by John Munn
If you want to vote on whether water rates should be nearly tripled over the next five years, now is the time to sign the local initiative petition on water rates.
Last year, the Davis City Council voted to increase water rates over a five year period, primarily to raise revenue for a surface water project. The true cost of this increase has been obscured in two ways. First, the Council changed the City services billing cycle from every-other month to once a month. While doubling postage and other administrative costs, this cut by half the number that rate-payers see as the apparent cost of water and other City services. Second, the Council staged the new rates to increase over time, with the current water cost being similar to or, in some cases, less than the previous rates. This will be followed by annual rate increases for five years until city water costs nearly three times more than it does now.
Hide-the-pea measures may be politically clever, but will not help in the long run. There are already plans for water costs to go even higher in the future. While providing information at a hearing about the then proposed rate increase, City staff presented a chart showing that water revenue will need to double again after five years to pay for the surface water project. This means that water costs will need to go up again and will cause Davis water rates to be four or five times more than they are today.
We have one, last chance to decide whether the Davis community can afford such a major increase in water rates (that would eventually take close to 40 million dollars per year out of our economy). Petitions to qualify an initiative overturning the new water rates are now being circulated for signatures by registered voters in Davis. These petitions must be turned in by late January or early February. This is permitted under Proposition 218, which allows voting on rate changes. Court decisions, however, have restricted use of an initiative to set rates. So the Davis water rates initiative has been limited to repealing the new rates.
Since its water rates decision, the City Council has also voted to increase sewer rates, is considering garbage pick-up rate increases, has been informed that millions of dollars in road maintenance work is needed, and is now facing a multi-million dollar deficit in the City’s general fund for which a tax increase is being considered. Making the overall picture even worse, major water users (including Old Willowbank, Village Homes, El Macero, and the City of Davis itself) have considered developing their own, separate systems for irrigation water because of the new, much higher water rates. If any of these areas substantially reduce their City water use, the loss in City water system volume would require even higher water rates for remaining users to pay off bonds and for other fixed costs. Can we really pay for all of this? Sticking one’s head in the sand is not going to make these problems go away.
The most frequent question about the water rates initiative is whether we have already voted on this. The answer is no. Measure I went before Davis voters at a mail-only special election early last March and was passed by a narrow majority of the 40 percent of voters who returned ballots. This authorized the building of a surface water project “subject to the adoption of water rates”. Therefore, water rates were not presented to the voters as part of Measure I.
In addition, most voters did not receive Measure I voter guides until at least a week after the mail-only ballots arrived. During this time, more than 30 percent of all returned ballots were received from voters who did not see the concerns about future water rates included in arguments against Measure I. Meanwhile, the message coming from better financed proponents of Measure I was that the quantity and quality of Davis groundwater are inadequate for future needs. These and other claims by Measure I proponents have turned out to be either not true or, at best, not confirmed. So many voters were both prevented from receiving relevant information and, to use a polite term, misinformed by proponents during the Measure I election. This is not likely to be repeated in an election about water rates.
To sign the Davis water rates initiative petition or to get copies for distribution, please send an email message to ccdvr@att.net or call (530) 753-7529. Time is limited, so prompt attention is needed to bring water rates to the voters.
John Munn is a Davis resident and a member of Yolo Rate Payers for Affordable Public Utility Services, which has sued the city of Davis over its current water rates.
Here’s the quote that hit home:
“City staff presented a chart showing that water revenue will need to double again after five years to pay for the surface water project.”
So we’ll be paying around 5 times what we’re now paying maybe in 10 years? I signed the petition already and the rest who haven’t had better look at their water bill today and multiply it by 5 then seriously think about it.
Actually it won’t be five times what it is today and reduced usage was already factored in. Talk about misinformed scare tactics.
The idea that late voter guides effected the outcome or that a mail-in only election is somehow undemocratic simply underestimates the voters who participated. 40% may seem like a small turn out but its actually pretty good for a special election. I’d be willing to bet its higher than the turnout in the election that put Munn on the School Board which generally garnered about a 20% turnout before they changed the date to consolidate voting. Munn also forgets to mention that the date for the election was preferred by the opponents of the water project and they still lost but they can’t seem to accept the will of the voters so now they want a do over. He also fails to mention how much in additional costs all this continued obstruction is costing those paying the water bills while the council is doing everything it can to try to reduce the increases while still improving the water system.
i wonder how does John Munn feel about kids drinking water that contains Cr(VI)? In a town that doesn’t want Fluoride in its water do we really want Hexavalent Chromium instead?
“Munn also forgets to mention that the date for the election was preferred by the opponents of the water project”
I don’t believe this to be true at all.
Ron – The rates do assume, we are told, a 20% conservation by users. But the rate structure is such that user costs, at least for those who irrigate, will go up a factor of three if they do not conserve that 20%. We just finished a 100% rate increase in 2012 and did conserve nearly 30%, but it gets harder to do another large % conservation. Thus, the additional factor of three is scary if you have much greenery and irrigate, and one can show there is a lot of pork in the revenues those rates produce – even assuming the 20%. And staff did show graphs indicating future rate rises beyond 2018. Getting 50%+ no votes of water users is impossible in Davis – 50% do not vote on many things! Paul
paul brady said . . .
“We just finished a 100% rate increase in 2012 and did conserve nearly 30% …”
Paul, your statement confuses me. Both the 2012-2013 and 2011-2012 water rates for all of Davis were identical to the 2010-2011 water rates. That represents a 0% rate increase for three whole years. Further the 2010-2011 water rates were approximately 15% higher than the 2009- 2010. So if you spread that 15% over the four-year period the annual increase in water rates is less than 4% per year. The City’s Utility Rates history can be seen at http://archive.cityofdavis.org/finance/Utility-Rates/
Can you help me out of the confusion that your statement causes?
