On September 6, 2011 the Davis City Council in the wee hours of the morning, by a 4-1 vote, voted to move forward with the surface water project with what they called a 14 percent rate hike.
Over the course of the next three months, it became clear that there were serious problems with the rates that were passed on that day. In fact, even Councilmember Dan Wolk appeared to be confused about what was actually passed.
As Councilmember Wolk told Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning, “The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some.”
In fact, as Mr. Dunning would point out, “14 percent has absolutely no relation to reality. The actual figures are much, much higher. Worse yet, the city made the conscious decision to balance the water project budget on the backs of larger families through an onerous ‘tier’ system.”
However, as it turns out and was never adequately explained, the 14 percent figure was based on an “assumption” of a 20 percent conservation rate. The actual implementation of the rate hikes would depend on future consumption patterns.
It did not help that the Enterprise got the story wrong, reporting, “Hours of discussion that began Tuesday night culminated in the Davis City Council’s 4-1 decision at 3:20 Wednesday morning to raise water rates by no more than 14 percent annually over the next five years.”
The staff report clearly indicated, “These estimated monthly water bill impacts assume an overall 20% reduction in single family residential water consumption over the five-year period. Customers with below average water use now will experience lower-than-average monthly water bill impacts, while customers with above average water use would see higher than average monthly water bill impacts. The individual water bill impact will vary depending on a customer’s current water use and their future conservation efforts during the five year period.”
Nevertheless even supporters of these rates would come to question their wisdom – the lack of an adequate rate study and, worse yet, the lack of effective public outreach.
Entering the picture was Michael Harrington, a former Davis City Council member, along with the Committee of the 2011 Water Referendum.
Mr. Harrington, spent $9000 of his own money to back and pay for a professional signature-gathering process that, at the end of a very compressed timeline, got enough votes by a small margin to force the matter onto the ballot.
At this point, calmer heads began to prevail. Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson had initially backed a plan to have a one-year rate increase to deal with infrastructure costs while exploring the water project further. That effort failed due to a lack of a third vote and they eventually joined Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza to support the staff plan.
It was a decision that Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson would ultimately regret.
“I can’t support a rate going [up] that doesn’t have a rate study behind it,” the Mayor Pro Tem said on December 6. “That was a mistake, I regret not sticking to my guns in September and only doing the one year.”
“It is clear a significant portion of the community needs more information as reflected in the referendum, as well as the number of protest votes,” Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson said prior to that meeting, which succeeded in rescinding the rate hikes and the setting the course for the Water Advisory Committee to examine the project and the costs and come back to council with recommendations about moving forward.
“After prolonged discussions with the City Manager, I feel assured we can in fact take some time to institute the measures in the original motion I seconded on September 6. It was clear then, by the number of protests, that the community was requesting more information regarding an increase,” she added.
As Councilmember Wolk told the Vanguard, “For a number of reasons, I don’t believe putting the ordinance on the ballot is wise. Instead, we need to work together to forge a better path forward on this issue.”
He said that was his intent on September 6 and “we need to try again at this one.”
What emerged on December 6 was a compromise vote that rescinded the rates passed just three months earlier and put the matter to a public vote – originally set for June, then November, and now it appears sometime next spring.
None of this would have happened without the referendum that forced to the city to pause and allowed the more moderate voices on the water issue – Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk – to push for a better plan.
Despite some initial misgivings in the process to form the Water Advisory Committee, their work has opened up other alternatives, such as the West Sacramento option that could further drive the cost down.
There are upsides and downsides to the West Sacramento option. On the positive side is that it would allow Davis to delay the project to fit its more flexible schedule rather than the more urgent schedule of Woodland. The costs could be considerably lower as well, but at the cost of joint governance and other assurances.
It would seem that most of the major stakeholders in the process agree that the extension of the process has been a benefit.
As Rochelle Swanson explained back in December, “We didn’t do the things that you did,” speaking to the leadership of Woodland and referring to rate studies and public outreach.
As Michael Harrington and others wrote in yesterday’s column, “The Leadership Committee of the 2011 Water Rate Referendum appreciates the changes and improvements being discussed or made by City staff and the CC, but we remain very concerned that the process is being rushed too much, again.”
