By Matt Williams
The high point of last night’s Water Advisory Committee meeting was the vote on the following motion, originally crafted by Mark Siegler, Bill Kopper and Frank Loge, and after discussion motioned by Alf Brandt and seconded by Michael Bartolic and Steve Boschken (don’t ask me to explain why there were two seconds).
The Water Advisory Committee (WAC) supports a project that involves conjunctive use under the provision that the WAC still needs to address the issues of 1) when the project should be implemented [e.g. immediately, in 5 to 10 years, in 20 to 30 years, etc.], 2) the size, cost and financing of the project, and 3] the source of treated surface water [e.g. Woodland/Davis JPA, West Sacramento, or other source]. In addition, in further deliberation, the WAC may identify other issues.
What does that mean? It means that the WAC has A) fully endorsed having a dual source system containing both surface water and groundwater, and B) completely removed from consideration sole reliance on groundwater as the long range water supply for the City.
I am sure that this decision will be very disappointing for Michael Harrington, who was in the audience prior to the vote. Yesterday in the Vanguard Michael said,
“The one criticism I have of Sue and Brett, is both of them are still accepting of the premise that we even NEED to use Sacramento River water, and more and more the technical analysis is we do not need to use it. If anything, we need more analysis, including a cost-benefit study (like the water rate structure, a cost benefit study was never done before the 9/6 rate approval). I think on this aspect they both are naive, and the data will support my concerns.
By its vote, the WAC unanimously disagreed with Michael based on the expert scientific, risk and legal information about the Deep Aquifer.
Incoming to its decision, the WAC has received 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, Kelly Salt from Best, Best and Krieger, and Rob Sawyer also from Best, Best and Krieger. It is fair to say that the WAC has left no stone unturned.
Now the task before the WAC is to come up with answers to the following questions about the Surface water component of its conjunctive use decision . . . when, how much capacity, and where from? Stay tuned, the WAC is your government in action.
I do not understand why the article about the Water Advisory Committee’s action last night has the Chamber of Commerce’s position statement about water tacked onto it.
Matt, it seems to imply that the Chamber’s position statement has some connection to the vote that was taken. Having been at the meeting last night, I do not believe that these two items are related and as such, I think if you do wish to have the Chamber’s position statement on the Vanguard, they should be two separate articles.
Matt
I watched te committee last night and appreciate your report. I am sure it seems a milestone has been passed for you all but the questions still on the tables as outlined by you in bold still loom.
I believe the material below the bold Chamber statement is their position paper on the WAC questions but could you clarify. It might confuse others who did not watch.
Thx for your report.
I put the two articles together since they were similar topics and Matt’s article was short.
David – can you please provide an “update” to this posting and either separate them into two articles, or provide a much more clear delineation between the two articles, thereby ensuring that readers don’t somehow think that the WAC is adopting or promoting the Chamber’s position.
Let me know if that works
Hi David,
I would separate them.
One article is about the Water Advisory Committee’s vote, and although the article is short it is likely to generate plenty of response.
The Chamber’s position piece is their opinion on the subject; it does not represent any sort of official view or action by the WAC. Unfortunately the way the two are pasted together it is likely to lead to confusion about the WAC’s position on the water issue.
David, I concur with Brett. Your concatenation of the Chamber position with my article is confusing for the uninformed reader. It implies a logical progression from last night’s decision, and causes the reader to infer that I think the answer to the road charted by the WAC’s motion is preordained. Nothing could be farther from the truth. SODA’s comment [b][i]”the questions still on the table as outlined still loom”[/i][/b] There is a huge amount of work that the WAC has to do in order to answer the questions of when, how much capacity, and where from.
With all the above said, would you please split the two articles into two parts. Further, the public comments from Bill Streng, Greg McNeece and Kendal Pope are all very important “wrap arounds” that pertain to the Chamber position, and any article on the Chamber position should include a summary of those comments. Bill and Greg clearly took a lot of time to prepare those comments and they put the position into context. Lets wait until the video of their comments is up on the City website later today before a Chamber Water Position article is published here on the Vanguard.
I just spoke to David by telephone and when he gets into his office he will separate the Chamber position into its own article.
Thank you David.
Thank you Brett, SODA and Adam for your comments. Your comments will help eliminate any confusion for any readers who read the two portions (even with the starred separator) and infer a linkage between them.
The chamber portion will now appear on Saturday. My apologies for any confusion.
I’m coming late to the game I guess, because I do not see any reference to the Chamber of Commerce article here – so I assume it was pulled. Thanks dmg for so promptly addressing the issue. The Chamber of Commerce offered their opinion on water issues last night – but it is strictly THEIR OPINION, and in NO WAY has been endorsed by the WAC. Last night’s unanimous vote made it clear that groundwater only is off the table as an option for consideration, in so far as the WAC is concerned. (The City Council has the final say – the WAC is merely an advisory body.) Matt has done a great job here in summarizing what occurred at the WAC last evening.
