The Vanguard has made its position on the water rate hike very clear over the past few years, including in the last month. However, as a 501c(3), the Vanguard cannot advocate for or against any electoral matter. Therefore, the Vanguard can only report on facts – what is happening, what will happen, and also we can examine claims made by either side, so long as we are not encouraging or advocating anyone to vote a particular way.
Instead, while the council ended up supporting a number of the provisions in Mr. Wolk’s motion, they could not find three votes for a more limited rate hike.
Such a measure could have allowed the council to move toward creating funding for the expensive water supply project. At the same time, it could have allowed for further investigation into cost savings, and perhaps even the delay in the project that Ms. Greenwald had been seeking for some time.
On Wednesday evening, Sue Greenwald will talk about water on Vanguard Radio at 5 pm on KDRT.
On the Vanguard this weekend, Councilmember Greenwald explained that she opposed the project because “Dan’s [Wolk] motion included a reaffirmation of the surface water project.”
She added that Councilmember Wolk “had refused my friendly amendment to separate out the rate increase and that Dan had refused to second my motion to apply for a variance, without which his one year rate increase is irrelevant because without a variance we will be legally obligated to increase the rates next year to whatever it takes to cover the project.”
The lack of a compromise means that the council-approved rate increase of 14% each year for the next five years will go into effect unless the opposition decides to put the matter on the ballot. If on the ballot, the voters, operating under majority rule principles of 50% plus one vote of those who show up to the polls, will decide on the approval of the rate increase, as opposed to the arcane and fundamentally undemocratic Prop 218 procedures that exclude non-ratepayers and count non-votes as support.
Under state law, the public has only 30 days from the second reading of the rate increase ordinance to file the referendum to overturn it.
As we wrote this weekend, the prospects for it passing are difficult to assess. We expressed concern that Councilmember Greenwald relies on unnamed experts to support her case.
She claims that experts have told her that these projects are unnecessary at this time, that the city can get regulatory relief and that the cost of these projects will be far higher than projected.
I think Sue Greenwald makes a strong case that the “rate decrease [from the original projections] that is being hyped is not real.” She argues, “It results mostly from changing the assumptions about costs. In fact, unnamed professionals that I have talked with predict that the project costs will be significantly higher than predicted, and we have also not yet accounted for the new storm sewer costs.”
She has maintained for some time that experts are privately telling her that the cost will be much higher.
This week she wrote, “According to current staff estimates, base rates for combined water/wastewater/garbage will be somewhere between $2,200 and $2,300 a year, regardless of whether we ramp up a little more slowly or rapidly. If we ramp up slowly, base rates will be higher in years 6-7. They will increase according to maintenance and operating costs thereafter.”
In response, Ms. Greenwald offered that her experts remaining unnamed is not so much a weakness, but it does make it a referendum more difficult.
She argues, “We are dealing with a pretty standard full-court press. No one in the field is going to come out publicly against the city — that’s for sure.”
She offered, “There might not be an army of hired experts on my side, but I do have a lot of logic on my side. The indisputable logic is: What would the council have to lose by applying for a variance that would allow us the option of postponing the project?”
For her, the issue is one of money and regulations.
“Why wouldn’t the council keep options open by applying for a variance?” she asked rhetorically. “They don’t even know what the project will cost yet.”
Indeed, she is correct that the city is engaging in a standard full-court press.
This week, city staff will be meeting with the Vanguard and others in the community for a “briefing with senior staff on the water project.” The Vanguard has learned that a number of other citizens have been invited as well.
It is obvious that we will be given the full treatment on the issue of the water project, the costs to the city if we do not comply with discharge standards, etc.
The Vanguard always wants to hear all sides of the story in order to make a more informed decision and in order to better inform the public. However, we note as we have several times, that we do not think that experts have come forward with the full information.
Someone asked this weekend about the testimony of Mr. Landau (the deputy executive officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board), and it is our view that while his testimony to the Clean Water Agency was informative, it was a bit of a dog and pony show. He was asked questions, and he gave the answers the agency clearly wanted to hear.
But, as we wrote last week, the answers were far more nuanced than either he or the Clean Water Agency has acknowledged.
For one thing, there seems to be a new law that gives the city five years of a mandatory minimum protection for being out of compliance. The problem is that the City of Davis is not out of compliance, the City of Woodland is. They are being fined, a smaller amount because of this project, but fined nonetheless.
Mr. Landau told the agency, “If we can make findings that you have a project, you have been diligent during that first five years in trying to achieve compliance, and a number of other things that go along with that, then we can, at the Regional Board’s discretion, grant you up to an additional five years.”
Can we not make the case then that the public has rejected the project, that the economics and finances are not right now, but we are going to be finding a way to make this work? I don’t know the answer to that, but there seems to be a lot more leeway than the city has implied.
He continued, “If a community is not moving forward with a project, even if we gave them protection initially, we can do discretionary fines.”
But what does it mean to be moving forward with a project – if you have a project designed and ready to go and are in the process of securing financing, is that not moving forward with a project?
The Clean Water Agency asked the wrong questions of Mr. Landau because they were trying to find justification for going forward with their project and were using Mr. Landau to counter the arguments of the opposition.
Likewise, proponents of the project have argued we must exercise our 40-year water rights now or lose them. But Mr. Landau gave a much more nuanced view, acknowledging that “That’s something that doesn’t happen very often.”
He added, “If the City, this group, the cities decide ‘let’s delay this for 10 years,’ I’m not part of that decision making process, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if somebody went back to the State Board and said, ‘Excuse us, they’re not using the water. Can we have it?’ I don’t know the chances of the State Water Board actually doing that, you know, agreeing to that and taking it away. It does happen occasionally, usually under extreme circumstances. But again, looking at the risks that go along with delay, that would be one for you to think about.”
This just does not appear to be nearly the threat and urgency that has been sold to the public. The state may do it, but they have only done it under extreme circumstances.
Based on this, I question that we had to do this project right now. If we don’t have to do the project right now, then we can look into delaying it until the economic times are better.
But that will be a difficult case to put to the voters, especially without experts ready to support these contentions. And the city is putting on its full-court press and not relenting even after this week’s vote.
Will a referendum happen? We believe it to be more likely than not, at this point.
Can it succeed? We believe it will be difficult, but not impossible.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, what does it take to get a referendum vote on the ballot in Davis?
I think it’s ten percent of those who voted in the last governor’s election, I think the figure is about 2000 signatures give or take. Someone else can undoubtedly be more exact.
Where do I sign? With almost 5000 objections submitted I would think 2000 signatures would be a breeze. Have they set up sites yet for people to sign? Do they have a website? Who’s spearheading the movement?
You’ll have to find someone involved in the referendum – if one exists.
The Vanguard owes it to its readers to sit down with City staff to understand why the rate decrease IS real. It’s not about just changing financing assumptions. The staff report outlines the basics of how flat 14 percents for six years works – but we could only approve five 14’s on Tuesday (err Wednesday) because that was the duration in the 218 notice. Financing is being stretch out, like many asked. Costs are being spread out, like many asked. Better financing from the state is being sought, like many asked. And because water supply and waste water treatment are linked in the city’s future system, we are moving some costs to our better-funded sewer fund. At least report the staff report. Then get the full details from staff. This issue has been carefully scrutinized by outside advocates. Agree with the approach/es or not, but understand them first.
“Will a referendum happen? We believe it more likely than not at this point.”
I just thought with you writing this that you had some info. If anyone else knows anything about the referendum please post. Thanks in advance.
Rusty49:
To find people working on the referendum and petitions to sign, in the coming weeks just go to your friendly neighborhood supermarket or the Davis Farmers Market.
With + 4,500 protests received, getting the 2400 valid signatures from registered Davis voters should be a snap.
There will be a web site shortly.
Ernie Head and Pam Nieberg are taking the lead, if you know them.
I am firmly of the belief that the correct ratepayer position here is to move forward with the project now. Like it or not, delay means paying significant dollars to upgrade wells that can’t, ultimately, sustain us (setting aside the environmental/ethical issues of taking more than is being replenished down there). Then, fines are money lost forever, and ours will be steep since we will be telling the RWQCB that we just don’t feel like complying. Like Dixon, they will set rates to make compliance the low-cost solution. (The Woodland fines of $14K/month are currently set low b/c Woodland is proceeding to compliance.) Then those that advocate waiting or for no project assume the risk of financing rates and construction costs increasing. Maybe/maybe not; I know where I am on that. Let’s not forget that the 2007 EIR concluded that the current project’s approach was the lowest cost alternative. (BTW, some have noted that the EIR didn’t analyze alternatives. They are in the draft EIR. See the WDCWA page for “Documents.”) From a “best deal for the ratepayers” perspective, I sleep very well with the Council’s action.
“The Vanguard owes it to its readers to sit down with City staff “
I agree and we will.
Rusty, I know from a phone call I received this weekend from a fellow person who was involved in fighting Covell Village that plans are being laid to collect the necessary signatures. I could not talk long to my contact but the signatures will have to obtained in the 30 days after Sept. 20. I volunteered my services and my contact reported that s/he had had a good response to calls thus far. I forgot to ask how many signatures were needed. My memory, which may be incorrect, is that it is 5% of the total votes cast at the last gubernatorial election. If I am right that means we need just less than 3,000 signatures. That is very doable indeed. More problematic, but I think possible (maybe even 50/50), will be actually winning a referendum campaign.
