The phrase “canary in the coal mine” has often been used and abused in public discourse, using the metaphor to explain a leading indicator of a problem, just as the canary was the first to feel the impacts of harmful gas in the coal mine to alert the miners, hopefully with enough time to avert disaster.
In many ways, Bob Schneider is the reverse of that canary in the coal mine. With strong environmental credentials, he has nevertheless often been a strong advocate for development and was a vocal supporter of the water agreement and the project, both at the city level as well as at the county level.
“I strongly supported the Davis Water Project, I continue to do so,” he told council on Tuesday night. “I think it was brilliant that we [have] actual water rights with the Conway Ranch deal.”
As he put it, the comments he made are within the context of “We need this project, we need to move forward with this project, I’m not really interested in delaying the project.”
However, he also noted a lot of “angst in the community about the rate increases.”
This should have been a gigantic red flashing light to council. As should the fact that Randy Yakzan, a prominent developer, echoes his comments.
That Mr. Schneider and Mr. Yakzan did not go so far as to oppose the water rate hikes or ask for a delay in the project should be of no consequence. The fact that a supporter of the project like Mr. Schneider, well-respected in the community, would come forward with this issue should be sounding alarms.
The problem is that the council majority on this issue (which differs from the council majority on other issues – a change in this council) is not hearing this alarm.
Up until now, the usual suspects have been groaning about the water rate hikes – critics like the Vanguard, Bob Dunning, a few fiscal conservatives, and some low income people that the council is attempting to satiate with a subsidy program.
If the council’s response is to merely talk with people like Mr. Schneider, that will do little to solve the underlying problem.
Sudwerks currently spends around $100,000 on water and that would go up to $400,000. A different figure was give later of $68,000 and going up to about $180,000 by year three.
The problem with a place like Sudwerks and other restaurants is that they operate with small margins and so any increase in costs, especially a dramatic increase in cost such as this, has the potential to have a devastating impact on their bottom line.
As one person close to the situation told us, while this is speculation, it is uncertain how that brewery would survive such an increase. Sudwerks is a business that employs hundreds of people.
Numerous people told the Vanguard this week that they were baffled as to how little the council actually studied the potential impact of these rate hikes on business.
Mr. Yakzan, during public comment, indicated that they were caught off guard by the magnitude of these impacts. He said that, while they knew some rate increases were coming, it was not until they looked at the notice that they realized how much of an impact that would be.
But the council has been working on this project for over a decade. Just last year it was a ten-percent increase that brought about fifty people to council. At the time, I warned council that this was only a preview of what would be coming.
The fact that the council never made an effort to build into rates over the last decade at least some of the costs of this project is absolutely mind-boggling.
The solution at this point is difficult to see. Mr. Schneider seems to believe that some creative financing could alleviate some of the concern. However, members of council have told the Vanguard that even trying to extend the pay off out fifty rather than thirty years produces declining marginal returns and the cost savings to the consumer is limited.
Talks and education are not going to fix this problem.
One commenter said on the Vanguard, “I continue to be amazed at the opposition to the water project without there being a concrete alternative.”
They continued, “Drilling ever deeper wells is not a solution and ‘Do it later’ only kicks the can down the road.”
They warned, “Be careful what you wish for.”
This comment completely misses the mark, however, in several regards.
First, we are attempting to double up on projects, undertaking a water supply project at the same time as we have taking on the huge debt for a wastewater treatment plant.
As Sue Greenwald argued, “The alternative is phasing in the sewer/water projects so that ratepayers will only have to pay for one project at a time, or at least so that the overlap period when they are paying for most is far shorter.”
Unfortunately, that only deals with a portion of the problem.
She argued, “The idea that we have absolutely no choice at this point in time is manufactured.”
She continued, “I don’t think that people realize the magnitude of the risk to our absolutely crucial city and school supplementary taxes if we have to pay off $300 million dollars worth of projects at once, during an ever worsening recession with so many houses under water, particularly in Woodland.”
“Kicking the can down the road” may actually serve another utility, and that is that we can more slowly and modestly build in the savings for the capital project over a decade. In a few years, the economy may improve and make it easier for businesses to take a hit.
