When Supervisor Matt Rexroad received letters against the radio tower that may be placed at the Yolo County Landfill, he was quick to highlight a letter that he thought was a bit odd, and in addition to quoting it, he derisively stated, “You don’t see stuff like this in Woodland.”
Of course, none of this was mentioned by any of delegation that spoke to council.
Imagine what Matt Rexroad would be saying if Davis leaders had such audacity. Even people who basically agree with Mr. Rexroad on the issue were taken aback by the tone.
The general tone was that if Davis does not go forward with this project at this time, Woodland would go it alone and that it would be much more expensive for Davis to buy into the process later on.
Woodland Councilmember Bill Marble, who sits on the JPA along with Martie Dotie, emphasized the fact that he grew up in Davis and his parents still own a house in town.
“I urge you to consider that your decision tonight will not only impact your ratepayers but Woodland’s as well,” he said. “Woodland has worked hard to advance the surface water project and has fully honored every one of our commitments to the partnership. We ask the same of you.”
“The need for completion by the year 2016 is clear, we simply cannot afford the severe fines and penalties that will result from delay,” he said. “If your decision intimates that the project need not be completed by the year 2016, you will send the wrong signal to key officials we have worked closely with and it will jeopardize our ability to build a joint intake facility with reclamation district 2035. Without question the joint intake is the least costly and most environmentally sound option that we have.”
Councilmember Skip Davies noted that Woodland has already gone through a number of rate increases, it was never a comfortable thing to have to ask, but he knew it was a call he had to make.
“I hope that you don’t do anything that would delay the project,” he said. “Allow us to go forward for at least a couple of years while you sort things out a little more. That would be very important that you allow that to happen.”
He warned, “If you choose otherwise, I’ve been a proponent of straight talk, and I think you ask Woodland by doing that to consider opportunities for independent action.”
Skip Davies was mindful of the awkwardness of the situation stating, “I’m very very cautious about coming into to somebody else’s house and tell[ing] them to how to do their business.”
Mayor Artemio Pimentel noted that their own council is divided on a lot of issues, but on the issue of water they are unanimous in supporting this project.
“We have been unanimous in taking the political risk to increase rates at a time when it is not a good time to be doing that,” he said. “Time after time, the option that has been best for both our communities is the surface water project.”
“One of the things I want to [im]press on all of you, like Vice Mayor Davies said earlier, I don’t want to come into your house and tell you what to do, but I do want to let you know what the implications are for our community and the real concerns that we have about our partner who we thought was right behind us and we should be moving forward together on this, could possibly move in a different direction and there are real concerns for that,” the Woodland Mayor told the Davis City Council.
Mayor Pimentel asked, “Does Davis understand the significant additional cost that their delay will cost to both cities if the project is delayed? If the project is delayed due to Davis actions, who do they see paying for these costs? What is Davis’ vision for the JPA if they delay and Woodland has to move ahead?”
While everyone tried to be polite, it was very clear that the comments were both pointed and concerned. However, it was Matt Rexroad, the supervisor who is not directly part of the JPA process, who made the most pointed comments.
“Any representation that you all are considering getting on a train that’s just sitting in station, ready, is ridiculous, in my mind,” he said. “This train has been moving forward for a number of years now.”
“Your choice tonight isn’t really whether you get on the train or off the train at the station but it’s potentially whether you want to get off a moving train that’s already been moving down the tracks for a long time,” he continued with the train metaphor. “If you choose to do that, that’s up to you.”
Mr. Rexroad argued that the guy moving the train has been Bill Marble, whom he argues has used his unique expertise to get this done.
“Mr. Marble’s been driving this for a long time,” he said. “If you choose to get off the train, you owe the guy an apology because he has been working not only on behalf of Woodland but Davis during this whole process.”
One can only imagine if a Davis councilmember made similar comments in Woodland, what Mr. Rexroad’s reaction would have been.
Finally, Mr. Rexroad argued that in the movies the train is easy to get back on, “That’s not the case here. If Davis chooses to get off the train that’s fine, but this train is going to keep moving. Woodland’s got to go forward on this.”
“Reentry onto the train,” he said, “costs a very nice shiny golden ticket and if you choose to do that, the fare’s a whole lot more getting back on the train than it was before.”
As I mentioned, even people generally supportive of Woodland’s position were taken aback by the audacity of Mr. Rexroad’s comments.
