Water Ballot Measure Now Set for March 5, 2013 –
On Tuesday night, the council official delayed the timeline of the city’s water ballot initiative to no later than June 30, 2013, with the targeted date of March 5, in a motion made by Brett Lee and seconded by Rochelle Swanson.
The motion called for a delay of consideration of the city paying its pro rata share of the additional cost to to raise the Regional Water Treatment Facility (RWTF) site out of the floodplain until August 21 when the WAC will hopefully finish their evaluations.
The council originally discussed delaying the third part of the staff recommendation as well – authorizing funding to cover the cost of preparing a Woodland-only project, but ultimately removed that portion of the recommendation.
The council left the August 21 timeline in place, the same timeline for a ballot measure on the November ballot – this would allow the council to keep all options, including the Davis-Woodland option, open while the WAC continues to weigh what is becoming an increasingly complicated proposal.
“The Davis City Council, by our Aug. 21st deadline, would like the WAC to advise us on the Woodland option or the West Sacramento option, or to tell us to keep our options open,” Mayor Joe Krovoza said.
“I am nervous that one month is not enough time to get to the end of this decision and get it right,” the mayor said on Tuesday. “I hope I am wrong. I want a decision. I want the community and the council to move forward, but I don’t want to rush the WAC. I would rather buy a little time and make sure we get it right.”
The schedule remains very tight, despite the extension for the ultimate decision by the voters. That is of necessity, given Woodland’s tight deadline for getting the project completed in time to meet its more rigid discharge requirements in 2016.
Such a timeline compelled Matt Williams, an alternate on the WAC, to suggest the cities of Davis and West Sacramento work with Woodland to see if it can get a one-year extension.
Councilmember Brett Lee remains concerned about the tight schedule.
He told the council, “I do think there are some experts that would need to be called by the WAC, which may or may not be available in time for them to make a definitive decision on which project to recommend by the 21st.”
However, he too was supportive of keeping the options open.
“If, in fact, the WAC is not able to reach consensus or they are not able to get the experts that they need, because they will need a regulatory expert and a legal expert to help them determine the transferability of the water rights…” Councilmember Lee said.
“There is an answer,” he added. “That answer essentially puts us where we are today, which is we’re not really sure if we’re going to West Sac or Woodland.”
Michael Harrington, a critic of the project who led the water referendum, encouraged the council to listen to the recommendations of the WAC with regard to putting additional money on the table to preserve the Woodland option.
Reading from Pam Nieberg’s written comments he said, “Davis needs to do what’s in the best interest of Davis. A small group of insiders got us into this mess, and now since it is obvious that plan is not what is in the best interests of Davis, it is time we look elsewhere.”
“The WAC is looking into the West Sacramento alternative that looks to most of us to be a much better proposal for Davis” he continued. “It’s probably half the cost and the associated rate structure would be much more reasonable.”
Matt Williams expressed concern as to whether West Sacramento is now viable.
A water rights specialist who works for the Water Rights section of the California Department of Water Resources spoke along with him and suggested, “Yes, based on the activity to date under the City of West Sacramento’s contract with the Central Valley Project (“CVP”), West Sacramento will have to file an application with the CVP in order to be able to sell processed water to Davis and/or Woodland. Until such application is approved, West Sacramento cannot sell water to Davis.”
That water rights specialist went on to say, “In addition, Davis does not have any water right of its own that can be used by West Sacramento to process Davis water for Davis, unless and until the specifics of the ‘diversion point’ of Application 30358, and/or Application 30358A, and/or Application 30358B are changed to the coordinates of the Bryte Bend Treatment Plant from California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 2, North 2,008,200 feet and East 6,667,300 feet.”
“If the West Sacramento alternative is not legally viable, then you, the Council, need to either take the steps to quickly attempt to make it viable, or walk away from it as an alternative worthy of further study,” Mr. Williams told the Council.
He argued, “Specifically Council needs to quickly come together with the Councils of West Sacramento and Woodland to make a unified contact to the State Water Resources Control Board (ideally to Chair Charles R. Hoppin of Yuba City who is intimately familiar with Yolo County) to request an expedited granting of a Time Delay Order (‘TDO’) for Woodland that moves Woodland’s current 2016 deadline back 12 months to 2017.”
Matt Williams added, “That will allow Woodland to ‘lose a year’ without negative consequences, and in the process allow all three cities to get significant input about whether the challenges associated with the Central Valley Project and the relocation of the diversion point can be successfully resolved.”
