It appears we may be heading toward a decision on water – at least from the standpoint of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC). The committee voted to eliminate the three most expensive options.
That leaves us with two Woodland options and one West Sacramento option. Committee member Alf Brandt indicated at the meeting that he would be ready to make a motion at the August 9 meeting.
According to alternate Matt Williams, it appears from all indications Alf Brandt will make a motion for one of the Woodland projects and Matt Williams in his article engaged the implications if it were to pass. Given the relatively small difference in cost – if you call $23 million small – that could further shrink, and with the relative complexities of the West Sacramento option, along with serious drawbacks such as lack of ownership and joint governance, uncertain purchase agreements and the serious harm to the relationship with Woodland, there is a lot of sense to such a vote.
However, supporting a Woodland option will set up a very interesting scenario, because while it is true that the work of the WAC, the reduction of the scope of the project and the lowering of the costs have brought more people in line with supporting a final project, there are several other key unresolved points.
The first is that the JPA has been a lightning rod for the dissenters. Most of the critics of the project appear to favor a West Sacramento option which could be delayed more and would not lock Davis into a project with Woodland, which seems to have a very different mindset and core values.
Second, there have been two critical discussions that were shelved as we sorted out which project was optimal and how much it would cost.
We last reported in January that former employees of United Water, one of the bidders for the DBO (Design-Build-Operate) were facing federal charges for tampering with E. coli bacteria monitoring results. The indictment alleges that United Water conspired to ” ‘tamper’ with the required E. coli monitoring method by changing the levels of chlorine administered at the plant before and after taking samples for E. coli.”
We are unable to find a true update on where that stands. However, as of May this year, the trial was still scheduled for next week.
In an article with Newsday, “The firm says it has learned from its mistakes and has implemented a robust environmental compliance program.”
“No other company has a higher commitment to meeting environmental requirements,” said Brent Fewell, United’s vice president of environmental compliance.
The related question is whether the DBO, with a private operator, is the best way to go. United Water would need to make a profit on the investment, while a public “O” might not.
The issue of the proper process, DBO or a more traditional Design-Build model, has largely been shelved. One of the critical questions is whether the JPA should have an outside private company run the water project or whether to have a public entity.
The DBO bidding process not only includes United Water but also Veolia. The Vanguard‘s research last year showed a startling record of failure involving both companies.
Newsday notes, “While United says 95 percent of clients renew their contracts, the company has faced allegations that it has maintained plants poorly and bears responsibility for a variety of water quality violations.”
The WAC has naturally focused on critical questions such as costs and project, but now it needs to focus clearly on the ability of these private companies to provide quality service in a competitive bid environment.
There are actually two clear examples that illustrate the pitfalls here. One was just down the road at the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District. They signed a contract with United Water to operate their sewage system in 2004, and in January of 2008, the District would unanimously vote to bring its system in-house and cancel its contract with United Water.
Audits done by independent auditors found that they could reduce their operational costs by as much as 10 to 15 percent and at the same time offer their employees better benefits.
Their audit report found: “The district would achieve these savings by removing overhead costs associated with the company’s profits, which were expected to be as much as 20 percent of the value of the contract.”
Likewise, the report from Indianapolis involving Veolia illustrates a similar problem.
In 2002, Veolia would sign a massive 20-year, $1.1 billion contract to provide water service to more than one million people.
However, three years later, a federal grand jury would subpoena four Veolia employees as part of an investigation into allegations that the utility falsified water quality reports.
What the investigation would find is that the company had cut back on staffing, water testing, treatment chemicals and maintenance.
“We did lose money, more than we anticipated,” then-Veolia President Tim Hewitt told the Indianapolis Star in 2005. In reference to the ardent public opposition to the deal, he added, “We’ll get through this but have a black eye.”
Except they did not get through it, and the city had to ultimately pay the company additional money while reducing the company’s responsibilities. Amazingly, “Indianapolis then sought to raise rates by 35 percent to pay for these additional expenses along with costlier capital improvement projects.”
The city would eventually turn to a nonprofit Citizens Energy Group to run the operation of their water service.
Going to a public or a non-profit represents one alternative.
What both of these examples illustrate is the pitfalls of a competitive bid process that forces companies to try to be able to underbid their competition. When push comes to shove and they have to cut costs, they do not cut costs at the expense of their profit margin but rather at the expense of their employees, which impacts the level of service.
One report argued that, overall, “Private operation of municipal water and sewer systems often forces consumers to pay more for worse service.”
It adds, “Across the United States – from Fairfield, California, to Houston, Texas, to Gary, Indiana – cities have found that public operation is a better deal for residents. They have reclaimed their water systems, canceling contracts with United Water, to reduce costs and improve services.”
Newsday reports: “In Camden, N.J., United lost 45 percent of its water due to leaks, overflows and meter inaccuracies between 2004-08, according to an audit by the state comptroller. United, which inherited the Camden contract when it purchased another firm, US Water, in 2002, disagreed with the findings of the audit.”
United Water sued the city of Camden when they stopped making payments. This action forced the city to reach a $4 million settlement last year.
“We have tried to resolve our differences and have reached a settlement that keeps the city working with United Water until 2014,” said Patrick Keating, Camden’s director of public works.
As we have noted, “The most serious allegations against United stem from its work in Gary, Ind., where the company and two employees, a project manager and plant superintendent, were charged by the U.S. Justice Department in 2010 with 26 counts of violating the Clean Water Act for allegedly tampering with daily wastewater sampling methods. Their trial begins in August.”
Newsday reports that United Water spokesman Rich Henning said the firm is “fighting the charges” and will “prove ourselves innocent in court.”
Newsday reports, “United disclosed the charges in its bid proposal documents to Nassau. But Mangano spokesman Brian Nevin contends the county executive was not aware.”
“The issue in Indiana came to the county executive’s attention after the selection,” and Mangano has asked the committee that reviewed proposals “to further review the issue,” he said.
Mary Grant, a researcher with Food and Water Watch, a Washington, D.C., group that opposes sewer privatization, has studied United contracts and argues the firm has a poor track record.
“They reduce staff and maintenance, cut corners and increase rates,” she said.
The problem that we face is that we could have written much the same about Veolia. Plus Veolia has another drawback – the Palestinian issue. That issue may play a role with only a small portion of the population – but it is an issue with some resonance. If a coalition starts to form against the water project, and student groups sympathetic to the Palestinian issue are activated, that can change some of the dynamics.
A move back to the Woodland JPA may complicate this process.
A further issue will be whether the WAC can reach a unanimous verdict. If the verdict is unanimous or near unanimous, the project has a better chance of succeeding. But if there are three or four dissenters, it could fan a heated battle into the spring.
