While we have, up until this point, focused on Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perhaps the bigger problem that Veolia should face in gaining a contract with the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency should be their handling of water issues in this state.
The issue of public and private becomes critical because, while the DBO process is supposed to lock in the cost of a project, as companies seek to increase their profits it means that they necessarily have to cut other corners. This is the charge, both with United Water and now from our research on Veolia.
Indeed, as the New York Times reported back in 2009, those who supported the Veolia contract, which was five years and $15 million with the city of Novato, point to the fact that “it will save ratepayers $7.2 million.”
However, as the New York Times article points out, “But money is just one metric for these systems, which are regulated under the federal Clean Water Act. That law requires them to keep watersheds and beaches free of pollution – something Novato has failed to do.”
The problems pre-date Veolia, as the city’s sewage district “purposefully discharged sewage into San Francisco Bay while preparing to build a $90 million treatment plant.”
Reports the New York Times, “Veolia, a subsidiary of Veolia Environnement, based in Paris, has had environmental problems elsewhere in the region. In a 2005 Richmond case, the nonprofit environmental organization Baykeeper and the West County Toxics Coalition sued the company, accusing it of discharging sewage into the bay. Veolia and Richmond, also a defendant, settled the case, agreeing to major upgrades.”
One the key issues is the trend away from private companies. The NY Times notes, “Because three other systems – Fairfield-Suisun and Petaluma in the Bay Area, and Stockton in the Central Valley – recently severed ties with private companies, people are closely watching this fight to see if the trend continues.”
Recall that Fairfield-Suisun was run by United Water.
“Mike Di Giorgio, president of the Novato board, said he was not bothered by Veolia’s potential profits because he was confident the contract would save ratepayers significant money,” the Times reports. “A 2002 report by the Pacific Institute, based in Oakland, noted that supporters of privatization usually argue that the private sector will deliver more or better services, while opponents say it could lead to higher costs, the potential for lost jobs or benefits and reduced local control.”
“The devil is in the details, and the details are in the contracts,” said Peter Gleick, the institute’s president. “We’ve seen over and over where small municipalities rarely have the power or ability to negotiate good contracts.”
Environmental groups cite problems with Veolia over how the company is run and compliance with environmental regulations.
“Veolia has a long record fraught with environmental problems, negligence and expensive service,” said Adam Scow, the California deputy director of the nonprofit Food and Water Watch. Veolia has had problems with spills in other communities around the country, Mr. Scow added.
The worst part of this: the New York Times reports that Veolia has spent “$32,000 backing candidates supporting the contract in the recent board election; two won.”
That should be a red flag for all involved and we would hope if the city puts the water rate hikes on the ballot, that the CWA would have to good sense to wait before awarding the contracts to a DBO bidder. We would hate to see Veolia pumping money into the Davis rate hike referendum.
The website opposing Veolia running the Sanitary District plant in Novato chronicles a number of violations by the company in the Bay Area alone.
A lawsuit was brought against Burlingame in 2008, “accusing Veolia of dumping more than 10 million gallons of wastewater and untreated sewage over a 5 year period into the San Francisco Bay.”
In 2006, Veolia and Richmond were sued for “dumping more than 17 million gallons of sewage into tributaries…over the preceding three years.” They add, “In 2002, the city gave the 20-year, $70 million contract to Veolia, which promised to cut costs…An outside consultant concluded the sewers needed $18 million worth of upgrades – nearly three times the $6.4 million included in Veolia’s plan.”
Furthermore of note: “This suit was not the only costly consequence of Veolia’s poor operation. For years, Richmond taxpayers had to shell out $500,000 annually to compensate other residents and businesses for property damage by the sewer system.”
In 2007, the city of Petaluma voted to take back management of its sewer system from Veolia.
Food and Water Watch reported, “The city opted not to privatize the new plant after a cost analysis determined that public operation would be ‘more efficient and effective than operation by a private contractor.’ Petaluma expects to save $1.6 million over the first three years.”
The page goes on to report additional problems across the county. While many of these involve sewage spills, the report on Indianapolis involves water.
