On Thursday, the WAC made their decision with regard to water rate structure. They did so with the apparent blessing of city staff, that had up until that point been skeptical about the viability, workability and legal defensibility of the Loge-Williams consumer-based rate structure.
The council still has some work to do. They must continue to negotiate with Woodland on the cost sharing. Timing for that is tight and, while the agenda is already up for the November 27 meeting, the talks are clearly ongoing and, as of the timing of the staff report, no new progress is noted.
We in no way diminish the importance of that cost sharing, which remarkably could still undo this deal. We also have no way of knowing whether the council will ultimately approve of the Loge-Williams rate structure.
However, in many ways, what is noteworthy now is the transition to the political campaign.
While we do not wish to overly simplify the battle at this point, there appear to be three different fronts at the moment. One is exemplified by Matt Williams, whose letter to the Enterprise on Thursday may have fired the opening shot. And the other two are represented by Michael Harrington who appears poised – all proclamations to the contrary – to lead the anti-water initiative drive, and Bob Dunning, the Davis Enterprise columnist who will be a factor as the measure heats up.
Before we get into the rhetoric, one of the interesting functions is the structure of this campaign. This week will largely be a dead week with city offices closed. When the world restarts in a week, there will be one week in November and two, maybe three weeks in December before things shut down again.
When the holidays pass, it will be perhaps not until the first full week of January before things fire back up again, and at that point, we will have just two months before the election.
As we noted last week, the city remains largely in the dark with no polling or real idea of where the public sits, and they will have two months to explain a very complex water project and even more complex rate structure to the public.
Bob Dunning last week wrote, “For my money, any rate structure that doesn’t take into account household size is dead on arrival … each citizen in our town should have the right to a basic amount of water for everyday needs before moving into a punitive ‘tier,’ where the cost of the same gallon of water spikes dramatically … higher tiers should be reserved for those who clearly waste water … large families, or those who have taken in mom and dad or uncle Charlie in their later years, should not be punished … the current system does exactly that …”
Matt Williams fired what might be the first front, directly confronting columnist Bob Dunning in his letter to the Enterprise, also submitted to the Vanguard last week. Writes Mr. Williams:
Bob giveth and Bob taketh away. On the one hand, the esteemed Mr. Dunning’s flattery of my perceptiveness on the “huge community mistake” comment was well … flattery. But then he turns around and declares the fiscally responsible proposed Loge-Williams rate structure “ludicrous” because he believes that four residents out of Davis’ 65,000 residents deserve special dispensation from the pope because they replaced their lawn with a rock garden. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
No one is proposing putting any ratepayer in a different tier based on prior consumption. What we are proposing is that everyone shoulder their fair share of the fixed costs of the water system that reliably delivers water to us here in Davis. In the rate system that Bob appears to support, a ratepayer who used 51 hundred cubic foot units (ccf) per year in 2011 paid $2.71 per ccf, while a ratepayer who used 600 times that amount (3,040 ccf) paid only 5 cents per ccf. Yes, you read that correctly … literally thousands of Davis ratepayers paid 600 times more per unit than other Davis ratepayers did.
My question to Bob is, “Why should the people who use very little water pay 600 times more than the people who use a whole lot of water?” That question is particularly meaningful when you realize that the Water Advisory Committee had to design in 600 times more capital expenditures on the surface water plant to support that high user than they had to design in to support the very low user.
What Bob is saying, in effect, is that four groups of Davis citizens should make recurring annual charitable donations to the large water users here in Davis. Those four groups are 1) senior citizens, 2) low-income residents, 3) residents who have unfortunately lost their jobs in this down economy and 4) residents who have worked hard to conserve water. For the first three of those groups, Bob appears to be playing reverse Robin Hood … taking from the have-nots and giving to the haves.
As Paul Harvey used to say, “And now for the rest of the story.” Using the fiscally responsible Loge-Williams rate model, the 5 cents-per-ccf high user of water would have paid 90 cents per ccf, and the $2.71-per-ccf careful user of water also would have paid 90 cents per ccf.
Paying the exact same amount per unit of water consumed is fair and equitable and proportional. You don’t need special dispensation from the pope or a new rock garden to know that 90 cents equals 90 cents and that 5 cents does not equal $2.71.
Matt Williams essentially makes three arguments against Bob Dunning’s contention. First, he does not agree that his model ignores household size. The key component in the rate structure is the monthly CBFR Fee, which is the consumption based fixed rate which is based on previous consumption levels that cover the fixed costs of the water system.
Matt Williams argues, “That fee absolutely takes into consideration household size and the net result of the structure of the CBFR Fee every person in every household pays exactly the same dollar per gallon (dollar per ccf). No one pays more and no one pays less. If the rate structure is approved in the Prop 218 process and then approved by the voters at the ballot box every Davis water user will pay the same amount per unit of consumption regardless of whether they are in a household of one or a household of one hundred. “
It will be interesting to see how this argument unfolds. Bob Dunning runs a risk pushing this argument too far because there are a limited number of people directly impacted and he ends up wearing his personal family situation on his sleeve, which could open his private life up to some scrutiny.