Moreover, the current plan could, on the one hand, doom existing businesses and on the other make it very difficult to attract new business to Davis.
There is a word I have heard in at least four conversations I had this week, all off the record, and that word is “recall.”
I was told that a ten-percent water rate increase is devastating. That 20% is recall-worthy. And we are looking at far larger than that.
We asked where the business community was on this issue just last week. They appear to be slow to the game, but behind the scenes there is visible anger and frustration.
The council – as improved as it has been both in terms of policy and tenor, as good as they have been on a host of critical issues, is completely missing the rising tide here and it threatens to swallow them whole and dash their broader plans.
In short, my response to that comment on the Vanguard is that I am not the one who needs to come up with the alternative, council needs to come up with an alternative to the water rate hikes, because it is a non-starter and it will devastate our already battered local economy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Just google “water rate increases” and read about how all over the country water rates are going up. What are the reasons? 1. Need to return income to for-profit national or multinational corporations that need to return a profit to their investors; 2. Need to make the public utility look or be profitable before a long-term public-private partnership or leasing agreement is signed with a for-profit water/sewer operate-manage corporation; 3. Need for water infrastructure improvements that are costly and there are no state/federal funds available in this time of budget crises – but this is precisely what the small-government people want to do, that is force privatization; 4. Both public and for-profit private utilities raise rates when less water is consumed because of conservation; there needs to be enough income for the public utility to operate which is their responsibility to customers, but enough for the private utility to pay out to investors…that IS the fiduciary responsibility of the CEO and corporate board.
What’s the solution for Davis?
At the very least, as I have written before, the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency must come “clean” about their bidding process for the water intake, pipeline and associated projects and whether this combined project will, in fact, be operated by a public agency, or through a public-private partnership operated and managed by a for-profit national or multinational corporation?
If the Agency refuses to discuss this openly or to provide the Davis City Council and the public with this information, then the public must demand through a Public Records Act request all information pertaining to discussions and contact with private for-profit enterprises. Who does what in this context relates to the costs and rates and so far, there has not been any information provided the public.
Readers might take note: In Paris, France, the corporate headquarters of the major water/environment multinational corporations, the city and surrounding urban communities have taken back their water systems from private operators and water prices have been dropping. C’est la vie.
DG “… the council has been working on this project for over a decade. “
And yet the project was rushed through the Davis City Council just before Christmas 2010. Rushing something this major through the Council under the cover of darkness so to speak doesn’t seem transparent to me. If the process is flawed, so shall the product be.
The council has been working on this project since the mid-1980’s. It has gone through numerous public reviews and analyses by engineering firms and experts at all levels, in public, with information available to Davis citizens every step of the way. The only thing that was ‘rushed through’ was the purchase of the senior water rights of Conaway Ranch water; as Bob Schneider says, that was ‘brilliant’. It ensures a long-term fresh water supply in perpetuity, making Davis one of the best-planned cities in the region for water resources for generations.
[i]Sudwerks currently spends around $100,000 on water and that would go up to $400,000. A different figure was give later of $68,000 and going up to about $180,000 by year three.[/i]
Here’s a thought. Maybe you could call Sudwerk’s and get the actual figures.
[quote]That Mr. Schneider and Mr. Yakzan did not go so far as to oppose the water rate hikes or ask for a delay in the project should be of no consequence. The fact that a supporter of the project like Mr. Schneider, well-respected in the community, would come forward with this issue should be sounding alarms.[/quote]
How do you get from “That Mr. Schneider and Mr. Yakzan did not go so far as to oppose the water rate hikes or ask for a delay in the project”, to “The fact that a supporter of the project like Mr. Schnieder… would come forward… should be sounding alarms”? I’m not following your logic here. In listening to Mr. Schneider and Mr. Yakzan, the only thing I got out of their comments was that the City Council needs to do a better job in engaging the public on this issue and educating them for the need, despite the fact that it will triple everyone’s water rates.
[quote]Sudwerks currently spends around $100,000 on water and that would go up to $400,000. A different figure was give later of $68,000 and going up to about $180,000 by year three.[/quote]
Which figures are accurate here? And are you saying Sudwerks is opposed to the surface water project?
