The rates have not been codified yet, but it is remarkable how similar the rates, as presented to the WAC on Thursday of last week, look to the rates of the Prop 218 process from last summer – you know, the process that raised the rates too fast and had to be modified to the September 6 rates which purportedly held increases to 14% per year (if you cut back on your water usage by 20%).
For those who forgot, here are the two-month projected rates from last year:
And here is the water bill comparison for a typical single family resident, on a monthly basis rather than a bimonthly:
Double those monthly rates for the Woodland Project, and they look remarkably like the proposed rates from last year.
Yesterday, we noted the comment about pain; Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning apparently got the memo, as well.
He writes this morning: “Now that the truly ugly numbers are beginning to emerge concerning just how much we’ll all be paying for water in the near future, Davis’ month-to-month wage earners are going to have some tough decisions to make.”
“It’s no wonder the city decided to move its water-only election to March to avoid sharing the same November ballot with yet another school parcel tax measure … the chance both of those might pass at the same time is slimmer than the chance the Above-Pictured Columnist will win the gold medal in the 2016 Olympic 100 meters in Rio,” Mr. Dunning adds.
Like the Vanguard, Bob Dunning believes that the WAC “appears to be moving ever closer to recommending the most expensive of the various surface water projects it has been studying over the course of the spring and summer.”
His response to Elaine Roberts-Musser’s “pain” comment: “Say hello to brown lawns, kids, and by the way, no bath before bedtime tonight.”
“Under the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency option that perhaps a majority of WAC members have taken a liking to, it’s estimated that water rates will triple in just four years … and remember, these are only estimates … once we launch down this uncertain road, if costs go higher, we’ll have to pay them … there’s simply no turning back … plus, the more you conserve, the higher your rates will go, since the fixed costs of the project have to be paid for, even if you never turn on the tap,” Mr. Dunning adds.
Bob Dunning notes, “The WAC, of course, can only recommend a course of action for the council … and even the council itself doesn’t get the last word … much to the consternation of this town’s many water ‘experts,’ the people of Davis, including the unwashed and the uneducated, will have the final say when the anointed project is on the ballot come March.”
We will make a bold prediction – if the Prop 218 shows a tripling of water rates, the project will be dead on arrival.
However, Bob Dunning’s final point was a good one. Right now, the Vanguard does not believe that there are three votes on the council to triple water rates.
Our view at this point is to do what it takes to preserve both the West Sacramento and the Woodland options. If that means we have to spend money now to preserve them, then that may be money well spent.
We need to look into ways that we can cut the costs of the projects down to a more manageable level.
As we noted yesterday, West Sacramento understandably does not want to invest money when Davis is signaling that it will go to Woodland anyway. Until we can fully assess the West Sacramento project, it will be difficult to know if it represents a real option.
Furthermore, keeping both options on the table gives us leverage. If Woodland knows that we are going to go to Woodland anyway, what incentive do they have to follow the secondary points of Alf Brandt’s motion?
My final point is that I believe, as stated above, tripling the water rates will kill the project. It is possible that better financing and management of cash flow can reduce the immediate spike in prices. But all we can go right now on what has been presented.
As we suggested several times earlier, a slower rate increase – even if it ultimately increases the total cost of the project – will be far easier on those who are living month-to-month and on fixed incomes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
So basically nothing has changed. That project and rate structure didn’t fly last time and it won’t this time either. I agree with David, reduce the rate spikes and look deeper into the West Sac option.
The West Sac option is not that much different.
David, the bill says that it is bi-monthly, but the chart indicates “/month”. This makes a difference. Can you clarify?
A somewhat different point of view:
1) “We can’t afford it”. to me this translates into we can’t afford it and continue to live exactly as we do now.
The latter is true. The former I do not believe is true but merely a reflection of how some are unwilling to face the truth about water,
An essential and likely increasingly scarce commodity.To close our eyes to the reality that water will cost much more in the future is to attempt to deceive people into believing that we can maintain everything as we have come to like and not expect to pay much more.
