by Matt Williams
The following is a personal opinion of the author.
Michael Harrington will simply say that April is too soon and look to keep pushing it back and back and back. As one person said on the Vanguard, “Mr Harrington… many of us understand that you would like the city to study the issue, fully analyze all the options, and, perhaps, put a measure to a vote in November… of 2135.”
In addition Michael’s desire comes with a price, which anyone who is a pro-life advocate should understand . . . upwards of 40% of the votes will be terminated prematurely by moving the date of the vote away from November. November voter turnout in 2008 was 36,418 of 45,814 Registered Voters (79.5%). Voter turnout for the Measure C election this spring was 17,219 of 43,138 Registered Voters (39.9%). One has to ask, why are we looking to quash the votes of 17,000 voters?
So we are faced with making a flawed decision no matter which way we go. So let’s look at the parameters of how a November decision might be made in a transparent, effective, participatory and informed way. No stone will remain unturned by the WAC until the people have had an opportunity to make the most informed, best damn, broadest based decision that can be made.
What will be finalized by the WAC between now and the end of August will be 1) a decision about the final project, 2) the costs associated with that project, and 3) the specific rates and rate structure. Detailed documentation of all three of those “deliverables” will be published on a Prop 218 notice that will be distributed by the City in September to all the parties eligible under the Prop 218 process . . . property owners. That is the law in California, so we have to do it.
We absolutely have to send out Prop 218 notices, and to remove any conflict between Prop 218 and the Ballot question, I propose that the question asked of the voters not be whether to “approve” the rates, but rather whether to “implement” the rates, That way, if in the highly unlikelihood that the Prop 218 notice is successfully protested, there will be no legal rates to implement, and the implementation decision decided by the ballot vote becomes moot. If (as is close to 100% likely) the Prop 218 notice is not successfully protested then there will be legal rates to implement, and each voter’s decision becomes very clear . . . either empower the Council/City to implement the legal rates, or forbid the Council/City to implement the legal rates.
Note: there is lots and lots and lots of legal precedent where the Prop 218 rates that survive the protest process end up being different from the actual rates that are implemented. The reason for that is that the Prop 218 process forces agencies to present the “worst case scenario” in the Prop 218 notice. The reality of what gets implemented by the agency after the Prop 218 rates are “approved” (or “passed”) is almost always some scenario that is far less worse than the worst case.
Isn’t this all bypassing the “normal” process?
No one has said it is the “normal” way of doing things. In fact the whole idea of a ballot after a Prop 218 isn’t “normal.” We are stuck with abnormal no matter which way we turn . . . guaranteed. As Harriet’s “opinion” back in December clearly illuminated, there are statutes, but they are subject to interpretation, and there are no precedents implementing the statutes that exist to translate “opinion” into “legal clarity” . . . there is “law” but no “letter of the law” because there is no precedent . . . it is untested and therefore subject to question and challenge regardless.
Is there a way to do this right?
In addition to the mandated activities under Prop 218, I propose that the same Prop 218 detail documentation will be 1) incorporated by reference into the ballot itself, 2) distributed in hard copy and/or electronic copy to all registered Davis voters in the format of a Sample Ballot as a “Sample Ballot Supplement”, and 3) provided and discussed in community workshops and discussions/dialogue on both the rates and the costs well in advance of the first date where mail ballots can be submitted. Further, all during the month leading up to the Tuesday, November 6th Election Day, more workshops and discussions will take place.
Like any sample ballot info on an initiative, the “Sample Ballot Supplement” would contain 1) the actual ballot language, 2) an independent analysis of the impact of the ballot, 3) a set of statements in support and against and rebuttals to those statements. In addition to those “normal” contents would be 4) all the specific detail about the rates and underlying costs and underlying project details that are required by the State for a Prop 218 notice.
