Provenza and Chamberlain Fall One Vote Short of Blocking or Delaying the Deal –
On Friday, by a narrow 3-2 vote, Yolo County signed an agreement with a company held by Angelo Tsakopoulos to allow the acquisition of a majority interest in the Conaway Preservation Group, which further protects the agricultural, natural and habitat resources on the Conaway Ranch, an active farming operation on 17,000 acres in the heart of Yolo County.
“Yolo County has long had an interest in protecting the values on the Conaway Ranch in the heart of Yolo County, and has been an active partner in the management of the Conaway Ranch for the benefit of the residents of Yolo County and the region,” said Yolo County Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Helen M. Thomson in a release from the County late Friday afternoon. “This agreement sets the framework for the county to continue to protect this huge swath of agricultural land and its water, well into the future.”
- Annual cap on total transfers of surface water
- Groundwater management
- Water transfer fees paid
- Support for fluoridation equipment in design/construction of Woodland-Davis water supply project
- Conservation easements and related funding
- Public access management plan
- Habitat and funding in support of Yolo Natural Heritage Program (HCP/NCCP) efforts
- County fiscal issues addressed related to taxes, fees, in lieu payments
- Pacific Flyway Center support
This agreement, which was crafted over several months to protect overall county interests, also supports the cities of Woodland and Davis who have formed a Joint Powers Authority to contract with the Conaway Preservation Group to provide a new source of surface water for their residents, the release continued.
A key concern with the deal hinges on the sale of 80,000 acre-feet of water to Los Angeles. Another 4000 acres would be set aside by the state for wetland habitat. The plan would also involve building some mode to transport water around the delta.
The county would get roughly $1.5 million.
Supervisor Matt Rexroad told the Vanguard early Friday morning that there is nothing in this agreement that couldn’t be done without the county’s consent. He believes that the county is getting assurances over farmland and the continued use of 12,000 acres that would continue to be farmed under this agreement, and in exchange the county is giving nothing up.
It is interesting to juxtapose the positions of Mike McGowan with that of Jim Provenza. Supervisor McGowan joined with the majority and somehow believes that Tsakopoulos is going to stand with the county opposing conversion of farmland.
Mr. McGowan made the comment that Tsakopoulos will “stand should to shoulder with us.” But, Mr. Tsakopoulos stands shoulder to shoulder with no one but himself. He only signed this deal because it gives him a short-term advantage and apparently it will not hamstring his long-term goals.
If Mr. Rexroad is right, and he could sell the water to whomever anyway, why would he need the agreement with the county?
The answer comes from Jim Provenza who made the argument that the county just gave up their bargaining chip in any hopes of influencing the design of the Bay Delta Conservation plan.
While the county has put a moratorium on the conversion of farmland to habitat, the agreement with Tsakopoulos grants him an exemption. Now the developer will be able to sell to the state a key place in the Yolo Bypass, and the county will lack the ability to dictate how it is used.
In the meantime the state is moving forward with plans to build a peripheral canal to bypass the delta and send water to southern California and we’re letting it happen.
According to Mr. Provenza we just gave away any hope we had in shaping policy in our favor.
“We are signing off on our most powerful tool,” Supervisor Provenza said on Friday. “The water contractors are scared to death we have the moratorium. They don’t know what’s going to happen in court.”
The fact of the matter is the majority on the Board of Supervisors has sold out to Tsakopoulos. He is not going to stand shoulder to shoulder with us. That isn’t how he works. He is not for us. He is for himself. Our board has sold us out here.
There are a lot of reasons why this happened, but chief amongst them is they were looking for revenue during tough times and they wanted to pave the way for the Woodland-Davis water project to go forward.
Supervisor Helen Thomson has done a lot of great things for Yolo County, but unfortunately this may serve as her final act and this appears to be a disaster for all of our interests.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Supervisor Helen Thomson has done a lot of great things for Yolo County, but unfortunately this may serve as her final act and this appears to be a disaster for all of our interests.”
We only have to recall the Helen Thomson letter to the Davis voters that attempted to frighten us into supporting a Yes on Measure X vote(approval of Whitcombe’s Covell Village) with the “fact” that developer Gidaro(a partner now in Tsakopoulos’ developer-water-consortium) could care less about Davis’ wishes with his plans to develop a massive development on County land on our borders.
I’m confused on what the issues are here (sorry to be so dense/ignorant)- *What do you think Tsakopoulos’ short term and long term goals are that your refer to? What is it that you surmise he is going to do that would run counter to the county’s goals?