Finally, when the discussion about United Water and the DBO process emerged in the JPA last year, the Woodland councilmembers were almost completely uninterested. This may seem like a small thing, but it reflects a fundamental difference in the values between the two cities, highlighted by the entirely Republican Woodland City Council against the largely liberal Davis City Council.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]”According to alternate Matt Williams – it appears from all indications he will make a motion for one of the Woodland projects [b]and Matt Williams believes that it will pass[/b]. Given the relatively small difference in cost – if you call $23 million small – that could further shrink, and the relative complexities of West Sacramento along with serious drawbacks such as lack of ownership and joint governance, uncertain purchase agreements, and the serious harm to the relationship with Woodland, there is a good of sense to this vote.”[/i]
Whoa there David. The scenario I wrote about was hypothetical. I “put it on the table” in my article yesterday for discussion purposes, not as a prediction. I have no specific knowledge about whether it will pass or not . . . especially without knowing what form it will take.
Bottom-line, you have jumped the gun, and I would suggest you reword your article.
Done
Matt and David
If WAC goes for one of the JPA options then decides DB is preferable to DBO or wants other bidders courted, would that be possible or has that train left the station?
[i]the entirely Republican Woodland City Council[/i]
Are you sure all the members of the Woodland City Council are Republicans?
BTW, wasn’t there a third firm bidding?
SODA, that is an issue that the WAC will be discussing after it completes its current efforts to come up with a project recommendation.
“Are you sure all the members of the Woodland City Council are Republicans?”
Pimentel told me. He and Martie Dotie were the Democrats and they are now off the council.
Understand Matt but what has to happen for it to occur if WAC and CC do suggest DB for JPA option?
[quote]If WAC goes for one of the JPA options then decides DB is preferable to DBO or wants other bidders courted, would that be possible or has that train left the station?[/quote]
In so far as I am aware, that train has [u][b]not[/b][/u] left the station!
So, to clarify,
[i]”when the discussion about United Water and the DBO process emerged in the JPA last year, the Woodland councilmembers were almost completely uninterested”[/i]
… the council contained two Democrats? Therefore
“[i] it reflects a fundamental difference in the values between the two cities, highlighted by the entirely Republican Woodland City Council against the largely liberal Davis City Council[/i]”
is an incorrect statement?
[quote]dmg: Most of the critics of the project appear to favor a West Sacramento option which could be delayed more and would not lock Davis into a project with Woodland, who seems to have a very different mindset and core values.[/quote]
[quote]dmg: Finally, when the discussion about United Water and the DBO process emerged in the JPA last year, the Woodland Councilmembers were almost completely uninterested. This may seem like a small thing, but it reflects a fundamental difference in the values between the two cities highlighted by the entirely Republican Woodland City Council against the largely liberal Davis City Council.[/quote]
Is Republican versus Democrat what you are referring to by conjuring up “differences” between the two cities in “core values”? The Vanguard is now going to try and frame the surface water issue as somehow a political one? The implication seems to be Davis should have nothing to do with Woodland because they are Republicans? Is that the Vanguard’s position?
I would posit the more sensible/realistic view that water issues have absolutely nothing to do with what particular political party one may be affiliated with; that it is very much a local issue that needs to be figured out on a pragmatic basis. In fact the Woodland WAC has discussed the very same issues that the Davis WAC has looked at – but the crux of the matter is one of cost. For Woodland, the West Sac option does not pencil out financially – it is the more expensive alternative for Woodland.
“Is Republican versus Democrat what you are referring to by conjuring up “differences” between the two cities in “core values”?”
I’m going to raise this point more specifically later this week, but there are some issues such as project and cost, that political / core value differences do not matter. There are other issues where it may. I’ll lay it out more later this week.
Elaine
There is a Woodland WAC?
What have their discussions and decisions yielded?
I was unaware they had a WAC.
[quote]dmg: The issue of the proper process – DBO or a more traditional Design-Build model has largely been shelved. One of the critical questions is whether the JPA should have an outside private company run the water project or whether to have a public entity.[/quote]
It seems wiser to resolve the issue of which alternative first and foremost. There should be ample time to look at other issues once the preferred alternative is chosen.
[quote]dmg: The WAC has naturally focused on critical questions such as costs and project, but now it needs to focus clearly on the ability of these private companies to provide quality service in a competitive bid environment.[/quote]
The WAC does not need to focus on the DBO issue yet. Rate structure is the next order of business. Secondly, I don’t believe it is part of the WAC’s mission to select which specific company should/should not be chosen for this project – that would be beyond the scope of what the WAC was tasked to do.
[quote]dmg: A move back to the Woodland JPA may complicate this process.
[/quote]
So is the real point of all this “discussion” of DBO and Republican versus Democrat really a call for the West Sac option?
[quote]dmg: A further issue will be whether the WAC can reach a unanimous verdict. If the verdict is unanimous or near unanimous, the project has a better chance of succeeding. But if there are three or four dissenters, it could fan a heated battle into the spring.[/quote]
In other words the WAC had better come up with a unanimous/near unanimous decision, or else? It sounds like a threat…
Elaine:
“It seems wiser to resolve the issue of which alternative first and foremost. There should be ample time to look at other issues once the preferred alternative is chosen. “
I’m not criticizing your prioritization of tasks – I agree with your reasoning here.
“The WAC does not need to focus on the DBO issue yet.”
I agree – but it the time is getting closer.
” Secondly, I don’t believe it is part of the WAC’s mission to select which specific company should/should not be chosen for this project – that would be beyond the scope of what the WAC was tasked to do. “
I’m not sure on this point. The intent of the article was to raise issues that are still unresolved, not necessarily task them to the WAC. That said, I think this is an issue that the WAC should take up.
“So is the real point of all this “discussion” of DBO and Republican versus Democrat really a call for the West Sac option? “
No. This article does not take a position on which way to go, it only seeks to highlight issues that will arise and have not been dealt with.
“In other words the WAC had better come up with a unanimous/near unanimous decision, or else? It sounds like a threat… “
Good lord Elaine, I sometimes wonder about you. Again, the point here is to highlight possible issues. I have not taken a position myself.
[quote]dmg: Finally, when the discussion about United Water and the DBO process emerged in the JPA last year, the Woodland Councilmembers were almost completely uninterested. This may seem like a small thing, but it reflects a fundamental difference in the values between the two cities highlighted by the entirely Republican Woodland City Council against the largely liberal Davis City Council.[/quote]
There is an implication here that the city of Davis is so much smarter than Woodland; that the values of Davis are so much superior. At least that is how the paragraph comes off to me (and I suspect is how Woodland and other cities might see it), which I find worrisome, vexing, perplexing, but expected.
Every community has its own ethos, concerns and viewpoint. No one community is superior to another. Davis has a not so great reputation for its “I’m better than every other city” attitude, which in my opinion is not one of Davis’s better qualities. Davis has actually become the butt of jokes in many quarters. This superior attitude often works to our city’s detriment. If you go to another city, and admit you are from Davis, it is not unusual for the other person to roll their eyes and raise the issue of how superior Davis thinks it is.
Secondly, one’s party affiliation should not somehow make him/her a lesser person. A particular party affiliation does not make a person dumber, more close-minded, less of a critical thinker. Neither do liberals nor conservatives have a lock on what is “right and relevant”.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”In other words the WAC had better come up with a unanimous/near unanimous decision, or else? It sounds like a threat…”[/i]
Elaine, I don’t see that as a threat at all. I see it as a recognition of the political reality that if we end up in a February period leading up to the march vote in which some WAC members are openly discussing their dissenting vote . . . then the election will be a much messier one. That seems to be common sense.