But the process has slowed down. A month ago, the WAC had voted to proceed in November, but it was clear that the timeline to do so was too tight to be practical. On Thursday, they voted unanimously to push it back to the spring, which will give the city time to study all options before proceeding.
The referendum signature process was clearly divisive and it polarized the community. However, despite that divisiveness, it should be noted that, by pausing the rates, it allowed for a likely better and more cost-effective project, and ironically enough, greater consensus.
It is a paradox that many need to recognize. Leading the way into the fray was former Councilmember Michael Harrington who would both apologize and explain what was at times a noisy and shrill effort by himself.
“Sometimes I was a bit noisy and a little shrill. I had to get attention, fast,” he wrote the council. “But you have to understand: I had about 3 weeks to try and push the bow of the Titanic a few degrees to avoid the iceberg that had been looming unnoticed for months dead ahead.”
“I chose to over-react, rather than under, to stir the pot, push the bow, and try to help the poor and middle class in Davis who simply cannot afford a steep raise in water rates at this point, especially when the rates were facially screwed up and the project itself seemed … odd,” he said.
The compressed time line was difficult. He had to work fast and they ended up getting the referendum with its large signature requirement in a 30-day period to be approved by just 132 signatures.
“It was way, way way too close,” he said.
Newly-elected Councilmember Brett Lee similarly agrees that the end of the process has been improved.
“I believe that a smarter, less expensive, voter approved project will be the direct result of the referendum,” he told the Vanguard on Friday. “As a result of the successful signature gathering effort last Fall, the rate increases were stopped and the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) was formed.”
Like many, Councilmember Lee believes that the WAC’s work has been essential to the effort to get a better and more affordable project.
“The WAC has done great work at looking in great detail at our current situation, our projected situation and the details of the proposed projects and rates structures,” he said. “As a result of the WAC’s efforts, I believe we will access surface water but at a far lower cost than was previously projected, and with a more thoughful and affordable rate structure.”
Brett Lee was elected, perhaps in part because of his support for the water referendum. He was the only council candidate and now councilmember who was actively part of the signature-gathering process.
“I decided to participate in the signature gathering process for the water rate referendum because fundamentally I believe that any large tax/utility increase should go before the voters,” he said. “We get to vote on a 6 year $49/yr Parks tax supplement and yet I don’t get to vote on a proposed $400-$500 increase in my yearly utility rates that is going to last for the next 20-30 years?”
One of the ideas promulgated by supporters of the project is that those who supported the referendum either wanted to delay or kill the project.
For many, however, the referendum was seen as a means to have a better process and perhaps end up with a better and more affordable project.
“From the beginning I have supported the idea of accessing surface water for our community. But I thought that we as a community should get to weigh in on the decision before committing to such a large project,” Councilmember Lee said.
“The voters of Davis have shown time and again that we are willing to pay more in taxes for things we believe are important for our community. By 2/3rds majorities we have supported Parks, Schools, Libraries and Open Space. The water project vote will require only a simple majority vote; I do not believe it is asking too much to allow us to vote on it,” he added.
Opposing the signature process were Councilmember Stephen Souza and now Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Kemble Pope.
Mr. Souza’s letter to the Enterprise charges: “There now are paid signature gatherers at the food stores and Farmers Market misrepresenting the facts.”
He continued: “This misinformation will cause the citizens of our community to end up paying more to meet the regulatory standards we must meet by 2017.”
But, to a large extent, Mr. Souza was proven wrong and, if anything, ratepayers will pay less now as the result of the referendum process than they would have.
Mr. Pope refused to comment on whether the current process constitutes a better place, but he did note, “it sure is a ‘different’ place.”
However, others are more generous about the impact.
Mayor Joe Krovoza, heavily criticized for backing the original water rate, admits to a number of missteps.
“I have no doubt that we will set rates that are better for the overall management of our water resources, and fairer for our ratepayers,” the Mayor said in an email to the Vanguard. “On project selection, the WAC, city and JPA work to right-size the Woodland-Davis project and drive down costs is being effective. That’s all positive.”
While West Sacramento provides another alternative option for consideration, Mr. Krovoza is cognizant of the need to “preserve both options so that they still exist when the WAC advises us on the best option — whether with Woodland or West Sacramento.”
“Time is getting tight to preserve the Woodland-Davis option along with the West Sac option. We really are having to buy time to preserve the ability of the WAC to provide us with the advice we seek,” he said.
