Can We Be Both Cost Conscious and Socially Responsible? And what if we cannot?
The Vanguard yesterday met for nearly two hours with city staff and Mayor Krovoza on the water issue. There will likely be follow-up meetings, as well. The Vanguard’s focus at this meeting was not in rehashing the debate so far, but in trying to understand the process moving forward.
DBO stands for Design – Build – Operate. As the name implies, the contract means that the same group of companies would be involved in designing, building, and then operating (at least initially) the water project.
There is a big advantage here, according to the city. It puts all of the risk on the company, it locks in the bid to a price certainty, and it puts most of the cost upfront. The city argued that this would also eliminate change-orders, unless they represented major changes to the project itself.
The argument from the city is that this is the best way to lock in and contain costs.
It is an expensive process upfront. The Clean Water Agency will have to pay about $250,000 apiece to evaluate the bids and decide which one is the best. However, that pales in comparison to the companies, which will have to put up around $1 million in order to be in position to win the bid.
This puts most of the risk on the company itself.
The city argues that the current number of three is a good number from a practical standpoint. It forces the bidders to be serious and to take the process seriously. The more competitors, the more the competition is diffused and the chance for any one company to win the bid is less, and therefore the likelihood of the critical work upfront being fully implemented is reduced.
The CWA has already selected three finalists: CDM Constructors, CH2M Hill and Veolia Water. A fourth company last meeting attempted to be included in the RFP process, however, they did not get the three votes needed.
There was a belief that the fourth company finished a distant fourth, and that would force them into a low bid in order to compensate, which would put the CWA in a tough position.
The problem, as we reported back in early September, is that two of these three company-teams have some problems.
For Veolia, the problem is that their transportation division, which is somewhat separate from their water division, has a contract to operate buses in Israel. The complaint has arisen that Veolia operates buses that are only for Jewish passengers who travel on Jewish-only roads.
As the city pointed out, the problem here is that Veolia’s transportation division operates in Israel, and Israel discriminates. They acknowledged that was a judgment issue.
Activists in Davis have written a letter asking that Veolia be disqualified from the DBO process on this basis.
“Given the complicity of Veolia in Israel’s violation of international law, and, therefore, Veolia’s violation of its own code of conduct, as well as its violation of the non-discrimination principles established by the Human Relations Commission, we request that the Board of the Clean Water Agency disqualify Veolia from participating further in the bidding, design and construction process,” wrote Davis residents, Mikos Fabersunne, Mary Wind and Mike Pach.
Perhaps more concerning, however, is United Water, which is a subcontractor under CDM.
Anonymous letters have been sent to the CWA and council, showing documents that highlighted a 26-count federal indictment issued last December against United Water and two of its managers for alleged environmental felonies at a wastewater treatment plant in Gary, Indiana.
According to the letter, “The company and the two managers have pleaded not guilty in the case, and United Water asserts that the charges are ‘unfounded.’ “
“We are also writing to advise you about internal company emails recently released by prosecutors showing that certain other United Water managers were aware of evidence of improper E. coli sampling practices at the Gary plant as early as 2003. Even so, prosecutors allege that United Water management in Gary continued those practices until 2008, when federal agents executed a search warrant at the facility,” they write.
According to a December 8 federal grand jury indictment, “United Water and two of its managers at the Gary plant intentionally manipulated water quality monitoring results at the facility over a five-year period between 2003 and 2008. The indictment charges the company with 25 counts of Clean Water Act violations and one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Government by tampering with E. coli bacteria monitoring results.”
United Water responded to the letter, with President Robert Iacullo stating that “the government’s claim is, at best, a disagreement about operating and monitoring methods, with no allegation of environmental harm.”
The UWUA (Utility Workers Union of America) letter indicates, “In our view, this effort to discount the seriousness of the allegations contained in the indictment is deeply disturbing. United Water stands accused by federal prosecutors of having intentionally tampered with E. coli monitoring tests at the Gary plant over a five-year period in order to boost its profits. If convicted, the two indicted managers could face decades in prison, and the company subjected to a significant fine, probation, or both.”
They add, “We believe that, if true, these allegations represent far more than a mere ‘disagreement’ about ‘operating and monitoring methods,’ as claimed by the company.”
