By Michael Bartolic
I’ve had opportunity to see the grassroots outreach of the folks at the No on Measure I booth at the Farmers Market – their bake-sale alternative to the proponents’ pricey paid ads – and it’s raised my spirit immensely to experience first-hand how a groundswell of informed public opinion is rising against Measure I, a bad project pumped up by big money.
It’s clear many that Davis residents really get what the central issue of this campaign is: Do we needlessly and precipitately surrender our water system to a cabal of privatization advocates and real-estate speculators, gifting them guaranteed profits at no risk while saddling ourselves under crushing debt for a system larger than needed and beyond what most can afford; or do we plan wisely, acting with fiscal restraint to build modestly and incrementally for only what we truly need, and thereby keep Davis affordable for all?
As a high tide of residents floods the No on I booth every Saturday, carrying off lawn signs faster than they can keep them in stock, and offering help walking precincts or tabling at public plazas all over town, from the sidewalk I’ve engaged my fellow citizens to ask them what got them to move into action on opposing Measure I.
The answers vary. For some, it’s simply that the City Council hasn’t put a cap on the project costs, so voting for Measure I is like issuing a blank check. Some say they’re dismayed we’re overbuilding for an unaffordable, unmanaged peak capacity when their experience living in Arizona and New Mexico shows peak capacity irrigation “needs” can be diminished greatly by the centuries-old watermaster system, where irrigation days and times are set to keep peak use in balance with a fiscally modest water plant.
For others, it’s the City Council’s decision to game the system by not holding a true full election instead of a mail-only election that constricts the voter base. Others cite the last-minute, off-the-ballot change in the terms offered United Water to bring it back into the bidding process by changing the promise to the public that all risk would be assigned to private bidders to a promise to United Water that ratepayers will take over part of a bidder’s risks.
Indeed, many Davis residents balk at the notion we should gift our public water resource to a private operator to sell back to us at a guaranteed profit, period. And many are offended by the constant attempts of Measure I’s apologists to claim the cost of that surface water system would be “only” circa $115 million, when $115 million is just the price: The cost, with debt interest, would be well over $300 million, which is why Measure I would triple or quadruple our water bills.
Last, many ask why we should behave like a Southern California suburb – using water that comes from somewhere else at the expense of the ecology and economics of both the Trinity and Sacramento rivers’ watersheds, while simultaneously we’d help destroy the fresh-water flows of the dying Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
However, while the majority voice some blend of all the very valid concerns above, the final straw cited to me is often one of three things:
* Realization that the surface water system proposed by Measure I was designed by the well-to-do, and highly benefits wealthy land speculators, but will be paid for by common residents of far more modest means;
* Discovery of a 10-year study issued January 2013 by the California Department of Public Health for the California State Water Resources Control Board (see here) of contaminants that might potentially be found in groundwater wells of public water agencies in every California county – an exhaustive, comprehensive and scientifically vetted study, for which the repeated and carefully recorded tests utterly refute claims by Alan Pryor and other advocates for Measure I that our well water in Davis is a source of heavy metals, or any other pollutants; and
* Far from least, Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning’s scoop that the city hasn’t paid for its own water use over the past decade or longer, but has placed the burden of paying for all water produced and delivered by the system on the backs of regular ratepayers. In regard to this problem, Herb Niederberger, current city utilities manager – who I acknowledge didn’t create this situation – had the sad duty to report to me it’s true: The city’s records show zero bills and zero payments for its own water use.
In light of the above, it doesn’t surprise me so many residents are now saying Measure I’s too much to swallow, or that so many no longer trust what city staff, the City Council or paid consultants told the public or the Water Advisory Committee about our water supply, water use or water needs. Many especially don’t trust the solution proposed by Measure I, and say we can and must do better.
Yet nobody whom I’ve talked with wants to wait for a crisis before acting to ameliorate the complex issue of our water needs. Rather, the majority seem aware we aren’t in a crisis, nor facing one, and have time to act wisely by planning a water system affordable for all Davis residents. We can do this by taking only what we need, respecting the environment, and without crushing our community under 30 years of debilitating debt. That’s a positive and pro-active goal.