Finally, I am interested as to where Sue Greenwald stands on the referendum issue in terms of her willingness to support it.
Thanks Michael and Herman, my wife and I will maybe see you at Farmers Market or our grocery store. This will definitely fly. Let’s show Souza that 72% of the non votes weren’t yes votes.
“and ours will be steep since we will be telling the RWQCB that we just don’t feel like complying.”
Instead of telling the RWQCB that “we just don’t feel like complying” why aren’t we telling them that complying in these hard economic times will create extensive hardship on many of our ratepayers.
[quote]As we reported this weekend, the Vanguard is disappointed a compromise proposed by Dan Wolk could not be agreed to. His proposal would have set a one-time 10% water rate increase for this year, while allowing time to explore various options and approaches.
Instead, while the council ended up supporting a number of the provisions in Mr. Wolk’s motion, they could not find three votes for a more limited rate hike.[/quote]
Only a 10% increase in water rates would have resulted in much steeper rate increases in the subsequent 5 years to make up for it. Apparently the other three Council members in favor of the project did not think that was a good idea for rate payers.
[quote]I think Sue Greenwald makes a strong case that the “rate decrease [from the original projections] that is being hyped is not real.” She argues, “It results mostly from changing the assumptions about costs. In fact, unnamed professionals that I have talked with predict that the project costs will be significantly higher than predicted, and we have also not yet accounted for the new storm sewer costs.”[/quote]
Sounds to me like advocacy, not just merely “reporting the facts”.
[quote] …fundamentally undemocratic Prop 218 procedures that exclude non-ratepayers and count non-votes as support.[/quote]
Again, sounds a lot like advocacy, not just merely “reporting the facts”.
[quote]Indeed, she is correct that the city is engaging in a standard full-court press.[/quote]
Again, sounds a lot like advocacy, not just merely “reporting the facts”.
[quote]Someone asked this weekend about the testimony of Mr. Landau (the deputy executive officer of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board), and it is our view that while his testimony to the Clean Water Agency was informative, it was a bit of a dog and pony show. He was asked questions, and he gave the answers the agency clearly wanted to hear.[/quote]
Again, sounds like advocacy, not just merely “reporting the facts”.
[quote]Can we not make the case then that the public has rejected the project, that the economics and finances are not right now, but we are going to be finding a way to make this work? I don’t know the answer to that, but there seems to be a lot more leeway than the city has implied.[/quote]
Again, sounds like advocacy, not just merely “reporting the facts”.
[quote]This just does not appear to be nearly the threat and urgency that has been sold to the public. The state may do it, but they have only done it under extreme circumstances.
Based on this, I question that we had to do this project right now. If we don’t have to do the project right now, then we can look into delaying it until the economic times are better.[/quote]
This is advocacy for a particular political position/for the referendum. You have crossed the line IMO…
[quote]But that will be a difficult case to put to the voters, especially without experts ready to support these contentions. And the city is putting on its full-court press and not relenting even after this week’s vote.[/quote]
The Vanguard it putting on a full court press to support the referendum, even tho its status as a 501(c)(3) states it is not permitted…
If citizens wish to have a voter referendum on this issue, that is their right in a democracy. However, I would strongly suggest they think of a back-up plan if they succeed, one that does not result in greater harm than good to ratepayers. My guess is the SWRCB is not going to be very sympathetic to their cause…
[i]”The Vanguard it putting on a full court press to support the referendum, even tho its status as a 501(c)(3) states it is not permitted…”[/i]
I fully agree. The Vanguard has taken an advocacy position here.
“The problem is that the City of Davis is not out of compliance, the City of Woodland is. They are being fined, a smaller amount because of this project, but fined nonetheless.”
Let’s remember that Woodland voters acted in what they considered their best interest and voted to reject the plan to join SMUD, a plan that the Davis voters approved.
“I just thought with you writing this that you had some info. If anyone else knows anything about the referendum please post. Thanks in advance.
The wording of the citizen-referendum is now being finalized and reviewed by an attorney pending the second reading by the Council. The campaign is being organized for signature-gathering tabling at all Davis shopping centers and door-to-door signature canvassing(depending on the size of our army of volunteers). I will place a comment about how Vanguard readers can volunteer for this pure grass-roots effort as soon as an email address can be identified.
Regardless of where you come down on the surface water issue, one thing is abundantly clear. This is a monumental problem, unprecedented in the city’s history, which has been allowed to fester for years.
In my opinion, its now time for both Sue and Stephen to go.
The city is being crushed under the weight of years of ineffective leadership, and one of the obvious consequences should be the removal of all multi-term incumbents at the ballot box. And Sue doesn’t get a “minority pass” just because most of her colleagues tend to disregard and marginalize her. From what I can see, she “makes her living” from rancor, division, and gridlock, and we are now at a point in history when we desperately need competent problem solving and forward motion from all incumbents – whether they are in the majority or the minority on any particular issue.
Sue and Stephen have both been on the stage for far too long, and the community would be better served with additional fresh leadership.
“We expressed concern that Councilmember Greenwald relies on unnamed experts to support her case”
Councilperson Greenwald has a public record going back at least a decade on the dais and another as an active and involved Davis voter. While her “style” may not be to everyone’s liking, she has PROVED herself again and again to be the most experienced, hard-working Council member with superior critical-thinking skills and has consistently taken positions that she felt were in the interests of Davis voters rather than advancement of her own political career. To implicitly suggest that she is conjuring up her experts who do not wish to risk their academic careers or future consulting fees is ludicrous.
Sue has a proven track record of conjuring up experts – the economic development debate being the most recent example.
If these people do indeed exist and have the opinions that Sue suggests they have, then she should encourage them to anonymously post their opinions on the Vanguard.
Just recently President Obama delayed the implementation of the tougher EPA standards for smog emissions due to the costs and adverse effects it would have on jobs and business. Who’s to say that with pressure the RWQCB wouldn’t back off with some pressure applied on them? I really don’t think all of our avenues have been fully explored. What’s the rush?
Clearly just the threat of a referendum is rattling avid supporters of the project. They know we will get the signatures and have a significant chance of winning a referendum. They should have anticipated this. And, even without this threat, been willing to accept some of the compromises Sue offered such as voting to approve applying for a variance.
They are paying the price for not being willing to make reasonable compromises and for supporting a project that is potentially a fiscal and economic train wreck. The project needs a much more open and fuller discussion of alternatives that are much better publicized by the city in such things as a newsletter laying out the alternatives and then perhaps putting all these alternatives on the ballot.
I do think think I am alone in not trusting our “experts,” the people who think they know what is best for us, and the people who for the most part can easily afford to pay personally for a costly project. These experts include city staff, our council, our mayor, spokespeople they enlist, and EIR consultants. Anyone who thinks an EIR is by definition an objective and accurate assessment of options should work in the business as I have.
Just recall some of the things that were said in the EIR on Covell Village and how patently absurd,and I don’t mean just unpopular, they were. To take but one example, the financial viability, in terms of costs to the city, were premised on the purportedly “conservative” assumption that housing prices would rise by a 5%. That prediction has hardly been born out and Davis house prices are DOWN 15-20% since it was made and will likely fall further. I could go on but…
Herman: [i]then perhaps putting all these alternatives on the ballot. [/i]
That is an interesting suggestion. Maybe with a choice-voting advisory referendum? I’m not sure how it would work, but such a vote would definitely require an informed citizenry.
In my last message I should have said that the Covell Village EIR assumed that house prices would rise by 5% ANNUALLY. It’s also worth noting, the little noted fact, that our mayor supported Covell Village. For the record, I wonder what positions Elaine and Don took on Covell Village. As a core activist person for almost a year (who went to countless meetings) I certainly don’t recall them being very actively, or at all, involved in fighting Measure X.
I totally agree with Davisite2s response to Voter2012 criticisms of Sue and see them as the worst kind of ignorant “Let’s throw the rascals out whom I disagree with” mentality. I have not always agreed with Sue on all issues, and yes she can be a little quirky personally (I do not know the other members of the council enough to comment them personally). However as Davisite2 says Sue has been right on many issues when in the minority and she is, to my knowledge, as hard a working council member as the city has had in a very long time. Without her dissenting, and usually very informed voice, we would be in very bad shape on this and other issues.
Although I disagree with Sue on this issue, I would strongly support her for reelection. Her fiscal conservatism has saved this city millions of dollars.
David – How do we know the large rate increases will not extend past 5 or 6 years?
ERM posted: “The Vanguard it putting on a full court press to support the referendum, even tho its status as a 501(c)(3) states it is not permitted… “
You would not really have any way of knowing the true status of contacts with the Blog, but your statement is incorrect. DG has repeatedly pushed back against the organizers of the referendum sending him information or consulting with him. He has made it very clear that the DV Blog is a 501(c)(3) and that only factual material useful for articles should be sent to him, not advocacy and strategy items. We love the Blog, and the last thing we would do is get him into a legal violation.
For the record: the referendum is completely focused on the rate hikes, not any other issue. We are united against the project due to its huge rate increases. Some of our referendum supporters were in favor of Covell Village, some not.
Some hate the rate increases but still support the surface water project as a concept.