In writing this article David is making the same point I made yesterday when I described my Group 11. The difference is that he is pointing out specifics about the issues that are central to the people in that Group. My words yesterday were as follows, and I think that assessment is still on target.
[i][b]11. For those who have serious ethical concerns about the bidding DBO firms and/or the DBO model itself and/or the DBO bidding process,[/b]
The major engagement of the issues central to this interest group are yet to come; however, some of the people in this group can be expected to vote against a 12 mgd WDCWA project simply because the West Sacramento Bryte Bend surface water treatment facility will not be designed, built, or run by one of the DBO firms. So, the key question when assessing this group is without double counting a “no” vote that has been counted in any of the earlier groups, how many “no” votes will be cast by this group?[/i]
BTW, wasn’t there a third firm bidding?
With the lapse of time, and questions on “scope”, are the bids still “in play”?
[quote]There is a Woodland WAC?
What have their discussions and decisions yielded?
I was unaware they had a WAC.[/quote]
Yes, Woodland had had a WAC for quite some time, much, much longer than Davis. It consists of about 25 members, and if I’m not mistaken were not chosen by City Council members. I believe they were just interested and concerned citizens. I know that they discussed many of the same issues our WAC is wrestling with, but I couldn’t tell you what recommendations they made. I presume you could find out by contacting Woodland.
[quote]erm: “In other words the WAC had better come up with a unanimous/near unanimous decision, or else? It sounds like a threat… ”
dmg: Good lord Elaine, I sometimes wonder about you. Again, the point here is to highlight possible issues. I have not taken a position myself.[/quote]
Here are your words:
[quote]A further issue will be whether the WAC can reach a unanimous verdict. If the verdict is unanimous or near unanimous, the project has a better chance of succeeding. But if there are three or four dissenters, it could fan a heated battle into the spring.[/quote]
To me, it sounds as if the Vanguard is saying if the WAC does not come up with a unanimous verdict, then it can expect a heated battle as a result, and will have failed in its mission in regard to public outreach. Hence the WAC had much better come up with a unanimous verdict.
Here is where I am coming from to better explain my reaction. As Chair of the WAC, it has been singularly frustrating when members of the public (not just the Vanguard) seem incapable of trusting the WAC to carry out its mission as an independent body. Pressure is constantly put on the WAC (often behind the scenes) to do things a certain way; to come up with certain decisions, etc., rather than allowing the WAC to carry out its mission as an independent body.
Additionally, I suspect that if the WAC unanimously decides on any surface water project alternative, there may be some citizens who will not be happy with such a decision because they want no project at all, and will “fan a heated battle into the spring” anyways, no matter what the WAC does or doesn’t do. The WAC still has to act as an independent body, listen to all the evidence, and come to the decision it thinks is best [i][b]based on that evidence[/b][/i]. It cannot base its decisions on what it thinks a few citizens might or might not do…
“There is an implication here that the city of Davis is so much smarter than Woodland; that the values of Davis are so much superior. At least that is how the paragraph comes off to me (and I suspect is how Woodland and other cities might see it), which I find worrisome, vexing, perplexing, but expected.”
I don’t know where you come up with the implication that Davis is superior or smarter, the comment was different, there was no value judgment attached to it.
ERM…. ‘chill’… the WAC (or anyone else) had better not believe that the WAC is in a position to MAKE any DECISION (unanimous, or otherwise). Y’all were appointed by the CC, not the rate-payers/customers/voters. I will be extremely angry if the ‘electeds’ rubber-stamp (or, reject, in a cavalier manner) the WAC [b]RECOMMENDATIONS[/b]. The decision is their (CC) responsibility, and they need to be accountable for it, and not hide behind the WAC.
I respect the commitment and work by the WAC.
I was told by a source close to the JPA that the DBO is pretty much a done deal. That issue will not be on the table. If that information is correct, it has some huge implications for going forward.
[quote]To me, it sounds as if the Vanguard is saying if the WAC does not come up with a unanimous verdict, then it can expect a heated battle as a result, and will have failed in its mission in regard to public outreach. Hence the WAC had much better come up with a unanimous verdict.[/quote]
Elaine: I don’t see how that explanation of the politics of the decision is tantamount to a threat. I see it as a reality. A split decision will foster existing cleavages in the community, a unanimous decision will smooth some of them.
“Additionally, I suspect that if the WAC unanimously decides on any surface water project alternative, there may be some citizens who will not be happy with such a decision because they want no project at all”
I don’t disagree.
Give us United Water or Veolia Water as targets, and we will easily knock down the Woodland choice. Also, the DBO option is Dead Before Arrival in Davis. We want Davis W-2 employee professional staff running our water system, fully accountable to the City Manager and CC and our ratepayers and voters
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”We want Davis W-2 employee professional staff running our water system, fully accountable to the City Manager and CC and our ratepayers and voters.”[/i]
In the immortal words of Tonto, “Uhh…who do you mean we, Kemo Sabe?”
City employees working at a new plant? Yeah…. so why is the City shedding so many of those workers?
Mike H.: please own up to the fact that you are opposed to ANY surface water answer that might occur in the next 50 years?
[quote]I don’t know where you come up with the implication that Davis is superior or smarter, the comment was different, there was no value judgment attached to it.[/quote]
Here are the Vanguard’s words:
[quote]dmg: Finally, when the discussion about United Water and the DBO process emerged in the JPA last year, [i][b]the Woodland Councilmembers were almost completely uninterested[/b][/i]. This may seem like a small thing, but it reflects a fundamental difference in the values between the two cities highlighted by the entirely Republican Woodland City Council against the largely liberal Davis City Council.[/quote]
The implication seemed to be 1) Woodland Councilmembers don’t pay attention to important details; 2) Woodland City Council members are “Republican” (oh horrors!) whereas Davis City Council members are “liberal” (politically correct). LOL
[quote]I was told by a source close to the JPA that the DBO is pretty much a done deal. That issue will not be on the table. If that information is correct, it has some huge implications for going forward.[/quote]
Source? As far as the WAC knows, the DBO issue is very much on the table for consideration…
“The implication seemed to be 1) Woodland Councilmembers don’t pay attention to important details; 2) Woodland City Council members are “Republican” (oh horrors!) whereas Davis City Council members are “liberal” (politically correct). LOL”
The implication was: (1) Davis is concerned about a particular issue, Woodland is not. (2) One reason for that is that Woodland is more conservative than Davis. (3) This may be an issue on a few things as we move forward.
Elaine: I think you are reading stuff into what I wrote that was not intended. I was simply addressing issues that will come forward.
DMG: “A source close to the JPA…”
ERM: “Source? As far as the WAC knows, the DBO issue is very much on the table for consideration…”
Do you actually think I used an anonymous source when I could have named the source?