[quote]The fact that the council never made an effort to build into rates over the last decade at least some of the costs of this project is absolutely mind-boggling.[/quote]
If you will remember, the city was fighting over whether to do the surface water project at all, and to what degree the city had to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant. Two UCD experts were brought in at the behest of Council member Greenwald. Finally a decision was made that the surface water project should be moved ahead first and foremost, something that was decided on only recently. The water rate increases could not be instituted until a final decision was made by the city as to exactly what it was going to do. So there is nothing “mind-boggling” as to why it has taken so long to institute the water rate increases.
[quote]Just last year it was a ten-percent increase that brought about fifty people to council. At the time, I warned council that this was only a preview of what would be coming.[/quote]
Was this an increase in the water or the sewer rates that brought people out? I know there was quite a stir when the sewer rates were increased…
Nancy Price: Water rights may be going up across the nation, but the combined water/sewer rates in Davis are going to be extraordinarily high by national standards, extraordinarily high by regional standards and high by California standards.
Don Shor: We have been planning the water project for a long time. What is new is the need to pay off a new wastenwater treatment plant on our own dime as well. While I have been trying to talk about the looming combined water/sewer rates for years, Steve is right that staff and previous councils have gone to great lengths to downplay them.
The Conway water deal was far from brilliant in the opinion of myself and many others. We paid a hefty price for the water, we paid that price well before we knew we could even use use it, and the main reason that Convway was approached in the first place was to partner in the intake, and Mr. Tsakopoulos refused to even commit to that, so we have to pay for planning two intakes and it is not clear that we will get the use of the Conway intake.
[quote]The solution at this point is difficult to see. Mr. Schneider seems to believe that some creative financing could alleviate some of the concern. However, members of council have told the Vanguard that even trying to extend the pay off out fifty rather than thirty years produces declining marginal returns and the cost savings to the consumer is limited.
Talks and education are not going to fix this problem.
One commenter said on the Vanguard, “I continue to be amazed at the opposition to the water project without there being a concrete alternative.”[/quote]
[quote]As Sue Greenwald argued, “The alternative is phasing in the sewer/water projects so that ratepayers will only have to pay for one project at a time, or at least so that the overlap period when they are paying for most is far shorter.”
Unfortunately, that only deals with a portion of the problem.[/quote]
[quote]In short, my response to that comment on the Vanguard is that I am not the one who needs to come up with the alternative, council needs to come up with an alternative to the water rate hikes, because it is a non-starter and it will devastate our already battered local economy.[/quote]
So what is the Vanguard’s alternative?
[quote]We asked where the business community was on this issue just last week. They appear to be slow to the game…[/quote]
I have not heard the business community come out against the surface water project… have they?
E. Roberts Musser: It is not as if I haven’t been discussing an alternative approach during discussions on this page in which you have participated.
At least we better see if Woodland can get around to calculating their combined needed sewer/water rates for this project and their waste water plant needs, and inform their homeowners loudly and clearly what the average single-family home will be paying when the rates fully reflect the costs of both of their projects.
Ratepayers can told a referendum on rate increases at any time. If both cities can’t get both of their entire series of bonds sold, there will be no project and we will have no choice but take the alternatives that I have suggested.
[quote]At least we better see if Woodland can get around to calculating their combined needed sewer/water rates for this project and their waste water plant needs, and inform their homeowners loudly and clearly what the average single-family home will be paying when the rates fully reflect the costs of both of their projects.
Ratepayers can told a referendum on rate increases at any time. If both cities can’t get both of their entire series of bonds sold, there will be no project and we will have no choice but take the alternatives that I have suggested. [/quote]
Point well taken, and one the city needs to answer…
[quote]And yet the project was rushed through the Davis City Council just before Christmas 2010. Rushing something this major through the Council under the cover of darkness so to speak doesn’t seem transparent to me. If the process is flawed, so shall the product be.[/quote]
I cannot disagree with this statement!
NANCY PRICE: [i]” What are the reasons (for water rate increases in Davis)?”[/i]
It’s irrelevant to me that there are different reasons for water rate increases in other states.
