by Matt Williams –
At Thursday’s Water Advisory Committee (WAC) meeting, in response to Mayor Joe Krovoza’s public comment, Michael Bartolic took the time to clearly state that he feels his responsibility as a member of the WAC is more to the citizens of Davis than it is to the members of City Council. If I heard Michael correctly, his reasons for that position are that in many ways over the past few months many of the citizens of Davis have voiced their concern and/or outright opposition to the Surface Water Plan put forward by the Joint Powers Authority (JPA).
In this latest installment of my series of articles about water/wastewater, lets take a moment to drill down into the point Michael is making, and list and categorize the key interest groups that have expressed their opposition to or concern about the current Plan.
The sources of the list that follows are those people have been actively doing any of the following:
1) voicing their opposition to the JPA Surface Water plan,
2) collecting signatures for the Referendum,
3) signing the Referendum, or
4) seriously considering any of those three activities.
The information below divides the interest groups that demonstrated any of the above four activities into unique homogenous groupings. It is important to note, that the groupings shown below are not mutually exclusive. Interested parties can (and do) belong to more than one grouping.
As a final step, although it is a bit of an oversimplification, the groupings are listed in two broad categories, 1) Those Davis residents/citizens who oppose the JPA Plan outright, and 2) Those Davis residents/citizens who are concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but don’t as yet oppose it in its entirety.
Those who oppose the JPA Plan outright:
- Those who see any added water capacity as contributing to population increase in Davis, and that removing access to water makes it very difficult (impossible) for developers to get regulatory approval to build on their land around Davis.
- Those who have serious doubts about the objectivity/intentions/actions/ competence of City of Davis Staff/Council . . . some would even include concerns about fraud.
- Those who as a matter of principle object to any increase on either rates or taxes.
- Those who believe this is really a Woodland problem, and that the JPA makes Davis a captive and minority partner subject to non-Davis whims/power plays.
- Those who have serious concerns about “privatization” of any water system.
- Those who have serious doubts (due to profit motive considerations) about the objectivity of one or more of 1) the private sector Design-Build-Operate (DBO) firms and/or 2) the private sector consultants/experts.
Those who are concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet don’t oppose it in its entirety:
- Those who feel the process leading to the approval of the plan is 1) proceeding too quickly, and/or 2) lacks sufficient transparency and citizen input. This group typically is not sure that the surface water project is the best alternative, and that perhaps other options are out there that have not been sufficiently explored by the JPA and/or City of Davis staff.
- Those who see the rate increase in dollars and cents terms, and simply can’t afford the increase in these hard economic times.
- Those who have a business in which water is a key component (Sudwerk, swimming pools, etc.), and see the rate increase as a huge change to their cost of doing business and/or their ability to even continue to stay in business.
- Those who see the rate structure approved in September as structurally “unfair” and don’t want to think about the JPA plan until the fairness issues in the rate structure are addressed.
- Those who have serious ethical concerns about the bidding DBO firms and/or the DBO model itself.
- Those who have serious competitiveness concerns about the DBO bidding process’ structural ability to result in truly competitive vendor bids for one or more of the Design, the Build, and the Operate portions of the DBO model.
I’ll leave you with two questions that I encourage you to comment on, A) When you look at the groupings above, are there any citizens who are either missing or whose interest is inadequately described? B) Is this list a good guide for the WAC or are there other voices that need to be heard?
Why list only those opposed?
You have asked that question for a reason SODA. Do you care to expand on the reason?
Matt, I get where Soda is coming from. Why just a list of the reasons why people might be opposed. You could just as easily have done an article on why people might be for the project.
For instance:
* Those who see added water capacity as a necessity for new development thus making regulatory approval much easier
* Those who stand to profit from the project
* Those who want to rush the project through without the proper vetting
And so on…..
“I’ll leave you with two questions that I encourage you to comment on, A) When you look at the groupings above, are there any citizens who are either missing or whose interest is inadequately described? B) Is this list a good guide for the WAC or are there other voices that need to be heard?”
Read your interesting article quickly Matt and on iPhone and commented before I retread title. I thought you were dwelling on just the opposition and that seemed unfair.
However there might be value in a similar analysis of why some folks are for the project as it stands? For DBI, JPA, surface, rates as they are set etc.
That isn’t necessarily my position but might be valuable to contrast.
Thanks for the feedback SODA and rusty. I was trying to put myself in Michael’s shoes, which I believe is (but I could be wrong) to be sure that the WAC doesn’t overlook the perspectives of any of the citizens who object to, or are concerned about the proposed JPA Plan.
With that said, my suspicion is that the reasons for opposition and/or concern are more diverse than the reasons for support.
rusty, your items appear to be the “flip side” of ones listed in the article. Was that intentional on your part?
Matt.
With all due respect. I think the WAC should not only refute the opposition’s points but also consider each of any positives. If for no other reason than to not feed into some’s perception that the WAC is stacked with pro water folks.
For instance Elaine seemed to be dismissive if the Palmdale decision when it surfaced here , but your account of the meeting seems to indicate the WAC took it seriously.