The United Water situation is both a matter of serious allegations and likely to cause messiness.
While the United Water situation is more serious and the Veolia situation is more of a political landmine, it is not clear that the city or CWA is prepared to eliminate any of these companies, particularly given the fact that there are problems potentially with CH2M Hill and the fourth company, Balfour Beatty, which also appears to be well behind the others.
As the city explained to the Vanguard, this is a huge project, and the DBO is a 15-year operation period. This magnitude of project requires a big company to run it properly. And from the city’s perspective, they appear prepared to acknowledge that they might have to do business with less-than-ethical huge multinational companies in order to make this project more affordable.
It sets up a horrendous choice between cost savings to the ratepayer and environmental and social responsibility in a community that claims these mantras as part of their raison d’etre.
They point out the need for big firms to do the building and operating portions of the DBO piece. Moreover, these companies generally rely on their employees to manage these projects, but hire local labor to do the building and operating. This is why so many unions came forward to support the project.
The belief seems to exist that the city is just not going to be able to find a company of this size and expertise that comes through completely clean.
The dilemma here is very interesting. And for people concerned with social justice, it points to a big problem of having these types of large-scale projects and trying to keep the costs contained.
The Vanguard does not have a great answer here, but instead feels compelled to raise the issue.
The issue is not settled by any means. They spent only 20 minutes on the big process on Thursday and need to have a follow-up meeting, perhaps in mid to late October, to continue that discussion.
In the meantime, people need to weigh in. The idea that we cannot be cost-efficient and socially responsible at the same time is very troubling. We hope that there can be a better way, if indeed this project goes forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good article but question your statement that the fourth company did not get the votes at Thursday’s CWA mtg. Bill Marble had left the mtg and there were only 3 commissioners there, it did not appear to be unanimous and so Steve Souza carried the issue forward to the next mtg.
I agree this is a conundrum, but I am not convinced there aren’t other companies who could bid.
Were you convinced by the city and mayor?
I also wonder whether the ‘operate’ part is in our best interests as a city VS public running of it. Seems we could be joined with a questionable company for many years beyond the build. This issue may become another reason folks vote for the referendum.
Veolia Transportation Services currently operates Yolo Bus. How’d that one not get mentioned in your article? Consider that Yolobus serves our community. By extension we are then complicit in Veolia’s abuse of human rights? Bull.
“How’d that one not get mentioned in your article? “
Probably because I didn’t know.
“By extension we are then complicit in Veolia’s abuse of human rights?”
I know you’re answer, I’m not so certain.
“Were you convinced by the city and mayor? “
They convinced me it was a quandary, but I think for me the bigger program is trying to do a huge project brings us into the realm of the giants and monsters of the business world.
The Vanguard has fallen into a trap by repeating slanderous accusations made by those who hate Jews. This is not so surprising, perhaps, as these lies have been widely spread. But a little research would have shown that they are incorrect and have been withdrawn and corrected by reputable media.
The charge that dmg makes here, that Veolia operates buses that are only for Jewish passengers who travel on Jewish-only roads, is false. In fact, there are no Jewish only roads in Israel or in the disputed territories.
See for example the Washington Post discussion of this issue,
[url]http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=38&x_article=1791[/url]
This kind of lie is repeated often by bashers of Israel and by anti-semites who attack Jews indirectly by false accusations agains Israel. Their motivation is obvious to those who bother to look.
[quote]For Veolia, the problem is that their transportation division, which is somewhat separate from their water division, has a contract to operate buses in Israel. The complaint has arisen that Veolia operates buses that are only for Jewish passengers who travel on Jewish-only roads.[/quote]
This is just plain silly. As an above commenter has pointed out,”Veolia Transportation Services currently operates Yolo Bus”. How many of you purchase goods made in China, a notorious human rights violator? How many of you purchase goods made in child sweat shops in third world countries?
As for United Water, that is far more troubling. They have been accused of some serious wrongdoing directly related to their job of DBO in regard to the integrity of water projects, which should give pause. While it is true “innocent until proven guilty”, at the same time the allegations themselves if true, don’t bode well for this company. Not to mention there is likely to be either lengthy litigation, or an out of court settlement where the details are buried in some sort of non-disclosure agreement.