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”The implication seemed to be 1) Woodland Councilmembers don’t pay attention to important details; 2) Woodland City Council members are “Republican” (oh horrors!) whereas Davis City Council members are “liberal” (politically correct). LOL.”[/i]
Elaine, implications are a whole lot like beauty . . . they are in the eye of the beholder. I didn’t come away with the same feeling you did. Only that the Woodland City Council was focused on a different set of issues than a substantial proportion of Davis residents might be. Woodland’s Council simply is focusing on the issues and concerns that they feel are most important to them.
Don: [i]”BTW, wasn’t there a third firm bidding?”[/i]
Why, yes, Don, there was another firm under discussion.
[url]http://newsroom.ch2mhill.com/pr/ch2m/for-fourth-year-ch2m-hill-named-230716.aspx[/url]
Don: the JPA’s own bidding rules require a minimum pool of three qualified bidders
Clearly two are not
Back to the drawing board and reopen the pool, not so sorry to say.
Of course , the CC knew all about this last fall; I gave it to them
It’s a dilemma of their own making.
They’re qualified, Michael, you just don’t like them for other reasons. The JPA will get the bids. The ethics issues can be a consideration in awarding of the final contract(s). I’m just curious why CH2MHill wasn’t mentioned once in this article, nor by you at any time as the DBO process has been under discussion.
For those interested, ethics responses are available here: [url]http://www.wdcwa.com/documents[/url]
Let me see … you put out a job bid for Utilities Director. You get a bunch of resumes. Your hiring rules say you have to narrow it down to three finalists. Are you telling me that if one of those applicants had water testing felony fraud indictment pending, you are going to call that one applicant “qualified” and count them as one of your mimimum three?? Give me a break, please.
This is what the JPA is doing with United Water, with the full participation of Mayor Joe Kravoza (and formerly SOuza). Now that Brett Lee has been appointed by the CC as one of the two Davis Board Members on the JPA, we believe that he needs to take the strongest possible measures against keeping the current bidding pool, and assuming we even leave Woodland in the mix, the bidding pool should be rid of United Water and Veiolia, and re-opened to qualified bidders.
Don, you surprise me. How can you say that United Water is qualified?
Or Veolia Water, with its extremely controversial record?
If the CC wants to continue studying staying in the Woodland option, they had better be prepared to force open the bidding pool and dumping Unted Water and Veolia Water.
I do not like the DBO option at all, and I agree with Mike that it is likely to be problematic for many in Davis. But I don’t know how anyone can say that the DBO vs DB option is still open in light of the time pressures that Woodland supposedly has in moving forward with this project. Even the discussions at the Davis City Council level presupposed that bidding by the three bidders already selected needs to move forward so quickly that Davis may need to pay for Woodland-only bids as an option. When could discussions about DB vs DBO option possible take place ar JPA and meet Woodland’s timeline? When could JPA possibly identify other potential bidders and meet Woodland’s timeline?
Oh, and David G is corrrect. I am sorry to say that I have not had time to study the Veolia Interntional connection with the Middle East busing issue, but I have read that there is a lot of negative energy against Veolia in our local community. If Veolia is left in the bidding pool, David G is right: look to the Middle East Peace and Justice groups joining forces with Davis groups against the Woodland JPA.
“But I don’t know how anyone can say that the DBO vs DB option is still open in light of the time pressures that Woodland supposedly has in moving forward with this project.”
It’s not open. And I was told that a DB option would be worse than the current DBO option.
United Water has had lots and lots of testing/quality problems. Veolia hasn’t. If you want to slam Veolia for water quality or testing “failures” in the past, please provide details on those. Remember that Veolia is huge and operates water facilities all over the world, so the “failures” would have to be numerous and substantial to be a significant percentage of its operations, rather than errors at one particular location that are atypical of the company.
As for “the Palstinian problem,” the whole issue is hogwash. First of all, it involves a related but distinct company, not Veolia. Second, there is nothing the related company has done in building/operating a train line in Jerusalem that has hurt Palestinian residents at all. To the contrary, it provided much needed public transportation between Palstinian neighborhoods and other parts of Jerusalem.
The anti-Israel radicals have targeted this related company simply because it does business in Israel, as part of the radicals’ global boycott and divestment campaign against Israel (which has been almost completely unsuccessful even though it has been going on for well over 10 years). Should the JPA reject a potentially excellent bidder because a related company does business in Israel? How does that represent the interests of water users and ratepayers? (Even the old JPA with Steve Souza and its 2 Democrat members from Woodland rejected that suggestion.)
Michael: the firms are “qualified” in the sense that they have designed dozens of these facilities and operated quite a large number of them.
This is a description of the Gary case: [url]http://www.americanwaterintel.com/archive/2/1/general/doj-sues-united-water-mismanaging-gary-wwtp.html[/url]
By the way, you want public employees to run the JPA? From the article linked: “[i][b]When United Water took over the plant, it had been under an EPA consent decree to find a private operator due to its numerous environmental compliance issues.”[/b][/i]
Robin: Remember: THERE IS NO RUSH FOR DAVIS. We have a safe, wonderful water system that right now, unchanged, will last for many years without safety issues. The “rush” is all about Woodland, and their CC’s bad planning and their forcing through a large expensive water project to the extreme detriment of the poor and middle class residents. Alf’s chest-banging drama at the last WAC meeting that “I am ready to vote on Aug 9!” could mean anything. But I hope its not about forcing us to once again rush into a project of extremely dubious benefits for our town.
(He was a very, very forceful voice last month to make the November ballot a non-binding advisory vote, so I am not exactly enthusiastic as to what his Aug 9 motion might be. The WAC ended up voting 6/4 for a binding citywide ballot vote, and the two swing WAC members for the 6/4 were Elaine and Matt, and for that we should all be grateful forever and ever.)
At this point, we should dump the remaining most expensive Woodland option, study the one remaining least cost Woodland option against what West Sacramento has to offer, and make a decision next year. If Alf makes THAT motion, my tea leaves suggests it will be 10-0, as it should be on the WAC.
Also, Matt did some very thoughtful research to support a joint cities letter to the Water Board asking them to give Woodland a year before increasing the fines, and I hope that the Davis CC puts that on its August 26th agenda and gets Woodland to also sign on. It would allow for a careful, measured analysis of the options for all concerned.
However, if Woodland wants to talk with us, they had better be prepared to have the plant publically owned and operated.
Even then, I do not agree with the JPA structure and the loss of Davis sovereignity over its vital supply system of water to its residents, but we probably wont ever reach this issue because I expect Woodland to continue to dishonor and defraud its own rate payers, and go it alone. And good riddance if they do. I want nothing to do with the Woodland CC members who came to Davis to our CC meeting on Dec 6th and trashed us.
Robin W: my comments about Veolia come from reading, and friends sending me links. Maybe it’s time we post an analysis about those bidders? Look for one soon.
