By Steve Daubert
Some have said that our city needs to import water from the Sacramento River to supplement our own well water. But the quality of the river water raises questions about that suggestion. Biological and chemical contaminants can occur at high levels in the Sacramento River. It drains 27,000 square miles of land, and the by-products from the cities and industries on all of that land wash down-hill and concentrate in the river.
The river carries municipal sewage out-flows, and run-off from agricultural sites. As a state, California is the biggest user of agricultural chemicals in the U. S. Used organophosphorous and carbamate pesticides (2,3) enter the river in irrigation drainage from farming operations. Fertilizers wash into the river and stimulate algal blooms that increase the suspended organic carbon compounds and disflavor the water.
Run-off from urban sites contains chlorinated and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (1) from oil products in the soil or on pavement, and from municipal and industrial waste water. Gasoline and its additives enter the river from water-craft fuel. Air pollution dissolves into the waterway. The river is also subject to accidental toxic releases of all sizes, up to the railway spill of ~20,000 gallons of concentrated methyl-dithio-carbamate fungicide into the water in Dunsmuir in 1991.
A report (4) on the river water for the proposed Davis water import program discussed many of these pollutants. One of them is the herbicide thiobencarb (p.2 of the report) which is a toxic thiocarbamate. It is used extensively up-stream on rice acreage, after which it drains into the river and flows past the proposed take-out site. Thiobencarb has already been an issue for other water treatment facilities using river water.
Counts of coliform bacteria in the ten thousands per liter (p. 14; fecal coliform at one tenth that) were described in the report, serving as a measure of the impact of sewage out-flows on river water quality. Another category of municipal waste-water out-flow pollutants documented in the report was pharmaceuticals (contraceptives, Tylenol) and other personal care products (p.23).
This water would require disinfectant application to deal with the bacteria and viruses it carries. But the disinfection process creates its own problems, in the form of byproducts. Chlorine disinfection produces, among others, chloroform as a byproduct (p.52) while the more expensive ozone disinfection produces bromoform. Both of these are regulated as carcinogens. These disinfectant treatments are less effective (or more expensive still) when the suspended organic carbon compound concentrations are high, as they are in the Sacramento River.
These findings bring into question the suggestion that the Sacramento River provides a cleaner alternative to well water. Surface water chemical and biological pollutants are not found at those levels in the well water Davis now uses (5).
(1) Kim & Young (2009) Significance of indirect deposition on wintertime polycyclic aromatic hydrobon contamination in an urban northern California creek. Environmental Engineering Science 26,269-277
(2) Hilton, D. E. Multiple Stressors in the Sacramento River Watershed in Fish Ecotoxicology. Braunbeck et al, eds. (1998) Berchauser Verlag, Basel.
(3) Werner et al (2009) Insecticide caused toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia (Cladocera) in the Sacramento -San Joaquin River delta, California, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19,215-227
(4) Yost & Associates (2011) Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment for the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project.
(5) City of Davis (2011) Consumer confidence report.
Sigh. This is getting ridiculous. Sacramento River water is just as safe as the groundwater you presently drink. I don’t even feel like posting the links again, because I really thought this canard had been dealt with months ago. The argument that there is any hazard in Sacramento River water as it will be delivered to Davis residents is simply not true.
They sure don’t object to buying this water in LA.
Are references 1,2 and 3 relevant to us? Certainly Werner (2009) from the Delta is about down river impacts that include the San Joaquin. While Kim and Young (2009) deals with some specific tributary described as urban that you fail to identify. Can the conclusions be extrapolated to our situation?
Finally, whatever imperfections in water quality exist in the river need to be weighed against those in the well. We must also take into account the degrading impacts of recharge water into the ground from agriculture in the local intensely farmed area. Local impacts that keep driving into ever deeper aquifers.
