When the council created and appointed the members of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC), the Vanguard was highly skeptical, to say the least.
Back in November of 2011, we wrote, “Whatever name and scope the council eventually chooses for the utility committee, the question is what value will be gleaned from such a committee?”
The Vanguard continued, “All of these are good people, and this is not meant to disparage any of them, but other than Stephen Souza who appointed Michael Bartolic, it’s not clear that any of the appointees diverge in position from the people who appointed them.”
The WAC would quickly punch through support for conjunctive use, reduce the size of the project to 12 mgd, and dabble with West Sacramento before moving to support Woodland with some modifications.
Recently, Davis resident Merline Williams would express her “deep gratitude to all the members of the Water Advisory Committee (including the alternates).”
She writes, “Your committee provided an invaluable public service. Your long hours and focused attention on how to best meet our water needs earned the respect and trust of the citizens of Davis.”
“In addition to the practical benefits (the Enterprise reported the committee’s work saved the city about $42 million), your committee provided a civic benefit that strengthened our democratic core. After citizens rejected the water project as developed by city staff and proposed by the City Council, your committee accepted the responsibility to study the issue and to make recommendations. You successfully completed this challenging task,” Ms. Williams continues.
In conclusion she writes, “You have provided an objective analysis and the reliable information we need to make a responsible choice when we vote on a water project in March.”
But at least one WAC member, Mark Siegler, disagrees. He told the Vanguard recently that, other than on the rate discussion, the WAC really did not have time to delve into the type of analysis he would have liked to have seen.
While Mark Siegler voted as a WAC member to support conjunctive use in general, he had a question about the timing and the need to do this right now. Long term, he said, conjunctive use would be good, as it would give the city multiple sources of water.
“All of the process has been rushed,” Mark Siegler said. “I don’t think the WAC really had time to look at what the fundamental issue, what the fundamental tradeoffs were.”
On the other hand, Mr. Siegler did agree that the WAC spent a lot of time looking into the rate structure.
And it was here that the WAC distinguished itself.
When the city council, in early December, voted 4-0-1 to have the WAC look at Bartle Wells proposal, despite the committee’s 8-2 vote to recommend Loge-Williams and the more innovative and fair Consumption Based Fixed Rate (CBFR), Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk did not even allow a substitute that would have allowed the WAC to re-examine Loge-Williams.
In our view, it was on Thursday, December 13, 2012 that the WAC proved once and for all that they were not simply a rubber stamp for the council that some, including this writer, feared they might be.
As WAC member Michael Bartolic noted, if they were simply going to reaffirm what the council wanted, they might as well let the council make that decision.
Chair Elaine Roberts Musser told the WAC that she was there for the entire council meeting that Tuesday night: “I believe if we were to pass this motion it will be overturned by the city council. The City Council made it very clear that they were not going to accept CBFR initially.”
“I don’t think we have the votes on the city council. We will be at odds with the city council,” she said. “This will be absolutely pointless. It will cause a lot of dissension in the community and then there will be the possibility that the project will be voted down.”
Matt Williams, in responding, told his colleagues, “My own personal feeling is that I have an obligation to do my best to give the city the best advice possible.”
Mark Siegler argued that the council might need to think about the political issues, that their job is to figure out the best and fairest rates.
“It’s hard for me to believe that a rate structure that offers lower rates for the bottom 90 percent of residential users is necessarily a bad thing,” he argued. “It just seems to be much fairer.”
When the WAC voted 6-3, in a way they bucked the will of the council – a dangerous move. But in a way, they did exactly what the council asked them to do – gave them independent advice on how to proceed, even if it was not what the council wanted to hear.
A week before, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk pushed through the motion that moved away from CBFR, and he held firm even when his colleagues attempted compromise.
However, following the 6-3 vote, it was Mr. Wolk who looked for compromise and found it in a 2-3 split whereby, for two years, the council would adopt Bartle Wells before transitioning to CBFR after the second summer.
Mayor Pro Tem Wolk and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson released a statement prior to the vote. “With regard to the Consumption-Based Fixed Rate (CBFR) proposal, we are aware of the many benefits it offers. The WAC recommended this model as the fairest and best option that was put before them. It is truly innovative and equitable for our water rate payers,” they wrote.
“But we had our concerns,” they argue. As they noted last week, “The rate structure is unfamiliar to many members of our community, having only recently been invented in Davis by WAC members Frank Loge and Matt Williams. We were also concerned about an aspect of that structure that would have tied Davis water consumers to rates based on past summer usage without having the opportunity to warn people ahead of time.”
This compromise, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk and Councilmember Rochelle Swanson believe, “addresses the concerns we have expressed, while maintaining the benefits, equity, and innovative nature of CBFR. We call this compromise the ‘heads-up.’ “
“In essence, it allows for a grace period or phase-in of the CBFR rate structure,” they write. “For the first two years, we will continue with a rate structure very similar to the one we currently use. Starting in year three, after our community has been sufficiently prepared for CBFR, we transition to that structure.”
Without the WAC pressing the issue, the council likely would have gone with Bartle Wells – a rate structure that would have patently been unfair to the majority of rate payers.
On this critical issue, the WAC stepped up, stared down the council, and ultimately prevailed.
But, as many point out, the rate structure is not the project.
While Mark Siegler gives the WAC high marks on the water rate issue, he questions the process overall.
“I can’t even answer the fundamental issues right now today, what proportion of our water system is paid by residential, what proportion is irrigation, what proportion is commercial,” he said. “Very basic stuff. I’m saying people haven’t looked at it. I’m saying the Water Advisory Committee hasn’t looked at it. I’m also not saying if I had forty hours a week where I was doing nothing, and I kept pounding on it, that I could get this information.”
