Mayor Pro Tem Saylor Talks the Angry Public Down on Water –
It is instructive to see how the Mayor Pro Tem attempts to quell public dissent using his moderate tone. The difference between watching the comments and reading them is instructive.
“I want everybody who is watching or listening or concerned to know that the council has not taken this lightly. We don’t simply show up and have before us the rate structure and we say yes or no to it. That this has been a process that has unfolded over a period of many years. Lamar is right that by the time 2013/14 arrives, it’s hard to know, but it’s likely some of us won’t be here. Some of the five people, maybe all of us, won’t be in these chairs at that point. So it’s critical that while we are on this watch that we do our very best to balance and address these issues. It’s our turn in the barrel and we have to be as good a stewards as we can of this basic essential service of water provision and ability to meet the wastewater standards.”
It is noteworthy that while Mr. Saylor claims to be hearing the people, he is actually reading these remarks off prepared notes. Now he gets into the rationalization of the policy and basically makes the argument here that we have no actual control and authority. We have to make these provisions based on mandates handed down upon us by other entities.
“While it is a set of federal and state that we are guided by, those standards are not arbitrarily set. When there are parts per million of all these different substances, there’s a reason that the scientific analysis and the water quality control board reports set the standard and the limits that they do. Those reasons have to do with downstream habitat and downstream domestic users.
I think many of us, if they look at that part of it, would see the value of those standards. Unfortunately it costs us a bundle. And we’re going to have to figure out how we pay for that.
As we look at this, I’d like for all of you who are interested, to be aware that on the website that the city of Davis has, our city of Davis website, you can find, the water research institute report that was done about a year ago that has a significant amount of information about those sort of a third party fact finder, an outside objective group of people that have credibility throughout the country. They have taken a look at this and they have come back substantially supporting the array of proposals that we have.
This is our second look at that because there are some reasons that we asked questions. To Sue’s credit, she continues to probe and see the need for additional questions. We secured the services of two additional consultants, I think it’s Chabonibus and Schroeder, if I’m not misspeaking their names, they’ve provided us a report that we looked at about a month ago that again goes through and substantially concludes that the general overall approach that we’re following here is appropriate.”
A few points of note here. First, note that while the Mayor Pro Tem acknowledges that this will cost a bundle, he minimizes and downplays that as necessary either coming from state and federal standards that he considers reasonable and valuable or coming from significant inquiry by the city.
Second, he credits Sue with pressing for additional information from outside consultants–something he has largely opposed. He fails to acknowledge that at one point he voted simply to get on with it, suggesting that the city was wasting time and money and had already considered these items in the past. In fact earlier this year, he criticized the very approach he is now praising as an example of how thoroughly the city has looked into the issue and the independent consultants have validated.
Except that he failed to note that the consultants had actually recommended a course correction and suggested that the city cannot engage in both a water supply project and a wastewater treatment project simultaneous. And in fact, the city needed to undergo the water supply project first rather than the approach the city was taking. Mr. Saylor would be corrected on this later and acknowledge his error.
“In both cases there were recommendations that we are continuing to examine–such as better ways or more efficient ways of conducting the wastewater treatment system and we’re looking at that.”
But then he proceeds to pretty much discount them all.
“Really there are few areas that we can cut these costs, we have to provide a water supply that’s of sufficient quality to meet the standards and to protect our people and to protect the downstream habitat and users. We have to meet the federal and state standards for wastewater treatment.”
This is his view. But not everyone agrees with it. There are indications that the city could get a waiver for their discharge and there is legislation being considered that would allow the quality of the water used by a community to dictate the discharge regulations. The city has already applied and received a two year postponement in the time needed to comply with current standards, upgrading the wastewater facility is not the only possible solution, yet Mr. Saylor makes the argument that this is the only possible approach.
“We can do this and find ways to reduce costs through system design. We’ve examined the ideas of regionalization of wastewater treatment through collaboration with West Sacramento and Woodland. The cost and feasibility of those options don’t appear to be reasonable at this point. We’ve continued to look at overland flow as a way to reduce the level of treatment that we have to proceed to. We have several system design approaches that we continue to examine to reduce costs. We’ve also looked at construction efficiencies, and had people come in to do third party reviews, value engineering reviews to try to find if there are ways to reduce cost in the projects through that method. And we are finding ways of doing that.