Our goal will be to mail the “Sample Ballot Supplement” at the same time as the official Sample Ballot for all the other election day decisions is mailed, and therefore we will need to have rates approved by Council and the Prop 218 language finalized by September 9th. Doing so means that the non-partisan analyst’s written analysis of the rates will be completed by September 19th, as will the argument statements for and against the Ordinance, the underlying rates and the underlying project. The rebuttals to the for and against arguments will be completed by September 29th. The printing will be completed October 3rd and the mailing from West Sac Regional Post Office will happen October 5th, so that arrival at the mailing address of each registered voter on the Election Office’s Sample Ballot mailing list takes place by October 7th (election day minus 29 days), which the Election Office has told me is the target delivery date for the official Sample Ballots.
All arguments will be together with the rates and underlying cost and project details. We are not trying to take away the sample ballot “characteristics” simply to mail it to the voters in two parts.
If we follow this process we will have 1) some property owners who receive a Prop 218, but no Sample Ballot Supplement because they are not registered voters, 2) some registered voters who receive a Sample Ballot Supplement but no Prop 218 because they are not property owners, 3) some registered voters who will receive both, and 4) some lucky people like me who will receive neither because we are not registered voters in the City and are also not property owners of record for the purposes of the Prop 218 notice.
Proposed Surface Water Project Ordinance language
WHEREAS, the City of Davis currently relies solely on groundwater for its municipal water supply source; and
WHEREAS, the existing interim level groundwater supply and quality has experienced incidents of deterioration and may further deteriorate in the future, and the City has been drilling deeper aquifer wells and proceeding with development of an alternative surface water supply; and
WHEREAS, the City can obtain water from the Sacramento River, which in conjunction with groundwater, would provide a more reliable source of water and may also improve the quality of the City’s drinking water; and
WHEREAS, the City is proceeding with developing a surface and groundwater or “conjunctive use” mode which would utilize both surface water and continue to use groundwater during peak demand times, such as during the summer; and
WHEREAS, the use of surface water would also benefit the City’s wastewater system in that use of surface water would lower the amounts of salt and other constituents that are difficult to treat to current and anticipated future federal and state effluent (wastewater) standards; and
WHEREAS, the costs of the surface water project are significant and the City desires input and direction from the water users and voters regarding the proposed conjunctive use water system.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Davis does hereby ordain as follows:
1. Water Rates: Implementation of this Ordinance is contingent on increases in customer water rates as described in the most recent notice issued by the City of Davis under the provisions of Article 13D of the California Constitution, commonly known as Proposition 218.
2. Distribution of Most Recent Notice: A copy of said most recent Proposition 218 notice must be provided to each and every registered voter, at a date certain, no less than 45 days prior to a vote on this ballot measure, regardless of whether the registered voter qualifies for noticing under the Provisions of Proposition 218. If such notice is not so provided to each and every registered voter, the City Council is expressly forbidden from putting said rates into effect and further is expressly forbidden from proceeding with the project described in Section 4 of this Ordinance.
3. Implementation of Water Rates: Approval of this Ordinance by a majority of the voters on this ballot measure, empowers the City Council to place into effect the rates described in said most recent Proposition 218 notice. If approval of this Ordinance by a majority of the voters on this ballot measure is not obtained, the City Council is expressly forbidden from putting said rates into effect.
4. Surface Water Supply Project: The specific water rates described in said most recent Proposition 218 notice, are based on the specific Surface Water Project and Conjunctive Use Water Delivery System described in said most recent Proposition 218 notice. Approval of this Ordinance by a majority of the voters on this ballot measure, empowers the City Council to proceed with the surface water supply project described in said most recent Proposition 218 notice. If approval of this Ordinance by a majority of the voters on this ballot measure is not obtained, the City Council is expressly forbidden from proceeding with said surface water supply project.
What does all this mean?
Bottom-line, even though the issues associated with this water decision are both complex and dynamic, the actual ballot vote’s parameters are so clean that the decision for someone walking into the ballot booth to say “Yes” or “No” will be really quite simple.
There are plenty of ballots that say “approve the bond or don’t approve the bond” on the ballot, but have lots and lots of additional detail in the sample ballot. “The most recent water Prop 218 notice” is an existing legal document formatted to meet statutory requirements. It isn’t referenced in part, but rather in its entirety.