We are not getting into those extra issues right now. Stay focused on the money!
We are not mixing old business with new: the referendum is about the huge increase of the price tag for this current surface water supply project. Nothing else. Time will allow for other debates, but for now, stick to the money.
Herman: Ignorance is blindly following dysfunctional leaders over the cliff. If you will read my post, you will note that I’m advocating removal of the two multi-term incumbants. One is supportive. One is opposed. So obviously your characterization of my position is wrong.
“These experts include city staff, our council, our mayor, spokespeople they enlist, and EIR consultants. Anyone who thinks an EIR is by definition an objective and accurate assessment of options should work in the business as I have.”
Herman, sounds like an attorney who calls on their own paid expert for testimony.
Think about it people, at $325,000,000 this is costing close to an extra $20,000 per parcel and THAT DOESN’T EVEN INCLUDE THE INTEREST.
Voter2012: I hope Sue runs again in June 2012. If she does, she might be on the ballot with Steve and Dan, both of whom voted for the rate hikes. Her positions on the budger, surface water, and numerous other issues have gained her huge support around town.
Our man Brett will also be a candidate for CC.
That means that on the same ballot will be two candidates who are running in favor of higher taxes (or fees, if you will), and two candidates who are in favor of status quo, or even roll backs to lower levels of utility fees.
Guess who wins in this terrible economy?
The drubbing will be similar to what the voters did to Measure P, the Parlin Development of the 25 acres up near Wildhorse.
(Hey, CC members, I tried to warn you before the vote for huge water rate incerases, but to no avail.)
Voter 2012 writes me thus:
“Herman: Ignorance is blindly following dysfunctional leaders over the cliff. If you will read my post, you will note that I’m advocating removal of the two multi-term incumbants. One is supportive. One is opposed. So obviously your characterization of my position is wrong.”
My response: There is now a general consensus, not unanimous admittedly, that term limits for state assembly reps and state senate reps has NOT improved the quality of California government. (This is so for many reasons). If you think otherwise, please let me know. I don’t think most Davis voters whatever their position “blindly” follow a leader/council member, regardless of how long they have been on the council. Voter2012 may be bipartisan in his/her nihilism but it is nihilism none the less.
Anyone know how many Davis residents voted in the last gubernatorial election? If enough votes are collected to get a referendum on the ballot, would this be for the June 2012 primary election?
[quote]“However, as a 501c(3), the Vanguard cannot advocate for or against any electoral matter.”
“The Vanguard it putting on a full court press to support the referendum, even tho its status as a 501(c)(3) states it is not permitted…”
“I fully agree. The Vanguard has taken an advocacy position here.”[/quote]Not a day goes by that David doesn’t speak out on behalf of some hopelessly guilty person, so here’s my attempt.
There is no water-rate referendum, no “electoral matter” of any kind, in fact. Are we to criticize him for advocating the all-American process of voting?
So, if David has framed this issue correctly (as an election advocacy matter*), the law doesn’t prohibit the kind of reporting/opinion-offering articles which he offers here. JustSaying…for the defense…resting.
– – – – – – – –
*So, why bring up a 501c(3) issue in the first place?
One more thing before I try to turn off the Blog for the rest of my work day: I think that Mayor Joe has done a great job with outreach to everyone, including those who disagree with some of his votes. He is quick responding to questions, and is always polite and helpful. I like his style so far.
MH: My issue is that we ought to complete the refresh of the city council that began in 2010. The city is in terrible shape and we need new leadership on all sides. If that makes me a nihilist, then guilty as charged.
Herman: You are blindly following Sue because key elements of her argument are grounded in unnamed sources that you can’t talk to (and may not even exist).
[quote]Not a day goes by that David doesn’t speak out on behalf of some hopelessly guilty person, so here’s my attempt.
There is no water-rate referendum, no “electoral matter” of any kind, in fact. Are we to criticize him for advocating the all-American process of voting?
So, if David has framed this issue correctly (as an election advocacy matter*), the law doesn’t prohibit the kind of reporting/opinion-offering articles which he offers here. JustSaying…for the defense…resting.
– – – – – – – –
*So, why bring up a 501c(3) issue in the first place? [/quote]
Please note what dmg himself wrote:
[quote]However, as a 501c(3), the Vanguard cannot advocate for or against any electoral matter. Therefore, the Vanguard can only report on facts – what is happening, what will happen, and also we can examine claims made by either side, so long as we are not encouraging or advocating anyone to vote a particular way.[/quote]
The Vanguard is clearly advocating for readers to vote against the water rate increases for the surface water project if the push to have a referendum succeeds…
[quote] To implicitly suggest that she is conjuring up her experts who do not wish to risk their academic careers or future consulting fees is ludicrous.[/quote]
It is an issue of credibility – what someone tells you in public versus what someone says in private. In private people exaggerate, bloviate, say what you want to hear just so they don’t have to argue with you, etc. But when someone states something in public, the person knows they can be held accountable for what they have stated for all to hear. Which is more credible?
Secondly it is easy enough to cherry pick opinions you want to hear in private – just talk to only those who agree with you. Or just discard anyone’s opinion who doesn’t agree with you. But it is an entirely different story when you start asking people to “go on the record”. Suddenly you begin to see who is willing to stand by what they say and who is not.
Thirdly, Sue’s own expert from UCD she brought on board for an opinion about the surface water/wastewater treatment plant projects publicly does not agree with her; a representative from the SWRCB publicly does not agree with her. Sue has not been able to produce one single expert who is willing to state in public they agree with her position. NOT ONE. So just how credible are they?
ERM, there isn’t any referendum yet. Can you be accused of advocating for a vote if it isn’t even on the ballot yet?
[i]We are united against the project due to its huge rate increases.
We are not mixing old business with new: the referendum is about the huge increase of the price tag for this current surface water supply project. Nothing else. Time will allow for other debates, but for now, stick to the money.[/i]
But you inherently have to answer those other questions:
How much of a rate increase is acceptable for any alternative?
What would you propose doing about the salinity and other water-quality issues?
Do you propose continuing to use the intermediate aquifers? If so, for how long?
What water supply do you propose Davis use for the next 20 to 30 years?
Do you believe the deep-water aquifer is a stable and reliable alternative?
[quote]“DG has repeatedly pushed back against the organizers of the referendum sending him information or consulting with him. He has made it very clear that the DV Blog is a 501(c)(3) and that only factual material useful for articles should be sent to him, not advocacy and strategy items. We love the Blog, and the last thing we would do is get him into a legal violation.”[/quote]Michael, this must be failure to communicate at some level. Even if you’ve served as a DG secret source, it would be surprising that he really meant you should withhold any of your materials from him.
One would think he’d welcome any items from both (all) sides, if just to allow him to do a complete reporting job. He certainly could quote propaganda from you and other sides, just not advocate a side.
Have you considered it might be halitosis or some other personal, non-501(c)(3) issue?
[quote]Can you be accused of advocating for a vote if it isn’t even on the ballot yet?[/quote]
If you are advocating for people to sign a petition to have a referendum, and if that referendum occurs advocating for which way a person should vote, your are certainly advocating for which way a person should vote – TWICE.
“If you are advocating for people to sign a petition to have a referendum”
There’s no petition yet either.
[b]DAVID GREENWALD: I am so very, very disappointed in your lack of understanding the simple logic: [/b]
[b]A)[/b] A variance is needed if we are to postpone the project.
[b]B)[/b] If we don’t postpone the project, we have to pay whatever the project costs, and our rates will reflect that, whether we authorize the rates for one year or for five years: the rates will be the same.
[b]C)[/b] If we don’t apply for a variance, we won’t can’t one and hence will have to pay whatever rates are necessary to pay for the project.
[b]D)[/b] Hence, Dan Wolk’s one year rate increase was a meaningless political maneuver because he refused to support application for a variance.
You don’t seem to understand that the five year rate increase is not locked in anyway, so minor cost savings on the project can be pursued under either Joe’s motion or Dan’s motion. Makes no difference.
[b]BUT NO MAJOR RATE SAVINGS CAN BE ACHIEVED UNDER DAN’S MOTION BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE, BUT REAFFIRMED TO CURRENT PROJECT SCHEDULE
[/b]
I say that the so called rate decrease is not real for the following reasons:
1) [b]The total wastewater/water/garbage rates will only decrease from about $2,300 a year to $2,150 a year[/b], and it will reach this in year 6 instead of year 5.
2) Part of this small decrease is due to deferred necessary water capitol projects that will have to be done a few years later anyway.
3) Most of the rest is essentially due to more optimistic guesses about interest rates.
4) Total costs will probably be much higher, because we haven’t yet factored in costs with meeting new storm water treatment mandates which will be coming, and because we don’t know what the project costs will actually be and they many believe that they will come in much higher than predicted.
What a coalition; the poor the cheap, the most conservative voices, the no growth support high property values crowd, as I have been saying for years I hope you don’t consider yourselves Democrats or environmentalists. Although I will grant a variance to the poor. For them it is tough to decide do I have food for the kid or do they drink water tainted with Selenium.
[quote]“The Vanguard is clearly advocating for readers to vote against the water rate increases for the surface water project [u]if[/u] the push to have a referendum succeeds….Please note what dmg himself wrote….”[/quote]Elaine, my points exactly. I don’t understand why “dmg himself” raised a 501(c)(3) issue. It wouldn’t seem to apply at this point, in my opinion, since it’s iffy whether we’ll even have an election on the matter.