That said, let me add a single personal comment from my perspective. It is often frustrating when citizens or an elected official “jump the gun” and offer all sorts of opinions about what decisions the WAC should/should not come to, before the WAC has even had the opportunity to deliberate on an issue, and before the elected official or citizens themselves have had the opportunity to listen to all the evidence. We are attempting to take a fresh look at just about every aspect of the water issue, and need to be given the freedom and space to operate independently and thoroughly as our mission has directed. The fact of the matter is we have not reached many of the milestones in our decision-making, because we have not heard all the evidence.
The WAC welcomes any and all opinions from the public, including those of elected officials. Many have offered us articles to read, people to talk to, their own perspective on an issue. We deeply appreciate these very appropriate proffers of assistance, information and opinion. What is frustrating is when there is an implication we should remove a particular choice from consideration when the decision-making on that issue is weeks or months down the road. Or a citizen attempts to bypass the WAC altogether on water issues, and tries to influence the City Council to exert pressure on the WAC to alter its independent course of action. That feels to me as if the person or elected official is trying to usurp the WAC’s task as an independent body. JMHO
One question I still have is that Mr. Harrington indicates that they have data to support his belief that we do not need surface water. Apparently no one else is privy to that data as even people like Bill Kopper, Walt Sadler, Mark Siegler, and Michael Bartolic disagree with him – some of them helped or advised on the referendum. So what is Mr. Harrington’s data and why has he not come forward with it if it disproves what everyone else, myself included, believe about the need for surface water.
Now that still leaves a lot unresolved, but this is not a small deal.
Excellent question David.
Michael, the floor is yours.
To be precise:
“The one criticism I have of Sue and Brett, is both of them are still accepting of the premise that we even NEED to use Sacramento River water, and more and more the technical analysis is we do not need to use it. If anything, we need more analysis, including a cost-benefit study (like the water rate structure, a cost benefit study was never done before the 9/6 rate approval). I think on this aspect they both are naive, and the data will support my concerns.” — Michael Harrington; Davis Vanguard, May 10, 2012
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5344:commentary-davis-can-make-up-its-own-mind-on-who-should-lead-our-community&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83[/url]
“and more and more the technical analysis is we do not need to use it…”
Awfully quiet out there…
Perhaps this “technical analysis” which is implied to already exist, is being saved for an appropriate time in the future, for various “strategic reasons”. Can’t say more right now. Would be inappropriate. Can’t expect folks to understand this. You’ll just have to trust me on this one.
Matt, Good reporting by the way.
What is striking to me about the WAC vote is that it actually says very little. (Don’t take this the wrong way.) It basically allows just about every possible option that I have heard discussed over the past couple of years. The only thing that it does say is not being considered is a groundwater only option. As such, the height of the bar to remain as an option in the discussion is appropriately low at this early stage of the process for the WAC. Nonetheless, despite the diversity of viewpoints, the members of the WAC have unanimously agreed to throw out a groundwater only scenario. That is telling. Either every member on the WAC, following a fairly rigorous “getting-up to speed” set of briefings and research have missed the boat; been mislead by the staff, consultants, other experts and their own independent research; or perhaps Mr. Harrington is either wrong or knowingly fabricating reasons why a surface water supply should not be considered.
We are waiting for that technical analysis. Maybe from a strategic standpoint, Mr. Harrington has held back that information for too long, given the WAC’s vote.
While at least initially, I know that many people have had concerns about whether the WAC could review the water issues in a rigorous and in-depth enough manner to be able to make fair and accurate recommendations to the City Council and the community at large. I’m getting the sense that the WAC is working hard to fairly and impartially review the information to try to do just that. That while members would all have come in with various beliefs and inclinations, that all are largely setting those aside while they educate themselves with an open and inquiring mind. I have high hopes for what the WAC can and will do. Community members with diverse viewpoints giving of their time to learn and make recommendations for their fellow community members. I hope their findings and recommendations are able to receive the same level of credibility that the Kroll/Reynoso report received. Keep up the good work.
I stand by my comments.
Your comments are untrue.
[i]”more and more the technical analysis is we do not need to use it.
[/i]
That statement is untrue. You do not have a single expert to support that statement.
So to say “I stand by my comments” is not only meaningless, but reinforces a fabrication.