[quote]For instance Elaine seemed to be dismissive if the Palmdale decision when it surfaced here , but your account of the meeting seems to indicate the WAC took it seriously.[/quote]
I’m not quite sure how you got the impression I was dismissive of the Palmdale decision from my posts. I made it very clear the consultant WILL BE TAKING PALMDALE INTO ACCOUNT in any of its recommendations, as will the WAC. How could I be any more clear?
[quote]If for no other reason than to not feed into some’s perception that the WAC is stacked with pro water folks. [/quote]
This tends to lead to the perception you feel the WAC is “stacked”, no? Have you tuned into the WAC meetings? If yes, do you have that perception of the WAC? If yes, why? Thanks…
The WAC is attempting to be meticulous in its deliberations, leaving no stone unturned. Members are well aware what is at stake, and want to make certain whatever recommendations are made to the City Council are sound ones, with solid rationale behind it…
SODA, I respectfully disagree on two levels.
My [u]personal[/u] opinion is that the WAC should engage the opposition’s points. Attempting to refute the opposition’s points presupposes a mindset that the opposition [u]by definition[/u] is wrong. I personally have no such presupposition.
Further, my observations of the interactions of the individual WAC members in our meeting to date leads me to strongly believe that each of them individually have no such presupposition.
I haven’t read Elaine’s comments as being dismissive. The point I heard her making is that like the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Proposition 8, the Palmdale decision is very narrowly defined, and that Michael Harrington’s attempts to apply that narrow decision on a universal scale are misguided. That may be dismissive of Michael, but not dismissive of Palmdale.
Points taken. I do not have time to research the posts on the original Palmdale issue on iPhone now. And I said perception!
Heard loud and clear SODA. There is a whole lot of “playing out” that will come vis-a-vis Palmdale. Especially in Sacramento.
It is worth noting that [i]Palmdale[/i] affects all potential rate structure solutions Davis considers, regardless of what direction we choose to go in addressing our community’s water/wastewater challenges.
Agree Matt and glad EAC will consider ALL ramifications!
Thx again for articles.
SODA said . . .
[i]”Read your interesting article quickly Matt and on iPhone and commented before I retread title. I thought you were dwelling on just the opposition and that seemed unfair.
However there might be value in a similar analysis of why some folks are for the project as it stands? For DBI, JPA, surface, rates as they are set etc. That isn’t necessarily my position but might be valuable to contrast.”[/i]
SODA one of the reasons that I focused more on those opposed and/or concerned is that the WAC will be receiving in its formal materials a lot of information about the various interest groups who support the project as it stands. In writing the article I wanted to be sure that those opposed and/or concerned were being given equal consideration. Further their positions are much less formalized than the supporters’ positions are.
With that said, I took some time this morning to attempt to come up with a similar list of interest groupings for the supporters. Here they are. I look forward to any input the readers of this article may have.
[b]Those who support the JPA Plan outright:[/b]
• Those who believe the Proposed Project is the best choice for providing a reliable water supply to meet existing and future needs.
• Those who believe that groundwater pumping exclusively from the deep aquifer in quantities sufficient to meet estimated future demands could exceed the long-term yield available from the deep aquifer.
• Those who believe that by combining various sources of supply, including appropriated surface water, water transferred from senior water rights holders, and local groundwater, the City of Davis can secure a reliable M&I water supply that can be used without damaging or jeopardizing existing sources.
• Those who believe the Proposed Project is the best choice for responding to challenges posed by the City of Davis’ aging water systems. Since 1987, seven groundwater supply wells in the City of Davis have been abandoned and destroyed. Additionally, four wells that pumped from the shallow/intermediate depth aquifer have been taken out of production because of water quality concerns, while two additional wells are retained only in standby mode
• Those who believe that alternatives to the Proposed Project are unrealistic because many of the older wells in the City of Davis are in developed urban areas and therefore cannot be retrofitted with wellhead treatment facilities capable of providing sufficient quality because of limited space at the well site, conflicts with residential land uses, and because many of these wells are at the end of their useful life expectancies and cannot be relied upon for continued future service.
• Those who believe the Proposed Project eliminates the need for a formal adjudication of the Deep Aquifer. Such an adjudication has substantial risk of creating and perpetuating a costly and damaging legal battle between the City of Davis and UC Davis.
• Those who believe the Proposed Project is the best choice for improving water quality for drinking supply purposes.
• Those who believe the Proposed Project is the best choice for addressing the current high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and hardness in City of Davis water, including costs associated with the purchase of bottled water and the replacement or repair of plumbing, water heaters, appliances, or water treatment systems because of scaling and/or deterioration.
• Those who believe the Proposed Project is the best choice for eliminating the use of home water softening units in the City of Davis that would not be necessary if the water supply had lower hardness and TDS. Assuming 2002 water softener efficiencies, for every pound of hardness removed from the water supply by residential water softeners, over 6 pounds of salt are added to the City of Davis’ wastewater stream. The CVRWQCB has established limits on electrical conductivity in treated wastewater effluent. These limits are requiring wastewater dischargers to take steps to reduce salinity concentrations in their treated effluent.
• Those who believe the Proposed Project is the best choice for improving treated wastewater effluent quality discharged by the City of Davis through 2040, as required under existing or anticipated future water discharge regulations.
[quote]Agree Matt and glad EAC will consider ALL ramifications!
Thx again for articles.[/quote]
Please don’t hesitate to express concerns about WAC… we are trying very hard to get things right…