By Michael Harrington, Pam Nieberg, and Nancy Price
In November 2011, the Water Referendum successfully qualified for the ballot. If passed by the voters, the Referendum would have overturned the City Council’s attempt to replace our existing publicly-owned ground water system with a large, expensive, and privatized surface-water system under the Joint Powers Authority.
Rather than letting voters decide, the 2011 Council withdrew its plan, and empanelled the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) to study and recommend to the Council their preferred water project by type and size, timing, ecological sustainability, seasonal water availability, and fair and affordable rates for all ratepayers.
The WAC has made enormous strides towards achieving its goals, despite many impediments, including lack of: 1) complete, independently verified data on the status of our existing water system; 2) a cost-benefit analysis for the Council’s withdrawn privatized surface water plan; 3) planning by City staff to bring current rates into compliance with California’s constitutional mandate that no ratepayer group(s) subsidize any other ratepayer group(s) water bills; 4) clarity as to ownership of Davis’ newly acquired senior and junior rights to water Sacramento River water; although Davis initially applied for these rights, some hold they are now under the control of a third party such as the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or the City of Woodland, despite the fact no such conveyance of our water rights was ever approved by either Davis or Woodland voters; 5) confirmation by the Davis and West Sacramento city councils that West Sacramento is in fact willing to partner with Davis for supplying the surface water component of Davis’ conjunctive use system; and 6) accurate demographic information confirming what many current sources show as much lower population growth and water consumption in the decades ahead than outdated figures still used by City staff.
To allow time for staff and consultants to provide this missing data, and time for the City Council to get feedback from West Sacramento on the opportunity to partner with that city, the WAC recommended to the newly-seated Davis City Council that it set a more realistic target date for a binding ballot measure than the prior target date of November 2012.
The Council thus set March 5th, 2013 as the target date for a special election on a conjunctive use water system. However, the City Council nonetheless asked the WAC to continue work toward achieving a system preference by August 21st — a date originally linked to the old City Council’s desire for a November 2012 ballot date. The Council felt this would demonstrate to Woodland and West Sacramento, both prospective partners, that Davis is proceeding in good faith, and that this would enable the WAC to report to the Council the status of the WAC’s work-in-progress when the Council returns from its summer recess on August 28th.
As important as the above steps are, we suggest there are other issues the WAC has not yet considered, but must if it is to discharge its duty to Davis residents. These issues are as vital as any technical aspect or rate structure if we are to have a water system that serves our needs and safeguards our rights, and the rights of those who come after us. Space does not permit listing every such element needing review, but a short list of the most paramount must include:
Human Right to Water. Every human has a right to safe, clean, accessible and affordable water adequate for basic human needs: consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. Unaffordable water is inaccessible water, and denying citizens access to affordable water would prevent the true, full realization of the human right to water by Davis residents.
Stewardship. Water is a public commons used by the living, but held in trust for all future generations. We also must not over-consume it, to the detriment of plant and animal life
Public control. Any proposal to privatize our water system by turning over the design, build and operation to a profit-driven corporation seems difficult to justify, and the claim that “oversight” by Public Works’ staff makes a privatized system “publicly-run” is a serious misrepresentation. Guaranteeing a profit to a private operator for selling our own water back to us adds a layer of cost, while at the same time eliminating democratic control
Sustainability. The water project must fully account for the ongoing impacts of global warming and minimize adverse environmental impacts on local and regional water sources and ecosystems by scaling usage to our true needs and establishing project size in concert with conservation methods. Such mitigation of our impacts on limited water resources promotes sustainability.
Local democracy. Thanks to the 2011 Water Referendum, all Davis voters won the right to decide on the choice of a water supply system specific to local needs and local budgets In choosing the plan to place before voters, the choice given them by the City Council must represent the recommendations of a fully-informed WAC and other concerned residents, and not an outcome gamed by politicians looking to fund their careers, lobbyists for large out-town landowners, , conflicted consultants who are paid to tell us we need a huge system and then are given the contract to carry it out, or others who would “cut a fat hog” for personal enrichment at the expense of local ratepayers.