Michael Harrington, referencing Mr. Williams’ comments, argued that if Davis and West Sacramento were able to get an additional year for Woodland, “then we don’t have to spend $1 million, we don’t have to have a conversation about jeopardizing Woodland’s options, it pushes it back by a year.”
“We are totally against spending money on this Woodland project until that project is a choice,” he said.
The council was ultimately unanimous in its concern with the complexities of the process and buying as much time as possible before making the decisions it had to. They will now wait for the WAC’s analysis and their decision.
This was really the first major disagreement between the city staff and the WAC, that has reached the council level at least.
Michael Bartolic expressed disappointment with city staff that their recommendations and concerns were not expressed in the staff report.
In the end, the council split the baby by deferring the decision until the last possible moment on August 21, when the council returns from its summer break.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Matt Williams did his homework yesterday for his idea that a letter be written to the state to gain a year for Woodland to avoid additional fines. He also pointed out some regulatory hurdles before West Sacramento is a viable option. His handout to the CC that contained his public comments and more detail deserves the immediate attention of Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento leadership. Thank you, Matt.
Also, thank you Councilmember Rochelle Swanson for moving to appoint the Mayor and Councilman Brett Lee as official representatives of the Davis City Council to discuss a water project deal with West Sacramento. It was an excellent procedural thing to do, and shows that as a McGeorge Law School trained attorney you know how to make an exactly correct oral motion on the fly as needed to fix a problem that was not obvious at the start of the meeting
Thanks to all for the delay in the ballot; next spring is not nearly long enough, but that’s another days work for us
Thank you, Mayor Krovoza, for running an excellent meeting with a fair outcome for the Davis ratepayers
[quote]On Tuesday night, the council official delayed the timeline of the city’s water ballot initiative to no later than June 30, 2013, with the targeted date of March 5, in a motion made by Brett Lee and seconded by Rochelle Swanson.[/quote]
The City Council motion was the expected ballot date is March 5, period. This issue went back and forth several times, and the final decision was to fix the expected ballot date as March 5.
[quote]Matt Williams did his homework yesterday for his idea that a letter be written to the state to gain a year for Woodland to avoid additional fines. He also pointed out some regulatory hurdles before West Sacramento is a viable option. His handout to the CC that contained his public comments and more detail deserves the immediate attention of Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento leadership. Thank you, Matt. [/quote]
This is a curious observation on your part. If I have understood your position correctly from previous posts and your comments last night, you want to eliminate working with JPA/Woodland as an option. Matt is pointing out to you that the West Sac alternative may not be a viable option and you seem to be agreeing with that very real possibility. If the West Sac option is not viable, then what, if we have burned our bridges with/excluded the possibility of working with the JPA/Woodland? What is your back up plan if the West Sac option doesn’t pan out?
[quote]Thanks to all for the delay in the ballot; next spring is not nearly long enough… [/quote]
How much of a delay is long enough?
[quote]”The WAC is looking into the West Sacramento alternative that looks to most of us to be a much better proposal for Davis” he continued. “It’s probably half the cost and the associated rate structure would be much more reasonable.”[/quote]
You are arguing for looking into the very real possibility West Sac might not be a viable option, yet at the same time insisting it is a much better proposal for Davis? How do you know it is the best proposal for Davis? How do you know it is half the cost in the long term? Do you know what the terms of the contract will be? Do you have any idea how the water rights issue will be resolved? What about the issue of ozonation? The issues surrounding the surface water project are extremely complex…
ERM: good points. I’ll respond later
The August timeline for a decision is much too short.
To make matters worse, some key members of the WAC will be on vacation during August. The decision will profoundly impact Davis for 30 years or so. The WAC and council were made cognizant of the West Sacramento’s offer only recently. The option cannot be adequately explored in less than two months over summer break. Our consultant who was hired to study the option acknowledged that he did not have time or budget to do an adequate fiscal comparison. Among other things, he would have had examine the Woodland/Davis figures (which I suspect have been significantly underestimated by our Woodland/Davis staff).
Sue: exactly right. August is much too soon, in my opinion. August is a terrible time to do anything complex in law or public policy; too many people are gone on vacation.
[quote]If, in fact, the WAC is not able to reach consensus or they are not able to get the experts that they need, because they will need a regulatory expert and a legal expert to help them determine the transferability of the water rights…” Councilmember Lee said.[/quote]The water rights are transferable. I have checked with the experts at the State Water Resources Control Board.