The big problem with what was ultimately a September 7 (early morning hours) vote on the rate at the end of the Proposition 218 process was the lack of a rate study to guide the process and set the rates fairly.
“We should have conducted a full rate study before proceeding with the Prop 218 rate-setting,” the Mayor acknowledged.
“I was very pleased that before the council proceeded with the Prop 218 process that led to the September vote, it insisted on full, multi-year rates, not a one-year rate that wouldn’t have shown the public the full magnitude of what was coming,” the Mayor said. “However, I take responsibility for not seeking a major rate study at that point.”
Another problem was the lack of public outreach.
“During the 218 process, the public information and community forums were quite good for those that took time to look in on them. But the public outreach and detailed rate work should have been far more extensive before the rates were submitted for a Prop 218 vote,” he said.
“The lessons, however, run deeper,” he said. “I believe the community’s rate concerns during the 218 process were fueled by an underlying unease with the project itself. Clearly, a more extensive public process is needed when the magnitude of community cost is so high.”
The Water Advisory Committee process, heavily criticized by this site, has been critical to moving forward with a far better project.
“We asked them to give us a full review on rates and the project itself, and that’s what they are doing. I believe they are finding out how complex the supply, demand and quality issues can be,” Mayor Krovoza said.
The process is taking longer than hoped, however, the mayor argues, “What’s critical is that the ultimate decision isn’t rushed. Their unanimous decision to endorse the need for surface water in conjunction with the use of our best groundwater is a big step, but only one step to recommending the final project.”
For the mayor the huge take-away lesson is that major community decisions require major outreach efforts, rather than “the minimum the law requires.”
“In Davis, we have a spectacular opportunity to engage the expertise of our citizens to the benefit of City Council decision-making and therefore the entire community,” the Mayor said.
None of this would have been possible without the referendum forcing the hand of the reluctant mayor and reinvigorating Councilmembers Wolk and Swanson to push for their middle road proposal.
The original project was listed at $150 to $160 million. While the work is still in progress, a paired-down West Sacramento option might be just over half that, with the current draft proposal having it at $84.2 million.
There are many reasons why that might not end up being the project, but the fact is that most everyone believes that we are in a better place now than we were on September 7.
The op-ed by Michael Harrington makes it clear that there is still work to be done in terms of forging a consensus.
The op-ed concluded, “The Leadership Committee of the 2011 Water Referendum thanks the CC for repealing the discredited Sept 6, 2011 rates, establishing the WAC, and (we hope) postponing the November ballot and providing additional time to the WAC to continue its research.”
At the same time, they continue to push for things such as fixing the current disproportional water rate system (which seems to be in progress), an independent study of our core well and supply system (which appears to have be completed by the WAC, and planning for a conjunctive use water system (which is also underway).
One of the more interesting comments was made by Matt Williams, an alternate on the WAC.
He wrote to Michael Harrington, “I’d like to note one thing that has evolved over the months since you started the referendum. Specifically, I asked you many times what your Plan B was, and you regularly chose not to answer that question.”
He added, “The reality is that the way things have panned out, Plan B has organically evolved, and is still evolving. Given that, I owe you props for having the courage of your conviction to believe that putting a halt to Plan A would result in Plan B emerging.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Prior referenda stopped the projects the CC majority wanted to do.
The 2011 water referendum did not stop a project cold; it set up a WAC process where it appears the resulting water supply system might be better, and hopefully less expensive for the poor and middle class whom can least afford to pay.
Also, we bought at least two election cycles where the DJUSD has had a clean shot at the ballot for their critical parcel taxes for our kids
The referendum process also pushed back the fiscal drain on our business communities, while we gain time away from the lingering Great Recession
We are also working on a public utilities initiative that will establish a routine fair and transparent legal process for large utility projects to go to the voters. Never again will a small group of insiders be able to attempt to saddle Davis with a huge project that is kept from the voters.
All of this is Plan B
Thanks Michael, it’s nice to have checks and balances.
[quote]The Water Advisory process, heavily criticized by this site, has been critical to moving forward with a far better project.[/quote]
I am still at a loss as to why “this site” has heavily criticized the Water Advisory Committee process – even before it got under way. Is “this site” still critical of the Water Advisory Committee process? The WAC is trying as hard as is humanly possible to do right by Davis citizens. Frankly, I don’t know how we could work any harder or do any better than the process that is currently in place, but I am certainly open to suggestions…
[quote]The 2011 water referendum did not stop a project cold; it set up a WAC process where it appears the resulting water supply system might be better, and hopefully less expensive for the poor and middle class whom can least afford to pay.
