The good news this week is that the Davis Enterprise finally figured out that the city’s water rates were going to triple. They ran a good article by Crystal Lee on the Proposition 218 process. They followed that up with an excellent piece by Jonathan Edwards on the tripling of the rate hikes.
Suddenly, now Bob Dunning for the first time has a piece on the water rate hikes entitled, “Your wallet: A river runs through it.”
We have been talking about this for four years. We have known for over a year about the rate hikes doubling the cost of water and then making water rates go up 2.5 times as of December, so that finally they will be tripled, and that may not be the end of them.
Where the hell has Mr. Dunning and the Enterprise been on this issue?
Writes the normally supportive Rich Rifkin, “The only people who are just discovering this past week that the City was planning on tripling our water rates–an average annual bill in 2016-17 will be roughly $1,333 per household–are the small number who don’t read my column closely enough.”
Writes Mr. Rifkin, “I don’t know why, but when the City held its ‘water workshop’ on April 12, it was not front page news. In fact, I don’t even think that meeting was covered by the Enterprise at all.”
Mr. Rifkin continues, “More than a month ago–in my April 26 piece in this very newspaper–I reported this news: ‘… our city water rates are set to triple in the next six years — the average water bill will rise by $907 per year to $1,333 and sewer and sanitation bills will increase by 45.9 percent …'”
Better late than never I suppose. I mean, Mr. Dunning spent two months scrutinizing a $200 a year, for two years, parcel tax and only now scrutinizes an about $900 increase in people’s water bills for the next 30 years.
Meanwhile, Mr. Dunning makes fun of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water project.
He adds, quoting from Crystal Lee’s article, “In addition to water rate hikes, the city also is proposing much less dramatic sanitary sewer and sanitation increases.”
Responds Mr. Dunning, “A clever strategy, to be sure. Distract the populace with apocalyptic water rate increases and they won’t raise a finger when you raise sewer and sanitation fees as well.”
And Mr. Dunning does notice how difficult it is to wage a Proposition 218 notice. He writes, “Wait until you see just how difficult it is to actually weigh in on the changes.”
He continues, “Given that only 38 percent of Davis residents even bothered to vote over a month-long period in the easy-as-pie Measure A election that ended the first week of May, it’s silly to think that a full majority of these same Davisites will be able to jump through all the hoops necessary to register a protest to the water rate hike. Even if it’s abundantly clear a full majority is truly opposed to such hikes.”
He adds, “Given that there are 16,402 ratepayers in Davis, a whopping 8,202 people will have to submit protests to block that incredibly expensive Sacramento River water from one day flowing through Davis taps. Getting that many people together to do anything, especially during the summer months, is a near impossibility.”
Fortunately, there is another way. People can put it on the ballot as a referendum and then vote on it at the polling place (in an all-mail ballot) where it needs an old-fashioned 50% plus one of those who bother to vote.
Really, this is all I wanted – the voters and rate payers to know what was coming down the pike, and now it is up to them to respond. I am just amazed it took so long for the Davis Enterprise to figure this one out.
But there is more. I got lampooned a bit by my friend Matt Rexroad on Friday’s article.
In the comments he wrote, “Every time I read this stuff here I laugh. Many times I actually laugh out loud. It seems that you support every single environmental cause in the world except the ones that you have to pay for. “
He concluded, “No one likes to pay more. I get that. What I find fascinating is that these costs are a foreseeable outcome from the environmental policies that you support. Maybe it is time to step back and look at a view that has more than a single piece of mail that will come once every two months to your mailbox.”
The comments have apparently been removed from Facebook although Woodland Councilmember Martie Dotie who is on the Joint Powers Authority responded, “I get not wanting to pay more for my water- I really do. Unlike (maybe) most of you we are on fixed incomes, and any increases impact things like food, prescriptions, entertainment, etc.”
Ms. Dotie continues, “But let me ask the question every one seems to avoid- what about doing the right thing. Sue is suggesting getting around the regulations because Tracy did.”
