Things have really heated up on the campaign trail in the last week and I have received some interesting and pointed complaints from people on both sides of the issue – which basically tells me I’m doing my job.In that spirit, I will take on two claims that have been made in the past week – one from each side.
West Sacramento as an Alternative to Measure I
We start with the West Sacramento project alternative. One of the biggest questions that opponents have to face is if they do not support the Woodland-Davis project but they eventually see the need for conjunctive use, where do we go as an alternative?
Last week, in an op-ed, leaders of the No on Measure I team wrote, “We do not advocate for postponing the surface water project. We advocate for accepting the offer West Sacramento has made to allow us perpetual use of 12 million gallons of surface water a day – the same amount that is planned by the Woodland/Davis project. Yes, West Sacramento has offered us a permanent right to the same amount of water offered by the Woodland/Davis project!”
That set off a side discussion as to whether there was ever an offer for permanent use by West Sacramento. Interestingly enough, it was Measure I Campaign Manager Will Arnold who questioned the use of the term perpetual, writing, “The use of the word ‘perpetual’ to describe a deal we were offered from West Sac is beyond misleading. Perpetual, an adjective, is defined as ‘never ending or changing.’ The contract being considered was for 30 years. That is hardly ‘perpetual.’ “
However, as I pointed out, the original offer by West Sacramento was indeed for 30 years. However, the Davis City Council, in exchange for increasing the connection fee, was able to get basically an indefinite offer.
“The cost for Davis to purchase permanent capacity is approximately $19.4 million for 12 million gallons per day. If Davis wished to purchase less capacity, it would be at the same rate of approximately $1.6 million per million gallons per day of demand,” a staff report from mid-October read.
The staff report from the WAC on October 18, 2012 reads: “Davis’ original negotiation strategy with West Sacramento hinged upon three key items: 1) a reduced connection fee of $6 million, down from West Sacramento’s original request of $12.656 million; and 2) a long-term 30-year contract with clauses regarding renewability; and 3) input and control of O&M and replacement costs allocated to the Davis portion of water use.”
“West Sacramento’s counter offer resulted in an increase of the connection fee $6.744 million to $19.4 million instead of a reduction to $6 million. West Sacramento’s offer to incrementally sell Davis supply at $1.6 million/mgd does not result in any cost savings. While West Sacramento’s offer to treat Davis similar to any customer in order to consider this a permanent source of supply removes the need for a long-term contract, it eliminates Davis’ ability to negotiate a rate and removes any ability to control rate impacts and increases.”
The dispute over West Sacramento continued into the Measure I forum, but the Yes on Measure I side pulled out the trump card here.
Will Arnold furnished the Vanguard with a statement from West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon from Friday, stating, “Our two cities thoroughly examined the West Sacramento option and several possible variations. But after extensive analysis of the fiscal and regulatory issues, it was determined not to be cost-effective for either of our communities, compared to the Woodland-Davis partnership.”
The Yes on Measure I side is arguing that this eliminates the possibility of the West Sacramento option. We do not agree.
First, West Sacramento does not want to get in the middle of either the election or between Woodland and Davis. So it is wise for the mayor to make that statement.
But the game changes if Measure I gets defeated. The city of Davis will be looking into an alternative and it is likely they will attempt to re-open talks with West Sacramento.
Yesterday at the candidates forum, the two sides argued over the quality of the water from West Sacramento, with Alan Pryor, representing the Yes on Measure I side, arguing as he did in the Vanguard interview, that ozonation is the better water purifying process than chlorine.
But the bottom line is this: if Measure I gets voted down, the city will have to re-convene the WAC and reconsider all of the options. West Sacramento has extra water capacity and it is in their best interest, at least in the short term, to sell some of that capacity to the city of Davis.
That being the case, the idea that the offer is completely off the table is ludicrous. The city of Davis will send Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Brett Lee back to West Sacramento and, with the city serious about West Sacramento as an option, talks will be a bit different next time.
As Mayor Cabaldon said, “It was determined not to be cost-effective for either of our communities, compared to the Woodland-Davis partnership” – but if the Davis voters remove the Woodland-Davis partnership from the table, the calculations begin to shift.
From our view, this is a good political maneuver by both the West Sacramento Mayor and the Yes on Measure I side, but it really does not change the possibility for West Sacramento as a fallback option.
“We’re subsidizing city’s water use”
The Vanguard continues to see the lawsuit filed by Michael Harrington, John Munn, and Nancy and Don Price as baseless from the standpoint of having any legal issue. However, as we have written numerous times, what it does expose is the city’s lax accounting practices.
I do not believe it is accurate to charge that the city is not paying for its water use.
On the other hand, the explanation given by city attorney Harriet Steiner is neither convincing nor confidence-inspiring.
She said, that the city does attempt to “offset its water usage costs by forfeiting costs the water division would owe to the general fund.”
“Presently the city does not separately account for water used at city facilities,” a city statement said. “[But] the city also does not charge the water division rent for its use of city park space where some wells are located, and the reimbursement of other city services and facilities is overdue for reconciliation and an update.”
“Over the past few years, the City Council has considered how to fund water used at city facilities in order to pay into the water enterprise fund and what is reasonable to charge for water division use of city park space and other city services and facilities.”
Not helping the matter is the fact that we are now into Sunday and still have not received a formal response from the city.
But still, we think that Mr. Harrington is pushing the wrong issue.
