Water

As reported on Tuesday, the city is moving forward with an RFQ that may end up restricting options that could save the city twenty million dollars, if not more, on the design of its wastewater treatment plant.  The justification that arose from both staff and councilmembers like Mayor Joe Krovoza is that council made the decision to choose the local Charrette Design Option.

Mayor Joe Krovoza stated at the May 21 meeting, “It is my position… that the Charrette process is one that this community came up with, this community likes, that fits our site and there’s been some opportunities where I’ve suggested doing something a little different than the Charrette process, this council has come back and said we’re going to keep it a local project.  If it’s a local project the Charrette design is what we came up with.”

In late May, the city council approved a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) on the wastewater project for what is estimated to be a 95 million dollar project.  However, critics claim that there may be more cost-effective alternatives to the locally designed Charrette Design Plan, that are specifically precluded by the stringent language of the RFQ.

A June 13, 2013, letter from PERC Water, a water recycling corporation, to Project Manager Michael Linquist informs the city that the firm does not intend to submit a proposal, based on the likelihood “that our firm will likely be disqualified from the process, or at a minimum be considered non-qualified to receive a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Project.”

by Brett Lee

The Water Advisory Committee recently made their recommendation on the issue of water fluoridation for our future drinking water system.  Over the course of three meetings, they had several presentations made to them.  At the first meeting a presentation was made by those in favor of fluoridation.  At the second meeting, a presentation was made by those opposed to water fluoridation.  The third meeting was devoted to general discussion amongst the members of the WAC as they tried to decide what recommendations to make.

As a member of the City Council and a member of the community, I watched these proceedings with great interest.  We will soon be deciding what path we should take regarding this issue in the near future.  And while the WAC is not composed of experts in this specific area of science or health policy, the WAC is composed of very knowledgeable and thoughtful members of our community.  Their recommendations do carry a lot of credibility.

In an op-ed this weekend, Dr. Michael Wilkes asks whether “a few (can) still block a benefit for the many?”  At first, it seems like an odd question.

Dr. Wilkes, after all, is an expert in public health.  He is a researcher, a professor of medicine and public health at UC Davis, and he chairs the Yolo County Heath Council.

General Manager of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency Dennis Diemer came the the Davis City Council on Tuesday night to discuss the progress of the surface water project.  While he discussed in general the entire project, much of the questions from the public and council related to the withdrawal of two of the three DBO (Design-Build-Operate) teams.

Mr. Diemer discussed the delays to the schedule, mostly the result of the Davis vote on the surface water project, while he noted a number of positives from the delays including the acquisition of easement and land and environmental permitting; the state and federal funding for the intake and money from the State Revolving Fund; and project optimization in terms of capacity, the water transmission main, local facility requirements and DBO price ceiling.

It won’t exactly be Oliver North facing down Democratic legislators at the Joint Congressional Committee from 26 years ago.  But then again, Dennis Diemer, the General Manager of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency, presumably won’t be lawyered up, ready to take the Fifth either.

The real question is whether anyone on council, this side of Brett Lee, actually cares that much about this issue.

Given the composition of the WAC, the 6-1-1 vote in support of fluoridation was hardly surprising.  Still, for reasons I have laid out in previous columns, I simply do not believe that the Davis City Council is likely to want to touch this one.

After watching the Thursday discussion on streaming video after the fact, I tend to side with Mark Siegler, who abstained from the vote, wondering what the WAC’s qualifications were to render a decision.

Following the announcement last week that CH2M Hill is the sole water contract bidder remaining in the DBO process, a light of scrutiny naturally begins to shine on the company.

Not missing the opportunity, Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning writes in his Wednesday column, “So, it turns out the sole remaining bidder for the Woodland-Davis water contract and our hard-earned dollars that come with it is a Colorado-based outfit named CH2M Hill that recently admitted to its role in defrauding the federal government at the former nuclear weapons complex in Hanford, Washington.”

The idea of a competitive bid process is that the competition for the awarding of the bidding will create an incentive structure that forces the competing firms to find the best way to construct a project at the most competitive price they can reasonably offer, while still making an acceptable profit.