[i]”1. Need to return income to for-profit national or multinational corporations that need to return a profit to their investors;”[/i]
This does not apply in any sense to Davis, except maybe–if you follow David Greenwald’s argument–in in the opposite sense. That is, higher water rates are bad for companies which spend a lot on water.
[i]”2. Need to make the public utility look or be profitable before a long-term public-private partnership or leasing agreement is signed with a for-profit water/sewer operate-manage corporation;”[/i]
This also does not apply in the least to Davis.
[i]”3. Need for water infrastructure improvements that are costly and there are no state/federal funds available in this time of budget crises – but this is precisely what the small-government people want to do, that is force privatization;”[/i]
There is no privatization going on here. It’s a 100% socialist enterprise. That said, the rest of what you note here–costly infrastructure upgrades–is what we will mostly be paying much higher rates for.
The question–answered by Sue Greenwald–is why we seem to need the upgrades: because of the Clean Water Act and because of state of California water regulations, which were driven by the CWA.
[i]”4. Both public and for-profit private utilities raise rates when less water is consumed because of conservation;”[/i]
Yes, that is true. But that does not mean that conservation itself is a bad thing in all respects.
[i]”… there needs to be enough income for the public utility to operate which is their responsibility to customers, but enough for the private utility to pay out to investors…that IS the fiduciary responsibility of the CEO and corporate board.”[/i]
Yeah, so?
[b]UPDATE ON LAYTON DRIVE:[/b]
I waited for a hot day to return to the scene of the chip seal crisis. Today qualified. My car’s thermometer said it was 96 degrees in the sunshine at 4:30 this afternoon. I again walked the same stretch, up and back, on the south fork of the U that makes up Layton Drive, and I drove the same streets in the vicinity.
Once again, there were no noticeable problems today. It was perfectly comfortable to walk on that street in my same pair of running shoes. It was also fine to drive on that street.
As it was when the temperature was 74 degrees, I saw no gunk in the gutters and no problem with tar sticking to my feet or gooing or anything of the sort. I agree that the surface of those chip-sealed streets is not as smooth as it is where the chip-seal was not employed. You can feel (and hear) the difference when driving. But at this point–some 9 months after the re-surfacing job was done–it is adequate. It’s not some 3rd World p.o.s.
From what the residents have said, it sounds like it was really lousy at first. As such, I don’t disagree at all that there was a serious problem at one time–probably caused by the company which made some mistakes in their work, or perhaps it is just inappropriate to use a chip-seal on residential streets–but I don’t see that there is now a serious problem, at least not for pedestrians or automobiles.
Bob and Randy are old business partners, developers and builders. While Bob has done really great work on wilderness over many years it is his home building that has allowed him to have the leisure time to save the wilderness. Now don’t get me wrong I like and respect Bob but let us not confuse the issue here. Just as AKT owns a bunch of land outside the city so does, I believe, Yakzan. These guys are taking the long view and eventually will need water for their developments. Now I support their developments because I believe peripheral growth is good but where I differ is in the idea that existing home owners should pay for water that will be used for developers to make higher margins on their projects. The real question people should be asking is where is this water going to end up and why aren’t the end users being asked to pay more of the freight through development fees?
On the other side are the people who oppose this water deal on the basis of depleting the ground water instead, a truly scary prospect. I wonder if the financing was to be forced onto new development if they would still be opposed. My guess is yes because their real motive is that without water there can’t be development and they don’t want development because they have some irrational fear of more people or want to protect their declining profits on their own real estate investments.
But what really bothers me is the short sighted view of the people of Davis over the generations. If Davis hadn’t opted out of Berryessa and Monticello Dam we wouldn’t be in this situation now. The idea that we should wait 30-50 years more will seem in retrospect to be as foolish as the decision 60 years ago not to buy into a stable water supply for the future. Why didn’t they do it back then? I don’t know but my guess is that they thought it would be too expensive. Obviously those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the failures of history even here in Davis where the educated populous thinks they are so much smarter than anyone else. I guess those yokels over in Solano County that joined the Solano Irrigation District are laughing all the way to the bank now that Monticello Dam is paid off. While you are worried about the water bills for Sudwerk in Solano County Budweiser (now AMBEV) has a great water supply and never seems to complain about the cost of its water.