Also, we bought at least two election cycles where the DJUSD has had a clean shot at the ballot for their critical parcel taxes for our kids
The referendum process also pushed back the fiscal drain on our business communities, while we gain time away from the lingering Great Recession
We are also working on a public utilities initiative that will establish a routine fair and transparent legal process for large utility projects to go to the voters. Never again will a small group of insiders be able to attempt to saddle Davis with a huge project that is kept from the voters.
All of this is Plan B [/quote]
Michael, it doesn’t sound as if you are willing to let the WAC continue its efforts on its own timetable, or am I misinterpreting your comments above?
“I am still at a loss as to why “this site” has heavily criticized the Water Advisory Committee process – even before it got under way.”
Why should the WAC process have been trusted in the Sept/ Dec realm? It was by no means a fait accompli that the WAC would be independent and would scrutinize the project completely. It could have gone either way. Pressing the WAC and the council for openness and for true independence was a reasonable thing.
“Is “this site” still critical of the Water Advisory Committee process?”
This article ought to answer that question.
Hi Elaine,
I think there are three main components to fixing things. I put out a timeline yesterday that I think is reasonable. I’m happy to come to the WAC and discuss
The DV so far as I remember has never been negative about the WAC
The CC unwittingly gave you an unreasonable deadline and now they are going to fix it
Change takes time
Thanks for your hard work as Chair; it’s a lot to take on for the busy professional I know you are !
Elaine, what I have been hearing from Michael of late is a qualified “yes” as an answer to your question. His OpEd with Pam Nieberg, et.al. yesterday lays out the key components that he and his referendum supporters feel the WAC must cover
[i]First, the current water rates are probably unconstitutional and water is being sold at disproportionate rates to different customers. The WAC is looking into this problem […] the current rates have nothing to do with a proposed surface water project; the rates simply have to be fixed and made legal. We are not critical of the City at this time; we are just pointing out that they have to be made legal. The WAC needs to focus — now — on those rates, and developing a system that conforms to law. Then, put out the Prop 218 notice of the change to the rate system. The purpose of this is NOT to raise rates, but just to make them conform to law; hopefully, this means the rates will be lowered, or kept the same. This needs to be done this fall; there shouldn’t be any need for a citywide vote on this remedial program to conform to law.
Second, the current water supply system needs a complete evaluation for maintenance, function, and longevity, with a rate system that will support that system. Instead of band-aids, study the system as one we need, intend to keep on line as long as possible, and will maintain appropriately.
Third, while working on the above, the WAC should continue on its research concerning a conjunctive water system to supplement the wells, not replace them.
Fourth, we believe that the Woodland Davis Project JPA should be immediately terminated, and the JPA disbanded.[/i]
The WAC can certainly address the first three . . . and surely will be addressing them. IMHO the fourth one is well beyond the purview of the WAC. Only the Council can address the legal commitments and issues associated with the future of the JPA.
Elaine
I think you need new water project and rate onsultants who don’t just present huge projects and high water demand assumptions. I saw about ten pairs of WAC eyes rolling at the last weeks presentation. Those consultants were straight out of 1995, following the 1988 General Plan thinking
Dump the Woodland JPA and focus like a laser on a Davis style project that we can all endorse.
To clarify my post above, the qualified “yes” that I referred to is “yes we are willing to let the WAC continue its efforts on its own timetable.”
With that said, if it appears that the WAC is rushing to judgment I’m sure Mike won’t be bashful. The reality is that “rushing” is a subjective term, and there will be some differences of opinion as we progress. That is inevitable in any process as complex as this one.
Michael: [i]”Dump the Woodland JPA and focus like a laser on a Davis style project that we can all endorse.”[/i]
Matt:[i] the qualified “yes” that I referred to is “yes we are willing to let the WAC continue its efforts on its own timetable.”[/i]
Michael has directly contradicted Matt. I probably don’t need to explain any further.
