On Sunday, the Davis Enterprise endorsed Measure I in a qualified statement with some serious reservations. On Tuesday, the Sacramento Bee editorial board followed suit, writing, “Davis should OK water pact with Woodland.”
Theirs is a far stronger and less qualified endorsement that nevertheless parses critical issues.
The Bee writes, “If regional water agreements were easy to craft, we’d have more of them in the Sacramento area. They aren’t easy. They require trust and sacrifices. That’s why a proposed water-sharing pact between Woodland and Davis has become so contentious, particularly in Davis.”
“The goal of the project is to improve water quality and reduce Woodland’s and Davis’ dependence on uncertain groundwater supplies. High in salts and metals such as selenium, that groundwater creates challenges for both cities in providing drinking water and disposing of treated wastewater under increasingly stringent state standards,” the Bee writes.
“If the project were relatively cheap, this choice would be an easy one for Davis voters,” the Bee continues. “It’s not. Water rates for a typical Davis household are expected to triple over five years to pay for the city’s share of a project slated to cost (in 2012 dollars) roughly $245 million.”
The Bee accuses Davis as having “dithered,” noting that the “sticker shock” has had a huge impact on some of the residents.
They note that the opposition believes that the project is unnecessary.
“They say there no need for Davis to quickly transition from groundwater. They say that regulators are unlikely to crack down on Woodland and Davis for continuing to release wastewater high in salts and heavy metals. They say that Davis could easily team up with West Sacramento on a water-sharing arrangement instead of working with Woodland and Conaway Ranch on a screened diversion from the Sacramento River,” the Bee notes.
They argue: “Davis could probably take several years to get serious about protecting its aquifers, but at what cost?”
At present, they write, “The city is playing triage with its groundwater supply, drilling new wells to deal with supply and contamination problems. It has drilled deep wells, and could drill more. Yet that’s a risky policy.”
They quote Graham Fogg, a UC Davis hydrologist who has noted, “The capacity of the deep aquifer to satisfy city water demand is unknown at this time because there is not yet enough information on the lateral extent of that aquifer and on how and at what rate it is recharged.”
They note that it is up in the air whether regulators would crack down if the project fails. They write: “Maybe not, but remember that Sacramento once gambled and lost. The result was an order by the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board that could cost the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District more than $1 billion in treatment upgrades.”
The Bee also addresses the West Sacramento option.
“Could Davis team up with West Sacramento?” they ask. “Perhaps, but it would likely be under West Sacramento’s terms – making Davis a water customer, not a partner. That might be cheaper for Davis in the short run, but not necessarily in the long run.”
The Bee argues, “Known for their strong environmental sensibilities, most Davis residents realize they have to pay more if they want to create a more sustainable water supply. Currently, at an average of $34 per month, Yolo County households pay less for their water than their counterparts in Sacramento, Placer and Solano counties, according to a recent survey for the California-Nevada section of the American Water Works Association.”
They add, “While critics can find fault in both the process and projected costs of the Woodland-Davis project, they have to ask themselves: Are they really so sure their alternatives are viable? And is the city willing to shoulder the consequences if they aren’t?”
The Bee concludes, “Davis voters unwilling to take such risks should vote ‘Yes’ on Measure I.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Of course they endorsed Yes on I.
They always endorse every urban sprawl, growth-inducing policy for the jurisdictions within their coverage area.
They opposed Measure J in 2000. I foget the language, but it was something along the lines of “don’t entrust these complex urban planning decisions to the unwashed masses.”
They hated the fact that J and the slow growth ticket of Harrington and Greenwald won.
They strongly supported Covell Village and Measure X in 2005.
Now they strongly endorsed Yes on I.
If you hate Measure J/R, and liked Measure X and Covell Village, go with the Bee recommendation and vote for wrecking the finances of our little city’s poor and middle class, and what will be the largest transfer of wealth to the business and political elites that Davis has ever experienced.
Mike Harrington said about the Sac Bee “They always endorse every urban sprawl, growth-inducing policy for the jurisdictions within their coverage area.”
Mike you need to read the whole paper. The Bee has spent weeks and lots of editorial space condemning the Cordova Hills Project both before and after it was approved by the Sac County Board of Supervisors. They pounded the project as sprawl. They pounded it as a give away to developers. So I guess that dispels your belief that the Sac Bee always is for development and that is why they support Measure I.
DMG: [i]On Sunday, the Davis Enterprise endorsed Measure I in a qualified statement with some serious reservations. On Tuesday, the Sacramento Bee editorial board followed suit, writing, “Davis should OK water pact with Woodland.”[/i]
Also the California Aggie endorsed: Worth the cost ([url]http://www.theaggie.org/2013/02/12/worth-the-cost/[/url])