Interesting, today’s Bob Dunning article:
“WATER INTRIGUE … for a few anxious days in early January, the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency was down to just one bidder for its massive surface water project after CMD Smith sent a letter announcing its intention to get out of Dodge … Agency general manager Dennis Diemer admitted the existence of the letter of withdrawal and confirmed that CMD Smith had a number of serious concerns, several of which remain … he did, however, convince CMD to stay on board for the time being, and wasn’t willing to speculate just how difficult things might get if CMD ultimately decides not to participate in what is supposed to be a competitive bidding process …”
“Yes, the water agency dodged a bullet while managing to keep the letter from public scrutiny for more than a month before an anonymous caller blew the whistle and revealed the letter’s existence … should the voting public have been made aware of CMD’s concerns as we go to the polls in this era of supposed openness and transparency? …”
So now how committed is this bidder to the process? How will the costs be affected if we only have one dedicated bidder? How does this play into the public’s trust of City Hall?
Don Shor: “[i]Sigh. This is getting ridiculous. Sacramento River water is just as safe as the groundwater you presently drink. I don’t even feel like posting the links again, because I really thought this canard had been dealt with months ago.[/i]”
Unfortunately Don, as long as David is willing to publish these false allegations without challenge, you or someone else needs to be here to rebut the claims, with the data. All it takes is an uninformed reader to see the post and believe the nonsense. I appreciate your efforts.
Steve clearly lives in a bubble
Dunsmuir??? You mean that little railroad town that fly fishermen love 200 miles north of Davis?
Good grief. Sigh indeed.
Well, Mark, it’s a little confusing. Because we know for a fact that Mike Harrington prefers Sacramento River water. He drinks it straight from the river, all the time. It’s a matter of historic record, and I stand by that statement. So apparently Sacramento River water is great when it comes from West Sac, but not when it comes from another part of the river. And we know that Pam Nieberg is very concerned about the arsenic levels in the deep aquifer, because she said so in a letter to the city.
Why do I feel that opponents are grasping at straws now?
Don Shor
I feel your frustration. While discussing this issue with an active member of the “No on I” campaign, I was challenged by this individual to show studies regarding the safety of the Sacramento River water specifically with regard to pharmaceuticals. So I did the involved research,
took the information back to him, and received this comment in return.
” Last week, I talked with a woman here who said she had spent her life studying water quality and she said
‘ You wouldn’t believe what is in that water’. “
At that moment, it became clear to me that for at least some on the “No” side, facts and evidence have no relevance whatsoever. Their opinion trumps everything and any piece of information or opinion that supports their view, no matter how vague, flimsy, or unsubstantiated will be used even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. This is true despite the fact that a firm “No on I” principle, Sue Greenwald, previously stated from
the dias as a City Council member that Sacramento River water was safe. The safety of Sacramento River water
is clearly known to those on the “No” campaign who continue to use it as a scare tactic just in case their other tactics fall short. I apologize to any who may be offended by my comments, but I find falsely using public health fears, when there are so very many legitimate public health concerns, to be a disgusting breech of faith with the public they say they are trying to protect. Just disgusting.
Oops, sorry for misuse of “principle” ( I obviously need a grammar check).
Steve Daubert said . . .
[i]”This water would require disinfectant application to deal with the bacteria and viruses it carries. But the disinfection process creates its own problems, in the form of byproducts. Chlorine disinfection produces, among others, chloroform as a byproduct (p.52) while the more expensive ozone disinfection produces bromoform. Both of these are regulated as carcinogens.”[/i]
I really should be posting this comment as Joe Friday, but the part of the story that Mr Daubert conveniently omits is the fact that currently (in compliance with both law and regulations) the City treats each and every one of its wells with chlorine disinfection.
The facts ma’am, only the facts.
Sorry, but again, can you provide a short bio for the author?
What are his qualifications, is he representing the NO group?
Why doesn’t he refute the comments that question his data on the DV?
Matt
There would have been no Joe Friday had there been such reckless disregard for “the facts” as is being demonstrated here. How sad that would have been for your new alter ego. How sad it is for our community.
I would think it would be a very honorable thing for Sue Greenwald to do at this point would be to post what she knows ( according to her own previous statements, not my opinion ) to be true…..that Sacramento river water does not pose a health risk. That would go a long way toward restoring some credibility for her on this issue.