On the other hand, we also have the arguments put forward by Michael Harrington, as we once again saw laid out this weekend.
Mr. Harrington argued, “Anyone see how healthy it is that our community is talking about these important issues before we get a citywide vote? Three members of our current city council attempted last Sept 2011 to block that discussion and the vote. Now all 5 are rushing it. The rates are a mess and no solution in sight. They don’t even have a real design or bids, and they want us to vote to vastly raise our rates ? Please !”
Later he added at length:
Another interesting topic that the WAC has not touched is: our local City government has done nothing to educate the public about the harm that old style water softeners are doing, and all of the fertilizer that many dump on their yards without a thought that it may harm the wells below.
I would very respectfully disagree with Matt, based on my own consultant’s research. Again, I am not trying the campaign on this blog. Woodland has a lot of options to improve its system, and come into compliance with standards, but they chose to engage Davis and set up a huge subsidy from us in trying to build this Taj Mahal gold plated plant. Darned near got away with it.
Aren’t any of you curious how it came to be last year that those 9/6/11 water rates were so bad, and that 4 members of the CC endorsed them and tried to raise our rates based on staff and consultant analysis that was discredited before the vote?
The same staff and consultants who gave us Sept 6th rates are still in there, selling the current plant and rates to us.
Wonder why suddenly, after Dec 2011, the City staff and consultants decided that the water plant could, actually, be much smaller and we did not need so much of that new-fangled surface water, when months earlier they basically said we were going to grow ill from contanimated water? Again, those same staff and consultants are all still here, telling you that we simply have to have this still too large plant, right now, or the Woodland train is going to leave the station?
Aren’t you just a little skeptical of those professionals whom somehow cannot keep their stories straight while they try to sock our families with vastly higher rates?
I stay on this subject because I hate to see the rip-off of our poor and middle class families’ precious money for a public project that is too big, too expensive, and too soon. The oversupply of the water will clearly go to supporting urban development of Eastern Yolo County, including the green zones around Davis and Woodland, and the Hwy 113 and Poleline/Rd 102 growth corridors.
The planning is a mess; this week the WAC voted on a rate system without much understanding of what it was or its true effects on budgets. I’m not taking a substantive position on the rate system right now, but the WAC has been artificially pushed too fast by a CC that is being bullied from Woodland and won’t stand up to them and their faux emergency.
The WAC is doing its best while being undermined by Woodland. The Woodland CC can rip off its own population, but we are not going to let them do it to us.
When pressed for specifics such as how Woodland mismanaged their well system, however, he largely dodged directly addressing that.
He did add, however: “My estimate is there will be a very fine conjunctive use supply system/contract in place in 4-5 years. We will pay for what we use, not more. There won’t be the large spike in rates. The rates will be increased responsibly, after the community has pulled out of the economic ditch we have been in since 2007. There are many ways to do this without the JPA and giving away our sovereignty to people like the Woodland CC members who come insult us in our own house, like they did on 12/6/11, and falsely use their faux emergency to interfere with our political process.
“Conaway Ranch water, ground water, river water will all be a part of a well thought-out plan that is fully vetted with clear and transparent baseline features, specific rates known in advance of the ballot measure, public ownership and operation of the plant by city employees who get their W-2s from us, and thoroughly discussed in a fair and accurate and open campaigning before the citywide vote. I promise you this, based on all the information and analysis I have right now. When this project is done right, you will not see any sort of controversy about it.”
This figures to be an unusual and lively campaign and it is just beginning.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I wish Woodland would pull out of the JPA and do its own project, with the message to Davis that when Davis has sorted out its true needs and budgets, we can submit a proposal to buy water. If the current project loses on March 5, I think the voters here will have sent the message they want nothing to do with the likes of that Woodland CC that badgers us, treats our 5 CC poorly, and forces the Woodland faux emergency into our study and political processes .
so you’re advocating that Woodland pay $70 to $90 million in additional costs?
Whatever they can sell to this poor and middle class ratepayer. Woodland’s long term and continuing interference with Davis’ process warrants a response, doesn’t it ?
mike: what would you recommend that response to be? cut off our nose to spite our faces?
[quote]Bob Dunning runs a risk pushing this argument too far because there are a limited number of people directly impacted and he ends up wearing his personal family situation on his sleeve, [b]which could open his private life up to some scrutiny[/b].[/quote]Very interesting comment. What is meant?
Should have said, “is that a threat”…
i don’t read it as a threat. but a lot of people may note that mr. dunning has limited income and opted to have another family relatively late in life. now he seems to be complaining about the consequences of that.
GI: your personal attack on Bob and his family is disgusting.
[i]”… when Davis has sorted out its true needs and budgets, we can submit a proposal to buy water.”
