By John Munn
Measure I directs the Davis City Council to proceed with the Davis-Woodland surface water supply project. But it contains no information about why surface water is needed, what the project includes, how much it is going to cost, or how high water rates must go to pay for it. In effect, the City Council is asking for a blank check. The Yolo County Taxpayers Association, however, wants you to know about these matters.
Next, the project was justified by questioning the sustainability of water from deeper aquifers that the city is now using. Groundwater studies don’t support this, so it requires assuming future problems to justify bringing in surface water.
Now, there is a contention that the project is needed to prevent losing recently acquired rights to Sacramento River water. This, however, ignores a long history of water rights acquisition and later use which, again, requires assuming future problems to justify a project today.
So, as yet, building a surface water project does not seem necessary!
Let’s also consider cost. The Woodland-Davis surface water project cost was initially set at about $320 million, with the Davis share being about $150 million, more or less. Project costs for Davis have now been scaled back to less than $120 million. But it is not clear what has changed, and there have been no bids. This means that cited costs are estimates.
And only two firms are still available for the specified “design, build, operate” bidding process. These are huge firms that are familiar with each other’s operations, so real competition and participation of local contractors seem questionable at best.
At some point, it was decided that the surface water system should be large enough to replace groundwater, at least seasonally, rather than blending in smaller amounts of surface water to improve current water quality while reducing the size and cost of the surface water project. There are more affordable alternatives.
Whatever the final cost, the project would be financed by selling bonds secured by water rates. Once borrowed, the entire balance would be repaid plus interest over at least 30 years. Anyone with a mortgage knows that most of these payments go toward interest.
In this case, the total cost would be about three times the amount borrowed, which means that nearly two out of every three additional water rate dollars would be for paying interest.
Recently, the Davis City Council decided to push some bond payments into the future. This would reduce initial rate increases, including those shown in published notices, but would cost more overall and lead to higher future rates. The city also has switched from bi-monthly to monthly billing, which gives the appearance of lower payments. With so many changes accompanied by self-serving explanations, it is hard to trust either the numbers or the thinking behind them.
Finally, it is not possible to determine exactly how much your water costs would go up under the latest city proposal. For three years, water bills would be based on increasing, but fixed, rates for given volumes of water. Then, the amount of water delivered during the previous summer would be used to adjust individual water rates. So, additional water needed during a long, hot summer would lock in higher rates for the 12 months of the next year.
Without knowing future demand, therefore, it is not possible to calculate one’s future water costs. But we can be certain that even if users conserve, water cost will not decrease overall because the total amount collected must still cover the bond payments.
Higher water bills also would hurt our community. People on tight budgets would have to spend less on other needs or move elsewhere. Landscape watering reductions would make Davis less green, and some trees would be lost. Voters struggling to pay for city services would be less likely to support school and city taxes. The school district’s additional water cost would be similar to paying for three or four teachers. And, although it isn’t clear how the city is paying for water, any increase would come from ratepayers and taxpayers one way or another.
The No on I campaign is right. In its current form, the Woodland-Davis surface water project is not needed, not fair and not affordable.
You are suing the City as part of a political move. This hurts our City.
[quote]so it requires assuming future problems to justify bringing in surface water.[/quote]
So looking at this assertion from the flip side, it would seem that Mr. Munn is saying that we are safe in assuming that there will never be any future problems and therefore we should not plan ahead.
[quote]surface water is not needed to meet discharge standards.[/quote]
This is an assertion that has clearly not been supported by much of the information put forward previously by Don Shor and others.
[quote]Landscape watering reductions would make Davis less green, and some trees would be lost.[/quote]
If by “less green” what is meant is that we have fewer lawns in favor of less water requiring landscaping with draught resistent native plants, I would see this as an overall positive. As to loss of trees, I leave that to
Don Shor who I believe continues to support the surface water project.
I very much look forward to hearing these and other issues addressed at the DV forum and other planned informational sessions.
[i]Next, the project was justified by questioning the sustainability of water from deeper aquifers that the city is now using. Groundwater studies don’t support this, so it requires assuming future problems to justify bringing in surface water.
[/i]
If you are going to assert that “studies” don’t support this, please provide the studies.
[i]It seems odd that an unelected board can threaten to fine cities, while state law requires public approval of funds needed for compliance. But regardless of this Catch-22, Davis city staff and consultants have determined that mixing water from different wells will meet the selenium discharge requirements. So, surface water is not needed to meet discharge standards.[/i]
Selenium is not the only constituent in our water that is subject to regulations. And the mixing of water to meet the selenium requirements requires that we shift almost entirely to deep water, which means
— overuse of the deep aquifer
— conflict with UCD wells.
