Water

The Vanguard reported October 4 that CH2M Hill was set to be awarded the contract for the Woodland-Davis surface water project.  Last week, by unanimous vote, the Board of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency formally approved that recommendation and awarded a $141.2 million service contract to CH2M Hill for the design, construction and long-term operation of a new surface water treatment system.

The service contract, which the agency claims will cost 25 percent less than the agency’s original estimate, will provide for the delivery of surface water to Woodland and Davis by 2016.

By Tia Will

In the wake of the decision not to pursue water fluoridation, alternatives are being sought which focus on those identified as the most needy. Sound public health practices would include policies that positively affect as many of the vulnerable as possible.

So far, this consideration seems to have been focused in Davis on underserved preschool and school aged children. However, is this really the only population that should be considered ?  A couple of recent articles suggest that this may be too narrow a focus.

In the aftermath of the fluoride vote last week, there have been some interesting letters to the editor in the local paper.  The immediate reaction one might have is where were those people were during the policy discussion and why, if they are so embarrassed and outraged, did they not show up before now?

One writer, Jim Coulter, noted, “As the Sacramento Bee stated in an editorial Friday, Councilman Dan Wolk was the only member of the City Council with enough courage to recommend the implementation of fluoride in the new water project for the city of Davis.”

I was reading the op-ed in the Sacramento Bee yesterday excoriating the Davis City Council for allowing politics to “trump” public health on the issue of fluoridation.  I find it interesting the degree to which “politics” has become a bad word in our society, but even more so the fundamental disconnect between those living in this community and those who do not.

This is not something new.  The Bee has often been an outside observer to Davis politics, often critical of the city’s land use policies or its progressive, citizen-based brand of politics.  It is a strange animosity, given the fact that many of the Bee‘s reporters and editorial board members actually live in Davis.

While some have been concerned about the prospect that the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency (WDCWA)  lost two of its bidders on the water project, on Thursday the General Manager of the WDCWA, Dennis Diemer, announced that the negotiations have ended and the contract will come before the board on October 10 in Woodland for final approval.

According to a press release, the Board of Directors “is to consider awarding a $141.2 million service contract to CH2M Hill, the sole bidder able to meet the Agency’s requirements for project costs, quality assurances and performance guarantees.”  That price proposal is 25 percent lower than what the agency originally estimated costs to be.

By Tia Will

I was deeply disappointed with the actions of he Davis City Council on October 1, 2013. But perhaps not for the reason one might think based on my past posts. I was a strong and vocal proponent of water fluoridation.

However, it was not the “no ” vote that I found disappointing. It was what I see as a devaluation of the importance of public health by three of our council members.

In response late Tuesday night to the Vanguard tweet declaring that fluoridation had gone down by a vote of 4-1 on the Davis City Council, Supervisor Matt Rexroad, a strong proponent of fluoridation, tweeted, “pathetic” and followed it up, “The City of Davis and State of Jefferson both can fight fluoridation of water. Let them be one.”

Later on Facebook he would post, “Davis is going to oppose fluoridation of water. I am no longer listening to anything coming from that community regarding public health.”

The handwriting was on the wall when Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk made a motion to approve staff recommendation number one, in support of fluoridation, and his motion received no second.  Eventually the council would approve a motion by Rochelle Swanson to support staff recommendation number two, which would turn down fluoridation and instead direct staff to engage with folks in the community for access to preventative care.

The 4-1 vote would buck the near-unanimous support of the public health community, the school district and the county.  However, the council had to weigh in politics.  They understood that over the more than 50 speakers who came for public comment, nearly two-thirds were against fluoridation.

Tonight, unless something drastically changes, the roughly six-month debate on fluoridation – which is only the latest episode in a half-century saga in Davis on this issue – will end tonight.  Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk came out in favor of fluoridation early in the process, but unless something changes he does not have three votes, and may not even have a second vote.

Truth be told, when the issue emerged, I thought I would end up supporting fluoridation.  I grew up in a community with fluoridated water and, to be quite blunt, it was not a big deal in the least.  My perception of the anti-fluoridation folks was painted by images of the 1950s, where the John Birch Society railed against fluoridation, arguing that it would make it easier for the communists to put us under their control.