The irony about the pointedness of Mr. Rexroad’s comments is that he is not an actual decision-maker in this process. He is coming into Davis’ house, reluctantly or not, ordering them around, and threatening them.
Not one of the six Woodland representatives – not one – mentioned the referendum which is what is driving the Davis council to have to reexamine this issue. I was told this was not Woodland’s problem.
While that may be, it does very much impact what Davis’ council can do. Their hands are largely tied.
The idea that, because Woodland was able to deal with this issue in a certain way, Davis is going to be able to do the same is not realistic. Some suggested or implied a lack of commitment or leadership by the Davis council – but the Davis council could not just ignore the will of the people, even if they believed the referendum itself to be invalid.
That is part of the disconnect here. There is an arrogance, actually, on the part of those six leaders to come in and interfere. Davis has to figure out its own issues and whether Woodland’s council and Mr. Rexroad want to acknowledge it or not, Davis cannot ignore the will of the people.
The idea that leadership was going to lead them on this issue is ridiculous. The people of Davis may elect their representatives, but the representatives are not the dog, they are the tail and the people lead, not the politicians. Anyone who fails to understand that, in this community, runs huge risks of not being reelected or worse yet, being recalled.
In order for the Davis City Council to move forward, they have to bring the people with them, and right now that is going to require a public vote and more time. If Woodland can’t wait, then they will have to pay a lot more money to go it alone. I think that would be exceedingly irresponsible, when all five members of the Davis City Council agree that the water supply project has to happen, but there are details that should have been worked out that weren’t.
As Rochelle Swanson said, “We didn’t do the things that you did,” starting with the rate study and the early formation of an oversight committee.
But, make no mistake, Davis needs to do this to get to where Woodland is, but Davis did what they had to do, they had to pause this because the public was not with them on this.
Woodland needed to keep their nose out of Davis’ affairs – they have simply emphasized yet again my reticence about the JPA process and the fact that Davis’ values and traditions are not necessarily compatible with Woodland’s.
Remember, the ethical concerns were non-issues to the Woodland councilmembers. The only thing they seem to care about is the bottom line. We do not do things the way they do them in Woodland, and I for one am glad about that.
Woodland needs to either accept that Davis is different from them and work with these differences, or they really do need to go a separate way and allow Davis to proceed at its own pace. If they want to pay twice as much rather than wait, then so be it. But I suspect they will find a way to work with Davis because it is still in their best interest to do so.
—David M. Greenwald
[quote]The general tone was that if Davis does not go forward with this project at this time, that Woodland would go it alone and that it would be much more expensive for Davis to buy into the process later on.[/quote]
I warned about this. If Davis fails to honor its commitment to the JPA, I suspect all bets are off. Woodland can possibly rewrite the contract to suit its needs, including changing the terms to be more favorable to Woodland and less favorable to Davis, should Davis decide to “get back on the train”.
[quote]That is part of the disconnect here. There is an arrogance actually on the part of those six leaders to come in and interfere. Davis has to figure out its own issues and if Woodland’s Council and Mr. Rexroad want to acknowledge it or not, Davis cannot ignore the will of the people.[/quote]
The disconnect and arrogance is more on the part of Davis, IMO. For Davis to think it can “opt in” to building the surface water project w Woodland when it feels like it is not realistic, reasonable, nor likely. In point of fact, if Woodland has to “go it alone”, it is far more likely they will build a MUCH SMALLER PROJECT to just suit their own needs in order to keep costs down. And Davis will essentially be out of luck… that is the reality of Davis’ position if it decides to dither too long about joining in with Woodland to build the surface water project.
As I said last night, there are consequences to a decision to delay the surface water project, and the consequences are not pretty…
[quote]As Rochelle Swanson said, “we didn’t do the things that you did,” starting with the rate study and the early formation of an oversight committee.—[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]Actually, David, this is not the entire story. According to our city staff, Davis was in fact ahead of Woodland when it comes to financing the project. We had done our Prop. 218 hearing that covered the rate increases needed to float our bonds, and Woodland has not done this yet.
According to our City Staff, Woodland was behind us at the time that the Woodland City Council spoke last night. According to our City Staff, Woodland still has to double their water rates in order to be at a point that they can float their bonds for this project. And in terms of appointing a committee, I don’t see how that particularly changes anything. Why would a committee of 10 or twenty citizens appointed by the Council speak for the entire population? As you have pointed out, David, the majority of Davis appointees appear to basically reflect the opinions of those who appointed them.
In fact, we were way ahead of Woodland in terms of financing the project when the Woodland City Council addressed the Davis City Council.
“I warned about this. If Davis fails to honor its commitment to the JPA, I suspect all bets are off. Woodland can possibly rewrite the contract to suit its needs, including changing the terms to be more favorable to Woodland and less favorable to Davis, should Davis decide to “get back on the train”.”
I think that’s largely bs. Woodland would have to pay double if they go it alone, that fact alone gives the city of Davis all the leverage they need.
” According to our city staff, Davis was in fact ahead of Woodland when it comes to financing the project. We had done our Prop. 218 hearing that covered the rate increases needed to float our bonds, and Woodland has not done this yet.”
I’m sorry, but I fail to see what difference that makes. Davis needs to reconsider the project, its scope, and how to proceed. Woodland is ready to move forward. I don’t think they can without Davis, but we’ll see.
[b]@E. Roberts Musser:[/b] When the University backed out of their participation in the project, did you warn them that Davis would exact a price from them if they decided to buy in later? Of course not. And we wouldn’t. We will be happy for any help at all to deal with the extraordinarily high rates that will result when we have to do the project without UC Davis’ help.
I noticed an interesting apparent difference between Davis and Woodland, as represented by the Woodland City Council. The Woodland council talked about “getting off groundwater” and “replacing groundwater with Sacramento River water”. We have always talked about “conjunctive use”, i.e., using both groundwater and river water.
That probably accounts for some or all of the fact that Woodland is facing fines while we are not. If the Woodland council means that, then they probably have not been developing their groundwater system to prepare for conjunctive use, and hence have not been digging enough deeper aquifer wells (since they said they are planning to leave groundwater). That would lead to much higher selenium and salinity levels.
[quote]I’m sorry, but I fail to see what difference that makes. Davis needs to reconsider the project, its scope, and how to proceed. Woodland is ready to move forward. I don’t think they can without Davis, but we’ll see.—[b]David Greenwald[/b][/quote]I suspect you are right on that one, David. I am just concerned that lower income citizens, those below the median $60,000 a year household income, including seniors on fixed incomes, and our restaurant sector will not be able to afford the rates associated with $300 million of new water, wastewater infrastructure and supplementary water rights costs simultaneously, without phasing them in or finding a way to substantially cut the total costs.
[quote]I think that’s largely bs. Woodland would have to pay double if they go it alone, that fact alone gives the city of Davis all the leverage they need.[/quote]
You think my opinion is bs? Really? Was that language really necessary? I have no problem with you disagreeing, but was the pejorative necessary? Sorry to sidetrack on this issue, but I would really like to keep the discussion civil in nature. It is extremely important to do so moving forward…
To your point: It appears if Woodland has to go it alone, they will build a much smaller, cheaper plant (a capacity of 20mgd versus the planned 52mgd). So Davis will have NO LEVERAGE to get back in the game…
I understand that Davis delayed the project, but the headline says that Woodland’s “ill-advised pressure on Davis backfires”. I fail to see any consequence to Woodland’s pressure – they made their case and it didn’t work. That is not nearly the same as backfiring.
[quote]@E. Roberts Musser: When the University backed out of their participation in the project, did you warn them that Davis would exact a price from them if they decided to buy in later? Of course not. And we wouldn’t. We will be happy for any help at all to deal with the extraordinarily high rates that will result when we have to do the project without UC Davis’ help. [/quote]
As was explained to you before on this issue, the University was going to pay a much smaller portion of the surface water project than Woodland; and the University has struck a deal to sell water to Davis when Davis needs it – a quid quo pro for the University backing out of the JPA. Woodland and the University are two entirely different scenarios…
@E. Roberts Musser: The University has struck a deal to sell water to Davis when Davis needs it? Please explain. Correct me if I am wrong, but this has never come before council to my knowledge. What water do they “have” to sell? Have they actually piped Berryessa water to UC Davis?
[quote]@E. Roberts Musser: The University has struck a deal to sell water to Davis when Davis needs it? Please explain. Correct me if I am wrong, but this has never come before council to my knowledge. What water do they “have” to sell? Have they actually piped Berryessa water to UC Davis?[/quote]
It is my understanding it is water from the Solano Water District. Don Shor knows a fair amount about this issue…
Elaine: I don’t think your opinion is bs, I think what was floated by Woodland last night was.