Shouldn’t David be allowed to write anything he wants about public policy issues [u]before[/u] something specific moves into the electoral process, then withhold advocacy while the campaign and voting proceed?
Council and staff have continually resorted to the argument that if we postpone the surface water project, we will have to pay for more deep aquifer wells. But,
[b]THE COSTS OF DIGGING ADDITIONAL DEEP AQUIFER WELLS IS CHUMP CHANGE COMPARED TO THE COST OF THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT.[/b]
As I mentioned at the council meeting, we would not lose our water rights if we postpone the project, not only because we have a 40 year permit and it would be unprecedented for the state to take away a 40 year permit merely because a project is postponed, but also because, if we postponed the project, it would be because we applied for and received a variance, and we would have been cooperating with and negotiated with the SWRCB, so why would they take away the permit?
Wouldn’t happen.
[b]HOWEVER, THE COUNCIL REFUSED TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE. THE ISSUE IS NOT THE RATE INCREASE, WHICH IS INEVITABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, BUT THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL REFUSED TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE[/b].
All other issues are tangential.
[quote]“Can you be accused of advocating for a vote if it isn’t even on the ballot yet?
“If you are advocating for people to sign a petition to have a referendum (to have a vote in which you advocate voting a specific way).”
“There’s no petition yet either.”[/quote]But, rusty49, wouldn’t it be an advocating violation if it appears you’re hoping for letter-writing campaign in the [u]Enterprise[/u] encouraging a petition to force a referendum to stop a rate hike?
[quote][edit; personal][/quote]Gracious, maybe there should be sub-categories: “obviously light humor personal” and “typical [u]Vanguard[/u] mean and nasty personal” (Sorry, Michael, nothing personal.)
My understanding of the variance issue is that going down this track sends the wrong signal to the financial markets – which will directly translate into higher interest rates. This argument sounds credible to me.
[quote]Shouldn’t David be allowed to write anything he wants about public policy issues before something specific moves into the electoral process, then withhold advocacy while the campaign and voting proceed?[/quote]
If dmg is advocating FOR a referendum; and advocating that if there is a referendum FOR a particular position on the referendum, then he is advocating on how to vote… which has crossed the line into advocacy IMO.
Mike – Who can construct a legal referendum petition? PLacement with coffee house owners and managers – like at Common Grounds – might be an idea? I can help distribute and gather.
Paul Brady
‘My understanding of the variance issue is that going down this track sends the wrong signal to the financial markets – which will directly translate into higher interest rates. This argument sounds credible to me.”
One could make an at least equally valid argument that pushing through an unpopular and large rate increase when the city of Davis’ coffers are in crisis and voters perceive to be at the limit of their resources would hold more potential for political instability and default than getting a variance and looking for bond funding when there is a greater voter consensus approving the project along with lower rate hikes and improving voter income and city revenues.
[quote]I say that the so called rate decrease is not real for the following reasons:
1) The total wastewater/water/garbage rates will only decrease from about $2,300 a year to $2,150 a year, and it will reach this in year 6 instead of year 5.
2) Part of this small decrease is due to deferred necessary water capitol projects that will have to be done a few years later anyway.
3) Most of the rest is essentially due to more optimistic guesses about interest rates.
4) Total costs will probably be much higher, because we haven’t yet factored in costs with meeting new storm water treatment mandates which will be coming, and because we don’t know what the project costs will actually be and they many believe that they will come in much higher than predicted. [/quote]
1) Sanitation and sewer also had rate increases.
2) Isn’t deferral of costs what you have been advocating for?
3) Yes, the assumption is that interest rates can be had at 5.5% as opposed to the more conservative estimate of 6.5%.
4) If there are new storm water treatment costs, they will have to be factored in no matter which course of action the city takes.
What you have neglected to put into the equation are the following big “ifs” should we not do the surface water project:
[quote]
How much of a rate increase is acceptable for any alternative?
What would you propose doing about the salinity and other water-quality issues?
Do you propose continuing to use the intermediate aquifers? If so, for how long?
What water supply do you propose Davis use for the next 20 to 30 years?
Do you believe the deep-water aquifer is a stable and reliable alternative? [/quote]
How do you propose to argue “economic infeasibility” to obtain a variance, and how likely is that approach, in light of public pronouncements to the contrary by a representative from the SWRCB and the requirements of SWRCB Resolution 92-49?
What happens if the city is fined so that there is no economic advantage gained by not doing the surface water project, so the city winds up paying the same amount and getting nothing in return – no reliable source of water, nada? What is your back up plan for this eventuality?
If we put off the surface water project and build the wastewater treatment plant first, how do we save on the wastewater treatment plant, when those very savings were predicated on building the surface water project first and foremost according to the 2 UCD experts you yourself insisted be consulted?
What is your back up plan if the deep level aquifers don’t hold up as an uncontaminated reliable water supply source?
[quote]Council and staff have continually resorted to the argument that if we postpone the surface water project, we will have to pay for more deep aquifer wells. But,
THE COSTS OF DIGGING ADDITIONAL DEEP AQUIFER WELLS IS CHUMP CHANGE COMPARED TO THE COST OF THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT. [/quote]
But what if the deep level aquifers don’t hold up as a reliable uncontaminated water supply source?
But what if the SWRCB hits the city with steep fines while we are having to take time out to dig the deep wells – not to mention the expense of having to not only eventually build the surface water project, but the added expense of all the deep level aqufer wells we had to dig, making the entire water project considerably more expensive?
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PARTICIPATING IN THE SIGNATURE-GATHERING CAMPAIGN
email Pam Neiberg at Pneiberg@dcn.davis.ca.us
[quote]As I mentioned at the council meeting, we would not lose our water rights if we postpone the project, not only because we have a 40 year permit and it would be unprecedented for the state to take away a 40 year permit merely because a project is postponed, but also because, if we postponed the project, it would be because we applied for and received a variance, and we would have been cooperating with and negotiated with the SWRCB, so why would they take away the permit? [/quote]
How do you propose we convince the SWRCB to give us a variance until we pay off the wastewater treatment plant after 25 years as you have repeatedly proposed? I’m still waiting to hear your “persuasive” arguments you are going to give based on the criteria set out in Resolution 92-49…
In light of a new dawn, and everyone clamoring for water rights, can you guarantee we can keep our water rights for 40 years if we sleep on them for the next 25 years and new standards/boards/experts come and go?
[i]PLacement with coffee house owners and managers – like at Common Grounds – might be an idea? I can help distribute and gather. [/i]
I would urge the owner of Common Grounds not to start allowing political petitions there.
Have the proposed increases in water rates factored in the likely decline in water use associated with the higher cost of water? Bay Area Utilities had to raise water rates by 47% because of reduced water usage: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/04/water-conservation-leads-higher-rates. Will our rates actually be higher than proposed? Just wondering…
[quote]HOWEVER, THE COUNCIL REFUSED TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE. THE ISSUE IS NOT THE RATE INCREASE, WHICH IS INEVITABLE WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, BUT THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL REFUSED TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE.
All other issues are tangential. [/quote]
You consider the possibility of steep fines tangential?
You consider the question of whether the deep level aquifers will be a reliable source of uncontaminated water tangential?
You consider the order of when to build which project tangential?
You consider the advice of experts willing to speak in public tangential?
If you consider everything other issue than the variance tangential, then why do you keep raising other issues than obtaining a variance, to wit: what phone calls Council member Dan Wolk made, what motions Council member Dan Wolk made when, storm sewer costs, etc. Yet you refuse to answer one simple question which is directly apposite to the issue of obtaining a variance: WHAT ARGUMENT, IN LIGHT OF SWRCB RESOLUTION 92-49 WOULD YOU MAKE THAT IT IS “ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE” FOR DAVIS TO BUILD A SURFACE WATER PROJECT UNTIL IT HAS FULLY PAID OFF ITS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT?
I also find it curious that Council member Greenwald is refusing to take a position on a possible referendum…
With respect to the variance question consider this. A significant source of salt, boron, and selenium loading into the lower San Joaquin River is west-side San Joaquin Valley ag. Discharges from some districts in western Fresno County have contributed 36% of the salt load, 50% of the boron load and 88% of the selenium load to the San Joaquin River (see: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/san_joaquin_se/se_tmdl_rpt.pdf and http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/vernalis_salt_boron/index.shtml). Yet the Regional Board/SWRCB in 2010 allowed a variance for west-side ag from complying with water quality objectives for another 10 years from 2010-2019 (in addition to the variances given since 1995). See: Amendments to The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins To Address Selenium Control In the San Joaquin River Basin at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/grassland_bypass/
Certainly a compelling argument for a variance can be made by the city of Davis that we are taking significant steps toward compliance with our discharge limits by pursuing the surface water project (a cleaner source of water from the standpoint of salt and selenium). I would hope that in our current economic slump the State/Feds would be sympathetic to such an argument.
“One could make an at least equally valid argument that …”
davisite2: Your counter-argument is basically about fiscal infeasibility. I really don’t see this getting much traction with the state regulators. My recollection of the discussion is that the phased increases will bring our final rate up to something very close to the current state average. We’ve been underpaying for our water for many years (at the expense of the environment). I don’t see us getting regulatory relief unless the final rates are significantly out of line with the state average. I also don’t see us getting regulatory relief based on fiscal arguments allegedly made by anonymous sources filtered through Sue.