We haven’t yet gotten into the whole issue of how do we finance this. Should we be proceeding to apply for grants? We certainly should. Should we be finding low-cost ways of loans? One of those proposals is included tonight in this particular loan package that you’ve got.
But we need to continue to find ways to reduce costs. The option doesn’t seem to be to not proceed with the project. It’s more a question of how do we reduce the costs.”
Councilmember Saylor has a stark admission that the council and city have not even gotten into issues of how to finance this. He went through a litany of efforts at reducing the cost, most of which either have no impact on overall cost or a marginal effect. Again, he is trying to downplay the concern from the ratepayers about what will happen with their water rates by suggesting that they are looking into ways to reduce the costs. At the same time, he continues to press on with the project despite the lack of answers here.
“The conservation approaches have become quite clear that we have a lot more room in conservation. One of the issues we saw just after the conservative rates wastewater treatment went into effect last year is that water consumption levels dropped. So there was a result from that simple method, we need to continue working on this.”
This is almost bait and switch. First, conservation has nothing to do with this project. If we need to do the project it is due to the wastewater treatment issues stemming from the water supply. Moreover, the costs involved to the ratepayer are largely fixed costs that have to be transferred regardless of consumption rates.
“Sue you’re right, I agree with your comments about your concerns about cost and the need for accountability and review of the specific projects that come before us.”
Again he’s often opposed her attempts to look more thoroughly and it has only been through her efforts and against his that some progress has been made on cost containment.
“But what we need to do today is to decide whether we’re going to proceed with these rates. I’m confident in the wastewater treatment rate that there is a balance there of a basic rate that’s based on the cost of the system to operate and a consumption rate on top of it. I think Bill’s point about moving forward in the future to greater consumption based rates is a good one. At least one of the commenters that we saw tonight gives us the indication that even the people that have maybe a fixed income may well have landscape that they are irrigating and it will take some time for them to adjust and get to the point where they can save some of their own costs through consumption reductions. I think it’s a balance and a hybrid.
Stephen I agree with your point about the garbage consumption and finding some way of dealing with that. That’s I think a good component of a motion here.
I don’t like anybody to raise rates. It’s not fun. But we’re going to be doing it. We’re going to be doing it tonight. I expect we’ll be doing it again in the years to come to cover the legitimate costs of service for this basic component of our city services.”
The bottom line here is that while Mr. Saylor tried to assuage the public’s concerns about raising rates, he is still raising rates and rates will go up in the future as well.
The council needs to understand, and it will be interesting to see how they approach this in the future, the costs are really coming, the big cost leaps in 2013-14. The public was really outspoken against even a relatively small 10 percent hike in the water rates. What Mr. Saylor appears to be counting on is that while he is putting this in motion now and while he is supporting a 10 percent rate hike, he will not be on the council in 2013-14. He will not be the one to have to vote to really raise fees on water. That he leaves for a future council.
The other interesting factor here is that if you listen to him speak, he is calm and reassuring. One comes away with the sense that he has taken great care in making his decision. His rhetoric is amplified by his moderate tone. What you don’t get a sense is either for the history. Much of the public there that evening had no idea that actually Mr. Saylor originally offered resistance to if not opposed many of the items that he was praising as examples of deliberation and caution by the council. He admonished the council back in December of 2008 he said that these alternatives have been asked and explored, thus suggesting that these were issues already raised and answered and that we need to move forward.
Only now in retrospect and in front of a considerably larger and more angry audience is he giving them the praise and merit that they deserved back in January.
The speed and trajectory of this project continues unabated. At one point Mayor Ruth Asmundson asked if we had to act now and City Public Works Director Bob Weir said emphatically yes, that we could not afford delay and so the council did not delay.
At some point the chickens will come home to roost, but as Councilmember Heystek suggested, the current council will not be in place when that occurs. In essence they get to make the decision without consequence since they are putting it to a future council to face the full wrath of the voters.