She adds, “What about actually enforcing the regulations. Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act- yes, they are pains in the neck. But we are on spaceship Earth- you don’t get another one (despite the Rapture believers). How about taking care of the one we have and leaving a better place for the kids? More costs! A small price for a better world, better water, better waste water discharge. No such thing as a free lunch folks.”
My response, which I would have to reconstruct, is that I am really not concerned about the amount of money I may or may not have to pay now and down the line.
I have opposed the water project from the start on the basis of costs, on the basis of need, and on the basis that I view this as growth-inducing. However, in recent years it has become increasingly clear to me that the planners of this water project quite simply did not plan. They pushed this decision off on the next council.
I am talking mainly about Ruth Asmundson and Don Saylor, who are now long gone by the time the ratepayers get hit with the bill for their policies. And what did they do to prepare the public for it? NOTHING.
What did they do to build in the costs, knowing since the mid-00’s decade that they were going to go forward with an expensive project one way or another? NOTHING.
So, there is that piece.
More and more I view this more about limited pots of money. This is no secret to anyone who has read my columns. I have argued from the start that my priorities in spending are education, followed by social services. Everything else to me is secondary, at best.
I’m all for passing off the costs of environmental protection to industry, because frankly, our economic model is such that it does not incorporate externalities very well. But, at the local level, we need to provide core services and cut everything else. Otherwise, we end up with schools that lay off teachers and don’t work, and we end up with poor kids who can’t get basic needs met.
Davis was able and willing to pass a parcel tax for $200 per year for the next two years. That avoided layoffs to teachers that, guess what, Woodland is going to experience in having to slash $3 million to $6 million from their budget. Yes, the schools where Martie Dotie and Matt Rexroad reside are going to be laying off teachers by the dozen. The schools here will not.
Davis needs to renew Measure Q and Measure W next year at $320. The city is going to try to renew its Parks Tax. And we have this rate hike coming down our throats. The rate hike is going to put education in jeopardy.
Could we have avoided this increase for another ten years? Perhaps. Would there be newer and cheaper technology at that point in time? Perhaps.
I keep hearing about losing our place in line, but nowhere have I heard about laying off teachers as the result of our water policies or a discussion as to whether that is really a good trade-off.
That is what this comes down to for me. There are a lot of people angry at me because they will have to be spending $200 in parcel taxes in each of the next two years, but this is going to end up being $900. Wouldn’t you rather spend your money on education than giving it to Tsakopoulos?
Unfortunately, given our budget and the times, we have choices, we cannot fund everything. I have stated my preference, we will see where the city goes on this.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Sue Greenwald’s position on this issue is measured and thoughtful. Communities that are in dire economic circumstances are challenging the mandate that they must meet these standards NOW when there is no money from the State or Federal Government to assist in financing this project. Even the EPA, as I read this morning, is delaying implementation of the Clean Air Act mandates, recognizing that there is no money to pay for it except by raising rates. There is nothing sacrosanct or emergent about going forward with this water project NOW except for the lobbying of developers and Councilman Souza and now Supervisor Saylor who are politically heavily investing in the project they promoted(in a totally different economic climate). Our new Council needed time to get their political “sea-legs” and learn the intricacies of this project. They were not prepared to do anything else other than rubber-stamp what was already in the works. A citizen referendum will educate the electorate (and Council).
“I keep hearing about losing our place in line…”
This is probably not a real issue as residential development is at a standstill in CA and there will likely be little interest in getting in line ahead of Davis for Sacramento water in the near future.
[quote]A citizen referendum will educate the electorate (and Council). [/quote]Will it “educate”? Or will it be an opportunity to “spin” ‘facts’ to the advantage of those who have strong opinions? I have no problem with a referendum… I seriously doubt if it will be “educational”…
[quote]“I keep hearing about losing our place in line…”
This is probably not a real issue as residential development is at a standstill in CA and there will likely be little interest in getting in line ahead of Davis for Sacramento water in the near future. [/quote]This is the “education” I would expect to see in a referendum campaign…. except, there are [u][i][b]less[/b][/i][/u] “facts” than I would have expected…
[quote]My response, which I would have to reconstruct, is that I am really not concerned about the amount of money I may or may not have to pay now and down the line.
