I have been against this project from the start due to two primary considerations – the expense of the project and the lack of clear need.
I know businesses made a calculation that they can live with the 2.20 percent rate hike, but they could not live with the previous one. I tend to agree that this is a decrease only on the surface and that until the bonds are sold, we do not know the true cost of the project and really we may not for some time.
Past councils did this council a disservice by failing to build the cost for this project into past water rates. While some have suggested they could not do that, they are guilty of thinking inside of the box rather than outside it.
At the same time, this council is doing the same thing to future councils if they are underestimating the ultimate cost of this project.
I have read most of the expert reports, read many of the arguments for and against, and in the end, I believe that as we bubble toward another recession, as our schools are strapped for money, as money for social services have been slashed, as people are about to lose their jobs or have reduced income, this is not the time to do this project.
I will put the onus on the leaders of this community to figure out how to get us five years down the road, ten years down the road, but that is what we need to do.
I am simply unconvinced that we cannot find a way to either pump out cleaner discharge by 2017, as we are currently in compliance, or find a way to get a variance or an extension.
I read very carefully what Ken Landau, the Deputy Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board said about compliance and I am still unconvinced that we cannot find a way to get another five years.
First he told the agency, “A change in the law that went into effect in January of this year is, if you have used up your first five years of mandatory minimum protection, if we can make findings that you have a project, you have been diligent during that first five years in trying to achieve compliance, and a number of other things that go along with that, then we can, at the Regional Board’s discretion, grant you up to an additional five years.”
The point needs to be made that we are in compliance now. Can we not argue that it will take ten years to get the financing for the water project?
He continued, “If a community is not moving forward with a project, even if we gave them protection initially, we can do discretionary fines.”
But what does it mean to be moving forward with a project – if you have a project designed and ready to go and are in the process of securing financing, is that not moving forward with a project?
The Clean Water Agency asked the wrong questions of Mr. Landau because they were trying to find justification for going forward with their project and were using Mr. Landau to counter the arguments of the opposition.
Unfortunately, we are not helped in understanding this complex debate. Consistently Councilmember Sue Greenwald has claimed to have information from experts, but none of them have come forward. Ms. Greenwald may be correct in her claims, but no one has a way to verify them and that renders them impotent in the face of on-the-record testimony from experts.
This is not a full criticism of Councilmember Greenwald, as she felt constrained, though it would have been nice to have arranged off-the-record meetings that could have verified some of the claims.
In the end, the Clean Water Agency got the answers they wanted and did not seem to explore very hard alternatives to building the water project now.
Two former Davis Mayors, one now the sitting State Senator, argued that Davis along with other entities in 1958 were offered water rights as part of building the new Monticello Dam (Lake Berryessa). Davis said no.
“The decision not to accept the water rights was unfortunate. Solano County took the rest of the water rights and Putah Creek was left to suffer. Within a short period of time, the salmon were gone and the ecological enviornment was stressed,” they write.
“This application for water from the Sacramento River is our best chance, could be our last opportunity, and we can ill afford to fail,” they write.
However, as Sue Greenwald points out, with no pun intended, this issue is water under the bridge. It was a mistake not to take surface water at that time. But she argues, “There is no particular urgency to do this project now. The urgency is manufactured because the project has momentum.”
We have forty-year water rights, and the idea that we will suddenly lose them if we do not act in the next ten years is at best speculation, and more likely simply propaganda.
The state theoretically does have the power to take water rights back if a community is not pursuing its use of water rights.
But Mr. Landau himself acknowledged, “That’s something that doesn’t happen very often, and certainly for communities where it’s recognized that, in most cases you get a water right for growth over the next several decades, so it wouldn’t make sense to take the water right back if you don’t use the water right away because you don’t have a need for it yet, but you need it for long-term growth.”
Mr. Landau added, “If the City, this group, the cities decide ‘let’s delay this for 10 years,’ I’m not part of that decision making process, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if somebody went back to the State Board and said, ‘Excuse us, they’re not using the water. Can we have it?’ I don’t know the chances of the State Water Board actually doing that, you know, agreeing to that and taking it away. It does happen occasionally, usually under extreme circumstances. But again, looking at the risks that go along with delay, that would be one for you to think about.”