He wrote on the Vanguard on Saturday, “We have caught the city dead-on square in the headlights with taking over 10% of total city water supply without paying for it.”
He adds, “The City can spin this all kinds of ways, and they are, but we caught them using our ratepayer money in the water fund to subsidize their general fund.”
There are some really strange arguments going on here, but nowhere is there any evidence that the city is taking 10% of the city’s water supply without paying for it. At worst, what we have is the city failing to track their water usage and expenditures as closely as they should.
But the whole idea is kind of ludicrous here. The charge that is being made is that the taxpayers are being subsidized by the ratepayers. But at the end of the day, city water and indeed all city services, are not subsidized but rather funded by the people of Davis and the people who use the services in Davis.
City government is funded by taxpayers and ratepayers. So this is not a subsidy; it is a matter of accounting.
So, to reiterate: there is no evidence that the charge that Mr. Harrington posted is accurate, that the city is not paying for their use of water. Where the city is vulnerable on this is that they look lax in terms of accounting, and problematic in terms of their ability to accurately explain what has taken place.
Those are the issues that Mr. Harrington would have justification in hammering. But then again, hammering those issues would not justify his lawsuit against the city and that appears, for whatever reason, to be his main concern.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How about the claim made in the Pro Measure I OpEd in today’s Enterprise that Sacramento river water is “high quality”. Several times the authors of the OpEd make that claim. What exactly does “high quality” mean?
Thanks for the article and the forum yesterday David. Although I wish the experts had jumped in more often to fact check, it was a good attempt to clear the air of misconceptions. Your first point today is well taken and there was a question Saturday to that point: what will your group do if Measure I fails. Sue Greenwald dismissed the question as irrelevant and said they are individuals and had no plan….For me that lost the No on I a high degree of credibility….your article is a better answer.
Also, I was surprised and disappointed that no mention of the doubling of rates to maintain the existing system occurred on Saturday since that has been discussed so much in the press, especially the DV..
West Sacramento as an Alternative to Measure I
David, your reasoning is tortured and your conclusion not supported by the quotes or facts.
1)No On I says, “We advocate for accepting the offer West Sacramento has made…”, i.e. the West Sac alternative is their preferred alternative.
2)Cabaldon says, “…it was determined not to be cost-effective for either of our communities, compared to the Woodland-Davis partnership”, i.e. Woodland/Davis is the preferred alternative (note the terms “cost-effective” and “compared to”).
3)David Greenwald says, “…it really does not change the possibility for West Sacramento as a fallback option”, i.e. Woodland/Davis is the preferred alternative (note the term “fall back).
So, where exactly do you debunk the Yes On I claim in this op ed? Furthermore, your statements, “First, West Sacramento does not want to get in the middle of either the election or between Woodland and Davis. So it is wise for the mayor to make that statement.”, is pure conjecture. You have not produced any evidence to support it. Why do you refuse to take the mayor’s statement at face value, particularly when it is supported by Mayor Krovoza and Councilmember Brett Lee?
“We’re subsidizing city’s water use”
David, earlier in the week you celebrated the lawsuit along with Dunning. I was appalled. Here is a cynical legal ploy, misleading in the extreme, to thwart the will of the people as it is about to be expressed in a democratic election…and you celebrate it! Has it been so long since the last council election that you’ve forgotten your indignation over the Greenwald attack mailer. I’m still flummoxed about this notion that it’s not OK for outsiders to intervene in our democratic process by telling the truth, but it is OK for a very small, local minority to attempt to mislead the majority of voters. I’m betting this lawsuit is the final nail in the coffin of No On I. And I look forward to seeing it on the Vanguard’s 2013 year end “worst of” list. To be followed immediately on the list by the No On I threatened initiative (another ill-conceived scheme to thwart the will of the voters).
PS: I too congratulate the Vanguard, Davis Access Media, and the participants for yesterday’s forum.
-Michael Bisch
“David, earlier in the week you celebrated the lawsuit along with Dunning.”
I did not celebrate anything. I called the lawsuit a brilliant tactical move which exposed the city as being inept. From a tactical standpoint it was – do you disagree?
“Here is a cynical legal ploy, misleading in the extreme, to thwart the will of the people as it is about to be expressed in a democratic election…and you celebrate it! “
It is a cynical move, I agree. I think it harms the process. On the other hand, it exposes the city on their accounting and that’s a big problem.
I did not make a normative judgment on this, I simply evaluated the move in terms of the impact on the race.
I think the SwiftBoat ads in 2004 were brilliant from a tactical standpoint, but I think they were deceitful and harmful to the process. There is no celebration here.
[quote]However, as I pointed out, the original offer by West Sacramento was indeed for 30 years. However, the Davis City Council, in exchange for increasing the connection fee, was able to get basically an indefinite offer.