[quote]The idea that we cannot be cost-efficient and socially responsible at the same time is very troubling. [/quote]
Socially responsible according to whose values? A few Davisites who hypocritically cry foul on Israeli goods, don’t seem to have any desire to condemn the behavior of terrorists, but have no problem importing from China or the child sweat shops from India? They cannot have it both ways…
[i]”This kind of lie is repeated often by bashers of Israel and by anti-semites who attack Jews indirectly by false accusations agains Israel.”[/i]
No honest or decent person should trust a single word out of the mouth or typewriter of Mikos Fabersunne. His life cause is to hate, demean and discriminate against Israel. He has never once had a bad word to say about the murderous regimes in Syria or Iran. He has never spoken out against the homicidal maniacs of Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda. Before it fell, he was entirely silent regarding the megalomaniacal state of Ghadhafi’s Libya. He appears to have nothing against the terrorist regime of Hamas in Gaza. But in hundreds of letters to the Enterprise and in other activities beyond words, he has attacked Israel, often falsely as he did here. Israel is by no means perfect. But it sure says something rotten about the attacker of the Jewish state when Israel is by any measure the freest, most democratic, most decent and most civil country in the entire Middle East and no other country or people is even close to being as free or democratic.
As to Veolia, I think there are reasons to doubt whether that operator is a good fit for us. Veolia runs the wastewater treatment plant in Richmond, and according to this recent story ([url]http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_18890515[/url]) in the SJ Merc, the people of Richmond have been unhappy with Veolia’s operations: [quote] Veolia Water will continue to treat Richmond’s sewage through the fall, but the city has made clear that it is unhappy with the company’s performance. City Council members voted Tuesday to wait until December to decide whether to cancel the treatment company’s contract, though some residents urged them to cancel it on the spot.
The council shut down some operations at the Veolia plant in October after tears in a digester cover released the rotten egg-smelling gas produced in breakdown of organic material. At the time, residents near the Point Richmond plant reported symptoms of exposure including vomiting, headaches, eye irritation and breathing troubles.[/quote] Upset by its service record, voters in Novato last year terminated the water contract their city had with Veolia. I suspect the feelings of the people of Novato about this operator will eventually be shared by the people of Davis and Woodland.
If we are to have this new water works, it seems to me the cities of Davis and Woodland ought to operate it, just as each now operates its own well-water system. I realize this adds some financial risk to the equation. However, I think the greater risk is to get into a long-term deal with a for-profit enterprise.
My experience (having observed governments) is that those kinds of businesses will often end up benefitting themselves by bribing our elected officials. Veolia has a long record of pouring millions of dollars into campaign coffers. Outside of our fire union, we have not had the problem locally where the city’s workers have tried to bribe elected officials. Our greater problem with labor deals is largely that we have elected people who have not cared about the interests of the taxpayers. Hopefully we will elect better people in the future.
Another possible option would be to have the lowest qualified bidder to design and build the water system and then have an outside public agency, such as the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities operate the system for the short run. That agency has the experience of running a similar operation. They have the management and labor skills needed. After say 5 years or so, the operations could then be taken over by Davis and Woodland.
[quote][i]”There was a belief that the fourth company finished a distant fourth, and that would force them into a low bid in order to compensate, which would put the CWA in a tough position.”[/i][/quote] Who expressed this belief? What do they think will be the “tough position” for the agency if the fourth company bid?
On the surface, it seems that the fourth company’s participation would have added encouragement to the other three “to be serious and to take the process seriously” and come in with lower bids themselves, assuming all companies still will be in at the end.
Depending on the what were the perceived shortcomings, could they have been corrected during the next steps? Maybe this should be reconsidered if SODA’s report is correct.
That three will be equally competitive seems a little questionable from your reports. The agency would be in a [u]really[/u] “tough position” if United Water still taints CDM (indictment or conviction?) when decision time arrives.
How could our leaders possibly justify selecting a company charged with or convicted of this type of environmental lawbreaking to D-B-O this type of project?[quote][i]”As the city pointed out, the problem here is that Veolia’s transportation division operates in Israel, and Israel discriminates. They acknowledged that was a judgment issue.”[/i][/quote]Who expressed this belief? What do they think is a “judgment issue” for Davis if a French multinational company has a another subsidiary facing allegations from a political boycott group?