In terms of the ballot the references to the Prop 218 notice are simply “legal” as opposed to “informational.” Said another way the “most recent Prop 218 notice” is a “tangible event.” However, for the purposes of the “Sample Ballot Supplement” that each voter would receive in the mail the language from the Prop 218 notice describing the rates and the underlying costs for the chosen project would be distributed directly to each voter in such a way that it arrives at virtually the same time as the Sample Ballot does, which is why I refer to it as the “Sample Ballot Supplement.” Thus, there will be no registered voters who will have to “search for” or “find” their actual Prop 218 notice.
In simple terms, the voters will only be voting on whether Council should implement those rates if a Prop 218 for new rates is not finalized by September 9th. Regardless the voters would be voting on whether or not to implement the old somewhat defective rates . . . rates which Council has already decided not to implement. By the time that a voter either walks into a voting booth or sits down to mark their mail ballot, the “either/or” reality you describe will not exist. If a new August/September 2012 Prop 218 notice has been published by the City, then the August 2011 notice no longer fits the definition of “the most recent Prop 218 notice.”
With all that said, good intentions aren’t enough, and the “structural” impediments to “doing it right” in the “optimal” timeframe may be too much to overcome. If and when I start to see windmills, I will back off. Right now I’m not totally sure whether the man riding beside me is named Pancho or Sancho. For the moment I’m pretty sure it is the former.
Matt
I often applaud your posts for their clarity even if I disagree with the view but I must say I am offended by your reference to pro life in this story.
And it would appear you and some other WAC members have made up your minds about dates before you know where you’ll be when
My apologies due to a glitch, the full column was truncated.
SODA: Matt says you should re-read it now that the full column is up
SODA, the accidental article truncation made the “balance” (that I was trying to strike at the end of the article) disappear. Hopefully, now that David has gotten the whole article to appear, you can see that my mind isn’t actually made up at all.
The truncation made the metaphor stand out in relief, without the weight of all the rest of the article. I spent a lot of time trying to come up with a way to convey the gravity of denying 17,000 people their voice. I look forward to hearing any thoughts on an alternative to the one I used. I had no intent to offend.
Matt thank you
I do not have time to read the new article now but will.
I would suggest that a disenfranchised voting analogy would be a better one.
I am strongly pro choice/anti anti life, but your reference appeared to me to trivialize that deeply felt controversy in our society. I accept your intent was not to offend. Again, I have appreciated your thoughts on the WAC process and others and value your input to our coo minute and the DV.
Good piece Matt.
This is a complicated issue and there are a lot of moving parts.
I want to clarify where I stand at this point. I support a binding ballot initiative that lays out fully the rates and the project, so that the voters are fully informed as to what they are voted on at the time when they cast their ballots.
I understand there are advantages to a November election, there are other issues apparently with CEQA and other laws that may prevent a fully binding vote.
If we cannot get to the point where we have a full binding vote with rates and the specific project, then my view is that we need to punt it to April, knowing full well that Woodland may have to go it alone.
Matt: read your thoughtful article, but I come away confused … are you advocating to push ahead in November, or taking the time to get it right, and to have a specific project with specific rates that the voters can consider at a later date?
To Vanguard Readers: one technical process thing to consider. For the Meausure J/R process, the Covell Village and the Wildhorse Parlin Development projects were required to have a full EIR ready to go at the time the CC voted to put the project on the ballot. The CC motions approved the EIR packet, and sent the Measure to the COunty Clerk to put on the next ballot.
Here, there is an approved EIR (Dec 2010, I believe) for the Woodland-JPA plant. I doubt that what the CC comes up with at this point for that project is going to fit that EIR because the project was …. too expensive and made no sense from so many technical reasons … but it might be possible to strip down and amend that 2010 EIR for a vote this summer. I don’t know.
However, with the West Sacramento option, there is no specific project, yet, and obviously there isn’t an EIR yet for that project. I heard today that the CC simply has to have the EIR ready before voting to put on the ballot in a binding vote. (I am not sure about this, however.)
