By Michael Harrington
For all the complicated reasons discussed, the steering committee for our water referendum believes and hopes that Woodland should pull back from the JPA and sharing the water plant project with Davis, allowing Davis to avoid rushing this matter to the March 2013 ballot.
The Davis City Council is set to approve a rate package on November 27th, and it would be best if they were informed prior to that time that Woodland is going to go it alone for now.
I think we all remember the blog post by Supervisor Matt Rexroad who asked the obvious question: why shouldn’t Woodland just go build its project, and Davis might be a customer later?
We believe that although Woodland might have the best of intentions, the mandatory linking of Woodland’s build schedule to Davis approval is rushing our planning and political process way too fast.
Unfortunately, Davis City Council Members Don Saylor and Steve Souza were not speaking for our community when they pushed through the JPA and shared participation with Woodland, as their process strategy required that a citywide vote in Davis be avoided at all costs. They and, unfortunately, our water staff and consultants actively worked for years to head off such direct ratepayer and voter involvement.
On Sept 6, 2011, four members of the Davis City Council continued that Saylor-Souza tradition of cutting off a citywide vote. Sue Greenwald was the lone protest vote, and she moved, without a second, to place this project and rates on a citywide ballot.
This interference with public participation is backwards from the way things are usually done in Davis, where direct democracy is strongly favored for such large projects and policies. For proof of this tradition, just look back a few years ago, when 5 CC members voted to put the relatively small matter of the Target store on the Measure K ballot. Or the citywide vote on Measure P, the Parlin 25 acres next to Wildhorse. Both were much smaller deals than the water project, but still the voters relished their right to vote, and came out in numbers.
As discussed, is it highly likely that whatever happens with the CC’s vote on November 27 and the March 5 election, the project and rates will be not be factually or legally or politically final for several years. Until there is a final project with final rates approved by the voters, it’s likely that neither city will sell bonds to pay for the construction of a joint project.
Therefore, as a practically necessity because Woodland says that it simply must continue on this project and that Woodland is fully and fiscally capable of going it alone, we are suggesting that Woodland withdraw from participation with Davis on this project, and give us the time we need to sort out the water needs as the community determines.
However, make no mistake: we intend for the City of Davis to keep its water take permit alive and all other options. Perhaps there will come a time when the cities can enter into a contract for water supply, but it is simply too much too soon.
If Woodland’s water project train must leave the station right now, as they have told us over and over, then so be it.
In spite of the turmoil and drama from the past year, we wish to remain good neighbors with Woodland and partners in enhancing the quality and affordability of life for Eastern Yolo County residents and businesses.
Again, we do not wish to intrude on Woodland’s planning or political process, but we must respectfully request that Woodland give Davis the time it needs to sort things out for itself, and take the matter to the voters at the appropriate time.
Would Davis get more favorable water rates by contracting from Woodland? It seems like Woodland would have us by the balls in that arrangement, considering that the more that they charge Davis, then the less they would have to charge their own residents.
I will admit to some confusion about this post. Are there two Michael Harringtons in Davis? Over the past year I have been reading the comments of a “Michael Harrington” (let’s call him MH1) in this space. Those comments have routinely suggested that Woodland is nearly bankrupt and incapable of completing this project and that Davis will be left holding the bag. The Michael Harrington writing here (let’s call him MH2) says:
“…Woodland is fully and fiscally capable of going it alone” (or is MH2 simply saying that Woodland claims this–the writing is unclear on this point?)
MH1 routinely implies that we cannot trust Woodland but MH2 says here: “…we wish to remain good neighbors with Woodland… (am I reading this correctly?) MH2 even wants to buy water from Woodland–he better talk to MH1 who will tell him these folks are simply not trustworthy.
MH1has has routinely said that Davis should leave the project. MH2 here says: “we are suggesting that Woodland withdraw from participation with Davis…” (I wonder how the Woodland CC feels about being advised by a former Davis CC member because I know how sensitive MH1 has been to Woodland CC members speaking into the Davis decision making process)
However I am struck by the fact that both MH1 and MH2 agree on their total disdain for certain members of the current CC (they are rarely named)–even though the current CC did the right thing in steppng back and appointing the WAC which has served this community extremely well.
So, I am left with my confusion… Do we have one MH or two?
Woodland should not pull back.
Davis should just jump off the train. You don’t need any help for that…. just take care of it yourself. No drama. Just jump.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
First you demand a vote then you want to delay the vote until some distant unspecified date. I say lets vote and get it over with. It will be over a year of delay and political wrangling before the vote. Its enough already. If we must have a vote then let’s get it over with.
Robb
I have a theory about this. I suspect that your well characterized MH 1 and MH 2 are merely temporary, convenient projections of the real MH.
