The Davis City Council last night heard numerous citizens complain about a proposed 10 percent increase in water rates. Many of the public cited the personal hardships that this would impose on them. Then there was the issue that this was a flat rate increase meaning many people would be paying for their neighbors water usage.
City staff recommended a 10 percent increase for water rates which would generate roughly an additional million dollars. There are several significant capital improvement projects (CIPs) that will be under construction this fiscal year.
The council should have been listening to the public. They claimed to hear the public. But all I heard from much of the council were excuses. And they were the typical excuses from council. First, they did their usual rate comparison to other communities to show that Davis is typical of other comparable communities. As Councilmember Sue Greenwald pointed out however, Davis is comparable to Woodland, but Woodland has already paid for their new wastewater treatment plant.
Next the council blamed everyone from the state to the federal government on new regulations that the city must adhere to. Councilmember Greenwald repeatedly tried to make the case that we do not necessarily have to accept it. She also suggested new legislation may ease the burden, but to no avail.
We will have to have a separate installment to show Councilmember Don Saylor’s very interesting techniques for deflecting public outrage. He spoke long and soothingly in order to placate the public. But his statements amounted to little of substance basically suggesting that the council had looked at these issues, looked for new approaches, but the bottomline is that the public is going to see its water rates go up.
The question became whether we had to do this now–and just like every other discussion on water, we were told by Public Works Director in no uncertain terms that we had to do this now. He literally kicked the can down the road and forced the action. No one bothered to press him on this point. They all took his word for it.
Councilmember Lamar Heystek made a very important point that was heard by the rest of the council, noted, but in the end disregarded. He looked at the above chart and saw the $41 million in proposed CIP slated for 2014 and noted that there was a good possibility that not one of these councilmembers were going to be on the council at that date and time. Not one. That means that they were putting into places policies that will have very profound impacts on people’s lives and their pocketbooks and in some cases will be irreversible once put into motion and there will be no accountability for them. They are kicking the ball down the field for future residents and future councils to have to grapple with.
I sat listening to this discussion, and I was appalled. I wanted to get up there and scream to the council–ARE YOU LISTENING? This is over a 10 percent rate increase, this is nothing. Just wait public. Just wait.
The council has a chance to pause and think about all of this before they move forward. Every time they try the Bob Weirs in this city kick the ball down the field a little more and force action before there is adequate reflection. The public spoke loud and clear. This time it was only a dozen people give or take. Next time it will be hundreds if not more.
As Councilmember Sue Greenwald said, we need to listen to the consultants who have already told us we cannot do a wastewater treatment plant simultaneous with the water supply plant. But this is not enough. We need to start questioning our assumptions. We need to start questioning whether these projects are truly necessary. We need to start looking at ways we can accommodate what we need before we ask people to reach into our pocketbooks.
The council said they heard the public, but they did not. They blamed everyone for this situation but themselves. The buck stopped everywhere but with the jurisdiction that actually made the decision last night. It was appalling to listen to the excuses and rationalizations and the lengthy filibuster of a public official trying to calm the public with his soothing voice as he said absolutely nothing.
Some may have already seen the announcement, on May 20, 2009 the People’s Vanguard of Davis and the recent Davis Neighborhood Coalition will host a Townhall Meeting to discuss the budget crisis. That will be at 7 pm at the Vets Memorial Multipurpose room. I bring this up because at the Davis Neighborhood Coalition meeting they decided actually to support two townhall meetings. The second will be on water.
This will be the public’s meeting not the council’s. This will be the public’s chance to really be heard. Because unfortunately as the 4-1 vote attested to on Tuesday night, they are not listening.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Don Saylor, Ruth Asmundson, and to a lesser extent, Steve Souza all have a history of acting in what they, and they only, believe are the best interests for this city. They have forgotten the basic rule of represenative democracy: that they are elected to REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE. Instead, King Don, Queen Ruth, and Prince Steve believe that they are the enligthened elite who know what’s best for all of us.
