The debate over the water project has perhaps shifted from a debate over need, to a debate over whether the Surface Water Project as proposed is optimal. Feeding into those concerns are the problems with what the council passed on September 6, with the lack of a rate study and the perplexing and confusing 14% rate hike that wasn’t.One of the reasons for the push for televised Water Advisory Committee hearings is the notion of transparency and accountability that has been lacking.
It is under this context that Walter Sadler wrote an op-ed in Sunday’s Davis Enterprise. He is a professional engineer with more than 40 years of experience in design and management of water resources facilities, surface and groundwater, in both the public and private sectors in the Sacramento Valley, and is a current alternate for the WAC.
This is not the first op-ed from Mr. Sadler that we have noted. Back in August, he similarly wrote, “As a rate payer, I have no objections to considering surface water as a future component of the city of Davis’ water supply. I do, however, have serious objections to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Project as currently proposed; it has serious flaws. I will not support it.”
Mr. Sadler recently retired from the City of Folsom’s Utilities Department, where he was assistant director. He describes his responsibilities to have included management of various operating divisions of the Utilities Department including “a surface water treatment plant (50 MGD); water quality and distribution system (pump stations and storage reservoirs); and wastewater collection (gravity and pumped).”
He said on Sunday that he continues “to have objections to the Woodland Davis Clean Water Project as proposed; these objections are intensified by reviewing the record, from inception to date. I cannot support it; it has serious technical and financial flaws.”
He wrote, “Continued use of statements like ‘fiduciary responsibility,’ ‘safe, reliable and sustainable,’ ‘required to secure water rights’ and ‘necessary to avoid fines’ are essential to negate the public’s demand for project scrutiny, financial and technical. Lack of scrutiny fosters lack of transparency and accountability. More importantly, it masks the technical basis for regulatory compliance and thus project necessity.”
“Lack of transparency and accountability for the project is a major issue; it is intentional,” he writes. “Transparency for the project is an issue of concern for the project proponents. With transparency comes issues of fiduciary responsibility, qualifications and conflict of interest.”
He continues, “This lack of transparency effectively was accomplished by formation of a weak joint powers authority. To ensure accountability, project proponents were advised by the city of Stockton, which has a similar surface water project, not to create a JPA.”
“Former Davis Mayor Bill Kopper’s op-ed piece in the Sacramento Bee on Dec. 18, ‘Davis Can’t Afford Two Water Projects At Once,’ is appropriate. Does Davis need to try to afford two at once? Can Woodland afford the project? I doubt it!” Mr. Sadler writes.
He continues, “Woodland has an economic theory that impact fees based on growth, the historical magical elixir for municipal financing, are alive and stronger than ever. Seen any significant new growth in Woodland lately? Better yet, read Geoff Johnson’s Jan. 12 article in The Daily Democrat, “Report: Woodland Could Be Broke by 2015.””
He is concerned that Sacramento is struggling to finance the sports arena project at a similar cost with a larger base. He asks, presumably rhetorically, “Why is the city of Sacramento struggling with financing a project of similar cost, its $350 million-plus sports arena, with a much larger rate base? Could it be the economy, or are Davis and Woodland insulated from this financial conundrum?”
He continues, “Are staff, consultants and politicians not being candid about project costs and benefits, or do they care? Has a sense of community escaped the politicos and has ego trumped financial reality?”
“Statements that pursuing the project now will save money are broken. Buying something when you can’t afford it doesn’t make it cheaper! Does this concept work with your household budget? Did it work for the city of Vallejo and Jefferson County, Ala.? Municipal bankruptcy should not be an alternative considered!” he adds.
Furthermore he argues, “The proposed project is not necessarily the least-cost project; other alternatives were summarily dismissed, without full evaluation. Could it be that those alternatives were not beneficial to the other interests of project proponents?”
“Statements that surface water will ‘eliminate the city’s reliance on groundwater’ are intentionally misleading. This project will not eliminate either city’s reliance on groundwater. During all years, groundwater will be a portion of each city’s water supply, and possibly the only source during dry or drought years,” Mr. Sadler adds.
Mr. Sadler argues that much of the urgency in this project is being driven by the regulatory requirements for Woodland’s wastewater discharge.
He writes, “The city of Woodland did not fully exhaust its legal remedies, or change its discharge location or operation of its water supply wells, to address their permit requirements; should compliance now be the responsibility of the ratepayers of Davis?”
He adds, “Was it negotiations or acquiescence, by Woodland and Davis, to achieve another objective, the water project? Statements by staff, i.e., ‘The cities, in partnership with (the Regional Water Quality Control Board) … use the surface water project as a compliance project,’ make the motives and objectives clear.”
And he further asks, “Is this an example of what the politicos mean when they state they are exercising their fiduciary responsibilities to the ratepayers, or does it mean staff is setting policy without council approval or ratepayer involvement?”
“Do the benefits to the cities and the region justify the project and its costs as proposed? Being dishonest with ourselves regarding the benefits and costs of the project just begs for us to be duped by messengers with an agenda, be it political ego or fee,” Mr. Sadler continues.