Let’s call him MH 3 who is absolutely consistent in his goal which is blockage of any surface water project whatsoever in an attempt to block peripheral growth.. In this theory MH 1 and MH 2 are merely convenient proxies for MH 3 empowered to say anything at all that will prove detrimental to the project in the minds of the maximum number of citizens. As stated previously, I find this to be a completely disingenuous and cynical strategy.
While I share the goal of limiting peripheral growth, I am not willing to do so at the cost of failing to secure a surface water source for future citizens of Davis. If all of the iterations of MH, feel so strongly about blocking peripheral growth, I would very much appreciate them simply saying that is their goal rather than vilifying those who do not agree and dragging us through a slew of peripheral issues. I have invited the controlling MH to do so repeatedly and would extend the invitation once again.
“Let’s call him MH 3 who is absolutely consistent in his goal which is blockage of any surface water project whatsoever in an attempt to block peripheral growth..”
Sums it up perfectly.
” I find this to be a completely disingenuous and cynical strategy. “
Especially the part about affordability.
Thanks for the clarification medwoman. I suspect you are correct. I share your commitment to limiting peripheral growth and thinking about the value of a more diversified water sourcing plan (nature itself teaches us the value of diversification but we humans have a tendency to eschew diverisity for the “one best way” which makes us more vulnerable to shocks).
If your theory is correct then I would like to sit down with MH3 and discuss with him why I feel his (at turns) duplicitous, scolding, condescending and threatening (always veiled of course) approach to this issue is fundamentally destructive to rational discourse. I would also like him to understand how his rhetoric alienates our good neighbors in Woodland. He seems to understand neither of these things in his “take no prisoners” approach to this issue.
Rex: your idea months ago is Woodland should go it alone, I believe, since Davus is obviously not ready? If I heard you correctly, I agree.
We published articles laying out our concerns and strategies. Sorry if the ‘Woodland at all costs to Davis’ crowd didn’t read them or care to contact us to discuss. My phone is 759-8440, same as last year. Not one of you has called; and my door is always open. Haven’t seen any of you posters yet.
If Woodland wants Davis money to assist with that plant, their CC’s best chance is disengage now before Davis CC votes on the rates. It’s a clearly superior strategy than what is shown in the famous photo that David took at our Dec 6th CC meeting and appears above.
Sorry, I’m not Woodlands lawyer or Strategist, but the choice of RR tracks to take is obvious. Rexroad identified it earlier this year: go it alone for now.
Woodland doesn’t want to go it alone unless they are forced to do so. I predicted they would wait for us to vote. You claim to want more clarity when in reality you want to kill the project or at least in this iteration of your arguments delay until Woodland goes it alone thus undermining the need for a vote by Davis. So the only thing consistent in all your machinations is that you want to kill the project, not having a vote or saving people money. If having a vote will kill the project you’re for that. If not having a vote will kill the project you’re for that instead. How Machaivellian you are. Its cool though because the no growth ends justifies the means.
Toad: sorry, you read us wrong. Stop by my office sometime.
BTW, by personally attacking me, you waste your energy on the messenger, not the message.
How did I read you wrong?
I’m sorry if you are offended. Oh wait you’re a trial lawyer. If a little descriptive name calling bothered you it would keep you from ever practicing your profession. Its not like I used an expletive.
Rexroad: [i]Davis should just jump off the train. You don’t need any help for that…. just take care of it yourself. No drama. Just jump.[/i]
No drama?!? But wait! We need that drama! We have to exercise the Davis tradition of analyzing it to death. Remember that we argue extensively about what names to give our streets.
“Davis should just jump off the train. “
Matt Rexroad: You are suggesting Woodland should pay an additional $70 to $90 million for the project?
wdf1: Ha! Yes, this town thrives on drama. Ever wonder why it’s a special place to live? If you go back in history to WW II or before, nearly every nice feature of this town that you enjoy and take for granted was probably hard-fought-over in its day. In my short 12 years of local political activity, everything good in planning has been teased, argued over, tweaked, and decided after debate.
So I view the water project discussion as healthy, and somewhat a happy process in its own way. However, I know there were dozens of people and companies who were counting the bags of gold on September 7, 2011, until the referendum qualified in November. For those people, I would suggest you don’t count the gold so soon again, at least not until well after March 5. And I can promise you that those bags of gold you want on your desk are OUR money, and you will get less of it because of this town process we know and love.
I am suggesting if Woodland wants the best shot at that money from Davis, they should leave our political process alone.
Their demanding we stay on their self-imposed political schedule is what is causing most of the upheaval in Davis.
So all the referendum committee did was politely ask them to pull back and leave our internal politics alone. If there is a business deal to be had later, then both sides can look at that.