Obviously, there are no rates for a W. Sacramento project because there is no project, yet.
What this all means is that we should demand that the CC treat these large public utility projects just like the land use planning projects under Measures J/R : 1) there must be a well-defined, specific project with its baseline features locked down; 2) there must be an EIR for that project; 3) there must be specific rates to pay for that specified project; and the voters should be able to vote on the specific project and rates, with the outcome binding on the City.
In other words, we as a city need to move to a Measure J/R type of specific vote for all large new public utility projects.
Given the debacle by the CC in darned near ramming through the Woodland-JPA disaster and its huge rate increases, and the same CC members who did that are still up there, voting, no, I do not think I want to “trust them” to get the project right with fair rates, on my behalf.
Sorry, CC members, but you had your shot at it and screwed up.
You still are allowing the same water staff consultants and outsiders to give you advice, so in my mind, the CC has learned nothing over the past year.
West Yost screwed up the sewer plant expansion planning? Sue Greenwald caught them, and saved $100 million? Hey, reward West Yost with a new $4 million contract, 4/1 this spring. The CC has not learned to make staff and its consultants accountable.
There is no water supply emergency, and Woodland can do what it wants. Their rush and bad planning is not our fault or responsibility.
Take the time to get it right: a specific project, a specific EIR, and specific rates, all on the ballot for a vote.
In other words, I agree with David G: take the time to get it right.
Michael, a thoughtful comment. To answer your first question, there is a reason I titled the article “No Silver Bullet” because, there are enough flaws in every possible choice that being an “advocate” for one or another doesn’t make sense.
With that said, what I laid out in the article is a path that 1) produces the outcome you and I both want, a specific, binding vote on specific rates that are based on specific coasts that are the result of a specific project, and 2) does not disenfranchise 17,000 voters in the process. If those two goals are accomplishable, then I am all ears. How would your solution avoid the disenfranchisement challenge?
Your EIR wrinkle is an interesting one that I’ll need time to think about that. Since the West Sac plant is already in place, I’m assuming that they have a historical EIR document on file.
I think it is a distortion to refer to the timing of a special election as a “disenfranchisement.” People may choose not to vote in a special election, and we know that turnout is greater for elections with more items on the ballot. But it is a choice. They aren’t disenfranchised. And all they have to do is mail in the ballot. They can do it in half a minute from their dining table.
Disenfranchisement = the property owners who pay the tax but aren’t residents. Hence the Prop. 218 process.
Don: exactly right; there is no disenfranchisement by waiting til next year for a proper balot vote.
Matt: appreciate your comments. Maybe W Sacto already has an EIR, and we dont need one just to buy water. I would defer to Bill Kopper, Dan Mooney, or John Gabrielli on this CEQA issue.
To all: it was fascinating to hear from the project proponent section of the WAC the other night. There appear to be 3-4 “hard” votes for the project, any project, including Helen Thompson. I take it these people are backed by the water consultants and sprawl developers who want the water for their projects. During the water referendum to protect the right to vote, we were attacked over and over by project proponents on the basis that the project is too complex for the simple minds of voters.
Now, some of these same people are pushing for a November ballot so voters can vote, even if the project is not specific and the rates are anyone’s guess.
Matt and ERM: I don’t lump the two of you into the water project proponent group (thanks for your 6/4 vote to recommend that a ballot vote be binding), but the two of you were by far the most persistant opponents of the water referendum because you said you feared it would raise costs to slow down.
Now you are on the WAC, and know something about the data, I am sure you know that the wells are not failing, there is no water emergency, and we can, and must, take our time to get this project right. Please back off from pushing for a November ballot. We would very much appreciate your consideration of this request.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I think it is a distortion to refer to the timing of a special election as a “disenfranchisement.” People may choose not to vote in a special election, and we know that turnout is greater for elections with more items on the ballot. But it is a choice. They aren’t disenfranchised. And all they have to do is mail in the ballot. They can do it in half a minute from their dining table.