“David is willing to publish these false allegations without challenge, you or someone else needs to be here to rebut the claims”
Our policy is to publish local submissions and we have attempted to have a balanced offering from both sides. If the readers deem the material is factually incorrect you can (A) state your case in the comments or (B) submit your own piece that will be published.
“I apologize to any who may be offended by my comments, but I find falsely using public health fears, when there are so very many legitimate public health concerns, to be a disgusting breech of faith with the public they say they are trying to protect. Just disgusting.”
I just wish for one time when you would let go of all that M.D. pretense and tell us what you really think!
The monitoring of Sacramento River water is extensive and will continue to be. Over 25 million people drink Sacramento river water. Anybody who has taken basic chemistry classes knowns you can filter out other chemicals with the right process. Don Shor is right this just another scare tactic canard and it is not even Halloween. I have included a few links below.
Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey
Water Quality Monitoring
in the Sacramento River Basin
Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment For the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project
Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2010 Update
Mr.Toad
“and tell us what you really think!”
My second thanks of the morning for timely use of humor goes to you . First to hpierce for “uncomfortable” placement of weapons.
I am going to have to lean HTML codes better and spell check on my iPad before posting. I will try again.
The monitoring of Sacramento River water is extensive and will continue to be. Over 25 million people drink Sacramento river water. Anybody who has taken basic chemistry classes knows you can filter out other chemicals with the right process. Don Shor is right this is just another scare tactic canard and it is not even Halloween. I have included a few links below.
Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey
Water Quality Monitoring
in the Sacramento River Basin
Sacramento River Water Quality Assessment For the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project
Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2010 Update
Sacramento River Watershed Sanitary Survey 2010: [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/SacRiverwaterupdate.pdf[/url] — pdf, 2.2 MB
“Our policy is to publish local submissions and we have attempted to have a balanced offering from both sides. If the readers deem the material is factually incorrect you can (A) state your case in the comments or (B) submit your own piece that will be published.”
David fulfills his policy of publishing articles from both (or more) sides. You might be being misled by his tendency to question the articles and comments from the side with which he disagrees and his unquestioned publication of articles which support his views no matter how questionable the contentions that are being made.
The Vanguard should acknowlege and act on SODA’s repeated requests to know the source of this type of article. Each article bylined by someone other than David should include an Editor’s Note indicating the original source if it’s a reprint (with links), if it was solicited, the writer’s affiliations and other basic information about credentials, etc. This should be standard practice even for people with whom we’re familiar–Is Elaine’s latest missive from the WAC chair, the pro bono attorney for a group, a private citizen?
I don’t know who Steve is, but I appreciate the fact that he includes sources; links would be even more helpful. (I have to add that the last two articles confirm Michael Harrington’s contention that the filthiness of river water would be a measure campaign issue!)
David – I don’t disagree with your policy of publishing what is sent in. Some of us have contributed articles to the Vanguard and when comments/questions arise about our articles, we have the policy of responding. What I find troubling in ALL of the “No” submissions to date is that articles are sent in, facts are challenged and questions are asked but the contributors respond not at all. I am not suggesting a policy change on the part of Vanguard, but merely pointing out that it is unfortunate, in my view, for people to contribute if they are unwilling to engage. At the worst it encourages people to write anything–factual or not. This is a form of propaganda and may be politically “brilliant” but does not further the need for community dialogue on these difficult and complex issues.
Robb, David and others on the advisory committee.
Perhaps a policy of accepting ‘outside’ contributions should include those authors’ willingness to respond. I realize some of the articles are reprints but again, to my and Just Saying’s suggestions, making it clear that those are just that, would be helpful and would help us readers understand why those type of articles (reprints) may NOT have authors respond….e.g., they may not be aware their article has been reprinted in the DV.
Thanks to Just Saying for echoing my repeated call for bios, etc.
Again, think the advisory committee could easily come up with a policy…..just another example of how the DV has grown over the years.
Thanks!
After reading this article, I would also recommend not breathing Davis air. Ultimately we are downwind of whatever contaminants are being put into the air in China.
[quote]You might be being misled by his tendency to question the articles and comments from the side with which he disagrees and his unquestioned publication of articles which support his views no matter how questionable the contentions that are being made.[/quote]
Yeah but do you know which side I am on? I have taken several clear stands on the project including on the lawsuit, the rate structure, and the process. But I have not taken a stand on Measure I.