This just does not appear to be nearly the threat and urgency that has been sold to the public. The state may do it, but they have only done it under extreme circumstances.
More importantly, Davis would be able to show that they are working toward a water project, just not today.
To me that argument just does not wash. I do not see this as a real danger.
I was blown away that there were 4300 protests, given that there was no organized campaign to go out and canvass for them. Some have pointed out that this was based on the Prop 218 noticed rates, perhaps.
But that number is significant. However, I saw a few notes from Councilmember Souza spinning these numbers, pointing out that this is only 4300 out of 16402, which is 26% no, which means 74% yes.
That sounds overwhelming, and indeed that is how a Prop 218 vote will count those who did not turn in their ballots. But let us think about this in another way. If we polled the public, my guess is far less than 100% will be even aware of the Prop 218 vote.
Even with newspaper coverage that reaches perhaps a third of all households and notices that many will not see or will get thrown out with the rest of the junk mail, my guess is that if we polled the public, we would find the number a lot closer to 50% than to 100% knowledge.
It is therefore conceivable that the 26% percent represents more than half of those households who actually know there is a water rate hike and know that they can protest.
We had a referendum on Target, should we not have a referendum on one of the most important issues facing this community?
In the end, I do not believe this is the right time for a water rate increase. The economy is fragile. Businesses are operating with small margins. They may be able to survive. Landlords may be able to pass costs on to renters, businesses to their customers, but all of that is going to hurt this fragile recovery.
The argument against that, I have heard over and over again, is that it “will cost more to do this project later.”
That is speculation. As Sue Greenwald argued, “The arguments that it “will cost more to do this project later” are purely speculative, and ignore the fact that our new wastewater plant payments will end in a few decades. The surface water project could cost more to undertake at a later date, and it could cost less to undertake at a later date.”
She added, “We could be facing a sluggish twenty year economy, the way Japan did. That could keep costs low or even decrease them in the future, while making the fiscal hardship for the individual ratepayer and the city even more severe.”
It is a real danger that we could pay more later than now. On the other hand, that is mitigated against the cost to the economy, the schools and social services that we face right now. If we build at a better economic time, we could be in better position to weather the rate hikes.
What I know is that now we cannot afford to do this. Whether we can or not in the future is uncertain.
Finally, the city has decreased the rates, I think based not on real cuts, but on changed assumptions.
As a compromise, I would be willing to accept a small 5 percent one-year hike in water rates, if the city agreed to put the matter up for another Prop 218 vote next year and agreed to work hard to find areas to cut costs.
If we can get the cost of this project down to a more affordable level, I think most people would be willing to accept it.
As Sue Greenwald argued, “The ‘rate decrease’ decrease that is being hyped is not real. It results mostly from changing the assumptions about costs.”
Councilmember Greenwald believes we will end up paying a lot more than we are told. Unfortunately, that information again comes from unnamed sources and we cannot evaluate or verify the information.
The sad thing is that this rate hike is going to pass council, we are going forward with it, the opposition that had developed in the face of the tripling of the water rates has dissipated just as fast as the city changed assumptions to knock down the numbers. And so, we will now see who was right.
I think we could have done this a different way and we did not have to do this now. We shall see.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Colleagues: For all of you willing to defend the community from privatization of our public water utility through a Design, Build, Operate contract, please read the reports below. Privatization is not just direct ownership; privatization is when a for-profit PRIVATE water service multi-national corporation signs a long-term contract, not just to build the facility, but for the long-term to manage and operate the water utility at a profit for their bottom-line.
There must be public utilities in the Bay Area that manage large, long water pipelines and water treatment facilities, for example, SF that gets its water from Hetch Hetchy, or East Bay MUD that gets some of its water from the Sacramento River, I believe.
We need to investigate the option of a public-public partnership – where an experienced public water utility and staff would provide the expertise and training for the Davis/Woodland Public Works. I have no confidence that the Davis City Council is taking seriously the issue of privatization and it is up to the readers here to read these reports, become informed and take a stand.