If they continue to interfere with Davis’ internal political process, then I have my doubts that any voter in Davis would ever deal with them again on a utility project. The Woodland CC already came enmass to our Dec 6 CC meeting and berated the CC and all Davis ratepayers, then two of the Woodland CC members wrote an Op-Ed piece trashing us with thinly veiled threats if we did not behave.
Meanwhile, I see 5 CC members from Davis who are meekly following the Woodland CC and its caning process if we misbehave again.
Mike’s article needs some serious fact-checking. I detect alterations, manipulation and outright lies. (Remember, we are very skilled in this after the last election and months of M1-M3.) This article was a waste. The idea could have been just a post. It is full of hate directed at several people who are part of the community and really has no place here.
I’m waiting for Woodlanders to respond in outrage that a someone from Davis is trying to meddle in their affairs. (This is ironic, since the person who howled the loudest about Woodland representatives speaking legally at public comment during an open meeting of our City Council is the person attempting to do the meddling.)
We are all tired of this manufactured drama. We want some sane governance and we voted in new representatives to do that. So far, they are doing very well.
Matt Rexroad is right. If Davis doesn’t want to participate with Woodland, then we can jump off the train. Mike is out of line.
I just don’t understand the rush for Davis, I really don’t. Since Mayor Joe seems determined to get into that barrel upstream from Niagra Falls, our way of trying to calm the waters was to ask Woodland to do the obvious, since they say they have to have their project NOW: politely tell Davis to finish its process, and when done, send out an RFP to buy water, or just proceed with other options. It’s simple, arms length, and avoids the JPA governance problems.
This is an interestingly telling statement mike – you don’t understand the rush.
so part one of the equation is the city ending up out of compliance on discharge. it is true that it has to proceed more quickly by two years by doing this with woodland but part two is that the city is saving tens of millions by partnering with woodland.
so i don’t understand is why you are confused as to the rush.
The regulatory fines Boogey Man has already been discredited, and dropped by the City. It was floated in the lead up the Sept 6th 2011 rushed CC vote, and the opposition to the referendum, but has been dropped since. One of the many discredited arguments for the rush.
Woodland also is doing the same thing to its ratepayers, but the community groups are not as well organized as Davis, and so far the Woodland rate increases have not been contested.
As to money, a plan based on the process we are laying out in the upcoming initiative will save the City of Davis tens of millions, and reduce and push back the rate increases associated with a surface water project.
This is not complicated.
Mike you asked for an election and you are going to get an election. If you are opposed to the project you should not be telling the proponents when its in their best interest to have that election. Instead you should focus on your opposition to the proposal. Doing otherwise calls into question your motive.
“The regulatory fines Boogey Man has already been discredited, and dropped by the City.”
i don’t know why you claim it’s been discredited.
[i]”The regulatory fines Boogey Man has already been discredited, and dropped by the City.”
[/i]
That is not true.
The immediate problems are the salinity and the selenium.
— starting in 2017, the state will fine us if we continue to use this water.
— starting about 2015, we will be violating tightened standards for selenium.
In the application for our discharge permit, the solution to these problems is noted as follows (from 2010):
Selenium: “Therefore, the proposed removal of the existing overland flow system will improve the effluent quality for most constituents, but is likely to increase the concentration of effluent selenium. Achieving compliance with the CTR effluent selenium limitations may require a change in the City’s water supply.”
Salinity/EC etc.: “compliance with future salinity effluent limitations will require implementation of long-term
changes in the City’s sources of water supply.”
Mike’s solution is that Davis keep pumping water from the wells as long as possible, and buy water from Woodland.
Davis ratepayers will work through the initiative-defined process, and there will be a clear avenue to proceed. All I can say, is watch the clerk’s office for what we file soon.
The ad-hoc JPA project process will be superseded by the process defined in the initiative. It will build on the work of the WAC. We gave the CC over a year to fix the mess, and they have not done so. Time to move on.
I vote no to the establishment of a policy of isolationism regarding regional issues. I vote no to removing this project from oversight by our democratically elected representatives. I vote no to Mike Harrington having any decision making power over this project, beyond that of a regular private citizen. I vote no to subterfuge. I vote no to the repetition of incorrect information, even after it has been clearly proven to be incorrect. I vote no to false allegations and lies. I vote no to the continuous defamation of fellow citizens and personal attacks. I vote no on conflicting statements followed by a refusal to clarify them. I vote no on “waiting to see.”
Ryan: if you want to offer constructive criticism of the draft initiative, please let me know and come by sometime before we file it. I’m really not into “no,” but “yes, yes to a public utilities project equivalent to the direct democracy process as reflected in Meausure J/R.”
At this point, the JPA project looks … challenged, to say the least. It’s going to have a “rate malfunction” and other problems.