Councilmember Saylor’s comments suggest that while he may have listened to the public’s complaints, he did not hear them. He basically lectured to them about process and procedure, and then proceeded to vote as he always has, to move the project forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“There are indications that the city could get a waiver for their discharge….”
Indications from whom? A waiver forever, or just a delay?
By the way, do I understand from this that you prefer lower rates to higher water quality standards?
Don:
It would depend on the legislation that is going through right now. We’ve been given two additional years to meet water quality standards, we ought to use that time to fully weigh our options.
“By the way, do I understand from this that you prefer lower rates to higher water quality standards?”
As a rule, no. On this particular case, given our set of facts, yes, but I am not opposing the project based only on water rates.
Vanguard: Has someone calculated how much the river water project and discharge water project would raise the rates? I would love to see someone’s step-by-step calculations (including their assumptions) for each.
Don Saylor was seen in company with the water consultants who want both projects implemented at the same time. Where? At Don’s fundraiser. So we know that Don Saylor’s position to implement both projects at the same time is bought and paid for. Don Saylor is nothing but a “political whore”.
Don Saylor does not have an original thought in his brain. Note almost all of his comments are just a regurgitation of someone else’s ideas. He repeats them, thanks the originators of the ideas for their thoughts, twists the ideas around in whatever way it takes to come to the conclusion already decided by whoever contributed to his campaign – in this case the water consultants, who are looking for big bucks out of the work generated by two projects they hope to be involved with.
Don Saylor doesn’t care one bit about anything but his higher political aspirations to move forward to the County Council/Assembly. Fat chance Don!
“Except that he failed to note that the consultants had actually recommended a course correction and suggested that the city cannot engage in both a water supply project and a wastewater treatment project simultaneous. And in fact, the city needed to undergo the water supply project first rather than the approach the city was taking. Mr. Saylor would be corrected on this later and acknowledge his error.”
Give me a break, this was no “error”. He was putting out a complete falsehood to the public, and was not allowed to get away with it. Don Saylor lies like a rug whenever it suits his purposes.
“We haven’t yet gotten into the whole issue of how do we finance this. Should we be proceeding to apply for grants? We certainly should. Should we be finding low-cost ways of loans? One of those proposals is included tonight in this particular loan package that you’ve got.”
No, and Don Saylor hopes we never get to the big issue until he has moved on to bigger and better things, and does not have to deal with the political fallout of his bad decisions.
I suppose it is inevitable that rates for water and sewer are going to increase. How much is the issue. We simply cannot afford the WWTP upgrade and expansion and the river water project as they are currently planned. Right now, we do have a delay in meeting the new discharge standards and can use that time to come up with ways to cut costs of the WWTP upgrade or whatever we end up doing.
It is not just a case of either lower rates or higher water quality standards. We do eventually have to meet the state and federal standards, but there are ways to do that without a major upgrade and expansion of the WWTP. This should really be a public discussion, not something left up to the Public Works Department to decide. They always want the big, shiny new toy. They don’t have to pay for it. We do, and they figure they can just up fees and taxes endlessly. I went to a talk some years ago on this subject, and one simple way to greatly increase our waste water discharge standards is to stop using water softeners.
I suggest that we have a real public discourse on this issue and talk to other cities that have met the standards without breaking the bank. I suggest we do this soon. I understand other communities have tried, successfully, some novel approaches. Petaluma is one such community. Let’s have someone from there come and speak to us.
“By the way, do I understand from this that you prefer lower rates to higher water quality standards?”
Yes, if rates are so high it will cause people to lose their homes bc they cannot afford both a mortgage payment and a second “water/sewer mortgage payment”!
“Vanguard: Has someone calculated how much the river water project and discharge water project would raise the rates? I would love to see someone’s step-by-step calculations (including their assumptions) for each.”
I have been following the discussions pretty carefully, and from my take on it, expect your sewer rates to at a minimum, double, and possibly triple. Water rates will at a minimum double, but more likely quadruple. So at the very least, your water and sewer bill together will be no less than four times what it is now. It could be as much as seven times what it is now. There are many, many citizens in Davis who will just not be able to afford such huge rate hikes. Why do you think El Macero revolted against the rate hikes?