[i]I stand by my comments. [/i]
[i]”The one criticism I have of Sue and Brett, is both of them are still accepting of the premise that we even NEED to use Sacramento River water, and more and more the technical analysis is we do not need to use it. If anything, we need more analysis, including a cost-benefit study (like the water rate structure, a cost benefit study was never done before the 9/6 rate approval). I think on this aspect they both are naive, and the data will support my concerns.” — Michael Harrington; Davis Vanguard, May 10, 2012 [/i]
Good for you Michael. No need to let facts get in the way of a closed-minded thought process. Don’t worry tho, you are in good company – Bush 43 certainly didn’t let the facts slow him down.
Many Vanguardians have tried to indentify the source of Mr. Harrington’s motivation with the water project. As it becomes even more clear that his analysis is not supported by facts, perhaps we should consider that his real motivation might be something other than the water project. Could it be that he used the water project to gain high profile attention to promote for Sue to improve her chances in the upcoming election? He has been a very vocal proponent for Sue, often trumpeting her willingness to say no to the moneyed interest in the water project. Now that the findings and decisions about the water project are delayed beyond the election time frame, Sue gets a free pass on the consequences of her position.
This unanimous vote does not have any real significance. It is an undeniable fact that AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE, even with meaningful water conservation and “smart slow growth”, Davis’ groundwater supply will not be able to meet our needs.The question is WHEN and at WHAT COST will Davis’ groundwater supply need to be supplemented. Mike Harrington’s position that Davis does not need any additional water supply at this time(I’m not sure if he is taking the position that Davis will never need additional water)is valuable since it drives gathering facts and analysis to refute it.. Saylor’s City Council, in complicity with Weir’s Public Works Department ,presented the need for the surface water project now as irrefutable fact with many unanswered questions as to when, how and at what cost .
AS: That’s unlikely as motivation because Mike has a long and acrimonious relationship with Sue. So he wouldn’t have done this to promote her, but rather there must be another reason why he would have taken this issue on which led to him supporting her against his previous tendencies.
David, are you saying that Mike and Sue are strange bedfellows?
While true, I’m primarily saying that it’s illogical that Mike started doing this with Sue in mind.
Sounds like Mike gets into bed with folks as a matter of convenience at the time, so long as it supports his present agenda, whatever that may be. Perhaps looking for a rationale is pointless in this instance. Based upon a track record of past comments, it would appear we may be barking up the wrong tree if we are looking for that.
I stand behind my comments…
We have to remember that, unlike the rest of us, Mike has a job, a family and other interests and he doesn’t have time to answer questions or clarify his statements.
Mike has already told us that he is supporting Sue for the first time ever because of her promise to vote a certain way on the current water issue. Mike’s only reason for stopping any water project is to stop the potential for growth.
I stand by my comment of last year: Egos will be the most expensive component of this project .
PM: “Sounds like Mike gets into bed with folks as a matter of convenience at the time, so long as it supports his present agenda, whatever that may be. “
That is the nature of politics. Remember Ted Kennedy and G W Bush working together on No Child Left Behind?
You would be amazed at the things I have agreed with Sue on over the years.
Mike has stated that he thinks its too expensive, let’s take him at his word. Let’s also challenge him on what appears to is statements that lack foundation.
Let’s also challenge him on what appears to be his statements that lack foundation.
Ryan: brilliant.
Toad, Mike never has seen a Plan B that he has liked. All his eggs are in the Plan A basket . . . Just Say No!
Funny: most or all of you were the big defenders of the Sept 6 fraudulent rates what can I say ?
Mike, until you address the fabrication you have stated and now stand behind, your other responses are pointless.
You have no experts. Your statement above is not just a distortion. It is incorrect, and you know it is incorrect.
I have a long record of your fabrications and innuendoes going back over many months on the Vanguard.
Your record on the water issue is appalling. When you get called out, you refuse to address substantive issues about which you have made provably false statements. You threaten lawsuits and investigations. You refuse to inform yourself of the facts, even when the information is put right in front of you. You single-handedly financed the referendum, and refused to release that information even when pressed repeatedly on it.
You are all tactics and no substance.
Comment and question:
I signed the referendum and thank Mike for slowing the process. That said, I am dismayed that he would stake his position on groundwater and refuse to provide facts.
Who is paying for the speakers etc for the WAC?
Put Mike under oath or dismiss his claims. He is an attorney and knows exactly where the line between fact and fiction lies. Unless he is under oath he can say pretty much whatever he wants and he knows it. We should know it too.
Perhaps the stock answer for all of what Mike says should be, [b][i]”Plan B?”[/i][/b]
[quote]You are all tactics and no substance. [/quote]DUH… nothing has changed since Mr Harrington was a CC member, except he can’t convincingly try to leverage staff to support his ‘buddies’ (outsied moral/ethical boundaries).