Disenfranchisement = the property owners who pay the tax but aren’t residents. Hence the Prop. 218 process.”[/i]
We can call it anything we want to, but the end result will be that in one scenario the public participation will be approximately half of what it will be in another scenario. No matter what semantics we apply to it, that is the reality . . . a reality that we still have an opportunity to avoid.
Bottom-line, as I laid out in the article, the true drop-dead date is September 9th. What harm is there in waiting until then to make a “go-no go” decision?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Don: exactly right; there is no disenfranchisement by waiting til next year for a proper balot vote.”[/i]
Mike, you are a lawyer. What would your reaction be if someone said to you, “Moving the date of the trial for your client back is no problem. The only consequence is that the jury will only be 6 people.”? That is what we are doing here. We are taking steps to have the binding decision on this issue made by half a jury.
Now, with that said, there are definite drawbacks to going in November as well. As I said at the outset of this discussion, the available alternatives for a vote all have flaws and risks and uncertainties. We have to make the best possible decision given those risks and flaws and uncertainties. A jury of six is a flaw IMHO.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Disenfranchisement = the property owners who pay the tax but aren’t residents. Hence the Prop. 218 process.”[/i]
That is only partial disenfranchisement. Full disenfranchisement = property owners who pay tax but neither get a 218 “voice” nor get to vote.
I’m not complaining mind you, my neighbors made that decision for me a long time ago.
“[i]the end result will be that in one scenario the public participation will be approximately half of what it will be in another scenario. No matter what semantics we apply to it, that is the reality…”[/i]
Not voting is a choice. In fact, not voting in an election is a form of voting. Higher or lower turnout is not a valid argument for or against the timing.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt and ERM: I don’t lump the two of you into the water project proponent group (thanks for your 6/4 vote to recommend that a ballot vote be binding), but [b]the two of you were by far the most persistant opponents of the water referendum[/b] because you said you feared it would raise costs to slow down.”[/i]
Mike, time for a fact check. I am 100% sure you will not be able to find even one moment where you will find that is true. Further, you need to check with Pam Nieberg who was gathering referendum signatures at the Farmers Market. She will confirm that I told her I wanted to sign the referendum, but because of my residence I was an “invalid” signatory. Even further, go back to the public comment the night in December. My words are on the video for all to see.
You appear to be confusing my consistent calling you on your bogus “fraud” and ‘fraudulent” comments. Confront you? Yes I absolutely did . . . very actively. But get your facts right regarding what I confronted you on.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Not voting is a choice. In fact, not voting in an election is a form of voting. Higher or lower turnout is not a valid argument for or against the timing.”[/i]
We’ll have to agree to disagree Don. IMHO willfully not voting is a crime. We should enact a law that the tax rate is doubled for people who don’t vote. democracy works best with full participation.
JMHO
[i]IMHO willfully not voting is a crime.[/i]
Wow. In certain races, if I’m insufficiently informed I don’t vote. Democracy is not helped by the participation of uninformed voters.
Matt: sorry if my memory is faulty, but to this day the slams I remember on the Blog were often from you: hurry up; hurry up; cannot wait; gonna cost us tens or hundreds of millions if we wait; the sky is falling; etc etc. Over and over. But we can agree and disagree. I appreciate your vote on that 6/4 the other night at the WAC. I witnessed the surface project alcolytes (led by Helen Thompson) beating on all of you to go with the motion to recommend to the CC that the ballot vote be advisory, and I was impressed how you and ERM held your ground. It’s tough to do under pressure.
Matt
[quote] IMHO willfully not voting is a crime. We should enact a law that the tax rate is doubled for people who don’t vote. democracy works best with full participation. [/quote]
I hope that you were speaking rhetorically. If you were able to enact this, I would be paying some pretty high taxes for choosing not to vote on issues for which I have not adequately prepared myself. I certainly was taught in school that “democracy works best with full participation”. But, I have not seen any evidence to back up this assertion.
Do you have any ?
I just sent this letter to Dan WOlk, the CC, staff, and the media:
Dan,
Congratulations on your election and upcoming job as Mayor pro Tem.