Shades of Berryessa as far as I can see.
2) Perhaps Dunning was writing tongue in cheek in speaking about the “horrors” of brown lawns and not nightly baths, perhaps not. But I feel that this kind of comment, if sincere, trivializes the underlying issues regarding appropriate usage of what will likely be an increasingly scarce commodity. Perhaps a more laudable goal would be to choose drought resistand crops and every other night baths over our current preferences so that our grand children won’t be facing what we are now because of our shortsightedness.
Ryan: That was a bimonthly bill, the chart was confusing when it said per month.
[i]”tripling the water rates will kill the project.”
[/i]
So what rate of increase won’t kill the project?
[quote]”tripling the water rates will kill the project[/quote]
Since the water rates will [u][b]not be tripled[/b][/u], then the rate increases for whatever surface water project is chosen should not “kill the project”…
1) The current bill is bimonthly, which translates to approximately $34 per month (in today’s dollars) for the average residential user.
2) The projected bills will be paid monthly, as is reflected in the graphs and charts distributed to the WAC and public.
3) If you look at the Net Present Value graph (which takes into account inflation), in the year 2020 (8 years from now), which has the largest spike/highest costs, the bill will go from the current $34 per month we are paying now to about $78 per month (in today’s dollars) for the Woodland project w/o delay. (2.3 x the current rate)
4) In the year 2020 for the Woodland project w costs deferred through financing methods you would pay about $62 per month (in today’s dollars). (1.9 x the current rate)
5) In the year 2020 for the West Sac project you would pay about $60 per month (in today’s dollars). (1.8 x the current rate)
It should also be noted that doing nothing will also be just as costly:
[quote] From the SWRCB: “If a community is not moving forward with a project that will aid in meeting wastewater discharge standards as set forth in an adopted permit, the RWQCB can assess discretionary fines up to $10,000 a day, plus $10 a gallon for every gallon discharged. Under state law, the [b]RWQCB may also collect the amount of money saved by not coming into compliance, at a a minimum[/b] ([u][b]the cost of a project[/b][/u], for example).”[/quote]
The fact of the matter is Davis has delayed the inevitable, and now is going to have to face steeper inclines to ramp up the rates to where they should have been a while ago. The longer Davis puts off a decision, the steeper those inclines in rates are going to be going into the future. Davis currently is in the bottom third of comparable cities in how much it pays for water. The SWRCB will not allow that to continue with the new water quality regulations that are set/to be set in place, like it or not.
Some residential water rates for comparison. Davis residents use at the higher end of the gallon-per-day rate due to our local climate (2010 average 150 gallons per capita).
[img]http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/allstats590.jpg[/img]
From the graph, it looks like we are going to gradually pay more regardless of which project is chosen. Woodland ramps up quicker but then levels off. West Sac increases every year forever, until we are paying more per month than Woodland.
So, it comes down to choosing the best project – the one with the most local control and less risk.
Ryan: I actually have conceded the need for a conjunctive use project that is on the smaller side, as a supplement and complement to our main reliance on the wells. That said, there are enormously complex questions still to be worked out, such as: 1) our current rate structure needs to be amended, now, to conform to law (use a Prop 218 this fall and winter); 2) our current well system must have a long term maintenance and operation plan, with a budget, to be submitted to the voters as a unified system, with rates (Prop 218 and citywide vote, next fall); 3) the design and funding for a conjunctive water supplemental system (Prop 218, citywide vote, spring 2014); 4) how to save our middle level aquifers; 5) how to move away from water softeners (citywide vote); 5) drafting an initiative that will lock in good public process on large utility projects so we never have to go through an emergency referendum and ad hac emergency citizens advisory committee again.
Just some of my thoughts … a little foreshadowing.
ERM: another way to say what I said yesterday about membership on the WAC; some current members expected it to be a relatively short time commitment. Since the WAC has so much work ahead of it, for months to come, the members who thought it was going to be quick can resign, with our thanks, and be replaced by applicants subject to CC votes similar to what they do with the current appointment system for commissions, rather than a CC member appoints his or her favorite applicant.