He concludes, “While project proponents make a variety of unsubstantiated comments regarding project benefits, my response on reviewing the record with regard to transparency and fiduciary responsibility is: ‘Think of the city of Bell.’ “
It is questions like these that should drive the discussion and inquiry by the WAC. Perhaps there are easy answers to them. Perhaps not.
But these questions make it all the more important that the proceedings of the WAC be as open and transparent as possible.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I read Mr. Sadler’s complaints in the Enterprise. For a former assistant municipal utilities director, the column was rather thin. More rant than substance. I would hope more from such a qualified individual that had read the entire record of the project.
David M. Greewald reporting – on what? The latest Enterprise column read over a morning coffee?
Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed?
At the very first WAC meeting (which was not attended by alternates, who were not chosen yet) and just as a gentle reminder, all WAC members were instructed to keep an open mind until viewing all the evidence before s/he comes to any conclusions. It is necessary to keep this principle in mind when writing an opinion piece in a blog or newspaper. It is a Brown Act issue…
This is slightly off this article’s topic, but Sadler talks about process, and I want to add that I think it’s mandatory good public process that the WAC meetings should be televised and recorded, with the video available on the WAC city web page. I have two young kids and getting out to evening public meetings is mostly impossible.
The surface water project is much bigger in terms of public policy and fiscal impacts than any other City project since I first came here for college. The project is bigger than almost anything else the CC has to deal with right now, other than perhaps the budget.
The public is going to want to tune in on this one.
BTW, David, the City has not documented the need for the surface water project. Stay tuned as we get our materials together.
To all who want WAC meetings televised and wish to advise the WAC of your concerns with respect to this issue (or any other subject matter) – you can use either email address below so that your emails will be read during WAC public comment:
DJensen@cityofdavis.org
water@cityofdavis.org
Ignore the ‘> at the beginning of each email address above. Have no idea how they got in there…
Elaine: Is Walter an alternate?
From the Enterprise:
Walter E. Sadler of Davis is a professional engineer with more than 40 years of experience in design and management of water resources facilities, surface and groundwater, in both the public and private sectors in the Sacramento Valley. He is an alternate member of the Davis City Council’s Water Advisory Committee.
“The proposed project is not necessarily the least-cost project; other alternatives were summarily dismissed, without full evaluation.”
Here is a summary of alternatives:
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/Summaryofwateralternatives.pdf[/url]
The WAC can request supporting documentation from the city and from West Yost. A key question for each alternative is whether it achieves water quality compliance with a reliable long-term source.
“”The city of Woodland did not fully exhaust its legal remedies, or change its discharge location or operation of its water supply wells, to address their permit requirements…”
I don’t know if Walter is suggesting that the cities should sue to seek avoidance of the water quality regulations. Changing operation of the wells trades one water quality problem for another. There is no ground water source for Davis or Woodland that will fully meet all regulatory requirements. Example: if you go to deeper wells, you get lower selenium, but higher boron and arsenic.
If all of the upstream dischargers that have water quality problems sue and successfully block implementation of regulations, you are back to square one with Delta water quality issues. Farmers and ranchers are being forced to comply. Should cities be exempt?
“Statements that surface water will ‘eliminate the city’s reliance on groundwater’ are intentionally misleading. This project will not eliminate either city’s reliance on groundwater.”
I don’t know who is saying it would eliminate use of groundwater. But it is important to note that project opponents are advocating [i]complete[/i] reliance on groundwater, increasingly from the deep wells we share with UCD. Developing the surface water project would allow Davis to practice conjunctive use. The city could use groundwater during drought years, and even explore storing surface water by pumping it into wells (as Woodland is testing).
I also thought that Walter Sadler’s artickle was woefully short on facts. And I am amazed to hear Mr. Sadler and project opponents say that this process has not been transparent when they have never even attended a single JPA meeting nor read the dozens of documents posted on the JPA’s website. The JPA has made a huge effort to make everything available for public review but if people do not read it then the problem is their laziness and not a lack of transparency.
I also found Mr. Sadler’s arguments about the cost to be misleading. He observes that Sacramento is struggling to finance a $350 million arena and because Woodland and Davis are much smaller we should also be struggling with a $300 million plus water system. The obvious difference that should be noted is that a sports arena is a luxury that benefits very few in the community while a water system provides a basic human need for all.
Pretty much everyone agrees that Davis needs to do something to improve the quality of its water. The real arguments seem to revolve around “when” and “how”. Sadler’s statement that “Buying something when you can’t afford it doesn’t make it cheaper!” is cogent in this case. The project as its currently envisioned would make Davis water more expensive than the municipal water of nearly all, or perhaps all, cities in California. Davis simply can’t afford this.
[quote]Elaine: Is Walter an alternate?[/quote]
Yes, Walter Sadler is an WAC alternate. I don’t know when he submitted his article to the Davis Enterprise, before or after he was selected as an alternate. Since he has only been to one WAC meeting, it may take him some time to “catch up” in reading all the documents we have been referred to. I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Sadler and chatting with him at the WAC for a few minutes…
Alan: Have to disagree on transparency. There are several different problems.