*What bargaining chip did the county supposedly give up?
*Is the peripheral canal a done deal?
*What is Provenza referring to when he suggests the water contractors (what/who are they?) are scared to death the county has a moratorium (I assume you are referring to the moratorium to keep farmland farmland?); and don’t know what is going to happen in court (what is/could be going on in court?)?
The only thing I can make out of this is that Tsakopoulos has wangled an extremely lucrative deal for himself (assuming he will own Conaway Ranch – has he purchased it yet?) – a mega-million dollar deal out to the year 2040, selling Conaway water rights (why does Conaway have water rights to Sacto River?) to Davis, Woodland and Southern CA. All because the feds back in 1972 demanded the quality of our water be ridiculously stringent to the point that what comes out of our taps today to drink, is now suddenly not fit to discharge as sewer water. This is truly big gov’t run amok…
davisite2: “We only have to recall the Helen Thomson letter to the Davis voters that attempted to frighten us into supporting a Yes on Measure X vote(approval of Whitcombe’s Covell Village) with the “fact” that developer Gidaro(a partner now in Tsakopoulos’ developer-water-consortium) could care less about Davis’ wishes with his plans to develop a massive development on County land on our borders.”
You raise very good points…
“He only signed this deal because it gives him a short-term advantage and apparently it will not hamstring his long-term goals.”
It is an agreement. Both parties got what they wanted from it. He gets to use and increase the value of some of his land. Yolo County, and the cities therein, get a reliable permanent water supply.
“While the county has put a moratorium on the conversion of farmland to habitat, the agreement with Tsakopoulos grants him an exemption. Now the developer will be able to sell to the state a key place in the Yolo Bypass, and the county will lack the ability to dictate how it is used.”
Yolo County supervisors oppose this agreement because it might lead to a small area in the southern corner of the county being converted from farmland to wildlife habitat.
“We are signing off on our most powerful tool,” Supervisor Provenza said on Friday. “The water contractors are scared to death we have the moratorium. They don’t know what’s going to happen in court.”
It is an interesting notion that Yolo County should have veto power over a state water project and the future of the delta. It seems particularly odd that a local ordinance preventing the conversion of farmland to wildlife habitat would be the tool of choice.
Look at a map of the California Delta ([url]http://www.deltaboating.com/about.htm[/url]). A small part of Yolo County is in the delta, and it is a very small percentage of the total Delta area.
“…the state is moving forward with plans to build a peripheral canal to bypass the delta and send water to southern California and we’re letting it happen.”
The state is indeed moving forward with some version of the peripheral canal. ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/us/16delta.html?_r=1&ref=felicitybarringer[/url]) From her article:
“It would be accompanied by the restoration of “tens of thousands of acres of marshes and flood plains” in the delta to bolster populations of endangered and threatened fish, he [Interior Secretary Salazar] said in a telephone news conference.”
Apparently Yolo County supervisors and many local residents oppose this. I would think that conservationists and environmentalists would support the restoration of parts of the delta to wildlife habitat.
A peripheral canal in some form is supported by water districts, by Governor Brown, by most Republicans, by a majority of legislative Democrats, and by many wildlife biologists. When local legislators have opposed it, they have lost their seat at the table (Lois Wolk). If Delta legislators want to have any say in shaping the development of a peripheral conveyance system (it may not be a canal; it might be an underground pipeline), they will need to stop being obstructionist.
Note that the Westlands Water District has withdrawn from the talks because those farmers don’t believe they will get enough water. Los Angeles (really, MWD), which is always demonized in these discussions, is really not the issue. The farmers along the west side of the Central Valley are the major players. If you are concerned about who is “stealing” our water, I would urge you to focus on Westlands Water District and East Bay MUD.
“There are a lot of reasons why this happened, but chief amongst them is they were looking for revenue during tough times and they wanted to pave the way for the Woodland-Davis water project to go forward.”
The primary reason for this agreement was to provide a reliable long-term water supply for the cities of Davis and Woodland, along with assurances of how the land would be used.
“Supervisor Helen Thomson has done a lot of great things for Yolo County, but unfortunately this may serve as her final act and this appears to be a disaster for all of our interests.”
I believe the board majority acted in the best interests of the cities and residents of Yolo County.
ERM: why does Conaway have water rights to Sacto River?