Hi Matt: I think I can help re water-rate history. I received a Summary Water Rate History from the City when I was protesting the continuing rate increases. For example in 2002/3 the monthly rates were quite low, and then rose rapidly:
2002/3: 3/4″ Base rate = 5.66; Tier 1 SFR rate = 0.49/ccf ; Tier 2 = 0.49/ccf
2010/11: 3/4″ Base rate = 11.50; Tier 1 ” = 1.50/ccf; Tier 2 = 1.90/ccf
As you say 11/12 was unchanged. However, you can see that the increase is more than 100% – much more if you used much water! Paul
Paul, your comment specifically says, “We just finished a 100% rate increase in 2012” so your answer about years prior to and other than 2012 seems to be extraneous Am I missing something?
BTW, your reading of the 2011-2012 Fixed Rate is incomplete. The amount is not $11.50, rather it is $13.96 per month. The 2003-2004 amount was $8.68, so the increase from 2004 to 2012 is only 61%, not 100%. The $0.77 Tier 1 rate did rise 95% to $1.50.
The rates for 2002-2003 do not exist on the City website, so I started with 2003-2004.
When looking at all the revenue and expense comparisons for cities throughout the state, it is clear that Davis residents have been getting a bargain by comparison for city utility services. Most cities charge more for garbage, sewer and water.
I have lived here over 35 years and the water has always been crappy. Just this weekend my wife and I discarded all of our wine and martini glasses made cloudy by the hard water deposits and replaced them with new ones.
We cannot get our shower glass clear no matter how many toxic chemicals we use.
The toilets get a permanent mineral ring that needs a belt sander to remove.
We have to replace our refrigerator water filter cartridges more frequently and the ice still tends to taste funny.
I get bottled water delivered. The dispenser and bottles take up room. I am spending about $40 per month on that water.
The list goes on.
I don’t like paying more that I have to for anything. But other than my disagreement with tiered water rates, I think the rates we will be paying for this higher-quality water are reasonable. I don’t know why some people cannot do the math.
But why are you assuming that the water from the river will have less minerals? Also unless the city replaces the pipes, the water may not taste any better either.
“But why are you assuming that the water from the river will have less minerals?”
Because there is no question whatsoever that it will have less minerals.
As Don says, it’s a given that groundwater will have more dissolved mineral material than river water. It sits underground for sometimes thousands and millions of years and passes through a lot of rock sediment surface as it accumulates. By contrast, river water will fall from precipitation/snowmelt and be consumed easily within the same year and not have as much contact with rock material.
All true wdf. One additional factor is that the Sacramento River water source is the Sierra Nevada, which is predominantly metamorphic rock, which is considerably more acidic than the much more alkaline Coast Range rock, which is the source of our groundwater. Alkaline = more minerals. Acidic = fewer minerals.
Further, one only needs to go to the periodic test results of the water from the Bryte Bend WTP in West Sacramento in order to get a crystal clear sense of what the mineral content of the surface water is going to be. Then take those test results and compare them to the test results periodically conducted by the City of Davis on its existing well water sources. The numbers don’t lie. Sacramento River water has significantly less minerals.
What Don wrote. There has been a lot of information posted on this very point. Part of the justification for the project has to do with the high mineral content of our shallow water wells… and the fact that our deep water wells are also susceptible to spikes in certain minerals that are toxic at high levels.
And all of this gets discharged though our waste water.
The river water is primarily snow melt and rain water. It does not stew in a bunch of mineral-laced rocks.
If the city can lock in as many of the infrastructure setup costs and low interest rates as possible, I would bet that 10-20 years from now the water project will look like a pretty good deal.
I’m paying around $30 per month for water right now. This is supposed to increase to around $50 per month in year five.
John Munn is suing the City and hopes to gain financially.
I won’t sign his petition.
Mr Kelley: If your costs will only go from 30 to $50/mo you are incredibly fortunate! Out here in Old Willowbank where we have a lot of greenery – from 1/2 to around 1 acre – the numbers that the City sent me for our 1/2 acre indicate that water costs will rise from an average of about $100 to $340/mo. We have no lawn, are already mostly on drip and can conserve some more, but 10 citrus, and 8 other fruit trees need monthly deep watering, and my wife’s 50 roses and other flowers and plants, and my summer veggies need water during our hot summers!
City water rates doubled from 2002/3 to 2012 and we managed to conserve close to 30% as did most of the City. But when I cut back more my wife complained that some of her roses were too dry! Well, I told her we won’t get much sympathy there! We do not get to vote, in any case! OW will have to drill its own well and revive its former water system for irrigation purposes, and that is in the planning and cost-estimation stages.
paul, four questions for you based on your post above
1) Isn’t the decision to purchase such a large lot a discretionary decision that each Willowbank resident made for themselves?
2) Is watering the living vegetation on one’s lot any different than painting one’s house, resurfacing one’s driveway, trimming one’s trees, mowing one’s lawn, etc? Is it not simply one of the maintenance expenses that one incurs to maintain the value of an asset?
3) Is it accurate to say that owning a home in Willowbank falls into the category of “Oh give me a home where the Buffalo roam” and that having the additional lot size that Willowbank provides, actually increases the value of the typical Willowbank home to a level that is well above the average home value in Davis?
4) If your answer to question 3) is “Yes” then is it unreasonable to think that in exchange for that increased home value, there might be some increased upkeep and maintenance expenses?
And when you have answered question 4) doesn’t that take you full circle right back up to question 1) ?