I have opposed the water project from the start on the basis of costs,…[/quote]
So which is it? You are not concerned about the cost, or you are?
[quote]However, in recent years it has become increasingly clear to me that the planners of this water project quite simply did not plan. They pushed this decision off on the next council.
I am talking mainly about Ruth Asmundson and Don Saylor, who are now long gone by the time the ratepayers get hit with the bill for their policies. And what did they do to prepare the public for it? NOTHING.
What did they do to build in the costs, knowing since the mid-00’s decade that they were going to go forward with an expensive project one way or another? NOTHING.
[/quote]
I don’t think this is quite accurate. The funding for this project was held up because City Council member Sue Greenwald kept harping on the cost, and rightly so. Because of her strong opposition, it did not allow for an increase in the rates so long ago. Public Works tried to institute the increases necessary for this project many years ago, but the opposition by Greenwald put a stop to it. Eventually two UCD experts were brought in at the suggestion of Greenwald, and it was their opinion that the surface water project should proceed immediately, which may or may not cut down on the cost of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. Ultimately I believe Council member Greenwald saved the city about $1 million on a less costly wastewater treatment plant upgrade. But until that was all sorted out, rates could not be increased from a practical standpoint. Saylor and Asmundson were more than willing to increase rates some years ago, as was the Dept. of Public Works.
Now Council member Greenwald seems to be indicating she does not agree with the two experts she herself wanted consulted on these issues. She seems to favor putting off this project for another ten years. (Please correct me Sue, if that is not your position.) She bases this opinion on the Tracy case. But I’m not sure the Tracy case stands for the proposition that Tracy “won” against the State Water Board and does not have to comply with the Clean Water Act. My reading of the case just says the State Water Board did not do due diligence when it reviewed Tracy’s plan, and must go back and redo it, taking into account cost. But that does not mean that ultimately Tracy does not have to follow the Clean Water Act.
[quote]I keep hearing about losing our place in line, but nowhere have I heard about laying off teachers as the result of our water policies or a discussion as to whether that is really a good trade-off.[/quote]
I believe this is conflating two completely different issues that have two completely different funding sources. The state pays for education, and then Davis citizens can tax themselves to add to the local education “pot of money”. The water rates are funded by ratepayers themselves – there are no state funds that will help pay for the water project. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) That is a huge difference.
“I keep hearing about losing our place in line…”
“THIS IS PROBABLY NOT A REAL ISSUE (caps mine) as residential development is at a standstill in CA and there will likely be little interest in getting in line ahead of Davis for Sacramento water in the near future.”
I am a complete non-expert on this water issue, but I suspect that “our place in line” is exactly the issue we should be concerned about. True, “development is at a standstill,” but if you believe that this will be true much longer, I invite you to check out the new housing tract next to Raley’s on Gibson Road in Woodland. When the economy picks up, competition for Sacramento River water will intensify, and the cost will soar. The idea of putting off the river water project until the economy improves is not wise. I am reminded of Mark Twain’s admonition that in the West, “Whiskey is for drinking, water if for fighting over.”
E Roberts Musser – I think you are very much on point about why the rate increases haven’t occurred. My recollection is consistent with yours.
Matt Rexroad’s comments yesterday are on point regarding the Clean Water Act.
In other columns, David has been adamant about “saving the Delta”, and compliance the the salt content of the discharge of our water is consistent with “saving the delta”. In the name of “saving the delta”, farmers and residents in much of central and southern California have endured forced reductions in water consumption and absolute water rate increases that make these look miniscule.
Perhaps Davis should intentionally ignore the law and the Clean Water Act. I don’t think we’d able to claim that we are leader in anything green if we do that. It would be ironic if the city were to ban plastic bags, which would have little impact on the environment, but would choose to ignore discharge requirements that are much more clearly supported by science.