[quote]The August timeline for a decision is much too short. [/quote]
Why not allow the WAC to make that decision? The WAC was given clear direction that if we cannot come to a decision by Aug 21, we will let the CC know to keep the city’s options open…
[quote]To make matters worse, some key members of the WAC will be on vacation during August. [/quote]
“Key” members? All WAC members are equal to each other – no one member is any more important than another. Most WAC members will be available in August – we took a poll. Those few that are not available have alternates to fill any vacancies so that a full contingent of 10 should be available throughout deliberations.
[b]”Key” members? All WAC members are equal to each other – no one member is any more important than another.–Elaine Musser[/b]With all due respect Elaine, some members have very specific areas of expertise pertinent to evaluating this project and are unusually prominent in their fields.
Be specific. Among the WAC members, who has planned to be gone on vacation and will be away during August meetings? How are they “key?” Or is it members of the public that will be on vacation and how would that matter?
[b]@Ryan Kelly:[/b]The fatal flaw analysis has been done, and the issue key issue now is the which project is less expensive for the ratepayers. Mark Siegler, Chair of the economics department at Sacramento State University is the only economist on the committee, and he is going to be out of town on vacation in August. He told me that he planned his August vacation when WAC meetings were scheduled in August. Now, the key meetings during which the decision will be made are going to have to be in August. This is wrong.
David, did anyone on the council vote to give the WAC more time, or was the vote to require an August deadline ultimately unanimous?
Sue: The August deadline was unanimous but I would surmise from the discussion that August is a goal for a number of reasons, but if the WAC comes back and needs additional time, they would get it.
C’mon, Sue. We are talking about one person. Do we really need an economist to tell us which project is less expensive for the rate payers. Are the other members really clueless in this regard? If this is true, then have Mark look at the options before he leaves on vacation, and submit a written opinion. Or he can participate by phone. Or an alternate can be found to give this “expert” advice.
Wow, you are one arrogant guy, Kelly. You think it is trivial to do a fiscal analsysis? Any old layman can do one? A professor of economics is referred to as “expert” in quotation marks, as if it is a meaningless adjective?
I’m sure Matt Williams and Walt Sadler can provide expertise on economic aspects, and Mark Siegler can provide input one way or another. Moreover, “the key issue now” isn’t just the cost. There are other aspects of the two projects that need comparison regarding quality, quantity, ownership, and the long-term costs. I do realize that for opponents of the Woodland-Davis project, short-term cost is what they are focusing on.
I think the WAC can act expeditiously on this. And if they can’t, they’ll say so.
I request that Sue’s post be pulled as offensive.
I don’t agree, Don. Walt Sadler has expertise, but not in fiscal analyses. Frank Loge and David Purkey have quite a bit of expertise in this area, but not as much as Mark Siegler, who is an economist who teaches how to do fiscal analyses on a daily basis.
The issue should be cost. There is no reason to believe that there will be a distinction between long term cost and short term cost. West Sacramento is a much stronger partner than Woodland anyway, from a fiscal perspective. If Woodland wants to join, fine. If they don’t, it will end up being even less expensive for us to join West Sacramento.
ar·ro·gant (r-gnt)
adj.
1. Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.
Sue, You are calling me arrogant????
[i]There is no reason to believe that there will be a distinction between long term cost and short term cost.
[/i]
I think there could be, depending on the terms of the contract that West Sac is willing to sign, among other factors.
[i]West Sacramento is a much stronger partner than Woodland anyway, from a fiscal perspective. [/i]
What makes you say that? I’m genuinely curious, not asking rhetorically.
My main point was that cost is one issue, not the only issue, and possibly not the primary issue for some.
To all blog participants: please stick to principles, not personalities. Thanks.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The water rights are transferable. I have checked with the experts at the State Water Resources Control Board.”[/i]
Sue, I agree with you 100% that the water rights are transferable; however, there is a process that the State must follow in order to make such a transfer happen. That process very clearly includes a protest procedure, and if a jurisdiction that covets the 45,000 acre feet in the water right chooses to protest the transfer, the State has no option other than to follow the well established process for handling such a protest. The timeline for protest resolution can be many years, in some cases tens of years. As a point of reference, the most recent application In the Matter of Water Right Applications 30358A and 30358B by the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, the following organizations filed protests:
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
City of Sacramento
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Water Resources
Natomas Central Mutual Water Company
Pelger Mutual Water Company
Reclamation District 108
Reclamation District 1004
Reclamation District 2035
Reclamation District 2068
State Water Contractors
Sutter Mutual Water Company
United States Department of the Interior
Westlands Water District
As follow-up to my comment above, here is my public comment text from last night’s Council meeting.
[i]My name is Matt Williams and I am a member of the Water Advisory Committee, but am speaking here tonight as an individual citizen.