Ultimately it means we will not have enough water, as we retire shallower wells, to meet peak capacity. What you, Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington, and the others are advocating will lead to water shortages in Davis in about 2017, according the the numbers provided by Matt Williams.
Opponents of the surface water project are proposing a course of action that is irresponsible, both in mis-use of our groundwater resources and in providing for the water needs of our city.
Selenium, boron, total dissolved salts, salinity, arsenic, chormium6, nitrates. Some are higher in the shallower water, some are higher in the deeper water. Neither the shallower or deeper water source solves the problem of the increasingly stringent state regulations regarding all of these constituents. When you ‘solve’ one, you have to deal with another. Singling out the selenium has become a popular distortion of the water project opponents.
[i]Landscape watering reductions would make Davis less green, and some trees would be lost.
[/i]
Most street trees would be fine with considerably less water. Off the top of my head I can’t think of [i]any[/i] streets that have street trees that would be affected. People will change over their landscapes to lower water choices; they are already doing that. I assume John and others consider that a good thing in general.
Don, you’re wasting your time . Monsieurs Harrington and Munn are just two of the apparent surfeit of corrosive, self promoting contrarians who grace your city . No recitation of facts will satisfy their desire for recognition . Offering some proof of Davis’ oft touted collective intellect, Mr Munn’s most recent rejection by the electorate has only whetted his thirst for more publicity at others’ expense . Unfortunately his well worn motto,”we don’t need it” will be heard again, ad nauseum until the voters or the courts once again prevail .
Re: Selenium
Don’t forget that the treatment system at the wastewater plant that removes selenium is the overland flow system. This system is scheduled for removal in the current wastewater upgrade plans. In light of this, the wastewater staff have reported to the Regional Water Board that their plan to meet selenium standards is a new water source. Without the overland flow system and without a new water source, the treatment plant is in jeopardy of not meeting existing selenium standards. Moreover, EPA is revising its selenium standards, and there is no expectation whatsoever that the standards will be less stringent.
Selenium mutates birds and the City’s discharge is to wetlands and a wildlife refuge full of, whataknow, birds. So this isn’t just some esoteric, academic, or BS regulatory red-tape issue.
How many of the No on I people were involved in trying to stop the radio antenna next to the landfill because it was located so close to the wildlife refuge? Their contention was the antenna would kill birds.
“Don, you’re wasting your time”
no he’s not. he’s not answering it for munn or harrington’s benefit, but rather for the thousands of readers who do not post here.
“How many of the No on I people were involved in trying to stop the radio antenna next to the landfill because it was located so close to the wildlife refuge? Their contention was the antenna would kill birds. “
as far as i can tell, from the core group, one. pam nieberg.
Oh, please.
Heard since August 2011:
Sky is falling.
Need 18 mgd
Woodland train leaving the station NOW.
Horrible fines starting.
9/11 Rate increase is “only” 14%, when Bob Dunning and his trusty calculator showed it was actually 27% for a single year, if memory serves me.
Legally cannot have rates on ballot (to be proven wrong, soon)
On and on
We’re just trying to save money for our ratepayers, and ask the City to follow a good process before they take cash for utility services.
You guys just try to shoot the messengers, over and over, and you don’t deal with the issues./ Such as: your friendly city improperly certified the rates and water system process FOUR TIMES since the Howard Jarvis filed its 1/10 suit against the city of Sacramento. Yet you haters just attack me and other concerned ratepayers, and give staff and the CC passes.
“We’re just trying to save money for our ratepayers”
how does charging that the city is not buying or paying for water save anyone money?
[i]You guys just try to shoot the messengers, over and over, and you don’t deal with the issues
[/i]
In this thread, I just discussed peak use needs, water constituents that are regulated, and landscape effects of lower water. If those aren’t issues, I don’t know what it. There are numerous issues you have never addressed, many questions that have been put to you that you’ve never replied to, and lots of questionable assertions you’ve made that have been disproven — yet which you continue to assert anyway. So to say ‘you don’t deal with the issues’ is just [i]chutzpah.[/i]
Michael
With do respect, the phrasing of the issues raised by the proponents of the surface water project are by and large yours, not the words of the proponents. Don Shor has again and again addressed the facts behind his preference for the water project. I fail to see how putting forth arguments that do not agree with your point of view, and stating objections to specific tactics you have chosen to use, makes anyone a “hater”.
Oops, make that “due respect”.
