Are You Being Served By The WAC?

by Matt Williams

Let me start by saying that the opinions and perspectives presented here in this article are those of the author and not the opinions and perspectives of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC).

Back on February 26^th I wrote an article in the Vanguard that identified the informal water interest groupings here in Davis, specifically, 1) those Davis residents/citizens who opposed the September 2011 Joint Powers Authority Surface Water Plan (“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.  Today, lets look at how the WAC activities to date have addressed the concerns of those groups.

1.      Done a very thorough job of questioning the sizing of the proposed surface water plant.  Cost estimates for reduced water treatment capacity have not yet been received, and when those cost estimates are provided, I fully expect considerably more questions.  We have done a lot and there is more to do.

2.      Placed a decision of “groundwater only” vs. “conjunctive use” at the very front of the process.

3.      Rather than relying on Staff or JPA Consultants for expert scientific, risk and legal information about the Deep Aquifer, had numerous thorough presentations from industry experts Graham Fogg, Hydrology professor at UCD, Jay Lund, Chair of the UCD Watershed Science Center, Rob Beggs from Brown and Caldwell, Ken Loy from West/Yost, and Kelly Salt and Rob Sawyer from Best, Best and Krieger.

4.      Made a unanimous decision at the most recent WAC meeting that a “no project” alternative as required by CEQA is not a viable alternative when compared to a Groundwater Only with Additional Deep Aquifer Wells alternative.

Steps 1-3 above are direct engagement of the issues at the heart of “no population increase” interest group.  The most committed of the no growthers will not like the result of step 4, but the risks associated with a groundwater only solution based on the City’s current mix of Intermediate and Deep Aquifer wells are simply too great in the unanimous opinion of the members of the WAC

Those who oppose the JPA Plan outright and have serious doubts about the objectivity/intentions/actions/ competence of City of Davis Staff/Council . . . some would even include concerns about fraud.

As noted in 3. above, rather than relying on Staff or JPA Consultants for expert scientific, risk and legal information about the Deep Aquifer, had numerous thorough presentations from industry experts Graham Fogg, Hydrology professor at UCD, Jay Lund, Chair of the UCD Watershed Science Center, Rob Beggs from Brown and Caldwell, Ken Loy from West/Yost, and Kelly Salt and Rob Sawyer from Best, Best and Krieger.

Those who oppose the JPA Plan outright because as a matter of principle they object to any increase on either rates or taxes.

The most committed of the “read my lips” interest group will not like the result of step 4, because that alternative is the only one that could result in no water rate increase, but again the risks associated with a groundwater only solution based on the City’s current mix of Intermediate and Deep Aquifer wells are simply too great in the unanimous opinion of the members of the WAC.

With that said, steps 1-3 above are direct engagement of the issues at the heart of the desire of this interest group.  In my opinion there is absolutely no question that the vast majority of the members of the WAC are totally committed to choosing the most fiscally responsible solution to Davis’ water challenges.

Those who oppose the JPA Plan outright and 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.

The best way to address this concern has been to independently validate the issues and concerns that are central to Davis’ water conundrum. As noted in 3. above, the WAC has received considerable independent scientific, risk and legal information in numerous thorough presentations from industry experts Graham Fogg, Hydrology professor at UCD, Jay Lund, Chair of the UCD Watershed Science Center, Rob Beggs from Brown and Caldwell, Ken Loy from West/Yost, and Kelly Salt and Rob Sawyer from Best, Best and Krieger.  The transparency by which this independent information has been presented, viewed, recorded and archived for reviewing has been robust to say the least.

Those who oppose the JPA Plan outright and have serious concerns about “privatization” of any water system.

The “heavy lifting” on the issues central to this interest group are still to come; however, that doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been considerable progress in A) expanding the understanding of the “O” part of the Design-Build-Operate (“DBO”) option, and B) bringing another “public” option back into the mix in the form of a West Sacramento surface water option.  West Sacramento currently has excess capacity at its existing, fully operational Bryte Bend surface water treatment facility (the two geodesic domes just below the west end of the I-80 bridge over the Sacramento River), which is operated by “public” employees.