“The cost for Davis to purchase permanent capacity is approximately $19.4 million for 12 million gallons per day. If Davis wished to purchase less capacity, it would be at the same rate of approximately $1.6 million per million gallons per day of demand,” a staff report from mid-October read.[/quote]
As Chair of the Water Advisory Committee, I need to clarify the glaring omissions that are being presented here. The original offer on the table from West Sacramento was for 30 years. When the city indicated to West Sacramento such a deal was unacceptable, West Sacramento came back with a counter offer of “permanent rights”, but only under the following conditions (from Oct 18, 2012 staff report):
1)Local [i][b]customers[/b][/i] who are provided water pay the full cost for accessing plant capacity and in return receive a [i][b]permanent source of water[/b][/i]
2) Local customers pay monthly for their share of the operational cost, and [i][b]that cost includes [i][b]set aside for the[/b][/i] [u]future replacement of the water treatment plant[/u][/b][/i]
3) Davis demands may at some point in the future increase the long term demand for the plant capacity, and therefore [i][b]Davis would need to contribute towards the cost of increasing the intake structure at some point in the future.[/b][/i] [u][i][b]This cost would be in addition to the initial cost noted below.[/b][/i][/u]
4) The cost for Davis to purchase permanent capacity is approximately $19.4 million for 12 mgd… rate of approximately $1.6 million mgd of demand…
The staff report goes on to point out:
a) West Sacramento’s counter offer resulted in an increase of the connection fee of $6.744 million to $19.4 million instead of a reduction to $6 million [as advised by the WAC]. West Sacramento’s offer to incrementally sell Davis supply at $1.6 million/mgd [b][u][i]does not result in any cost savings[/i][/u][/b].
b) While West Sacramento’s offer [i][b]to treat Davis similar to any [u]customer[/u][/b][/i] in order to consider this a permanent source of supply removes the need for a long-term contract, [i][b]it eliminates Davis’ ability to negotiate a rate and removes any ability to control rate impacts and increases[/b][/i].
c) The WDCWA would be required to [i][b]petition to change the authorized points of diversion[/b][/i]… Before the SWRCB could process these petitions, the Agency would have to [i][b]prepare a supplement[al]…EIR[/b][/i]. This supplement would have to analyze the changes in the environmental effects that would result from changing the points of diversion…
d) It is reasonable to assume that, after the Agency received direction to proceed to prepare such a supplement, it would take at least 2 years to complete and certify the supplement. It is also reasonable to assume that it would take at least [i][b]1-2 additional years[/b][/i] to complete the SWRCB process on the Agency’s change petitions. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that it would [i][b]take at least 3-4 years[/b][/i] from the Agency’s receipt of instructions to proceed w the change petitions and EIR supplement to an SWRCB order on the petitions. [u][i][b]This time frame does not include the time that would be necessary for any legal challenges to the SWRCB’s order.[/b][/i][/u]
e) New issues could be raised during the preparation of the EIR supplement or by protests to the change petitions. Among other things, [i][b]there could be significant environmental issues associated w the new pipeline that would have to be constructed from West Sacramento [u]across the Yolo Bypass [wildlife refuge] to Davis[/u][/b][/i]
“From a tactical standpoint it was – do you disagree?”
Yes, I disagree. It has/is/will backfire. Attempting to thwart the democratic process is guaranteed to backfire particularly when it’s paired with false claims. If you think the effort to counter the referendum signature gathering process with truthful statements was misguided, what do you call the lawsuit? This lawsuit is not only misguided, it’s unethical, and it’s going to sink No On I’s boat (let’s not kid ourselves, their campaign was already toast).
No On I has opened themselves up to charges of being a tyrannical minority hell bent on shoving their extreme agenda down the throat of the majority by any and all means. This lawsuit together with their threat of a post-election initiative shows their true colors.
-Michael Bisch
The vile is flowing; the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services must be doing something right.
The suit’s claims are valid. I don’t waste resources on throw-away PR stunts.
Mike, what are you referring to? The “vile is flowing” as a measurement of rightness?
David, when will a tape of the form be available?
First, my thanks to Elaine for her clarification posted above and for her hours and hours of volunteer work as
Chair of the WAC.
I also agree with Michael Bisch that the strategy of filing this particular lawsuit at this particular time is a disingenuous political stunt and is very likely to backfire. I believe that most voters in Davis are thoughtful and educated enough to judge this issue on its’ individual merit and not be distracted by a peripheral issue thrown up only to further disparage city leaders and confuse the issue.
So other than taking more shots at Harriet Steiner, raking more muck and stirring the stench David, what was your point with this editorial ?
There is no public service to be found in this piece .
Kelly: I have asked Jeff Shaw and Autumn from DMA, and when I find it out, I will post it here.
elaine: many thanks for your hours of work and for posting the full portion of the staff report, although david appears to have not only quoted a good deal more than you credit, his point does not appear to be that we should do the west sacramento option, only that it is not off the table.
michael bisch: i just re-read the entire commentary from friday and other than david calling harrington’s move brilliant, i fail to see any celebration. in fact, i believe you can read the term brilliant to read machiavellian, which is bolstered by his choice of karl rove as the comparison point. in short, i think you misread david both friday and here.
Speaking of boneheaded political moves, who’s brilliant idea from No On I was it to have Sue Greenwald as their spokesperson at the forum yesterday? Knock, knock, she lost her last election. Seeing her up on the council dais again yesterday reminds everyone of why they voted her out of office. Her statement, “I realize all the experts are on record supporting the surface water project, but then they call me privately to deny their support. Pssst, Sue, this. Pssst, Sue, that. Pssst, pssst, pssst!” All the while windmilling her arms about. Unbelievable. I’m not sure what she was thinking, but she comes across as if she has voices in her head. Wait until the clip is made public. That clip is pure gold to Yes On I.
