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”).
In the past week two events have taken place that have very interesting implications when looking forward to what might happen when Davis voters actually cast their votes regarding the conjunctive use water system and the water rates recommended by the WAC, approved by Council and distributed in a Prop 218 notice. Those two events were:
1) Led by Rochelle Swanson, the Council rejected the WAC’s recommendation of a “Spring 2013 Ballot, not to be later than June 30th” and instead approved a March 5, 2013 ballot date.
2) At the close of Thursday’s WAC meeting, Alf Brandt stated, “I’m going to be ready to vote on August 9th. I will be prepared to make a motion at that point. I think I have gotten enough information. I’ve made the assessment of the risks. I do need to put together my sense of what my argument is about why I made my judgments. There is a lot more we need to do [such as specific rates, and whether DBO or not], but I will be prepared to vote on one of these options […] and I will have a motion on the 9th and make that motion and be ready to support that motion. That’s what my sense id. I think we are ready on the 9th.”
Gazing into a crystal ball, I don’t realistically see any way that Alf Brandt’s motion on the 9th can be for the West Sacramento alternative. There simply are too many unanswered questions about that alternative at this time, so I expect Alf’s motion to be one to recommend Alternative 4b a scaled down 30 mgd WDCWA Project sized with Woodland having 18 mgd and Davis 12 mgd to the Council as the WAC’s preferred option.
If my crystal ball is correct about Alf’s motion, and under the hypothetical assumption that there are enough votes in the WAC to pass that motion, how will the various citizen groups (discussed below) that expressed concerns in 2011 respond to such a decision/recommendation?
1. For those who see any added water capacity as contributing to population increase in Davis,
The most committed of the no growthers will not like the decision/recommendation at all . . . and can be expected to vote “no” in March regardless of what the water rates are. The key question when assessing this group is how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?
2. For those who have serious doubts about the objectivity/intentions/actions/competence of City of Davis Staff/Council,
The key questions when assessing this group are 1) has the WAC process addressed this group’s serious doubts? and 2) how many votes will be cast by this group?
3. For those who object as a matter of principle to any increase on either rates or taxes,
The most committed of this “read my lips” group will not like the decision/recommendation at all . . . and can be expected to vote “no” in March. Many of the people in this group will also be in the first group above. The key question when assessing this group is without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?
4. For those who believe this is really a Woodland problem, and that the JPA makes Davis a captive and minority partner.
The key questions when assessing this group are the same as the second group above 1) has the WAC process addressed this group’s serious doubts? and 2) without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?
5. For those who 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, some of the people in this group can be expected to vote against a 12 mgd WDCWA project simply because the West Sacramento Bryte Bend surface water treatment facility is operated by “public” employees. So, the key question when assessing this group is without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?
6. For those who have serious doubts about the objectivity of the private sector firms/consultants/experts.
The key questions when assessing this group are the same as the second group above 1) has the WAC process addressed this group’s serious doubts? and 2) without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?
7. For 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,
As I have said before, 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 of the 15 WAC members are ex-officio members of this interest group. With that said, in assessing how this group will vote in a March ballot, the key questions are 1) has the WAC process addressed this group’s serious doubts enough that a substantial number of “yes” votes will come from this group? and 2) will there be any “no” votes coming from this group that have not been counted in any of the earlier groups?
8. For those who see the rate increase in dollars and cents terms, and simply can’t afford the increase in these hard economic times.
It is hard to predict the size of this group. It is also hard to predict whether the members of this group will be motivated to actually vote, or will instead sit on the sideline when the votes are counted. In many ways the choice between the Woodland option and the West Sac option is moot for this group, since both those projects are indeed going to produce higher rates. The key for this group is how aggressively the rate structure rewards water conservation, because most of the people in this group will have put into place extreme water conservation measures.
9. For those who have a business in which water is a key component,
The key questions when assessing this group are the same as the second group above 1) has the WAC process addressed this group’s serious doubts? and 2) without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?
10. For those who see the rate structure approved in September as structurally unfair,
As I have said before this interest group is referred to as “the Bob Dunning interest group” and thus far Bob hasn’t been complaining much about the WAC process. Stay tuned though, Bob has a hair trigger and he and the other members of this group will be wrestling with the same key questions as others are, specifically 1) has the WAC process addressed this group’s serious doubts? and 2) has the WAC proposed a rate structure that is demonstrably fair and proportional. The answers to those two questions once again lead to the same bottom-line ballot box question we have posed many times above, without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?