“I invite you to check out the new housing tract next to Raley’s on Gibson Road in Woodland….”
If this new “housing tract” has the approval of the Woodland Council, it already has the designated water resources necessary, according to CA law, without additional surface water. Davis’ water supply will not support a future large peripheral development as we learned when the Covell Village project had to manipulate its project design to reducing the number of projected toilet flushes to barely(or not) comply with CA law.
I wish that Martie Dotie and the folks at the clean water agency — including our own two members — would spend a little more time trying to learn about what is going on on the regulatory front rather than attacking those who are spending that time, yet have no role in the decisions.
[quote]will likely be little interest in getting in line ahead of Davis for Sacramento water in the near future.[/quote]Keep in mind that Davis’ water rights are already established for at least 40 years.
E. Roberts Musser: First off, I was drawing public attention to the fact that our combined wastewater/surface water project estimates were reaching over $400 million at the time. About $100 million (not $1 million)was saved from the wastewater plant when I finally managed to bring in our leading experts as consultants.
Secondly, as I have explained before but you consistently choose to ignore, the experts I suggested are wastewater treatment experts. I have taken their advice about how to proceed with the wastewater treatment plant. Now I am talking about the changing regulatory situation, which is not their area.
Furthermore, E. Roberts Musser, I have given a number of reasons in favor of the surface water project (subsidence control, guarantees of long-term supply, softer water which is easier on land-scaping, tastes better to many people, etc.) as well as reasons for postponing the project until better economic and fiscal times. I also described that one of the reasons for going forward is far less compelling than it used to be, and that is to meet the state TDS discharge requirements.
“Keep in mind that Davis’ water rights are already established for at least 40 years…”
Thanks for the additional clarification, Sue. To further confuse these issues, it is my understanding that the ability to transfer water rights designated as agricultural to residential as well as the right of the original water rights holder to be entitled to volume increases based only upon their demand are legal/political murky issues that are increasingly on the table.
To Sue Greenwald: Thanks for correcting the $1 million figure to $100 million. Obviously I had a senior moment. I have a lot of those these days 🙂
The fact of the matter is the two experts you chose to look at the wastewater treatment plant issue insisted that the surface water project is necessary and should be done immediately. Now you are referring to “other experts” that you have consulted with who apparently seem to have a different view. Exactly who are these “other experts”, what are their credentials, and what is their opinion on the surface water project? It would be nice to know…
[quote]Furthermore, E. Roberts Musser, I have given a number of reasons in favor of the surface water project (subsidence control, guarantees of long-term supply, softer water which is easier on land-scaping, tastes better to many people, etc.) as well as reasons for postponing the project until better economic and fiscal times. I also described that one of the reasons for going forward is far less compelling than it used to be, and that is to meet the state TDS discharge requirements. [/quote]
It is not clear to me from the above paragraph what you are advocating for. I certainly don’t want to put words in your mouth, nor do I want you to take a stand on one side of this issue or the other if you are not prepared to do that. But at this point, ratepayers have to make a decision one way or the other very soon.
I have been studying this issue for years, and I find it difficult to make heads nor tails of the subject based on the positions/non-positions of our elected leaders. There seems to be too much in the way of politics involved in this issue, both old politics and new; too many political careers are on the line because of this issue; and the issues are very, very complex, far-reaching, and costly. What’s a ratepayer to do?
” I have given a number of reasons in favor of the surface water project (subsidence control, guarantees of long-term supply, softer water which is easier on land-scaping, tastes better to many people, etc.) as well as reasons for postponing the project until better economic and fiscal times.”
This honestly makes no sense to me. What does waiting get you? It gets you the situation we are in today only in the future. If the Davisites of 50 years ago had bought into Berryessa we wouldn’t be in this situation now. If we don’t do it now it will only cost more down the road, that is the nature of water projects, the cheaper ones get done first.
The real point that seems to be missing is that Tsakopolos is selling Davis water rights so that the rate payers will develop the water system so he can use the water to develop his land on the west side of the causeway. Why someone in west Davis should pay for this is beyond me.