-Michael Bisch
My wife and I just spent some time talking about the ebb and flow of yesterday, and then dovetailed that with the West Sacramento alternative discussion going on in this thread. In the process she raised a very, very good point that hasn’t been made thus far. Specifically, if and when a treated water pipeline is brought across the Yolo Bypass from West Sac it will mean that Angelo Tsakopoulos will have a direct source of water for the 2,200 acres of developable land south of I-80 between Davis and the Bypass. When she said that, my response was “YIKES!!!!!!!!!” Talk about the law of unintended consequences!!!!!
Harrington: [i]The vile is flowing[/i]
“vile”?? Is that supposed to be “bile”? or “vial” of flowing river water?
Matt: I wonder if Angelo Tsakopolous is a member of Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services. Guess we’d need to see a membership roster and their financial records to know for sure.
Growth Issue, did David characterize the Sue Greenwald mailer as “brilliant” or did he condemn it? If memory serves me correctly, he along with Dunning condemned it. Furthermore, the lawsuit isn’t brilliant, it’s ill-conceived (see my 10:01am post). Just how ill-conceived it turns out to be is somewhat dependent on whether Yes On I chooses to take advantage of the blunder. My sense is Yes On I won’t pursue the matter much because they have an overwhelming tactical advantage, their strategy is succeeding, so why change a winning game plan?
-Michael Bisch
biddlin said . . .
[i]”So other than taking more shots at Harriet Steiner, raking more muck and stirring the stench David, what was your point with this editorial ? There is no public service to be found in this piece.”[/i]
I don’t agree biddlin. At the end of the Forum, Edgar Wai came up to introduce himself. We have been talking electronically and it was nice to match a face to the well though out shared thoughts. One of the points Edgar has been making is that even when one solution has been identified as “best” that doesn’t mean that all the other possible solutions that were considered in the process suddenly lose all their meritorious qualities.
The bottomline of what Edgar was saying is that the Yes On Measure I team may be overplaying their hand.
michael bisch: does it matter how he characterized the sue greenwald mailer?
did you really read david’s column?
he writes: “Let us be clear at the start – the lawsuit has almost no chance of succeeding in a court of law.”
so while you argue it’s ill-conceived, he argued it had no chance of succeeding.
he adds: “Because the problem here is not legal, it is political. We can debate the merits of the project, but the legality is not really in question.”
then david gets to the point: “It is easy to underestimate this suit because, in a court of law, it most likely goes nowhere. But as a political tactic, it’s brilliant. In fact, it is downright Rovian.”
okay, we know you disagree with the lawsuit, but your disagreement does not negate this point. you consider it praise that he is comparing harrington to karl rove? do we need to go back to what david thinks of rove? really?
now david goes on to explain that rove goes to neutralize the opponents strengths.
so i’m struggling to see why you would have expected the same response to the sue greenwald piece. you’re comparing not only an attack piece to a lawsuit, but also you are comparing an attack piece that attacks the weakness of sue greenwald, reminding people she is a pain to deal with, with a lawsuit attacking the rate structure the strength of the project.
but finally, david’s main point has nothing to do with harrington, it has to do with the incompetence of the city management.
so i guess if you are reading this as a celebration of harrington, i think you are straining to make the point. in actuality it gives harrington at best a back-handed compliment while it spanks city staff and harriet steiner (who deserves to be spanked).
I will write something about the legal case soon.
David: why don’t you post a copy of it as most readers have not seen it?
Look, I don’t know much about politics, but even a novice can see that No On I has made 3 massive blunders in short order. First, they threaten a post-election initiative to thwart the will of the voters. Second, they file a lawsuit to thwart the will of the voters. Third, they appoint a spokesperson with high negative ratings, one who was recently turned out of office by the voters, to a recorded debate. Brilliant? Hello?
I had no idea Sue was going to be at the debate yesterday. I was completely taken by surprise when I walked through the council chamber doors and saw her sitting at the dais. It was deja vu all over again. Anybody that saw me yesterday can confirm that I couldn’t stop grinning for the hour that I attended the debate.
There is no mystery to what is occurring here. The No On I campaign is doing exactly what the Republicans did during the last presidential election. They are employing tactics that resonate with a small segment of the voters all the while completely turning off the majority of voters with those very same tactics.
Blunder, blunder, blunder.
-Michael Bisch
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I wonder if Angelo Tsakopolous is a member of Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services. Guess we’d need to see a membership roster and their financial records to know for sure. ;-)”[/i]
Don, I certainly wouldn’t put it past him. I often wondered if AKT was directly or indirectly financing the team led by Eileen Samitz in their never ending quest to fight the radio tower on the back side of the landfill. Angelo would have had to look at that tower every time he looked south from his duck club on Conaway Ranch. If he was funding Eileen’s team’s efforts, it was a no lose situation for him because if Eileen and her cohorts did succeed in blocking the radio tower Angelo would win, and if Eileen’s team lost after exhaustive efforts on many levels Eileen personally could well have exhausted some of the political capital she would need to fight his development efforts east of Davis in the future. That kind of Machiavellian strategy is right up AKT’s alley.
Michael: I have studied and worked in politics for more than twenty years. I disagree with much of your assessment here.
1. “First, they threaten a post-election initiative to thwart the will of the voters.” My understanding of the initiative, though I have not seen it is that it would be akin to a Measure J for capital projects. As such, it would not thwart the will of the people and probably not impact Measure I.
