Q2 Data and Research to provide expertise in drawing 177 legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization districts.’ “
” ‘We haven’t seen the final results, but they certainly have opened the door to wide-ranging suspicion, and that defeats the purpose of the process,’ said the Republican State Chair Tom Del Becarro.”
No. 5 PASEA President Matt Muller’s Over-the-Top Response to the Vanguard, July 1, 2011
“While it is likely true that Mr. Muller is speaking for himself here and is not authorized to speak on behalf of his employees’ association, his statement sent to a media entity certainly reflects on both the entire membership of PASEA and the City of Davis. After careful consideration, I have chosen to publish his email to me in full and without any edits.”
No.4 Supervisor Provenza Expresses Concerns About Redistricting Boundaries in the County, September 19, 2011
From this article: “The Vanguard spoke with Supervisor Jim Provenza, who clarified his perspective on this matter.”
” ‘Having a farmer on the board is going to be extremely unlikely,’ Mr. Provenza said.”
“He argued that the 5th district is currently 40 percent Woodland and 60 percent rural, including Winters and Knights Landing. Under a new alignment, Winters would go to the 2nd District with Davis, Knights Landing would go to the 3rd District with Woodland, and Woodland would now make up 70% of the 5th District.”
” ‘By doing that it will be 70 percent city of Woodland residents and only 30 percent rural,’ he said. ‘So it’s basically turning it into an urban district.’ “
No.3 Do Speeds Need to Go Up West of Davis on Russell?, October 27, 2011
From this article: “The Board of Supervisors held off increasing the limits to four of the county roads, citing safety concerns and looking toward alternative ways to reduce speeds.”
“Supervisor Don Saylor recommended for the four roads that there be additional study for the next year to include consideration of traffic-calming measures and looking toward a state law change.”
“Staff argued, ‘These actions will bring affected speed limits into compliance with the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and ensure that the posted speed limits are enforceable under state law.’ “
“The California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) govern the criteria for establishment of speed limits. The CVC sets the basic speed limit for two-lane, undivided highways at 55 mph. According to the staff report, ‘Setting speed limits outside the guidelines constitutes a speed trap, under the CVC, and those speed limits are not enforceable using radar.’ “
“That is based on the premise that they are required to set speed limits in the 85th percentile, that is, a speed at which 85% of the drivers will drive at a reasonable speed for the road and conditions. ‘To establish a speed zone less than 55 mph the agency must conduct an E&TS [Engineering and Traffic Survey], including a speed zone survey,’ the staff report argued.”
No. 2 Board to Reconsider Conaway Deal As Criticism Mounts About the Lack of Transparency in the Process, February 8, 2011
“Supervisor Matt Rexroad, who will chair the meeting, told the Sacramento Bee this weekend as he had previously told the Vanguard, that he believes the meeting and vote were legal.”
“Supervisor Rexroad told the Bee, ‘I’m very comfortable with my vote on this, and I think we’re fine procedurally.’ “
No. 1 Commentary: Another Brown Act Violation by the Board of Supervisors?, February 10, 2011
From this article: “The critical question is whether the county violated the Brown Act back in December for failing to give the required 24-hour notice for the meeting. The county maintains to this day that they followed the law, however, they wanted to be sure, given public complaints.”
“Well, if that is the case, having a meeting where the outcome was largely decided before the fact belies that effort. They need to have a true meeting on the issue, where there was the possibility of changing wording and their minds. That did not happen.”
“It is very simple to show how this might be a Brown Act violation. If the Board did not give sufficient time for public notice back in December, then the public also did not have the chance to weigh in with their opinions, to suggest modifications, or, indeed, to really study the issue.”
“This is a very complex issue that takes time to study. By ramming it through as they did in December, they short-circuited public feedback.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Missing from the top ten most read are the water articles from this fall and the pepper-spray incident. [/quote]
Articles #1 and #2 are water issues, or am I missing something?
What stood out in many of the “most read” threads, was the passion, frustration, and occasionally anger that surfaced.
Best wishes to all, for a healthy, safe, prosperous, happy and respectful (read: civil) New Year!
Paix… pachem… shalom… salaam… peace…
Then maybe you should keep all the articles up the same amount of time, David. I noticed that the last two very important discussions on the water issue were taken down almost immediately.
Articles are not taken down, they cycle through with the four most recent appearing in the headlines, ten on the side bar five or six on the slides. The point about time is the January articles accumulate e readership throughout the year but a November article only in November and December.
Elaine the top two are water articles from last winter, on the county issue of Conway Ranch not the city’s surface water project sorry if that point is unclear.
In fact, the last two articles on the water project weren’t even on your sidebars listing the most recent articles when I just looked. Yet an ancient notice about a radio interview with me is still up.
Some very important and interesting points and debates occurred in the recent two water articles, yet both were removed immediately.