I would very much appreciate your taking the lead on this issue tomorrow night, and moving to:
1. Postpone the November ballot on the water project;
2.Acknowledge the hard work of the WAC, and ask them to provide a status report not later than October 1 on their efforts;
3.Notify the JPA that Davis is holding its commitments in abeyance pending a final report from the WAC and vote by the CC sometime next year;
4.Send a letter to the Woodland CC and say the same thing.
5.Postpone most of this water issue until the new CC is seated on July 10th.
6.Push ahead with a discussion between senior staff of Davis and West Sacramento as to options;
7.Establish a CC special committee of two members (you, and Brett) to study the issues and meet with two members of the West Sacramento CC to explore options;
8.Explore use of our water purchased from the Conaway Ranch as the supply for our conjunctive use program (I know it has to be treated, and how would that occur?);
9.Instruct the WAC and staff to explore a city program encouraging Davis residents to catch rain water and use it for irrigation rather than continuing the 100% use of potable water to water lawns.
10.Investigate how those screwed up rates ended up being presented to the CC for vote on Sept 6. (So far, there has been zero public accountability for that debacle, and you are the one who was most obviously suckered as you made the 4/1 motion.)
There might be other items, but the above is my checklist.
I am recommending you and Brett because Joe is viewed as completely wedded to the Woodland JPA model that has been discredited; and Brett has attended every WAC meeting, studied the issues, and I think is the most ready of the CC to hit the ground running. Also, he is trusted by a number of Davis voters on this issue, and I think can speak for residents who are not necessarily members of the Chamber PAC.
However, I am aware that you and Rochelle are Brown Act partners to some degree, but I am not sure how this would factor into the calculus.
Thank you,
Michael Harrington
Member, Water Referendum Committee
Cc: Steve Pinkerton
City Clerk
Members, City Council
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: sorry if my memory is faulty, but to this day the slams I remember on the Blog were often from you: hurry up; hurry up; cannot wait; gonna cost us tens or hundreds of millions if we wait; the sky is falling; etc etc. Over and over. But we can agree and disagree.”[/i]
Mike, it is literally and physically impossible for you to find such “slams.” Nor is it possible for you to find anything about tens or hundreds of millions. My rhetorical style in dialogue is to ask questions not make statements. If you criticized me for asking you over, and over, and over, and over again “What is your Plan B?” then you would be being accurate. If you criticized me for posting data about the chemistry of wastewater discharges you would again be accurate. If you repeated your comment, from 02/13/12 [i]”Matt: with all the data you collect, you just never seem to connect the dots.”[/i] If you criticized me for pointing out that your arguments are all emotion and no facts. Any of those criticisms of me would be accurate. Unfortunately, you prefer to reach for the most handy hyperbole and use it without doing any due diligence. That’s okay, we all realize that’s your nature.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Wow. In certain races, if I’m insufficiently informed I don’t vote. Democracy is not helped by the participation of uninformed voters.[/i]
Don, how much time does it take to transform uninformed into informed?
By following your dictum we end up with a tyranny of the minority.
Mike Harrington:”9.Instruct the WAC and staff to explore a city program encouraging Davis residents to catch rain water and use it for irrigation rather than continuing the 100% use of potable water to water lawns. “
Any idea what that would cost Mike? I have a pretty good idea it would be tens of millions of dollars. The cisterns would need to be sealed against mosquitos. You can buy a 2000 gallon water tank for between $1000-$1500 plus shipping depending on the quality. You would need it plumbed too and a pump. Under the current system you can buy the same amount of water from the city for a few dollars.
[quote]…Dan WOlk, the CC[/quote]Do you differentiate from Mr Wolk and the rest of the current and incoming CC?
[quote]… if I’m insufficiently informed I don’t vote…[/quote]OK, but here are a hell of a lot of voters who do not have ANY good information (well processed) when THEY vote. I agree that voters should inform themselves, but if someone doesn’t vote because they’re not sure, rest assured there are 5-9 others who vote and have NO clue. I’ll leave the “fines” to others, but my rule is, if you don’t vote, you lose your free-speech right to bitch/kibitz/complain about the outcomes of the vote. You have to ‘suck-it-up’.