There are only three WAC meetings left (including the August 21st date) before it gives the City Council a report on its summertime efforts. It seems beyond any realistic expectation that the WAC will receive all the data it still lacks, or be able to cover all the points it must discuss. Given the new target date for March 2013 for holding a binding vote, most reasonable people would probably agree that the WAC will be doing very well by August 21st if it can cover these two tasks:
1) categorically identify and task staff with providing the information the WAC must receive to make the recommendations it is charged to provide, whether that data comes from the staff, consultants, or the respective City Councils of Davis, Woodland, and West Sacramento, or State and regional agencies; and
2) frame a new long-range calendar, built upon incremental modules per time constraints, such as the legal date to separate Davis’ water rights from co-joinment with Woodland’s, or the date by which the City must file any water measure proposed to appear on a March 5th, 2013 ballot.
We believe that the City Council’s stated goal of a March 2013 ballot measure is unrealistic given that this most-essential of public works projects has to be designed, a full project-specific EIR published, specific rates calculated, and the entire package fully explained to the public well before the long lead times established by state law for submission of ballot materials to local election offices. Given our collective years of experience with local elections and campaigns, it is obvious to us that a fall 2013 or spring 2014 ballot will be more appropriate for a Davis electorate that demands that its elected officials take the time to get it right, and explain complex and expensive proposals to the voters. Look what happened when the old City Council attempted to ram through a poorly designed “Taj Mahal” of a project with rates that hugely exceeded the figures presented by water staff to the City Council on September 6, 2011..
Obtaining and reviewing the missing data, and discussing the water plan elements which have not been covered to date – the human right to water, stewardship, sustainability, and public ownership- will take time as well. The need for a thorough process trumps any arbitrarily imposed political time constraint. .We respectfully ask that the Water Advisory Committee take all the time needed to “get it right” and generate recommendations which promote the City Council placing before the voters an affordable and sustainable water supply project that will nourish us for many generations to come.
Michael Harrington, Pam Nieberg, and Nancy Price are Members of the 2011 Water Rate Referendum Leadership Committee. Michael J. Harrington, Aviation Attorney, was a member of the Davis City Council 2000-04.
Missing is your opinion that the water project should only serve the existing population and not allow for any growth in any community. That is the primary goal of all of your efforts.
This article only proves that you will never be happy with any decision and will find fault with any outcome.
[i]”We suggest there are other issues the WAC has not yet considered, but must if it is to discharge its duty to Davis residents. These issues are as vital as any technical aspect or rate structure if we are to have a water system that serves our needs and safeguards our rights, and the rights of those who come after us.
[b]Human Right to Water[/b]. Every human has a right to safe, clean, accessible and affordable water adequate for basic human needs: consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes. Unaffordable water is inaccessible water, and denying citizens access to affordable water would prevent the true, full realization of the human right to water by Davis residents.”[/i]
While I laud the position that the authors take on this issue, I do feel that it is misplaced in the context of the purpose of the WAC. It really isn’t realistic to expect Davis, and specifically the WAC, to take up a discussion of what is a worldwide philosophical issue that has broad application in many, many countries throughout the World, but has very limited applicability to the residents of Davis, both as a whole and individually.
If the WAC were being presented with examples of Davis residents who have either had their water shut off or been seen carrying water jugs to public taps, then I would expect the WAC to be all over this issue, but the reality is that the only water jug filling that Davis sees is when Davis residents pay incredibly high $ per gallon amounts to fill their jugs at Nugget, et. al.
[i]”[b]Stewardship[/b]. Water is a public commons used by the living, but held in trust for all future generations. We also must not over-consume it, to the detriment of plant and animal life.”[/i]
If the Davis community complies with the water conservation provisions of,
— California Constitution Article X, Section 2
— Senate Bill SB x 7_7 (Steinberg) passed in 2009. and
— Assembly Bill AB 2882 (Wolk) passed in 2009,
then the stewardship you call for is already part of the plan for any new rates that come out of the WAC.