As for the idea of implementing the water project first, IMHO, that is a dubious solution at best. The most likely scenario will be that we cannot obtain water in the summer form the Sacto River, and will have to tap into our deep aquifers. Only problem is, that solution will cause us to not meet the new water quality standards anymore, despite having “water rights” to Sacto River water. Hence we will have to upgrade the sewer treatment plant anyway. I just don’t understand why the consultants have not addressed this problematic issue. Can someone tell me where my logic is wrong on this one? It is the water project that needs to be tabled (pardon the pun).
Financial help from the federal/state gov’t in the way of grant funding? The federal/state gov’ts are going broke, so how is that going to happen? Did you see the latest figure for our federal deficit? Does it appear to anyone that our state has money to dole out for grants, when it does not even have enough to pay its teachers/counties/cities? Hoping for grant money is doublespeak for “I don’t know how ratepayers will pay for this, but I don’t want to address that issue. Let’s talk about something else!”
The issue of “water conservation” is a red herring. Even if ratepayers stopped using water altogether, which is not possible for survival, we would still have to pay the same fixed amount for the two proposed projects – wastewater treatment plant upgrade, water importation project. Some would like people to think that water conservation will lead us to a point where we won’t need the projects, or they can be implemented at less cost. No so. The fact of the matter is, only 5% of water usage is by residents. Farmers use 85%.
When City Council members, like Asmundson and Souza start talking about reusing rice water to make soup, or water used to cook vegetables to water the lawn, you know darn well they are deflecting attention away from the real issue – which they are not willing to grapple with – which is that ratepayers CANNOT ABSORB THE COST OF TWO MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECTS STARTED AT THE SAME TIME. THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE, THE ONLY ISSUE.
I’m not comfortable with pooing on conservation. First it’s necessary independent of this. Second it politically unwise to do so.
But as DPD wrote:
“This is almost bait and switch. First, conservation has nothing to do with this project. If we need to do the project it is due to the wastewater treatment issues stemming from the water supply. Moreover, the costs involved to the ratepayer are largely fixed costs that have to be transferred regardless of consumption rates.”
That does not mean and I think this is a huge mistake on your part that we thumb our nose at conservation efforts. If you want to lose this fight, you snub conservation, it’s that simple.
“The most likely scenario will be that we cannot obtain water in the summer from the Sacto River, and will have to tap into our deep aquifers.”
There may be some years in which river water would not be available. My understanding is that the city can purchase water from other sources via water transfers. Cities always bid higher than farmers for water rights.
But if there is no surface water conveyance system in place, that is not an option. If Davis only uses well water, it cannot solve the waste water quality problem. With the addition of surface water, it can. So Davis would continue to use the ground water, combined with surface water.
In years of severe drought, such as we had in 1977, or prolonged drought such as we had 1988-93, it is possible that the governor can override water quality standards by emergency declaration. The present drought emergency appears to do that.
From all of the long discussion on these projects, it seems the logical order of things is to
— move forward with the surface water project now;
— verify that the surface water will mitigate the need for the waste water project, at least most years;
— determine if there are less costly ways to deal with waste water quality problems, and postpone the sewer project or scrap it altogether.
Water and sewer rates are going to go up. The rate increase that was just passed has little or nothing to do with these projects. They are due to ongoing maintenance and the costs of managing the current systems. You can find the projections the public works department did a year or so ago about rate increases projected for the next few years; they are on the city web site.
Again, I would urge the council to immediately set a lifeline rate for water and sewer, and direct public works to establish a more progressive rate structure based on consumption in order to encourage conservation.
There is absolutely no need for the vicious personal attacks on Don Saylor on this blog. It is fine to disagree on policy issues, even to criticize his style and mannerisms if you want. I agree he has a soporific monotone that can be numbing at times. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I disagree. But I would put his years of public service in Davis up against anyone I’ve seen post here, ever, and think that anonymous attacks on his character and motives are cowardly.
“Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I disagree. But I would put his years of public service in Davis up against anyone I’ve seen post here, ever, and think that anonymous attacks on his character and motives are cowardly.”