I can tell you that I have asked both campaigns to provide the Vanguard with the same articles that they have submitted to the Enterprise.
[i]At the worst it encourages people to write anything–factual or not.[/i]
Or say anything. I can only imagine what the paid signature-gatherers were saying to the public. Given what people here have been willing to sign their names to (though never to actually defend), I’m guessing they were told complete malarkey about growth issues, water contamination, and more.
Steve Daubert is active on the Davis Wiki. His father Stephen Daubert is a published local author.
David wrote:
> Our policy is to publish local submissions and
> we have attempted to have a balanced offering
> from both sides.
This is the second Steve Daubert article this week. Any way we can get even a one line bio on the guy? Something like “Dr. Daubert has PhDs in water study from Harvard and UCD” or “Steve is a river water activist that founded rafters gone wild” (I didn’t find much with a web search)?
I asked for one and never received it.
A local elected city official lied to Dunning about the United Water pull out? What do you pro-JPA’rs think about that? Like the City taking our water for free in violation of Prop 218, going to give that CC member a get out of jail free pass?
What I want to know is: what did the JPA suddenly secretly offer United Water to stay in?
Michael, the CMD Smith story needs to be looked into. I hope David goes deeper into it tomorrow.
Medwoman: “[i]At that moment, it became clear to me that for at least some on the “No” side, facts and evidence have no relevance whatsoever. Their opinion trumps everything and any piece of information or opinion that supports their view, no matter how vague, flimsy, or unsubstantiated will be used even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.[/i]”
This cuts to the heart of the problem we have had here in Davis during this ‘debate’ on our water system needs. How can we have a reasoned, transparent, fact-based debate, when only one side is interested in the facts? From the start this has been a ‘debate’ between facts and data on one side, and opinions and false allegations on the other. In truth though, the No campaign doesn’t have any choice as the facts are so overwhelmingly in favor of moving forward on the surface water project with Woodland, that the only way to stop the project (if that is your intent) is to deny the facts and focus on ginned up fear and distrust
David Greenwald: “[i]Our policy is to publish local submissions and we have attempted to have a balanced offering from both sides. If the readers deem the material is factually incorrect you can (A) state your case in the comments or (B) submit your own piece that will be published.[/i]”
I don’t have an issue with your publishing an opinion piece that is presented as opinion. What I take issue with is your cut & paste approach to repeatedly reprinting verbatim allegations that have been proven false, without ever challenge their veracity. You then exacerbate the situation by giving these false statements equal weight with the factual statements made by others. Go back and reread your commentaries over the past two years and see how often you reprint one of Michael Harrington’s delusional tirades (often with a picture of Don Saylor or someone from West Yost) as a ‘factual’ argument against the project.
Neutral reporting involves presenting the facts on both sides of an argument. Equating facts on one side with false allegations on the other is not being neutral, and it certainly is not reporting.
David Greenwald: “[i]Yeah but do you know which side I am on?[/i]”
You have spent the better part of two years shilling for the No crowd, all the while attempting to gin up fear and distrust between the citizens and our City officials and staff. At this point it doesn’t matter how you vote personally as you have clearly shown which side of the argument you are on.
“What I take issue with is your cut & paste approach to repeatedly reprinting verbatim allegations that have been proven false, without ever challenge their veracity.”
For instance?
“You have spent the better part of two years shilling for the No crowd, all the while attempting to gin up fear and distrust between the citizens and our City officials and staff.”
I disagree.
[quote]A local [b]elected[/b] [u][b]city official[/b][/u] lied to Dunning about the United Water pull out?[/quote]Ok… maybe we need to run a tally… Mr H either lies or is deliberately deceitful [I leave to others the nuances between the two] in this post… Mr Dunning referred to the General Manager of the JPA who is neither an elected official, nor is he an employee of the City. There may or may not be legitimate concerns, but I give 0.0000001% credence to Mr H’s posts, as he writes them…. Are you going to “stand by” the untruths, Mr H?