Mike Harrington: [i]”Sometimes I was a bit noisy and a little shrill. I had to get attention, fast,” he wrote the council. “But you have to understand: I had about 3 weeks to try and push the bow of the Titanic a few degrees to avoid the iceberg that had been looming unnoticed for months dead ahead.”[/i]
But now the Titanic is adrift, leaking toxic substances and needing significant maintenance to keep it afloat… but we don’t yet have a plan to fix the problems.
In consideration of what Mike did to help produce a project-killing referendum vote, on one hand I given him credit for investing so much of his own time and money to influence the political outcome.
My issue with this approach – political agitation to block something so complex and so important – is that the blockers, in this case, lack an alternative plan. Just doing nothing is not an option; so what now?
There is that principle “lead, follow or get the hell out of the way”. For this issue, I am mostly getting out of the way because there are enough committed and knowledgeable people leading us to a solution. I will follow the leaders that I trust once they reach a decisions point.
This is an extremely complicated and technical municipal strategy/plan development effort, and those without the time or capacity to get to expert level, have no business inserting themselves in any leadership role, IMO. We should all turn off our emotional processing units and stop look backwards blaming other for their mistakes in judgment. This exercise should be 100% fact-based and work should be done by the experts to distill the technical complexity down to a succinct story that a moderately intelligent voter can digest.
The primary focus is where do we go from here… and that should be the primary focus until we get there… wherever and whatever “there” is.
[quote]My issue with this approach – political agitation to block something so complex and so important – is that the blockers, in this case, lack an alternative plan. Just doing nothing is not an option; so what now?[/quote]
Jeff: This is the point that Matt Williams addresses and in a way it changes my thinking. After all, why is that one cannot simply point out that a given plan is a bad plan? And then leave it to others to figure out a better way.
Matt makes the point this is essentially what happened here.
But to give you another example – I can’t throw a curveball in baseball but if I’m watching the game, I sure know when a pitcher has thrown a bad one.
The water plan as passed on September 6 was a bad curveball, the referendum forced them to stop throwing bad curveballs, it was left to the management to then bring in new pitching coaches to figure out how to throw better curveballs.
[i]”But to give you another example – I can’t throw a curveball in baseball but if I’m watching the game, I sure know when a pitcher has thrown a bad one.”[/i]
Let’s use the football analogy and then the term “armchair quarterback” comes to mind. It is a somewhat derogatory term for a good reason.
David, I think you ask a very good question here. It is one that causes me a great deal of thinking time related to our current maladies of government dysfunction.
I differentiate the average protester or citizen having and sharing an opinion, from someone taking a leadership position. If you are taking/accepting an active leadership position; then you should also be help the team solve problems and/or realize the opportunities.
Leaders opposed to a project have to come to the table with an alternative solution. Certainly doing nothing is an alternative; but then it also comes with consequences. Said another way, a decision to do nothing is still a decision… and it should also be evaluated on its pros-cons and costs-benefits.
What I am hearing from the leading opposition to the surface water project is: “I don’t like it, so go figure out something else to do that I will like.” I’m sorry, but I don’t have any respect for that approach. It is too easy. It is risk averse (as in, if I don’t commit to any alternative, I can’t be ever labeled as having made a mistake). I especially bristle at those lacking any connection to any prior commitment lampooning those that took risks making decisions. Perfection is the enemy of the good. There are frankly more problems today within our mess of public finances that are the result of indecision and failure to act.
Leaders make decisions to fix problems and pursue opportunities. Sometimes they make mistakes. But, unless you are willing to put your own skin in the game for a solution, then I don’t value your opinion beyond it being your own. If you pursue an agenda to lead others to your opinion that lacks an alternative… I see you as just malicious and blocking and more detrimental than helpful.
Sit at the table with the rest of these committed and smart people trying to figure the optimum solution to this problem. That is what leadership looks like in my book. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way.
I understand those points, but by the same token, I think I knew that I did not like the water project as designed last fall, but having seen it stop now and having the process now in place go further, I think we are heading in a better direction. But I could not have come up with the plan in advance.
….”Another problem was the lack of public outreach.”: I totally agree!!
Here is an example of how the aphorism “How it begins is how it ends” applies in this case.