Join your neighbors in starting the process to achieve that worthy end by saying No on I.
Michael Bartolic is a member of the Davis Water Advisory Committee.
Although I’m not sure, Mr. Bartolic may be making a fundamental error in his assertions that there is a groundswell of opposition to Measure I. He may be sampling only from the ‘No on I’ population, rather than from the total population of potential voters. In clinical research, this would be like making predictions about the prevalence of mental illness in the community by sampling only from the population of psychiatric inpatients. In both cases, the results are skewed and not representative.
On the other hand, this may simply be a clever literary device meant to persuade undecideds that the election result is a fait accompli.
Mr. Bartolic’s assertion that somehow the project is tainted because it was designed by the “well-to-do” to benefit land speculators and on the backs of the downtrodden common folk of Davis is ridiculous. Where’s his evidence? This is just another trumped-up “sky is falling” innuendo by the No on I crowd, who have little factual basis for most of their opposition, so have to resort to half-baked charges and hope that they can scare people into voting against the project.
Mr. Bartolic shows his lack of knowledge about the basic workings of California water by falsely comparing Davis (new owners of senior riparian water rights) to LA suburbs (appropriative water users who transport their water from the source to its place of use). Trying to get the voters to believe that somehow by taking Sacramento River water we will be despoiling the Trinity and Sacramento watersheds and fouling the Delta. In fact, without the water project Davis would be putting water back into the river that would not meet salinity standards and would actually harm the Delta.
Back in the 1960’s the eminent political historian Richard Hofstadter wrote an illuminating monograph called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” (here’s a link to the Harper’s article that preceded the book: [url]http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html[/url].
Hofstadter was talking about the right-wing politicians of the 1950’s and early 1960’s, but his points can easily be made today about groups of citizens who have come to distrust government, see a conspiracy around every corner being foisted on them by special interests and feel dispossessed in their own community. The Davis “progressives” are a prime example of this style of politics.
The No on I campaign has yet to give the voters of Davis any real facts about why we should vote this measure down. They use illogic, hot air, and downright lies to hoodwink voters. Vote Yes on I!
Michael Bartolic writes
[quote]how a groundswell of informed public opinion is rising against Measure I,[/quote]
If this were true, I would be as enthusiastic as Michael seems to be. However, according to Michael’s own article we seem to be very heavy on swell and very light on informed. For example let’s look at some rather uninformed assertions:
1) “Voting for Measure I is like signing a blank check “
I have posed two questions addressing this issue to which I have received no answer from the “no on I “
group. If you feel this is “too expensive” what would a reasonably priced project, in your opinion , cost ?
“what will be the cost of delay”. Again, no response. Looks like the potential for an even larger “blank check
to me.
2) No statement at all about what a system used in another part of the country might cost or what the
implications might be in our unique circumstances.
3) The idea that voting by mail does not in some way constitue a “full true election”. I wonder what Freddie
Oakley would have to say about this.
4) “Gift our public water resource to a private operator”. What operator is Michael suggesting for a project.
Does he believe that their are public operators who might be able to provide a more feasible and affordable
project ? If so, who are they and how might this work ? What are our alternatives ?
5) January study of water sources with contaminants. Again a little obfuscation of the truth here MIchael.
No one has claimed that our well water is deleterious to our health, unlike the false information repeated
over and over by the “No side” despite being presented evidence to the contrary and despite Sue’s statement
from the dias that Sacramento River water is safe to drink, folks at the Farmers Market were, at least as of
two weeks ago, being told that it contained dangerous pharmaceuticals.
6) Effects on the environment – see post above by RDCanning or any number of previous posts by Don Shor
for actual information instead of uninformed drivel on this topic.
7) Citing entertainment columnist Bob Dunning as a source of investigative journalism and fount of accurate
information. Well that should speak for itself in much the same way as if I were to cite John Stewart as
a source of unbiased “information” about national events.
This is not an informed public. This is throwing out as much confusion, false accusation, and fear inducing speculation, to say nothing of unfounded smears on multiple members of our community, and hoping enough sticks to disinform and confuse people sufficiently to vote “No”.
Needless to say, I have voted “Yes” and would encourage others to do the same. And, no, I do not have any
financial benefit to be gained either way.