As to United Water, I have the documents from the court cases. I sent them to the CC last fall, and again this month. SO far, Mayor Kravoza has not told me that he is going to go to the next JPA meeting and attempt to dump the two bidders, especially United Water. He sure did not try last fall after he got certain court opinions that were extremely damning. THis spring the expert reports were released, and I have been meaning to get them to the DV and the Davis Enterprise for articles. Maybe I will write it myself. It’s not a pretty sight, from reading the federal court docket, I assure you.
Also, since the JPA voted to close the pool and accept the three bidders (AFTER they got my documents last fall), I dont know that two Davis JPA members can vote to undo the damage; there are two votes from WOodland. A tie means we are stuck with the past votes, right? I dont know if there are any “off ramps” or tie breakers in the process.
I hope the WAC revisits the water softener issue, and the nitrate treatment issue.
Mike, I understand that the “Woodland time pressures” might be avoidable, but Woodland is not pushing to be relieved of those pressures, and the Davis City Council seems willing to accept those time pressures as valid. So we will be stuck with the effects of those time pressures if the WAC recommends a Woodland option and the Davis CC accepts that recommendation. I have concerns about doing this deal with Woodland but also have concerns about the West Sac option, and I have not decided yet which of these options disturbs me more.
Michael, exactly how would you like the WAC to discuss the water softener issue? What are the questions about water softeners that you feel need to be answered that currently are unanswered?
Same question for the nitrates issue? What are the questions about nitrates that you feel need to be answered that currently are unanswered?
[b]DG[/b]: [i]And I was told that a DB option would be worse than the current DBO option[/i].
I would be interested in hearing why the DB option would be worse than the DBO option. I would like to see public ownership and operation of the water facilities.
[b]MH[/b]: [i]Maybe it’s time we post an analysis about those bidders? Look for one soon.[/i]
If you proceed with this, please try to write a balanced presentation by making sure the usual BDS-ers and other anti-Israel activists are not your only source for information on Veolia.
Robin: so lobby WAC Member Alf to cut the most expensive JPA option, keep the least, and keep West Sacto.
I personally think the 12 mgd figure is too high, but there is research to be done yet.
Robin: just re-read your note. Isn’t it interesting that so far the Davis CC (old and new) seem to place more import on Woodland’s self-made timing problems than the interests of Davis voters?
It’s not that it would in general be worse, it’s that in this case, we would not re-run the firm seeking process, so we would basically hack off the “O” but not capture a number of good D-B’s that were eliminated because they could not also provide the “O” – if that makes any sense.
David: I am sure there are plenty of firms that would design the system; plenty more that would build it; and plenty more that would train our W-2 employees to run it in perpetuity. I don’t see any reason to load all of it up on one private firm.
I hear that they jack rates up for at least a 20% profit margin on the operations, which is why it is fiscally insane for a public entity to ever think that the Operating Company is somewhow going to save the public money.
The Woodland JPA was a fiscally and politicaly insane idea from Day One. Truly nuts. And I understand what I am saying, when I use those words. Psycho.
Of course, the Woodland JPA is not illogical or crazy, if you assume those who set it up had other motives or factors driving their votes, besides the good of the public. I dont know what motivates those Woodland CC members. Saylor wants the campaign money for his career; there is huge amounts of money available from the builders and beneficiaries of the water supply to fund campaign donations. Just like he used Davis and the huge giveaways to the Fire Fighters Union in furtherance of political support. It worked in 2004 and 2008, but it did not work for Souza in 2012. Times are changing.
Mike, I would be interested in hearing your responses to the concerns that others have expressed about the West Sac option, esp since you expressed concern about Davis not having control of its water supply under the Woodland option.
[quote]DMG: “A source close to the JPA…”
ERM: “Source? As far as the WAC knows, the DBO issue is very much on the table for consideration…”
DGM: Do you actually think I used an anonymous source when I could have named the source?
[/quote]
The problem w unnamed sources if there is no way to verify their credibility…
No, I have every opportunity to verify their credibility – you’ll just have to trust my judgment.
[quote]Remember: THERE IS NO RUSH FOR DAVIS. We have a safe, wonderful water system that right now, unchanged, will last for many years without safety issues…
At this point, we should dump the remaining most expensive Woodland option, study the one remaining least cost Woodland option against what West Sacramento has to offer, and make a decision next year.[/quote]
Which is it – we should use our current system, or we should consider the Woodland and West Sac options and make a decision? We have dumped the most expensive Woodland option…
[quote]Mike, I would be interested in hearing your responses to the concerns that others have expressed about the West Sac option, esp since you expressed concern about Davis not having control of its water supply under the Woodland option.[/quote]
Very astute observation Robin W!
[i]”I hear that they jack rates up for at least a 20% profit margin on the operations, which is why it is fiscally insane for a public entity to ever think that the Operating Company is somewhow going to save the public money.”[/i]
I imagine Rich Rifkin can answer this better, but whether it is cheaper in-house than contracted out almost certainly depends on the benefit and retirement differences between public vs private management. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be laying off tree pruners and hiring private firms to do that work.
[quote]No, I have every opportunity to verify their credibility – you’ll just have to trust my judgment. You are in a better position than most in fact, as you can pick up the phone and call any number of people who would be able to verify my source’s information. I suggest you ask Dennis Diemer himself.[/quote]
So your source is Dennis Diemer? Will he say the same thing if I ask?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I hear that they jack rates up for at least a 20% profit margin on the operations, which is why it is fiscally insane for a public entity to ever think that the Operating Company is somewhow going to save the public money.”[/i]
Mike, you are in Paul Harvey mode. Take a few deep breaths and count to 20. Your heart rate and your blood pressure will both come down if you do.
The DBO model is essentially a merger of A) Operational Outsourcing with B) the building of the project infrastructure. Your comment about profit margin is only relevant if you look at the interrelationship between the “design” portion of the DBO project and the “building” portion of the DBO project and the “operations” portion of the DBO project. Which begs the question, “Why consider outsourcing the operations?”
The answer to that question is very simple . . .
— First, you have to ask, does Davis (or Woodland) currently have the Staff skills needed to operate the kind of plant that will be built? The answer to that question is an emphatic and resonant [b][i]”No.”[/b][/i]
— Next, because of the prior answer, you have to ask, how easy is it to hire the additional employees [u]with the requisite skills and experience needed to operate the kind of plant that will be built[/u]? The answer to that question is, [b][i]”Quite difficult because there is intense California-wide (and worldwide) competition for engineers with those skills.””[/b][/i] The reason for that answer is straightforward. The Woodland/Davis project will be a very small project by industry standards, so engineers with experience who are looking to move up in their careers will see Woodland/Davis as a “small pond” at the same time that their career desires are for the challenges and compensation of a “bigger pond.” As a result, Woodland/Davis will be primarily looking at entry-level engineers with virtually no experience . . . not ideal by any stretch of the imagination. Even worse, the primary competition for those young engineers fresh from college will be the for-profit industry giants [u]who can offer more money and a clear career path[/u]. Newly minted water engineers will mean substantially increased training costs . . . and probably higher frequency of plant process breakdowns, with associated costs as a result of those breakdowns.