On the deep aquifer issue, I’ve seen no discussion of what rights we have to this water. I would assume we would have to get a permit from the state? If so, is that even realistic?
And what about competition with UCD for the same water? Will they sue us if we attempt drill enough wells to supply the entire city (thereby putting their existing water infrastructure at risk)?
I don’t believe any special permit is required to use ground water; it is surprisingly unregulated.
UC Davis is presently bringing in Solano Project water to replace some of its deep aquifer water, about 2000 acre feet a year, for potable uses because “Solano Project water is lower in dissolved salts and is considered to be a more reliable long-term supply than the deep aquifer.” They will then be turning around and increasing their deep aquifer pumping in order to provide for West Village, but will be selling about 690 acre feet a year of that to the City of Davis for the next ten years. Overall UCD will be increasing deep aquifer pumping by about 3000 acre feet per year for the next decade, but will be augmenting that with the surface water.
[quote]Certainly a compelling argument for a variance can be made by the city of Davis that we are taking significant steps toward compliance with our discharge limits by pursuing the surface water project (a cleaner source of water from the standpoint of salt and selenium). I would hope that in our current economic slump the State/Feds would be sympathetic to such an argument.[/quote]
Here are my problems with asking for a variance:
1) A variance is only good for 5 years, and only two are allowed. So all we can do is put the surface water project off for 10 years with a variance is my understanding. I am no water expert, so I am just going by what I have read in my research. But we have to argue “fiscal infeasibility” under the criteria laid out in SWRCB Resolution 92-49. I have as yet to see/hear Council member Greenwald make a cogent argument that would convince the SWRCB that it is “economically infeasible” for Davis to build the surface water project based on the new rate structure approved by the City Council. As Voter2010 has pointed out, it brings us in line with average costs throughout the state. Furthermore, I have no idea how Councilmember Greenwald will ever convince the SWRCB to allow us to put off the surface water project until we have fully paid off the wastewater treatment plant, which Council member Greenwald has estimated to be 25 or 30 years.
2) What is our back up plan, if the deep level aquifers do not turn out to be a reliable source of uncontaminated water? Water quality standards are apt to get more, not less stringent in the future. Subsidence and contamination of wells is a definite problem, including wells drawing from the deep level aquifers. There is really no way of telling how long such wells will last.
3) If we don’t build the surface water project, and end up having to drill a bunch of deep wells until we pay off the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, that will considerably add to the cost of the surface water project, and make it even more expensive than it already is.
4) How do we save the money on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, if we don’t build the surface water project first and foremost, as the two UCD experts advocated? Saving on the wastewater treatment plant upgrade was predicated on bringing in cleaner surface water to the city first.
I’m sure there are other issues, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head…
[b]E. Roberts Musser:[/b] I have already answered all of Elaine Roberts Musser’s endless repetitive questions numerous times on previous blog entries. She has not raised any new questions that I have not answered.
To sum it up: A variance process is in place for salinity. Again, salinity management is being reviewed, in part because dealing with the problem at a municipal effluent discharge level has proven to be financially devastating to cities, hasn’t solved the problem, and has the potential to cause serious adverse socio-economic impacts. The variance process was put in place as an interim measure until new salinity levels are put in place which have a good chance of resulting in relief to cities.
We can deal with selenium issues with some more deep aquifer wells, which are a negligible cost compared to the surface water project. Surface water is not critical to the management of the other effluent constituents.
It was suggest by SWRCB that, if council feels that the project is not fiscally feasible at this time due to the need to build a brand new wastewater treatment plant and needs to be postponed, that we apply for this variance. The alternative of applying for a variance would not have been mentioned to me if there was no possibility that we could get one.
[b]TO DAVID GREENWALD:[/b]Y[b]ou are really distorting my arguments when you claim that my arguments rely on information from unnamed experts.[/b]
Although I have received much valuable information from many professionals in the field who are not going to speak publicly against a city policy for obvious reasons, i.e., including that the city is a major employer of professionals in the water field, [b]my arguments do not rely on these professionals.[/b]
Our own rate data shows that the rates will have an extraordinarily negative impact on at least the half of Davis households earn less than $60,000 a year in income, we know from first principles that rates are higher when you paying off two extraordinarily expensive capitol improvement projects than when you pay for one at a time.
It is an established fact that there is a variance process in place that could allow us to postpone the project. This is a verifiable fact, confirmed at a public meeting by our water attorney.
And it is an established fact that council has refused to apply for a variance.
It is an established fact that if we get the variance and decide to postpone the project, that we can complete the project at a later date, when some or all of our waste water treatment plant is paid off.
None of the above requires any information not publicly available.
Don: This primer from Gary Sawyers seems useful.
http://aic.ucdavis.edu/events/outlook05/Sawyer_primer.pdf
My quick amateur’s read is that UCD is an overlying user and the city is an appropriative user – and if/when the rate of usage exceeds the rate of recharge, UCD’s rights to the water would supersede ours.
My take on the sale of 690 af to the city is that this is a quid pro quo that was worked out as part of the broader agreement. I don’t really view this as evidence that they would not assert their rights to the deep aquifer if the aquifer is being overdrafted.
It’s hard for me to envision building a rational strategy around the deep aquifer without some hard evidence about the sustainability of the resource.
Sue:
Are you still in favor of a variance if it ultimately results in a higher interest rate to finance the surface water project? This is a real cost that will have to be borne by the rate payers.
“davisite2: Your counter-argument is basically about fiscal infeasibility”
You are mistaken, voter2012… I was responding to what I thought you were arguing, namely that interest rates on bonds would be higher because of voter resistance to the project, manifest by the referendum, that would make the bond market more wary and level a higher interest rate. My point was that a more stable and healthier economic picture for the city and Davis residents in the future along with much less resistance to more slowly rising rate hikes could result in the Market’s perception of less risk and lower bond rates.
Time for a REFERENDUM. If the water project is such a great deal for Davis then the pro-project people have nothing to worry about. What are they afraid of? If you believe Souza 72% of the voters are for it.
This is a democracy……..LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE………..
“I would urge the owner of Common Grounds not to start allowing political petitions there.”
Just curious, why not Don?
Personally I’ll become a new customer if they do it.
What do Davis and Westlands Water District have in common?
Both are rich but want variances to avoid cleaning up their water discharges.
davisite2: The flaw in your logic is that interest rates will float between now and the time the city reaches your hypothetical state of economic harmony. The 10 year T bill just hit a 60 year low. They will be significantly higher when the economy turns around, if for no other reason than the fed will stop keeping them artificially suppressed to help promote the recovery.
Dear Paul Brady,
Why do you want to support a bunch of no growth nimby’s who are opposed to this because they want to stop all growth. Please support the water project and the growth that would reduce water rates instead. You wrote in the Enterprise that the rates are going up so much because growth is off the table so why capitulate with the people who have stopped growth for years. It the anti- Covell village crowd riding again.
[quote]We expressed concern that Councilmember Greenwald relies on unnamed experts to support her case. She claims that experts have told her that these projects are unnecessary at this time, that the city can get regulatory relief and that the cost of these projects will be far higher than projected.[/quote]David: Despite Sue’s protests, you are absolutely correct in this reporting. For example, Sue posted this on the Davis Enterprise … “One engineer I talked with estimated that our annual water/wastewater/storm water/garbage bills will end up being between $3,600 a year and $4,200 a year.”
This is a two-fer, fear mongering and appeal to authority in a single sentence. The later is obviously quite weak because anonymous authorities carry very little weight.
The fact is that appeal to anonymous authority is one of Sue’s oft-used rhetorical tactics. On the water issue alone, there are literally dozens of examples of this out there if one cared to spend the time to track them all down.
[i]”I would urge the owner of Common Grounds not to start allowing political petitions there.”
Just curious, why not Don?
Personally I’ll become a new customer if they do it.[/i]
I would urge any business owner to be aware of the downside of taking or encouraging a public position on any political issue in this town. I speak to the owner there six mornings a week. I will be happy to share my experiences with him in that regard.
IMO we have some developers and real estate agents posting on here. They hope a huge new expensive water project will lead to more housing and force existing residents to vote for more development to bring down the costs of the project. Well they’re in for a surprise because 75% of this town voted no in the last Measure R election. If that same 75% think this water project is all about future development then they will vote it down come REFERENDUM TIME.
[quote]E. Roberts Musser: I have already answered all of Elaine Roberts Musser’s endless repetitive questions numerous times on previous blog entries. She has not raised any new questions that I have not answered. [/quote]
You still haven’t answered the all important one, to wit:
[quote]Yet you refuse to answer one simple question which is directly apposite to the issue of obtaining a variance: WHAT ARGUMENT, IN LIGHT OF SWRCB RESOLUTION 92-49 WOULD YOU MAKE THAT IT IS “ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE” FOR DAVIS TO BUILD A SURFACE WATER PROJECT UNTIL IT HAS FULLY PAID OFF ITS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT?[/quote]
Rust… get over it… we are NOT a democracy, we are a republic… that being said, the right to referendum is a good safety valve… not sure if it will change the decision, but folks have the right to try… if we were a “true” democracy, we’d have a vote for any conditional use permit, and any other city approval, or at its extreme, any decision made by any worker in the city…. is that what you advocate?