Here is the procurement schedule for the design-build-operate (DBO) contract for the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project. The board expects to issue a final RFP in October.
Present major components of RFP to Agency Board 6/30/2011
Issue draft RFP to short-listed DBO teams & post to Agency Website 8/2011
Issue final RFP 10/2011
DBO teams submit initial concept proposal 12/2011
Agency responds to concept proposal 2/2012
Final Proposal due from DBO teams 4/2012
Present preferred DBO team recommendation to Agency Board 6/2012
Negotiate with Selected Team(s) 6/12 – 11/12
Board award of service contract 11/2012
As for Veolia, Please read the corporate profile at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/veolia-environnement-a-profile/
CDM is leading a team that includes United Water. There is a United Water profile at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/united-water/
Finally CH2M HIll. There is not a corporate profile at the Food and Water website, but there are two case studies on East Cleveland, OH, and Stockton, CA, about CH2M Hill, and its subsidiary OMI on pages 19 and 21 of the Food and Water report titled: Faulty Pipes at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/faulty-pipes/
For an overview of public-private partnerships like the Design, Build, Operate RFP that has been posted for this water pipeline, you can read the briefing paper at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/factsheet/public-private-partnerships-issues-and-difficulties-with-private-water-service/
[quote]I have read most of the expert reports, read many of the arguments for and against, and in the end, I believe that as we bubble toward another recession, as our schools are strapped for money, as money for social services have been slashed, as people are about to lose their jobs or have reduced income, this is not the time to do this project.[/quote]
In other words, the school tax extension is more important than a reliable water supply?
[quote]I will put the onus on the leaders of this community to figure out how to get us five years down the road, ten years down the road, but that is what we need to do.[/quote]
I will put the onus on the Vanguard to figure out how to get us 5 or 10 years down the road. And by the way, the schools will still want to pass parcel taxes, and water rate increases will still provide a competing interest to school parcel taxes.
[quote]I am simply unconvinced that we cannot find a way to either pump out cleaner discharge by 2017, as we are currently in compliance, or find a way to get a variance or an extension.
I read very carefully what Ken Landau, the Deputy Executive Officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board said about compliance and I am still unconvinced that we cannot find a way to get another five years.[/quote]
How can we pump out “cleaner discharge” by 2017? How do you know we can get a variance/extension until we can pay off the wastewater treatment plant? Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking to me…
[quote]In the end, the Clean Water Agency got the answers they wanted and did not seem to explore very hard alternatives to building the water project now.[/quote]
What alternatives? The federal gov’t is going to force the SWQRCB to impose set fines. The SWQRCB is going to have no choice but to impose those fines if communities are not making a good faith effort to come into compliance. I very much doubt the SWQRCB would consider putting off the water project to ensure a school parcel tax gets passed as a good faith effort to come into compliance.
[quote]We have forty-year water rights, and the idea that we will suddenly lose them if we do not act in the next ten years is at best speculation, and more likely simply propaganda.
The state theoretically does have the power to take water rights back if a community is not pursuing its use of water rights.
But Mr. Landau himself acknowledged, “That’s something that doesn’t happen very often, and certainly for communities where it’s recognized that, in most cases you get a water right for growth over the next several decades, so it wouldn’t make sense to take the water right back if you don’t use the water right away because you don’t have a need for it yet, but you need it for long-term growth.”[/quote]
But Davis has a slow growth policy. Don’t you think the SWQRCB is going to know that? With so many competing for water rights, do you really believe Davis is going to be allowed to sleep on those rights for the next 25 years? I wouldn’t want to bet the farm on it…
I urge the council to pass the rate hikes [b]and[/b] apply for the variance.