“It appears if Woodland has to go it alone, they will build a much smaller, cheaper plant (a capacity of 20mgd versus the planned 52mgd). So Davis will have NO LEVERAGE to get back in the game… “
I’d be interested to see the cost difference there, my guess is that’s small potatoes. It will be cheaper for Woodland to partner even if they have a smaller project and thus I believe if they start alone they will construct it in such a way Davis can join them in two years. They’d be foolish not to.
“I understand that Davis delayed the project, but the headline says that Woodland’s “ill-advised pressure on Davis backfires”. I fail to see any consequence to Woodland’s pressure – they made their case and it didn’t work. That is not nearly the same as backfiring.”
That’s all true, but a lot of people were really put off by it.
[quote]I’d be interested to see the cost difference there, my guess is that’s small potatoes.[/quote]
Instead of guessing, and assuming your position is correct with absolutely nothing to back it up, why don’t you talk to Mr. Diemer, and see if you can get actual figures. I did talk to him, but since nothing I say will convince you, then you need to approach him about it… that is if you want facts as opposed to guesses…
[quote]It is my understanding it is water from the Solano Water District. Don Shor knows a fair amount about this issue…[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Please explain further, and provide any documents or links if available.
[quote]That’s all true, but a lot of people were really put off by it.[/quote]
“A lot of people”? How many is “a lot”? How many people were put off by the attitude of Davis? Davis has a reputation throughout the county and farther afield for being elitist, and frankly that reputation has been earned by some of its actions and actions of its leaders over the years…
I can see where the attitude that Davis can just “opt in” when it feels like it would be considered pretty darn arrogant…
Correction: “opt in” to the surface water project
[quote]Please explain further, and provide any documents or links if available.[/quote]
It was talked about at great length on the Vanguard. Not sure I have the right articles, but here goes:
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4656:uc-davis-strategy-of-hanging-back-outside-of-the-water-fray-will-cost-davis-and-woodland-residents&Itemid=79[/url]
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4715:is-uc-davis-plan-for-growth-pressuring-davis-to-grow-as-well&Itemid=118[/url]
As I said, Don Shor knows far more about this than I do…
Woodland will wait to see what the voters in Davis will do. This gambit might have been to educate the voters of Davis more than to put pressure on our council. The fines to Woodland dictate that if Davis is out Woodland will still need to move forward somehow. If Davis can’t get a variance after getting out of the JPA we will end up spending more later to build our own intake before we pay off the treatment plant.
[i]It is my understanding it is water from the Solano Water District. Don Shor knows a fair amount about this issue…[/i]
Yes. I’ve explained this many times. UCD is buying water from the Solano Water Project, increasing their pumping from the deep aquifer (as I’ve explained, UCD is increasing deep aquifer pumping from 2300 to 5300 a-f), and using the Solano Water Project water for potable water on campus. They are selling their surplus water to the City of Davis for ten years, at which time they expect to buy City water project water. This is all part of the mitigation for the fact that they are increasing the pumping from the deep aquifer, because of course there is concern about overuse of that source.
This is part of the four-fold increase in use of the deep aquifer that will result from our current pumping plans, which I have mentioned repeatedly. That increase is expected to continue for about a decade under current water planning, which would then be reduced or eliminated by going to the deep aquifer. But under Sue’s plan, that four-fold increase in pumping from the deep aquifer would continue for 20 to 25 years, and that assumes no growth in Davis or UC Davis.
Note that UC Davis expects to grow in that time period.
If Woodland were to try to go to the deep aquifer, the situation would be even worse. So it is fortunate that Woodland is being responsible and seeking a surface water option sooner rather than later. It is also true that Woodland has a more serious regulatory issue to deal with: their selenium requirement is 3.2 in their current discharge permit, ours is 4.4. Our discharge permit comes up for renewal in 2012. Some believe that our selenium requirement is likely to go lower when the SWQ board renews our discharge permit.
[quote] It is also true that Woodland has a more serious regulatory issue to deal with: their selenium requirement is 3.2 in their current discharge permit, ours is 4.4. Our discharge permit comes up for renewal in 2012. Some believe that our selenium requirement is likely to go lower when the SWQ board renews our discharge permit. [/quote]
Excellent point!
I urge readers to review the groundwater management plan, authorized and approved by a vote of the city council in 2005, which details the management of groundwater by UCD and the city. Note that long-term pumping from the deep aquifer affects some of these qualitative objectives in section 3:
• Minimize the long-term drawdown of groundwater levels;
• Protect groundwater quality such that it remains viable for public water supply;
• Prevent adverse inelastic land surface subsidence from occurring as a result of groundwater pumping;
• Minimize changes to surface water flows and quality that directly affect groundwater levels or quality;
• Minimize the effect of groundwater pumping on surface water flows and quality in sensitive areas of Putah Creek;
• Develop, plan, and implement groundwater replenishment and cooperative management
projects; and
• Work collaboratively with and understand the goals and objectives of entities engaged in groundwater management in surrounding areas.”
There are, as I have noted before, monitoring steps being undertaken which have specific triggers that lead to mitigation of adverse impacts.
“Quantitative water level BMOs have been developed to measure groundwater management
performance against the qualitative objectives, specifically,
• Minimizing the long-term drawdown of groundwater levels, and
• Maintaining groundwater levels to protect existing infrastructure.”
“Resolution actions that will be initiated if water levels fall below a trigger level may include any or a
combination of the following:
• Continued monitoring;
• Additional conservation measures and reduced groundwater pumping;
• System reoperation to redirect pumping either to another area or depth interval;
• Development of new wells to allow reduced pumping from existing wells; and
• Acceleration of surface water supply source development.”
Document here (pdf): [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/DavisGroundwaterManagementplan.pdf[/url]
“A 1942 photograph (top) of a reach of the Santa Cruz River south of Tucson, Arizona, shows stands of mesquite and cottonwood trees along the river. A photograph (bottom) of the same site in 1989 shows that the riparian trees have largely disappeared, as a result of lowered ground-water levels. Photos: Robert H. Webb, USGS.”
[img]http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-103-03/images/fig3.JPG[/img]
[url]http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-103-03/[/url]
I don’t view their “pressure” as ill advised at all. Why on earth would they want to partner with a city as dysfunctional as Davis? If I were a member of the Woodland City council, I would advise going with the 4th option that was described last night: go forward with the facilities that address Woodland’s water needs, and let Davis solve their own problems in their own way. Last night out council again did the only thing it seems capable of doing; postponing. I agree with Souza–vote it up or down as soon as possible. If the majority of the voters in Davis want to rely on the wells until they crap out or the feds prohibit it and then try to figure out a viable water solution, so be it. I’m sure Dunning, Harrington, Greenwald, etc will provide a solution.
Adam Smith said . . .
[i]”I understand that Davis delayed the project, but the headline says that Woodland’s “ill-advised pressure on Davis backfires”. I fail to see any consequence to Woodland’s pressure – they made their case and it didn’t work. That is not nearly the same as backfiring.”[/i]
I concur 100% Adam.
The headline should have read “Woodland’s overt pressure on Davis has no effect”
Sorry but the vanguard’s headline is misleading. to say that it “backfired” isn’t true if council members already had their collective minds made up before rexroad and the others said anything.
furthermore, to put this off as the arrogance of Woodland is 180 degrees the opposite of the truth – this is the arrogance of Davis – deciding it can opt in and out of the project when it feels like and the people who spoke were venting their collective frustrations on that, and rightfully so.
The only thing they seem to care about is the bottom line.
oh, gee and that is not the pot calling the kettle black? and I saw the vanguard had as one of its main reasons for opposing the project in the first place was because it would potentially be to the detriment of that goddamned school parcel tax – a crappy reason, and a VERY SELFISH ONE.
The Woodland Council has already made the decision for future massive residential development. Now they have to find the water needed if they are to carry out this plan.
David, I find the headline misleading and as one poster put it “180 degrees the wrong way.” Having listened to the Woodland CC and Sup. Rexroad I kept thinking that that arrogance of Davis is partly to blame for this. It has sometimes been played out on these pages with snide remarks about Woodland politicians and even last night with the efforts of Woodland CC members to connect themselves to Davis. Would Davisites going in front of Woodland CC (if they even would) mention that they graduated from Woodland High? The notion that has been noted here by some that we ought to go alone on the project is simply foolhardy. In addition, the wrongheaded idea that we should once again study the groundwater is particularly galling. As I said to the council last night – cities and towns and agriculture have been sucking the ground for water in the Valley for decades with little concern for the long-term consequences. The true price of water – as Bob Schneider mentioned – is closer to what LA and other large southern California municipalities are paying – NOT what Davis is paying. It’s time for the people of Davis to move into the 21st century on this issue and stop believing that, as Mulholland said of LA water project water: “There it is – take it,” as if it were free and plentiful. It’s not and we as a community need to stop fantasizing that there is some cheap alternative to a surface water project. It is amazing to me that no one in the room last night save for one or two speakers, mentioned anywhere else but Davis and Woodland – as if no place else existed. There is a famous statement that there are “lied, damned lies, and statistics.” It ought to say: “lied, damned lies, and the ‘facts’ about water.” We are going to hear a lot of them before we are through.
Sue:[i] The Woodland council talked about “getting off groundwater” and “replacing groundwater with Sacramento River water”. We have always talked about “conjunctive use”, i.e., using both groundwater and river water. [/i]
Woodland will be implementing conjunctive use, just as Davis would. The councilmembers’ comments, I am sure, were not intended to be taken as absolutes. They will be mixing surface and ground water, and using both.
It is the city of Woodland that is drilling a test well for aquifer storage of surface water (ref: Alan Pryor).
[quote]”I understand that Davis delayed the project, but the headline says that Woodland’s “ill-advised pressure on Davis backfires”. I fail to see any consequence to Woodland’s pressure – they made their case and it didn’t work. That is not nearly the same as backfiring.”
That’s all true, but a lot of people were really put off by it. [/quote]
Davis people need to get over themselves. This is just so petty. Since Woodland has been publicly denigrated by Mike Harrington and his crowd over this issue, I feel that they have every right to attend and speak.
Here is a table of alternatives (pdf) considered by Davis and Woodland during the many years leading up to the joint powers agency. Woodland has already studied the option and costs of going it alone. They are aware of the benefits and risks of partnering with Davis and UCD.
[url]http://www.wdcwa.com/images/uploadsdoc/Summary_of_Alts_for_DWWSP_051310_with_Cover.pdf[/url]
[i]The Woodland Council has already made the decision for future massive residential development. Now they have to find the water needed if they are to carry out this plan. [/i]
While the potential for development is certainly influenced by the availability of water, the idea that the surface water project is being driven by the desire for new development is a fallacy ginned up by the opponents. The necessity of the surface water project is to meet our (and Woodland’s) obligations under the Clean Water Act. Whether or not development follows is a separate issue.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”The Woodland Council has already made the decision for future massive residential development. Now they have to find the water needed if they are to carry out this plan.”[/i]
[img]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_IPTO2F21_s8/THTfYeGT9FI/AAAAAAAAAfo/S87XI367gZ0/red_herring1_thumb[5].jpg[/img]
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”The Woodland Council has already made the decision for future massive residential development. Now they have to find the water needed if they are to carry out this plan.” [/i]
[img]http://www.studio-hinrichs.com/work/branding/images/logoredherring.jpg [/img]
[b]@Don[/b]While it is a good idea to move to conjunctive use, I think that you are exaggerating the urgency and underestimating the risk of a city of 65,000 undertaking $300 million of water-related infrastructure and one-time purchase without phasing it in or reducing the costs in some other way. According to our leading groundwater expert, our water table is replenishing and we know that water usage is going dramatically down, rather than up. There just is no emergency, if we can deal with the regulatory issues, and it looks as if selenium is not a problem. It is critical to keep costs down, which will probably have to involve some sort of phase-in approach. I think people are in denial about how high the combined sewer/water rates will be relative to those in the region and even the state.
RDCanning: “David, I find the headline misleading and as one poster put it “180 degrees the wrong way.””
It was a commentary and that was my gut feeling talking to people last night and exchanging texts and other messages. I know some disagree with that view, but it was mine at the time I wrote this.
@ Sue: I agree it would be good to phase in the wastewater treatment by applying for a variance for our discharge on that. I assume that applying for such a variance would occur in 2012 when our discharge permit comes up for renewal.
As to the selenium issue, I’ll just refer you over to the information I posted on the bulletin board: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=41&Itemid=192[/url]
I think you are over-optimistic about our ability to deal with selenium, are underestimating the impact on the deep wells, and over-generalizing about what Dr. Fogg said.