And perhaps they are indeed privvy to more details and information than the average Davisite, but they are public servants and representatives elected to represent the people of Davis.
It seems that this basic lesson of representative democracy is conveniently forgotten and ignored.
Who voted no?
I happen to be on the side of Public Works and the City Council on this issue – and we all need to get used to the end of cheap and easy access to water. Pricing water for the valuable resource it is will help move us towards using water in ways that improve the productivity, equity, and efficiency of water use.
Rate structures can play an essential role in communicating the value of water to customers and promoting long term efficient use. But the City of Davis has dropped the ball when it comes to educating residents that water conservation is the cheapest and easiest way to meet current and future water supply needs.
Would this be the same Bob Weir, dirctor of Davis public works, who built the water storage and well by route 113 without securing rights to the property? The city paid dearly in cpurt for that. As they have for his many personnel blunders. His long record does not inspire confidence.
This seems like a lot of outrage over a $4 a month rate increase. But if that causes hardship, the council can change the rate structure to establish a lifeline rate and make the other rates more progressive based on water use.
Except for the $1.5 million for the surface water project, the other items on the list appear to be ongoing maintenance. Are you suggesting those be deferred? It’s not a great idea to defer maintenance projects, whether it be road repair or water supply. I think you’ve made that point in previous articles about other aspects of the city’s budget.
“Next the council blamed everyone from the state to the federal government on new regulations that the city must adhere to. Councilmember Greenwald repeatedly tried to make the case that we do not necessarily have to accept it.”
Really? Dixon hasn’t had much success on that approach. The fines are costly. I’d also be surprised to find progressives on this blog arguing that the city should violate water quality standards.
It seems that proceeding with the surface water supply would obviate the need for the wastewater treatment. If we don’t do the surface water project, we will have to do the wastewater project, and the existing aging wells will have to be replaced. No matter what, it’s going to cost money.
“…water conservation is the cheapest and easiest way to meet current and future water supply needs.”
That doesn’t solve the wastewater problem.
“It seems that proceeding with the surface water supply would obviate the need for the wastewater treatment. If we don’t do the surface water project, we will have to do the wastewater project, and the existing aging wells will have to be replaced. No matter what, it’s going to cost money.”
If we go ahead w the water project, and water is not available from the Sac River in summer, then we must use well water. Well water will not meet the new federal water standards, thus requiring an upgrade of the sewer plant. If my thinking is off on this, ple-e-e-ease let me know.
“This seems like a lot of outrage over a $4 a month rate increase.”
If we do both a sewer and water project at the same time, you will see both water and sewer rates double at the very least. It is more likely water rates will quadruple. There are many people who will literally be driven out of their homes w these kind of rate hikes. What I saw last night is a city council that is clueless, and blindly voted for a rate increase that effectively puts us on a trajectory of doing both projects at the same time. As Sue Greenwald said, she voted for a rate increase that is not well defined – it is money being collected for both projects. We are headed for serious trouble, and our City Council is CLUELESS!
“I happen to be on the side of Public Works and the City Council on this issue – and we all need to get used to the end of cheap and easy access to water. Pricing water for the valuable resource it is will help move us towards using water in ways that improve the productivity, equity, and efficiency of water use.”
You cannot conserve your way out of this problem! Even if citizens went to zero water use, they would still have to pay for a wastewater treatment plant upgrade and surface water project at the same time. They would still see their water/sewer rates go up astronomically. The water conservation issue is a RED HERRING!
We are able to fight off the wastewater project.
I would support a ballot measure to stop the river water program, and force Public Works to focus on reducing demand, and other environmentally progressive measures.
If a group wants to collect the signatures and put it on the ballot, my facilities would be fully available.
“If we go ahead w the water project, and water is not available from the Sac River in summer, then we must use well water. Well water will not meet the new federal water standards, thus requiring an upgrade of the sewer plant. If my thinking is off on this, ple-e-e-ease let me know.”
I think it is state, not federal, water standards that are the problem.
