Last week, we reported that Water Advisory Committee member Alf Brandt indicated at the meeting that he would be ready to make a motion at the August 9 meeting.
Itt appears from all indications Alf Brandt will make a motion for one of the Woodland projects and, as we have reported, there is some belief that if that occurs it will pass.
On Saturday, the Vanguard argued that the WAC would be best advised to wait. As we laid out, we still have a number of concerns about the project that the JPA is pushing forward.
One of those problems is the DBO process itself. We are concerned with at least two of the three bidders. I have too many concerns about the JPA and the Woodland project to support it at this time. That does not mean I oppose the projects in concept or that I am looking to delay. It simply means there are too many questions to arrive at a definitive answer on Thursday.
As such, I would prefer the WAC to look at it further rather than rush a decision on Thursday. To me, there are serious questions with both projects at this point and we would benefit from more analysis – particularly given we are not going to vote on this for seven months.
I think we need to know if the DBO process is a done deal, whether we are bound to accept private operation, and whether private operation is optimal, among other things.
We are in need of determining whether Veolia’s problems or United Water’s problems are serious concerns.
Veolia has a whole host of failed projects, in addition to the Palestinian issue, which I think many feel is very peripheral not only to our project but to the country. However, imagine running a water campaign which devolves into an Israeli-Palestinian debate.
Finally, I think we need to ask more questions about the JPA itself if we are to move forward on water. I fear that we locked ourselves into processes that remove autonomy from our community.
As the WAC process has moved on, the project scope has been more narrowly defined and the projected costs reduced, and many in the community have moved closer to a consensus.
That does not mean everyone will ultimately support a project – we do not recommend attempting unanimity in the community as that is largely an impracticality, if not an outright impossibility.
But what we would need is to work out some of the remaining concerns, even as we drive the gap between the Woodland and West Sacramento options downward.
Last week, I wrote that it would be advisable that the WAC reach a broader consensus than simply a bare majority. If the verdict is unanimous or near unanimous, the project has a better chance of succeeding. But if there are three or four dissenters, it could fan a heated battle into the spring.
There are a number of critics who would be more supportive of a West Sacramento option for a number of reasons. I still think that option has serious drawbacks, including concerns about ownership and lack of joint powers.
However, I also think that those concerns can be dealt with through an effective contract. We have in the past noted that Tracy contracts with another entity for their water and they have signed a 40-year agreement with a 40-year renewal option and a 20-year buffer, essentially guaranteeing water for 100 years.
Such an agreement would prevent West Sacramento from being able to determine that they are growing faster than projected and reducing our water allotment.
Would they sign such a deal? Hard to know. But if they refuse, then the city would obviously not sign such a contract.
The city council has asked their JPA representatives to scope out West Sacramento options, but we do not yet have the results of those talks which, at least at last note, had yet to occur.
We have been told by some that if the city immediately and prematurely dumps the West Sacramento option, that will trigger a full effort to kill the JPA project.
As one person told us, if the WAC votes by a 10-0 margin to go to Woodland, then that is the way it goes. Inherently, a split vote would trigger a battle, as many still do not believe that the JPA issues are resolved either in terms of the law or the politics of the matter.
It is our belief that the various sides have moved closer together. It is our further belief that more time is an asset and an ally.
A move tonight toward the JPA project would be a move in the wrong direction and I think that would likely spell the end of any consensus building and instead move us toward a long and divisive political battle over water, that will not end until the March election.
Some will view this undoubtedly as a threat. The fact is, all evidence points toward this inevitable conclusion if we continue down this path.
Cooler heads have prevailed in the past to pull us from the brink. This will mark a huge test for both the Water Advisory Committee as well as the new Davis City Council.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It is imperative to have the West Sac facts (are they interested, terms, etc) before discarding it. Will WAC have that tonight? Seems as though this has been a slow part of process and could have been accomplished faster.
Will Woodland agree to scaled down JPA project?
Can we get more or different parties interested in bidding?
Will be interesting! Look forward to watching and Matt’s summary which has been objective and concise. Thanks Matt!
Well I will say this: I will be there tonight. The first meeting of the WAC I will have been able to attend.
David, Internet explorer still isn’t able to pull up the last three days of stories. I seeing today’s stories only from my IPad using Safari.
rusty, try going to tools and clearing your recent history – only the cache
highbeam, thanks that worked.
[i]”A move tonight toward the JPA project would be a move in the wrong direction and I think that would likely spell the end of any consensus building and instead move us toward a long and divisive political battle over water…”
[/i]
Mike Harrington has promised a long and divisive political battle if the WAC and the council go with any project that involves Woodland. He has been very specific, very confrontational, and absolutely shows no sign that he would work toward consensus. In his view, and I assume in the view of his referendum committee, the Sac option is the only option.
How do you build consensus with someone who has staked out an absolute, non-negotiable position?
Unfortunately, his language has been so incendiary that I feel it is likely the WAC members, and the city council members, no longer listen to him.
Putting the SWP intake (for drinking water yet!) E of Woodland and immediateluy downchannel from the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) drain at Knights Landing is like siting your water well adjacent to and downgradient from your septic system. In either case, you will be drinking a solution of your own or someone else’s waste/irrigation water.
I think a lot of people have given up listening to Mike. I hope that all this effort is not a waste of time. I hope that people don’t waste a lot of money on a political battle over this. I hope that the divisiveness and contentiousness over water doesn’t also create confusion over renewals for Parks and schools.
Ryan Kelly-As I first posted last October the 6th, “The most expensive components of this project could be the egos ! “
Don: I’m surprised at your venom. Demonizing me does not advance your arguments.
The Sept 6 rates were facially bogus.
Using a private DBO model is facially undemocratic and will certainly result in higher rates and lack of control.
The JPA political model means that the voters of Davis do not control our source of river water: the JPA and its staff do.
The Pro-JPA contingent on the WAC seek to cut off data gathering and analysis about the West Sacto option before the WAC gets to what will be probably an irrefutable conclusion: West Sac is far less expensive; far less risky since it is already mostly built; and far simplier politically as we have a long term contract with them, with renewals, and they are not mucking around in our City politics, like the Woodland CC and JPA members are trying to do.
Don, with all due respect to you, and you are due a lot, somehow you are not seeing this with the usual clear vision that you have had over the years.
Don and Ryan: what say you to Mr. Hayes’ comments above? THey make sense to me. Going to demonize him, too?