The most commonly asked question I get these days is whether Measure I will win or lose. My answer is always the same, but I seem to frame my answer slightly differently for those outside of Davis, compared to those inside Davis.
The gist of my answer is that I think it go could either way, and voters will end up weighing the costs of the project against the security of having a safe and relatively clean water supply.
By Sue GreenwaldI strongly believe that approving the Woodland-Davis water project is the most risky and potentially harmful decision that has been made by a City Council during the 12 years that I served as a council member.
We do not need this particular project at this time. We can’t afford this uniquely expensive approach to our long-term water infrastructure upgrades, and the consequences of proceeding with it are likely to be devastating.
by Matt WilliamsSpecifically lets look at another commodity that we all value . . . our home. Since everyone who is a rate payer is also the owner of a home (or business) there is a very direct parallel between our decisions about home ownership and our decisions about water use.
On Tuesday the Vanguard analyzed the project costs, noting not only the steep rate hikes for the next five years, but also the potential continued steep rate hikes as the city had to increase its total revenue to about $42 million by 2032, a four-fold increase in revenue over a 30-year-period.
Former Councilmember Stephen Souza noted and posted a number of links to rate subsidies including one that the Davis City Council looked at back on November 27, 2012.
By Ken WagstaffJust got my mail ballot for Measure I, the water supply question. I’ve listened carefully to friends on both sides.
Through all the arguing, one has to focus on what is really known.
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.
By Senator Lois WolkThe city of Davis’ water policies have been extraordinarily consistent for several generations. Supported by all City Councils and city managers, the policies have been to:
In the coming days within the next week or two, the Vanguard will analyze a series of unresolved issues in the Measure I campaign. We believe that, without the cost issue, there would be little to no opposition to this project. Therefore, we start with an analysis of the cost issues.
The era of cheap water may indeed be over, as project proponents like to argue. The Vanguard‘s own analysis suggests that water rates will double, even without a project, by 2018.
While much has been made of the 2010 suit against the City of Sacramento with regard to non-payments for municipal water use, there has been very little discussion of what that case, which resulted in a settlement agreement between the parties, actually entailed.
The City of Sacramento did not suffer sanctions for the non-payment of the water; rather the terms simply set up a system whereby water usage would be tracked and paid for from the General Fund to the Enterprise Fund.
by Janice A. BeecherThe Water Pricing Primer was developed to inform and engage decision-makers and stakeholders about the central role of water pricing in water resource stewardship and sustainability. The Primer is intended to provide an introductory “why to,” more than a detailed “how to,” treatment of this rich and important subject. In addition to introducing key principles and concepts of ratemaking.
The rationale for water efficiency
It all began with a lawsuit by Michael Harrington that alleged that the City of Davis “has defrauded Davis ratepayers for years by failing to pay for any of the City’s own water use as required by Proposition.”
Last week, Bob Dunning, the Davis Enterprise columnist, cited a story by reporter Tom Sakash as evidence that the city had admitted to these charges.
On September 6, 2011, the Davis City Council pushed through, by a 4-1 vote, water rates that were advertised to be 14% rate hikes. As it turned out, in order to get to 14% rate hikes, the consumer would have to reduce usage by 20% and thus, by any reasonable means, the actual cost per gallon would go up by a lot more than 14%.
Not only did a large number of people protest these rate hikes through the Prop 218 process, although they fell well short of the number needed to prevent the rate hikes, another group of people emerged with a signature process to put the rate hikes to a vote.
It is not perhaps the cleanest and most trumpeting endorsement, but it probably captures a number of people’s feelings as some of them lean toward supporting the project: “Surface water plan in Measure I is filled with flaws, but it’s our best option now.”
The endorsement, and that statement, actually leave room for both sides of the issue to utilize. The Yes on Measure I side can argue that the Enterprise, even with Bob Dunning’s columns and Foy McNaughton’s philosophy, is willing to endorse the project.
The Woodland-Davis water project was already dealing with one setback as Veolia withdrew from the bidding, and now the city has disclosed that on January 23, 2013 CDM and United Water sent a letter to Jim Yost of the project engineering firm West Yost Associates, informing them that they were withdrawing from the Davis Woodland Water Supply Design-Build-Operate (DBO) Project procurement process.
After considerable discussion with Dennis Diemer, the project’s general manager, six days later they wrote to inform the general manager, “We remain interested in participating in the regional water supply project.”
By Elaine Roberts Musser, Helen Thomson, Jerry Adler, Alf Brandt, Steve Boschken, Jim West and Jane RundquistThe objective of the Woodland-Davis surface water project is to create a safe, sustainable and reliable source of clean water for our community. Many extremely qualified experts testified before the Water Advisory Committee, a group of knowledgeable citizens tasked to look closely at the water issue in Davis. Every one of those experts who spoke before the WAC agreed Davis needs a conjunctive-use project, using both ground and surface water. Every single WAC member concurred with a conjunctive-use project, in a unanimous vote.
We believe if Davis fails to implement a conjunctive use project, the city would not be acting in a fiscally responsible manner. Here is why:
In an op-ed earlier this week, Frank Loge and Matt Williams, who on volunteer time designed the Consumption Based Fixed Rate (CBFR), punched back at the Davis Enterprise columnist who attacked their rate structure, claiming it violated Prop 218.
It has been ten days since Michael Harrington announced he had filed a lawsuit against the city, citing among other reasons that the proposed rate structure violates Proposition 218’s proportionality requirement. The city has finally responded to some of the allegations raised in the suit.
The city has thus far remained silent on the other contention that the city has failed to pay for its own water use. Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning most recently cited reporter Tom Sakash in leveling the charge.
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.
The Vanguard remains concerned about the election process itself. Measure I would authorize the Davis City Council to move forward with the Woodland-Davis water project. At the same time, the Prop 218 process is completely independent of that vote.
That means that, ostensibly though perhaps not in reality, the rates could go up even if the voters did not approve a project and we know with reasonable certainly that the city will have to double the rates over the next five years regardless of the outcome of Measure I.
(Editor’s Note: The Vanguard has received two shorter submissions, one from Elaine Roberts Musser and one from Steve Hayes. We have put them together in this piece to present two different views of the water project.)