Here is a map:
[url]http://www.conawayranch.com/files/u1/MAP_-_North_Delta_vicinity.pdf[/url]
To Don Shor: Thanks for providing more clarification to this issue. However, I took a look at the map in your link, and there is a land buffer between Conaway Ranch and the Sacto River. Is there some pipeline running from Sacto River to Conaway in which they purchased surface water rights, bc it does not appear that they have true riparian interests?
” Is there some pipeline running from Sacto River to Conaway in which they purchased surface water rights, bc it does not appear that they have true riparian interests?”
That’s part of the deal.
Elaine –
This subject is enormously complicated, and there are very few people in the state that actually understand them really well – I am not one of the ones who really understand them, but I do have some passing knowledge that allows me to generalize in a dangerous way. Many years ago, the owners of Conaway Ranch exchange some of their rights in order to provide water into the state water projects. In return, they received contractual rights to take a certain amount of water each year , beginning in the late spring and ending in very late summer or early fall, from the river, provided that certain water levels are flowing through the river. These rights have been tested many times in the courts, and have generally stood the test of many decisions over the years.
I think it would be good if David or someone, could persuade a water rights attorney to provide a brief summary that explains the legal basis for their rights. Perhaps he could persuade someone from DWR to provide some background on what happens to this water as it flows from the Sierras to the reservoirs and into the rivers, and ultimately, out to the ocean if not used somewhere along the way.
From the same site where I linked the map, here is a history of Conaway Ranch:
[url]http://www.conawayranch.com/files/u1/Early_Conaway_History.pdf[/url]
Back to the “support for fluoridation” clause. Here is a link to a copy of the California law that requires water be fluoridated, and its many exceptions. When outside help becomes available to a water provider, that provider loses his exemption.
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/116409-116415.html
> Article 3.5. Fluoridation Of Drinking Water
2009 California Health and Safety Code – Section 116409-116415 :: Article 3.5. Fluoridation Of Drinking Water
Unfortunately, the authoritative source for this, Leginfo, is down for maintenance until Monday, but I see no obvious differences between this copy and what I remember being in the Leginfo version.
Here is the link to the ADA recommendation not to use fluoridated water to reconstitute baby formula:
http://www.ada.org/4384.aspx
Here is the text:
Infant Formula and Fluoridated Water
Parents and caregivers should consult with their pediatrician, family physician or dentist on the most appropriate water to use in their area to reconstitute infant formula. Ask your pediatrician or family physician whether water used in infant formula should be sterilized first (sterilization, however, will not remove fluoride).
The ADA offers these recommendations so parents, caregivers and health care professionals have some simple and effective ways to reduce fluoride intake from reconstituted infant formula:
“For infants who get most of their nutrition from formula during their first 12 months, ready-to-feed formula is preferred to help ensure that they do not exceed the optimal amount of fluoride intake.
If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis. Examples are water that is labeled purified, demineralized, deionized, distilled or reverse osmosis filtered water. Many grocery stores sell these types of drinking water for less than $1 per gallon.
Breast milk is widely acknowledged as the most complete form of nutrition for infants. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends human milk for all infants (except for the few for whom breastfeeding is determined to be harmful).”
===========
Whenever Davis has considered fluoridation, many angry people have come to the City Council meeting to oppose it. If the current Davis City Council feels it must buy this pig in a poke, then it should at least not agree to the support of fluoridation section.
Here is what the the American Dental Association says ([url]http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx[/url]) about the fluoridation of community water supplies:
[i]”More than 65 years ago – on January 25, 1945 – Grand Rapids, Michigan became the world’s first city to adjust the level of fluoride in its water supply. Since that time, [b]fluoridation has dramatically improved the oral health of tens of millions of Americans[/b]. Community water fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has proclaimed community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Approximately 72.4% of the U.S. population served by public water systems receive the benefit of optimally fluoridated water.
“Fluoridation of community water supplies is simply the adjustment of the existing, naturally occurring fluoride levels in drinking water to an optimal fluoride level recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service (0.7 – 1.2 parts per million) for the prevention of tooth decay. Water that has been fortified with fluoride is similar to fortifying milk with Vitamin D, table salt with iodine, and bread and cereals with folic acid.
“Studies conducted throughout the past 65 years have consistently shown that [b]fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective in preventing dental decay in both children and adults[/b]. Simply by drinking water, children and adults can benefit from fluoridation’s cavity protection whether they are at home, work or school.
“Today, studies prove water fluoridation continues to be effective in reducing tooth decay by 20-40%, even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste.
“Fluoridation is one public health program that actually saves money. An individual can have a lifetime of fluoridated water for less than the cost of one dental filling.