There are lots of details that still need to be researched to determine if this is the best option, but we all owe a debt of gratitude to Yolo County Supervisor Jim Provenza for breathing life back into this alternative.   Following the City Council’s December 20th decision to repeal the Water Rate Ordinance, Provenza reached out to his colleague Supervisor Mike McGowan who then spoke to his constituents in West Sacramento.  As a result of Provenza’s and McGowan’s proactivity, the City of West Sacramento formally expressed a renewed interest in exploring the possibility of providing surface water to Davis, Woodland and the University.

Those who oppose the JPA Plan outright and have serious doubts (due to profit motive considerations) about the objectivity of one or more of 1) the private sector DBO firms and/or 2) the private sector consultants/experts.

All of the steps detailed above have proactively addressed the concerns of this interest group.  There is more to do, but I believe the transparent process the WAC has charted will continue to provide the people in this interest group with the information they need to substantially mitigate (if not completely eliminate) their concerns about whether this is a private process or a public one.

Those who are concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet don’t oppose it in its entirety and 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.

If there is any one group that has been best served by the WAC process thus far, it is this one.  I would go so far as to say that simply by being on the WAC, all or  most of the 15 WAC members are ex-officio members of this interest group.

Those who are concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet don’t oppose it in its entirety and see the rate increase in dollars and cents terms, and simply can’t afford the increase in these hard economic times.

I believe the members of this interest group are being very well served by the WAC process to date. As I said above, there is absolutely no question in my opinion that the vast majority of the members of the WAC are totally committed to choosing the most fiscally responsible solution to Davis’ water challenges.  If they do that the resultant rates will be as low and as affordable as possible given the current regulatory environment.

Those who are concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet don’t oppose it in its entirety and 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.

If you are a member of this interest group I strongly urge you to go on the City website and watch the presentation by the Bartle Wells rate consultant on April 12^th and the Proposition 218 presentation on March 8^th by Kelly Salt, an acknowledged expert lawyer on water rates.  You will come away from those two presentations knowing that water rates for all Davis water users must be proportional and consistent with the costs of delivering water in Davis.  The current water rates are proportional and Constitutionally compliant and any new rates will be both of those things as well.

Those who are concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet don’t oppose it in its entirety and 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.

We affectionately refer to this interest group as “the Bob Dunning interest group.”  At the risk of throwing a little humor into an otherwise rather dry article, if Bob isn’t complaining, you know that the WAC has done a good job of thus far engaging the concerns of this interest group.  Stay tuned though, Bob is a very stern task master.

Those who are concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet don’t oppose it in its entirety and have serious ethical concerns about the bidding DBO firms and/or the DBO model itself.

The major engagement of the issues central to this interest group is yet to come, but with that said, the fact that the City of West Sacramento has formally expressed a renewed interest in exploring the possibility of providing surface water to Davis, Woodland and the University may totally eliminate the concerns of this interest group.

Those who are concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA Plan, but as yet don’t oppose it in its entirety and 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.

Here too, the major engagement of the issues central to this interest group is yet to come, but again, the fact that the City of West Sacramento has formally expressed a renewed interest in exploring the possibility of providing surface water to Davis, Woodland and the University may totally eliminate the concerns of this interest group.  We should all thank Supervisors Provenza and McGowan if that comes to pass.

So that is a summary of how the WAC process to date has engaged the various interest groups that expressed concerns in 2011 about the proposed JPA project.  I hope it has been useful to you.

At the end of my February 26^th article I asked two questions that I again 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) Does this list continue to be a good guide for the WAC or are there other voices that need to be heard?

With those two questions re-asked, I will close with one more with respect to the WAC . . . Are you being served?

Categories: