by Brett Lee
As a candidate for city council, I have been asked for more specifics on my thoughts on the proposed surface water project. I have already written about my view that conservation and efficiency should be at the heart of any water project for our community. I do not believe it is something that we should try to “bolt on” later. To maximize our cost savings and reward efficiency and conservation, it is best that conservation and efficiency be built in from the very beginning.
Conservation and Efficiency: any large-scale infrastructure project should be based on today’s technology with modern thoughtful use of natural resources.
Just because we have been wasteful with resources doesn’t mean we should plan our future around those same wasteful habits, especially when it ultimately costs us more in taxes or fees.
Affordable: any approach to water must be affordable to the residents of Davis.
In September, I provided the mayor and city staff with a copy of the Monterey Water District’s rate plan. It is a five-tier system that takes into account the number of people per household and lot size. Tier one is a small tier that has a low relative cost.
I believe that Davis could adopt a five-tier system similar to that of Monterey’s.
This would allow us to maintain the current water rates for tier one usage. By doing so, it allows those who use very modest amounts of water (something in the neighborhood of under 40 gallons of water per day) to have a water bill very similar to the one they have today. It would give those people on fixed incomes the ability to control their utility bills to a greater extent than the council’s proposed two-tier system.
For those residential customers who choose to use much larger amounts of water (swimming pools, water falls, large lawns, etc.) the good news is that you can continue to do so. The not so good news is that it will cost you more to do so. Using water in this manner is ultimately, however, your choice.
If a water project is not affordable, or lacks safeguards built in for those who choose to conserve, I will not support it.
Supported by the People: I supported the referendum’s signature gathering effort. I collected signatures and even collected them in my own neighborhood. Why? Because I believe any tax/utility rate increase of this magnitude should be voted on by the people.
We are talking about the average person’s yearly bill going up by at least several hundred dollars a year for the next 20-30 years. This is a large amount. We should absolutely have a say in this matter.
With those who say that this is just a backdoor way to kill off the surface water project, I disagree. The people of Davis have shown time and again that they are willing to pay for ideas they believe in.
We have voted to raise our taxes for such things as schools, parks, libraries, and open space. Raising those taxes required a 2/3rds majority. Of the last tax raising initiatives, which if any have failed? For a referendum, to say yes to the rate hikes would require only a 50% + 1 majority. That is a far easier hurdle than the hurdles faced by the other recent tax measures.
We are talking about a project which would cost Davis residents close to $150 million dollars. You better believe I want our community to vote on it.
The Proposed Surface Water Treatment Plant: Yes or No? Ah…the big question. I am against the surface water treatment proposal as it stands now because I believe that it is scaled too large and it perpetuates our inefficient use of water.
I am, however, in favor of a smaller surface water plant that meets the needs of our current residents. Future developers may have to pay for water efficiency programs, but I would rather have future developers pay the true costs of any development rather than ask the current 68,000 residents to subsidize the water costs for some additional 30,000 people.
As far as the timing of the project, I believe that once the project is voted on we should move forward as planned. However, we are making some decisions under uncertainty and we must recognize that.
Two big uncertainties are the following: One, can we meet the waste water discharge requirements and two, how long will the well water last?
The timing of the surface water plant has in large part been driven by the need to meet the state’s anticipated wastewater discharge requirements. In 2012 we will be told what those specific future wastewater discharge requirements will be for Davis. If the requirements are at levels we can meet with the existing well water supplies, then we may be able to delay the project. If the levels require us to bring surface water into the system to meet the discharge requirements, then we need to proceed as planned.
If we are able to meet the wastewater discharge requirements with well water, we may not need the surface water project immediately or at all. However, until some reputable experts come forward and convincingly show that our well water will last for the next 100 plus years, I would move forward on the assumption that having a dual source of supply is a good thing for the long term benefit and security of the community.
So Let Me Recap: I am not in favor of the “official” surface water plant as proposed, but in favor of a smaller surface water plant as explained above. My time frame for proceeding is the same as proposed by the city. However, in 2012 when we find out what the actual wastewater discharge requirements are, we may or may not have the opportunity to delay the project for a few years (2,3 or 4 years).
If, through some stroke of good fortune we are able to meet our wastewater discharge requirements with well water and a group of well qualified scientists comes forward and convincingly shows us that our current well water system will last for 100 plus years, we could postpone the surface water project indefinitely. I currently find such a scenario unlikely, but I think we should at least acknowledge the possibility.
Parting Thoughts:
Davis is facing a real-life challenge with missing pieces of information. I do not believe there is necessarily a “right” or “wrong” answer to the water question. It all depends on how one chooses to respond to the missing information. A reasonable person can be against the surface water concept, just as another reasonable person can be for it.
For me when faced with the uncertainty over how long our well water supply will last, I choose to pursue the use of surface water. I believe that the risk to our community if our wells are depleted are too great to simply rely on hopeful thinking. If reliable new information comes along, I am quite willing to re-think my approach and adjust my thoughts based upon that information.
Mr. Lee’s suggestions are well thought out and he seems open to alternatives as they might come along. I like that, nothing is set in stone and he’s doesn’t come off as stubborn. I feel that we have some on the council and the committee whose minds are already made up and only give the appearance of flexibility.
Hello Brett Lee, good-bye Souza.
Very thoughtful article. My hope is that the author takes the time to attend some of the WAC meetings, and give voice to his thoughts…
[quote]I feel that we have some on the council and the committee whose minds are already made up and only give the appearance of flexibility. [/quote]
With all due respect, did you attend the first WAC meeting? Who specifically in your mind on the committee has their mind made up and only gives the appearance of flexibility?
Was surprised that he did not voice prior ideas of using non drinking water for certain uses. I liked that idea plus this thoughtful article. Good luck Brett!
Again wish WAC mtgs could be televised. Will there be minutes? I had thought they were weekly but have heard of only one mtg. Has a scope of work been defined for the committee?
