It was a rare site on Tuesday night as a number of high school students came forward to speak in support of a proposal to fluoridate the city’s water supply, and UC students from CalPIRG came forward, speaking in favor of a proposed plastic bag ban.
A senior at Davis High School, speaking at public comment, spoke of the option of putting fluoride in the city’s water as “not just sensible but obvious.”
Water, Social Justice, and Environmental Considerations – The last time fluoridation of Davis potable water was considered was in 1990 when the then current City Council rejected the proposals based on citizen opposition. Davis Citizens Against Fluoridation (DCAF) was very recently formed to oppose the latest efforts to fluoridate Davis drinking water. The founders of DCAF include both supporters and opponents of the surface water project. Despite obvious differences between us as to the perceived need for surface water in Davis, we all agree that the current proposal to impose mandatory fluoridation of our drinking water supply is not based on the latest scientific information on the lack of fluoridation efficacy in reducing dental decay and fluoride toxicity.
Further, the campaign to fluoridate our drinking water is now being conducted in a manner specifically designed to seek a hasty approval from the City Council as soon as possible to minimize open and extended public debate. If the controversy surrounding the surface water project showed us anything, however, it is that Davis citizens care deeply about the quality of their water they receive and demand to be actively engaged in the community debate surrounding this issue.
The Davis City Council in considering their options on Tuesday night, voted 3-1, with Mayor Joe Krovoza dissenting and Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk absent, to stick with the local alternative on wastewater treatment.
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs led the way on moving forward with the local option, arguing that, while the idea that Davis was not interested in collaborating was false, he had concerns about the governance structure for a proposed Woodland-Davis project.
Last December the city of Davis was already set to move ahead with their wastewater treatment plan when, they were approached by the city of Woodland with an offer to spend half a million dollars to study a regional wastewater treatment project.
The council would reject that approach but considered another one in February. The plan would call for the piping of Davis’ wastewater to Woodland where Woodland’s existing plant capacity would be expanded. That proposal, city staff believes, could save about $30 million over the currently proposed project that would cost around $95 million.
In January of 2007, the Vanguard featured an article entitled: “Tracing the recent history of the water supply project.” In it, we argued that there was a series of decisions that changed the trajectory of water policy to become a far more expansive and more expensive project than the original course of action. The remarkable feature is that at no point was a decision actually made to proceed with this project. Instead, there were a series of staff recommendations approved by council to explore various options which lumped together became a decision.
This is very important in trying to understand where we are right now. There is a basic inertial quality to this issue that is rather remarkable. There are basically two forces driving the process, neither of which are necessarily council approval. First, the concern that we will lose our place in line. Second, the concern that down the line the costs of construction will increase if we delay now.
I was just reading Bob Dunning’s most recent column in the Davis Enterprise. He writes about a man named “Glen” who is having trouble absorbing his new city utility bill. We have covered this issue before, but it bears another examination. What the city did with a simple change of methodology is unconscionable.
The Vanguard discussed this issue back in September, but the human cost here is extraordinary. What has happened is that the city has gone to water usage as a means by which to gauge sewer rates. If one proceeds carefully and cautiously, that is probably a decent approximation of sewer usage. Even then there are some problems that develop from such a methodology. For instance, it will over-estimate sewer usage for people with large gardens who use a lot of water to water their plants–water that does not then go into the sewer.
Is Council Finally Having Serious Concerns About the Cost of the Wastewater Project?
At some point it would probably benefit everyone to go back through the records and look at the increases in the estimated cost of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. I believe that since early last year when I first took note of the wastewater project the estimated cost of the project has risen from around $150 million to over $200 million.
Finally, the city council is taking a serious look at ways to reduce the costs. The real question is why has it taken so long? But at least now the council is looking into the costs.
by Alan Pryor and Pam Nieberg – 
In January of 2007, the Vanguard featured an article entitled: “