— Third, as Woodland-Davis employees progress in their career paths, the opportunities for advancement and greater career challenge (and pay) will be much more limited than in the “big ponds” of larger municipalities ad/or the private sector. Therefore, the incidence of “lost” employees will be substantially higher than industry averages. Further, when a Woodland-Davis employee gives his/her notice, all the investment in that employee’s education will walk out the door with him/her . . . and the the challenges and costs of the hiring/training cycle described above will start once again.
— Fourth, a private firm is in the enviable position of having a whole range of customer projects to deploy its employees to both here in the US and around the Globe. Unlike public agencies, as a general rule, the private firms get considerable “leverage” out of investing in employee education, so they invest heavily in formal training staff/programs to ensure that their new employees don’t solely learn on the job (with the attendant mistakes such learning includes). Those training programs do not come without a cost to the private firms. So they are not actually “jacking up” their rates, but rather paying for a value-added service to their customers that the customers are simply not able to provide to their own employees.
— Fifth, when an employee at “small pond” project reaches the point where his/her career path is due for greater challenges, the private firm can plan for that employees eventual transition out of the project and pre-train an existing firm employee to be the “back fill” when the promotion out of the project actually happens. The result is virtually no hiring costs associated with transition, as well as very little “knowledge loss” when the promoted employee leaves the project. Like training programs, employee retention programs do not come without a cost to the private firms. So again they are not actually “jacking up” their rates, but rather paying for a value-added service to their customers that the customers are simply not able to provide to their own employees.
In closing, all those “stability” factors save the agency a considerable amount of annual expense money that they would have had to spend rectifying the errors that their inexperienced and often short-staffed operations would almost surely make . . . errors that the “outsourcing” vendor will almost surely avoid.
DOn: I would never vote to entrust the safety of our street tree canopy to a private company.
Robin: I would be OK for now if the WAC dumps the most expensive of the two remaining Woodland options, and votes to continue to study the remaining two options (one each for Woodland and West Sacramento). Americans love competition, and I see the merits here of that interaction.
As to the West Sacto options, stay tuned. As of the WAC meeting last THursday, Brett Lee told the WAC that he and Mayor Krovoza had not yet even met West Sac CC members. I dont know why it is so slow … I do know that our Mayor remains in favor of the WOodland JPA, and came close at the last CC meeting to pouring another $1.o million of our money into the dirt, for nothing (IMHO). So things are a bit tense …
In terms of control of our water supply, again: I view the conjunctive use project as not our main supply, but a supplement. The needed gallons per day were way, way over stated by staff right up until the last couple of WAC meetings, and there is tension on the WAC about getting it real, soon. I’m OK with just buying water on a long term favorable contract with West Sacramento. Their product is going to be clearly superior to that of the JPA, since the JPA’s inlet is immediately downstream of a major ad drain where the horrible runoff is concentrated.
We can set the standards for the West Sacto contract, build in options to renew, and generally protect ourselves for generations.
The West Sacto plant is publically owned and operated, and BUILT, and partially sitting idle. All we have to do is figure out the long term capabilities and costs of our current wells under our feet, move the state river water permits around a bit (see research done by Matt Williams), build a pipeline over there along the Causeway, a pumping station, and a way to move that water around our city distribution system, and we are good to go. Buy that water like milk from a dairy, by the gallon. I know this simple plan makes those JPA advocates go crazy, but the fact is it really is rather simple to do a deal with West Sac. If our Mayor wanted to do one, he could have gone over there months ago, but has not. At lease now he has Brett Lee bird-dogging the process and reporting back to the public.
Matt: my BP is just fine, but thanks for worrying!
Want an employee to stick around? Build into the hiring contract incentives. Also, build in forfeitures if they leave early. I dont really know about public agency employment law, but there are others who do, and I am sure this problem can be solved by experienced specialty attorneys.
Actually, one of the things that struck me about the Woodland JPA was it sure gave the current water staff of Woodland and Davis a great place to plug into after retiring from here, right? Diemer is an example: he was paid nearly a half a million dollars at the EB MUD, and now probably collects around $200K in retirement benefits. He works PARTTIME for the JPA, and gets about $200K a year.
Our city staff all recommended and pushed for the big Taj Mahal project, with huge rates that came within 132 registered Davis voters last fall from literally gushing rivers of our local money into that JPA, and I am sure there were no contract provisions that prohibited those same employees who pushed for the JPA and the huge rate increases from jumping over to that ship upon reaching a retirement age here.
Sorry: I dont mean to impute motives to anyone in particular. It’s just that it is so open and obvious to the public what could have or would have transpired with the relationship between the two local cities, and the JPA being a separate entity, with no prohibitions that I know of in the JPA creation documents stopping the JPA from hiring our senior staff or retirees.
Diemer is earning big big money part time. THe JPA Board thinks Unted Water is appropriate for our JPA and cities; do you think that same JPA Board is going to not handsomely reward those who recommended and set up the whole thing in the first instance?
The entire JPA legal and political process had the smell of floor goo in a barn, and the above analysis just points out one more reason why we were set up to throw our money at a small group of interested persons.
[quote]The West Sacto plant is publically owned and operated, and BUILT, and partially sitting idle. [/quote]
Yes, West Sac owns the water treatment plant, not Davis. But Davis would merely be a customer of West Sac, and subject to its whims, e.g. what if West Sac wants to increase its commercial and/or residential development and needs most/all of their water? Where does that leave Davis? Yet you decry the Woodland option because the DBO process would result in the plant being operated by a private company, yet Davis would be a part owner of the plant itself and not subject to the whims of any other city, and public ownership is what you seem to want. The contradiction in your positions is stark and illogical…
Oh, one example of the possible staff jumps to the JPA and Woodland for the water plant: remember that once the CC put the heat on our City Manager, Paul Navazio, about those false budgets with negatives being called “unmet needs,” and the referendum exposed the false rates that Navazio was jointly in charge of developing with water staff, notice that Navazio jumped ship and suddenly went to Woodland to build their huge water plant? Being the CM of Woodland is next best thing to being a senior staff in that JPA, if it was fully funded and the project going ahead as planned.
So we already have an example of one of our senior staff heading north for some of that water gold.
The Davis CC should require any water staff member working on the water plant and JPA to sign a pledge not to go to work at the plant the staff recommended be built. There is a direct conflict of interest that can be resolved via agreement with staff.
ERM: there is no contradiction. We build into the contract long terms, and options to renew, and other things that water contract lawyers know to add to proect the interests of their clients. I am supporting keeping the least expensive Woodland option for now. If we have a good basic contract with whomever, we are not subject whims; we do not have to be an owner.
Woodland’s intake location is far inferior to that of West Sacramento, so Woodland starts with a huge technical deficit, in my opinion.
I think the trick is for the WAC to sniff out all the dollar paddings and puffs that staff are putting into the West Sacto project costs. Staff have been told for over ten years that it’s Woodland or bust, and I can see from the WAC meetings and communications that they are having a hard time reducing the false population growth assumptions from the Souza/Saylor era, and grossly high estimates of water demand, and a host of other factors that drive up the size and cost of the project. Staff have clearly not given up on the Woodland JPA — yet — and the JPA proponents are focused on padding the West Sac costs up, so the two locations have similar numbers. Then the JPA crowd argues that we already have sunk so much into the JPA, maybe we should just go with that one.