Did “the city” point out how much of this kind of “judgment” already had to go into allowing Veolia Water into the first cut? I’m surprised that someone in Davis government has bought into this “dump Veolia” campaign and would be publicly expressing it to be part of the judgment that will be (or has been?) brought into water agency decisions. [b]David[/b], is this the opinion of our mayor or of city staff (which?) or both?
Veolia Water’s issue is much less problematic than United Water’s, in my opinion. Indictments from the Justice Department have to carry much more weight with the water agency than questionable charges from a group that’s trying to bring down a large company because they deal with an enemy country.
I’m not interested in seeing another lengthy debate about whether Israelis or Palestinians are morally superior. But, I do think we should known which official(s) think this should be part of our city’s decision-making on this project.
Are all large companies “evil”? Given all this commotion about two of the Davis bidders, I checked on buying stock in CH2M Hill, but the employees seem to own the whole thing. Maybe I can find someplace in Reno to lay down a bet, since their chances are even more enhanced by what I found at their website (three years running!): [img]http://www.ch2m.com/corporate/images/WME-2011-180.jpg[/img]
Since I’m one of those un-PC people who shop at big box stores and hoard plastic bags, I’ll go on record as saying that if we actually have to choose between being *cost conscious* and *socially responsible*, my choice is to save the taxpayers money.
[quote][i]”Another possible option would be to have the lowest qualified bidder to design and build the water system and then have an outside public agency, such as the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities operate the system for the short run.”[/i][/quote]Or, have an appropriate length of training time built into the contact.
How’s privatization of traditional public utilities working out for everyone? I’d even like to have back my old Davis Community Cable.
[quote][i]”The Vanguard yesterday met for nearly two hours with city staff and Mayor Krovoza on the water issue.”[/i][/quote]Congratulations, David. I think it’s valuable for the [u]Vanguard[/u] to report more extended conversations with the town leaders. It adds a lot to the coverage that you do based on documents, tips, etc. I like to know what the newsmakers’ reactions are to the stories you’re developing.
In the future, I hope you’ll be able to quote and attribute more in these interview stories. This particular one obviously isn’t “on background,” yet doesn’t directly quote anyone (or even name any interviewee other than the mayor).
“The city argues..it was a belief…as the city pointed out…as the city explained to the Vanguard…the belief seems to exist”–all would benefit from reporting whether it was the mayor or city manager or someone else speaking for the city
Looking forward to more, in-depth interviews with Davis officials in the [u]Vanguard[/u]….
In case you haven’t seen this, here’s a corporate profile of Veolia from Public Citizen: http://www.citizen.org/documents/Vivendi-USFilter.pdf
[i]”How’s privatization of traditional public utilities working out for everyone?”[/i]
For those who have an ideological bent toward private enterprises running businesses I think you always have to ask the question: is this a competitive enterprise or it the “private” business in a monopolistic situation?
In the case of providing water or electricity or even garbage services*, these are natural monopolies. (Cable is a bit different in that it has to compete with wireless satellite providers.) So the next question is: is it better to have a private business run the monopoly (such as PG&E does in Davis) or is it better to have a public company (such as SMUD in Sacramento)?
I am not one way or the other on this question. To me it is a matter of pragmatism: which company can provide the best service at the lowest cost for the long term. If the private operator is paying off politicians and fighting to boost its bottom line profits, then it’s unlikely that company will be cheaper.
I was in favor of SMUD for Davis, because SMUD charges less than PG&E for electricity. If it had been the other way around, then my preference would have been for PG&E. (One big advantage SMUD has over PG&E is that municipal utilities are able to buy up all of the cheap hydroelectric power from federal dam projects. Private utilities can only buy that power if there is a surplus.)
An interesting case we have in Davis is with park maintenance. I am not 100% sure of all the current numbers, but the two private companies that maintain half the public greens in Davis (Coast and GP) are forced in their contracts to pay the same salaries and medical benefits as the City pays its direct employees who do the same jobs. Yet Coast and GP are really much cheaper and (AFAIK) do just as good a job. The reason the private companies are much cheaper has to do with pension costs and unfunded retiree medical costs. Those are zero with the privates, but cost us millions of dollars with the public employees.