[quote]Affordable: any approach to water must be affordable to the residents of Davis.–[b]Brett Lee[/b][/quote]This makes absolutely no sense to me at all. You simply can’t spend $300 million on water-related improvements simultaneously and keep water “affordable to all residents of Davis”.
The Monterey water rates merely shift costs away from large families and towards singles, smaller families and seniors on fixed incomes. If this system is adopted, the latter group will probably be paying 4 to 6 times their current rates. the Monterey water rate system is a good type of system, but it certainly does not “keep water affordable to all residents of Davis”.[quote]If, through some stroke of good fortune we are able to meet our wastewater discharge requirements with well water and a group of well qualified scientists comes forward and convincingly shows us that our current well water system will last for 100 plus years, we could postpone the surface water project indefinitely. I currently find such a scenario unlikely, but I think we should at least acknowledge the possibility.–[b]Brett Lee[/b][/quote]I don’t understand why we would have to “show convincingly that our current will water system will last for over a hundred years” in order postpone the project long enough to pay for our $100 million wastewater treatment plant, thus phasing in these project and keeping rates lower. We don’t even know whether Sacramento River water will last over 100 years with California’s geological history of much drier weather combined with a melting snow pack.
I don’t see any difference between Brett’s position and that of the public works department and council over the last eight years.
From the post above, it appears that Sue Greenwald has decided that two Progressive members of the Council is one too many.
That bothers me a bit since in her last election, I actively campaigned for Sue even though I couldn’t even vote in the election.
Can you help me out Sue, why are you focusing on (and reinforcing) the negatives you see in Brent’s message rather than focusing on (and reinforcing) the positives he has put forward?
That should be Brett, not Brent.
Interesting, isn’t it?
Michael, I would say more like curious. Sue’s answer to my question will be interesting.
[quote]This would allow us to maintain the current water rates for tier one usage.[/quote]Brett’s position on water rates is to put all or nearly all of the cost increases on higher water users. Is that fair?
I agree with some of what Brett proposes, but am concerned about his rate proposal.[quote]For those residential customers who choose to use much larger amounts of water (swimming pools, water falls, large lawns, etc.) the good news is that you can continue to do so. The not so good news is that it will cost you more to do so. Using water in this manner is ultimately, however, your choice.[/quote]Choices of many water-consuming features are often made at the time one buys a house. After that, some of them are no longer choices, or involve significant capital expenditure to alter. A pool is a perfect example. If you decide to stop putting water in it, you are left with a very hazardous hole in the ground that would be extremely expensive to demolish or fill in.
[quote]It would give those people on fixed incomes the ability to control their utility bills to a greater extent than the council’s proposed two-tier system.[/quote]Actually, Brett’s proposal to achieve all, or nearly all, of the needed revenue increases through rate increases on only the higher tiers may harm many seniors MORE than the proposed system. I hope the City Council (including Brett Lee, if elected) will consider that many of us bought our homes years ago when choosing a larger lot and/or a pool was not considered evil or wasteful. There weren’t even residential water meters in Davis until the late 90s. Many of those of who own homes in 50s – 80s subdivisions are now retired on fixed income, or soon will be.
Rusty 49 says…. “Hello Brett Lee, good-bye Souza”
Unfortunately, this is probably not in the cards for June. Unless there is a pro-development candidate out there that we don’t know about who is interested in seriously challenging Souza’s reelection bid, he will most likely be reelected. Both appointed-Councilperson Dan Wolk and Brett Lee both have no significant local Davis public/political leadership resumes for the voters to consider. Campaign rhetoric, especially of a general and equivocating nature, is of little help in divining a candidate’s future voting positions when seated on the dais, as we have all learned to our dismay in the past.
I’m not sure why Monterey is considered a reasonable example, since the peninsula is grappling with a severe, permanent water shortage. We don’t have anything like that conservation need here. Were we facing a complete lack of water supply to the point of considering desalination, I could see imposing those kinds of onerous rates on higher water users. But we aren’t facing that, so the only purpose would be conservation as an end in itself. Conservation should be a means to an end.
Here’s the Monterey situation. You literally have to see if you have enough water credits to even remodel your house, add a bathroom, or change your appliances. If we are going to model our water rates on another community’s, I would urge that we look at a more comparable one than this.
“Applicants submitting projects within the City must be aware that before building permits can be issued for projects requiring additional water, that the applicant must have (a) valid water permit from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Before a water permit can be obtained from the District, a water allocation must be approved by the City.
Due to a lack of water available for allocation, the City of Monterey currently has three water waiting lists that the Planning Division maintains: the New Residential Water Waiting List, Residential Remodel Water Waiting List, and Commercial/Industrial Water Waiting List. Please contact the Planning Division to determine if there are adequate water credits running with your property to accommodate the new plumbing fixtures or new construction, or whether the project you will have to go onto one of the waiting lists.”
[url]http://www.monterey.org/en-us/departments/planspublicworks/planning/waterchartfaqs.aspx[/url]
The SFGate reports: “While other Northern California communities are just dipping their toes into the desalination pool, water utilities in Monterey could get the final go-ahead late this year on a project to desalt some 10 million gallons of brackish water each day from 200-foot deep wells on the beach near the town of Marina. In addition to providing most of the region’s drinking water supply, the project will help restore flows on the Carmel River – home to one of the southernmost runs of steelhead trout in the state and a long-running source of tension among water users, regulators and environmentalists.”
As many as 20,000 threatened steelhead are relocated every summer as the lower Carmel River runs dry. By finding an alternate water source, residents will be restoring the trouts’ ecosystem.
Knowing the energy costs and environmental impacts of desalination, other ideas were considered first, including a new dam and reservoir, tapping into the Salinas River, and recycling more water. But the desalination plant — and [b]it’s estimated $500 million construction cost[/b] — seems to be the only way to reliably provide enough fresh water to customers.”