John Munn: You have climbed into bed with Michael Harrington and are suing the City, attempting to take money from the tax payers and put it in your own pockets. Your actions are completely antithetical to ‘working to find the best solutions for the City.’ Due to your own actions you have squandered all of your personal credibility and removed yourself from any legitimate part of the conversation.
Mr Munn, thank you, it’s nice to hear the other side of the story. Can you tell us anything about the location of the proposed pipeline to Davis and why that’s so relevant to the conversation?
rusty: can you tell us how Measure R controls the growth of the city, and why that makes the location of the proposed pipeline completely irrelevant?
John Munn, thank you for joining the conversation.
My questions for you are: 1.) Why did you file your lawsuit now rather than after the measure has been resolved? 2.) Who is in the “Yolo Ratepayers” organization and what is its purpose? 3.) Who is financing the suit? and 4) Will the new group be attempting to influence voting on the election?
Michael Harrington, this is the fourth or fifth time I’ve asked the following:[quote] “MH: But, why do you say the things you do? For example, you still haven’t answered this old question: ‘Michael, given the evidence provided by Don Shor re. Sacramento River water quality and Davis Enophile’s geography lesson, why do you keep insisting that: ‘We believe strongly it’s (‘that dirty river water’ is) an issue, and will remain an issue’. ??????”[/quote] Hoping that this time’s a charm to get your feelings on this critical issue. If you have contrary information, please provide it.
[quote]It is no surprise that members of the Yolo Taxpayers Association would file a lawsuit in this campaign. This is the same conservative group that is against any public spending, whether for schools, parks, roads or clean water. They filed a lawsuit during the Measure E school campaign and are going back to the same playbook. When a campaign fails to gain public support, they changed to a hail-mary strategy of filing frivolous lawsuits. Their goal is to prevent this important public investment in our infrastructure. We think it will fail, just like their other lawsuits to stop investment in Davis public schools.[/quote]
I made the above post yesterday and I stand by it.
I am the campaign manager for Yes on Measure I, and this response comes from the campaign.
If Mr. Munn insists on splitting hairs and trying to draw distinctions between the Yolo Taxpayers Association as a whole, and its members past or present, that is his prerogative.
But the bottom line remains: The Yolo County Taxpayers Association is a right-wing organization whose members have a long track record of filing lawsuits at the height of a campaign in a purely political attempt to sway the electoral outcome. This is but the latest example.
Finally got a break in my day job, and moving the product out:
Rate case: check.
Initiative: soon!
City selling one bond to pay for this pig wearing lipstick of a project? Not for a long time.
Guess we are going to have to see if The Northern Menance actually is going to screw its own ratepayers — again — and try to build the surface water plant alone.
John Munn, You actually picked this guy to represent you?
John Munn said . . .
[i]”But regardless of this Catch-22, Davis city staff and consultants have determined that mixing water from different wells will meet the selenium discharge requirements. So, surface water is not needed to meet discharge standards.” [/i]
John, have you read the study that Brown and Caldwell put together on this issue? Are you aware that all six of the deep aquifer wells would have to run at full capacity 24×7 in order to accomplish the end you describe? Have you talked to any of the consultants from Brown and Caldwell? Did you listen to or watch the two hours of testimony that Rob Beggs from Brown and Caldwell provided to the WAC on 3/24/2012 on this subject? Here’s a link to that audio [url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-03-24-wac-mono.mp3[/url]
Bottom-line, the solution you are proposing is analogous to getting into your car and pushing the gas pedal to the floor and holding it there for 24 hours a day, day after day after day after day. Would you do that to your personal automobile? What would be the result of such behavior?
You are a fiscally wise person. Would you consider that use pattern as a prudent usage of your fiscal assets?
I look forward to your response.
” John Munn, You actually picked this guy to represent you?”
I’m guessin’ the list of interested attorneys was rather short .;>)/
John Munn said . . .
[i]”Let’s also consider cost. The Woodland-Davis surface water project cost was initially set at about $320 million, with the Davis share being about $150 million, more or less. Project costs for Davis have now been scaled back to less than $120 million. [b]But it is not clear what has changed[/b], and there have been no bids. This means that cited costs are estimates.”[/i]
John, let me outline for you very clearly what has changed . . . and all those changes were openly and transparently discussed in the WAC meetings.
1) The 40 mgd sizing that resulted in the $150 million cost estimate was developed in 2009 as part of the EIR submission process based on the historical data up through and including 2008. During the 10-year period ending in 2008, Davis experienced population growth that exceeded 1% compounded per year. Statistically, projecting similar population increases going forward was prudent. However, the passage of Measure J and the 1% Growth Cap caused the engineers to scale back that population growth to 1%. per year.