Bartolic speaks for many
“…surrender our water system to a cabal of privatization advocates and real-estate speculators…”
No “mushroom cloud” there, davisite2.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]Bartolic speaks for many[/quote]
Then many have chosen a very poor spokesperson with an information and evidence free point of view.
I find this sad, not encouraging.
[quote]Bartolic speaks for many [/quote]
Granted… so does medwoman, MBisch, and I. I estimate that half the votes that will be cast, have been.
We’ll see. I expect (not) that IF the measure fails, Mr H and Mr B will explain to folks 20 years from now why we are paying for much higher wastewater treatment costs, and are begging, with ‘hat in hand’, other communities to sell us water at a rate that will “profit” them. Prop 218 and proportionality do not apply to users out of the normal “service area”.
Other examples of the paranoid style in american politics (Davis style)…
. Our well water is laden with heavy metals and other toxins that is causing damage to our health on a daily basis.
. If we don’t do this project right now, we will be cited and fined huge amounts that will result in significant financial difficulties for everyone in Davis
. If we don’t take advantage of rights to the Sacrament River water right now we will lose these rights forever
. If we don’t do this project right now the costs will go up astronomically and we will never be able to afford it.
. All the groundwater is getting more poisoned, so drilling more wells is not a viable option
I’m thinking, ‘Pascal’s wager’.
Michael Bartolic had ample opportunity to air his concerns as a member of the water advisory committee. Because he failed to convince others there, we’re supposed to abandon all of the expert recommendations and rely on emotions (distrust, fear) to guide our decision? This is what Mike Harrington and Bartolic would have us do. I’m really disappointed in Bartolic. He’s better than this.
wesley506: Excellent description of the sky is falling posturing of the Yes on I people.
Read Walt Sadler’s piece. Read the June 2012 study of the wells system that the City commissioned.
All of the bullet points you cite are factually false.
Man, have we come a long way, baby, since October 2011 when many of the posters here savaged me and Pam Nieberg for having the audacity to challenge the wisdom of Dan Wolk, Rochelle Swanson, and Joe Krovoza for voting to implement a screwed up rate system on a project that was way, way too large, not immediately needed, and too expensive.
If I am not mistaken the WAC voted unanimously to recommend a conjunctive use approach to dealing with our water needs. Mr Bartolic was a member of the WAC. So when he writes:
[quote]Last, many ask why we should behave like a Southern California suburb – using water that comes from somewhere else at the expense of the ecology and economics of both the Trinity and Sacramento rivers’ watersheds, while simultaneously we’d help destroy the fresh-water flows of the dying Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.[/quote]
he seems to call into question the idea of conjunctive use. Was Mr Bartolic absence the night of the unanimous vote? Or is he repudiating his vote? Or, does conjunctive use for him imply that Davis will draw water from another surface source (Putah Creek?). I am confused about this.
…absent…
[quote]Build only what we need[/quote]
Michael is a hoot. He has taken almost 1,000 words to denigrate and disparage everyone who supports Measure I without even addressing the premise of his own article. So please, Michael, grace and entertain us with more of your flowery prose and tell us exactly what we should build that is only what we need…because so far the silence on this point has deafening.
Wesley:
[i]Other examples of the paranoid style in american politics (Davis style)… . Our well water is laden with heavy metals and other toxins that is causing damage to our health on a daily basis. . [/i]
The water contains arsenic at levels that are not a matter of public health, but that are likely to be regulated more tightly in the future.
I[i]f we don’t do this project right now, we will be cited and fined huge amounts that will result in significant financial difficulties for everyone in Davis .[/i]
It is almost a certainty that we will be fined if we don’t shift to surface water for part of our water supply. How steep the fines will be is unknown.
[/i]If we don’t take advantage of rights to the Sacrament River water right now we will lose these rights forever . [/i]
That is not correct.
[i]If we don’t do this project right now the costs will go up astronomically and we will never be able to afford it.[/i]
This is our opportunity to partner with Woodland on the surface water project. They need it now. It is very likely that borrowing costs will be higher in the future than they are now. Do you disagree?