The entirely new issue about whether Davis water/wastewater rates will actually be much higher than Monterey Peninsula water/wastewater AFTER desalinization was raised (it looks as if they will be, according to the results of a quick google search that I reported).
Maybe you could repost that piece and keep it up as long as you have kept up some other pieces, David.
Sue,
“Some very important and interesting points and debates occurred in the recent two water articles, yet both were removed immediately.”
Are you referring to the actual articles or posts in response to the articles? I think DMG was pretty clear as to how this works in his post here. Older articles are not going to remain on the “front page,” but can be found by searching through the archives. I haven’t noticed any missing articles.
A topic of interest that you want to have more accessible can be posted on the bulletin board. Things here fall down off the front page pretty quickly, especially under the City of Davis heading.
As for the Monterey issue, I spent some time looking at their rates, Matt Williams called and got more information, and then I concluded it’s probably moot since Sue doesn’t have any support for her positions. We could debate whether their rates are comparable, whether it’s apples to oranges, etc., but it wouldn’t make much difference.
Everyone who looks in detail at the Davis water situation, reads the reports, assesses the options, comes to the conclusion that the surface water project is necessary. Most disagree with Sue’s proposal to delay it for 20 to 25 years, and it appears that level of delay is not the direction the council will be going. Not a single expert has come forward to publicly endorse the notion of using the deep aquifers heavily. The debate has moved on to trying to come up with an acceptable rate structure, which is a balancing act.
David, I was responding to the following quote of yours:
[quote]The other factor is also time, the longer the articles have been up on the site, the more read they may be. The two most-read stories this year both focused on the water issue, but not the one that has dominated headlines late this summer and fall, rather the Conaway Deal from last winter.–[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]That made me think about my perception that some articles seem to stay up longer than others.
For example, although I am happy of course about the coverage that you have given my radio interview, it is very old and yet almost every time I look on the blog, it is listed in the sidebar while more recent and more important articles are not.
[quote]Everyone who looks in detail at the Davis water situation, reads the reports, assesses the options, comes to the conclusion that the surface water project is necessary.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I think that is misleading. Every expert who has looked in detail has not said that the water project is necessary at this point in time if it will cause undue fiscal hardship.
[quote]Not a single expert has come forward to publicly endorse the notion of using the deep aquifers heavily.–Don Shor[/quote]Graham Fogg explained in writing that we don’t have “a deep aquifer”, we have one aquifer. The water at deeper levels has much less salinity and selenium. We have been digging deeper wells for years, and two more will soon come on line regardless of whether the surface water project is completed now or in twenty years.
Every expert has [b]NOT[/b] had the following question posed to him/her:
“[b]IF[/b] we can meet our discharge requirements by banning water softeners when our currently planned new deep wells come on line, or if it takes one or two more new ones to account for down time (not necessarily even drawing more deep water) at only $4 million apiece, and [b]IF[/b] undertaking $350 million in new water-related expenditures will impose a very serious financial hardship on the city and its residents with far-reaching ramifications (I have recalculated the current estimated total costs including present value of additional new O&M), then would you think it reasonable to postpone the project for fifteen or twenty years?
Don, this question has never been asked of “everyone”.
I should add that I don’t even mean “banning” water softeners, but rather regulating them, as I have been told that there are water softeners that do not add salinity. Also, when are two new wells come on line, our water should be considerably softer than it is now.
The aquifers are separated, Sue. The deep aquifer is not recharged from the surface. If you believe we have “one aquifer” you have not looked into it carefully.
“Graham Fogg explained in writing that we don’t have “a deep aquifer”, we have one aquifer” is, at best, a misinterpretation.
You have no expert support for your position, Sue.
Here’s your position, based on the long history of your comments here:
Assume that Davis isn’t going to grow, and UC Davis isn’t going to grow, in the next 20 years or so. Even though UCD plans to add 5,000 more enrollment in the next five years.
Ban water softeners. What penalties do you propose to accomplish that?
Apply for variances for the next 20 years or so, first for salinity, then selenium, then boron, and probably for five other constituents eventually.
Pump most (80%+) of our water from the deep aquifer. UCD will also do that. For 20+ years.
Seek voluntary conservation of about 20% overall. If that doesn’t work, enact tiered rates to force conservation.
Pump 24/7/365 from the deep wells in order to get the capacity we need during peak hours.
Probably force conservation when we’re below capacity.
Finally, try to tie in to the project that Woodland built, on their terms. Or build our own system separately.
… “[i]if it takes one or two more new ones to account for down time…[/i]”
Unless we are going to renegotiate with UCD, those new wells can only be used to extract the exact same capacity we are already at.