[url]http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/monterey-california-switching-to-desalination-as-primary-water-source.html[/url]
David, if you do a little research on the web you will find some interesting information about pools, specifically,
A recent article in the SACRAMENTO BEE looked at a recent study based on the following pool characteristics . . .
— That adequate lawn irrigation involves 1.6″ per week. (Albuquerque lawn irrigation actually takes about 3″ per week).
— The example pool size is 15′ x 30′.
— There is a concrete apron around the pool.
— The monthly evaporation rate of the pool is 11.27″. Note that if you modify the pool with a cover, you eliminate at least 80% of the evaporation; however, pool covers were not considered in the California study);
— Evaporation by wet walks, decks, equipment.
— There is 5 months of pool use on the average.
— The splash factor during pool use is 25% of evaporation.
— Total monthly use = 7,110 gals. for pools. Total irrigation eliminated by replacing the area with a pool = 4,270 gal. for lawns.
The final analysis by the city of Sacramento? “[i][b]Lawn irrigation use equals 49 inches a year. Pool use is 20 inches a year…so that a swimming pool uses substantially less than the same area developed in lawn and/or landscape.[/b][/i]”
[url]http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/qa-home-percapita.html[/url]
[b]
Water Questions & Answers[/b]
[b][i]How much water does the average person use at home per day?[/i][/b]
Estimates vary, but each person uses about 80-100 gallons of water per day.
Are you surprised that the largest use of household water is to flush the toilet, and after that, to take showers and baths? That is why, in these days of water conservation, we are starting to see toilets and showers that use less water than before.
Many local governments now have laws that specify that water faucets, toilets, and showers only allow a certain amount of water flow per minute. Water agencies in some areas, such as here in Atlanta, Georgia, offer rebates if you install a water-efficient toilet. In fact, I just put in two new toilets and received a rebate of $100 for each. Yes, they really do use a lot less water. For your kitchen and bathroom faucets, if you look real close at the head of a faucet, you might see something like “1.0 gpm”, which means that the faucet head will allow water to flow at a maximum of 1.0 gallons per minute.
[b]Typical water use at home[/b]
[b]Bath[/b]A full tub is about 36 gallons.
[b]Shower[/b]2 gallons per minute. Old shower heads use as much as 5 gallons per minute.
[b]Teeth brushing[/b]
— The monthly evaporation rate of the pool is 11.27″
Most in-ground pools have at least one or two waterfall features which significantly increases evaporation rate.
Matt: Thanks, I knew that pools use less water per square foot than lawns. No question about it.
The problem is that I can let my lawn die for free. But if I want to convert my pool to the new paragon of environmental responsibility* – bare dirt – it’s going to be be very expensive. Every person in our family (including the cats) has accidentally fallen in the pool at least once. Unpleasant when it happens in the winter, but deadly at any time if the pool is empty.
*Actually, there is a lot to be said about the environmental consequences of decreased landscape watering, but I’ll leave that for another post.
[quote]The monthly evaporation rate of the pool is 11.27″[/quote]I think that should be the [i]maximum[/i] monthly evaporation rate. I am certain that no pool in Davis evaporates that much on an annual average basis.
davisite, I did a quick survey of 10 pools. I found exactly one with a waterfall feature and that waterfall feature is permanently disabled by the pool owner. Where are you getting your data?
BTW, did you order your free water audit from the City yet . . . in order to determine why your monthly water bill is triple the City SFR average?
David, it seems like the most economical way to deal with your pool is to get a cover. The City of Sacramento study says a cover will reduce your water consumption 5-fold . . . and it will provide a safety barrier for the next time you have a pool falling incident.
A point that Don Shor has correctly and repeatedly stated that MUCH can be done to increase the efficiency of residential landscape watering.
In the simplest of terms, landscape watering needs to zero out the plants’ water balance by offsetting the difference between water lost to evapotranspiration and that gained by precipitation.* Easy to say, not so easy to do. I believe that one of the largest impediments to efficient residential landscape watering is the common sprinkler timer. Some of the difficulties include:
– Most irrigation timers are user-unfriendly. They use arcane keystroke consequences that must be seemingly re-learned each time the program is changed.
– Most irrigation timers will only store one set of schedules. Once they’ve been set for the water needs of July, they will continue watering at those rates until the user reprograms them.
– Irrigation timers are often located in places where they are easily forgotten.
– Since it’s more efficient to water before sunrise, it is easy to miss noticing a broken sprinkler head – or even that “the back yard sprinklers are still running on the July schedule…and it’s October.”
I recently found a source for a web-enabled irrigation timer and installed one at our home. Although it doesn’t solve all of the difficulties listed above, it does make reprogramming extremely simple…and I can do it from my desk or even from a smartphone. Because the task of changing the water schedule is straightforward and at least minimally entertaining, it is certain that I will more closely monitor water use and needs. With some additional programming, this device could be made to calculate water needs automatically.
*This assumes appropriate watering and gardening practices so that water is not lost to percolation below the root zone or to surface runoff. If those are occurring, additional water to offset those losses must be applied to keep the plants alive.
11.27″ per month would be higher than a lawn’s evapotranspiration rate in July here.
I believe that conventional sprinkler timers kill more plants than diseases, pests, and environmental factors combined. A fellow nursery professional joked that she was going to get some business cards printed up that said “Too Much Water” on one side and “Not Enough Water” on the other, since that answers a high percentage of our landscape questions in the summer here. I have written several articles on correct watering, as well as recent ones about plant selection to reduce water use (all available at my business web site). There is no question that most people with conventional landscapes could reduce their irrigation considerably and have healthier landscapes. The ‘smart’ timers do make that much easier, once you understand them.