“In 2002 Veolia signed a 20 year, $1.1 billion contract to privatize water service to more than a million people.”
According to Food and Water Watch, “In 2005, a federal grand jury subpoenaed four Veolia employees as part of an investigation into allegations that the utility falsified water quality reports. The probe began amid accusations by Indianapolis council members that the company had cut back on staffing, water testing, treatment chemicals and maintenance.”
“Although this investigation resulted in no charges, the corporation has had to question its own performance, after sustaining multimillion-dollar losses for years after the takeover,” the report continues.
“We did lose money, more than we anticipated,” then-Veolia President Tim Hewitt told the Indianapolis Star in 2005. In reference to the ardent public opposition to the deal, he added, “We’ll get through this but have a black eye.”
Except they did not get through, the city had to ultimately pay the company additional money while reducing the company’s responsibilities. Amazingly, “Indianapolis then sought to raise rates by 35 percent to pay for these additional expenses along with costlier capital improvement projects.”
Finally in 2010 they had enough, and the city sold the water utility to a nonprofit Citizens Energy Group.
There are several common threads here. First, the city and the CWA is making an assumption that the DBO process will lock in costs. But that fails to take into account things such as what happened in Indianapolis – if the company mismanages the operations of the project, how do we assure that costs will be contained?
The legacy of private operations of water does not seem to produce the lower rates and higher service that we are being told will ensue.
Really, is the operation of a water company going to be all that different from energy? And yet it was not long ago that the cities of Davis and Woodland joined the rest of the county in hopes of bringing the public power company SMUD to Yolo County and replace the private PG&E company.
Why? Because, in part, public power was said to produce better service and lower costs. Is water really any different?
First, all of this information is readily available on the internet, so why is it that the city and the CWA failed to perform due diligence before naming Veolia and CDM, with United Water brought on as their “O” in the DBO process, as finalists?
Proponents of going forward at this point can, of course, suggest that the third company is clean so far, and they may be. But gone is the competitive bid process that the CWA claims is vital to getting affordable bids.
Nor is this a costless process. Each company is being asked to expend in the millions just for the bid process and the CWA is looking at $250,000 per applicant.
Also is the fact that the CWA expressed skepticism about a fourth applicant, giving acknowledgement that only a few firms in this nation can do this kind of DBO project, and this should be a cause for alarm.
The lack of due diligence here should be especially concerning. I know the CWA is reluctant to pay more for an investigator, but it seems that money spent now could avoid future nightmares.
Bottom line, from every piece of research I have seen, we should question whether we go forward with this project with private firms driving the DBO process, particularly the “O” part.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I wasn’t concerned about the Palestinian thing, but this is a whole different problem that needs to be thoroughly looked into. People, make sure to sign the referendum in order to have more time to vet this because who knows what else “we don’t know”.
David
I think it is valid to question the optimal means of implementing the project.
However, I think that Mike Harrington and company are using this as yet another bit of leverage to block the project completely.
I would not see anything wrong with proceeding with a rate increase knowing that we are going to need to complete this project at some point, while at the same time giving the staff and council more time to consider public vs private options.
I also feel that it is somewhat less than forthcoming for Harrington and at least one of the paid signature gatherers to imply that this is being suddenly foisted upon the citizens, when, as Harrington himself said, this issue has been brewing in town for at least 15 years. Hardly what I would call a stealth or rushed approach. If individuals have come late to the realization that this is a real problem that must be addressed ( as I did being distracted by career and family raising) that is only our own fault as it is our individual responsibility to educate ourselves.
I vaguely knew the issue and the discussion were out there, I just didn’t put in the time and suspect that is true of many others. This doesn’t require conspiracy theory or nefarious motives to explain, although I’m sure these kinds of accusations will attract more support from those who oppose taxes under any circumstances. As for the linkage of support for the schools, and/or the parks, people who oppose taxes on a matter of principle are unlikely to vote for these measures in any event.