BAD START:The Davis City Council approved the Woodland-Davis Surface Water Project the week before Christmas 2010 when everyone was busy, unaware, or away! Those approving the Project did not provide any explanation why the critically needed Project water right offer was available from the developer ONLY in December of 2010. Finally, December 2010 was also the last month that Councilman Saylor (the third assured vote for the Project) was available to complete the “Christmas Coup” resulting in the DCC ultimately approving the Project on December 21, 2010. The rest of the process has been adversarial at best, and one can only hope that it will end well.
As an aside, I consider the West Sacramento option to be the better choice because it is further away from the discharge of irrigation return water from the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District* than the proposed Woodland-Davis Project intake structure N of I-5. Dilution may be the solution to pollution in this case.
I hope this helps!
_______
*through the Colusa Drain into the Sacramento River at Knights Landing.
That is a fair point. However, I think those of us in a leadership position (able to influence others) need to be careful at times for how that power is used. The rest of us need to be highly critical when it is improperly used.
One thing to consider, if a leader is critical of a plan and offers an alternative plan, that leader is demonstrating transparency and indicating consideration for the greater good (interrest to solve the problem at hand). However, if a leader is critical and lacks participation in the development of an alternative solution; he/she should be suspect as being motivated by a hidden agenda or selfish interest.
Think of a company dumping toxic chemicals that have been proved to kill fish downstream. Now let’s say that that company spends all its effort influencing locals to fear the loss of jobs to oppose the government enforcement of stricter discharge regulations. In my view, that company would be exploiting its leadership position to block a solution to a problem without any alternative. I think in this case, they would be deserving of our scorn. Now let’s say the company offered an alternative plan that allowed them to phase-in changes to minimize economic impacts and also enabled them to take advantage of emerging technology advancements for water discharge chemical scrubbers. In this case, I would reserve my scorn for those criticizing the company’s plan without supporting an alternative that helps them address the economic impacts of compliance.
Again, this is my issue with those in a leadership position. Leaderhsip comes with some extra responsibility… something I continually learn on a regular basis. I think the average Joe should be able to criticize everything until his face turns blue.
Since August when the water issue hit the streets there were a number of voices urging that this had to be done now or that pausing in any way would be very costly to the City.
Those voices are important in allowing others to inculcate the value of those perspectives.
However, recently, those voices have been fewer and those that have spoken have been more subdued.
Are we losing the value of the insights of those people and possibly losing out on their point of view?
Or has the conduct of the WAC helped to bring the boiling point of the cauldron down to an acceptable room temperature?
I am still wanting to hear about the potential pitfalls that an April or June vote might have?
David Thompson
David:[i] “I am still wanting to hear about the potential pitfalls that an April or June vote might have?”[/i]
The major constraint is the regulatory timeline that Woodland is facing. We presently have two options for surface water. If Woodland chooses a firm and proceeds with a separate project, our options change: we have to try to get back into a partnership with Woodland, or we have to go with the West Sac option.
David Thompson:
Those are great questions. Speaking for myself as someone concerned about the long-term costs, and seeing the opposition as just another act of kicking the can down the road, the conduct and existence of the WAC has certainly helped. I see that as an informed and objective body doing good work to find and recommend the optimum solution to the problem. My concerns have not dissipated; they have just been calmed by a delay that includes enough action in the discovery and analysis phase.
Any plan that I can support must include a cost/risk assessment of future compliance and delivery upgrades required. In general, I am not in support of any back-loading of costs, and prefer front-loading as we need to LOWER our future obligations, not raise them. However, I am fine with any solution that saves us money in the long run.
Don: This is why the city is taking steps to preserve the Woodland option. Woodland has indicated that with a clear signal from the city, they can wait. Additionally, the city could pay for some initial steps that would allow Woodland to proceed while allowing the city time. Is this ideal? No. But the city has boxed itself into a corner by failing to take these steps previously.
Key questions about the West Sac alternative.
What water consumption rate is assumed for Davis through the contract period?
What growth rate and population size for the city is that based on?
Does that account for increased university population, as proposed by the Chancellor (5000 students in ten years)?
Is any housing growth built into the water consumption rates for the contract period?
Is there any constraint on expanding the delivery rate (i.e., size of intake or pipes or processing facility size) above which expansion would significantly increase costs?
What conservation rate is built into the assumptions?
Would the water rates charged to customers be designed to incentivize conservation, as tentatively proposed by the NRC?