So if, with running our water works, we face much higher pension and OPEB costs having public employees operate the system, then I could be convinced that having a private operator is the way to go. It all depends, for me, on the bottom line.
*Where my brother lives, they have multiple garbage companies competing for business. Homeowners have one of five or six companies to sign up with every year. So what happens is, his garbage is picked up by his service provider every Wednesday. On Thursday a different company’s garbage truck drives up and down his street, not stopping at his house but picking up garbage at the homes of some of his neighbors. On Friday, with yet another company, the same sort of routine. So every day of the week but Sunday, you have loud, smelly garbage trucks rambling up and down your street or alleyway. And those companies are just collecting trash. No one picks up recyclables or green waste. Even though our monthly garbage bills are more expensive in Davis, I think our system makes more sense.
When we get this referendum on the June 2012 ballot, the rate hikes will be stayed until the election. Meanwhile, all of you will have time to sort out the issues for yourselves, including the need for the plant, the costs, and how it is to be built and operated, and by whom.
To qualify, we have to file over 3700 valid Davis voter signatures by Monday, October 24.
I think that you are missing the key issue regarding Veolia, David. There have been a lot of concerns across the country and in Northern California specifically about Veolia’s management of water-related projects. Here are some links that will give you a sense of the community controversy swirling around Veolia:
[url]http://www.novatoflow.org/shame.html[/url]
[url]http://www.novatoflow.org/richmond.html[/url]
[url]http://www.novatoflow.org/environment.html[/url]
Additionally, according to the following New York Time article, it appears that Veolia has tried to influence elections in favor of its contracts by contributing to candidates: [quote]“For its part, Veolia said it had spent $32,000 backing candidates supporting the contract in the recent board election; two won.” — [b]New York Times[/b] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/us/04sfwater.html?pagewanted=print[/url] [/quote]
So, if the Board is concerned about the issues around Veolia and United Water, that leaves only one firm standing — two if the additional firm is added.
One of the key arguments against exploring the possibility of phasing in our approximately $300 million worth of water-related capital improvements in order to keep rates lower is that “the bid environment is so favorable now”.
If we don’t have a lot of companies bidding, what difference does a favorable “bid environment” make?
David, I do not think you have framed the question very well. If you read the community discussion regarding Veolia, there are many who believe that Veolia has increased their ratepayer bills.
[quote][i]”…the two private companies that maintain half the public greens in Davis (Coast and GP) are forced in their contracts to pay the same salaries and medical benefits as the City pays its direct employees who do the same jobs.”[/i][/quote]Rich, this is much more than just interesting. Who would dream up this contract requirement, let alone approve incorporating it into a city contract? (I can guess the first answer, but can’t imagine who would okay such a provision.)
Is this some kind of mini-prevailing-wage deal that benefits anyone (other than the individual contract employees)? If the purpose of contracting was to reduce the number of city employees and cut expenses, why intentionally minimize the beneficial impact?
What kind are money are we talking about here, anyway? How much would we save, short-term and long, by eliminating our maintenance positions and competing the work without these weird minimum pay and benefit provisions?
[i]”Who would dream up this contract requirement, let alone approve incorporating it into a city contract?”[/i]
As Donna Silva explained it to me some years ago, when she was the Director of our Parks Department, requiring contractors to pay an above market wage plus health care benefits to their employees is “a reflection of Davis values.”
I think the impetus was to avoid any conflict with the city’s parks maintenance workers. At the time we started with these outside contractors (in the 1980s when David Rosenberg was the king of Davis), our parks and greenbelt space was growing rapidly. So no City workers were laid off in favor of the GP or Coast workers. But to assuage the City’s workers, and make sure their wages were not undercut, Davis required an equal wage plus health benefit.
But something major has changed in the last decade: pension funding and retiree medical have become extremely expensive. They were not 15 and 20 years ago. So today, because of those factors, even with the pro-labor wage and health provisions, it is cheaper to use the private contractors.
I have estimated in the past that we are paying roughly 7 times the compensation that market-rate landscape maintenance companies pay in Davis. I found that number asking what experienced workers are paid who maintain the landscaping at the large apartment complexes in Davis. (You cannot really compare parks maintenance with the guys who mow lawns and blow leaves at single family homes. Those guys make very little.)