I heard that EXACT logic from a CC member the other day, and it shocked me that even that CC member was on the fence and nearly falling for it.
Get realistic costs for the West Sac project, and it will blow the barn doors off the Taj Mahal Saylor project in Woodland.
Elaine: “[i]The contradiction in your positions is stark and illogical…[/i]”
Yes, and are you really surprised? This is par for the course for Mr. Harrington.
Mark: it’s not. See above.
“So your source is Dennis Diemer? Will he say the same thing if I ask?”
No my source is not Dennis Diemer. Why would I direct you to talk to him if I didn’t believe he would say the same thing?
“But Davis would merely be a customer of West Sac, and subject to its whims, e.g. what if West Sac wants to increase its commercial and/or residential development and needs most/all of their water?”
That’s what a contract is for. A contract would preclude Davis from being at the whims of anything.
Harrington: “Mark: it’s not. See above”
Michael, your only goal here is to block the surface project at all costs. You know you are losing on the facts, and with the WAC doing such a thorough job, you are losing the public relations battle as well. As a consequence you are desperate to control the conversation so that no one will notice that your arguments are completely without merit. The smartest thing the WAC and CC could do is allow you to vent your nonsense (and make your own personal contribution to global warming) and then ignore you. The WAC and the Council are the main event, you don’t even qualify as a side show.
Mark: Callme sometime and let’s talk about the issues. I know you are still furious about the referendum stopping your Woodland JPA project in the cold of December, but perhaps we can find our way to a smaller more affordable project ? Or come to a WAC meeting and introduce yourself. No hard feelings, right ?
Michael: No fury at all. Your referendum was just a waste of money and time, but fortunately on both accounts, mostly just yours.
MIke, it is very hard to take you seriously when, in the course of a day, you are talking about water softeners, nitrates, using the wells indefinitely; castigating staff and the former city manager and the mayor and various others; stating that you will never accept a DBO and in the same thread urging that the WAC continue to ‘study’ one of the Woodland options, imputing stuff to people like Mark West that are nonsensical (“your Woodland JPA project”?), and using your trademark innuendo — this time against staff as having financial or career motives.
It seems you will say or do anything to block the Woodland project. The only question is whether you will spend another $10,000 or more of your own money to mount a campaign against the Woodland-Davis project if the WAC endorses that. Anything else you say has to be taken with a grain of salt, because everything else you say or do is simply tactics.
Mark: OK, I just re-read my substantive posts. In your personal attack at 10 pm, you don’t even try to refute anything I have said. United Water? Nothing. Cut the options down to two? Zero comment. Eliminate the obvious conflicts of our staff telling us to build a water plant that an obvious retirement nest for staff inthenear future if they got those rate hikes from us, at huge JPA pay rates? Zippo. I’m still asking for a CC investigation as to how and why they were duped by water staff and the city attorney on those bogus Sept 6th rates? Clammed up.
Mark, You should stop ranting about the messenger, and comment on the substantive issues. Moderator: Isn’t there a rule about sticking to the issues?
When it comes to the water project, you are one of the issues.
And here is why:
“[i]Eliminate the obvious conflicts of our staff telling us to build a water plant that an obvious retirement nest for staff in the near future if they got those rate hikes from us, at huge JPA pay rates?”[/i]
That is a despicable innuendo.
Michael Harrington: “[i]Mark, You should stop ranting about the messenger, and comment on the substantive issues.[/i]”
Over the past year I have read nearly all of your posts on the Vanguard with regards to the water project. In that time I have read numerous unsubstantiated proclamations, false statements, personal attacks, slander, and multiple examples of bravado and bluster. When I next read a post from you on the subject that is substantive and acts to move the discussion forward, it will be the first. You have chosen to make yourself an issue by your actions here and elsewhere.
I don’t bother refuting your statements because to me they are so far out of bounds that the only appropriate thing to do is to ignore them. I do think it is a shame however since you clearly have a great deal of experience and knowledge that could be a valuable part of the discussion. Unfortunately, you seem to think that using any means possible to block a project is the appropriate way to act in a civil society. Communication, cooperation and mutual respect are what move a society forward. Slander, bravado and innuendo just muck up the works for everyone.
In my opinion Michael, you are an unreasonable complainer whose only goal is to block the surface water project and slander as many people as you possibly can in the process. I think our Civic Leaders should have the support of their constituents to ignore unreasonable complainers such as yourself. Our goal should be to make the City and region better for everyone, not just for loud and obnoxious boo birds.
[quote]what if West Sac wants to increase its commercial and/or residential development and needs most/all of their water? Where does that leave Davis? [b]- ERM[/b][/quote]It leaves Davis with whatever the contract says. Given that Krovoza and Lee have not even met with West Sacramento yet, we don’t know what contract terms would/could be negotiated.
It boggles my mind that any WAC member would consider making a motion for a Woodland project (or that other members would support such a motion) without knowing what agreement with West Sacramento is possible.
[quote]I think our Civic Leaders should have the support of their constituents to ignore unreasonable complainers such as yourself. [b]- Mark West[/b][/quote]Our civic leaders attempted to ignore constituent dissent regarding the Prop 218 process until it became apparent that the dissent was widespread – well beyond a few “unreasonable complainers.” Without the efforts of Mike Harrington and others who worked on the referendum, Davis would have long ago committed to a project that has now been rejected (by a committee comprising a majority of members appointed by councilmembers who favored that project).
I don’t embrace Mike’s rhetorical style, but I think it is unfair to label as an “unreasonable complainer” someone who contributed significant time, effort and money to reverse the ill-conceived and misleading Prop 218 process of last year. Does anyone dispute that, in the absences of Mike’s efforts, there would be no WAC? Do you dispute that the WAC process will ultimately lead to a water project that is more cost-effective than the one we would have had without the WAC?
As I’ve said before: love Mike or hate him, but let’s give him credit where credit is due.
Mike Harrington has lied so many times that he is completely discredited as a source. His only contribution was to spend his own money to hire out of town signature gathers to get enough signatures for the referendum. He also kept it in the news by accusing people of maliciously blocking his contract employees from getting signatures and accusing people in the community of fraud. Mike admitted to being “loud and shrill” because he felt that it was an emergency. If he is looking for recognition (and, believe me, he is) this is what he will be remembered for. The City Council response is admirable and we have a much better process now.
Everything he has done and said after that has been crap. His use of repeated false accusations, innuendo, lies, threats, bullying has created havoc and has made it very difficult to understand the issues well enough to be able to make an informed vote. He is emotional and tries to stir the emotions of others to vote his way. He is an irresponsible complainer and should be ignored. I’m sure there is another person in the group he claims to speak for who can speak to the issues in a more reasonable way.
David Suder: “[i]Our civic leaders attempted to ignore constituent dissent regarding the Prop 218 process until it became apparent that the dissent was widespread[/i]”
A small minority of the voters in Davis signed the petition. Not exactly a widespread revolt.