[i]”[b]Sustainability[/b]. The water project must fully account for the ongoing impacts of global warming and minimize adverse environmental impacts on local and regional water sources and ecosystems by scaling usage to our true needs and establishing project size in concert with conservation methods. Such mitigation of our impacts on limited water resources promotes sustainability.”[/i]
Isn’t the WAC’s reduction of the plant size 25% (from 40 to 30) precisely addressing this very issue?
Davis’ share of the 30 is actually down more than 50% (from over 18 to 12).
If I have listened to the WAC correctly, the 12 is also the result of fully incorporating the Natural Resources Commissions target of 134 gallons per person per day by 2020, which is in compliance with the provisions of Senate Bill SB x 7_7.
What more do you want the WAC to do?
[i]”minimize adverse environmental impacts on local and regional water sources and ecosystems”
[/i]
The whole point of the surface water project is to reduce the amount of Davis groundwater that is going into the ecosystem. It is the Delta water quality issue that is driving this whole project, that establishes the regulatory guidelines and deadlines, and the propels the use of surface water in the first place.
[i]”We also must not over-consume it, to the detriment of plant and animal life”
[/i]
We have created an urban forest and an urban landscape. Under-consuming water would be detrimental to the plants and animals that have come to rely on the ecosystem that has been created, and that we have come to appreciate in Davis. Our natural vegetation here — an oak grassland, very dry in the summer — would be vastly different than what we have planted and grown. Using the water of the Sacramento River as it passes by to create an urban plant canopy is not “over-consuming.” We are not harming downstream users by diverting that water to grow trees and shrubs and lawns and gardens. And we are benefiting the residents of Davis when we do so.
[i]”some hold they are now under the control of a third party such as the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) or the City of Woodland, despite the fact no such conveyance of our water rights was ever approved…”
[/i]
Source, please. Who “holds” that? Names and citations would be necessary to give this claim any credence.
Don: with climate change, I think that much of Davis urban landscaping has to also change. I am talking about my own places, too.
If we reduce watering, we’ll reduce the number and vigor of our trees. If we reduce the number and vigor of our trees, they’ll sequester less carbon. If you want to affect climate change, plant and water more trees!
Forestation and reforestation are integral parts of every climate change strategy. The urban tree canopy is created and managed by the people who live in cities. If we drastically curtail watering, we will negatively affect the city’s carbon mitigation. Having a drier, hotter landscape is not the direction we want to go, for any number of reasons. In particular, though, it doesn’t improve the city’s carbon footprint. Whether you’re pumping the water from the ground, or diverting it from the river, you still want to maintain the trees we have in a healthy condition, and add to them wherever possible.
Trying to use climate change as an argument against developing water supplies doesn’t, if you’ll pardon the pun, hold water.
Being “sustainable” requires more thought than just not watering the yard. As Don illustrates, there are many things to consider. People of California are being asked to reduce consumption of water by 20%. If Mike wants to reduce his consumption by not watering his yard in a mistakened belief that he is being more sustainable, that is up to him. Regardless, the reduction in consumption should be accounted for in setting any rates.
Thanks everyone for a good discussion. It makes me hopeful the outcome will be a really good project
[quote]However, the City Council nonetheless asked the WAC to continue work toward achieving a system preference by August 21st — a date originally linked to the old City Council’s desire for a November 2012 ballot date.[/quote]
We were asked to choose between three alternatives by Aug 21:
1) Woodland alternative
2) West Sac alternative
3) The WAC does not have enough information at the time to make an informed decision, but would like the City Council to keep both options open.