[i]”Is this some kind of mini-prevailing-wage deal that benefits anyone (other than the individual contract employees)?”[/i]
In effect, it was intended to be the same thing as the state’s prevailing wage is: the elected members of the City Council did not want private contractors to undercut the public employees’ wages. If they were allowed to, that would save the taxpayers too much money, in the Rosenbergian world.
[i]”If the purpose of contracting was to reduce the number of city employees and cut expenses, why intentionally minimize the beneficial impact?”[/i]
I think the primary purpose–aside from “maintaining Davis values”–was, when we were adding a lot of new greenbelts and new parks and things like landscaped medians on the City’s larger streets, to have fewer employees to manage. I think part of the concern back then was that the parks administrators wanted to run recreation programs. That was fun. They did not want the hassel of a much larger workforce of lawn-mowers and bush-pruners to manage. That was not so much fun.
[i]”What kind are money are we talking about here, anyway? How much would we save, short-term and long, by eliminating our maintenance positions and competing the work without these weird minimum pay and benefit provisions?”[/i]
Back of the envelope calculation, I think if we are spending between city employees and Coast and GP around $5 million this year. (That includes salary, overtime, pensions, medical, and unfunded retiree medical.) I would guess if we divided Davis up into five parts (Central, North, West, East and South) and put those areas up for bid, allowing all companies who paid at least the legal minimum wage and had the equipment to do the jobs to bid, we could save $3.5 million to $4 million out of $5 million. Knowing that those companies also would not be giving workers 5.3 weeks of paid holidays and vacations every year, it would not shock me if we could get the whole job done for $750,000.
[quote][i]”I think the impetus was to avoid any conflict with the city’s parks maintenance workers.” [/i][/quote]If no one lost a job, what’s the conflict? It looks like the objective simply was to disguise the “fair market value” of our parks maintenance needs?
And this has been going on for three decades without Sue (or another cost-conscious council member) finding out and blowing the whistle? Has the in-house staff grown since this deal was cut or did any increased workload go to the contracting side?
Do all of our services contracts incorporate such expensive “Davis values” provisions? Do [u]any[/u] others? “Davis values,” humbug!
Now that I’ve heard this interesting story for the first time, I feel a lot better about the Fire Department. At least they had to pay cash up front to get the council to approve their “Davis values” staffing, pay and benefits.
Thanks, Rich, for the fascinating history (that’ll be affecting our city financial picture for years to come even if the practice is changed soon).
[i]”Has the in-house staff grown since this deal was cut or did any increased workload go to the contracting side?”[/i]
I really don’t know. The one time I ever wrote about this–about 5-6 years ago–Donna Silva told me that the city was divided 50-50 between the outside contractors and the city workers. (I happen to have a map Donna gave me, dated September 2005, on my wall right next to this computer I am typing on, which shows in color patches who maintains which Davis landscaping.) I inferred from that conversation–to the best of my recollection–that it was going to be a permanent condition of keeping 50% in-house and the other 50% out. So I guess that as they added workload over time it all went to the outsiders until everything was 50-50, and now as they add it more-less is split.
[i]”Do all of our services contracts incorporate such expensive “Davis values” provisions? Do any others? “Davis values,” humbug!”[/i]
Public works contracts are much worse, because they have the state’s values, and those values are decided by the unions as we discussed before.
An anecdote on this: although Lamar Heystek grew on the job and eventually was a very good member of the Council in my opinion, the first thing he did–keep in mind his job before joining the Council was as a union rep for Safeway workers–was to try to get the City to adopt his prevailing wage legislation. He failed. We never adopted that. But his intent was to make sure that they lowest paid people working for the City or working for outside contractors were paid roughly twice the state minimum wage. I understodd his sentiment. He wanted to make life better for the have-nots. But in practice that sort of thing is what drives up union wages by not allowing any labor competition. Also, Lamar discovered in this endeavor that our outside contractors–he specifically asked the reps from Coast and GP at a Council meeting–paid at that time more than twice what the “living wage” was.