2. The lawsuit really does not thwart the will of the people either. On the one hand it questions the proportionality of the Prop 218 rates, which are actually a separate issue than Measure I. I don’t believe the rates to be disproportional, but if a court decides they are, the city would have to craft and new Prop 218 with a different rate structure. It would have nothing to do with Measure I’s outcome.
The second part has to do with with whether the city is paying their water bill. If they are found to not have paid their water bill, they will have to reimburse ratepayers and take money from the general fund to pay, but it doesn’t impact Measure I’s outcome.
3. Sue as the spokesperson for No on Measure I. I disagree with you here. I think she along with Mark Siegler and a couple of the WAC members know this issue the best. She is a double-edged sword no doubt. There are people who do not like her. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who do as well. She maintains a solid base of support. From a political standpoint, I think in the opposition, the personalities may not matter. If you have problems with the water project, you are not going to vote for it just because you do not like it. The same may not be true on the affirmative side.
As a side note: “I had no idea Sue was going to be at the debate yesterday. I was completely taken by surprise when I walked through the council chamber doors and saw her sitting at the dais.” What you are admitting is that you actually did not read either of the two articles in the Vanguard, including yesterday’s HEADLINE, the Davis Enterprise, Woodland Daily Democrat or CalAggie, all of which had an announcement that mentioned she would be there.
First of all David thanks for organizing the forum.
I wanted to share a few thoughts. Mark Ziegler has identified the KEY issue, the project is good but is it worth/do we need/ can any typical person really afford it at its astronomical cost. Cost keeps being quoted as at least tripling our rates in 5 years with very little verbal mention of the next 5 years and the next 5 years, as rates continue rising at about the same steepness until the bond is paid off. Are we supposed to just shrug that off as “inflation”?
The West Sac “option” does not seem much better cost-wise. Interestingly, I had one good question answered yesterday, as I went in thinking chlorination vs. ozonization and came out knowing we get chlorine either way, in the event of the Woodland option we get both, if West Sac were ever to happen we get just chlorine. I’m, sticking to buying my drinking water either way and it seems the quality of the water before treatment is about the same at either intake site but the additional ozone step may remove more contaminants.
Now a few of my opinions: A pipe through the Yolo bypass, horrible idea. Mark Ziegler’s notion that we should all keep having lawns, horrible idea (and how we got here in the first place, ignoring sustainable reality). But still home owners subsidizing apartment water use is wrong, that is where the rate structure could use some changes.
We have gotten ourselves in a real mess, I have no good answers and it bugs me that the yes on I people act as if they do. If we vote no, there will have to be a more creative solution that has not yet surfaced (oops, no pun intended). And we do have some time, that is clear.
“while it spanks city staff and harriet steiner (who deserves to be spanked).”
Ridiculous. David is spanking city staff for the way they account for what the right and the left pockets are paying for? This is all irrelevant. Staff is just trying to do their jobs. What’s a judge going to rule, you’re right pocket has overcharged your left pocket? And so what if Steiner isn’t the most adroit of political speakers? None of this would even matter if we weren’t operating in this hyper-critical environment that has been created by the conspiracy-theory-extreme-minority disinformation campaign.
-Michael Bisch
“This is all irrelevant.”
Michael: No it’s not irrelevant, it is just not relevant to the legality of the water project. But Harrington was actually accurate when he said this has nothing to do with Measure I (as you can see from my previous post).
“What’s a judge going to rule, you’re right pocket has overcharged your left pocket? “
I do think you need to look at the 2010 Sacramento decision as it appears that a judge did exactly that. But that is not what is happening here in Davis. What is happening is the city is not tracking its money appropriately, that’s a problem and one that I have been told the city has known about since the 2010 decision before anyone on this council was seated and the progress has been slowed by personnel changes.
“And so what if Steiner isn’t the most adroit of political speakers? “
Again, as far as the water project goes, it does not matter. In terms of the city’s communications system, it is a huge problem that everyone has known about for at least six months and apparently they are finally going to fix this spring.
“None of this would even matter if we weren’t operating in this hyper-critical environment that has been created by the conspiracy-theory-extreme-minority disinformation campaign. “
I would rather live in a city where we have too much scrutiny as opposed to one where no one gives a darn. I really question whether you think these things are alright or whether you are so bent on passing this project, you are willing to overlook things that otherwise might concern you.
1 and 2. David, are you intentionally ignoring the timing and place of the initative threats and the lawsuit? You write as if they are occurring in another universe.
3. David, you are ignoring my comparison to the failed Republican strategy. Yes, Sue appeals to a minority, certainly not a majority. When a voter doesn’t have sufficient time to research a project, likely the case with most voters, they rely on the opinions of those they trust, the WAC for instance. I’m pretty comfortable the way the votes are going to line up on the trust factor.
As a side note, guilty! I had no idea who any of the speakers would be. Frankly, I didn’t pay attention to the forum at all until yesterday morning when I realized I had an hour to kill. What’s your point?
-Michael Bisch
Michael:
I disagree. You need to look at the content of the initiative and lawsuit threats. If you analyze them, you recognize that while there is certainly a political component to them, and they are timed for a political purpose, the actual content will not impact Measure I and therefore will not thwart the will of the people.
On the third note, I disagree as well. The first question you have to ask is what is the voter universe going to be. You are going to assume that the group of people that Sue appeals to will not swing the election.