” I hope David goes deeper into it tomorrow. “
I believe I have the full story now, so yes.
Don… please retract my last post… I missed Mr Dunning’s reference to the “local elected official” (whoever that might be). My bad… mea culpa…
[quote]”I asked for one and never received it.”[/quote] Yet, you keep receiving articles from him and printing them although he refuses to identify himself? And, don’t clarify or question his allegations in your comments? Are you sure that “Steve Daubert” is not a Michael Harrington pseudonym?[quote]”Yeah but do you know which side I am on? I have taken several clear stands on the project including on the lawsuit, the rate structure, and the process. But I have not taken a stand on Measure I.”[/quote] As they say, a distinction without a difference. [quote]”I can tell you that I have asked both campaigns to provide the Vanguard with the same articles that they have submitted to the Enterprise.”[/quote]But, you repeatedly challenge project supporters and don’t question (and you reinforce) project detractors. Whether you’ve announced how you’re going to vote on Measure I itself means little compared to how you’ve dealt with the debate about the proposed project, how rates are calculated, whether the city has lied to use about the matter and how past and current council members are crooks, etc.
I know Steve Daubert for a number of years though Davis Wiki.
“As they say, a distinction without a difference. “
It’s a huge difference because while I have taken stands on parts of the proposal, I have not taken a stand on the total package.
“But, you repeatedly challenge project supporters and don’t question (and you reinforce) project detractors.”
That’s certainly not true. Read the two articles I wrote today. I’ve challenged Dunning numerous times.
“Whether you’ve announced how you’re going to vote on Measure I itself means little compared to how you’ve dealt with the debate about the proposed project, how rates are calculated, whether the city has lied to use about the matter and how past and current council members are crooks, etc. “
Well let’s look at that.
First, I took the stance in favor of CBFR and argued that the rates are proportional.
Second, I’ve never said the city has lied but I have attempted to get information from the city.
Third, I’ve never called the city councilmembers crooks.
So I’m really not sure of your point.
The Enterprise has the story on the bidding issue today. Subscribers can go to their web site and look for Tom Sakash’s article.
Excerpt:
[i]”Dennis Diemer, general manager of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, confirmed Thursday that the CDM Smith/United Water team wrote a letter to the water agency in January to say they were uncomfortable with the risk they were being asked to take on to put together a bid proposal and that they would be removing themselves from the race.
However, in response to the letter, the agency sat down with the team in late January, smoothed out some of the concerns they had and convinced them to rejoin.”[/i]
When I wrote, “…how you’ve dealt with the debate about the proposed project…,” I was commenting on how you’ve responded (or haven’t) to the claims and charges that appear in the [i]Vanguard[/i].
I apologize for the “how you’ve dealt with” comment if it seems as though I was charging [u]you[/u] with name-calling.
With that clarified, you know who has been engaging in these tactics, unencumbered by any [i]Vanguard[/i] fact-checking or questioning. The kind of language is most lately illustrated by: [quote]”A local elected city official lied to Dunning about the United Water pull out? What do you pro-JPA’rs think about that? Like the City taking our water for free in violation of Prop 218, going to give that CC member a get out of jail free pass? What I want to know is: what did the JPA suddenly secretly offer United Water to stay in?”[/quote]It falls to Don Shor to discount this repeated claim by quoting the [i]Enterprise[/i]. Why didn’t the [i]Vanguard[/i] get to this little detail? While this type of big lie and innuendo has been going on for months, Michael almost always gets a free pass from the [i]Vanguard[/i].
Not that any single instance of misleading hyperbole means much, but a months-long, consistent pattern should raise anyone’s fair and balanced sensibilities.
There are too many instances of false assertions by Mike Harrington to even list them most of them here. It becomes necessary to rebut them one by one, and even when that is done they get repeated again. We had an example just yesterday where Mike made this assertion:
[i]”it’s been all about pushing the project that was first conceived in 1988 to accommodate the 1988 General Plan target of doubling the population of Davis.
It’s all in the city historical records …” [/i]
I have instances going back to 2011 of him making similar claims:
[i]• The surface water plant is one of the cleverest strategies I have ever seen: soak the rate payers so the potable water is available for the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis and Woodland.