[i]All the groundwater is getting more poisoned, so drilling more wells is not a viable option[/i]
Drilling more wells is definitely not a viable option for many reasons, primarily the conflict between Davis and UCD wells, the EIR with UCD (which sets an upper limit on our pumping from the deep aquifer – and we are at that limit now), and the unknown sustainability of the deep aquifer.
Contamination is a more appropriate word than poisoned, because the constituents of concern are nitrates and selenium possibly ‘leaking’ down from the intermediate aquifer to the deeper one.
Looks like the memo has gone out: talk up momentum! Predict victory!
Politico 11/1/12: [i]Rove said the Republican presidential candidate is winning at every level of the numbers game, “from polling data to early voting.”
“Sometime after the cock crows on the morning of Nov. 7, Mitt Romney will be declared America’s 45th president,” Rove wrote on Wednesday night. “Let’s call it 51%-48%, with Mr. Romney carrying at least 279 Electoral College votes, probably more.”
[/i]
Thank you, Michael Bartolic, for tightly packing all of the “no” bullshit into one tiny, easy to digest package. (The other Michael has been tossing it out on a random basis for weeks.) No facts, just name-calling lies.
P.S.: Recap, please, how people were selected to serve on this important committee. Assuming regular attendance, all would be privy to the same basic information to sort out and use as bases for their agreement and disagreement, right?
[quote]Recap, please, how people were selected to serve on this important committee.[/quote]Also, David, it might be good to re-cap what councilperson appointed which member. Might give some insights into motivations.
Don S: In all reality, the votes have been cast that will decide the issue. Don’t get into a urination match with a skunk…
The rates were tied like tin cans to the tail of Measure I, in spite of the CC’s best efforts to split them off. We shall see in a few days how it turns out.
[quote]The rates were tied like tin cans to the tail of Measure I, in spite of the CC’s best efforts to split them off.[/quote]
You’re inaccurate here as well. The rates will be determined by the Prop 218 process, irrespective of the results of Measure I.
[quote]How many accounts really would have their peak water use during the months that are not being measured for this factor? And how significant are the differences for such accounts?[/quote]
It doesn’t really matter – and in fact, as I understand this, we would like to encourage that as it takes pressure off the grid during peak months.
Lost my Funk and Wagnalls, David… can you clarify the difference between an “inaccuracy”, a “misreprestation” and a “bald-faced lie”?
[i]”…using water that comes from somewhere else at the expense of the ecology and economics of both the Trinity and Sacramento rivers’ watersheds, while simultaneously we’d help destroy the fresh-water flows of the dying Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.”[/i]
This sentence is especially perplexing. I have looked at a map of the Trinity River and can’t figure out Michael’s point in that regard. It isn’t clear why downstream uses would affect the Sacramento River watershed. And it is the pollution of the Delta with our effluent that is the basis of the state’s tightening restrictions on our water supply.
Don, the Trinity watershed drains west to the Pacific via the Klamath but a significant portion of the water collected in Lewiston Reservoir is piped east to Whiskeytown Reservoir in Shasta County as part of the federal Central Valley Project.
Do we know who are the members of the cabal he writes about in this piece?
I’m more interested in the “well-to-do.”
alanpryor wrote: “So please, Michael, grace and entertain us with more of your flowery prose …”
Alan, Michael Bartolic is the best political/public interest writer in town, IMHO. Glad to see you recognize it.
Justsaying wrote: “(The other Michael has been tossing it out on a random basis for weeks.)”
LOL! Tossing, or poking the basket?
Cabal indicates that its a secret group but the yes people are well known. i want to know who are the secret funders? The manipulators behind the scenes that we never actually get to see. Who, Rove, Koch brothers, Dick Armey, Coulter? Are they funneling bundled money in through a secret superpac. How do they dupe us into supporting them?
Michael Bartolic said . . .
“Many are offended by the constant attempts of Measure I’s apologists to claim the cost of that surface water system would be “only” circa $115 million, when $115 million is just the price: [b]The cost, with debt interest, would be well over $300 million[/b], which is why Measure I would triple or quadruple our water bills.”