“whether you are so bent on passing this project”
This is a knowing distortion of my position. My position is I would like the community to face this challenge, as the opposition has insisted, make a decision, and move on. Time and resources are too scarce to be frittered away endlessly on non-productive contention. If the community votes the project down, so be it. Meanwhile, I am disgusted with the ends justify the means tactics of the opposition going back to the absurd blocking accusations (still haven’t seen those videos and photos!). All the conspiracy accusations are ridiculous. And the weekly mini-contoversies over tertiary aspects of the project does the community a disservice.
On the other hand, I enjoy the theoretical discussions over campaign/political tactics. It’s much like chess. It will be interesting to see whether events substantiate my prediction that the project opponents have made 3 tremendous blunders. Time shall tell.
-Michael Bisch
“…and they are timed for a political purpose, the actual content will not impact Measure I and therefore will not thwart the will of the people.” Huh? David, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. So, the timing is meant to thwart the will of the people, but the content isn’t? What you talking about Willis?
-Michael Bisch
“On the third note, I disagree as well. The first question you have to ask is what is the voter universe going to be. You are going to assume that the group of people that Sue appeals to will not swing the election.”
Well, we’re in agreement on this one. We disagree. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
diemongelo
[quote]A pipe through the Yolo bypass, horrible idea. Mark Ziegler’s notion that we should all keep having lawns, horrible idea (and how we got here in the first place, ignoring sustainable reality).[/quote]
I agree with this and wish we talked more about what “sustainability” in THIS particular location (vis-a-vis water) would really require. If “NO” wins (something that I personally hope will not happen), then I hope we START the conversation the day by discussing the reduction of our consumption even further than the levels assumed in the current project. We simply do not properly value this scarce resource and we should voluntarily “tax” ourselves (pay higher rates) to price it correctly. We must internalize the costs of fundamentally changing the deep aquifer (which is what we are already doing).
And for those who say we must protect “the poor” in this community, I say let’s launch a local non-profit that will collect donations exclusively for the purpose of helping Davisites voluntarily support their neighbors to obtain this most basic of human needs. If we are unwilling to take actions like this then I suggest we STOP using “the poor” as a prop for our political ends. It is disgusting.
… the day AFTER…
Bisch: Did you say chess ? Couldn’t agree more.
Whoops! My bad. Checkers. 🙂
-Michael Bisch
“But Harrington was actually accurate when he said this has nothing to do with Measure I (as you can see from my previous post).”
To which post do you refer? Michael already has used the suit to promote “No on I” in the Vanguard (as you can see from my previous post).
I see you’re commenting again, Michael, and hoping you’ll respond about your comments/tactics (seventh request):
“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’. ??????”
And, (since John Munn doesn’t respond):
“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?”
[quote][quote]the actual content will not impact Measure I and therefore will not thwart the will of the people. [/quote][/quote]
While the content might not “thwart the will of the people”, the timing could certainly distract or confuse enough people into believing that the issue is too complex and therefore they will vote “No” since they see it as too confusing ( a comment overheard from discussions at Farmer’s Market) and do not have the time, energy or interest to investigate the issues enough to obtain clarity about what is in their best interest. Having listened to the forum yesterday, it was clear to me that seeding doubt and discrediting assertions made by the proponents, without putting forth any sound alternatives or recommendations of their own is a major strategy of the opponents.
I believe strongly in evidence based approaches to solving problems. So far, I am hearing evidence based information from the proponents, but only negation and criticism from the opponents. Since the “No” side clearly stated that there will be a need for conjunctive use in the unspecified future, I would anticipate hearing some kind of outline of an alternative proposal, or at least a time line in which an alternative proposal would be put forward. When the “No ” side states that we do not have to move forward immediately, they are technically correct, but I would like to remind anyone who has children or who is not a senior citizen and therefore is likely to be around long enough to see the long term impact of today’s decisions, to not act now is
with no clearly delineated alternative path forward is essentially saying that we will simply leave this problem for our children to solve…..and to pay for. I do not consider this to be a responsible approach for our City’s leaders to take nor for us as individual citizens to take.
David, this is the one which I see shows that Michael Harrington, by his own words in fact, is not “actually accurate when he said this has nothing to do with Measure I”:
02/02/13 – 01:07 PM
…
Michael, two days ago:
“…the rate litigation is not about Measure I, or even specifically this project….”
Michael, today:
“…the Yes on I people are going to trust the City to tell us the rest of it: the project is needed, it has to be this large, it has to be NOW, etc etc? If you vote Yes on I after what we learned about the city’s fraud on the water payments….”
[i]”I hope we START the conversation the day by discussing the reduction of our consumption even further than the levels assumed in the current project. We simply do not properly value this [b]scarce[/b] resource and we should voluntarily “tax” ourselves (pay higher rates) to price it correctly. We must internalize the costs of fundamentally changing the deep aquifer (which is what we are already doing).”[/i]
The average flow rate of the Sacramento River is 176,000 gallons per second, and we basically have no downstream users. So if the voters reject the surface water and force us to go to extreme conservation, it would be because we have chosen to deplete a [i]scarce[/i] resource (groundwater) instead of using an [i]abundant[/i] resource.
Continuing to use the deep water at the rate proposed by the Measure I opponents is irresponsible stewardship.
dlemongello said . . .
[i]”First of all David thanks for organizing the forum.