•I am sure there was a discussion amongst a few elites about 15 years ago, and the surface water system was the chosen way to make sure that Davis had the water for a much larger population while enriching the border land owners.
[/i]
I spent the time finding evidence that his claim is false.
Or we have things like this one:[i] “we wrecked our water supply due to decades of hidden city and county governmental negligence”[/i]– and he’s made similar claims about Woodland. I believe he used the term ‘negligence’ in that regard, too.
Well, no we didn’t, and no they didn’t. It’s a preposterous claim. That was a while back. I could find many, many more. How about the assertions that Stephen Souza was “blocking”? And on and on. My guess is that your failure to take on Mike Harrington’s many outlandish assertions is part of what JustSaying and Mark West are referring to. And that doesn’t even get us to the character assassination he routinely employs against staff and project advocates.
I’m waiting for a commentary on Sunday with the headline — No on I Tactics Deplorable: Davis Deserves Better.
Thanks Don. This is succinct and describes the dynamics of Mr Harrington’s behavior well. My frequent objections have concerned what you refer to as “character assassination” and which I see as a whole series of tactics from innuendo, to asserting knowledge of unknowable motives, to ad hominem attacks, to oblique suggestions, to unfounded accusations.
By not naming the deplorable nature of the tactics employed; by verbally “shrugging” and calling them merely part of the political ploys routinely used; by not pointing out how destructive they are to community dialogue; by refusing to examine how they confuse the conversation and divert attention away from the real issues at play, the Vanguard has failed to enable the kind of community conversation we need now and will need going forward as we face the many huge challenges before us.
This is not a sporting contest, at the end of which we dust off the dirt, shake hands and say “better luck next time.” No, this is about the future of our community. To treat Mr Harrington’s acts as if they are part of the strategy of one “team” against another does not help this community in my view.
[quote]A local elected city official lied to Dunning about the United Water pull out? What do you pro-JPA’rs think about that?[/quote]
What I think about it is that it is the same kind of completely unsubstantiated smear campaign that you and some others of the “No on I” have been propagating from the start.
Unless you are willing to state specifically who the “local elected city official was” and exactly what the statement was that was “a lie” then this becomes just another piece of the same disgusting trash that you have been putting forth all along.
To Don’s comment about wondering what the signature gathers may have been telling people, wonder no more…..I will be happy to share. A young, enthusiastic, idealistic, uninformed and paid signature gatherer and I got in to a very amicable conversation in which he shared the following: He was told that the water controversy was very recent in Davis and that the City Council had done it “behind the backs of the citizens”, that Davis did not need more than one source of water, that Sacramento river water was not safe,
and that this was a ploy by developers and the city council to increase the population of Davis for their own enrichment. He was very clear that he had no knowledge of this issue before he was hired and that he was using talking points he had been provided…..gee, I wonder by whom. He seemed very shocked that there was another side to this issue and I was actually quite entertained by the widening of his eyes as I countered his talking points. Of note, just like with virtually everyone I have heard speak on the “No” side, when we were done talking, he went right back to signature gathering. Of course, he was being paid to do so. Hmmmm…..
kind of makes me stop and wonder about the motives of some other folks involved with the same misinformation.
Mark West: “[i]You have spent the better part of two years shilling for the No crowd, all the while attempting to gin up fear and distrust between the citizens and our City officials and staff.[/i]”
David Greenwald: “[i]I disagree.[/i]”
I invite you all to take a trip down memory lane and reread this post by David on Friday 9 December 2011 and be sure to read through the comments.
Commentary: Water Problems Were A Long Time Coming with the Principals Absent on Tuesday
Written by David Greenwald
Friday, 09 December 2011 09:08
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4904:commentary-water-problems-were-a-long-time-coming-with-the-principles-absent-on-tuesday&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url]
We have all the usual suspects here including David blaming all the problems with the water project on his favorite whipping boy, Don Saylor and the undue influence of West Yost. He doesn’t come out and call Don a crook, but he certainly implies it.