[quote]11.27″ per month would be higher than a lawn’s evapotranspiration rate in July here.[/quote] Yep. Reference evapotranspiration for July in Davis is about 8.5 inches, and warm-season turfgrass has a crop factor of about 0.6, so the water demand in July (theoretically) is about 5 inches…if the water is applied efficiently and evenly. I expect most systems are inefficient and uneven enough to require significantly more.
I believe the 11.27″ value for pool evaporation is overstated – even for no cover. For a pool that has a lot of kids splashing, sure, but that figure is ostensibly for evaporation only. 7-8 inches is more consistent with what I’ve seen.
[quote]David, it seems like the most economical way to deal with your pool is to get a cover. The City of Sacramento study says a cover will reduce your water consumption 5-fold . . . and it will provide a safety barrier for the next time you have a pool falling incident.[/quote] I will probably be installing one.
[i]Most[/i] pool covers would not protect a person from falling in, as they are only intended to keep water in and leaves out. They really just float on the water with the edges secured only enough to keep them in place. (There are some very heavy duty – and undoubtedly very heavy and expensive – covers that could support a person, but the vast majority can’t.)
[quote]Actually, Brett’s proposal to achieve all, or nearly all, of the needed revenue increases through rate increases on only the higher tiers may harm many seniors MORE than the proposed system.—[b]David Suder[/b][/quote]That is an understatement, David. Brett Lee’s proposal [b]WILL[/b] harm many seniors more than the existing system.
There is no way around it. If this proposal goes into effect, seniors in the lower tiers will be seeing their bills increase five or six fold.
This tinkering with rates is inevitable if the project goes through, but it will not solve the underlying problem. Large families will rightfully complain that they are subsidizing small families, seniors will rightfully complain that their bills will go up five or six fold if that situation is rectified, homeowners will be looking closely at whether they are subsidizing apartments (or vice versa), and everyone will be looking at the existing subsidy of homeowners to business.
The only solution is the bring the total cost way down.
[quote]I’m not sure why Monterey is considered a reasonable example, since the peninsula is grappling with a severe, permanent water shortage. We don’t have anything like that conservation need here. Were we facing a complete lack of water supply to the point of considering desalination, I could see imposing those kinds of onerous rates on higher water users.—[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I am really happy that you brought up the Monterey example, Don, because it helps to illustrate my concern.
Long considered cost prohibitive, the Monterey desalinization plant is still less expensive on a per capita basis than the city of Davis new water/wastewater project costs. Plus, Monterey has a view and low air conditioning costs.
According to the following link, the project has set caps totaling $404.4 million, and it is for a region of over 100 million plus farms which will purchase the water. The city of Davis new water/wastewater project comes to over $300 for 65,000 people and no farms.
According to this link, it is estimated that peninsula residents’ water bills will jump from a current of $38 a month to $80 a month. [url]http://www.americanwaterintel.com/archive/2/1/general/california-puc-approves-monterey-desalination-plant.html[/url]
Our water bills are projected to be higher by the time we are fully paying for our project. In addition, “the current residential charge for MRWPCA customers (wastewater) is $12.75 per month”.[url]http://www.mrwpca.org/rates/residential.php[/url] Our wastewater cost is $48 per month, due to the new $100 million treatment plant.
This is [b]EXACTLY[/b] why I am worried, Don. The Monterey water/wastewater costs are considered prohibitively high, and ours look to be, by every measure, substantially higher (in a much, much lower cost region to boot).
Ooops! Make that:
“According to the following link, the project has set caps totaling $404.4 million, and it is for a region of over 100 million plus farms which will purchase the water. The city of Davis new water/wastewater project comes to over $300 million for 65,000 people and no farms.
Another number typo correction:
According to the following link, the project has set caps totaling $404.4 million, and it is for a region of over 100 thousand plus farms which will purchase the water. The city of Davis new water/wastewater project comes to over $300 for 65,000 people and no farms.
[quote]I am not in favor of the “official” surface water plant as proposed, but in favor of a smaller surface water plant as explained above[/quote]
I found the posting interesting, and I like the idea of a water system that maxes out at about 70,000 people. But I wonder how much cheaper a lower volume system would be. I suspect that rights, engineering, and labor would be pretty much the same. Where would the savings come from? Smaller pipes? Smaller treatment plant? I’d like to see the details in this devil.
[quote]I found the posting interesting, and I like the idea of a water system that maxes out at about 70,000 people.–[b]Observer[/b][/quote]I like that idea as well, but I calculated that it would only save about 4% on our water/wastewater bills. It won’t solve the prohibitive cost problem.
Advocates of public ownership of the facilities in Monterey reckon it quite differently than the information provided in Sue’s link above.
[url]http://waterplusmonterey.com/pdfs/waterplus-proposal-v3.pdf[/url]
I have no idea how to reconcile these different figures. Suffice to say, they think the Monterey project per capita costs will be a lot higher overall than the Davis/Woodland project.
Capping the Davis water system at 70,000 people is a [i]terrible[/i] idea. It amounts to creating an intentional water shortage for future residents.
@[b]Don Shor:[/b]Yes,and many professionals in the field that I have talked with also think that the Davis costs will run higher. I suspect that the figures that I gave you are the closest to apples to apples that we will get, i.e., the official version from both projects.
Hi Elaine, yes I would like to attend the next WAC meeting. Not sure if audience members are allowed to talk, but I would like the chance to describe my ideas and answer any questions.
Hi Don, I like the Monterey rate example because it is a five tier system that has allowances built in for the size of families and also lot size.
When Monterey raised their rates, they were able to keep the tier one rates low. Tier one was sized based on number of people per household and size of lot – bigger lots had a bigger tier one.
I think it is important that efficient users of water have the opportunity to keep their costs low.
I did not provide the city staff with Monterey’s building code or desalination plans, not sure of the relevance to our situation. But thanks for the info, I learned a lot from your links.