Better? Sorry, but sometimes I am rather blunt.
I am still pissed off at the Sept 6th attempted rate theft of our money by the JPA proponents. There has been no accountability. Mostly the same staff are in charge of staffing the WAC. No heads have rolled. There has never been an independent investigation of what happened. So, until I see some public accountability, I am not always going to be nice or pleasant to the people who tried to do it to the seniors and poor and middle class, and who appear to continue to be trying.
Cutting off West Sacto options and research is so blantantly political that yes, I get angry at what I see as use of public process to steal money from the population. It’s simple.
“it looks like we are going to gradually pay more regardless of which project is chosen”
Gradually paying more is preferable to a short steep hike. Why? Because I can adjust my other spending if the increase is incremental. I have to figure out where $500 or $1000 extra per year is going to come from.
People in other cities are paying $500 – $1000 more. Davis water rates have been historically low.
Michael: that isn’t even close to what you said yesterday about WAC membership, in tone or content. You’re back-pedaling. What you said had nothing to do with the time commitment of being on the WAC.
[i]Since Alf and some others have been determined to vote to move the JPA forward, and since it is clear this should not happen, may I suggest that those members who simply cannot get their heads around the idea that the WAC needs to slow down and get it right should resign,[/i]
The meaning of that statement is exactly as Elaine stated.
[i]2) our current well system must have a long term maintenance and operation plan, with a budget, to be submitted to the voters as a unified system, with rates (Prop 218 and citywide vote, next fall); [/i]
There is no legal or even rational reason to do that.
[i]3) the design and funding for a conjunctive water supplemental system (Prop 218, citywide vote, spring 2014);[/i]
That is what the WAC is working on right now. Spring 2013 is just fine given their current rate of progress and their long-range calendar.
[i]4) how to save our middle level aquifers;[/i]
This is a completely new topic you’ve suddenly introduced in the last few days. It is irrelevant to any water project under consideration. In fact, it is irrelevant totally. The way to “save” the middle level aquifers has already been accomplished by going to the deep aquifers.
“People in other cities are paying $500 – $1000 more. Davis water rates have been historically low.”
That’s fine but irrelevant because it ignores that absolute level is less important than change in costs.
[b]By the way, the above graph shown in this article is [u]NOT[/u] the [u]Net Present Value[/u] chart, which is the one everyone should be looking at.[/b]
Elaine: this one?
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/waterbillcomparison2.png[/img]
[quote]That’s fine but irrelevant because it ignores that absolute level is less important than change in costs.[/quote]
You seem to ignore reality – even if we were to choose no project, we will pay considerably more for water.
[quote]From the SWRCB: “If a community is not moving forward with a project that will aid in meeting wastewater discharge standards as set forth in an adopted permit, the RWQCB can assess discretionary fines up to $10,000 a day, plus $10 a gallon for every gallon discharged. Under state law, the RWQCB may also collect the amount of money saved by not coming into compliance, at a a minimum (the cost of a project, for example).”[/quote]
Secondly, as I said above:
[quote]Since the water rates will not be tripled, then the rate increases for whatever surface water project is chosen should not “kill the project”…
1) The current bill is bimonthly, which translates to approximately $34 per month (in today’s dollars) for the average residential user.
2) The projected bills will be paid monthly, as is reflected in the graphs and charts distributed to the WAC and public.
3) If you look at the Net Present Value graph (which takes into account inflation), in the year 2020 (8 years from now), which has the largest spike/highest costs, the bill will go from the current $34 per month we are paying now to about $78 per month (in today’s dollars) for the Woodland project w/o delay. (2.3 x the current rate)
4) In the year 2020 for the Woodland project w costs deferred through financing methods you would pay about $62 per month (in today’s dollars). (1.9 x the current rate)
5) In the year 2020 for the West Sac project you would pay about $60 per month (in today’s dollars). (1.8 x the current rate) [/quote]
David, You have a year between each increase to plan for the water increases. At lease with the Woodland plan it levels off and give us a breather for a bit. The West Sac plan just increases and increases, until we are paying more than the Woodland option. How is that better?