2) The economic collapse halted all housing growth for a period of time. As a result the 2009 population estimates of 89,335 by 2040 contained in the 2009 EIR were scaled back by the WAC to 86,795 in 2040. That change alone reduced the 40 mgd to 38.8 mgd.
3) In 2009 the gallons per person per day of water used had consistently been at the 197 gpcd level over the prior 10-year period. In 2011 due to the increased awareness of conservation and the economic decline the gpcd level had dropped to 152 gpcd. That change alone resuced the 40 mgd to 29.4 mgd.
4) Taken together the two effects result in the 40 mgd plant going to 28.5 mgd.
5) Due to the dry spring and summer in 2012, the gpcd level for Davis is 165 gpcd. That drought/no drought variability jumps the 28.5 mgd back up to 31.0 mgd.
So, all the above very dry, very boring factual numbers detail in stark reality [u]exactly what has changed[/u].
Perhaps you should publish a correction in your OpEd. Do you plan to do so?
John Munn said . . .
[i]”Whatever the final cost, the project would be financed by selling bonds secured by water rates. Once borrowed, the entire balance would be repaid plus interest over at least 30 years. [b]Anyone with a mortgage knows that most of these payments go toward interest.[/b]”[/i]
Here too your factual information is a bit flawed. Your statement is true during the early years of a mortgage, but as you pay down the principal year after year, the ratio of interest to principal being paid changes radically. The “crossover” on a 30 year mortgage happens between year 20 and year 21.
Further, the expected interest rate for the bonds is currently 4.75%. At that rate, the total interest expense for a 4.75% 30-year bond is $896,284 for a $1,000,000 borrowing. That makes the interest payments less than half of the $1,896,284 total bond payments . . . which is a wee bit short of “most.”
Further, a substantial portion of the financing is expected to come from the State Revolving Fund (SRF). Currently the SRF interest rate is 2.2%. At that rate, the total interest expense for a 2.2% 30-year SRF loan is $376,614 for a $1,000,000 borrowing. That makes the interest payments only 27% of the $1,376,614 total bond payments . . . which is is even farther from meeting the definition of “most.”
John Munn said . . .
[i]”In this case, the total cost would be about three times the amount borrowed, which means that nearly two out of every three additional water rate dollars would be for paying interest.”[/i]
Does not compute . . . see above.
Do you plan on correcting this error in your OpEd as well?
matt: i thought the amount was 2.5 times the $113 originally or about $282.5 million which was before we did the all debt. That should push the costs up over $300 million? No. isn’t that what the chart shows with the $42 million to $45 million annual payments?
The fiscal side of the project is a mess, and when we send it back to the boiler room for more study, it should be submitted to the Budget and Finance Commission.
Growth issue said . . .
[i]”matt: i thought the amount was 2.5 times the $113 originally or about $282.5 million which was before we did the all debt. That should push the costs up over $300 million? No. isn’t that what the chart shows with the $42 million to $45 million annual payments?”[/i]
Your question/comment confuses me GI.
The 40 mgd plant cost estimates were originally $293 million, which included $45 million for local improvements to the existing Davis and Woodland distribution systems (not to be done by the DBO contractor and equal to $15 million in Davis and $30 million in Woodland). The treated water pipeline costs were $32 million ($26 million for Davis for 8 miles of pipe and $6 million for Woodland for 2 miles of pipe). That left a net cost of water production of $216 million ($99 million for Davis and $117 million for Woodland)
The final 30 mgd plant cost estimates are $245 million, which include only $31 million for local improvements to the existing Davis and Woodland distribution systems (Woodland pushed the construction of its above ground storage tank outside the 10 year window so their costs came down from $30 million to $16 million). The treated water pipeline costs came down to $31 million ($22 million for Davis for 7 miles of pipe and $9 million for Woodland for 3 miles of pipe). That left a net cost of water production of $183 million ($77 million for Davis and $106 million for Woodland)
[quote]Guess we are going to have to see if The Northern Menance[/quote]
The Woodland residents, staff, and City Council members that I have worked with on the Surface Water Project are good people who are working hard to deliver the best project at the lowest cost. We have shown tremendous patience as Davis has taken the time to conduct its own analysis. Please stop referring to us this way.
[quote]screw its own ratepayers — again — and try to build the surface water plant alone.[/quote]
Our Water Utility Advisory Committee, whose members represent a cross-section of the Woodland community, has been meeting for nearly three years. We had substantial input into the 2012 water rate study and the schedule of rate increases and tiers adopted by our City Council based on this study was developed largely by the committee. We were given complete access to the Public Works budget in this process.