Hi David S, my plan is that future developers will pay into a water efficiency fund. That fund would assist residents in becoming more water efficient. For those that have large lawns and pools this fund can help defray the costs of being more efficient through advanced water timers with moisture sensors and seasonal controls, or something as simple as a properly installed, safe pool cover. For those that want to remove their lawns or pools, this fund could also defray those costs. Water efficiency should be easy not onerous, and it should allow us to keep the things we care about. A pool and a garden are not bad things. (Watering at mid day in July, might be a bad thing).
—
With a surface water treatment plant, we can build it so that it is designed to supply 100,000 people and we the 70,000 can pay those capital costs for the foreseeable future. If we conserve, the capital costs do not go down, we will still have to come up with the fees to cover the capital costs of the plant. We could use half the amount of water, but if we size the plant as proposed, all of that excess capacity still must be paid for.
Or we can size the plant for 70,000 and we the 70,000 pay for it. Over time as we conserve and become more efficient, we free up water for future residents who help split the costs. The costs of the plant sized for 70,000 would eventually be divided amongst 85,000 (population estimate used by the city for year 2035). Conservation and efficiency reward us with reduced costs.
Water treatment plants are built in modules, each module representing a certain amount of capacity. I believe that the capital cost savings will be significant if we more appropriately size the plant. I will try to have the cost savings estimates from a reputable source in the near future.
If we do in fact have a capacity shortage 20 years from now, we can always add another module to the system at that time. I think that scenario is unlikely as we as a community are likely to be like other communities and see substantial reductions in water usage through improved water fixtures, etc.
[quote]Will there be minutes? I had thought they were weekly but have heard of only one mtg. Has a scope of work been defined for the committee?[/quote]
There has been one meeting of the WAC in December (meet and greet; discussion of mission). Beginning in January, the WAC will meet twice monthly, the second and fourth Thursdays of each month, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Davis Senior Center. The scope of work is very broad for this committee, and pretty much encompasses everything. We have asked for background first and foremost, to make sure all of us know enough to move on to the next stage.
[quote]Hi Elaine, yes I would like to attend the next WAC meeting. Not sure if audience members are allowed to talk, but I would like the chance to describe my ideas and answer any questions. [/quote]
Great! The next WAC meeting is Jan 12, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Davis Senior Center. Enter through the front door, which should be open or at least have someone there to direct everyone inside. And yes, there will be public comment, which should give you the opportunity to speak!
Brett, don’t you understand that the more people who qualify for tier one, the higher the tier one rates will have to be?
And that if the average cost is three to four times what it is now, as it appears according to the city’s proforma that was done, then seniors who live in modest houses who conserve now and hence have a break now will be paying far more than three to four times what they are paying now under your plan.
There is a lack of logic in your position. For every household or business that pays less than the average cost now (and that includes those in small families , those with small lots, those who conserve and many businesses) — under your system, their costs will more than triple or quadruple. It is simple logic. Our total rates collected have to be three to four times what they are now, and now these groups pay a smaller proportion because people with large families and people with large lots pay more.
Again, if you include more people in tier one, the cost for those now in tier one is going to more than triple or quadruple.
There is no way to make the cost affordable for every family by tinkering with the rates.
Brett Lee said . . .
[i]”Hi Don, I like the Monterey rate example because it is a five tier system that has allowances built in for the size of families and also lot size.
When Monterey raised their rates, they were able to keep the tier one rates low. Tier one was sized based on number of people per household and size of lot – bigger lots had a bigger tier one.”[/i]
Brett, I just got off the phone with Monterey Water. In addition to an approximately $8.00 Monthly Service Fee (comparable to Davis’ current Monthly Service Fee) their tiered consumption rates are as follows:
Tier 1 = $2.977 per ccf
Tier 2 = $4.816 per ccf
Tier 3 = $9.632 per ccf
Tier 4 = $19.262 per ccf
Tier 5 = $33.709 per ccf
Compare those consumption rates to Davis’ current rates
Tier 1 = $1.50 per ccf
Tier 2 = $1.90 per ccf
I’m confused when looking at those numbers per ccf in the context of your quoted comment above. Can you help me out of my confusion?
Sue, when I read your comments above, it sure looks like you are campaigning [u]against[/u] Brett rather than [u]with[/u] Brett. Am I missing something?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Brett, like you, a progressive candidate?
Isn’t it correct that currently there is only one sitting Council member who could be considered to be “a progressive”?
Even if as rusty has opined here on the Vanguard, Brett wins Steve Souza’s Council seat in June, won’t that mean that the “progressives” are still in a 2-3 minority on the Council?
So given all that, why do you appear to be campaigning for Brett’s defeat rather than his success?
Its all rather confusing. Can you help me out of my confusion?
@Matt Williams: Matt, please stick to a discussion of the issue.
Interesting discussion.
Some points raised by it include the notion of tiered rates being a norm. Not sure why we would have to go with tiered rates, which are inherently punitive, rather than a flat rate with discounts that reward saving water over a prior year’s base charge. As more folks save the higher the flat rate will have to be, just as with a tiered rate, since the entire cost of any water project still has to be met — and the 800-pound gorilla everybody seems to avoid mentioning is the full debt burden, NOT the initial sticker price. But a flat rate with discounts for actual savings over a personal baseline seems the simplest and most egalitarian.
Hardship cases for folks in financial distress and/or below a some income threshold might help severely challenged households, the unemployed, etc., but I defer to experts on how best to accommodate such needs.
Brett seems to be onto something very important, which it would behoove Sue to support, imho — which is, dual water systems for any new developments. Also, the platform of not over-building any system seems both fair to current residents and respectful of the opportunity for new and better technology in 20 years, versus saddling us with an aging and outdated plant over-scale for our real foreseeable needs. Planning for a population of 85,000 doesn’t require building a plant to serve 85,000 folks right now, much less building a plant to serve 135,000. A modular approach, with any growth paying its own way at the table, seems fairest for both present and future residents.