I agree with Mr. Toad that Woodland and the other speakers were not putting the City Council on notice, but the residents of Davis who will vote in June. If I’m Woodland, I don’t do Davis any favors moving forward. Both will benefit by a joint project, but now Woodland has the moral high ground over Davis in its negotiations in the future when Davis want to join. If I’m Woodland, I move forward as if Davis isn’t coming along and when Davis comes to it senses, require Davis to pay all costs of joining late. Costs will be more than if they went hand in hand, but Davis will likely be stuck with most of the cost of their decision to delay. I don’t want to hear anyone crying about the fact that Woodland stuck it to Davis when Davis does join. If nothing else, at least I hope folks at least now realize why a joint project makes sense, versus all that senseless babble about how Davis shouldn’t do a project with Woodland so it can control its own destiny. That should be Woodland’s line, not Davis’.
This comment has been moved to our Bulletin Board: Presidential politics and water? ([url]/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=76&Itemid=192#76[/url])
If all could agree to stop fanning the fires of inter-city rivalry, we’d get a lot more accomplished, Matt and David. I cringe whenever I see these sophomoric jibes at our neighbor cities. David, of course the Woodland City Council has a legitimate interest in, and right to, address the Davis City Council on this issue. Matt, stop the “only in Davis” kwrap. It is childish.
I agree with Sue that we should be cautious about committing a city of 60 thousand people to a debt of 300 million dollars. Does anyone think that’s wrong? And I agree with Don that to continue to deplete our aquifers is a very dangerous game. I was on the front line in a previous battle to protect Yolo County aquifers, and I know very well the danger we are in. I am absolutely certain that our neighbors in Woodland would respect the Davis decision to go to the ballot if they weren’t constantly faced with smarmy jibes from Davisites, in every matter, everywhere they go. And the cheap trick of casting Davis citizens as too other-worldly to be of any worldly good (to put it nicely) is not effective rhetoric, Woodland friends.
As we go forward in time, there will be more and more issues and occasions when the two cities MUST work together. Time to act like grownups.
I remember when our daughter #1 was in high school, Davis students were permitted to chant at games against Woodland, “That’s alright, that’s OK, you’re gonna work for us someday.” I raised hell and put a stop to it. Don’t make me get into this again! Grow up.
Jeff, your comments are totally off topic.
Jeff Boone: “For you lefties out there”
I find it interesting that you deride the President for his partisan language, yet you apparently feel that there is nothing wrong with tagging people who disagrees with you with a label that is intended to be derogatory.
The answer to our problems will not come from either the extreme left or extreme right, nor from name calling and derision. What we need to do is recognize that no one has all of the answers, and the best way forward will come out of respectful discussion and compromise.
When you proclaim the current President as the worst one in history (as you did in a previous post) while ignoring that he started in a hole dug by his predecessor (and two off-budget and unnecessary wars) you come off sounding more like an uneducated ditto head than the intelligent and thoughtful person I have come to respect (even when I completely disagree with you).
Don: Totally? Certainly not the links to the Discover mag articles on water.
On the political points, I really do see the connection. Why do those that oppose the surface water project have political legs? It is the economy.
However, I admit that it is a stretch.
Can you move them to the bulletin board?
Yes, moved. Please repost the links here to the Discover articles if you have them handy.
Mark: [i]”I find it interesting that you deride the President for his partisan language, yet you apparently feel that there is nothing wrong with tagging people who disagrees with you with a label that is intended to be derogatory.”[/i]
I am a “righty”. You can call me that and I won’t deny it or be hurt by it. “Lefty” is not meant to be derogatory… I think if it as more an endearing term.
I can accept most apposing opinions from educated people with a left worldview except their support for this president. He is a disaster irrespective of how you want to compare him to any other prior president. He has broken so many promises. He has lied. He is the most partisan president ever. He runs just like a more articulate Hugo Chavez enflaming class wars to divide and conquer.
Some people cannot get past fawning over the superficial attributes of the person doing the presentation. The left skewered Bush for being stupid because of the way he presented himself. Obama is a qualified actor on the Presidential stage, but by all measure of true performance he has been a much worse president than Bush.
Getting back to water… if you want money to pay for a water project, then you better look to elect politicians best able to help the country (and the state) get back to solvency.