Mike – Frankly, a city wide vote on water softeners is a complete waste of time and money. Soften the water from the source and people will be less likely to install water softeners. Or create a list of softeners to use that don’t use salt and promote them as a green alternative for homeowners. Offer a rebate to install these types of systems. But, attempts to forbid people from using wood stoves and plastic bags should demonstrate the push back that forbidding water softeners would have.
Mike, when you say the current rates should be amended, are you saying that business customers should pay less and residential customers should pay more? How does this solve our water quality problem?
Also, Mike – Your other steps imply that none of these things are already are being done or considered. It just continues the status quo. That’s really what you want, isn’t it? Didn’t everyone agree that this wasn’t the way to go?
Mike, However you explain it, you are still saying that people who disagree with you should be removed from the WAC and new appointments should be made. We all know that you are still pissed off with the Sept 6 vote. This doesn’t excuse your poor behavior. It is not bluntness that is your problem.
Ryan: I mean what I write here. We all know several of the WAC members would have voted for the JPA the second meeting. I am just saying that for whatever reasons, some members are maxed out on time or maybe interest on the WAC, and I have suggested that the CC set up a friendly process to let them go, and replace them. The WAC has been working a lot, more than many of the usual commissions, and replacing members is not a bad thing if they want to move on.
David Greenwald: “[i]Gradually paying more is preferable to a short steep hike. Why? Because I can adjust my other spending if the increase is incremental. I have to figure out where $500 or $1000 extra per year is going to come from.[/i]”
You make is sound like your water bill is going to go up $500-1000 next year, when in fact according to the information that Elaine provided, for the average user we are looking at a roughly $500 increase over 8 years. That means you will need to find (depending on the year) another $45-$100 each year, which is a much more manageable issue. Also as Elaine points out, the rates are going to go up that much regardless of which project we choose (including no project). If we focus on the facts rather than the hysteria we will all be able to make a better decision.
Moreover, suggesting that surface water should “supplement” groundwater, that groundwater should continue to be our primary source, is just plain stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Let me say it again, that’s just dumb.
[quote]You seem to ignore reality – even if we were to choose no project, we will pay considerably more for water.[/quote]
What does that have to do with rate structure and project alternatives? I’m not advocating no project.
“You make is sound like your water bill is going to go up $500-1000 next year, when in fact according to the information that Elaine provided, for the average user we are looking at a roughly $500 increase over 8 years”
That wasn’t my intent.
“he West Sac plan just increases and increases, until we are paying more than the Woodland option. How is that better?”
It’s like five dollars more and then evens out.
“Moreover, suggesting that surface water should “supplement” groundwater, that groundwater should continue to be our primary source, is just plain stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Let me say it again, that’s just dumb.”
We are talking about a conjunctive use system, so I’m not clear as to why you think that’s so dumb.
I agree with other posters that we should pull up our bootstraps and expect to pay more for water going forward. I would also add the consideration of a better product and benefits to the environment. Unlike all these supplemental parcel taxes requiring me to pay more just for the benefit of maintaining the status quo of education, we will be getting water we can actually drink from the faucet and improve our discharge effluent so that it will not kill swimming, hopping and flying creatures in the Sacramento River delta.
Also, when the price of water gets high enough, we can start to economically justify new conservation methods. As consumers demand these these new conservation products, the market will expand in response.
For example: [url]http://www.rainxchange.com/ [/url]
Personally, I would welcome better tasting water containing a fraction of the mineral content it contains today. I could cancel my month bottled water delivery ($35/mth home and the $100/mth office) and disconnect my water softner and stop buying salt pellets to help offset the water service cost increase. In fact, I would save quite a bit of money here.
I would like to see the real data on the number of Davis households that would have trouble paying their water bills. I think this problem is not as big as some would have us believe. As an alternative to using these emotives to block the water project, why not shift to brainstorming ways we can provide assistance?