If it is assumed that there will be a mix of West Sac and deep well water, what percentage of the water is expected to come from the deep wells?
What percentage of capacity would they be expected to run (hours/day, for example)?
How would long-term use of the deep wells compare to our historic use patterns for that aquifer, and what potential risk would that pose to the aquifer?
Do Davis residents understand that they would be paying higher water rates (how much higher?) to continue using high-salt well water much of the time, augmented by chlorinated water from West Sacramento,
vs.
paying even higher water rates (how much higher?) to shift almost entirely to ozonated surface water via the WDCWA project?
[quote]erm: “Is “this site” still critical of the Water Advisory Committee process?”
dmg: This article ought to answer that question. [/quote]
It is not clear to me from this article… see Don’s comment:
[quote]Michael: “Dump the Woodland JPA and focus like a laser on a Davis style project that we can all endorse.”
Matt: the qualified “yes” that I referred to is “yes we are willing to let the WAC continue its efforts on its own timetable.”
Don: Michael has directly contradicted Matt. I probably don’t need to explain any further.[/quote]
[quote]But the city has boxed itself into a corner by failing to take these steps previously.[/quote]
Take what steps previously?
[quote]The DV so far as I remember has never been negative about the WAC [/quote]
The Davis Vanguard has been a regular critic of the WAC – even before it met.
[quote]Dump the Woodland JPA and focus like a laser on a Davis style project that we can all endorse.[/quote]
And what if the West Sac option doesn’t pan out?
[quote]Leaders opposed to a project have to come to the table with an alternative solution. Certainly doing nothing is an alternative; but then it also comes with consequences. Said another way, a decision to do nothing is still a decision… and it should also be evaluated on its pros-cons and costs-benefits. [/quote]
Well said, Jeff!
[quote]Key questions about the West Sac alternative.
What water consumption rate is assumed for Davis through the contract period?
What growth rate and population size for the city is that based on?
Does that account for increased university population, as proposed by the Chancellor (5000 students in ten years)?
Is any housing growth built into the water consumption rates for the contract period?
Is there any constraint on expanding the delivery rate (i.e., size of intake or pipes or processing facility size) above which expansion would significantly increase costs?
What conservation rate is built into the assumptions?
Would the water rates charged to customers be designed to incentivize conservation, as tentatively proposed by the NRC?
If it is assumed that there will be a mix of West Sac and deep well water, what percentage of the water is expected to come from the deep wells?
What percentage of capacity would they be expected to run (hours/day, for example)?
How would long-term use of the deep wells compare to our historic use patterns for that aquifer, and what potential risk would that pose to the aquifer?
Do Davis residents understand that they would be paying higher water rates (how much higher?) to continue using high-salt well water much of the time, augmented by chlorinated water from West Sacramento,
vs.
paying even higher water rates (how much higher?) to shift almost entirely to ozonated surface water via the WDCWA project? [/quote]
All good questions Don… stay tuned for the WAC discussions on these very topics…
Dear Don and Jeff:
Thank you for sharing your concerns.
Mine are too a great extent focussed on the 330 seniors at Rancho Yolo. They have an ominous situation which is too complex for a 218 to deal with equitably and no way in which individual conservation will make a difference.
80% of the residents are low income and they all pay a large portion of their income as rent. There is very little discretionary income.
A lower cost project becomes critical as under a number of circumstances some might lose their only asset (their mobile home)to higher water costs while in an era when they lower their income.
So looking at potential exposure is a part of ascertaining final costs.
David Thompson, Neighborhood Partners,
Mike Harrington is having trouble posting at the moment due to server issues, so he asked me to post this reply to David G.:
—–
David at 3:21 : So you are fine with the CC spending over $1,000,000 in our money on the Woodland JPA, including nearly $500,000 in a DBO process that no one wants, and $300,000 to pay for bids from Veola Water and United Water, two thoroughly discredited companies that have been implicated in bad practices? This Woodland JPA is the one who set us up with a huge Taj Mahal project and the same JPA that hob-knobs with the people who paid for the attack mailer on Sue Greenwald?
I think under the circumstances, spending that money is close to criminal as a giveaway of public funds without any legitimate purpose.
We are known by the friends we keep, and we should no longer associate with that JPA or the Woodland CC or project.