By all means, sign the referendum… we can decide the issue by R&D (rhetoric & demagoguery). There will be a precious few who will vote based on facts and logic.
hpierce
I think your comment illustrates the importance of establishing a balance between representative and direct democracy. I feel there is definitely a place for both. However, I think that those who cite the Target vote and then question the rationale for not putting the water project to a direct vote have the reasoning backwards.
For whether or not to have a Target in town, the issues are fairly straight forward. Either you favor the presence of a big box store for increased revenues, convenience or just because you like their variety and products or you don’t. Not very complicated. Not much research needed, and therefore very amenable to a direct vote.
Compare that with the water project with its high degree of technicality, multiple dimensions, complicated cost analysis both fiscal and environmental and one can easily see where decision making on the latter is more likely to be based, in many busy citizens minds, on the best slogans, sound bites or promotion of their short term economic interests than on any complicated analysis or far sightedness about what is best for the community in the long run. It seems to me that these more complicated issues are a major argument for representative democracy. Isn’t this exactly what we elect council members to do, analyze,assess and judge with both the short and long term interests of the entire community in mind. I would say that this is more a case of a limited number of citizens not trusting the representative process than it is one council member not trusting the voters.
Are there alternative conveyance options to deliver the Sacramento River supply to the city of Davis? Here’s one that wasn’t considered in the SWP EIR:
Use Putah Creek to convey Davis’ Sacramento River surface water allocation by means of an “exchange” with the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA). SCWA not only gets water from Putah Creek, they also get some water from the Delta through the North Bay Aqueduct. SCWA and Department Water Resources are preparing an EIR for later this year on an alternate intake for the North Bay Aqueduct in the Sacramento River (see http://www.water.ca.gov/engineering/Projects/Current/NBA/). Under an exchange scenario, the City of Davis would enter into negotiations with SCWA to do the exchange, SCWA would provide the city of Davis their Sacramento River surface water allocation down Putah Creek, and in exchange SCWA would get the equivalent amount (Davis’s Sacramento River surface water) through the North Bay Aqueduct. There would be a need to build other infrastructure to divert water from Putah Creek to the city of Davis, but it would eliminate the need to build the pipeline to the Sacramento River at I’m thinking a significant cost savings. Water exchanges are pretty commonplace ventures between water districts in the San Joaquin Valley.
The Schroeder-Tchobanoglous study considered the use of the Putah Creek allocations to UCD to provide some water supply to the city of Davis:
This alternative involves construction of a relatively short pipeline to bring Solano Project water from the current discharge point on the West Campus to a new treatment plant on City property, connection to the City distribution system, and reworking parts of the distribution system to allow groundwater to be dedicated to irrigation of public areas.
“I think it is valid to question the optimal means of implementing the project. However, I think that Mike Harrington and company are using this as yet another bit of leverage to block the project completely.”
Not to get defensive here, but I have little connection to Mr. Harrington other than him shooting me incessant emails, so why are you addressing this point to me?
From the start, I have questioned the cost of the project, the need to go forward now. I support putting the referendum on the ballot as a means to allow people who were previously denied the opportunity to directly participate to do so. I have not decided how I will vote on it. If this goes forward, I would prefer we find ways to do it right and when I read about the history of Veolia and United Water, I have no choice but to question this approach.
eastdavis: While I know you mean well, I think bringing up that issue here diverts the main point of this article, which is starting to question the plan to deliver this project.
[quote]“The devil is in the details, and the details are in the contracts,” said Peter Gleick, the institute’s president. “We’ve seen over and over where small municipalities rarely have the power or ability to negotiate good contracts.”[/quote]
ALL municipalities have the ability to negotiate a good contract, and negotiating a good contract that incorporates favorable terms for Woodland and Davis is what I strongly suggested in a previous post.
The issue of who should build/operate the surface water project is completely irrelevant to whether we NEED the surface water project. It seems pretty clear we need the surface water project according to experts in the field, including two UCD experts who had no vested interest in the project; it is pretty clear according to experts who are willing to speak publicly on this issue and most public officials we need the surface water project NOW.