As for the cost, Davis has had a long run of buying off students and renters on all assessments. As a renter you pay less on every assessment passed by the voters, but, as the costs of homeownership skyrocket at some point the non-ephemeral residents of Davis are going to be tapped out. We see this with measure A where the residents in the newer parts of town with a heavier tax burden had higher negative votes. The trick going forward is going to be figuring out how to make the rate less differential so that you can get the votes you need to pass these votes. How much will the renters accept and how much will the homeowners accept? When house prices are constantly rising homeowners will take the burden but those days are gone for many years and now any additional cost actually lowers the value of housing, the higher the tax burden the less the affordability of the house. This is why Prop 13 tax reductions resulted in a huge increase in the value of homes.
[i] so he can use the water to develop his land on the west side of the causeway. [/i]
Do you have any evidence for this assertion? I believe it is entirely unfounded.
[quote][quote]My response, which I would have to reconstruct, is that I am really not concerned about the amount of money I may or may not have to pay now and down the line.
I have opposed the water project from the start on the basis of costs,…[/quote]
So which is it? You are not concerned about the cost, or you are?[/quote]
Elaine: I am concerned about the impact of costs on others and how it will impact their vote, not on the cost to me personally.
DMG: Suddenly, now Bob Dunning for the first time has a piece on the water rate hikes entitled, “Your wallet: A river runs through it.”
DMG: Writes Mr. Dunning, as though he discovered a revelation, “We here in Davis need a new source of water. And to pay for it, the city plans to triple our rates over the next five years, whether you like it or not.”
wow, what a sarcastic tone to take with bob dunning simply because he wrote columns on other issues than the water project.
could it be, the vanguard feels the need to take cheap shots at dunning because he upstaged the vanguard on the Davis League of Women Voters, and the Zipcar fiasco with some well written ,researched, and argued articles the vanguard had difficulty disputing?
Good call David: 2006 article ([url]http://davisvanguard.blogspot.com/2006/12/swing-and-miss-by-dunning-and-mazelis.html[/url])
“The real point that seems to be missing is that Tsakopolos is selling Davis water rights so that the rate payers will develop the water system so he can use the water to develop his land on the west side of the causeway. Why someone in west Davis should pay for this is beyond me.”
Moving this project into the future could allow Davis to make a major portion of the cost of this project an impact fee in developement agreements,most especially Tsakopolos’ property west of I80.
correction: south of I 80
DMG: “Good call David: 2006 article”
I’m unclear as to what I am supposed to deduce from the article. Dunning was a jerk to lamar in 2006, and I specifically remember him making fun of lamar for being too young to be on the council, which was quite a cheap shot.
But that was 2006, and hopefully dunning since learned his lesson. If the vanguard would have me believe that its inherent bitterness with dunning is more for what happened in 2006, over four years ago than what happened with Dunnin’s recent articles successfully striking too close to home on the vanguard’s sacred cows, I’m not buying it for a minute.
Actually, I used to ignore most of dunning’s articles in the past. But I have noticed lately, that his writing and command of the subject matter on some of the issues has greatly improved, while to be quite frank, the vanguards, has done the opposite. The vanguard in some ways has seemed to lose its way, relying less on command of the facts, and more on political talking points. For example, it was quite shocking to read an article written by the vanguard, claiming the FPPC had vindicated the school board, when after closely reading the link to the printed letter, the FPPC had done the opposite, clearly chastising the school board and giving them a warning about consequences to follow if they tried the previous move again. The conclusion the vanguard tried to deduce from that letter was nothing short of delusional.
No evidence although didn’t AKT float a proposal for development when Mariko was on the board of supes? Its just a matter of time before all the peripheral land owners develop if they can afford to wait.
[quote]This honestly makes no sense to me. What does waiting get you?–Toad[/quote]Hopefully a better fiscal situation for the city and school district residents. The estimated 2016 annual water water/sewer/garbage bill could make it difficult to pass the supplementary city and school taxes that we need to get us through these difficult times.