[quote]I was blown away that there were 4300 protests, given that there was no organized campaign to go out and canvass for them. Some have pointed out that this was based on the Prop 218 noticed rates, perhaps.[/quote]
These were protests based on the Prop 218 rate increase of 3.5. Now the increase will only be 2. That makes a tremendous difference…
[quote]We had a referendum on Target, should we not have a referendum on one of the most important issues facing this community?[/quote]
Feel free to start a referendum, and let the voters decide…
[quote]In the end, I do not believe this is the right time for a water rate increase. The economy is fragile. Businesses are operating with small margins. They may be able to survive. Landlords may be able to pass costs on to renters, businesses to their customers, but all of that is going to hurt this fragile recovery.[/quote]
I would argue now that the rate increases have been reduced to a more manageable level, businesses are very much in favor of the surface water project.
[quote]The argument against that, I have heard over and over again, is that it “will cost more to do this project later.” That is speculation. [/quote]
Not any more speculative than your assumption the SWQRCB will not fine the city enough to do away with any cost savings realized from delaying the project; not any more speculative than assuming the deep level aquifers will be a sufficient and uncontaminated water supply for the next 25 years; not any more speculative that water rights will not be taken away if we sleep on them; not any more speculative that interest rates and construction costs will somehow be more favorable in the future as the economy picks up (which is counterintuitive and very unlikely), etc.
[quote] As Sue Greenwald argued, “The arguments that it “will cost more to do this project later” are purely speculative, and ignore the fact that our new wastewater plant payments will end in a few decades. [/quote]
The savings on the wastewater treatment plant that Council member Greenwald keeps touting are predicated on building the surface water project first and foremost, so that cleaner water that needs less treatment will be coming into the wastewater treatment plant.
[quote]As a compromise, I would be willing to accept a small 5 percent one-year hike in water rates, if the city agreed to put the matter up for another Prop 218 vote next year and agreed to work hard to find areas to cut costs.[/quote]
The city and a citizens group is working very, very hard to keep costs at a minimum…
[quote]I think we could have done this a different way and we did not have to do this now. We shall see.[/quote]
Have faith that the city recognizes very strongly that we have to find cost savings for this project wherever possible, bc the future of this city and its businesses is at stake…
Just put this project on the ballot and let the voters decide if they want the project, and if they want to pay for it.
The Prop 218 process was noticed for the summer, ending just before numerous residents return for the start of the UCD academic year. What a time-honored way to slip something past the public! Unfortunately, it works just about all the time.
Also, many renters either directly pay for water/sewer, or they are billed in their monthly rent. Those rate payers probably know nothing about the surface water project, and would have no information that would lead them to turn in the protest form.
In response to the “sky is falling” shrill arguments that this project has to be built NOW.
I heard similar arguments made in support of the Covell Village project: “we have to build this housing NOW or Davis will face disaster.” Remember the “sky will fall and hit us on the head” letter on Yolo County stationary by then-Supervisor Helen Thompson?
Well, in fact it turns out by defeating Measure X by 60/40, the the No on X Steering Committee actually saved Davis from what would be by now a bankrupt wasteland of half-built streets north of the Nugget.
Those project proponents and the local real estate industry owe the Steering Committee members at least a holiday bottle of wine for preventing disaster. I am still waiting for mine.
Remember the UCD Biolab? Remember the “we have to build it NOW or the terrorists will get us with ebola” arguments? Well, the community stopped that lab in its tracts, and President Bush sent it to Texas. Bless them.
Nancy Price is right. This project is a disaster in so many ways, and should be shut down and stopped. The community will thank itself later.
To nprice: Again I repeat, have you approached the Dept. of Public Works with your concerns? If yes, what was there response? If no, why not?
Don Shor has it right. Apply for the variance; if we get it, postpone the project. If not, build it now.
I would just like to remind folks that the decrease in rate hikes is primarily just a change in assumption about interest rates, which could be higher or lower; we don’t know until the morning after the bonds are issued.
Additionally, the rates are based on assumptions about project price which are being made from sketchy data; we do not yet know what the will cost. I have talked with knowledgeable people who think the project will cost more than predicted.
“These were protests based on the Prop 218 rate increase of 3.5. Now the increase will only be 2. That makes a tremendous difference…”
ERM, since when are you trusting of city finance predictions? You seem to have made a 180 degree turn when it comes to this project. Do you really believe it will now only double when they were throwing much higher figures at us all along? I think what we have here is just pass the project attitude and let the public deal with the much higher than anticipated costs later.