[/i]
This is the Harrington/referendum committee alternative? Buy water from Woodland?
[i]”When pressed for specifics such as how Woodland mismanaged their well system, however, he largely dodged directly addressing that.”
[/i]
Weasel words. He didn’t “largely dodge” the question. He never answered it. So I”ll ask it again.
Mike Harrington: how did Woodland mismanage their well system? In what way were they negligent?
[i]This figures to be an unusual and lively campaign and it is just beginning.
[/i]
Yes. So when Mike Harrington refuses to answer questions, makes provably false statements, and villainizes project supporters and staff, will the Vanguard call him on it? Promptly and with specificity?
no personal attack, just explaining a point that could be made.
GI – ignore Mike.
But I might add that Bob’s situation is not unusual – multiple family members living in a home. Remember that decisions about the number of children, having an elderly parent move in, or having a young, job seeking, adults move back home, have been made with the existing rates. It is the change of rates to these high levels that is creating a situation where the water bill could possibly equal or exceed the monthly food budget. This will indeed bankrupt some families, including mine, unless drastic cuts in water use are achieved.
Don: the article in the DE on Sunday that you wrote is seriously misleading. It highlights the cost of $116 million, which you know leaves out costs of the debt service, and the approximately $50 million it’s going to take to fix Davis infrastructure to use the wells with the surface project water.
The whole shebang will be around $250 million, and it will way more than quadruple our water bills.
I think the DE should publish a correction to your errors.
Truth in Utility Projects is going to be an important topic in our initiative, and staff and the water consultants and political beneficiaries of these kinds of project will never, ever come close to what they have done to us to date.
My editor wrote the introductory paragraph: “[i]With a $116 million surface water project coming down the pipeline for Davis residents, there’s little doubt water rates will increase. Although details are not yet decided, a story about water-wise gardening seemed like a rosy idea.”[/i]
I wrote the rest of the article.
I have never put a price tag on the water project. I leave those details to the WAC.
But I’m curious: will you correct all the misleading statements you’ve made over the last couple of years on this topic?
Also: [b]how did Woodland mismanage their well system? In what way were they negligent?[/b]
FROM AN EMAIL TO THE DAVIS VANGUARD THIS AFTERNOON:
Gentlemen:
Maybe Dunning has put his family structure into issue because he wants to see a per capita adjustment or rate system. You can comment on that, but without being overly personal or nasty.
However, GI’s comment about Bob and age and having kids and income level was completely out of line.
Even worse, Don’s later comments shows he apparently approves of that line of attack.
Now, Don and others go after me that way, or worse, but I’m a big boy and can and will dish it back. Bob does not post on the DV, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to attack his family planning choices. The way the comments read, they also attack Mrs. Dunning.
The GI comment borderlines on being from an ill person, and it reads that way. And so far the owner and moderators have approved, since the comments are still up.
I am disappointed.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Don: the article in the DE on Sunday that you wrote is seriously misleading. It highlights the cost of $116 million, which you know leaves out costs of the debt service, and the approximately $50 million it’s going to take to fix Davis infrastructure to use the wells with the surface project water.”[/i]
Actually Michael the money to “fix Davis infrastructure to use the wells with the surface project water” is neither $50 million, nor is it left out of the $116 million. The actual amount is $14.66 million, and it is included in the current $116.96 million Davis portion of the total. Davis’ portion of the Surface Water Project components as of now are $102.30 million and with the $14.66 million of “Local Costs- Davis Total” the combined cost is $116.96 million.
hpierce, one of the public policy challenges associated with the argument Bob is making is the tradeoff of the benefits to the individual vs. the benefits to the public as a whole. It isn’t ever an easy line to walk.
However, in this case the tradeoffs are really quite clear. It really revolves around how many people’s “basic right to water” (quoting Jerry Brown as quoted by Alf Brandt in the last WAC meeting) is supported by tier 1 and how many people end up in tier 2 at a higher per unit rate for water (40 cents per ccf vs. 50 cents per ccf in the proposed rate structure). Right now the tier break is at 18 ccf (36 ccf per bi-monthly billing period). That calculates to 443 gallons per household per day. Statewide gallons per person per day (gpcd) standards over the past few years have settled on 55 gpcd (moving down from 75 gpcd ten years ago before California began to take water seriously as a scarce resource that we should conserve).
So, our current rate structure provides a household of 8 people with their basic need of 55 gpcd of water in tier 1. At the 10 ccf tier break (recommended by Bartle Wells) that same family of 8 would have 10 ccf in Tier 1 and 8 ccf in Tier 2. The rate difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is 10 cents pr ccf or 80 cents per month in total.
Further, how many families in Davis are larger than 8? I think the number may be able to be counted on two hands, and only the members of those families who are 9 and above in the pecking order are subject to the 10 cents per ccf higher rate. With that low of an impact is it unreasonable to ask whether Bob is simply tilting at windmills?