“IMO we have some developers and real estate agents posting on here.”
Just for the record Rusty I am neither. I am a guy who saved for a long time to be able to afford an overpriced home in Davis so my kids can go to decent schools. i think you have it backwards Rusty. Its not the developers who drive up costs its the no growth nimby’s by restricting supply who cause high prices for houses and infrastructure. Come on Rusty remember Reagan and the supply side Laffer curve. It was never more true than in Davis.
What is amazing is that people who have built up tremendous equity by restricting supply are now too cheap to pay for the consequences of their policies instead trying to put off the costs until they are dead.
[b]TO E. ROBERTS MUSSER:[/b] Groan……….Okay Elaine, I’ll just take what’s handy.
I am not a regulator, which is why I get my information from knowledgeable regulators. But after googling SWRCB Resolution 92-49 just as you did, appears to be implementing policy for the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
The paragraph that you quote includes the phrase: [quote]The evaluation of economic feasibility will include consideration of current, planned, or future land use, social, and economic impacts to the surrounding community including property owners other than the discharger.[/quote]I would assume that “property owners other than the discharger” would include the ratepayer.
But whatever this particular paragraph refers to — and I have not studied SWRCB RESOLUTION 92-49 any more than you have, Elaine — the resolution is implementing policy for the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
I don’t have time to read the entire act tonight, but I will quote from a judge’s statement in the decision: City of Tracy v. California State Water Resources Control Board.
The judge writes: [quote]When establishing water quality objectives, Porter-Cologne imposes an affirmative duty on the State to consider a number of factors, including economic considerations — City of Tracy v. California State Water Resources Control Board[/quote]and [quote]When establishing water quality objectives, Water Code section 13241 imposes an affirmative duty on the State to consider a number of factors, including economic considerations. (Water Code § 13241.)—City of Tracy v. California State Water Resources Control Board[/quote]So I really don’t know what you are talking about, Elaine.
[b]Voter2012[/b]: The issue of Davis’ future rates relative to statewide rates is an important issue the raise. You say: [quote]My recollection of the discussion is that the phased increases will bring our final rate up to something very close to the current state average.—voter 2012[/quote]
This claim has been made, but it is plain wrong. Both our water bill and our combined water/wastewater bills will be far higher than the current state average. It will be also higher than the future state average in comparable years. I have been calling around to various cities asking for their 5/6 year projections and have gotten a pretty good sense of this.
Our rates will definitely be higher than average.
Most of your other posts were just too nasty in tone to bother answering.
Seems like buying some time with a variance might be a good idea.
With the variance approved; immediately get going on a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of sustainability of the deep aquifer under various management scenarios; bidding this assessment out to professional water resources engineering firms that have expertise in such groundwater assessments.
–perhaps include possible options like stormwater or other surface water source recharge of the aquifer system
(remember filtration/adsorption/natural chemical and biochemical breakdown removes many common contaminants)
As part of the assessment; maybe drill a few test wells or pilot wells, that might also help to lead us to wise decisions on where to best site other deep water wells.
Such an assessment might take several years and be expensive; but only a small fraction of the cost of the proposed surface water project. Besides, even with the surface water project we might want to continue to use some wells to supplement surface water supply especially during drought periods; would be a good idea to have a better assessment of our groundwater resources.
“David – How do we know the large rate increases will not extend past 5 or 6 years?”
I’m not certain what you mean by this question. The rate hikes will remain for about 30 years to pay off this project. If you are asking how do we know that they will not continue to increase water rates after five years, we don’t know that. All we know if that after five years, there will have to be at least another Prop 218 process to get a sixth year, and if you believe Sue, we’ll have several more after that.
“The Vanguard is clearly advocating for readers to vote against the water rate increases for the surface water project if the push to have a referendum succeeds…”
Where in this article do I state that voters should vote in a theoretical election even, against the water rate increases?
[quote]The judge writes:
When establishing water quality objectives, Porter-Cologne imposes an affirmative duty on the State to consider a number of factors, including economic considerations — City of Tracy v. California State Water Resources Control Board
and
When establishing water quality objectives, Water Code section 13241 imposes an affirmative duty on the State to consider a number of factors, including economic considerations. (Water Code § 13241.)—City of Tracy v. California State Water Resources Control Board
So I really don’t know what you are talking about, Elaine. [/quote]
The Tracy case stands for the proposition that economic factors must be taken into account when the SWRCB makes its decision. It does not stand for the proposition that economic factors alone will be enough to grant a variance. You cannot read the decision in a vacuum or take statements out of context; and you need to listen to what the representative from the SWRCB said about the Tracy decision, who also agreed with my reading of the case.
And yet again you refuse to make a case even now for how you would use SWRCB Resolution 92-49 to argue it is “economically infeasible” for Davis to build the surface water project. I gave several reasons why it would be very difficult to make the argument, and I am still waiting to see how you would get around those problems. Is it because you have no idea how to get around those difficulties? Then why don’t you go ask your unnamed sources how to make the argument, and come back and convince us how it would be done. If you are so sure we can get a variance, you should be able to set out specifically how to make the argument using the criteria required by the SWRCB…
[quote]Where in this article do I state that voters should vote in a theoretical election even, against the water rate increases?[/quote]
Are you truly trying to tell me this article does not advocate for a referendum, and to vote a certain way in that referendum? Really?
[quote]The Vanguard has made its position on the water rate hike very clear over the past few years, including in the last month.[/quote]
[quote]As we reported this weekend, the Vanguard is disappointed a compromise proposed by Dan Wolk could not be agreed to. His proposal would have set a one-time 10% water rate increase for this year, while allowing time to explore various options and approaches.[/quote]
[quote]At the same time, it could have allowed for further investigation into cost savings, and perhaps even the delay in the project that Ms. Greenwald had been seeking for some time.[/quote]
[quote]The lack of a compromise means that the council-approved rate increase of 14% each year for the next five years will go into effect unless the opposition decides to put the matter on the ballot. If on the ballot, the voters, operating under majority rule principles of 50% plus one vote of those who show up to the polls, will decide on the approval of the rate increase, as opposed to the arcane and fundamentally undemocratic Prop 218 procedures that exclude non-ratepayers and count non-votes as support.[/quote]
[quote]I think Sue Greenwald makes a strong case that the “rate decrease [from the original projections] that is being hyped is not real.”[/quote]
[quote]The Vanguard always wants to hear all sides of the story in order to make a more informed decision and in order to better inform the public. However, we note as we have several times, that we do not think that experts have come forward with the full information.[quote]
[quote]Can we not make the case then that the public has rejected the project, that the economics and finances are not right now, but we are going to be finding a way to make this work? I don’t know the answer to that, but there seems to be a lot more leeway than the city has implied.[/quote]
[quote]This just does not appear to be nearly the threat and urgency that has been sold to the public. The state may do it, but they have only done it under extreme circumstances.
Based on this, I question that we had to do this project right now. If we don’t have to do the project right now, then we can look into delaying it until the economic times are better.[/quote]
[quote]Will a referendum happen? We believe it to be more likely than not, at this point.
Can it succeed? We believe it will be difficult, but not impossible.[/quote]
Are you really trying to argue to readers that the Vanguard is not advocating a position here or how someone should vote on a referendum, merely “reporting just the facts ma’am”? If yes, then I would respond “Your nose is growing very long Pinocchio”…
I’m advocating for a R E F E R E N D U M.
ERM, this is a huge deal for the residents of Davis which will effect them and their pocketbooks for many years if not forever. Knowing that, don’t you think we should have a vote? I’m not saying that we should have a vote on everything that comes out of the council, but something this important deserves to go to the people. I mean after all, if we got to vote on Target then certainly we should get to vote on the water project.
rusty, did you feel the voters of California should have had the opportunity to vote on the tax extensions as proposed by Gov. Brown?
@Sue Greenwald:[quote] Both our water bill and our combined water/wastewater bills will be far higher than the current state average. It will be also higher than the future state average in comparable years. I have been calling around to various cities asking for their 5/6 year projections and have gotten a pretty good sense of this.[/quote]So please share your numbers since you’ve invested the effort in pulling this information together.
[b]Elaine Musser:[/b] [quote]And yet again you refuse to make a case even now for how you would use SWRCB Resolution 92-49 to argue it is “economically infeasible” for Davis to build the surface water project.—E. Roberts Musser [/quote]I thought it was obvious, Elaine. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state has an obligation to consider economic factors.
Our per unit new capital costs and water purchase costs alone come to about $12,000 per unit. We have to operate two separate water systems. Our water/wastewater rates will our far, far higher than the average in the region. They will be high by statewide standards. Most of the areas with equally high rates are coastal, and they have far, far lower air conditioning/heating costs, so our total utility bills will be off the map. Half of our households makes under $60,000 a year.
We are a University town trying to attract high-tech industry nationally, and our water/wastewater rates will be far, far higher than national rates.
That’s for starters. We can make a very good case.
Voter 2012: You can be sure that I will be presenting this data when I have it together.