For example, have the city help identify high water use households and offer inspection and proposals for lowering water consumption. Might we even front-load the project with some funding to provide free or discounted low-flow showerheads and toilets to low income residents. Landscape watering is a big part of the water bill for many households. What about some creative ideas to provide city help converting high water use landscaping to low water use landscaping… especially for low income families and older residents?
[quote]Mike: I am just saying that for whatever reasons, some members are maxed out on time or maybe interest on the WAC, and I have suggested that the CC set up a friendly process to let them go, and replace them.[/quote]
Mike, This is none of your business.
Ryan: While you may disagree with Harrington and I may as well, I think it’s absurd to suggest that the composition of a public body is none of anyone’s business.
The commission is already composed. If people want to resign, they can. Mike is just meddling where he shouldn’t. It just looks bad.
I think any member of the public has the right to ask for someone to resign from a commission – composed or not.
Hmmm….I guess you are right about that. People can ask, with good reason. But then it is not friendly, is it?
I think Mike is more focused on the process of replacing them. Political maneuvering, I think.
Ryan: Sigh. Each of those WAC members were appointed by politicians. Each CC member would naturally try to appoint WAC members who share the appointor’s views on the JPA and water project. So those members are not randomly chosen as they walked out of the Varsity Theater. 4 CC members voted for the Sept 6 rates. On 12/6, 2 CC members (Joe and Steve) could hardly wait to push ahead with the rates and an election, and Dan Wolk and Rochelle Swanson’s motion had the third vote (Sue), so Joe and Steve went with the majority, and the vote was 5/0, but emotionally and politically it was really 3/2. Th WAC is not composed of disinterested technocrats who can vote “apolitically”; dont be so naive, or insult the readers here and suggest the WAC is a neutral fact finding body. It was not created or set up or handled that way.
The now head staff person, Herb, clearly is on the “JPA or bust” wagon train, from the sound of the Pro-JPA speach he gave to the Chamber of Commerce recently, as was mentioned by our good friend, Bill Streng.
Ryan, do you have any questions about the head staff person to the WAC, before its research is completed and a voted recommendation to teh CC, going to the Chamber and donning chearleading clothes and giving a good one for the JPA? Doesnt that seem … strange … to be undercutting the CC majority and the so called neutral mission of the WAC? Even disrespectful.
Elaine, you are the chair. Going to publically call Herb out for undercutting your committee to the business community?
So, Ryan, please, dont insult us with the feigned schtick that the WAC is neutral, and primed and ready to go for the least cost option for Davis. They are not, and never were, and were not designed or set up or appointed to be.
Ryan: why do you think the CC tension rises when they have appointments to the Planning Commission? Because there is a pool of applicants, and some are pro-development, some neutral, some more skeptical of big infill, etc. We all know that. Those appointments go to the ones who best fit the majority view of the CC at that time. At least usually they do.
All that said, Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the US Supreme Court, and boy, did that one turn out differently than the plan.
So there are surprises on the WAC, but most of them have remained true to the political patron who appointed them.
What a thankless job. Like mine.
Michael: Don’t you ever get tired of denigrating others?
David or Matt
Could either of you collaborate or refute Mike Harrington’s report of Herb’s Chamber speech in terms of his bias for JPA?
Is it a non story or ?
[quote]What does that have to do with rate structure and project alternatives? I’m not advocating no project.[/quote]
You might not be, but some others are…
Mark: Do you mean commenting on Herb’s presentation to the CC, as reported by Bill Streng? How is that denigration to call a staff member out for acting ahead of the commission his employer appointed to make a recommendation, and here is the staff member, pushing for one option?
[quote]Ryan: While you may disagree with Harrington and I may as well, I think it’s absurd to suggest that the composition of a public body is none of anyone’s business.[/quote]
Michael was advocating for the overthrow of WAC members who did not agree with his viewpoint… [b]and that is [u]not[/u] appropriate[/b].
Mike, It must be frightening to be you.