No, just calling a spade a spade. The water consultants, who stand to gain from the implementation of both these projects, were seen at Don Saylor’s fund raiser. That is an unholy alliance, that gives at the very least the appearance of impropriety. Don Saylor is a savvy enough politician to know better. If you look at Don’s words, he doesn’t seem to think for himself, but rather mimics others’ thoughts, then twists words around to come to his preordained and self-interested conclusion that we need both projects (water/sewer) at the same time. He also was not truthful when he attempted to misrepresent the conclusions of the consultants – that the water project should come first and both projects together are not economically feasible for ratepayers. There is just too much double speak and falsehoods coming from the mouth of Don Saylor for my comfort level.
“From all of the long discussion on these projects, it seems the logical order of things is to
— move forward with the surface water project now;
— verify that the surface water will mitigate the need for the waste water project, at least most years;
— determine if there are less costly ways to deal with waste water quality problems, and postpone the sewer project or scrap it altogether.”
What if the surface water project doesn’t mitigate the need for the wastewater treatment project in most years? Don’t you think that issue ought to be resolved before we start the surface water project? Are you so sure we need the surface water project, if in fact we cannot get water from that source in the summers, when we most need it? I have a lot more questions than answers from Public Works and Don Saylor, who both seem to know the consultants who stand to gain from both these projects way too intimately.
“I’m not comfortable with pooing on conservation. First it’s necessary independent of this. Second it politically unwise to do so.”
Well at least you are willing to admit conservation has nothing to do w the water/sewer rate increase issue. But I would ask you this: Is conservation necessary in relation to residents? 95% of our water is used by nonresidents (farmers 85%; industry/other 20%). Have you ever been by the irrigation ditches, that pour out water by the thousands of gallons in the summer heat into open ditches? The real water problem is being created by farmers, who do not pay their fair share for water, do not seem to practice good conservation techniques, and are happy to have attention diverted to residents.
I want you to think about something. Most residents are probably conserving water by running full loads of dishes and laundry, taking fairly short showers. Most of the water is used watering lawns. So let’s say everyone took out their lawn. Would you like them to take out all green plants while they are at it, so no watering of plants goes on? Does that go for city parks too? Even if we did that, or went to zero water consumption and died as a result, at most we could only conserve 5% of the water. Does that make sense to you?
Is the entire question of water conservation wrt residents a question of diminishing returns, where we spend inordinate amounts of money to conserve a little itty bit of water relatively speaking, and lose our entire quality of life w no greenery to speak of? How about instituting water police while you are at it? I mean how far do you want to go, for what is really an issue of farming wastage?
“Well at least you are willing to admit conservation has nothing to do w the water/sewer rate increase issue.”
That’s the problem with offering it as a solution to this particular problem. Conservation is always important regardless. And more importantly and the point I am trying to emphasize to you is that you will lose credibility with people when you argue against conservation in general. Focus on the issue at hand which we agree on–opposition to the water project based on rate hikes. Don’t bring in externalities that your allies will spend time arguing against. It’s bad politics. Remember who your audience is in this town–a bunch of people who primarily fancy themselves as environmentalists. You won’t win the day with these people arguing against conservation.
On May 20, there will be a Town Hall Meeting sponsored by the Davis Vanguard and Davis Neighborhood Coalition on the city’s finances and budget. For Davis residents and rate-payers, a Town Hall Meeting is long overdue on water – the wastewater treatment upgrade and the water pipeline from the Sacramento River. The City Council is unprepared and unable to answer directly the questions and concerns raised time and again. We need a comprehensive list of our questions and we need to get the answers that we deserve from our elected officials.
Most important, we must take to the City Council the language of an ordinance to ensure that our current public water services remain under local, public control. The record is clear – in California, elsewhere in the U.S., and across the globe – that when water services are either owned or managed and operated under contract to the city – rates go up and service goes down. Our public city water utilities do not have to turn a large profit to pay CEOs, shareholders and investors as private water corporations must do.