“[b]The American Dental Association continues to endorse fluoridation of community water supplies[/b] as safe and effective for preventing tooth decay. This support has been the Association’s position since policy was first adopted in 1950. The ADA’s policies regarding community water fluoridation are based on the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed, credible scientific evidence. The ADA, along with state and local dental societies, continues to work with federal, state and local agencies to increase the number of communities benefiting from water fluoridation.”[/i]
ELAINE: [i]”… there is a land buffer between Conaway Ranch and the Sacto River.”[/i]
That “land buffer” is the Yolo Bypass, which is the Sacramento River’s flood control valve.
This appears to be a good overview of water rights:
[url]http://www.norcalwater.org/waterrights/index.shtml[/url]
Another good overview is here: [url]http://www.aquafornia.com[/url]. Here you’ll find a resource which tracks recent articles and blog commentary about California water issues, as well as a lengthy index of links to other resources for water issues.
The water rights link above bring the story into focus. There is a section about “county of origin” that puts to bed the notion that there wasn’t anything the Board of Supervisors could do about LA getting 80,000 acre feet of water from Conaway. It appears that the County could have been a big impediment to this deal if they had made the choice to fight instead of capitulate.
County of origin? Yolo County? What?
Someone please tell me what surface water actually comes from Yolo County. That amount is a tiny tiny fraction of the water we are talking about here.
This is surface water — not ground water. Good grief.
Matt Rexroad
662-5184
To Adam Smith and Don Shor: Read comments and perused through all materials on links, which were all very, very interesting. I also remember reading an article about the “water wars” in a legal journal I receive regularly. Obviously water is an extremely complicated issue in CA, w no easy answers. I come from the East Coast, where water generally is not a problem, bc it rains all year round. Thanks to all who responded to my questions…
A number of posters are wondering about Conaway’s Sacramento River water rights. My understanding is that Conaway had historical riparian rights before the Yolo bypass was constructed and the whole area was what was termed “swamp and overflow”. Not sure exactly what that means, but it sounds like the river was far less constrained than it is today,which I guess maakes sense. By putting the Yolo Bypass in, the state (?) entered into contracts for fixed amounts of water each month, based upon what water the properties historically received. These are the water rights that I understand Conaway to have, and they are selling a portion of these water rights to the cities. Conaway is no longer physically adjacent to the river because of the construction of the Yolo bypass and other sales of land in between, but they do have water pumps that pump the water out of the Sacramento River and this water travels in channels or ditches to get to the Conaway property.
On the water rights, from what I have read in the various documents posted on the WDCWA website, and heard from others, it appears that Conaway is selling the cities water largely in the summer, when the water that the cities are seeking to obtain from the state right now, are regularly cut-off entirely for differing numbers of days each year. The Conaway water is viewed as critical to the cities because the water that Conaway has, by virtue of its settlement contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation, cannot be cut-off like the more junior water rights that the cities are currently seeking. At most, Conaway’s water can only be cut back by 25%. The cities intend to mainly use surface water from the state and Conaway, but will likely also use some of the current groundwater with the lovely taste we have, as needed Apparently, using a small proportion of groundwater, mixed with the better quality surface water, is OK if not done too much. Someone mentioned to me that the water softners that we use in Davis aren’t particularly could for the water we eventually discharge into the Sacramento river. Does anyone know anything about that? Is it true?
On the issue of fluoride, my understanding is that water treatment plant is being designed so that it can fluoridate water IF it required by law or if the two cities individually decide that this is what they want to do from a public policy statement. No decision has been made as to whether it will ever be used or not. Sounds like it is not clear that everyone benefits from fluoridation, and that infants may actually be hurt somewhat if they use tap water for formula, even thought it is probably a net positive for all of the school age children. Don’t all mothers in Davis breastfeed?
The other thing I heard at Yolo Board hearing was a statement hy Tsakopoulos’ attorney that the urgency for everything had to do with Tsakopoulos having to buy the Conaway before the end of the year because of his contract with the current owners. Does anyone know if the cities could still buy the water from the current owners if Tsakopoulos didn’t buy Conaway? I understand that Tsakopoulos only recently (this summer?) agreed to buy Conaway. Were the cities negotiating with the current owners before then, and do we think we could still buy the water for the same price, or maybe get an even better deal? Is it true as I have heard that the sale of water to Metropolitan Water District was to raise funds to allow Tsakopoulos to be able to buy Conaway, and hence necessary to sell water to the cities?