Meanwhile, we are all wringing our hands over a few tree trimmer positions, as we should be, but David you are advocating to continue to pay huge money and to associate with known bad actors who darned near ran us off the fiscal cliff?? THey are are happily doing to the poor Woodland rate payers.
Throwing $1,000,000 and more at Woodland is fiscal insanity.
Please listen to our citizen experts, the members of the Water Advisory Committee: last week these hard working volunteers who have studied tons of documents voted 9/0 to recommend that the CC not spend any more money on that Woodland fiasco.
Stop funding the JPA and throwing good money after bad.
“Mr. Harrington, spent $9000 of his own money to back and pay for a professional signature-gathering process…”
Brett Lee said “We get to vote on a 6 year $49/yr Parks tax supplement and yet I don’t get to vote on a proposed $400-$500 increase in my yearly utility rates that is going to last for the next 20-30 years?”
30 year T-bond rates are about 2.5%. 20 year AAA munis or corporate bonds are around 4%. Harrington could have invested his $9000 in bonds and covered almost all of his water costs from interest and still had most of his money left over at the end of 30 years. By the time this is over if Mike spends the additional sums required to collect signatures, for every threat to do so he has made, he will have spent more fighting than he will ever save if he has not done so already.
Most of the people who were engaged in petition gathering probably spend more on any of their other utilities, be they heat, electricity, or communications than they would have on water even with the increases from the JPA with Woodland. I know one gatherer who has given more to the schools foundation than he will ever pay in increased water bills.
This raises the question of motivation. While I assume Mike will claim he did it for altruistic reasons of saving money for the poor I think there are a combination of other philosophies also at work in the minds of the opponents; opposition to growth and aversion to taxation being two conservative ideals that come to mind. What is clear is that the economics of the active opponents defies the economics of their opposition.
I have a few questions: Where is process of getting of the senior water rights from Conway to the WDCWA? What happens to any alternative if uncertainty of what Davis is going to do stops the Water Resouces Control Board from granting these rights? What will be the cost of money in 2 or 3 years? How long will the environmental documentation take for the West Sac alternative? And lastly Do we expose Davis to lawsuits from uncertainty?
A few observations:
1) “Sometimes I was a bit noisy and a little shrill.” Quite an understatement. According to the college ethics and philosophy courses I took many years ago, the ends justifying the means was successfully discredited as an ethical standard back in the ’40s and ’50s.
2) Had Sue Greenwald joined with Wolk and Swanson in their effort to slow the process down and re-examine certain key project issues, much of the hyperbole and vitriol would have been avoided, and staff/council/community time put to better use.
3)There’s quite a bit of historical revisionism contained in the Sunday Harrington piece and a number of statements that appear disingenuous. I’m particularly troubled by the statements pertaining to secrecy to avoid retribution. What kind or retribution, political, economic, social, physical, what? And from whom? It smacks quite a bit of the blocking charges that seemed over the top at the top and entirely without foundation after the fact.
To head off any charges of having been an opponent of the referendum, I was not. It’s a mechanism for members of community to voice their political concerns and I embrace it. The real test is the actual election when the issue raised by the referendum signatories is put to a vote of the people.
-Michael Bisch
Stephen: Just curious. As a JPA Board Member, why did you and Mayor Krovoza continue inviting United Water to bid, even after I sent you the pdf opinions from the federal criminal case against them in Indiana? Why not dimp United, and Veoela, and move on? Serving up United Water for me to hit was a gift last fall, and now. Just curious.
Dump
DT: why a bit noisy and shrill last fall to collect those signatures? How about … appx. 3 weeks to challenge and force to a citywide vote a project that had been in the making for over 15 years? You say you support the right to vote, so it’s a good thing, right?
You will never see the voters of Davis approve a deal with the Woodland JPA and its collection of odd characters and companies, such as the United Water Company.
[quote]You will never see the voters of Davis approve a deal with the Woodland JPA and its collection of odd characters and companies, such as the United Water Company.[/quote]
And you know how Davis citizens will vote how?
From running citywide campaigns, and being around town, and downtown 24/7 since 1995. Also, we collected the signatures for the water referendum and we have a pretty good feel for what will sell or not with the voters.
I could be wrong, and I have been before, but on this one I dont think I am.
[quote]I could be wrong, and I have been before, but on this one I dont think I am.[/quote]
We are all fallible, even me 😉