No expert will be asked the question you pose because no expert can determine whether it is “a very serious financial hardship.” But they might look at the fact that Woodland is taking on that “very serious financial hardship” and that other cities in California also pay that much for water and sewer, and conclude that the only thing that makes this a “very serious financial hardship” is how cheap water has been in Davis for so long. And, of course, how the water rates are structured can alleviate the hardship on the lowest-rate water users.
Every consultant who has looked at the Davis situation recommends going to the surface water project.
Don, Graham Fogg said the following:
[b]Rich Rifkin:[/b] How many years will the deep aquifer last?
[b]Graham Fogg:[/b] “It’s best to think of it as an “aquifer system” rather than an aquifer, because most of it consists of a complex network of aquifer materials (sands and gravels) and non-aquifer materials (silts and clays), and the latter are by far most prevalent.” I assumed that, by that statement, he meant that the “deep aquifer” was not distinct. I will ask him for a clarification.[quote]Unless we are going to renegotiate with UCD, those new wells can only be used to extract the exact same capacity we are already at.–[b]Don Shor [/b][/quote]Don, the attorneys and regulators that I have spoken with have said that ground water is not adjudicated, that most disputes are settled with compromises. You believe everything the University attorneys say because you want to believe that we have no choice but to commit to what I believe is an financially unsustainable program. It is in the University’s interest to posture; they are not paying for this project but they benefit from having us move out of groundwater leaving it for themselves, and they also benefit by having an insurance policy in place without paying for it.
I am obligated to defend the city’s interest.
[quote]As for the Monterey issue, I spent some time looking at their rates, Matt Williams called and got more information, and then I concluded it’s probably moot since Sue doesn’t have any support for her positions.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, the citations that I posted showed [b]BOTH[/b] that average household water rates after the desalinization plant are completed are projected to be less than Davis rates, and also, confirming this, that the per capita cost of the new plant will be less, since the plant costs are pretty much capped by the CPUC at $405 million for a population over 100,000 PLUS farm irrigation, and no new wastewater costs, while the Davis new water/wastewater costs are over $300 million for a town of only 65,000, with no farm customers.
Thus, it is clear by two distinct measures– both rate projections and per capita new costs, that Davis water/wastewater rates will be substantially higher than those in the Monterey Peninsula even after the infamously expensive Monterey desalinization plant is built.
You have misunderstood Dr. Fogg. The important thing to understand is that the water in the deep wells do not recharge from the surface, or not very quickly. Which is why we can use them in the first place. You can find illustrations of the ground water system in various reports.
[i] the attorneys and regulators that I have spoken with have said that ground water is not adjudicated, that most disputes are settled with compromises.[/i]
Please cite one. Just one.
[i]You believe everything the University attorneys say because you want to believe that we have no choice but to commit to what I believe is an financially unsustainable program.[/i]
I have no idea why you are saying this. The EIR and groundwater management plan we have with UCD limits the amount we can pump to 4500 gpm. The original plan was to have more wells. That plan was scaled back to the number we have now. You can ask Jacque DeBra why the EIR and mutual groundwater management plan was capped at 4500 gpm. But clearly among the assumptions we have to add to the many that form the basis of your proposal is that we will be able to somehow extract even more groundwater from the deep wells; that UCD will agree to revisit the EIR and the groundwater management plan and increase our limits.
This comment has been moved to our Bulletin Board: The Vanguard Front Page: suggestions? ([url]/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=325&Itemid=192#325[/url])
JS: I would appreciate your feedback and maybe Don can move this to the bulletin board for better discussion. The big problem is the under utlization of the community blog site which was supposed to be a place for the public to post their own blogs, but it never has happened as envisioned.
[quote]Sue Greenwald: Every expert has NOT had the following question posed to him/her:
“IF we can meet our discharge requirements by banning water softeners when our currently planned new deep wells come on line, or if it takes one or two more new ones to account for down time (not necessarily even drawing more deep water) at only $4 million apiece, and IF undertaking $350 million in new water-related expenditures will impose a very serious financial hardship on the city and its residents with far-reaching ramifications (I have recalculated the current estimated total costs including present value of additional new O&M), then would you think it reasonable to postpone the project for fifteen or twenty years? [/quote]
Let’s break your question down into its constituent parts. There are a huge number of assumptions (7), many of them quite nebulous and ill defined, that make it an almost impossible inquiry for an expert to answer with any degree of intelligence/honesty:
1) IF we can meet our discharge requirements by banning water softeners;
2) if new deep wells are planned and come on line;
3) if it takes only one or two more new deep wells to account for down time;
4) assuming the new deep wells do not draw more deep water;
5) if the new deep wells only cost $4 million apiece;
6) if undertaking $350 million in new water-related expenditures will impose a very serious financial hardship on the city according to SWRCB standards;
7) if there are far-reaching ramifications of the total costs;
then would you think it reasonable to postpone the project for fifteen or twenty years?