[quote]Given our collective years of experience with local elections and campaigns, it is obvious to us that a fall 2013 or spring 2014 ballot will be more appropriate for a Davis electorate that demands that its elected officials take the time to get it right, and explain complex and expensive proposals to the voters…
The need for a thorough process trumps any arbitrarily imposed political time constraint. .We respectfully ask that the Water Advisory Committee take all the time needed to “get it right” and generate recommendations which promote the City Council placing before the voters an affordable and sustainable water supply project that will nourish us for many generations to come.[/quote]
Why not allow the WAC decide for itself how much time it thinks it needs to come to a decision? I’m getting the distinct impression that the authors of this article are advocating for delay, delay, delay at all costs…
[quote]Practical: If I have listened to the WAC correctly, the 12 is also the result of fully incorporating the Natural Resources Commissions target of 134 gallons per person per day by 2020, which is in compliance with the provisions of Senate Bill SB x 7_7. [/quote]
This is incorrect. The city cannot include the NRC’s target bc it has not yet been achieved/is uncertain…
ERM: You will end up with a very fine project with reasonable rates if the public is given time to fully participate. There is no rush, none at all.
I would like to challenge the city’s apparent conclusion that they close down the intermediate well system due to nitrates. Isn’t there a treatment program available ? Also what about long term better control of fertilizers on land Over the aquifers? I know this is a long term Problem, but it’s OUR water down there and we need to deal with its problems. So what, are we just going to run off and suck lots of river water at huge expense from downstream of what is basically an ag sewer drain feeding tons of nitrates and far more horrible stuff into the Sacramento River? Pay for treating that water, and let our precious mid level aquifer sit there and rot because no one has a clue how to challenge the over use of fertilizers?
And Davis calls itself a sustainable community ?? I am more shocked every day at what Saylor nearly pulled off with his + half a billion dollar project between Davis and Woodland.
Michael: If you’re back to advocating for using the well water as the long-term water source for Davis, then you are going in circles. There’s no point in even discussing the nitrate issue with you, since long-term use of the wells is off the table by unanimous vote of the WAC. Nitrates are only one of the issues with the mid-level aquifer. Either you know that, in which case you’re being disingenuous — or you don’t know it, in which case you are intentionally uninformed.
Your comments about Sacramento River water are distortions and scare tactics.
Elaine: “[i]I’m getting the distinct impression that the authors of this article are advocating for delay, delay, delay at all costs…[/i]”
That is obviously their ONLY approach: talk it to death. It is time to stop listening to the ‘no birds’ and start acting. We have discussed this problem for nearly 10 years. Let the WAC make a choice and then the City Council should implement it.
[quote]ERM: You will end up with a very fine project with reasonable rates if the public is given time to fully participate. There is no rush, none at all.[/quote]
Why not allow the WAC decide for itself how much time it thinks it needs to come to a decision?
[quote]So what, are we just going to run off and suck lots of river water at huge expense from downstream of what is basically an ag sewer drain feeding tons of nitrates and far more horrible stuff into the Sacramento River?[/quote]
Are you advocating using only the well water? The WAC has already dismissed that solution as unworkable – it was a [u][b]unanimous[/b][/u] vote. You can view the May 10 videotape of the WAC meeting when this issue was decided.
Michael has lost all of his previous arguments on the merits. Nearly everything he has advocated has been shot down by the WAC so his only option is to try to add more requirements. This article is not about finding a better solution, but rather adding more hoops for us to jump through solely to satisfy the authors whims. This is of course all nonsense, but then Michael has a big mouth and is willing to use it in an effort to sway public opinion in his direction. Nothing he says however will change the fact that he is wrong on the merits. Ignore the NO BIRDS. Let the WAC decide, then implement a surface water project that will provide us with a sustainable water future.
[quote]Are you advocating using only the well water? The WAC has already dismissed that solution as unworkable – it was a unanimous vote.[/quote]With all due respect, it is not a decision to be made by WAC, nor the CC @ this point… if certain people have their way, it will require a 2/3 vote, and if certain people continue to put false statements into the ‘game’ (which is their “right”), certain people will achieve their objective. More is the pity…
“Why not allow the WAC decide for itself how much time it thinks it needs to come to a decision?”
Perhaps because they don’t think they will agree with the WAC on the issue of timing?
” I’m getting the distinct impression that the authors of this article are advocating for delay, delay, delay at all costs… “
I won’t speak for the authors of this piece, but this is a bit of a red herring argument, I think there are still a lot of unresolved issues as I laid out this morning.