11. For those who have serious ethical concerns about the bidding DBO firms and/or the DBO model itself and/or the DBO bidding process,
The major engagement of the issues central to this interest group are yet to come; however, some of the people in this group can be expected to vote against a 12 mgd WDCWA project simply because the West Sacramento Bryte Bend surface water treatment facility will not be designed, built, or run by one of the DBO firms. So, the key question when assessing this group is without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?
So here is a table for tallying up the “no” vote estimates for the eleven groups above.
|
Group |
Number of “no” votes (without double counting |
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
4 |
|
|
5 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
9 |
|
|
10 |
|
|
11 |
|
|
Total |
|
The bottom-line question is Does your Total exceed 7,500?
Now lets put your estimate of “no” votes into the context of recent election results shown in the table below.
|
Election Date |
Election |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 6, 2012 |
Measure C |
Turnout: |
17,219 |
of |
43,138 |
= |
39.92% |
|
May 3, 2011 |
Measure A |
Turnout: |
16,492 |
of |
43,395 |
= |
38.00% |
|
June 8, 2010 |
Council |
Turnout: |
14,651 |
of |
38,660 |
= |
37.90% |
|
November 3, 2009 |
Measure P |
Turnout: |
12,675 |
of |
38,247 |
= |
33.14% |
|
June 3, 2008 |
Council |
Turnout: |
14,153 |
of |
34,815 |
= |
40.65% |
|
November 6, 2007 |
Measure Q |
Turnout: |
13,021 |
of |
39,666 |
= |
32.83% |
|
June 6, 2006 |
Council |
Turnout: |
15,902 |
of |
33,641 |
= |
47.27% |
|
7 Election Average |
|
Turnout |
14,873 |
of |
38,795 |
= |
38.34% |
If your Total does exceed 7,500, then you are expecting the defeat of the ballot question. If it doesn’t, then you are expecting a win for the ballot question.
What does your crystal ball say?
Another voter group that will vote NO are those who believe that the surface water project is not necessary NOW and Davis voters will be better able to take on the added tax burden in a decade or two when the economy is believed to have made significant recovery. Davis Public Works Director Clark’s initial statement, before he went silent on the issue,was that the only way that Davis could avoid State penalties under current water quality standards(which,IMO,will most likely be relaxed in the near future due to the state of the CA economy) and win variance approval was if the voters rejected a surface water project now. This does not preclude the concept of bringing surface water to Davis in the future. There does not appear to be a game-changing cost reduction in building a smaller project with Woodland and, in any event, it would be significantly lessened by the increased bond interest costs when/if the timeline for payment was lengthened.
Matt, good article Another question is did theWAC take the time to get it right, with community buy-in? The default vote in these days of hard times and distrust of city govt is NO at the ballot box.
Good point davisite. That definitely is a 12th grouping. Many of the people in that group will also be in Group 8 (and possibly Group 3) so the The key question when assessing this 12th group is without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many incremental “no” votes will be cast by this group?
With that said, how close did you get to 7,500 “no” votes when you added up your estimates for each group?
Good point Mike. I see the people you have described as a subgrouping of Group 7. I would also suspect that anyone who fits your description, may well be already counted in Groups 1-6.
With that said, how close did you get to 7,500 “no” votes when you added up your estimates for each group?
If the WAC rushes a decision I expect the CC will have a difficult time getting community buy-in, would be my best estimate
The WAC isn’t rushing a decision.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]]”If the WAC rushes a decision I expect the CC will have a difficult time getting community buy-in, would be my best estimate.”[/i]
Mike, when I started writing this article last night at midnight, the major objective of my thought process was to outline a method for anticipating (modeling) community buy-in, or lack thereof.
If a portion of the community feels that the WAC has rushed a decision, then the number of “no” votes that will come from Group 7 will increase.
I could be wrong, but it appears to me that anyone who reads Don’s comment will come to the conclusion that Don doesn’t think that the number of Davis voters who will fall into Group 7 is very high. You on the other hand appear to believe that he is wrong. How many Davis voters do you expect to fall into Group 7 on the day the ballot votes are cast?
Matt: There were at least four votes recently to recommend that the November ballot be an advisory vote. The vote last Thursday to remove the three most expensive options was easy, and a reflection of how far we have come.
But those 4 votes for an advisory ballot are sobering, and a reminder that things could turn out well … or not so well.