[quote]ERM, this is a huge deal for the residents of Davis which will effect them and their pocketbooks for many years if not forever. Knowing that, don’t you think we should have a vote? I’m not saying that we should have a vote on everything that comes out of the council, but something this important deserves to go to the people. I mean after all, if we got to vote on Target then certainly we should get to vote on the water project.[/quote]
It is up to citizens if they want to have approval/disapproval of the water rate increases a decision of the registered voters of Davis. I’m assuming the detractors of the surface water project figure renters will come out in droves to oppose the project, that were not permitted to protest in the Prop 218 process…
[b]E. ROBERTS MUSSER:[/b][quote]Are you really trying to argue to readers that the Vanguard is not advocating a position here or how someone should vote on a referendum, merely “reporting just the facts ma’am”? If yes, [b]then I would respond “YOUR NOSE IS GROWING VERY LONG PINOCCHIO”[/b]..[b].E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]This is Elaine Musser talking about David Greenwald. In a recent article, Elaine went on for pages scolding and haranguing me for referring to a one year rate increase as being less honest than a five year rate increase if the maker of the motion for the one year rate increase refused to support applying for a variance, thereby making the five year rate increase inevitable.
Elaine rebuked me for calling one motion less honest than another motion, and then turns around and makes a very similar accusation herself — but makes it in a snide rather than straightforward fashion.
Just an observation…
[quote]We can make a very good case. [/quote]
SWRCB Resolution 92-49:
quote]1. The Regional Water Board shall determine whether water quality objectives can reasonably be achieved within a reasonable period by considering what is technologically and economically feasible and shall take into account environmental characteristics of the hydrogeologic unit under consideration and the degree of impact of any remaining pollutants pursuant to Section III.H.3. The Regional Water Board shall evaluate information provided by the discharger and any other information available to it:
a. Technological feasibility is determined by assessing available technologies, which have been shown to be effective under similar hydrogeologic conditions in reducing the concentration of the constituents of concern. Bench-scale or pilot-scale studies may be necessary to make this feasibility assessment;
b. Economic feasibility is an objective balancing of the incremental benefit of attaining further reductions in the concentrations of constituents of concern as compared with the incremental cost of achieving those reductions. The evaluation of economic feasibility will include consideration of current, planned, or future land use, social, and economic impacts to the surrounding community including property owners other than the discharger. Economic feasibility, in this Policy, does not refer to the discharger’s ability to finance cleanup. Availability of financial resources should be considered in the establishment of reasonable compliance schedules;
c. The Regional Water Board may make determinations of technological or economic infeasibility after a discharger either implements a cleanup program pursuant to III.G. which cannot reasonably attain cleanup objectives, or demonstrates that it is unreasonable to cleanup to water quality objectives, and may make determinations on the basis of projection, modeling, or other analysis of site-specific data without necessarily requiring that remedial measures be first constructed or installed and operated and their performance reviewed over time unless such projection, modeling, or other analysis is insufficient or inadequate to make such determinations;
[/quote]
Where the hang-ups are for “economic feasibility arguments:
1) “…whether water quality objectives can reasonably be achieved within a reasonable period”;
2) “…Economic feasibility is an objective balancing of the incremental benefit of attaining further reductions in the concentrations of constituents of concern as compared with the incremental cost of achieving those reductions.”
3) “…Availability of financial resources should be considered in the establishment of reasonable compliance schedules…”
4) “…The Regional Water Board may make determinations of technological or economic infeasibility after a discharger …demonstrates that it is unreasonable to cleanup to water quality objectives, and may make determinations on the basis of projection, modeling, or other analysis of site-specific data without necessarily requiring that remedial measures be first constructed or installed and operated and their performance reviewed over time unless such projection, modeling, or other analysis is insufficient or inadequate to make such determinations…”
[quote]I thought it was obvious, Elaine. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the state has an obligation to consider economic factors. [/quote]
Not that I know of.
[quote]27. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
allows Regional Water Boards to impose more stringent requirements on discharges of waste than any statewide requirements promulgated by the State Water Board (e.g., in this Policy) or than water quality objectives established in statewide or regional water quality control plans as needed to protect water quality and to reflect regional and site-specific conditions; and
[/quote]
The economic infeasibility argument is set out in SWRCB Resolution 92-49 in so far as I am aware.
ERM:
“It is up to citizens if they want to have approval/disapproval of the water rate increases a decision of the registered voters of Davis. I’m assuming the detractors of the surface water project figure renters will come out in droves to oppose the project, that were not permitted to protest in the Prop 218 process…”
I think that a majority of the people who received the Prop 218 notice were against the rate hikes but just didn’t bother or know about sending in the form. Many received what they thought was just a mailer and threw it out or figured it was a waste of time do to the high bar. Renters or not, this project is going down.
Sue, keep up the good work, you speak for the people.
[b]E. ROBERTS MUSSER[/b]: We’ll try it once more Elaine, since I don’t think it is right for you to keep obscuring the point that we can make a good case for economic infeasibility.
You keep quoting the same few paragraphs from SWRCB Resolution 92-49, which is an implementing policy for the Porter-Cologne Act written in 1993. The Porter-Cologne Act states that economic considerations should be taken into account, whether you are “aware of it” or not.
Within the paragraphs of the implementing policy that you are quoting over and over and over again is the phrase: [quote]The evaluation of economic feasibility will include consideration of current, planned, or future land use, social, and economic impacts to the surrounding community including property owners…..[/quote]It is pretty clear that the SWRCB has the ability to decide that the project would have an acceptable negative impact on the community and property owners.
I never said it was a guarantee, but project proponents cannot credibly argue that we have exhausted our regulatory remedies; they cannot argue that we “have to do the project now” and that postponement of the surface water project would be more costly than undertaking the wastewater and surface water mega-projects simultaneously.
Correction:
It is clear that the SWRCB has the ability to decide that the project would have an [b]unacceptable[/b] negative impact on the community and property owners.
Dear Mr Toad,
It is over for growth in Davis, at least for another decade, and possibly beyond! We have a de facto no growth measure in place. I do not agree with it and worry about possible decay of our city, as we know it, if we have to close parks, pools and schools. The NIMBYs may find that, in decay, their house prices are not protected. We did grow 3% in the last decade due to residual building, but I fear that only West Village on UCD will grow, and they have their own water supply, and other facilities.
Paul Brady
Paul,
I disagree that this is about growth. It is about rates that will be out of the ballpark in our entire region and very high by statewide standards. It is about intelligent capitol improvement planning; it is about making steady progress on updating our infrastructure by phasing in the largest-ticket items.
It is about building our required new waste treatment plant AND securing river water, but doing so in a manner that will not result in fiscal disaster for the city and for its citizens.
Anyone who thinks that growth will buy our way into prosperity or out of the water infrastructure fiasco does not understand the effects of growth on the city budget.
New housing costs significantly more to service than it brings in revenue and even high tech and offices do net bring significant net new revenue. And even if you just isolate the $280 million and more of water/wastewater costs; it would take so much growth to effect these rates that we probably couldn’t do it if we wanted (look at Spring Lake in Woodland).
This is especially true because we get such a poor property tax split with the county when we annex new land for development.
And if we could double the size of the city with revenue-losing housing to bring down water/sewer costs, we would have additional water/sewer costs as well as additional infrastructure costs as a result of the new development.
No, new development will neither help significantly with the water/sewer costs nor with the other elements comprising the fiscal health of the city.
Growth is irrelevant to this issue. If either the pro-phasing-in side or the anti-phasing-in side thinks that it will promote development or be solved by development, they are mistaken.
If we sell our treated wastewater just as Sacramento was just allowed to do and we take a portion of the value added to properties granted development rights secured by this new water we can certainly make a dent in the costs and the savings can reduce the rate increases foe existing users. There is clearly another way to proceed.
@Sue Greenwald[quote]Voter 2012: You can be sure that I will be presenting this data when I have it together.[/quote]David: Perhaps you could get these numbers when you meet with the city
Sue – I also disagree with Mr Toad that it is about growth; it is about cost and the money [$15 – $20 million] that will leave Davis each year. I looked at CA muni bond rates for the 20 to 25 years bonds that staff is proposing to fund the surface [river and Conway Ranch], and it will be that costly.
Sue – How do we know the large rate increases will not extend beyond six years?
There will be some conservation – reduction in use, and hence city revenue. Out here in Willowbank we are already paying close to $100 per month as we have large lots with veggie gardens, small orchards, pools, etc. [We do not even send waste water to the waste-water plant or the Delta.] Can the city just impose on us another round of rate increases?
Sue – I also disagree with Mr Toad that it is about growth; it is about cost and the money [$15 – $20 million] that will leave Davis each year. I looked at CA muni bond rates for the 20 to 25 years bonds that staff is proposing to fund the surface [river and Conway Ranch], and it will be that costly.
Sue – How do we know the large rate increases will not extend beyond six years?
There will be some conservation – reduction in use, and hence city revenue. Out here in Willowbank we are already paying close to $100 per month as we have large lots with veggie gardens, small orchards, pools, etc. [We do not even send waste water to the waste-water plant or the Delta.] Can the city just impose on us another round of rate increases?
ERM – thanks for staying on this with Sue, and not falling into making it personal, as Sue as started to do now. You are asking questions for which she doesn’t have an answer, and they are important questions.