I wanted to share a few thoughts. Mark Siegler has identified the KEY issue, the project is good but is it worth/do we need/ can any typical person really afford it at its astronomical cost. Cost keeps being quoted as at least tripling our rates in 5 years with very little verbal mention of the next 5 years and the next 5 years, as rates continue rising at about the same steepness until the bond is paid off. Are we supposed to just shrug that off as “inflation”?”[/i]
Donna, with the exception of Bartle Wells and Dianna Jensen, no one has been closer to the costs and rates numbers than I have. To answer your question above, in the “pay as you go” scenario approved by Council the total annual revenue requirements for the period from now until 2025 were as follows:
2013 – $12,927,000
2014 – $14,169,000
2015 – $17,711,000
2016 – $22,139,000
2017 – $25,017,000
2018 – $28,269,000
2019 – $28,269,000
2020 – $28,269,000
2021 – $28,269,000
2022 – $28,269,000
2023 – $28,269,000
2024 – $28,269,000
2025 – $28,269,000
In 2026 the debt service for the construction of the 6 million gallon third above ground storage tank construction would kick in. That third storage tank will be needed regardless of whether we vote No or Yes on March 5th. If conservation exceeds projections and/or Mrs. Katehi drives a population growth that is less than the aggregate 10% over those 13 years that is projected in the demand model, then building the third tank could be pushed out one or more years past 2025.
The decision by Council on January 15th to fund the $37 million of “pay as you go” repair and replacement costs for the current system will cause the $28,269,000 amounts in 2022 through 2025 to rise to $30,600,000. While the 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 amounts will come down commensurately.
Don — I fully agree re: deep water aquifer being the scarce resource. It is currently a scarce resource.
I am not sure I agree that the Sacramento River will remain an abundant resource. I think there are going to be many powerful forces trying to get pieces of it and our current rights do not entitle us to the full flow–and I wonder how probable it that we will secure further rights in the future. Thus, while the Sacramento River appears abundant from our current vantage point, I am not sure it will remain so. That is why I believe that in this place–given demands from near and far–we need more extensive conservation efforts.
I say this but acknowledge I am not an expert on water rights. However, what I DO know is that “abundant” water rarely stays that way (I have not seen that happen anywhere in the world). Rather, in the face of population growth and the demands that come with it, that water is claimed and disputes about its ownership surface.
“Since the “No” side clearly stated that there will be a need for conjunctive use in the unspecified future…”
medwoman, the No side was clearly speaking out of both sides of their mouths at the debate yesterday. On the one hand, they stated there will be a need for a conjunctive use project someday. Simultaneously, the No side stated there will never be a need for a project if the well system was managed properly. So which is it? We need it someday? Or we’ll never need it? Many attendees did a double take when the No expert stated unequivocally that the well system could be managed to keep the WASTE water constituents levels below the regulatory requirements. What was hilarious was he made the statement while he was referring to the No side’s chart on DRINKING water quality. Then Mark Siegler went on to make the comment that we might one day even be exporting our well water to other communities. Or we might have to import our water from a community other than Woodland or West Sac. Or we might have to Star Trek tele-transport chunks of ice from Jupiter. The No side was all over the map with their gobbledygook.
-Michael Bisch
[quote] A pipe through the Yolo bypass, horrible idea.[/quote]
I don’t get all the fuss about building a pipe through the bypass. We’re not talking about a wilderness area; it’s an area that’s been farmed for a century, and the likely location for a West Sac water line is already laced with underground petroleum pipelines and fiberoptic conduits, not to mention numerous gas wells, a railroad and an interstate freeway. Aside from the couple of months it would take to build, a new water line wouldn’t change the character of the bypass at all.
While I have plenty of doubts about the West Sac option, the pipeline seems pretty straightforward to me.
.
Whatever happens on March 5 as to Measure I, Prop 218 requires the City to follow certain rules before they charge us for water or any other service connected to property.
The rate case merely challenges the current rate system, and the two components of the new system.
The City now has to come back and show the Court that those systems comply with Prop 218.
If the City fails to meet its burden, then all parties are going to have to work out a system that complies, since the city needs to charge for its water.
As to the issue of the City failing to pay for its own water use, we are going to ask the Court for an audit of the city meters for its own facilities and irrigation, what the City should have paid back to August 1, 2010, when it certified the current rate structure. If more meters need to be installed, that will be part of what we ask the Court to order.
The City’s water fund apparently is drained down, and the City’s failure to contribute is a big part of that situation.
The legal case will lead to a formal audit, and will require the City to present its plans to comply with the law to the Court for approval, making them binding and enforceable.
The remaining issue is the matter of whether Prop 218 prohibits utility provides from charging higher fees long before the projects and benefits become available to the ratepayers.
Here is is excerpted text from the Seventh Cause of Action:
According to Article XIII D, Section 6(b): … (4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted….”
43.Upon information and belief, since at least August 1, 2010 when the Current Water Rates were adopted and enforced, the City has been raising water rates in order to pay for a future surface water plant that would supply large amounts of potable water after treatment. Said plant is not scheduled to come on line and produce water for Davis ratepayers, including Plaintiffs, until at least 2016, according to a September 30, 2013 screen print from the Woodland Davis Clean Water Agency web site. See, Exhibit “6,” a true and correct copy of said screen print showing the new plant being operational in 2016.