So, which of the existing people would you ask to resign? And who do you think should be their replacement?
Elaine: He’s entitled to advocate, you are entitled to disregard his advocacy. There is nothing inappropriate about it.
Elaine: He’s entitled to advocate, you are entitled to disregard his advocacy. There is nothing inappropriate about it.
yes there is, period.
ERM: I was not advocating for some sort of overthrow of WAC members. I was merely suggesting that the JPA is not a rubber stamp, like some thought going into this thing. The WAC should have many months of work ahead, if they really want to get to the best solutions for water supply that are affordable, and I was just offering the idea that those who need to go, can go. Simple.
But you know, if it politically feels good to kick around the messenger of an obvious idea, then feel free.
Ryan: frightening to me? Of a split vote on the WAC?
Split equals JPA goes down. I’m not losing sleep on this, if that’s what you meant.
Like other new taxes in town, the water project produces new expenses to households, tied to the property, like a parcel tax.
I view the WAC like a Prop 13 parcel tax vote: It has to be a super-majority, or the voters will take it down. Give me one “NO” vote on the CC, and IMHO the the JPA loses.
Ratepayers are hurting, and I am near 100% dead certain that anyone who wants a water project with sizeable rate increases is going to need a community wide consensus about the project details and rates.
Ryan and Mark and Octane and ERM and all my other blogging friends on the DV: it’s crystal clear that the JPA lacks anyting close to community consensus.
So, Alf and friends, go ahead and put the CC in a terrible position of reversing your motion because Saylor and the pro-JPA team have once again overreached on this project.
Please stop the sniping at the messenger of obvious political and legal and technical information and analysis. None of this is rocket science, or 1 million as complicated as landing that Rover. (Wow! That was a heck of a night of drama.)
[i]”if they really want to get to the best solutions for water supply that are affordable”[/i]
Mike: Those are subjective goals. Can you shed more light on what you think the best and affordable solution would be? From my perspective, I don’t think I ever remember you supporting a specific solution. It seems that you are against everything proposed. Or, did I miss a prior post where you outlined what you would like to see?
[quote]David M. Greenwald; Elaine: He’s entitled to advocate, you are entitled to disregard his advocacy. There is nothing inappropriate about it.[/quote]
Bullying is not advocacy…
[quote]Don Shor: Elaine: this one? [/quote]
Yes, Don, thanks for posting the Net Present Value graph.
I find it interesting that the argument has devolved into one about whether something is “advocacy”, who should be removed from the WAC, etc. by detractors of the Woodland option, rather than addressing the actual numbers/facts in the graphs. When some cannot support their position with hard evidence, they will resort to personal attacks, red herrings to sidetrack the discussion – anything to distract from the real issues.
[quote]ERM: I was not advocating for some sort of overthrow of WAC members. [/quote]
Michael, you have to live by your words:
[quote]Michael Harrington: Since Alf and some others have been determined to vote to move the JPA forward, and since it is clear this should not happen, may I suggest that those members who simply cannot get their heads around the idea that the WAC needs to slow down and get it right should resign, or members who thought this WAC gig was going to be a fast rubber stamp of the Saylor JPA Taj Mahal Project should resign, and let the new CC appoint members who are objective, and want to take the time to do something innovative, in “the Davis way.”
[/quote]
[quote]erm: May I suggest that you want anyone removed from the WAC who does not agree with your view, whatever that may be at the moment. Your views waffle from one extreme to the other, from one issue to another without any logic or sense. This latest statement is probably one of the most outrageous you’ve made to date IMO. Secondly, it is in direct contradiction to many statements you have made in public that the WAC is doing a “wonderful job”. Apparently the WAC only does a “wonderful job” if it takes YOUR position, which changes with the wind… [/quote]
[quote]Michael Harrington: ERM: another way to say what I said yesterday about membership on the WAC; some current members expected it to be a relatively short time commitment. Since the WAC has so much work ahead of it, for months to come, the members who thought it was going to be quick can resign, with our thanks, and be replaced by applicants subject to CC votes similar to what they do with the current appointment system for commissions, rather than a CC member appoints his or her favorite applicant. [/quote]
[quote]Don shor: Michael: that isn’t even close to what you said yesterday about WAC membership, in tone or content. You’re back-pedaling. What you said had nothing to do with the time commitment of being on the WAC.