I don’t usually reply to comments because everyone has a right to their own opinions. But I do like keep the facts straight. My reference to the 40 percent turnout in the Measure I election was simply to show that less than half of the people affected by the Council’s water rate increase participated in the election. I haven’t tried to determine if this turnout is typical because that was not my point. I don’t get the relevance to my school board election in 1997. This is getting to be ancient history with little, if anything, to do with water rates. But I can point out that if schools are paying more than necessary for water, this will come out of funds that could otherwise be used for educating students. The more relevant fact is that 30 percent of the Measure I votes came in before the voter guide reached voters. Doing the math (as I described in a previous op-ed article) using the Measure I proponent’s own polling data shows that nearly all of the margin (number of votes) by which Measure I passed is likely to have come from those early votes before opposition arguments, including cost, were available to voters. My opinion is that the delay in receiving voter guides was the most important, and a decisive, factor in the Measure I election. I did not mention that the Measure I election date was preferred by opponents because, even if this is true, I did not know about it. As to my reference to future costs, I was simply describing what city staff presented, which is another doubling of revenue over a second 5 year period. I will, however, point out that paying 4 or 5 times more is not twice an initial tripling of water rates, because I would expect both conservation and a growing number of rate-payers to spread out the cost. We may yet have a chance to find out if voters really want to pay this much. Finally, as to increasing future water costs by delay, even the city has reported that re-thinking the surface water project has reduced its cost by millions. So the delay so far has actually saved us money, and I believe that many millions more can be saved by taking a realistic look at our water production options and projected water needs.
John Munn
John Munn said . . .
” I haven’t tried to determine if this turnout is typical because that was not my point. I don’t get the relevance to my school board election in 1997.”
For other reasons I have actually tracked voter turnout, and the Measure I voter turnout was wholly consistent with the elections that preceded it. The following numbers are taken from the Yolo County Elections website.
Water (Measure I)
3/5/13
14,832 voted which is
39.5% of
37,584
Council
6/5/12
14,928 voted which is
44.8% of
33,355
Schools (Measure C)
3/6/12
17,219 voted which is
39.9% of
43,138 (includes El Macero, Willowbank, Patwin and North Davis Meadows parts of School District
Schools (Measure A)
5/3/11
16,492 voted which is
38.0% of
43,395
Land Use (R) and Sales Tax (Q) and Council
6/8/10
14,651 voted which is
37.9% of
38,660
Land Use (Measure P)
12,675 vothed which is
11/3/09
33.1% of
38,247
The arguments for and against were broadly distributed before the election occurred and prompt voting indicates that people had already made up their minds. John Munn must think we are idiots.
Thank you John Munn, your arguments make complete sense. You are the voice or reason.
I really wish people would not post accusations without any basis. The only financial gain that I might hope for from the current water rates lawsuit is to not pay so much for water. Unlike Mr. Kelley, I am paying more than $30 per month for water. I don’t see the point of paying more unless it is truly necessary, and I have personally talked to people who told me that they can’t afford to pay any more.
The talk about poor quality groundwater does not acknowledge the better quality of water from deeper aquifers that newer city wells are using, which has lower mineral content and meets water quality requirements. I will admit to being used to the taste of hard water having grown up on well water that makes Davis water seem soft. However, I don’t recall getting rid of any glassware because of hard water stains, and a quick look in the glasses cabinet did not find a problem with this, so it apparently can be dealt with in ways other than disposal.
There can be a valid discussion about the sustainability of the deeper aquifer, which I have been told has adequate recharge. This is something that I think should be firmly established before spending many millions of dollars on a project that might not be needed (especially if we actually reach the city’s 20 percent conservation goal).
Surface water from the Sacramento River does have fewer minerals than our local groundwater. This is because it does not spend (on average) as much time in the ground where water can dissolve minerals from surrounding earth materials. But this river water has accumulated chemicals, sediments, and other contaminants from upstream that require costly treatment before being put to domestic uses. Just because other cities do it, does not mean that we need to. (I am no longer young, but can still remember the admonition from my childhood that what someone else does is not a good excuse for doing it myself.)
The “spike” noted above I am guessing refers to the report just before the Measure I election that a well had been shut down because of a test showing a very large increase in manganese concentration. This might have been caused by an error in testing, and the well in question was quietly returned to service after the election.
John Munn
“The only financial gain that I might hope for from the current water rates lawsuit is to not pay so much for water.”
So are you saying that the settlement money that was requested in your lawsuit will only go to your attorney, Mike Harrington?
It appears from these replies that John actually wishes to re-vote and re-debate and relitigate the whole water project, not just the rates. So apparently the rate referendum is a means to the end of getting another measure on the ballot and trying to overturn the water project.
As to the water quality of shallower, deeper, and surface water sources:
The City has drilled six deeper wells into a deep aquifer that lies primarily under UC Davis. That water is low enough in selenium to help us meet the state standards, unless they tighten them even more. But that water is just as high in boron (higher than some of the current wells) and is also high in salinity and higher in arsenic. And it contains chromium 6, another constituent of concern. State regulations will very likely restrict arsenic, chromium 6, boron, and salinity in coming years.
More important, the deep aquifer is of unknown, but limited, extent; recharges very slowly; and is at risk of contamination from above if more wells are drilled. UC Davis has prior, higher rights to that water than does the City of Davis. Water experts do not believe the deep aquifer should be used as a long-term source of water for the city.
City of Davis wells conflict with UCD wells in the deep aquifer. So the 2004 EIR that was drawn up when the city wanted to replace some shallower wells with deeper wells, limits the amount the city can pump. The six deep aquifer wells fully use up that amount. We can’t pump any more from the deep aquifer, so our capacity will gradually drop as the shallower wells go. The process of trying to pump more deep water would open up a long and expensive arbitration process that the city would probably lose. And again: experts don’t see the deep wells as a long-term solution.