[i]”It is therefore conceivable that the 26% percent represents more than half of those households [b]who actually know there is a water rate hike[/b] and know that they can protest.”[/i]
100% of property owners were sent a form which on which they could register a protest.
I am not saying that that a majority of property owners favor this water plan. But I think the vast majority–over 90%–are aware of it. I suspect some who oppose the rate hike think it is futile to protest it.
@ Observer; I think the project should go forward. I just think they should apply for the variance as a hedge against future complications, or to find out if the variance would be approved. I do not favor delaying the water project.
An interesting development today on water: Jerry Brown signed into law AB 134 ([url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0101-0150/ab_134_bill_20110822_enrolled.pdf[/url]).
The Bee says: “A bill allowing Sacramento to sell its treated wastewater was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown today, clearing one hurdle that [u]could help the region pay for expensive sewage treatment plant upgrades[/u]. The bill, AB 134 … allows the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District to apply to the State Water Resources Control Board for a permit to sell its recycled sewage effluent on the open water market. It also allows the district to obtain a state-issued water right in an amount equal to its recycled effluent volume — 180,000 acre-feet a year — which would significantly increase its value.”
This bill DOES NOT apply to Davis or Woodland or anywhere but Sacramento. However, it would seem likely that it could serve as a model for selling other treated water down the road.
“…the opposition that had developed in the face of the tripling of the water rates has dissipated..”
David…. what evidence have you for the above statement?
“These were protests based on the Prop 218 rate increase of 3.5. Now the increase will only be 2. That makes a tremendous difference…”
My experience on the steering committee for Measure X is that Davis voters are astute and take serious affront to attempts to manipulate them. This new rate hike which is based upon “new assumptions” will be recognized as such an attempt and will likely harden rather than “dissipate” resistance to the project. With 26% of property owners submitting a prop 18 protest, in spite of the already articulated problems it presents to a true citizen voice, a citizen-initiated referendum to halt this project at this time will garner an overwhelming majority vote.
The rate issue is actually irrelevant. The real issue is that the council is fast-tracking the surface water project.
It doesn’t matter what the council says the rates are. Once those bonds are issued, the rates will have to be whatever it takes to pay the interest and principle on the bonds. If we aren’t collecting enough, council will have to come back for more. If the rates hikes are lower in the next 5 years, they will level out at a higher level for the following 35 years.
Council affirmed a fast-tracked project without even knowing what the project costs will be, and without knowing what pending storm sewer upgrades will cost (which haven’t even been factored into existing rates scenarios). Rates will have to rise to pay for the project that the council approves.
Council wouldn’t even second my motion to apply for a variance on the grounds of current fiscal infeasibility which could have given us the flexibility to phase in the surface water project after we pay off most or all of our new waste water plant. This, council is intentionally creating a situation in which we really will have no choice.
Again, council has not decreased rates (unless you are planning to move from Davis in the next seven years.) Council will have to raise the rates to cover the project, and for every amount deferred during the next 5 years, there will be 35 or 40 years of even higher payments.
[quote]ERM, since when are you trusting of city finance predictions? You seem to have made a 180 degree turn when it comes to this project. Do you really believe it will now only double when they were throwing much higher figures at us all along? I think what we have here is just pass the project attitude and let the public deal with the much higher than anticipated costs later.[/quote]
I did not do a 180 degree turn when it comes to this project. I refused to come to a definite decision on the surface water project until very, very recently. I ultimately decided to recommend approval of the NEW REVISED water rate increases (in which they doubled as opposed to more than tripled) at the eleventh hour as more in line with what citizens can afford. I joined a group that approached the Dept. of Public Works. It was explained by our group that the steep rates in the Prop 218 notice were unsustainable by citizens and businesses alike. It was also explained we do not need to build a Taj Mahal type water/sewer project, just a bare bones one that will do the job. Ultimately the Dept. of Public Works finally seemed to hear what we were saying, and was willing to work at finding ways to reduce rate increases to a more sustainable level.