All these views I’ve read deserve to be presented to the public. The Vanguard is one means. Bringing them to the WAC meetings is another. Traditionally, the Davis City Council and all Davis city commissions encourage and allow the public to comment near the start of any meeting upon anything NOT on the agenda. I’m sure the WAC must be bound by the same rules, so that is one approach. Another opportunity arises after staff presentations on an agenda topic: following technical questions from commission members to staff, but prior to discussion among commission members, public input on any agenda item is provided for. Hope this helps illustrate how to take the opportunity to contribute to the public process of the WAC’s work.
That the meetings of the WAC are not presently planned to be televised is largely up to the public — if enough public demand were evidenced, then the WAC meetings would surely be televised. If not, then the only means to have a verbatim record of the entirety of the WAC meetings would be to live-blog or record and transcribe the meetings. Again, the public can define what its needs, interest level and wishes are in this regard. However, there is no reason that the WAC can’t function well without televising, etc., its proceedings. Many commissions do great work without the limelight, and television has not saved the City Council from mistakes.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
“[i]@Matt Williams: Matt, please stick to a discussion of the issue.[/i]”
Sue, the first two sentences of this topic read . . . [i]”As a candidate for city council, I have been asked for more specifics on my thoughts on the proposed surface water project.”[/i]
Your comments come across as an attack of Brett’s fitness to assert his first sentence. In the light of that, how are my questions to you off topic?
[quote]Brett seems to be onto something very important, which it would behoove Sue to support, imho — which is, dual water systems for any new developments.–[b]pravihrvat[/b][/quote]At this point, the I think the discussion of the rate structure and sizing of the water plant is secondary to the fact that we really can’t afford to do the surface water project and the wastewater project at the same time.
In general, I have always been against overbuilding any component of the project, which is what the “dual water systems” addresses, I suppose. In fact, I arranged for the size of the treatment plant to included in the coming water agenda item.
Whether or not it is actually beneficial for current ratepayers to build a somewhat larger plant that new residents or businesses will buy into or to make future developers pay for another system is an empirical issue that will have to be analyzed. I don’t think we know the answer. My initial calculations don’t show much actual cost savings if we build a smaller plant. To the extent that new development is infill, “dual water systems” is impractical.
@Matt Williams: I am addressing some specific ideas that aren’t particularly unique to Brett Lee. These include the fact that tinkering with the rates will not make costs more affordable because we are dealing with a zero-sum situation, and the fact that downsizing the treatment plant probably won’t involve enough savings to help us significantly.
If you want to engage campaigning Matt, I can’t stop you, but I will continue to discuss the ideas exactly as I have for years.
Sue, your discussion of the specific ideas is not what I was commenting on. my questions to Brett addressed those same ideas, but from a slightly different angle. The more discussion of these ideas the better, both within the community and between the candidates.
What I was asking about was much more the tone of your discussion. As I said above, your comments came across as if you were campaigning [u]against[/u] Brett rather than collaborating [u]with[/u] Brett as fellow Progressive candidates. Do you not see that as confusing for the body of Progressives and near-Progressives as they prepare for June?
As to your comment, “[i]If you want to engage campaigning Matt, I can’t stop you . . .[/i]” who do you assume I’m campaigning for when asking these questions? I’ve never met Brett, nor talked to him, nor discussed his campaign prior to the two articles in the Vanguard over the past few days. Since the idea of two successful June results for the Progressives puts either Dan or Steve off the Council, I don’t think either of them would see my promoting collaboration between you and Brett as a positive. And I’ve campaigned for you in your last election, so is the person you are assuming I’m campaigning for you? That doesn’t make much sense either.
Perhaps I’m not actually campaigning for anyone . . . just trying to promote collaboration rather than conflict.
Thoughts?
Sue: I support your comments above. Brett’s plan assumes that there will be a lot of future developers to pay into the water money pot. Last I checked, the current General Plan does not anticipate such large projects, and I dont see any new larger projects for many years in the future. So why plan for such a large water project now? This surface water plant planning should be shut down until at least the sewer plant upgrades are completed and paid for, if not longer.
@Michael Harrington: I would just like to clarify that Brett’s plan is suggesting that: [quote]”future developers will pay into a water efficiency fund. That fund would assist residents in becoming more water efficient. For those that have large lawns and pools this fund can help defray the costs of being more efficient through advanced water timers with moisture sensors and seasonal controls, or something as simple as a properly installed, safe pool cover. For those that want to remove their lawns or pools, this fund could also defray those costs.–[b]Brett Lee[/b]”[/quote]Brett is suggesting that future development pay into a water conservation program. But water conservation will not significantly lower costs to the ratepayer because, as I have been trying to explain, we have fixed costs to cover and we are dealing with a zero-sum situation.
If future developers help people with swimming pools buy swimming pool covers, the most it will do is shift costs to people without swimming pools.
Matt and Don: you think this thread is appropriate for political discussions, so OK. Here is one for all of you. From what I sent earlier, after readying Brett’s DE piece and his DV pieces, and the above posts:
“Dear Campaign Committee for Brett Lee for City Council:
It hurts to have to say this, but until Brett takes a public position on the City of Davis water utilities that I can support, I am asking him and his Committee to remove my name from any public pieces or websites, and consider it suspended until I am satisfied with the plan.
Brett supported my candidacy years ago, and I still thank him for that.
However, I spent years of my life, and sacrificed a lot, to ensure that this town stayed a nice and affordable place to live and raise my family. The current Brett positions I have read are completely contrary to anything I consider close to my views, and in the end, all that matters is how each Member votes on issues I care about.
I am not withdrawing my endorsement at this time; I am just placing it into suspension. I am hoping, and hopeful, that as the campaign develops that Brett will listen to me and my friends and take positions on the water system that we can support.