The present combination of shallower and deep wells gives us some time on the water quality issues, and barely provides the capacity the city needs.
In an earlier life, just out of Princeton with an MS, I worked as a petroleum geophysicist, and we had to drill water wells for our wildcatting team and its extensive camp for each oil-seeking well drilled in the Libyan Sahara. In fact we oil drillers discovered huge aquifers under the Sahara, and some aquifer water actually “flowed”/permeated close to 500 miles to Tripoli on the Mediterranean coast! Huge fresh water projects are continuing, but one has to worry about the recharge for these as there is little rain there, and the Tibesti mountains – up to 11,200 ft – are at least 1000 miles south.
The deep Tehama Formation Aquifer under Davis is not mainly under UCD. It extends from the Coastal Range foothills for about 25 miles east to east of the Sacramento River. It has connections there farther east to the Tuscan Unit A, B and C fresh water aquifers which extend to the Sierra foothills. The Tehama formation bottom under Davis is close to 2500 feet. It is isolated from the deeper salt water formations by impermeable layers of clay and shale. The aquifer formation bottom rises to about 2000 feet in depth under the Sacramento River and to the west near the coastal range. This aquifer extends north almost 100 miles and is exposed in Tehama county and to the north and west. So it is huge! It is recharged by rain and run-off into its exposure over a huge area – more than a million acres.
UCD and Davis together use an estimated 10,000 acre-feet per year from the deep aquifer, so one foot of rain over 10,000 acres [almost 4 x4 miles] could replenish their use. [Rainfall in that area actually averages 2 feet or more.] In the future, on average, in summer nearly 50% of Davis water will come from this deep aquifer as the intermediate wells are phased out or converted to City irrigation only. [In a year like this it would be close to 100%!] River water is definitely softer, but with residual pharmaceuticals, pesticides and herbicides which ozonation plus chlorination do not completely remove.
Tehama Pumping tests show good horizontal flow or propagation rates of about 1 to 3.5 miles per day, depending on the deep well and the different porosity, permeability and connectivity of the formation lenses it taps. Pumping a deep well did not affect any intermediate wells showing that the deep and intermediate aquifers are well isolated from each other by horizontal layers of clay and shale. This is normal – in the oil fields we do not see oil or water moving vertically through formations and contaminating each other! Thus the very low [92% lower] nitrates and selenium, and the 70% lower hardness in the deep aquifer will not be contaminated by the higher levels of these in the intermediate aquifer – at least not for many decades.
The large age of the water under Davis indicates that a only very small fraction of it is being pumped, and thus replaced by new inflows. Near the recharge areas in Tehama county the water ages are less than 100 years, as is the case for the Tuscan water near its recharge areas on the eastern margins. It is relatively fresh rain water which tops up the aquifer with the annual rains. UCD data show that over the [50+] years as they pumped more, the water became purer with reduced nitrates, selenium and dissolved solids. The originally relatively pure rain or run-off surface water takes up more chemicals as it remains longer in contact with the subsurface formations.
“The “spike” noted above I am guessing refers to the report just before the Measure I election that a well had been shut down because of a test showing a very large increase in manganese concentration. This might have been caused by an error in testing, and the well in question was quietly returned to service after the election.
John Munn”
Gee, what a coincidence.
“The true cost of this increase has been obscured in two ways. First, the Council changed the City services billing cycle from every-other month to once a month. While doubling postage and other administrative costs, this cut by half the number that rate-payers see as the apparent cost of water and other City services. ”
Was changing the billing cycle from bi-monthly to monthly done to obscure rate increases or done to allow people to better track their water usage?
I believe it was primarily done because a lot of people when they get a bill pay that bill. By splitting the bill into two, the burden on the individual who lives check to check is somewhat reduced.
While I don’t disagree that that was a benefit to some Davis ratepayers, I do not believe it was anything more than a minor consideration. The ability to get consumption data into the hands of individual ratepayers was much more of a customer service driver for the City, so that ratepayers can be proactive in 1) conserving our precious (bodily) fluids, and 2) reducing our water bills.
Although I pay and receive online statements from PG&E, they have in the last year or two started sending my data regarding my previous months energy use, this data also compares my use over time, and with similar homes, hoping that in having this information available I will be encouraged to use my energy more efficiently. They clearly think the increased cost associated with this practice are out-weighed by the savings it generates.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the city would adopt a similar and beneficial practice.
So are you saying that Davisites were too stupid to figure out their savings or cost differentials over a two month period instead of one? And here I thought I lived in a college town.
I think the point is to give people more frequent updates on their water usage so they can better judge how well any water saving strategies they are implementing are working.
As far as the intelligence of Davisities, you seem to be the one questioning that by implying that a shortened billing cycle will lead people to believe that their rates have gone down. I’ll give my college town cohorts more credit then that.
GI,your comment illuminates very clearly why I do not think the decision was driven by personal budgeting. Davis residents clearly are not incapable if figuring out their savings. There is no behavior modifiction component in such calculations.
However, if a rate payer’s water faucets, fixtures, hoses or pipes are compromised if you have to wait over two months to get any indication that your usage has spiked into a range that indicates that your system is compromised, then you will be paying for lots of water that you are fiscally responsible for, but never got any functional use of. Early warning means early proactivity and/or reactivity vis-a-vis waste. The fact that the water is a limited and precious resource is an important factor as well . . . from a societal perspective . . . and we collectively, as individuals we make up our society.
Qestion(s): is El Macero metered? If yes, do individuals pay for their own use, or is it equally apportioned thru the CSA? Is the golf course/clubhouse a separate bill?