The first problem is that the meetings may be open, but they are not all that accessible and they are not televised.
The second problem is that in terms of what was passed in September, even the council sans Krovoza and Souza, really did not realize that the 14% was not really 14%. So if they didn’t know, how was the public to know.
I think there is a lot more that we can do to make this process more transparent and fortunately I think the leadership in this city is willing to do that.
A technical memorandum of the 26 different alternatives researched and the rationales for why they were/were not discarded can be found at:[url]http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/pdfs/2011.11-dwwsp-alternatives-summary-memo.pdf[/url]
I asked Harriet the other day whether writing an op-ed piece or publicly announcing a position prior to a council meeting would be a violation of the Brown Act, and she said “no”. She said it would not be a violation of the Brown Act to publicly express a strong opinion. She said it would only be a violation if we announced that nothing could change our minds. And keep in mind that we make binding, not advisory decisions.
I was actually a little surprised, but that is the way it is. I was told that another committee member expressed very strong opinions out of the starting box.
I am not condoning op-ed pieces by committee members at this point in the process — just clarifying the Brown Act issue.
[quote]The first problem is that the meetings may be open, but they are not all that accessible…[/quote]
How are the meetings “not all that accessible”? The public can attend the meetings; the meetings are held in the Davis Senior Center which is a convenient location; the meetings are held from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm in the evening, which is a reasonable time, to accommodate those people who work during the day…
[quote]I think there is a lot more that we can do to make this process more transparent and fortunately I think the leadership in this city is willing to do that.[/quote]
Other than televising the WAC meetings, what more would you like to see done “to make this process more transparent”?
The televising of the meeting is a big thing. I know the Mayor has made a big thing out of sending out press releases in advance to advertise the meetings – that is an important thing that goes unnoticed. Most people are not aware of when the meetings are, and may not be actively looking to find out, but if they catch it in the paper, maybe they will come or watch it on TV.
[quote]Pretty much everyone agrees that Davis needs to do something to improve the quality of its water.–[b]Crilly[/b][/quote]Actually, the quality of our water is pretty good, and it will get softer when our new deep wells are on line. It has some essential minerals in it. Personally, I feel better about the quality of our groundwater from a drinking water perspective than I do from the river water that is drawn below the Colusa Drain, which is the major agricultural waste dump for Northern California.
That said, I think everyone agrees that we will be moving to surface water eventually for long-term sustainability and subsidence control issues. The question how to do this in an affordable manner.
Hopefully, the WAC will give a long, long second look at the alternatives.
Crilly wrote: “Pretty much everyone agrees that Davis needs to do something to improve the quality of its water.”
Actually, many would disagree with you. Many think it’s fine; the quality of the taste varies around town, depending on the well site. Even if we think the taste should be improved, what is it worth?
I estimated in September that the project as conceived was going to cost up to $500 million for Woodland and Davis ratepayers; the many project proponents on this Blog, and including several comments by CC members, directly or implicitly accused me of lying.
Well, guess what? The official numbers now exceed $600 million, from something I read recently.
I’ll take the current rate, and current taste, before I would saddle my budget with what the water consultants and lawyers want us to pay for their private enrichment.
I certainly will not drink the “treated” water from the river, taste aside, what we have is probably SAFER. I will continue to drink mostly purified water and I am willing to keep that as one of my regular expenses. However we can not continue indefinitely pulling from the aquifer in the usual amounts, it is environmentally irresponsible, so our water needs to be supplemented. That said, the fine details need to be explored so it can be done as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. From what I have read so far it seems water will NOT be available precisely when the demand is highest unless we store it when it is available and then use it when we need it. Yet I am not aware of a storage component to this plan. Just the tip of the iceberg of issues that need to be addressed.
“A key question for each alternative is whether it achieves water quality compliance with a reliable long-term source.”
This “key question”,IMO, is a set-up question to support rejection of any alternative that relies on a reliable water source for an intermediate period of time to allow for phasing-in of any future surface water project.
David–re transparency:
I think your blog here has helped play a big role in making the decision making process more transparent and also for citizens to educate themselves and provide feedback; you have done a big service here and congratulations. Not everyone has a work schedule or simply the spare time to attend public meetings on this issue; the nice thing about electronic media is you can access it anytime and focus on what is of most interest.
[quote]”Pretty much everyone agrees that Davis needs to do something to improve the quality of its water.” – Crilly[/quote]With all due respect, I don’t think this has been demonstrated.
There is a huge difference between a dozen people expressing a point of view 100 times each and 1200 people doing so once each. It seems to me that the discussion on this issue has been much more like the former than the latter. We’ve heard a continual stream of discussion from about a dozen advocates and critics, little or nothing from the other 64,000+ Davis residents.
[quote]just as a gentle reminder, all WAC members were instructed to keep an open mind until viewing all the evidence before s/he comes to any conclusions. – E. Musser[/quote]
Has anyone commented on this issue more frequently than Ms. Musser?