Michael, I love you to death . . . your idealism, your warmth, your caring. You tilt at windmills, and as a card carrying member of Windmills Anonymous, you and I are kindred spirits. I have really enjoyed serving on the WAC with you. Our morning coffees at Mishka’s warmed me and challenged me. You always came with great questions.
However, in this case in your bolded words above, you are providing us with a significant amount of both misinformation and hyperbole.
You say, [i]”$115 million is just the price: The cost, with debt interest, would be well over $300 million.”[/i] That, would be true if we were paying [u]over 8% interest[/u] for our bonds [u]and[/u] we were borrowing every single dollar of the $113 million (that would take our debt service to $301 million . . . at 9% it becomes $329 million which clearly meets your wording), but [u]we are not borrowing at 8%[/u]. The current market for Revenue Bonds (not General Obligation Bonds) is 4.75%. At that interest rate the 30-year interest costs on $113 million are $101 million. We are also going to get a substantial amount of our borrowing from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) whose interest rate right now is 2.2%. At that interest rate the 20-year debt service on $113 million is $42 million. When you add principal and interest together you only get $155 million, which even for the mathematically challenged souls like me is [u]only half of “well over $300 million[/u].”
If we don’t take advantage of rights to the Sacrament River water right now we will lose these rights forever .
“That is not correct.”
This morning,I had a quite lengthy conversation with a sitting member of the Woodland citizen advisory committee. I was quite taken aback at the quantity of misinformation that passed for a complete and accurate narrative given to this Woodland citizen body of the facts relating to this project, particularly concerning Davis. The above statement about Davis’ surface water rights was only one glaring example.
rdcanning said . . .
[i]”Back in the 1960’s the eminent political historian Richard Hofstadter wrote an illuminating monograph called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” (here’s a link to the Harper’s article that preceded the book: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/c…style.html.
Hofstadter was talking about the right-wing politicians of the 1950’s and early 1960’s, but his points can easily be made today about groups of citizens who have come to distrust government, see a conspiracy around every corner being foisted on them by special interests and feel dispossessed in their own community. The Davis “progressives” are a prime example of this style of politics.”[/i]
Now you are really taking me back Robert. I when I took American History back in the 1960’s Hofstadter’s tome “The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It” was the cornerstone of the course. I’ve always thought Hofstadter would have loved Davis politics, because he like Davis was [b]”skeptical, fresh, revisionary, occasionally ironical, without being harsh or merely destructive”[/b] Sounds like the Davis I have come to know and love.
hpierce said . . .
[i]”Recap, please, how people were selected to serve on this important committee.
Also, David, it might be good to re-cap what councilperson appointed which member. Might give some insights into motivations.”[/i]
Michael was appointed by that noted No On I stalwart . . . Steve Souza
Souza also appointed Elaine “I don’t post in the Vanguard any more” Roberts-Musser
Souza’s alternate was Jane Runquist
Sue appointed Mark Siegler and Bill Kopper, with Walt Sadler as the alternate
Dan appointed Helen Thompson and Al Brandt, with Petrea Marchand as the alternate
Joe appointed Steve Boschken and Frank Loge, with David Purkey as the alternate
Rochelle appointed Jerry Adler and Jim West, with yours truly as the alternate
I can say without any reservation . . . no reservation at all . . . that the WAC was the finest decision making group that I have ever been associated with. It was solid from top to bottom.
“Don S: In all reality, the votes have been cast that will decide the issue. Don’t get into a urination match with a skunk…”
I do not know how many doors the writer of the above has knocked on but my recent experience in precinct canvassing was quite different. There is a very large body of potential voters who have not yet mailed in their ballots because they genuinely are confused and undecided about the efficacy of the project that they are being asked to give a blank check to. Usually, by this late in the game, undecideds vote NO but some may just not vote at all. This would enable Yes vote strength and those considering not voting should seriously consider the consequences.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Alan, Michael Bartolic is the best political/public interest writer in town, IMHO. Glad to see you recognize it.”[/i]
Mike, you and Bill Streng are of one mind on that subject. Doesn’t that warm you to the cockles of your heart and the tips of your toes?
Bill Streng and I respectuflly agree on a lot of things. Just not this project or the rates.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you!