I’m not sure why you are asking that question Hortense, because you already know the answer . . . which is 1) that El Macero is indeed 100% metered, and 2) that El Macero residents all pay their own individual water bill based on their own individual lot’s actual water consumption. In the past the Yolo County CSA (County Sevice Area) apportioned all the water costs billed by the City to the County to each El Macero lot in 410 equal increments, but that method was voted away by the El Macero residents a number of years ago.
There is one difference however between El Macero billing and City of Davis billing. Thar difference derives from the fact that El Macero residents chose to pay up front for the capital cost of acquiring their meter, as well as the meter installation costs. The payment was made in one lump sum rather than paying on a monthly payment plan the way that City ratepayers do.
The El Macero Country Club is a somewhat mixed situation. The potable water consumption in the clubhouse comes from the same system as all of the rest of the Davis Water Utility, and they pay the exact same rates as comparable Commercial customers do. The irrigation of the golf course is not done with Davis Water System water. The Club has its own well and non-potable irrigation distribution system that it installed at its own expense and maintains at its own expense.
Good point Matt. It would be cool if there was a way to keep constant track of your water use. There should be an app. for that.
Both reasons seem like good and prudent ones.
The implication that Munn makes, that the city made the switch from bi-monthly to monthly, in order to trick people, seems purposefully misleading, and ultimately puts into question the validity of any of his claims.
His arguments against the water project would be better made without the “mudslinging”.
By going from 6 to 12 bills a month they will trick a lot of people in to not noticing that “water rates have doubled”. Smart move (just like the 3 payments of $39.95 makes something seem like it costs way under $120)…
Are the arguments against the water project weak enough that in order to get people to support them it’s necessary to attribute nefarious motives to the city.
Allowing people to spread out payments and better track their water use both seem like they were done with good intention.
Thank you John Munn and SOD. The whole purpose of going to monthly bills was to make it look like your bills weren’t rising that much. Deception at its finest and at a higher cost of postage and man hours handling the bills. Some people drink the water (with koolaid in it).
“By going from 6 to 12 bills a month they will trick a lot of people in to not noticing that “water rates have doubled”.”
I’d encourage the group of people in this category to lay off the Kool-Aid.
There’s a lot of gullible people walking around town who thought the city was doing them a favor by going to monthly bills with purple lips.
“There’s a lot of gullible people walking around town”
Apparently.
A huge number of items in the grocery store now give you less product (ice cream, cereal, coffee, juice, etc.) in a container that appears to be the same size as the old one hoping that people will not notice how they are paying more for less. This is Marketing 101. It is a smart move for the city just like it is a smart move (proved out by million dollar marketing studies done by MBAs) for consumer product firms…
The city’s goal in implementing this policy is to get people to use less water, unlike the companies you describe, who are trying to get consumers to pay more for less.
Said another way the city, unlike a cereal company, has nothing to gain from selling people less water for more money.
G.I.: What would you propose as an alternative? Going back to bills every other month? Would it be better to go to semi-annual billing? Annual billing? What would be more sensible than what you’re criticizing?
Keep it where it was, every other month, people were okay with it and IT SAVED MONEY.
GI, the problem is that there were a lot of people who weren’t okay with it as it was. When they came to the City with a complaint about how high their water bill was because of a leak on their property that caused increased usage and ran up a huge bill, they more often than not said, “I wish you had informed me about my leak sooner!!” When the very understandable response was, “The only way the City can know that you have a leak on your property is by the meter reading.” the retort from the customer with the leak was, “Then you need to read meters more often!!! This leak has cost me a fortune!!!”
You can’t please all the people all the time.
G.I.: Keep it where it was, every other month, people were okay with it and IT SAVED MONEY.
Then why not go to every three months, four or six months and save even more money?
B. Nice,
Did you actually read what you wrote? The City has nothing to gain by selling people less water for no money? And, here I thought the City had a structural budget problem……..
With respect to ice cream, I did notice when my favorite company reduced their 1/2 Gallon to 1.5 Quarts while increasing the container price. I no longer eat the same ice cream.
In the case of City Water, what am I going to do if I don’t like their new pricing strategy? Purchase bottled water to flush my toilet? Order a water truck from West Sacramento to water my lawn?
It’s called a monopoly. Even monopolies realize their customers don’t like paying more for less. It’s only natural that they don’t want their customers to notice the increase in water costs – so why not double up on the billing cycle?
All said, we have little choice in the matter with the Feds and the State having established new mandates for our effluents (even if our future effluents will be better than what you and I currently drink today). My question is, since the agricultural community in Yolo County consumes and disposes of 90% of all water consumed, why haven’t the Feds and the State imposed more stringent water quality conservation limits on agriculture and agricultural runoff.
Nobody wants to talk about that. We’re a rich community, we can afford it – so the story goes. Make you feel any better about a water bill that will be quadrupling over the next few years?
“why haven’t the Feds and the State imposed more stringent water quality conservation limits on agriculture and agricultural runoff.”
What makes you think they haven’t? Have you ever spoken to a farmer about the regulations that they deal with as to the water that runs off their property? What exactly do you do for a living, anyway?
Just an example: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/new_waste_discharge_requirements/sacramento_river_watershed_wdrs/index.shtml
realchangz wrote: “My question is, since the agricultural community in Yolo County consumes and disposes of 90% of all water consumed, why haven’t the Feds and the State imposed more stringent water quality conservation limits on agriculture and agricultural runoff.”
They are in the process of doing exactly that in the name of food safety. This is all happening now.
http://www.agalert.com/story/?id=5866
“It’s called a monopoly. Even monopolies realize their customers don’t like paying more for less. It’s only natural that they don’t want their customers to notice the increase in water costs – so why not double up on the billing cycle?
While this is a potential outcome I don’t believe it’s what motivated the city’s to switch the billing cycle. Let me ask, do you see the benefits the switch provides to the consumers?