“But I’m saying that should be public information, all this stuff should be public and it’s not,” he added.
Mark Siegler argued that it was a very cursory review that was able to reduce the size by one-third.
“If it’s so easy to save whenever anybody squawks a little bit,” he said. “That tells me that there are people out there who aren’t looking out for our best interests.”
Michael Harrington believes that the referendum saved the city no less than $60 million by forcing them to scrutinize the size and scope of the project.
“Just the referendum alone has saved the city taxpayers out of pocket, $210 million, if the 2.5 times interest figure is correct,” he said.
“We’re not even experts,” Mark Siegler added. “We’re just basically saying this doesn’t seem right.”
When that happens, staff has consistently found ways to cut back. He said that’s a double-edged sword, and it is good that staff has been responsive, but “if it’s that easy to find that, how do you know you need what you got?”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I frequently post on this site about the need to make evidence based decisions. I am a firm believer in basing major decisions on the best and most complete information available. Yet, as a doctor, I know that frequently, decisions must be based on incomplete information in order to act in a timely and sometimes even life saving manner. Sometimes, demanding more and more information is merely a means to procrastinate in making a difficult decision. Worse, continuously demanding more information can be used as an obstructionist tactic to maintain a favored status quo. I think that we are well past this point with the water project.
So my question would be how do you draw the distinction between the legitimate need for information to make an informed decision and obstructionism?
So again, how many millions has delaying and taking a second look at the project saved us so far?
[i]”…how do you draw the distinction between the legitimate need for information to make an informed decision and obstructionism?”
[/i]
It depends on who’s asking. If the person ‘asking’ for more information is someone who opposed the project from the start, you know it’s just a political tactic. If it’s someone new to the discussion, who just needs to have the many, many resources available on the topic brought to his/her attention, then it’s genuine. If it’s someone ambivalent who has done their research and still has more questions, then the ongoing discussions here and at various forums will still be of use. But it is very important to note that most of the demands for more information are coming from opponents of the project.
“It depends on who’s asking. If the person ‘asking’ for more information is someone who opposed the project from the start, you know it’s just a political tactic.”
That’s not necessarily true. First, it assumes people’s minds can’t be changed through the information process. Second, it assumes we can know motivation based on someone’s policy position. Neither of these are necessarily true.
David
I think that you are asking a very reasonable question and would like to add another dimension to the valid points made by Don. Other points to consider when assessing when it is necessary to act despite limited information are, what are the short term and long term consequences of not acting ?
An example from my field with points I consider relevant to the current discussion
A woman is bleeding heavily. I do not yet know the source of the bleeding. My options:
1) Do nothing and hope that it will stop. The option being frequently put forward by Harrington and company
under the guise of “we don’t need it now”. This may or may not be true in the short term, but if I am wrong
and it doesn’t stop, the patient and I may find ourselves in a much more desperate situation.
2) Order more tests. Reasonable to a point depending on her clinical status. This is the path that I see the CC
embarked on wisely with the WAC. But there is a point at which a decision must be made.
3) Start some form of empiric treatment knowing that it may not be optimal, but it also may be lifesaving.
Now clearly water for Davis is not such a dramatic or imminent situation. However, I believe that the same
set of analytic principles apply. Many keeping saying that all this has been rushed with no time to consider.
I say nonsense. This discussion of the eventual need for surface water has been going on in one form or
another for at least the past 10 years that I have been paying any attention at all. So yes, I will agree, the
rates were a point that needed much more evaluation, but to go back to need pretending that this aspect
needs more evaluation is to me absurd and I applaud Don as well as others for their well considered posts
on the issue of need for surface water.
So back to my hypothetical patient. The decision that I make with her may not only affect her, but also any children or dependents she has for the remainder of their lives. The water decision is not just about what we can afford at present, but what the future residents of Davis will have to pay for water. And these by the way, are very likely to be our own children. So while not dramatic or imminent, I would like to propose that the long term effects are as important as the short term and are not being considered wisely by those who would “just say no”
Medwoman: One at least possible difference is the immediacy of the need. The other factor that needs to be weighed in is that making decisions of this sort may lead to mistakes and suboptimal results. When you are bleeding to death, you need to deal with that first and foremost rather than acquiring more information, in other less urgent circumstances quick decisions lead to errors, sometimes critical, sometimes fatal.
David,
Very true. However, I would hardly consider 10 + years a “very quick” decision.
“That’s not necessarily true. First, it assumes people’s minds can’t be changed through the information process. Second, it assumes we can know motivation based on someone’s policy position. Neither of these are necessarily true.” -David Greenwald
David,in the first instance, what’s that say about the person? They opposed the project when they knew almost nothing about it, but they are now neutral because they now know something about it albeit not everything about it? And the 2nd instance is related to the 1st. If they initially didn’t know anything about the project, why the heck were they opposing it? Isn’t the balanced, non-ideological, non-political, intellectually inquisitive position to be neutral until one has enough info to make an informed decision?
I must say, I’m very much flumoxed by Mark Siegler’s comments. He speaks as if our community is not confronted with pending regulatory discharge fines in 2016. Isn’t that the big stick hanging over our heads forcing us to act? Or did I miss some breaking news while away on holiday?
-Michael Bisch
The most fundamental question of all is the one I’m concerned about. How do you improve the quality of the water in Davis to make it taste better and not calcify every faucet in the house. Just think how much you will save by not driving to the Co-Op to buy drinking water.
Toad, I think the surface water project is toast the way you’ve framed it. Given the choice between Davis-tasting water and retaining the current rates vs. better tasting water at triple or quadruple the current rates, the project will be voted down.
-Michael Bisch