In order to work properly, such a model requires there to be sufficient competition to drive down the costs and force innovation.  But from the start that was a difficult process, because the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency wanted to use a Design-Build-Operate process.

The WAC will meet this Thursday to discuss and make a recommendation to the Davis City Council on the issue of fluoridation, and I personally urge them to vote against making any sort of recommendation.

I have stayed on the sidelines on this issue throughout much of the debate.  Truth be told, I am actually more sympathetic to the yes position.  I read this morning’s op-ed in the Davis Enterprise by former Schools Chief Delaine Eastin and several respected medical professionals including:  Rick Baker, from First 5 Yolo;  Constance J. Caldwell, Yolo County’s current health officer; and Bette Hinton, Yolo County’s former health officer.

In early February the Vanguard reported that CDM Smith and United Water had 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.

Six days later, after considerable behind-the-scenes work by project General Manager Dennis Diemer, they wrote to inform the general manager, “We remain interested in participating in the regional water supply project.”

As we have previously reported, the issue of fluoride in the Davis water supply is not a new issue.  At the very least, it appears to have come up at least four times previously – in 1960, 1964 (twice), 1971, and 1991.

Only in April of 1964 did the fluoride issue appear to win and, as John Lofland, professor emeritus from UC Davis and a local historian wrote earlier this week, even that victory was short-lived.

By Matt Williams

Editor’s Note: The following were comments presented to the Davis City Council on Tuesday night and submitted to the Vanguard for publication.

In a recent community dialogue about coming up with the funding for the millions of dollars needed to repair Davis’ roads, the following observation was shared.

On Thursday, the Water Advisory Commission listened to the opposition to fluoridation present their case.  The meeting, which reportedly lasted three hours, had dozens of public commenters.  The WAC will make their recommendation on whether Davis should add fluoride to its water supply at their next meeting.

But ultimately the Davis City Council will have to figure out how to handle this matter.  A few weeks ago, we reported that councilmembers and staff may be inclined to put the matter to a vote.  While some people have suggested such a notion is preposterous, ironically, this would not be the first public vote on fluoridation.

By Terri Leonard

Editor’s note: The following is an email sent to the WAC by Dr. Leonard regarding an issue that came up at last month’s WAC meeting regarding the fluoridation issue

Dear Members of the Water Advisory Committee,

I am sending this email to present evidence to refute Dr. Lyman’s statement during the April 25, 2013, Water Advisory Committee meeting that declining dental caries rates in European countries that do not fluoridate their water supply can be attributed to fluoride added to the salt and milk supply in those countries.

By Matt Williams

In the coming weeks as a member of the Water Advisory Committee (WAC), I am going to be formally and officially asked what my recommendation to City Council is regarding fluoridation of Davis’ water.

The following are some comments selected from the recent fluoridation discussion:

By Dr. Michael Wilkes

I write on behalf of the Yolo County Health Council, the group appointed to advise the Yolo County Board of Supervisors on all aspects of health in the County. Over the past several years we have carefully considered aspects related to the fluoridation of drinking water in our county. We have looked at current scientific evidence, read scholarly reports by learned bodies, and considered potential opposition to fluoridation from community members.

Many YCHC members are also health care providers who have seen first-hand the havoc that results with a child, family, and the community at large when tooth decay is uncontrolled. Pain, malnutrition, lost days of school and work, and economic loss are a few implications of poor dental health.

Despite the powerful advocacy by both the Yolo County Board of Supervisors and the Yolo County Health Counsel led by Dr. Michael Wilke, the idea of a Davis City Council decision to support fluoridated water in Davis appears to be a longshot, at best.

One of the problems the city faces is that a number of people have expressed the sentiment publicly and privately to the Vanguard that they supported the water project, but had they known it would have led to fluoridated water, things would have been different.

I have largely sat back on the issue of fluoridation in Davis’ drinking water, largely because I’m rather indifferent to the issue.  However, when Supervisor Matt Rexroad tweeted yesterday, “It seems that people that oppose fluoridation are likely to have several cats,” I thought it was time to chime in, at least a little bit.

There is a decent article in the Woodland paper this morning, “Fluoridation could be part of Woodland-Davis water project.”

By Tia Will