My colleagues on the 2011 Water Referendum Leadership Committee have taken the time to write extensively about our views, and we strongly believe that the majority of Davis ratepayers agree with us, or will once we get into a campaign and the community learns more.
Remember, the water project, staff, and the CC start off with a NO vote. Trust was lost, even decimated, and it will take alot of work to show the community that the next recommendation is trustworthy and affordable. It takes years to earn trust, and seconds to lose it. We all know what that is about.
That said, I think the WAC has a lot more work to do. It would be relatively easy to flip one way or the other to a 12 mgd option (going to Woodland, or West Sacramento), but we have huge concerns on various aspects of the three remaining “choices,” and we doubt that the final project will specifically follow one of them. In general, probably, but not specifics.
For example, the size of the carrying pipe … important, and to be dtermined. Do you want a nine lane freeway at Richards Subway, or do you love and appreciate our funky underpass? It’s a philosophy, and this tension will come out hugely as the specifics of a conjunctive use project come into focus.
Another one: why are we at 12 mgd and not a lot lower, maybe under 5 mgd? My understanding is that the Davis residential water softeners are the primary cause for more than doubling the surface water “take” from the river. Softeners produce overly salty waste water from homes, and this has huge effects on our waste treatment plant. I dont remember any community conversation about reducing the use of water softeners; it seems that the WAC and staff and the CC just assume that we are stuck with the current water softener problem. I don’t think so; “no guts, no glory.”
The issue has to be seriously explored, the community educated about the problem, and solutions found. For what it’s worth, I have never used a water softener in my Davis home, and my family has no interest in one. Other California cities with similar issues as ours have made changes, but we apparently haven’t even bothered to check in with our community’s feelings about changes in water softener systems and usage paterns as a way of saving huge amounts of money on overbuilding our water supply system just to dilute our overly salty waste water to the treatment plant in order to bring down the salinity.
There are many other points to consider, but Matt, when you want us to estimate a ballot result, all I can say is: if the community feels honored and respected and educated about a new surface water project, and believes that it’s the best project for an afforadble cost, then I do not anticipate any problems with a citywide vote. If, however, the study and education processes are not done right, then expect the voters to throw a bucket of colde water on the project. I cannot say more than that, as I dont have a crystal ball and I understand Madame X has left town!
However, as I have said, making sure there is a good, robust and healthy community discussion of such an important topic as our water system is the Plan “B” of the 2011 Water Referendum Leadership Committee. Glad to see the discussion going on.
For example
“for example” is typo! I dont have anything else to add!
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”[b]Remember, the water project, staff, and the CC start off with a NO vote.[/b] Trust was lost, even decimated, and it will take alot of work to show the community that the next recommendation is trustworthy and affordable. It takes years to earn trust, and seconds to lose it. We all know what that is about.”[/i]
I acknowledge that you believe your bolded statement above, but what evidence do you have that that statement is true?
I will acknowledge that in the first five of the Groups I’ve outlined in my article, your statement is probably true. But I’m relatively sure that for the last six of the Groups I outlined, “the jury was out” back in 2011, and that because of the transparency and thoroughness of the WAC’s efforts this year, the people in those six Groups do not start off with a “no” vote, much less the emphatic “NO” vote you argue is there.