Whoops… I posted the last one too late. I will repost the Discovery mag links. Thanks!
Related to water and war…
“Offshore desalination could turn the oceans into an inexhaustible water supply” [url]http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jun/11-water-water-everywhere-so-lets-all-have-a-drink/?searchterm=water[/url]
“Are Americans Ready to Start Drinking Their (Treated) Toilet Water?”[url]http://discovermagazine.com/2011/nov/06-americans-ready-drinking-toilet-water[/url]
The December issue of Discover Magazine is entitled “Water Wars”. I urge ya’ll to read it.
David – Commentary it was, and I stand…hmmm, not sure where I stand but I hear your point.
[quote]When Supervisor Matt Rexroad received letters against the radio tower that may be placed at the Yolo County Landfill, he was quick to highlight a letter that he thought was a bit odd, and in addition to quoting it, he derisively stated, “You don’t see stuff like this in Woodland.”
Mr. Rexroad has often fanned the flames of the Woodland hatred for Davis.[/quote]David: Any chance you could elaborate on this incident?
Listen to Freddie!
I’m glad that Rochelle and Dan, taking the opportunity which the 12,000 Davis folks who signed the referendum gave the Council, managed to give the community a chance to get this water issue right.
With clear thinking like Freddie Oakley’s and the kind of topical knowledge which Don Shorr evidences there is every reason to believe that a rational plan for a system based on conjunctive use of surface/ground water could be achieved at rates residents could afford. To do so is technically feasible and fiscally appropriate.
Scaling such a system to match our real, true foreseeable needs per our means to pay for it, and accept that we can’t afford to waste money on over-building a plant whose technology will be obsolete before we’re done servicing the debt spent building it, seems both wise and necessary given other competing needs for monies to support other public services.
The compromise motion adopted by the City Council offers the possibility for such a positive resolution. It also has embedded within it further mechanisms which appear fraught for continued gaming of the process to impose the “plan” approved on Sept. 6th of this year. For examples of the latter, we need look no further than the bypassing of the Water Advisory Committee per any role in crafting the proposed ballot measure, giving the drafting of that measure over entirely to the same staff who gave the Council the original (dysfunctional) plan, and allowing only a month to compose that plan — with no public review or formal input allowed. That, to me, seems a recipe for failure, and exactly the opposite of the open, public process that would give us a chance to take a deep breath and come together to effect a community-based solution to our water needs.
Tonight is the first meeting of the Water Advisory Committee. Only by public participation can the WAC really become all it can be, and achieve all it must, if we are to get over this hurdle together. Whatever folks’ take on our water needs and the challenges of meeting them, it is time to come down to tonight’s meeting and become part of the solution. Just sitting on the sidelines making comments about those of us foolish enough to risk the effort to make a difference isn’t enough — that’s just planting ice and expecting to harvest something other than wind …
See you there?
[quote]It ought to say: “lied, damned lies, and the ‘facts’ about water.” We are going to hear a lot of them before we are through. [/quote]
Yes, a lot of facts, but will ears/minds be open to listen?
[quote]Tonight is the first meeting of the Water Advisory Committee. Only by public participation can the WAC really become all it can be, and achieve all it must, if we are to get over this hurdle together. Whatever folks’ take on our water needs and the challenges of meeting them, it is time to come down to tonight’s meeting and become part of the solution. Just sitting on the sidelines making comments about those of us foolish enough to risk the effort to make a difference isn’t enough — that’s just planting ice and expecting to harvest something other than wind …
See you there?[/quote]
AMEN!
Just a curious aside: What happens to the people who are serviced by Davis for water and sewer, but are not in the city limits of Davis? Will we have a say in the ballot measure? I’m talking about El Macero, Willowbank, etc.
In a word . . . no.
I live in El Macero, where we drink tea.
Howdy, neighbor!
Only 4 people from the public showed up at last night’s WAC meeting. Council member Dan Wolk was also there. Lots of lively discussion; tons of good questions. We will be meeting twice a month, the 2nd and 4th Thursday evenings at the Davis Senior Center from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. Hope to see more of you there…
Elaine
Thanks for doing this and making it public. Second Thurdays conflict with higher priority set meeting in Berkeley. Too bad. I will attempt some
Fourth Thurdays. maybe if time allows you could use this or the bulletin board to post brief bullet point summaries of the meetings ?