I’m also wondering how long these negotiations have been going on with Tsakopoulos and or the current owners, and who has been negotiating on our behalf. Are these agreements just new to the public, or have there been staff and capable attorneys representing us? Tsakopoulos is clearly a shrewd businessman and pressumably expects to make a profit doing this. I just want to nmake sure that we have had capable representation in the negotations and there aren’t any hidden surprises for us.
Sorry if this was a bit long. I appreciated many of the thoughtful comments above and the links to the various documents. This is a very complicated deal and any additional insights or observations are appreciated. I’m glad most are trying to understand the deal and the benefits and impacts to the cities and the county. All of the hyperbole and speculation that I’ve seen in other places really isn’t helpful and frankly will serve to make any legitimate arguments that we may have to these deals, look far less credible.
Rhinochaser,
I don’t know of any reason that the current (or any other future) owner would not be able to sell the water rights in the same or different fashion as is currently contemplated. I know with certainty that there are other parties interested in ownership, some of whom may be more palatable than AKT.
My understanding of the AKT transaction is that he is purchasing a controlling interest in Conaway, not the ranch as a whole.
Rhino: See the California state law requiring fluoridated water here: http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/hsc/116409-116415.html (Leginfo copy is unavailable until Monday the 21st.)
This law has many execeptions, and Davis loses it exemption if outside funds are available.
The “12/16/10 Draft Agreement Between the County of Yolo and Tri-City Water and Farm, LLC Regarding Conaway Ranch.”, which is available as suporting document 3.04A on the agenda site for the Yolo County Board Meeting Agenda for Dec 17, states that “5. Fluoridation. Following its acquisition by Tri-City, CPG will support the inclusion of equipment necessary to allow for the provision of water fluoridation in the design and construction of the Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project.”
“Support” is a vague term, but, until I find less murky language, my best interpretation is that it means providing direct or indirect funding.
Adam,
Well, I guess one of the things that Davis and Woodland’s elected representatives need to do is to decide whether they want to risk passing on the deal that is being offered, which I understand the WDCWA staff and board members have stated is a very good deal, and seeing what sort of a deal, if any they can get from the current owners or possibly some new owner. Did you find Bill Marble’s statement or Councilmembers Souza and Krovoza statements about the importance of this deal to be very credible? Why should we believe any of them? Do you know if the cities negotiated previously with the current owners, and if so, why they never made a deal? I’ve heard that Tsakopoulos has had to structure a number of different transactions to allow him to sell the water to the cities for the price he is selling it to them for. I think these include the sale of easements to the state and the sale of water to Metropolitan Water District. Wouldn’t any owner of Conaway just sell the water to the cities for less and not try to sell any water to anyone else? Others wouldn’t be as greedy as Tsakopoulos to make a big profit, right? (I’ve heard that the cities have been trying to buy this water from Conaway for 20 years, do you know if this is true?) If people do believe that it would be easy to buy this water from any Conaway owner, despite being unable to do so with any of the last several owners, then what risk do the cities have other than probably losing a year or two to get a new owner and to have them structure another set of deals to do this? Would losing a year or two really be that bad? Couldn’t the cities just condemn the water rights, take Conaway’s water intake on the Sacramento River, as well as all of the easements if they don’t want to sell it to the cities at a cheaper price that is more fair to the cities? Are the fines from the state very big? If the cities can’t get some other owner of Conaway to sell the water for less, do we have any reason to believe that staff and their consultants are competent enough for us to believe them when they tell us that the alternatives would be much more expensive? Lots of questions! Would have been nice to have had more time, but if Tsakopoulos loses the right to purchase Conaway after the end of the year, I guess the city councils need to decide whether they believe and trust in their staff, consultants and appointed city council representatives who worked-on and negotiated this, or some in the public who acknowledge that they know very little because the issues are too complex and they don’t have enough time to understand everything. Maybe we simply shouldn’t do any deal with Tsakopoulos because everyone seems to acknowledge that he’s far smarter than the cities, their staff and consultants, and if he wants to make a deal with us, it probably isn’t a good deal for us. Probably easier and better to make a deal with an owner of Conaway Ranch who isn’t as smart, then at least we have a fighting chance of getting a good deal, right?
Did you find Bill Marble’s statement or Councilmembers Souza and Krovoza statements about the importance of this deal to be very credible?
Yes.
Why should we believe any of them?
Joe Krovoza has experience in water use issues and agreements.
Wouldn’t any owner of Conaway just sell the water to the cities for less and not try to sell any water to anyone else?