[quote]The question–answered by Sue Greenwald–is why we seem to need the upgrades: because of the Clean Water Act and because of state of California water regulations, which were driven by the CWA.[/quote]Rich, as I have said, this project is NOT the only way to meet the water regulations. Getting out of the intermediate aquifer would solve most of our problems. And the TDS limits for the next 6 years have not even been determined yet.
As I have said before, what drives this project is the unknown long-term supply of our deep water aquifer.
Don Shor 07/22/11 – 09:36 AM (in response to my comments of 07/22/11 – 09:31 AM) … The council has been working on this project since the mid-1980’s. …. The only thing that was ‘rushed through’ was the purchase of the senior water rights of Conaway Ranch water; as Bob Schneider says, that was ‘brilliant.”
No matter how “brilliant” it may have been, it still doesn’t pass the “sniff test.” The senior water right offer from the developer was on the table for December 2010 only, and that was the last month that Councilman Saylor was to be seated on the Davis City Council. Without his third assured vote in favor of the project, it’s approval was in doubt. Something is “fishy” here.
“The council has been working on this project since the mid-1980’s..”
Those who followed closely the Council meetings during these years immediately recognize the above comment as,at best, a ‘half-truth”. What actually transpired was a deliberate strategy by the PW Dept, with the collusion of the Council Majority, to present to the public separate fragmented,separate “studies” at Council meetings for approval while vigorously parrying and/or stonewalling any efforts. by Sue Greenwald to discuss what were the future ramifications of the totality of this project,each time claiming that there was no need for public concern because their current presentation was “informational”.
[i][quote]“Once again, there were no noticeable problems today. It was perfectly comfortable to walk on that street in my same pair of running shoes.”[/quote][/i]But what about an equal opportunity high heel test?
As I understand the dilemma here, we HAVE to improve our discharge by a specific level and by a date certain….and getting more quality water into an approved system is the ONLY way that’s possible….and the ONLY way to get the water is the current scheme…because we CANNOT do anything to reduce costs, to reduce requirements or to delay implementation. Right?
So, David, what is the message you’re sending to the council? If you can’t come up with a workable alternative, maybe the City cannot either.
[i][quote]“…members of council have told the Vanguard that even trying to extend the pay off out fifty rather than thirty years produces declining marginal returns and the cost savings to the consumer is limited.”[/quote][/i]Maybe this is one of those “counter-intuitive” dealies, but if I look at my mortgage, extending the years reduces my monthly payment amounts and, more meaningful, gives me much longer to pay it off with ever-cheaper dollars.
In the case of the water/sewer project, a 50-year life would give me lower payments and allow me to die and turn over the balance of the bill to my kids.
[quote]As I understand the dilemma here, we HAVE to improve our discharge by a specific level and by a date certain….and getting more quality water into an approved system is the ONLY way that’s possible….and the ONLY way to get the water is the current scheme…because we CANNOT do anything to reduce costs, to reduce requirements or to delay implementation. Right?–JustSaying[/quote]No. This is not correct. I know that many staff and councilmembers have been repeating this for years, but it really isn’t accurate.
First, our discharge limits for the next 5 years will be set next year. We don’t know what they are yet (no, the public has not been told this). We don’t have them yet. Secondly, we can move into the deep aquifer, which has less salt and low selenium. Thirdly, the state is reviewing salinity management in our region (regardless of what a regional administrator has said, it is the regional and state board that sets the standards.)
Above all, government should be honest with people, and the information that you have been given is simply not correct.
I have serious objections to the premise of this post. One might think that Bob Schneider and Randy Yackzan have come to oppose the water project merely because they have acknowledged that there is opposition in the community to the rate hikes. One might think that Sudwerks owners are opposed to the project. And the clear statement is made that “the council is not hearing the alarm.”
The fact is that everyone is aware that water and sewer rates are going to go up substantially. Those who favor the water project believe the benefits outweigh the costs. We favor taking action to help lower-income ratepayers. We favor phasing in the rate increases so the gradual increase can be absorbed more readily. What we don’t favor is delaying the surface water project or abandoning it.