With some regret and sadness,
Michael
*********************************
To all:
As described by 4 members of the Davis CC, and by Brett, the current water project will completely shaft this town’s lower and middle income residents. The current plan makes zero legal, fiscal, or environmental sense, and must be halted pending a full review of the current ground water supply system and the full payment of the current upgrades to the sewer system. I have been clear about these positions since August, and will remain focused as described.
Mike: “…after [b]readying[/b] Brett’s DE piece and his DV pieces, and the above posts…”
I assume you meant “after [b]reading[/b] Brett’s DE piece….”
I’m glad Brett has clarified his position. It seems he hasn’t changed in principle from what he said on the topic when he announced his candidacy. There are interesting ideas here, and I think Sue has provided some useful feedback.
@ Matt: I don’t see how Sue has been campaigning here. And as usual, I have no idea what is meant by [i]Progressive[/i] in Davis politics.
Don : reading. Is correct. My pecking on this iPhone causes too many typos
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”@ Matt: I don’t see how Sue has been campaigning here. And as usual, I have no idea what is meant by Progressive in Davis politics.”[/i]
Don, when I said [i]”What I was asking about was much more the tone of your discussion. As I said above, your comments came across as if you were campaigning against Brett rather than collaborating with Brett as fellow Progressive candidates.”[/i] my use of the word “campaigning” in the second sentence wasn’t intended to have anywhere near the specific meaning you are ascribing to it, but I understand the meaning you took.
Perhaps a better turn of phrase would have been, [i]”What I was asking about was much more the tone of your discussion. As I said above, your comments came across as if you were denigrating Brett rather than collaborating with him as a fellow Progressive candidate.”[/i]
My intent is to point out the curiously missed opportunity for two candidates (who both have reservations about the surface water project) to collaborate in the interests of Davis’ citizens.
I believe their positions on the water project are very much at odds. I don’t see much room for collaboration. Sue is clearly in a singular minority position at this point. One key question, though, would be whether there are now three votes on the council to proceed with applications for variances.
Don, as I said to Sue earlier in this thread, it isn’t just the difference in the specific details of their respective positions, it is the tone of Sue’s commentary. No olive branch. No attempt to carve out a middle ground that may serve the citizens of Davis well . . . simply a lecture.
I’m afraid that I too must echo Mike Harrington’s position on Brett’s candidacy. Comments such as if assured that we will have adequate ground water for 100 YEARS, he would consider indefinitely suspending the surface water project sounds more like a “throw-away”campaign line than an important concept. I am also concerned that he suggests that there are gaps in the information necessary for,IMO, sound decisions but appears to accept this information gap , making it very difficult to challenge the “sky is falling” scare narratives that are being offered.
Hi Matt,
You ask a good question, which points out I haven’t been specific enough about why I like the Monterey example.
I believe that we should not copy the example of Monterey exactly – so we do not need to copy their rates as their cost structure and revenue requirements are different from ours. What I do like is the multiple tiers and the way it accounts for household size and lot size.
I believe that some level of water consumption is an essential household need. This amount is for health and hygiene. Drinking, cooking, bathing, flushing our toilets I think would all be considered essentials for good health. I believe that this level of consumption should be kept as inexpensive as possible. This would be tier one usage, which everyone makes use of. After people go above the tier one level, then they move into tier two.
In order to set a reasonable tier one (essential water level), it would be helpful to have some idea of household size. A household of one will by definition have a different essential water need than a household of four. So for a single person, their tier one band may be something like 25 gallons a day, whereas a household of 4 may have a tier one band of 100 gallons a day.
I do recognize that most residents will choose to use more than the tier one range of use.
Having more than two tiers does give the city more flexibility in pricing.
From city of davis data :
Water use in 2010, single family residential
Percentile Jan/Feb May/Jun
10% 61 gal/day 147 gal/day
507 gal/day 416 gal/day
90% 306 gal/day 1,164 gal/day
There is a huge range of residential water use in our town. Using over 1,000 gallons a day is quite substantial use (or 300 gallons a day in winter). I do not believe that we should be charging the same amounts for gallons 1-100 as we do for gallons 1,000-1,100. This is an opinion of mine, it is not based on fact but on my sense of “fairness”. This is what the tiered system allows.
I believe that the Water Advisory Council (WAC) will ultimately come up with a plan that makes use of more than two tiers and takes into account family size.
The middle tiers are not meant to be punitive. Tier one is low cost, the middle tiers are “normal” cost, and if desired the final tier is meant to discourage wasteful behavior. I am sure the WAC will have some robust discussion on how many tiers and where to set the breakpoints.
“One key question, though, would be whether there are now three votes on the council to proceed with applications for variances.”
With regard to a variance for the surface water project, a NO vote on the June ballot that will ask whether Davis voters want a surface water project or not, to include further speculative manipulations of debt interest, total cost and rate structure,will be the only way to ensure that a serious attempt at gaining approval for a variance is put in place by Council and staff. Citizen rejection of the project was described, by PWD Clark, as the only path to variance approval. With a majority Yes vote on the June ballot for the project along with a plan to seek a variance, the request for a variance from the State agency will be rejected. This is, IMO, anticipated by the current CC majority in temporarily halting the rate hike and ending the liklihood of a citizen referendum vote rejecting the project.. A NO vote on the project can be replaced by a Yes vote for another try at shaping a surface water project for Davis’ future AFTER a surface water project variance is granted.
[quote]Many commissions do great work without the limelight, and television has not saved the City Council from mistakes.[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]I believe that some level of water consumption is an essential household need. This amount is for health and hygiene. Drinking, cooking, bathing, flushing our toilets I think would all be considered essentials for good health. I believe that this level of consumption should be kept as inexpensive as possible. This would be tier one usage, which everyone makes use of. After people go above the tier one level, then they move into tier two. [/quote]
Just want to clarify. Are you for keeping water rates in Tier 1 the same as they are now? Or are you okay with a modest increase for Tier 1, since Davis is paying well below the average for water currently?