David Greenwald: “[i]WHat do you mean where’s the conflict of interest – Saylor taking campaign money from consultants of a major water project and then casting the deciding vote isn’t a conflict of interest? Do you also believe it is not a conflict for Saylor to take firefighter money and then vote for a lucrative raise in their contract?[/i]”
I think Don Shor summarized the discussion quite well with this statement at 12/09/11 – 05:39 PM: “[i]This whole discussion has been an excellent example of the amazing distortions and denigrations that have characterized one side of the debate about the surface water project. Too bad David Greenwald enabled it with his incorrect reporting. And the amazing thing is, most of the incorrect reporting here was easily disputed by looking at David’s own link, and a little online research.
The ongoing vilification of a reputable local engineering firm has troubled me from the beginning of this discussion on this blog, years ago. You all should get your fact straight before you report or comment.[/i]”
David does apologize for his most egregious comment: “[i]I apologize for not writing that as clearly as I should have… I didn’t mean to imply that a $600K project suddenly became a $10m project, what I did mean to imply was the magnitude of the cost, the influence of West Yost, campaign connections b/w West Yost and Saylor, and the fact that originally they tried to sneak it through as a consent item…[/i]”
Which brought this response from E. Roberts Musser at 12/10/11 – 11:33 AM:
“[i]To blow this off as mere “unclear” wording is a bit disingenuous IMO. If you are making disparaging comments, try and be clear what you are disparaging, the specific connections and evidence. I understand the service you provide to the community with this blog, but I’m sure you don’t want false information emanating from the Vanguard. Too much of what has come from the Vanguard lately is more fabricated innuendo than evidence based, which helps no one understand the issues…[/i]”
Don Shor (02/08/13 – 02:42 PM): “[i]I’m waiting for a commentary on Sunday with the headline — No on I Tactics Deplorable: Davis Deserves Better.[/i]”
Unfortunately Don, I think you will be waiting a long time, but I agree, Davis does deserve better.
“he was using talking points he had been provided”
Imagine that, a paid signature gatherer using talking points?
[quote]Imagine that, a paid signature gatherer using talking points?[/quote]
I have no problem with talking points that are an honest portrayal of the issue. These were decidedly not.
Example, one of the major opponents of the surface water project, Sue Greenwald, says from the dias as
City Councilwoman that the Sacramento River water is safe. Kid gathering signatures says it is not.
Anyone who has been following this discussion at all or who has done their own homework knows which is true. So Rusty, are you defending signature gatherers using known lies as talking points ?
medwoman, have you considered taking up newspaper reporting? What a great investigative report: approach folks promoting an issue at the park to hear their spiels and follow up with a fact check operation. Never mind, it’s almost impossible to find a job. You’d better stick with medicine. Nice work, though.
So the signatures for the referendum were obtained under false pretenses.
The end, as we have demonstrated for months, apparently justifies the means.
[quote]I have no problem with talking points that are an honest portrayal of the issue. [/quote]
Signature gatherers lie as a matter of course; their job is to get signatures, not disseminate the truth. Regardless of the issue, anyone signing an initiative or referendum petition who doesn’t realize this is simply naive. Caveat signator.
.
I guess so, but it seems to me that the person who hired them and gave them their talking points is responsible for the ethical failure, and should be called out on it.
Look back to the leadership of the political “side” being promoted. Those representing a side are telling us what they’ve been told to tell us. Hard to blame the folks just trying to a buck, don’t blame them.
[quote]Signature gatherers lie as a matter of course; their job is to get signatures, not disseminate the truth.[/quote]
I do not doubt the truth of this statement. But, just because something exists, does not mean that we should condone or just tolerate it. I do not blame the paid signature gatherers at all. The young man I spoke with was
just putting himself through school. He had no way of knowing whether his information was correct or not.
I do however blame those who knowingly provide false information. I find this kind of behavior …..let me tell you how I really feel about it…..disgusting ( just in case any of you missed it this morning) !
I am completely with Robb in his desire to encourage open honest communication in our community. I find these activities the antithesis of honest communication. It would be naive to pretend that signature gatherers do not lie. I do not consider it naive to believe that we can help to minimize this behavior by calling out those who are truly responsible for it, namely those who write and disseminate the lies.