The water quality issue is real. The fact that, as Sue Greenwald has noted, “we don’t know what [the discharge limits] are yet” is certainly true. We have a state regulator on record as indicating they will not likely be reduced. We have nobody on record indicating they might be lessened. These are Clean Water Act regulations. The court order affecting Tracy is a very slim reed to hang opposition on; the Tracy situation is, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, very different from Davis. Unlike Tracy, Davis has a mitigation plan available with a known price tag: the fresh water project.
It seems very unlikely that discharge standards will be reduced. Do you think the clean water standards, part of the Delta restoration plan, are going to be weakened? The fresh water project will help make the Delta water cleaner. It seems very unlikely that courts will allow cities to abrogate water standards indefinitely due to cost.
By any objective measure, attaining permanent senior water rights from Conaway Ranch is not just brilliant, it is responsible planning and guarantees that Davis will have better water quality and supply availability, forever, than many surrounding communities. An opportunity presented itself suddenly. The argument had been made repeatedly on this blog that the water project did not have an adequate, reliable backup supply of water. Now it does.
The alternative position appears to be to start paying for the infrastructure now, but not complete or pay for the final water project until many years down the road. How many years? Ten? 30? So rates will go up without any improvement in water. We would use the deep aquifer, yet it is acknowledged that we don’t know the extent or reliability of that. The oft-repeated concern about Davis taxpayers abandoning the parks and schools is just conjecture. A schools tax just passed during the steepest recession since the Depression. Do you really think Davis voters will suddenly abandon their schools and parks? We can’t argue with a “what-if” like that, but let’s look at the other possible scenarios.
I could readily see a situation five to ten years down the road when standards are tightened, as fully expected throughout the planning process to date; sewer improvements are not adequate to meet those standards, and due to restricted supply Davis residents would face draconian water conservation measures. Some here actually seem to want those measures already. We could have years like 2011 when water is abundant, but Davis residents would have to go to complete xeriscaping and cut back their family gardens and orchards due to an artificially limited supply.
Davis would be less desirable due to the constraints on landscaping. Much is being made in recent posts about the impact on businesses. I can assure you that drought conditions, artificial or otherwise, very adversely affect certain businesses such as landscaping and nurseries. I have first-hand experience with this. Davis residents, like others statewide, are probably willing to conserve water during severe drought episodes such as 1977. But to tell residents they don’t have water when it is all around them, because of poor planning, would be just a further extension of the shortsighted thinking that kept Davis out of the Monticello Dam project in the 1960’s.
Do you know that Berryessa water supplies Vacaville, Fairfield, and other Solano County cities with water, plus Solano Irrigation District, with a substantial buffer against as much as 5 to 6 years of drought? With Conaway Ranch water available, and a prudent number of wells remaining available for the driest years, Davis would have a substantial buffer against drought emergencies.
Still no one has answered the question: What relation do the rate increases have to actual bids, vs. estimates on any component of the water project? And, still no answer to my question of whether the Clean Water Agency is or will be negotiating a public-private partnership which will cost more to the public than a public-public partnership…..this has everything to do with cost and accountability to the public. And, when there are cost overruns, who pays?
[b]Don Shor[/b]: I suspect that you have put far too much weight on some comments by a regional administrator. It is the board members who make the decisions.
There are a number of issues here. One is that our deep water aquifer does meet standards. Our problems are with the intermediate aquifer. Secondly, the state is in fact reviewing the TDS discharge standards. The state does recognize the difficulty and the expense of meeting current standards. Thirdly, ag beneficial use standards are in fact related to delta standards.
It is the court’s reasoning in the Tracy decision that is important; not whether the situation is identifical. The court said that the Clean Water Act allows states a lot of discretion, and the court said that economic impact on cities should be considered when setting TDS discharge limits.
It is unlikely that the discharge requirements will force the surface water project. There are other solutions to meeting the discharge requirements. Clearly, I am not going to be able to convince many people of this due to the level of spin that has been applied by those who want us to do the surface water project now.
[b]nprice[/b]: I share your concerns about how the Clean Water Agency is going about the bidding process.