Don,
Only going by what I read. Perhaps the Bee editorial is inaccurate.
According to the article, apparently subsidence isn’t just a problem being aggravated by urban users.
Just curious when we have an editorial written by a farm owner who is complaining about a city trying to figure out a strategy for sustainable, responsible environmental stewardship.
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/23/5938386/editorial-celebrate-almonds-while.html
Almond growers can slash water use to as little as 12 inches if they have to, just to keep the trees alive during severe drought. http://ucmanagedrought.ucdavis.edu/Agriculture/Crop_Irrigation_Strategies/Almonds/
Subsidence in Yolo County has largely been, in recent years, most likely due to urban uses. At least since Indian Valley came on line in the 1970’s and most farmers went to surface water.
I’m not sure which editorial you are referring to.
I used to wonder, when I saw all the acreage going into almonds down along I-5 over the last couple of decades, what those growers were thinking. After all, that is all water project water, and the allotments vary considerably from year to year. But then I learned that they consider the tree crops a kind of insurance. Some of those big agribusiness farmers plant 10 – 20% of the land in almonds because they can get an economic yield even in years when the allotment isn’t sufficient to grow row crops. And they can keep them alive, as noted, with greatly reduced irrigation if necessary. So even though almonds will use 40+ inches of water if it’s available, they can get by with 15 – 30% less if it’s administered carefully, and can live with as little as 12 inches if they have to.
And since the range of almond-growing climate around the world is limited, thanks to the combination of early bloom and special chilling requirements (and poor tolerance of humid summers), California has a strong competitive advantage. Even with more than doubling of the state’s poundage, the price remains very strong and consistent – especially thanks to some very good marketing. You can get higher income per acre from walnuts with new growing techniques, but they can be grown in more parts of the world. The Chinese are planting a lot of walnuts, and they’re buying a lot of our almonds.
“The Chinese are planting a lot of walnuts, and they’re buying a lot of our almonds.”
China is the largest grower and importer of walnuts in the world. What I have read is that demand for walnuts in China doubled from 2000 to 2010 and is expected to double again by 2020. So while they are planting more walnut orchards–as we are–China will import even more as time goes on and hundreds of millions of more Chinese have the money to demand better food.
I am not sure if this is the case in the regions where China grows almonds, but I have read that China is having very serious shortages of water for crop irrigation, especially for growing rice.
This story is 2 years old, but it gives you an idea of the problem over time: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/05/05/how-china-is-dealing-with-its-water-crisis/
I met with Ag Commissioner’s office a couple of months ago and asked them to what crops are going to dominate local ag 10 years out. Two people were in the room and simultaneously said “nuts.” Demand from a growing middle class across Asia is driving this. Drive in just about any direction around Davis and notice the planting of almond trees. Pretty amazing.
Robb,
I understand the economic benefits to the farmers, property owners and to the region’s overall economic model – but the linkage to increased revenues to the City of Davis is far more tenuous. The product isn’t taxable and the land – even with increasing crop yields – isn’t likely to be reassessed from a property tax standpoint (only speculating, I don’t know).
So, there appears to be a very strong economic incentive for the operators to convert to nut crops with the associated economic benefits. Couldn’t wish for anything better.
How does that revenue model relate to revenue generation to support vital municipal services at the city and county level? And, when faced with a difficult decision over competing land uses, as with the Mace 391, how and when should those considerations be incorporated into the conversation? Whether you are concerned about maintaining vital county level programs or local municipal programs – it appears that some uses may lead to a greater potential to produce revenues to the jurisdictions that others – the most classic model being the Big Box Retail center. But a very similar analysis accompanies any discussion of a business park development – with the added benefit of creating a significantly higher taxable basis along with a larger number of higher paying jobs than retail.
In this context, how should these alternative land use choices and their associated potential for community-level economic development and municipal revenue generation enter into the equation?
Sorry realchangz… I was not trying to make such a linkage. I realize that this emerging trend has nothing to do with city finances it was merely an observation (and perhaps off topic a bit).
The ways in which the city will benefit from our proximity to and involvement with agriculture will be through research that moves from the field/ lab to products/services that local companies will produce (as is already the case). I believe that local business growth related to ag is one avenue that will generate revenue and that as a city we must find ways to foster and encourage it. I would like to think that some forms of product transformation could produce revenue streams for the city but it would only be through small scale high margin food transformation and I don’t know how that will happen. The county is much more likely to benefit from food processing than we as a city.
Well, Mariani owns the land on the Mace Curve. Maybe they’d like to build a processing facility there.
A dear farmer friend reminds me:
“Trees do produce additional tax revenues for the county (or, at least its share of the business personal property tax – I don’t know if that split with the State is any different than the real estate property tax split). Planting of orchard trees (and installation of irrigation systems, pumps, etc) are reported & taxed as business personal property (the value of which often exceeds the value of the underlying real estate).”
Just FYI
Robb and realchangz, there is an interesting related issue to the increase in the increased planting of nut crops in Yolo County. In many cases the land being so converted is prime foraging ground for the endangered Swainson’s Hawk.
That issue was a common topic of discussion as I conducted my community dialogue meetings about the “grand bargain” alternative to Mace 391.
So add endangered species issues to your list of water, agriculcural economy, and County and City finances issues in this discussion . . . a Central Valley Bouillabaisse that no doubt has even more ingredients than the ones we have already discussed here.
Don: “At least since Indian Valley came on line in the 1970′s and most farmers went to surface water.”
Far earlier than that. Yolo County farmers have had all the surface water rights to Clear Lake water (and thus Cache Creek water) since 1912. Some individual farmers in our county have also had private water rights to Sacramento River water, and years ago farmers drew water from Putah Creek.