Last night, the City Council approved the surface water project on a 4-1 vote, but at the minimum water rate increase suggested by the staff report (14% each year over six years). A citizen group will be formed by the City Council (each Council member will choose 2 people to sit on this advisory committee) to keep a sharp eye on this project, to make sure it does not go over budget and result in unsustainable water rate increases. It is going to take constant citizen pressure to keep project costs in line. The idea was to let the contractor of this project/JPA know it has X amount of dollars to work with and no more – to live within a fixed budget.
I am actually glad that a great number of citizens have been engaged on this issue, have spoken out against the steep increases in the Prop 218 notice, but have also expressed a need for a more reliable source of water. No one seems to disagree with the need for the surface water project at some point in time. This issue is extremely complicated, difficult, costly. IMO, all because some idiot federal legislators/environmentalists pushed for unrealistic water quality standards back in 1972, but had no idea just how expensive the fiscal impacts of such draconian standards would be – and frankly didn’t care bc they would be out of office by the time the chickens came home to roost.
The fact of the matter is that the SWQRCB has emphatically stated it will not allow communities to fiscally benefit from inaction/noncompliance, and will impose fines accordingly. The SWQRCB also let it be known that it has little discretion when it comes to fines, as there are federal mandates in place on how/when/how much fines must be. I cannot conceive of the SWQRCB or the federal gov’t lowering water quality standards in the future. Instead, water quality standards are going to get more stringent as time goes on.
Secondly, if we had put off the surface water project for too long, there is no guarantee that our purchased water rights would be available in the future. With so many clamoring for water rights, the SWQRCB could have very well taken away our water rights if we slept on them for a long period of time. This is a new day and a new dawn, with a different mind set at the SWQRB and at the federal level. Thirdly, we don’t know how long our deep level aquifers will last/or be a source of unacceptable contamination. Subsidence is a very real problem for our wells.
If citizens wish to have a voter referendum on the surface water issue, to “undo” the approval, feel free to move forward with it. It is certainly the right of the citizenry in a democracy to do so. But I would strongly suggest that these same citizens have a back up plan in mind, if they succeed at voting down the surface water project. The fallout from a failure to move forward with the surface water project may not be to their liking or quite what they expected. I would hate to see us not move forward with the surface water project, then be fined whatever amount we thought we could save by not doing the project, so that we end up paying increased rates through fines, but have nothing to show for it – no new reliable source of water. Meanwhile our deep level aquifers may not pan out like this citizenry opposed to the surface water project had hoped, and suddenly we are faced with extreme water rationing. I repeat – WHAT IS THE BACK-UP PLAN if the surface water project is halted?
“In other words, the school tax extension is more important than a reliable water supply?”
If I believed this was the only path to reliable water and an assurance of reliable water you could question me. But I believe neither are the case.
Thank you, Neutral: The DBO as a bad business model was my point, maybe badly made, when I addressed the council last night during the “one minute” group.
It’s a point that doesn’t get enough airing even in this blog. The idea that we should invest public money and then turn around and hand over the keys to a private company who will most assuredly extract profits is surely a source of cost savings.
I support the many benefits of this project and question the sanity of people who are against it ONLY because of the cost. That said I worry very much about the impact of the cost on certain sectors of our community. The Ranch Yolo presentations were very compelling. The impact on seniors and other with fixed incomes or those with household incomes less than $80K are significant and become critical as income declines.
I see the way forward not in undermining the project but really challenging the CC and staff to find ways to spread out the cost more equitably. There were many small suggestions that the naysayers would do well to list and publicize. If you want to have a positive impact on this debate, please incorporate funding, financing and cost saving strategies as part of your campaign. Just saying “no” and being successful leaves the entire community and our future in a deep hole.
DBO is a glaring example of something to hate about this project. There is plenty of pie to go around when and if this thing is built for engineering companies, construction trades, etc., but let’s not lock in private control into the future. Remember the PG&E vote to set up public power? Why do you think PG&E spent $15M against the small war chest put up by public power advocates? Because they know you and I are part of the great cash cow that gives a little milk everyday.
To davehart: Very thoughtful commentary. Thank you…