Depending on the specific type of turf, and using very round numbers, a 1000 sq ft. lawn would need about 1000 gallons of water [i]a week[/i] during the irrigation season (May – September minimum). Most lawns in Davis are bigger than 1000 sq. ft. Cisterns aren’t unreasonable for people watering small food gardens, or to provide better quality water for acid-loving plants that don’t like our groundwater, but they aren’t going to provide much of a percentage of local landscape or garden watering. They aren’t remotely relevant to the mandate of the WAC, and any analysis of conservation methods is just a distraction from the water project discussion.
So as to Mike Harrington’s list above:
1. ‘Postpone the vote’ — perhaps the WAC should see how much they can get done before the ballot deadline first.
2. ‘status report’ — huh? They provide ongoing minutes and their work is there for everyone to see. No status report needed.
3. unnecessary.
4. unnecessary.
5. ‘postpone most of the water issue’? Why? The WAC continues, the incoming council members are doing their homework.
6. ‘push ahead’ with West Sac — I assume staff contacts are continuing.
7. ‘special subcommittee’ — unnecessary. That is what the WAC is for. Another 2 x 2 would just duplicate existing work.
8. ‘explore Conaway Ranch for conjunctive use’ — don’t take this wrong, Michael, but I really don’t give this statement any credence coming from you. It doesn’t matter what the source of the water is for “conjunctive use.”
9. cisterns. See above.
10. punish staff. I urge Dan Wolk to ignore Mike Harrington’s ongoing calls for retribution. In fact, if I were Dan or any other CC member, the only information I would want from Mike Harrington is for him to state unequivocally what his plans are regarding the various referendums he’s threatened over the last months.
[quote]Postpone the November ballot on the water project[/quote]To when (month and year, or other criteria? Otherwise, it’s ‘kicking the can down the road’.
[quote]…ask them to provide a status report not later than October 1 on their efforts…[/quote]An extension not yet requested… kick the can down the road?
[quote]I know it has to be treated, and how would that occur?[/quote]It is called a ‘water treatment plant’ and it has been part of the proposed project from day 1. But, I can see if you [i][b]absolutely oppose[/b][/i] ANY surface water project, and/or want to make sure the City’s reliable supplies are kept low enough to prevent ANY growth, this might make a slight amount of sense… if we weren’t already in a ‘deficit’ for peak summer use & fire flows.
[quote]Instruct the WAC [b]and staff[/b] to explore a city program encouraging Davis residents to catch rain water and use it for irrigation rather than continuing the 100% use of potable water to water lawns. [quote]No problems with the concept, but the WAC are volunteers, and staff is slated to decline.
[quote]So far, there has been zero public accountability for that debacle[/quote]Sanctions? Layoff? Loss of salary? Shaming? ‘Tar & feathers’? What is your proposed “remedy”?
I believe Michael, that you do not want surface water ib anyway, shape, or form. If the city abandons the joint project with Woodland, and pursues a West Sacramento concept, you will find “serious problems” with that.
[quote]Matt and ERM: I don’t lump the two of you into the water project proponent group (thanks for your 6/4 vote to recommend that a ballot vote be binding), but the two of you were by far the most persistant opponents of the water referendum because you said you feared it would raise costs to slow down. [/quote]
I was NEVER an opponent of the water referendum, and said so publicly many times…
[quote]Instruct the WAC and staff to explore a city program encouraging Davis residents to catch rain water and use it for irrigation rather than continuing the 100% use of potable water to water lawns.[/quote]
These sort of issues were explored in a workshop, are currently deemed too expensive, but are still on the city’s radar screen for future study…
[quote]Mike Harrington:”9.Instruct the WAC and staff to explore a city program encouraging Davis residents to catch rain water and use it for irrigation rather than continuing the 100% use of potable water to water lawns. ” [/quote]
Sounds good. Perhaps Mike can install this system on each of his properties as an example for others. Then provide the costs and demonstrated benefits (City water bills showing savings) to others who may want to do the same.