The construction of the Indian Valley Reservoir dam did not, as far as I know, increase the amount of surface water rights owned by the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
There is a brief, but interesting history of how Yolo County won the rights to Clear Lake water here: http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/Clear_Lake_Information/How_Yolo_Obtained_Claim_to_Waters_of_Clear_Lake.htm
Interesting history. A missed opportunity for Lake County, I would say. Here is the basis for my comments about Indian Valley. http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/chapt3ef.html
My understanding is that subsidence continues in the sub-basin around Davis and Woodland, and the very likely cause is that both cities continued to rely on mid-depth wells for 100% of their water. Going to the deeper wells would mitigate that for Davis, but Woodland doesn’t have access to the same deep aquifer that Davis does.
Maybe a year ago–perhaps less–I asked a bunch of UCD geologists if Davis was lower in altitude now than it was 50 or 100 years ago, due 1. to subsidence and 2. rising ocean levels.
I don’t recall all the answers. But I think it was Graham Fogg who guessed the difference is between 6 inches and 2 feet.
Not really near Davis, but here’s a well-known photo that’s supposed to demonstrate land subsidence in the San Joaquin Valley that is attributable to groundwater pumping from 1925 to 1977:
Image source
I have lots of data on this. There is a Yolo County Subsidence Network monitoring project. Jim Frame has done some of the contract work on it, I believe. If we get back into this debate I’ll dig it out. Bottom line was that subsidence was continuing around Davis and some other areas, about 1/2″ to 1″ per year if I recall. Biggest changes monitored near Zamora.
Quantifying land subsidence rates in Yolo County is challenging because the time window for which we have reliable data is so small. The 9-year span comprising 4 monitoring events in Yolo County shows rates approaching 1 cm per year near Zamora, but we also have some historical evidence indicating that the USC&GS mark on the Richards Boulevard subway has dropped a meter or so since the 1960s.
I’m not a geologist, but I do know that the subsidence contours match the preponderance of well water usage pretty nicely in the Sacramento Valley. I don’t have any reason to believe that the deep aquifer would be immune to producing the same magnitude of subsidence if we continue to draw it down.
Subsidence is a legitimate concern around here, but it’s not been anything near as serious as it is in the Westlands Water District. I’ve been told that they have areas that show signs of dropping as much as half a foot a year.
I looked up what Graham Fogg told me last May. Here are his words verbatim:
Hi Rich,
Over the years Davis has probably subsided at least on the order of 1-2 ft, but there is no continuous monitoring record, as far as I know. Attached is a plot from a 1984 county water plan report that indicates perhaps as much as 1.5 ft by 1967*. The following report:
http://www.yolowra.org/projects/YSN2005 Final Report.pdf indicates about 0.03 meters (~1.3 inches) of subsidence between 1999 and 2005, which amounts to about 0.005 m (5 mm) per year during that time. If that same rate occurred between 1967 and 1999, perhaps there was 160 mm, or on the order of 6 inches during that time. Thus, the data would seem to suggest that Davis may have subsided 1 to 2 ft since 1959.
Since the 1930’s, sea level has risen about 0.5 ft at the Golden Gate. Climate models suggest that another 0.1 to 0.9 m (0.3 to 3 ft) of sea level rise may occur by 2100. So, no danger of Davis becoming seashore property any time soon, but a more immediate concern is the effects of subsidence on flood control levees.
*The PDF Professor Fogg attached is a graph of Zamora-Davis-Knights Landing subsidence. I don’t have a link for it.
One geophysicist at UCD told me that it is the legal responsibility of the elected assessor to accurately record each city’s altitude relative to sea level in our county, and so the assessor’s office would have a historical record of any changes over time.
Hearing that, I got ahold of Joel Butler, the Yolo County Assessor (who has always struck me as well informed and competent) and Mr. Butler told me this:
While I hate to contradict any professor, I do not know of any requirement in the California Revenue and Taxation Code that assigns that responsibility to the Assessor. In many years as Assessor and working in assessor’s offices I have never heard a request for such information. Also we do not have any tools to determine or verify elevations. I had always assumed it was USGS info used, but more recently with all the flood maps being created and the level of accuracy to determine which way water should flow is that FEMA would have the accurate data.
Their data must be fairly accurate since they are able to draw a line down the middle of the street and say the houses on the North side are in danger of flooding while those on the South side are safe, while I standing in the street can perceive no distinction in the elevation by the naked eye.
My interest in this matter started when I noticed that the official elevation for Davis listed on the city limit signs never changes, despite the fact that I assumed we are lower now than we were when I was a boy in the 1960s.
To that end, Joel Butler pointed me to something of interest from Cecil Adams’s The Straight Dope:
Town elevations may be the altitude at some prominent public place (Caltrans uses city hall) or they may be an average for the downtown area. Either way they’re often just estimates. Caltrans got its numbers from the U.S. Geological Survey, but the USGS got them by eyeballing the contour lines on maps. OK, it’s not like they grabbed the maps off the rack at the gas station, but jeez, doesn’t anybody do original research anymore?
It’s only when we get into the no-nonsense world of engineering that we start to get some precision. Many big towns have established a “city datum,” a standard elevation pegged to some known point, which is used in blueprints for major construction projects.
Local datums are going the way of the dodo as awareness of the regional impacts of flood sources and major construction projects converges with the ability to measure heights accurately over large areas. But it’s still a bit of an arcane science; the very concept of “up” can get pretty complicated, depending on what you need it for.
You guys (general person reference intended) are awesome. Your attention and willingness to engage and respond to specific issues and challenges is powerful.
So, getting back to David’s original question. Can Davis afford the new water rates?
Does it matter that the new charges will be extracting some $17MM per year – year-after-year forever – from our local economy and from the existing “disposable income” of our community?