Please go to http://www.defendingwaterincalifornia.org and read “California Communities Join Global Water Democracy Movement” at the left bottom of the new “Water Democracy in California: Community Rights Not Corporate Control” (continued to page 4) that I co-researched and wrote with the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water.
Support the call for a Town Hall Meeting on Water.
Nancy
Don:
We can address our waste water problems without bringing in river water. As I mentioned before, one simple step is to stop using water softeners. There are other things we can do too to upgrade the plant to meet standards WITHOUT the massive upgrade and expansion public works and Don Saylor want. That is why I suggested we talk to other communities that have done it.
The consultants were bought and paid for by those who want the projects.
Bringing in river water will not solve our problems. It is not available to us in the summer time and may not be available at all if we have years like this one. If we could use water transfers, we would be doing it now. Finally, Sacramento River water is not pure or clean. It is contaminated with many chemicals (hormones, antibiotice, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, herbicides, pesticides, etc. that have to be removed before it is drinkable, and for some of these chemicals, there is no method for removal and no standard for safety.
We should just stop talking about this project. It is not feasible or affordable, nor would it help us. We should be using deep aquifer wells and, if needed, using well head treatment. That is a lot cheaper and more environmentally sound.
Petaluma built a new sewer plant and passed water and sewer rate increases to pay for it:
“The water and sewer rate package in force in the city since 2007 calls for:
* Water rates to rise 8 percent in 2009
* Sewer rates to go up 13 percent.
* In total, monthly water rates for the average Petaluma household will rise from $33 in 2007 to $42 in 2011.
* Average monthly sewer rates would go from $44 to $80 in that time.”
Local residents opposed to the increases put a rate rollback on the ballot in 2008, which failed.
“If we could use water transfers, we would be doing it now.”
We don’t have the infrastructure to do that.
“Sacramento River water is not pure or clean. It is contaminated with many chemicals (hormones, antibiotice, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, herbicides, pesticides, etc. that have to be removed before it is drinkable, and for some of these chemicals, there is no method for removal and no standard for safety.”
There is no evidence that I’m aware of that Sacramento river water is either more or less safe than Davis groundwater.
From http://www.ewg.org/
1998 – 2003
Davis:
18 total contaminants detected.
Contaminants found above health based limits: 2 (arsenic, radon)
Sacramento:
17 total contaminants detected.
Contaminants found above health based limits: 2 (arsenic, tetracloroethylene).
No violations were found for either system between 1998 and 2003.
Don – I think you are missing the main point. Doing both projects at the same time is not economically feasible. It just is not. If we do the water project first, and it turns out water is not available in the summer, so that we must pump from wells, the chances are the water discharged from our sewer plant will not meet federal/state standards, which brings us back to being forced to implement the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. I say scrap the water project, and see if we can do a sewer plant upgrade as cheaply as possible, and mitigate in other ways (e.g. disallow water softeners). Already Public Works is admitting we could save money by discharging wastewater into Conaway Ranch for irrigation purposes. Funny how Public Works didn’t think of that possibility until they were forced to look for cost cutting measures. Remember, both these projects will keep Public Works busy, busy, busy. But it will bring the City of Davis/ratepayers to the edge of bankruptcy, bankruptcy, bankruptcy.
“That’s the problem with offering it as a solution to this particular problem. Conservation is always important regardless. And more importantly and the point I am trying to emphasize to you is that you will lose credibility with people when you argue against conservation in general. Focus on the issue at hand which we agree on–opposition to the water project based on rate hikes. Don’t bring in externalities that your allies will spend time arguing against. It’s bad politics.”
I think you are missing the point. I am not bringing in the issue of conservation, City Councilmembers keep bringing it up as a red herring, to divert attention away from the fact we cannot afford to finance both projects at the same time. Don’t kill the messenger! I am only relating the fact that those in power keep bringing in externalities, and I am only explaining why conservation is irrelevant to the water/sewer discussion. I am not against conservation, only against it being used as a distraction from the subject at hand.
$150 million requirement Vacaville will feel pinch of sewage plant upgrade: http://www.thereporter.com/ci_12337382?IADID=Search-www.thereporter.com-www.thereporter.com
[url][/url]