Sue – I trust that when you compare Davis’ future water rates with those of other communities, that you’ll keep the comparison group to those that are ameliorating water quality issues. It wouldn’t be appropriate to compare our rates with, lets just say, a city which chose to take Lake Berryessa water 40 years ago, and now has no water quality problem. Those cities which either have no issues with violating water quality issues or which chose to deal with years ago at lower costs shouldn’t be in the comparison group.
[quote]I trust that when you compare Davis’ future water rates with those of other communities, that you’ll keep the comparison group to those that are ameliorating water quality issues. It wouldn’t be appropriate to compare our rates with, lets just say, a city which chose to take Lake Berryessa water 40 years ago, and now has no water quality problem. Those cities which either have no issues with violating water quality issues or which chose to deal with years ago at lower costs shouldn’t be in the comparison group.[/quote]Adam Smith: Great point about the comparison methodology. Hopefully, the staff has already prepared comps and can stratify the data based on water quality issues as you suggest. If not, this is something Pinkerton should take corrective action on ASAP.
[quote]Sue – How do we know the large rate increases will not extend beyond six years? There will be some conservation – reduction in use, and hence city revenue.—[b]-pbradyus[/b][/quote]Sorry Paul, I misunderstood you. There will be rate increases after the six year period, but they will probably not be as large as the ones during the next six years, unless we end up with large storm water costs. And conservation will have little effect on costs, because the city will have no choice but to raise rates if there is more conservation than expected.
[b]Adam Smith[/b] It’s fine to support Elaine Musser if you agree with her, but it is not fine implying that I have am being personal because I asked Elaine not be to personal and to be consistent. And I am simply trying to get a true sense of Davis’ relevant water/wastewater costs because it has been falsely claimed that Davis’ costs won’t be higher than average. I am comparing the cost/benefit of doing the project now versus trying to postpone the project until our waste water costs are partly or wholly paid off in order to keep rates manageable, which has nothing to do with whether other cities have manageable rates because they have Berryessa water.
[b]Voter 2012:[/b] I have been asking staff to get the real figures on other city’s projected water/sewer/garbage rates in 5/6 years, but the information is not readily available and takes direct phone calls. I have spent hours on trying to get the information with modest success. I have learned that in a few cities known for high water/garbage costs, our costs will be as high or higher, and most of these cities have far lower air/conditioning and heating costs.
Further explanation regarding comparative rates: While it is difficult to obtain the 5/6 year rates of other cities, we can compare their rates today with ours in 5/6 years. Our rates will be much higher, and no one is planning major new surface water projects, so it is clear that our future rates will be higher.
I called a few cities known as high water-cost cities that are doing other major infrastructure projects, and our rates will still higher than average and these are cites with low air/conditioning heating costs.
Of course we can find a few cities that will be higher; I suspect most among this handful will be far more affluent as well.
[i]I am comparing the cost/benefit of doing the project now versus trying to postpone the project until our waste water costs are partly or wholly paid off in order to keep rates manageable, which has nothing to do with whether other cities have manageable rates because they have Berryessa water. [/i]
Sue – my point is that some cities made a decision years ago, at a time when upgrading or moving away from well water was much less expensive in nominal dollar terms than compliance will cost us today. Their citizens paid fees for years for their prescient decision – it would be inappropriate for you to compare Davis’ water rates after our upgrade to cities which made those sacrifices years ago and then claim that our rates are “out of line”.
[quote]economic considerations should be taken into account,[/quote]
I have never denied that economic considerations have to be taken into account, as SWRCB Resolution 92-49 and the Tracy decision have made clear. I DID THE RESEARCH FOR YOU (BECAUSE YOU REFUSED TO DO IT) TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE TO DETERMINE ECONOMIC INFEASIBILITY – and I did not rely on “unnamed experts” for my information.
However economic considerations having to be “taken into account” is NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING IF RATEPAYERS DECIDE THEY DON’T WANT TO PAY, THEY CAN JUST CLAIM “ECONOMIC INFEASIBILITY”. NEVER HAVE YOU EXPLAINED HOW THE CITY OF DAVIS IS GOING TO GET AROUND THE FOLLOWING PROBLEMS AS SET OUT IN SWRCB RESOLUTION 92-49:
[quote]1) “…whether water quality objectives can reasonably be achieved [u]within a reasonable period[/u]”;
2) “…Economic feasibility [u]is an objective balancing[/u] of the incremental benefit of attaining further reductions in the concentrations of constituents of concern as compared with the incremental cost of achieving those reductions.”
3) “…Availability of financial resources should be considered in the establishment of [u]reasonable compliance schedules[/u]…”
4) “…The Regional Water Board may make determinations of technological or economic infeasibility after a discharger …demonstrates that it is unreasonable to cleanup to water quality objectives, and may make determinations on the basis of projection, modeling, or other analysis of site-specific data without necessarily requiring that remedial measures be first constructed or installed and operated and their performance reviewed over time unless such projection, modeling, or other analysis is insufficient or inadequate to make such determinations…”[/quote]
In the 4th point, I wanted to underline “…demonstrates that it is unreasonable to cleanup to water quality objectives, and may make determinations on the basis of projection, modeling, or other analysis…
On a further point, Councilmember Greenwald, you have argued for a variance until we finish paying off the wastewater treatment plant, which you have estimated to be 25 years. But variances, in so far as I am aware from my research, can only be granted for at most 10 years. So we will of necessity be paying for both projects at the same time.
You have also been advocating if we put off the surface water project 25 years (which we cannot do as far as I can tell), we can dig more deep wells, which are a lot cheaper than instituting the surface water project. But then you turn around and say we should build the surface water project, which you concede we do need, only after we have paid off the surface water project (which is not true – we can only put it off for 10 years at most). So now we would have to pay not only for the surface water project, which will probably be more expensive bc interest rates and construction costs will have increased from their current record lows, but add in all the costs of the deep wells we had to dig in the meantime. And the fines for the 15 years we were unable to get the variance. Delay does nothing but make the cost of this project which you even concede we need MORE EXPENSIVE IN THE LONG RUN.
But frankly, by then, you will probably be out of office and won’t have to take the blow back from the community when the chickens come home to roost.
[quote]Within the paragraphs of the implementing policy that you are quoting over and over and over again is the phrase:
The evaluation of economic feasibility will include consideration of current, planned, or future land use, social, and economic impacts to the surrounding community including property owners…..
It is pretty clear that the SWRCB has the ability to decide that the project would have an acceptable negative impact on the community and property owners.
[/quote]
“Consideration of” does not equate to a guarantee or even a likelihood. It is just what it says – economic impacts is a consideration among many factors.
[quote]Correction:
It is clear that the SWRCB has the ability to decide that the project would have an unacceptable negative impact on the community and property owners. [/quote]
The question is not whether the SWRCB has the “ability” to decide if a project would have an unacceptable negative impact; but whether the SWRCB would “LIKELY” decide a project would have an unacceptable negative impact IN LIGHT OF THAT PARTICULAR JURISDICTIONS CIRCUMSTANCES. Thus far a representative from the SWRCB has stated in public it is not likely; your unnamed experts say it is likely. Which is more credible – someone who goes on the record and can be held accountable for their words, or unnamed resources who refuse to state what they are whispering in your ear but won’t say in public?
[quote]Sue – my point is that some cities made a decision years ago, at a time when upgrading or moving away from well water was much less expensive in nominal dollar terms than compliance will cost us today. Their citizens paid fees for years for their prescient decision – it would be inappropriate for you to compare Davis’ water rates after our upgrade to cities which made those sacrifices years ago and then claim that our rates are “out of line”.[/quote]
Excellent point.
ERM: In my opinion, the problem you are having in this debate is that you are talking about public policy and Sue is talking about a platform for her re-election campaign. As a consequence, you are doomed to an endless circular argument that goes nowhere.
The scenario I see is that the referendum goes on the ballot in June 2012 with Sue as the populist candidate leading a ratepayer revolt. I hope I’m wrong.
12 years is enough.
“- my point is that some cities made a decision years ago, at a time when upgrading or moving away from well water was much less expensive in nominal dollar terms than compliance will cost us today”
Above comment is irrelevant.The housing bubble was expanding, generating what was believed to be an unending and growing revenue stream into city coffers. State and Federal monies were available to support public infra-structure projects. It is useless and counterproductive to look back and moan about what ifs.
“There is clearly another way to proceed.
In case anyone hasn’t noticed, the surface water project has many of the elements,i.e.. political, bureaucratic and special interest features , that gave us the CA energy deregulation fiasco. A referendum victory will offer the opportunity to review and analyze the project’s assumptions and important data that as yet has not been gathered.
[quote]The question is not whether the SWRCB has the “ability” to decide if a project would have an unacceptable negative impact; but whether the SWRCB would “LIKELY” decide a project would have an unacceptable negative impact –[b]-E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, the variance process is being but in place to give cities up to ten years leeway while the state revises its salinity management program. The board, not one individual staffer, will make the decision. There is no reason to believe that Davis couldn’t get a variance at this point, given the purpose the process was put in place to serve.
There is no risk whatsoever in working towards it; it would give the city options concerning the timing of the project. The city doesn’t even know how much the project will really cost at this time, or what interest rates will be.
The cost of working for a variance is budget dust in the scope of the $300 million or higher, and possibly higher cost of the surface water.
Having options is critical.