Members of the Council,
If I were in your shoes wrestling with your decisions tonight, the paramount question I would be asking myself is, [b]“Is there any reason why, based on the information we know at present, that the West Sacramento alternative is not viable?”[/b]
All the other questions about election timing and fill payments that are rumbling around in my head are secondary to that one.
In response to my July 1, 2012 OpEd in the Enterprise, a water rights specialist who works for the Water Rights section of the California Department of Water Resources reached out to me to address that very question. That person’s very informed answer to the question is, [b]“Yes, based on the activity to date under the City of West Sacramento’s contract with the Central Valley Project (“CVP”), West Sacramento will have to file an application with the CVP in order to be able to sell processed water to Davis and/or Woodland. Until such application is approved, West Sacramento can not sell water to Davis and/or Woodland.”[/b]
That water rights specialist went on to say, [b]“In addition, Davis does not have any water right of its own that can be used by West Sacramento to process Davis water for Davis, unless and until the specifics of the “diversion point” of Application 30358, and/or Application 30358A, and/or Application 30358B are changed to the coordinates of the Bryte Bend Treatment Plant from California Coordinate System of 1983, Zone 2, North 2,008,200 feet and East 6,667,300 feet.”[/b]
If the West Sacramento alternative is not legally viable, then you, the Council, need to either take the steps to quickly attempt to make it viable, or walk away from it as an alternative worthy of further study. All your other decisions tonight are contingent on that.
The road to viability is through the motion made by Frank Loge and approved by the WAC in their last meeting. Specifically Council needs to quickly come together with the Councils of West Sacramento and Woodland to make a unified contact to the State Water Resources Control Board (ideally to Chair Charles R. Hoppin of Yuba City who is intimately familiar with Yolo County) to request an expedited granting of a Time Delay Order (“TDO”) for Woodland that moves Woodland’s current 2016 deadline back 12 months to 2017.
That will allow Woodland to “lose a year” without negative consequences, and in the process allow all three cities to get significant input about whether the challenges associated with the Central Valley Project and the relocation of the diversion point can be successfully resolved.
If the State Water Resources Control Board is not quick to respond to the unified three city request, or the actions over the next 10 months demonstrate significant opposition to either of the two proposed modifications, then the West Sacramento alternative will be clearly and demonstrably eliminated as viable, and Davis and Woodland will proceed with the WDCWA alternative.
Bottom-line, that is what I would do, and what I believe you should do.
[/i]
[quote]@Ryan Kelly:The fatal flaw analysis has been done, and the issue key issue now is the which project is less expensive for the ratepayers. Mark Siegler, Chair of the economics department at Sacramento State University is the only economist on the committee, and he is going to be out of town on vacation in August. He told me that he planned his August vacation when WAC meetings were scheduled in August. Now, the key meetings during which the decision will be made are going to have to be in August. This is wrong. [/quote]
The “key issue” for you personally may be whether the project is “less expensive” (whatever that may refer to), but I assure you that WAC members are looking at far more than the issue of “initial cost” if that is what you mean by “less expensive”, e.g. terms of any contract, ozonation, water transfers, CEQA/EIR review, etc. See Matt’s public comment as just one example.
And with all due respect to Mark Seigler, who is a valuable and diligent member of the WAC, he is not an indispensable member of the WAC above all others. Secondly, and if he so chooses, he can make an appearance via telephone/computer (watch the meeting via computer and participate via telephone) for any days that he will be absent if he so chooses. Thus far he has made no such request. He has able colleagues who are alternates on the WAC who can substitute in his absence, and he was advised of this and agreed (see video footage of meeting). Thirdly, he can certainly make his views known at the July 26th and Aug 9 meetings, and in writing thereafter if he feels so inclined. Alternates were chosen and fully participate at all times for the very reason that some WAC members may be absent from time to time and those vacancies must be filled with a voting member, to ensure a full contingent will be available when necessary. Fourthly, Mark can also work with staff on any issues he still may have with regard to costs, and is doing so as we speak.
[quote]Walt Sadler has expertise, but not in fiscal analyses. Frank Loge and David Purkey have quite a bit of expertise in this area, but not as much as Mark Siegler, who is an economist who teaches how to do fiscal analyses on a daily basis. [/quote]
Mark has made his views about the fiscal analysis well known, and is currently working with staff on the issue. I don’t think it serves anyone well to denigrate the qualifications of various WAC members, pitting one against another as to who is “more qualified”. All WAC members bring their own particular and varied expertise as well as viewpoints to the table. Sometimes those with lesser knowledge give fresh perspective on issues that is sorely needed.
Correction: “less knowledge” (should be in quotes)