The Woodland City Council held a study session on January 22 at which all costs and revenue needs for the project (with or without Davis) were clearly outlined: [url]http://cityofwoodland.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=290[/url]
Complete information on Woodland’s drinking water utility expenses and revenues used in the last rate study are available on the City’s web site: [url]http://www.cityofwoodland.org/residents/waterrates.asp[/url]
Please explain how a revenue plan developed in large part by rate payers and a City government that has made information on all revenues and costs easily available to its residents is in any way “screwing” them.
Christine: tell Moody’s your going to build it alone, then post.
“At some point, it was decided that the surface water system should be large enough to replace groundwater,”
We were also told that surface water used without mixing would seriously damage Davis’ pipe delivery systems. Arguments and policy decisions are being fashioned based upon campaign expediency designed to carry them over the Measure I finish line. The blank check that Measure I offers makes such “fact” reversals irrelevant.
[quote]Christine: tell Moody’s your (sic) going to build it alone, then post. [/quote]
The Woodland advisory committee is well aware of the benefit to our city of a partnership with Davis, and we certainly hope that is how the project proceeds. I would encourage anyone with concerns about Woodland’s finances in regards to this project to view our City Council’s study session of January 22: [url]http://cityofwoodland.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=290[/url]
Ms Casey – My advice to you is to ignore Mr Harrington’s comments. He does not represent Davis. He does not represent the views of the people of Davis. He is ignorant of the meaning of Moody’s “downgrade” and its relevance to the water project. Indeed, he is willfully ignorant because various people on this blog HAVE clarified the irrelevance of Moody’s decision for this particular project. And yet he persists in making veiled suggestions about its impact (to his shame–a shame in which he appear to glory).
Mr Harrington will now (pro forma) accuse me of
1. Attacking the messenger
2. Engaging in personal attacks against him
3. Being bought and paid for by developers
4. Having ulterior motives
5. Being unconcerned about the “poor” citizens of Davis.
(or, all of the above).
Those of us who understand the importance of working with our “northern neighbors” to solve the many challenges of our region (of which water is only one) are willing to deal with the cultural and political differences between our towns, recognizing that we have much more in common than we have differences. We know that we have the power in our hands to stop peripheral development of our city and do not worry overmuch about a “northern invasion”. We realize that we share a common agricultural heritage and that we need each other.
Thus, I encourage you to pay no attention to those who continue to disparage your fine city and it history. I encourage you to ignore the small-minded of our town who know nothing of community nor value collaboration. And if, sadly, because of the power of mis-information and fear mongering, the joint water project fails to come to pass, please recognize that 1) ignorance can rule even an educated town, 2) that knowledge does not equal wisdom and 3) that many people in Davis can see the difference between “winning” narrow (pyrrhic) victories and doing what is best for our communities. I wish you the best. Be assured of my (and others’) willingness to work together with Woodland.
First, Robb speaks for me as well.
Second, why hasn’t Mr. Munn responded to any of the comments on this thread, which were generated by his original post? Does he not care about defending his point of view?
jrberg, it’s hard to defend a point of view utterly devoid of fact or reason. Were this a verbal exchange he could repeat his goofy comments at a louder decibel, but that doesn’t work in writing. I suppose he could resort to all caps, but I don’t think that will make his argument any more compelling.
-DT Businessman
Ms. Casey, my advice to you is to ignore Robb’s comments. He is entirely too reasonable and intelligent. Besides he only represents the majority in Davis.
-Michael Bisch
The same bunch of Yes on I endorsers mostly opposed Measure J in 2000.
Same for being mostly Yes on Measure X for Covell Village.
The surface water plant will hugely make it easier and cheaper to develop around Davis borders all the way to Woodland.
Christine: I’m sorry for what is happening to your nice little city with unnecessary and huge rate increases. Our Ratepayers group includes Woodland members and stands ready to assist your poor and middle class ratepayers who have been thrown down a water well by your city leaders whose land use planning policies have brought Woodland nearly to bankruptcy. The Moody’s downgrade should make you stop and think what your CC has done.
[i]The surface water plant will hugely make it easier and cheaper to develop around Davis borders all the way to Woodland.[/i]
Yep. All they’ll have to do is get a majority vote of Davis residents, and they can build houses. That’s gone real well for land developers in the last few years.
[i]Our Ratepayers group includes Woodland members [/i]
Really? Is there a list of the members of your group somewhere that we can use to verify this statement?
Don: No
Then we have no reason to believe you.