“[i]Without the efforts of Mike Harrington and others who worked on the referendum, Davis would have long ago committed to a project that has now been rejected (by a committee comprising a majority of members appointed by councilmembers who favored that project).[/i]”
Yes, but so far as has been reported, they only rejected it on the basis of total costs, and then, only after removing several positive components of the project making it less comprehensive. Theirs was not a rejection of the project per se, but a determination that we could not afford the project as originally proposed.
[i]Does anyone dispute that, in the absences of Mike’s efforts, there would be no WAC? Do you dispute that the WAC process will ultimately lead to a water project that is more cost-effective than the one we would have had without the WAC?[/i]
I have never been a believer of the concept that ‘the ends justify the means.’ We don’t know what would have happened in the absence of Mike’s efforts, but we do know that Michael and his team used unethical behavior and bullying tactics to accomplish their goal of blocking the 218 process. I think their behavior was antithetical to good governance and a civil society. They get credit for blocking the 218 action, but nothing more.
All of the improvements that have arisen since have been the result of positive actions by the City Council and members of the WAC, and all credit for the improvements are due to those individuals. Unfortunately, we don’t know if the resulting project will be better or more cost effective than the original plan. We do know that since we have gone yet another year without paying for the needed improvements, the ramp up in rates to cover the costs will need to be faster than before. For all we know now, the impact on ratepayers could well be worse.
[quote]Michael Harrington: ERM: …I am supporting keeping the least expensive Woodland option for now… [/quote]
Good – it is important to keep an open mind until all the evidence is in…
[quote]dmg: No my source is not Dennis Diemer. Why would I direct you to talk to him if I didn’t believe he would say the same thing?[/quote]
???
[quote]erm: “But Davis would merely be a customer of West Sac, and subject to its whims, e.g. what if West Sac wants to increase its commercial and/or residential development and needs most/all of their water?”
dmg: That’s what a contract is for. A contract would preclude Davis from being at the whims of anything.[/quote]
But there is no such contract yet, and we have no idea what terms West Sac would agree to. A rep from West Sac refused to say anything at the WAC meeting. David Suder provided an excellent response to your statement as well:
[quote]It leaves Davis with whatever the contract says. Given that Krovoza and Lee have not even met with West Sacramento yet, we don’t know what contract terms would/could be negotiated.
It boggles my mind that any WAC member would consider making a motion for a Woodland project (or that other members would support such a motion) without knowing what agreement with West Sacramento is possible. [/quote]
[quote]Mark West: Yes, but so far as has been reported, they only rejected it on the basis of total costs, and then, only after removing several positive components of the project making it less comprehensive. Theirs was not a rejection of the project per se, but a determination that we could not afford the project as originally proposed…
Unfortunately, we don’t know if the resulting project will be better or more cost effective than the original plan. We do know that since we have gone yet another year without paying for the needed improvements, the ramp up in rates to cover the costs will need to be faster than before. For all we know now, the impact on ratepayers could well be worse. [/quote]
Well said!
David Suder said . . .
“It leaves Davis with whatever the contract says. Given that Krovoza and Lee have not even met with West Sacramento yet, we don’t know what contract terms would/could be negotiated.
It boggles my mind that any WAC member would consider making a motion for a Woodland project (or that other members would support such a motion) without knowing what agreement with West Sacramento is possible.”
David, let me try and address your final paragraph in the abstract. Currently West Sacramento has no [u]legal[/u] right to deliver any of the water it currently processes at the Bryte Bend treatment facility outside the city limits of West Sacramento. Davis (and Woodland) are both outside those city limits, and therefore West Sacramento can not [u]legally[/u] deliver any of its water to Davis (or Woodland).
Given that, what about West Sac processing Davis’ water for Davis and then piping that treated water over to Davis? Again we find ourselves on the horns of a [u]legal[/u] issue. The “point of diversion” in both of Davis’ water rights is different than the point of diversion for the Bryte Bend plant. Therefore, West Sacramento cannot [u]legally[/u] divert any water from the Sacramento River on Davis’ behalf.
As Sue Greenwald has correctly pointed out, there are established processes for modifying the “place of service” in each of West Sacramento’s water contracts/rights to include Davis. However, that process 1) does take time, 2) allows for protests by interested parties, 3) provides comfort to the protesting parties that their protests will be thoroughly and fairly heard, and 4) does not guarantee an eventual outcome. Thus, there is identifiable risk that West Sac will not be able to deliver any of its own water to Davis for the foreseeable future.
Similarly, as Sue Greenwald has also correctly pointed out, there are established processes for modifying the “point of diversion” in each of the Davis/Woodland water rights to include a Bryte Bend point of diversion. However, that process also 1) takes time, 2) allows for protests by interested parties, 3) provides comfort to the protesting parties that their protests will be thoroughly and fairly heard, and 4) does not guarantee an eventual outcome. Thus, there is identifiable risk that West Sac will not be able to deliver any of Davis’ water to Davis for the foreseeable future.
No contract between West Sac and Davis, nor any specific contract terms are going to be able to change those legal hurdles. Therefore, it is not beyond the boundaries of an unboggled mind to decide that there is too much uncontrollable risk and uncertainty associated with the West Sacramento alternative to make it worth continuing to pursue.
Further, given the processes described above, there is absolutely no way that any fraction of that risk is going to be reduced prior to August 21st. Some people would say that no fraction of that risk is going to be reduced prior to 8/21/2013, but I personally would disagree.
Further, there is another layer of risk that cannot be reduced in any way prior to August 21st . . . the risk associated with the completion of an EIR for the laying of the water pipeline from Bryte Bend.
Brett Lee’s motion for “option C” gives each WAC member the ability to say, “Lets see if we can mitigate some of these risks” but that motion doesn’t tell WAC members to ignore the risks . . . and it appears that Alf Brandt feels that the risks are too significant to ignore. Time will tell whether he is standing alone, or whether there are other WAC members who feel the same way he does.
Matt, Thank you. This is very clear. I would like you to keep posting in this way.
Excellent post Matt!
[quote]A small minority of the voters in Davis signed the petition. Not exactly a widespread revolt. [b]- Mark West[/b][/quote]Although the number of Davis voters varies significantly from one election to the next, I agree that fewer than half of the number of likely voters on this issue signed the petition, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion that the minority was “small.”
[quote]David, let me try and address your final paragraph in the abstract.[b]- Matt Williams[/b][/quote]Thanks, Matt. As you have explained, neither the WAC nor the city council will have the knowledge necessary to fully evaluate the relative merits of the remaining options until the environmental impacts, as well as the contractual and legal possibilities of all options, have been fully investigated. I am encouraged by your implication that the remaining uncertainty risk could be reduced within a year.
David Suder: “[i]you are certainly entitled to your opinion that the minority was “small.” [/i]
3866 Valid signature on the referendum
33355 registered voters in Davis
11.6%
3866 Valid Signatures
14928 Voters in last election
25.9%