My own view is that the Council should try to spend the people’s money as if it were their own. They should not waste it. But at the same time, you don’t want to be so frugal that you lose your best people and get a lot of turnover with workers who can do much better elsewhere. It’s a balancing act (just as it is with private companies).
[quote]One of the key arguments against exploring the possibility of phasing in our approximately $300 million worth of water-related capital improvements in order to keep rates lower is that “the bid environment is so favorable now”. [/quote]
How do you know the bid environment in the current deep economic recession will somehow be “better” 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 years from now?
Just filled another 14 vote petition pamphlet. My neighbors are more than happy to sign. This project is going down.
[i]”Evil Lager Corporations”[/i]
I will never get this view from supposedly well-educated people. It is completely irrational from a relative context. I just did a quick scan for all the historical evidence of the evil deeds done by large corporations, and my search results would only come up with references to the all the benefits created from the generation of jobs and wealth. Conversely, I did a search on the evils of systems of governance bent on preventing and controlling large business enterprises, and stories of profound poverty, misery and death were the top results.
Rich: [i]”For those who have an ideological bent toward private enterprises running businesses I think you always have to ask the question: is this a competitive enterprise or it the “private” business in a monopolistic situation?”[/i]
I absolutely agree with this. There is the concept of the “captive customer”. In markets where the customer is captive to a limited number of product/service providers, the customer will be marginalized and exploited. The primary role of government in economic policy should be to eliminate the instances of captive customer. In situations where the customer lacks choice for structural reasons, I support having more government oversight. However, the risk is that government will shift toward using increased oversight instead of enhanced competition as their primary economic policy. We see the long-term effects of that shift in old Europe and the US today.
rusty49: Do you not support the water project? If not, I would be interest in your reasons. I support it because I believe that it will grow in cost down the road when we will eventually have to do it. In general I don’t have a problem with public infrastructure improvement projects based on a comprehensive cost-benefit.
[quote]Just filled another 14 vote petition pamphlet. My neighbors are more than happy to sign. This project is going down.[/quote]
And then what? Steep fines and nothing to show for it? Subsidence? Paying more for the surface water project in the long run because more deep wells will have to be drilled in the meantime? The alternative to doing the surface water project now doesn’t look pretty…
[quote]And then what? Steep fines and nothing to show for it? Subsidence? Paying more for the surface water project in the long run because more deep wells will have to be drilled in the meantime? The alternative to doing the surface water project now doesn’t look pretty…[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b]:[/quote]
Elaine, this is unnecessarily alarmist. There is no need to Catastrophize.
1) We won’t have steep fines if we apply for and succeed in getting a variance from the SWRCB. Secondly, salinity limits are in the process of being reexamined, and will likely be relaxed. There are also options involving water softener regulations, deeper wells, etc.
2) Subsidence is a long term concern, but not an immediate one. Postponing this project is not catastrophic in terms of subsidence.
3) We have to dig more deep aquifer wells anyway, and the cost of deep aquifer wells is chump change compared to the cost of the combined wastewater treatment plant and surface water project.
[quote]Elaine, this is unnecessarily alarmist. There is no need to Catastrophize.
1) We won’t have steep fines if we apply for and succeed in getting a variance from the SWRCB. Secondly, salinity limits are in the process of being reexamined, and will likely be relaxed. There are also options involving water softener regulations, deeper wells, etc.
2) Subsidence is a long term concern, but not an immediate one. Postponing this project is not catastrophic in terms of subsidence.
3) We have to dig more deep aquifer wells anyway, and the cost of deep aquifer wells is chump change compared to the cost of the combined wastewater treatment plant and surface water project. [/quote]
1) How do you know we can get a variance? How do you know salinity requirements will be relaxed? Drilling deeper wells while we delay the surface water project, which you even agree we need, ultimately makes the surface water project more expensive.
2) How can you possibly know subsidence will not be a problem over the next 30 years, while we wait to implement the surface water project until we have fully paid off the wastewater treatment plant as you advocate? That is assuming you can even get variances, assuming the water quality requirements will be relaxed rather than become more stringent, and assuming suddenly variances can be had for 30 years at a time instead of the 10 year limit that exists now?
3) The more deep wells we have to drill as a result of not having moved forward with the surface water project is that much more cost added on to the ultimate cost of the surface water project whenever it is implemented.