Why would they be any more or less likely to do so? Who else has the kind of resources to make deals of this sort?
Others wouldn’t be as greedy as Tsakopoulos to make a big profit, right?
Why not? Moreover, I don’t know why you’re assuming that profit on this particular deal is his only motive.
Would losing a year or two really be that bad?
It certainly isn’t desirable.
Couldn’t the cities just condemn the water rights, take Conaway’s water intake on the Sacramento River, as well as all of the easements if they don’t want to sell it to the cities at a cheaper price that is more fair to the cities?
How on earth would the cities “condemn” water rights and “take” easements?
Are the fines from the state very big?
Ask Dixon.
If the cities can’t get some other owner of Conaway to sell the water for less, do we have any reason to believe that staff and their consultants are competent enough for us to believe them when they tell us that the alternatives would be much more expensive?
If you have no faith in staff, elected officials, or the consultants they hire, who would you trust to negotiate on this issue on behalf of the cities?
Probably easier and better to make a deal with an owner of Conaway Ranch who isn’t as smart, then at least we have a fighting chance of getting a good deal, right?
I see no reason to believe that, nor do I understand why you assume that Angelo Tsakopolous is smarter than everyone else or has only nefarious motives.
Barbara: Thanks for the link on fluoridation. It sounds like unless someone or some entity funds the capital costs of the fluoridation equipment AND the annual operational costs, then a city is not required to fluoridate. At most, it looks like Tsakopoulos is “supporting” the construction of the capital costs. There is no mention of operational costs. Either on Monday night or at the WDCWA meeting, someone should ask the question as to whether the design currently includes this fluoridation equipment and/or how much it would cost to add it.
Don: I didn’t realize that Councilmember Krovoza had water expertise. That actually is reassuring to me.
Why can’t the cities just build an intake facility somewhere else and not have to deal with Tsakopoulos? How hard could that be? Just some pipes and pumps with a some screens to prevent the fish from getting sucked-up.
Aren’t all developers basically evil and only out to make a buck? Wouldn’t we be better off taking our chances with the current owners. Do you know who they are?
I saw a provision in one of the agreements that talks about Tsakopoulos agreeing to cooperate in the future to allow some railroad to go through Conaway. What’s that all about and what does it have to do with these water agreements?
Rhinochaser: “Why can’t the cities just build an intake facility somewhere else and not have to deal with Tsakopoulos? How hard could that be? Just some pipes and pumps with a some screens to prevent the fish from getting sucked-up.”
If you are not a riparian owner (live right next to the water), then you have no right to the water, period. You have to purchase water rights from a riparian owner or water consortium that has rights to the water.
Rhinochaser: “Aren’t all developers basically evil and only out to make a buck? Wouldn’t we be better off taking our chances with the current owners. Do you know who they are?”
Developers are out to make money, period. That does not necessarily make them “evil”. That is what capitalism is all about. Anyone who owns Conaway Ranch will want to sell water rights at the best possible price they can get.
My problem is I just don’t know if this deal is reasonable for the city or not, and would have liked more time to vet the process/deal. But we are being rushed bc Tsakopoulus will lose deposit money he put down to buy an interest in Conaway if a decision is not made by Dec 31. I am more of a skeptic, when it comes to the supposed expertise of so called “experts”, who have not struck very good deals (Zipcar comes to mind). But I will be the first to admit I do not know nearly enough about water issues, even though I have read quite a bit, and sat in on many of the Davis meetings about the water/sewer projects…
ERM: But we are being rushed bc Tsakopoulus will lose deposit money he put down to buy an interest in Conaway if a decision is not made by Dec 31.
I don’t really care if Tsakopoulos loses his deposit. What I’m worried about is that if he loses his deposit, that means he is also out of contract with the sellers and is not in a position to either acquire the controlling interests in Conaway Preservation Group, which importantly means to us, that he can’t make the proposed deals with the WDCWA and the cities. We are left having to negotiate a whole new deal with someone else, whom we have no idea whether they are at all interested in making the same or similar agreements, or possibly ones that are hopefully more favorable to us, but could be much less favorable, as well. If it is true the the cities have been trying to buy this water for close to 20 years and it hasn’t happened yet, that doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies that if these agreements with Tsakopoulos go away, that we’ll be able to get this water. I fear that some who don’t want these water deals really don’t want any water deal and think that somehow we can stay on the lovely groundwater than we currently have and will avoid increased water rates. From all that I’ve read, that “hope” doesn’t seem to be based in anything resembling reality.