[quote]With all due respect, it is not a decision to be made by WAC, nor the CC @ this point… if certain people have their way, it will require a 2/3 vote, and if certain people continue to put false statements into the ‘game’ (which is their “right”), certain people will achieve their objective. More is the pity…[/quote]
The WAC will make its recommendation to the CC; the CC will then make its decision. If some citizens want to object to any surface water project and to rely only on well water, that is their right. But then such opponents to any surface water project have to convince enough people to vote their way. Part of the charge of the WAC is to look at the issue of public outreach, and I assure you this subject will be thoroughly looked at…
[quote]Perhaps because they don’t think they will agree with the WAC on the issue of timing?[/quote]
How could they possibly know what the WAC will decide? The WAC doesn’t know what it will decide…
[quote]erm: ” I’m getting the distinct impression that the authors of this article are advocating for delay, delay, delay at all costs… ”
dmg: I won’t speak for the authors of this piece, but this is a bit of a red herring argument, I think there are still a lot of unresolved issues as I laid out this morning.[/quote]
What is the point of discussing a number of other “unresolved issues” until a specific surface water project alternative is chosen? The authors of this piece seem to be advocating making no decision, to delay, delay, delay – which leads me to believe their underlying solution is to rely on our well water only. This solution was dismissed as unworkable by the WAC unanimously, and with very good reason.
Of the issues raised in the op-ed piece — “Human right to water, stewardship, public control, sustainability, local democracy” – only public control is really relevant to this discussion. As such, and given the past behavior of some of the referendum committee, it is not unreasonable to view this as an attempt to move the goal posts. Delay is often a tactic, and we’ve seen a lot of tactics over the last months.
“How could they possibly know what the WAC will decide?”
Replace “know” with “guess” or “anticipate”
“What is the point of discussing a number of other “unresolved issues” until a specific surface water project alternative is chosen? “
Because it frames the debate. The preemptive strike is more powerful than the reactive one. It frames and directs the debate and discussion. I’m wondering if you are sincere in these questions because some of this very basic politics 101.
” The authors of this piece seem to be advocating making no decision, to delay, delay, delay – which leads me to believe their underlying solution is to rely on our well water only. This solution was dismissed as unworkable by the WAC unanimously, and with very good reason.”
It seems they are questioning the assumptions of what has been decided at some point. Just because the WAC has made a decision unanimously, does not mean it was correct. After talking with a few members, some of that unanimity was compromise.
[quote]Because it frames the debate. The preemptive strike is more powerful than the reactive one. It frames and directs the debate and discussion. I’m wondering if you are sincere in these questions because some of this very basic politics 101.[/quote]
The difficulty with overplaying politics on serious issues of this sort is that sometimes you out-think yourself on strategy and end up with a huge credibility problem…
[quote]It seems they are questioning the assumptions of what has been decided at some point. Just because the WAC has made a decision unanimously, does not mean it was correct. After talking with a few members, some of that unanimity was compromise.[/quote]
First, there is no such thing as a “correct” decision on an issue such as this. There are trade-offs, but no right and wrongs. Had we built the Woodland project as proposed, it would not have been “wrong”; it would have cost a lot, but it would have addressed all the potential problems – except affordability. It was a matter of trade-offs. Secondly, the WAC vote was unanimous – listen to the rationale of WAC members on videotape. What a member may say after the fact is irrelevant for a number of reasons…
“The difficulty with overplaying politics on serious issues of this sort is that sometimes you out-think yourself on strategy and end up with a huge credibility problem…”
Maybe. The problem is that right now few are paying close enough attention to create a credibility problem of any size.
“Had we built the Woodland project as proposed, it would not have been “wrong”; it would have cost a lot, but it would have addressed all the potential problems – except affordability.”
It would have been wrong for the person it priced out their home. It’s funny, that used to be an issue that was important to you. Somewhere along the way you have forgotten.
[quote]t would have been wrong for the person it priced out their home. It’s funny, that used to be an issue that was important to you. Somewhere along the way you have forgotten.[/quote]
Hardly…