During drought conditions which make surface water unavailable in the summer, the governor can declare a state of emergency. The State of Emergency that Schwarzenegger proclaimed in February in response to our current drought contains provisions that allow the state government to suspend water quality standards:
“17. … Water Code section 13247 is suspended to allow expedited responses to this emergency that are consistent with this Proclamation.”
But keep in mind one thing: if you start a fight, start it to win. 500% effort, and never let up til the successful vote. So if any of you want to organize a group and ballot measure, do it to win.
Lamar was the no vote.
Oh, that’s very helpful of you, Mike Harrington, since you did nothing to resolve this when you were on the council.
“I would support a ballot measure to stop the river water program, and force Public Works to focus on reducing demand, and other environmentally progressive measures.”
None of which solves the wastewater problem.
The question I have is whether we really have a wastewater problem that we cannot solve through negotiations with the state. From what Councilmember Greenwald said last night that seems possible and something we should at least look into.
“From what Councilmember Greenwald said last night that seems possible and something we should at least look into.”
Please look into the city of Dixon history on that subject. A series of cease and desist orders, over several years, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board against the city sewer operation has led to fines totalling $1 million and rising. Negotiations have been ongoing, but the fines are not removed. The upshot is that the city will have to resolve the salinity problem in the effluent, and the problem is that the water coming into the system is too saline. Sound familiar?
First we were supposed to wait to see what the consultants said. The conclusion? As you said on 4/15:
“Those concerned about the costs of these projects, particularly doing these projects concurrently, can take heart from the recommendations of the consultants who believe that if we do the water supply project, that might be enough to forestall the wastewater treatment project….”
As Lamar said, “Very interesting that the analysis by the independent experts show that it makes a lot more sense to do a water supply project first before you address waste water treatment. …
There is no question that we have an issue with the quality of water and the quantity of our existing water supply. I don’t think anyone really disputes that. I don’t think anyone would dispute that we have an obligation to comply with the waste water permit especially after it has been extended.”
The biggest problem I see right now it other options. How I have been reading it that there is such a large need that the only option right now is getting surface water as opposed to keeping with the wells. Water quality is already poor because of the wells.
If we dont get the river water what would be the better choice for the city of Davis?
Good for Lamar for being the lone dissenting vote. As he pointed out, the City of Davis as an agency has not been serious at all about implementing consumption reduction (beyond asking people to install low-flow shower heads) as a means of reducing the scope of the water importation and wastewater treatment plant upgrade projects. Smaller projects mean lower costs, and lower costs mean lower rate hikes.
“Good for Lamar for being the lone dissenting vote. As he pointed out, the City of Davis as an agency has not been serious at all about implementing consumption reduction (beyond asking people to install low-flow shower heads) as a means of reducing the scope of the water importation and wastewater treatment plant upgrade projects. Smaller projects mean lower costs, and lower costs mean lower rate hikes.”
Excuse me, but how the heck do we “conserve” our way out of paying for either a wastewater treatment plant upgrade and/or water project? Conserve all you want, the piper still has to be paid. I don’t understand why people cannot see that conservation is not the real issue here…
Dear Ryan Kelly:
Actually, if you read the CC minutes, every single time that the surface water came up, I voted against it. That river water is basically the wet dream for developers in Yolo County. Why do you think their chosen electeds are fighting so hard to keep that utterly worthless project alive? They have to have “guaranteed” water sources for any new large scale developments.
Also, I moved that any rate increase for the waste water treatment plant upgrade to conform to state regulations be stictly limited to that purpose, rather than using some of that money to study increasing the size of the treatment plant so it could accommodate Covell Village, etc. I lost, 4/1. For more than 4 years the CC majority and staff have been using some of the rate increase money to work on the facility expansion for future growth.
Finally, where the heck were YOU in any of the CC races? I dont recall you at any meetings to assist candidates. And now you sit here on the blog and attack our electeds, and me? If you dont show up to help Lamar and Sue next time, shame on you.