Michael Harrington: Since Alf and some others have been determined to vote to move the JPA forward, and since it is clear this should not happen, may I suggest that those members who simply cannot get their heads around the idea that the WAC needs to slow down and get it right should resign,
Don Shor: The meaning of that statement is exactly as Elaine stated [/quote]
[quote]Michael Harrington:We all know several of the WAC members would have voted for the JPA the second meeting. I am just saying that for whatever reasons, some members are maxed out on time or maybe interest on the WAC, and I have suggested that the CC set up a friendly process to let them go, and replace them. [/quote]
When did the City Council repudiate the JPA? When did the City Council withdraw from the contract with Woodland for the Woodland/Davis water project? What’s that? They didn’t? So, when did it become inappropriate for a City staff member to attend a Chamber of Commerce meeting and advocate for the official policy of the City of Davis?
The JPA and the Woodland/Davis option is the current, approved, surface water project for the City of Davis. The City Council has asked the WAC to evaluate our options and determine if there is a better solution for the City moving forward. We are all still waiting to hear what the WAC decides, and all conclusions at this point are simply political posturing. Why don’t we wait and see what the WAC decides and then evaluate their work product.
Michael Harrington [i]”What a thankless job. Like mine.”[/i]
Michael, your attempt to equate your mudslinging, personal attacks, and bullying tactics with the fine work that the members of the WAC have been performing on our behalf is truly pathetic.
I am sorry but this blog tone is becoming not only unpleasant but downright uninteresting with the multiple back and forths. I am going to resist reading when I see it happening. One reader’s view.
SODA: I couldn’t agree more. Many of the same went after me during the water referendum. And history has shown us the truth about those rates.
[quote]I am sorry but this blog tone is becoming not only unpleasant but downright uninteresting with the multiple back and forths. I am going to resist reading when I see it happening. One reader’s view.[/quote]
I suspect once a decision is made at the WAC on Thursday evening, things will calm down – I’m ever the optimist 😉
[quote]For example, have the city help identify high water use households and offer inspection and proposals for lowering water consumption. Might we even front-load the project with some funding to provide free or discounted low-flow showerheads and toilets to low income residents. Landscape watering is a big part of the water bill for many households. What about some creative ideas to provide city help converting high water use landscaping to low water use landscaping… especially for low income families and older residents?[/quote]
And, on another more than optimistic, almost miraculous note, Jeff and I are in complete agreement on yet another point. Good idea Jeff !
Jeff: we are still searching for the optimal solution. I think your comment and question to me was excellent. I’m working on things.
[i]..we are still searching for the optimal solution. I think your comment and question to me was excellent. I’m working on things.[/i]
This is an unbelievable statement.
Who is “we”?
Why haven’t you proposed anything?
Why do you think August 2012 is the time to be “working on things” when water projects have been under active discussion for years, with specific projects being developed by others?
What have you been discussing/doing/working on during the months that the WAC has been meeting to discuss specific proposals that are on the table in front of them?
Why are you bringing up totally irrelevant, extraneous topics that have been discarded long ago (continuing to rely on mid-level aquifers)?
Are you suggesting that you, Mike Harrington, are going to propose another option to the city council and the WAC?
Is there some timeline for that?
Do you have actual proposals in writing, in draft form, in front of a committee somewhere?
Do you have actual experts vetting your suggestions? Can you name them for us?
David, conjunctive use yes, but Mike’s desire to have surface water be secondary to groundwater is stupid. You don’t build a state of the art performing arts center so that you can use it on the occasions the senior center isn’t already booked. Mike has it backwards. You use groundwater to supplement surface water. Surface water is primary.
But then again, nothing that Mike suggests actually has Mike’s support. So his statement is just more hot air.