[quote]This surface water plant planning should be shut down until at least the sewer plant upgrades are completed and paid for, if not longer.[/quote]
[quote]At this point, the I think the discussion of the rate structure and sizing of the water plant is secondary to the fact that we really can’t afford to do the surface water project and the wastewater project at the same time. [/quote]
There is nothing like keeping an “open” mind…
“Citizen rejection of the project was described, by PWD Clark, as the only path to variance approval.”
Correction… substitute “rate hike to pay for the project” for “the project” in above posting.
Hi Elaine,
I think the WAC will be able to work with the numbers to come up with reasonable tier one rates.
I think as long as they are guided by the idea that tier one represents “essential” water use, they should be able to come up with something agreeable to most.
If the rates have some modest increase over today’s rates, that probably keeps to the goal of having an affordable tier.
[b]@Matt Williams[/b]: Again Matt, please do not continue to try to shut down discussion by turning to accusations.
[b]@Don Shor: [/b]Whether or not the project as currently planned is prohibitively expensive is an empirical question. I hope the commission seriously explores it.
I am used to having a minority position; I did regarding enhanced early retirement and I did regarding the unnecessarily high cost of the wastewater treatment plant. It turned out to be a very good thing for the city that I held my ground on these issues.
[b]@Elaine Musser[/b]: Again, this is an empirical issue. Any of us could change our minds as we learn more. I think I have documented that Davis water/wastewater rates will be ruinously high if we can’t postpone this project or else radically restructure it.
[b]@Brett Lee:[/b]Again, conservation and tinkering with the rate structure doesn’t deal with the issue of prohibitively high ratepayer costs. It is a tangent.
I think all options should be on the table, including postponing the project and/or reexamining working with West Sacramento and perhaps Dixon, or joining in some other larger project. Something major has to be done to get the costs down.
Let’s recap… the Davis business community only reluctantly came on board with this surface water project when the made-up 14% increase was put forward. They recognized that the higher rates would be a severe blow to their bottom line, both in direct cost of their water use and the Davis resident discretionary income that would be siphoned off to pay water bills(plus the waste water treatment and storm drain upgrade burden) instead of it being spent in Davis.
@ davisite: I have no idea what you mean by “the Davis business community.” The Chamber of Commerce? The board of the DDBA? Some specific business owners that expressed concerns at some point?
I have long supported some kind of a lifeline rate for very low water users. There is plenty of data about average household water use. Matt Williams has collected some that he could probably summarize for the WAC.
I think Sue makes an important point: it is a zero-sum game. These projects are basically a fixed cost. So reducing rates for one user means you increase them proportionally for others. Most of us are probably willing to pay somewhat higher rates to keep the very lowest rate low. This would address the impact of these projects on our lowest-income citizens.
Steeply tiered rates to enhance conservation seem pointless to me, since AFAIK higher water users don’t increase the cost to the city (perhaps I am wrong about this?). Conservation doesn’t serve the purpose of reducing cost. In fact, if Davis residents conserve too much, the rates have to go up. The purpose of the rates is to cover the cost of the project, not the unit cost of the water.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Matt Williams: Again Matt, please do not continue to try to shut down discussion by turning to accusations.”[/i]
Sue, asking questions is a time-honored method for PROMOTING discussion, not shutting it down. I asked the questions I have asked because it appears that you are ruling out consensus-building and collaboration with Brett. If that appearance is wrong, please help us understand what you are doing to collaborate with Brett to build a consensus from your collective ideas. If that appearance is correct, please help us understand why you feel consensus-building and collaboration with Brett are a bad idea.
Discussing the questions I have asked doesn’t rule out in any way discussing the issues. It [u]isn’t[/u] an either/or proposition. It [u]is[/u] a both/and proposition.
[quote]Hi Elaine,
I think the WAC will be able to work with the numbers to come up with reasonable tier one rates.
I think as long as they are guided by the idea that tier one represents “essential” water use, they should be able to come up with something agreeable to most.
If the rates have some modest increase over today’s rates, that probably keeps to the goal of having an affordable tier. [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification!
[quote]Conservation doesn’t serve the purpose of reducing cost. [/quote]
It is my understanding from consultants T&S that water conservation will save money on the wastewater treatment side. As the WAC starts exploring all issues, my hope is to get a more definitive answer on this issue…
“Last I checked, the current General Plan does not anticipate such large projects….”
When is the next General Plan? I thought that it would be about 2015. Not coincidentally, this would be just about the time that it is anticipated, in the current plan, that water would be ready to flow to supply the peripheral development plans that will be submitted for development agreement approval(for a later date to build). The political narrative in Davis at that time, with the soaring resident utility costs, will no doubt suggest some relief from this onerous utility tax burden by a massive increase in the Davis tax base.
davisite, that is the Chicken Little argument. Pure paranoia.
BTW, have you looked into why your current water bill is triple the City Single Family Residence average? If not, aren’t you throwing away “discretionary spending” that you could be directing toward Davis businesses?
[i][b]”We drink deeply from wells we did not dig, we luxuriate in the fruit from trees that we did not plant, and we eat bountifully of harvest from soil that we did not cultivate. Now we must prove worthy of these sacrifices by prior generations demonstrating our own commitment to the generations to come so that the great story of America, our collective sacrifice and our collective struggle for our common ideals, may continue and flourish.”[/b][/i]
These are words spoken by Cory Booker, the young mayor of Newark, N.J., and those sentiments are equally true of Davis as they are of Newark. We are all the beneficiaries of the work done by previous generations of Davisites who created and maintained the incredibly high great quality of life we all enjoy here in Davis. In so many ways, the quality of life that we enjoy as a result of the fruits of their efforts necessitates that we provide the same opportunity to future generations of Davis residents.
The following quote