Further, the numbers say that you had between 3,000 and 4,000 validated signatures on the Referendum. That leaves 11,000 to 12,000 “typical” Davis voters who chose not to sign the Referendum. Do you really think that those 11,000 to 12,000 voters feel their trust has been “lost, even decimated”?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Another one: why are we at 12 mgd and not a lot lower, maybe under 5 mgd? [b]My understanding is that the Davis residential water softeners are the primary cause for more than doubling the surface water “take” from the river.[/b] Softeners produce overly salty waste water from homes, and this has huge effects on our waste treatment plant. [b]I dont remember any community conversation about reducing the use of water softeners; it seems that the WAC and staff and the CC just assume that we are stuck with the current water softener problem.[/b] I don’t think so; “no guts, no glory.”[/i]
You have brought up a very important issue . . . one that Dianna Jensen addresses that issue on page 6 of her Demand/Capacity Staff Report [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-07-26-item4-staffreport-demand-capacity.pdf[/url] as follows:
[i]”Why 12 mgd instead of 10 mgd? When we first re-visited our demands, were originally looking at 10mgd for drinking water purposes. The reason we are asking for a reduced capacity evaluation of 12 mgd instead of 10 mgd is to meet our anticipated waste water effluent discharge requirements. We are still in the evaluation process of whether 12 mgd will be sufficient for waste water. There are assumptions in this calculation that could change the number if we are off. The first assumption is trying to anticipate what our effluent discharge requirements for EC might be in our next permit. We are looking at a range from 700 to 1000. The next assumption is the amount of customers we can get to remove their water softeners. If we can get 90% of people to remove their water softeners, we’ll be able to reach a much lower EC goal with 12 mgd than if we can only get 50% of people removing their water softeners. This evaluation is still underway, and the range of surface water volumes is from 10-15 mgd, but we felt using 12 mgd for project evaluation purposes was a good place to start.”[/i]
. . . and then provides tables supporting that text in pages 5-7 of her Demand/Capacity presentation [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-07-26-item4-presentation-demand-capacity.pdf[/url]
A program to address water softeners is an issue that Bill Kopper did indeed bring up in WAC, but the broad consensus amongst WAC members at that time was that Davis citizens would rebel at the cost of and political unilaterality of a City-wide water softener ban. As Dianna notes in her presentation, a voluntary program is not going to achieve the necessary wastewater chemistry unless the source water going into Davis households gets to a level below 700 micro ohms per cc.
With that said, the water softener issue really affects both the Woodland and West Sac alternatives in the same way, and choosing (or not choosing) between those alternatives does not affect the ability of the WAC and the City to consider electrical conductivity issues in determining the final sizing of the amount of water delivered from the selected alternative.
Michael Harring ton said . . .
[i]”There are many other points to consider, but Matt, when you want us to estimate a ballot result, all I can say is: if the community feels honored and respected and educated about a new surface water project, and believes that it’s the best project for an afforadble cost, then I do not anticipate any problems with a citywide vote. If, however, the study and education processes are not done right, then expect the voters to throw a bucket of colde water on the project. I cannot say more than that, as I dont have a crystal ball and I understand Madame X has left town!”[/i]
Well said Michael. Very well said!
BTW, my wife and I don’t have a water softener either.
Everyone: I’m thinking we may need a citywide vote on the water softener issue, with full education as to the pros and cons ? Just tossing this out there. Some very high-vis community leaders are privately asking me about the water softener issue and why isn’t the city dealing with it? Anyone have a count of systems installed and locations, for research purposes in the aggragate? Older versus newer neighborhoods, etc.?
Why bother when the surface water option, in either case, solves the problem? Why would we intentionally scale the surface supply back to reduce the availability of the better water of the surface/groundwater mix? Are you advocating for intentionally underbuilding the water supply?
Mike, what would you expect the citywide vote to entail?
You and I are the exceptions in Davis. I am guessing, but I would say that the market penetration of water softeners in Davis is well over 75%, and the “crazies” like you and me spend significantly more money on fixture replacement because of the mineral buildup. I know my wife and I put new faucets and shower heads in just over 5 years ago at great expense, and the metal has become fully corroded in that five year period, enough so that we need to replace the fixtures again. All three of our toilets no longer flush effectively because the holes under the rim of the bowl that create “the swirl” have enough mineral buildup on them that they no longer create an effective swirl. That is fine for the two of us, because we know how to implement the “work around” but the recent visit from my 89 year-old mother produced some plumbing adventures.
Bottom-line, a water softener ban without a source water change is going to entail some significant social engineering . . . and I’m not sure Davis is ready for that.
Anyone have data on the water softener system installations ?
We are ready for change. Everything is on the table.
Michael Harrington asked . . .
[i]”Anyone have data on the water softener system installations ?”[/i]
Since I don’t believe they need to be licensed, the likely answer to your question is “no.”
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”We are ready for change. Everything is on the table.”[/i]
In the immortal words of Tonto, [i]”Uhh…who do you mean we, Kemo Sabe?”[/i]
So let me see… Our city leaders are so afraid to even study the water softener
Usage and offering the community a choice that said softeners are politically untouchable ? How would the city know ? Maybe this needs to be part of what goes on a ballot give them the choice I’m betting if the voters knew of the huge costs of those softeners, the voters would approve some sort of controls
No guts, no glory
It never hurts to educate the public and ask, does it ?
Just another delay tactic Michael. Water softeners will take care of themselves when we have softer water to start with.
Well said Mark.