What is our “backfill strategy” in terms of how to replace that $17MM in discretionary spending power insofar as it impacts our residents, our businesses and the revenues necessary to support our shared municipal services?
We won’t be losing discretionary income in any discrete or even recognizable way from higher water rates. The population of Davis turns over rapidly, at least in the rental part (over 50% of homes). The change in water rates won’t occur in a vacuum. Gas and home heating prices will go up, and down; rents will increase (has that fact ever bothered you?), the value of homes — and thus the cost of mortgages — will go up again. Health care costs will go up for some, down for others. I could go on and on. There are numerous communities where people have been paying much, much higher rates for water for some time. Basically, I don’t see how you isolate the impact of water rates from the whole milieu of what people spend money on.
“Does it matter that the new charges will be extracting some $17MM per year – year-after-year forever – from our local economy and from the existing “disposable income” of our community?”
Don’t forget the already raised school parcel taxes, coming downtown parking fees, plastic bag fees, new city sales tax and parcel tax and we’re really starting to talk about a big hit to the local economy.
Think our water costs are getting bad? Consider the cost of heating a house in someplace like Minnesota, especially right now. I imagine even extravagant Davis utility bills pale in comparison to the cost of staying warm in a cold climate.
Much as we’ll not enjoy paying more for water, we’ll just have to accept it as part of the cost of living, and adapt accordingly.
“So, getting back to David’s original question. Can Davis afford the new water rates? ”
Clarification: John Munn’s question, not mine.
Well said Jim. Very well said. Sue Greenwald would disagree with you though. Her argument continues to be that the increase in water costs are going to drive Davis residents out of town … and she cites herself and Mike as prime examples of that reality.
G.I., if we implement paid parking I believe it is essential that each Downtown merchant have on their cash register a new item, which would be for providing a parking rebate to any customer who puchases a product or service from them.
So if you and Mrs. G.I. headed downtown to buy new running shoes at Fleet Feet, slid your car into a parking space, went to the parking kiosk, paid for the parking and received the printed receipt along with the sticker for your car window, when you went to pay for your new footware you would show your parking receipt and the Fleet Feet cashier would add a parking rebate transaction to your purchase, netting down the cost of your purchase. As a result your parking wouldn’t cost you anything. If you couldn’t provide the cashier with a receipt for your parking payment, then no parking rebate would be issued. That way no one could game the system. Each month the parking fees revenue would be used to reimburse the Davis merchants for the parking rebates thy issued to their customers.
Matt wouldn’t we want the parking fees to cover the cost of enforcement. Under your plan do you think this could happen?
Yes B. Nice it could cover the costs of enforcement, but we have those costs now with no revenue.
The costs that are most important to cover are the purchase and installation costs for the parking machine kiosks.
I thought the city went to monthly billing because prices were increasing and people were complaining about being able to afford the services. By going to monthly billing the city was helping people even out their expenses. Interesting on my latest bill water is a small part of the bill and the rates on my trash container are up 6 bucks a month. Now there is something to complain about! The city raised rates on everyone who has a large 95 gallon container, something around 90% of us have in an effort to get us to consume less even though we already have high rates of recycling. Interestingly only Brett Lee complained about the coercive nature of the new rates. Because we are proactive but not zealous recyclers our trash bin is almost always less than half full so I find the rate increase annoying at best. Most annoying, and for those of you that have the misguided belief that the city is run by a cabal trying to gouge the public at every opportunity, the city has made little effort to alert the public about how they can get a smaller can and a reduced bill.
“the city has made little effort to alert the public about how they can get a smaller can and a reduced bill.”
I agree that the city could do a better job with public outreach on issues like these. As a recently appointed member of the NRC, I hope to find ways to do this , if you have any suggestion I’d love to hear them.
Oh great !
GI, I know you are not a great fan of the NRC, but don’t indict, try, convict and sentence Michelle before she even sits at her first NRC meeting. The materials she submitted in her NRC application focused on doing a better job (by the NRC) of “connecting” with the Davis citizens about issues that are being brought to the NRC. You, above all people, should welcome that kind of public outreach, so that the NRC can factor input from normal people like you into its decision-making process.
A really good example of an incredibly important Natural Resources issue coming up before the NRC is Municipalization of our electric utility distribution system. Michelle’s level-headed approach will be agreat addition to those discussions.
The NRC is made up of people willing to volunteer their time, energy, and expertise to their community. I appreciate their efforts and I was honored to be chosen by council to serve with them.
NRC = No Revenue Coming
Maybe after the plastic bag ban goes into place you can sell the ones you get for “free” in Woodland at a huge mark up to plastic bag deprived Davisites.
You see Matt, it’s the smug comments like this that make me go “Oh Great”.
GI-I’m joking with my friend (or in this case me “frienemy”)who, by way, knows how to take one.
Plus, he started it;-).
G.I. what you read as “smug” I read as “humorous”
As I was passing through the Mace – Chiles intersection the other day I saw a sign for the new recycling business there. They had the price per pound of aluminum. Taking B . Nice’s comment a step further, I wonder what the price per pound of recycled single use plastic bags would be?
I’m glad someone gets my sense of humor.
“I wonder what the price per pound of recycled single use plastic bags would be?”
Philosophers have been debating this for years. The tricky aspect that makes so many stumble is that there are no plastic bags that are single use. They can be re-used as many times as you like. Hence, the challenge in answering an unanswerable query.
It’s true, I often reuse the numerous stray ones I find all over town, on the green belt, in trees, on the side of the roads, tangled up in the grasses of open fields, I’ve even got some scratches from the ones I dig out from the bushes. After the ban goes into place anyone looking for free plastic bags shouldn’t have a problem scanavging for some.