44.Delay in providing such future water violates subsection (b)[4] Water ratepayers now are being expected to pay huge new rate increases for water that by the City’s own admission will not be “immediately” available to the owners and renters who pay such bills on properties being supplied by the new surface water plant. Upon information and belief, approximately half of Davis households and properties turn over every year due to the nature of Davis being a college town, and the current residents, including students at University of California at Davis and other area colleges and universities, are being forced against their will to pay huge rate hikes for a surface water plant that will not provide water to the real properties and apartments where these younger and highly mobile ratepayers live and pay their water bills until years after the students graduate and move away.
*****
Prop 218’s use of the word “immediately” is clear, and we believe that taking money from so many ratepayers now for a benefit that is years away violates that word “immediately.”
Michael, the 2011 annual revenues and costs for the current water system were just over $9,900,000 and just over $12,900,000 respectively. As noted above the 2013 revenue requirement is $12,927,000, which simply eliminates the $3 million annual deficit we are running for the current water system. The $14,169,000 revenue requirement in 2014 simply covers the existing system expenses plus the early projects that are part of the $37 million of capital repairs and replacements recommended in the 2011 Kennedy-Jenks / Brown and Caldwell assessment. Neither of those revenue requirements do anything to replenish the reserve fund that was depleted by the 2010 and 2011 deficits. That replenishment begins in the 2015 revenue requirement
So, bottom-line there isn’t a penny in either 2013 or 2014 or 2015 that does not explicitly meet the Prop 218 definition of “immediately”
Something to think about: the City’s policy is to ask users of many city programs to pay for those programs. If you want a building permit, in the old days, you paid a small fee, and the City’s general fund subsidized that service. Now, you pay more, and it goes into paying the true costs of having the building department staff process the application, and the inspectors to come out and look it over for interim or final approval.
The City’s general fund has gotten away with not paying for the water used in core facilities, or administrative, or parks, etc. The City has NOT been billing those specific city departments and programs, so the water fund (ratepayers) have been forced to pay more than their fair share, and those extra payments subsidize the general fund and those specific programs.
It’s basically a hidden tax: ratepayers pay more in this hidden tax, and the benefits flow into the city’s general fund and various programs. It’s effectively a parcel tax without any vote of the people, not even a majority vote, let alone a 2/3rds super majority like the schools have to meet for their parcel taxes.
If the City had properly billed certain programs, such as pools, then those pool activities would charge entrance and summer pool pass users the appropriate fees to cover the true costs of that program. A renter or homeowner that wishes to keep the water bill down would be able to do that, without the city using a hidden accounting trick that results in the ratepayers subsidizing a particular city program that uses water.
Also, if you charge the City Parks Department for the water it uses, you had better believe those Parks maintenance employees are going to find ways to cut that high water budget. That means installing technology that will eliminate the flooding and excess irrigation when it has been raining for days, and all of the other water wasting horrors that we have all experienced from walking in the parks and greenbelts over the years.
Little did we know: that huge splurge of water wasting flooding that we had to splash through was mostly due to the City violating Prop 218 and not paying for its own use?
Now, like all of us, the City has an incentive to conserve potable water. Amazing what happens when your use is metered!
So, we disagree with those bloggers, and the DV, who say that the failure to pay is just an accounting gimmick. It has real effects, and fixing it will produce environmental and fiscal benefits to the City and its ratepayers.
The court case will give us the right to formal review the City’s programs and accounting for its water use and obtain formal court approval of a better process that is accountable to the people, and enforceable by the court if needed.
Michael, for the record, what the City has been (and is and will be) doing since 2011 (commissioning the Kennedy-Jenks assessment) through 2019 is completing and executing Step 1 and Step 2 of your four-step Plan B.
For those who don’t know about Michael’s four-step Plan B, the steps are
1) Study the current condition of our current groundwater system and project the expenditures that will be needed to make sure it is “up to snuff”
2) Fund and begin executing the repair and replacement projects identified in Step 1)
3) Study in much more depth our surface water needs and options
2) Fund and begin executing the “best” surface water course of action identified in Step 3)
Its the last hurrah of the zombies. No on I, aren’t these the same people who have been against everything since I got here? Wildhorse, Nugget, Ross, fixing the underpass, Covell Village, West Village, school assessments and the Radio Tower. Of course they won some over the years but like the national Republicans, they seem to get older all the time. I see them at the Farmers Market, the same [u]old[/u] unprogressives, sadly without the charm of julie Partansky, may she rest in peace, they want to talk about money and growth. The yes on I table is filled with young and old and many walks of life. Where Covell was about growth people opposed to growth want the best possible water for their kids. The anti-growth coalition is cracked, it is old and headed for extinction, its time has passed. Dredging up old council members of lost past elections won’t re-create a majority. Focusing on costs won’t move those who want better water. Fighting growth by choking off the elixir of life is a misguided fools errand.
“Focusing on costs won’t move those who want better water. Fighting growth by choking off the elixir of life is a misguided fools errand.”
However looking at and weighing costs are wise. Since we’ll be voting, people will be in essence endorsing (or not) that the cost is acceptable to them for the benefit. The way we take our resources for granted and squander them until we are in crisis is the misguided fools errand. I try to remember to use water as if I had to haul it to the sink, not just turn a knob. Yea, I know I’m weird. I also haul my gray water from the kitchen to the yard. I hope more learn how to conserve, even though the more of us who do, the higher the relative cost for water will be to those who do.