Sidetracking the issue by raising red flags on who should operate the surface water project are nothing more than an thinly veiled attempt to obscure the real issue: Do we need the surface water project, and if yes, do we need it NOW? If we need the surface water project NOW, to keep costs down and not kick the can down the road, then it is imperative to begin increasing the water rates to pay for the needed surface water project.
If we fail to move forward, and cannot obtain a variance, then we could be faced with huge fines for failure to come into compliance with the new water quality standards. Furthermore, as we wait and debate, in an attempt at “paralysis by analysis” to kill the surface water project – in the mistaken belief to delay will somehow give the school and city taxes more of a chance at passing muster w citizens when in fact in may endanger these taxes down the road – we risk incurring subsidence/contamination problems with our crumbling well infrastructure.
This issue is one of cost/benefit/risk analysis, folks! If some want to sit around and endlessly debate this project ostensibly to remove all risk of operation problems in the future, that very debate will incur the very real and probable risk of a much costlier project in the future, without any resolution on the issue of operation problems. Further, it will incur the risk of being fined for noncompliance so that we would be paying as much as if we had done the surface water project, with nothing to show for our troubles other than a more expensive project in the future and a crumbling infrastructure to boot.
The answer here is to strike a good deal, in which there is clear gov’t oversight (hybrid public/private model), definite benchmarks that must be met, with short enough contract length that the cities are not locked into a lengthy timeframe with no end in sight for private control. All of this would be vetted by a citizen advisory committee and is the very reason one is necessary.
Frankly, this reminds me of the debate last night, on the 5th Street redesign. One Council member was concerned that all possible impacts of the redesign on side streets was not included in the proposal. The problem is that much of the impact of the redesign will be unknowable until the actual project is accomplished and operating. It is an inherent risk that one takes any time any project is constructed.
The same is true of the surface water project, a huge capital undertaking. There is just no way of removing all risks on the operation side ahead of the construction of the project. Risks can be minimized by negotiating a good contract with the proper terms that should protect the cities involved.
From Dunning’s column today:
“Added the mayor: “We lowered the rates significantly by stretching them over a longer period of time and putting some project components off for years.”
“No, you gave us a head fake on the rates and tried to convince us they’d increase by only 14 percent per year, when in reality the actual increase for many families will be closer to 27 percent per year, and in some cases much, much higher than that. In four years, some folks will be paying over 300 percent more for their water according to the city’s own charts.”
“Noted Rochelle: “The inaccuracies and outright false statements worry me.”
“Indeed, they worry me too. But given the fact that it’s the city putting out the false statements about a 14 percent increase that in reality for many families who are already conserving to the bone will actually be an immediate 63 percent increase on a portion of their water bill in the very first year, I think it’s time to let the people help the council sort this one out.”
“Sidetracking the issue by raising red flags on who should operate the surface water project are nothing more than an thinly veiled attempt to obscure the real issue”
Elaine: I take exception this comment. I see two real issues here one which you have mentioned and already made up your mind on, but perhaps the more interesting and bigger one at this point is the delivery and operation of this project at the cost that we are projecting. What happens if we implement this project, accept a bid from one of these companies, and what happened to Fairfield or Indianapolis happens here? These are serious problems.
And the fact that the CWA has apparently not even bothered to google these companies should alarm even you.
If we do this project, I want us to (A) do it right and (B) do it affordably or are these no longers matters of concern for you now that you decided that you want it to go forward?
[quote]Use Putah Creek to convey Davis’ Sacramento River surface water allocation by means of an “exchange” with the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA). [/quote]
There is a huge assumption here the SCWA will want to exchange their water… or am I missing something?
[quote]I have not decided how I will vote on it. If this goes forward, I would prefer we find ways to do it right and when I read about the history of Veolia and United Water, I have no choice but to question this approach. [/quote]
Sounds to me like you have decided against the surface water project now… I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so please clarify…
[i]There is a huge assumption here the SCWA will want to exchange their water… or am I missing something? [/i]
Sure it’s an assumption. Until we start talking with SCWA, we won’t know their answer or issues. Let’s not eliminate the option until it has been properly vetted…
Can someone please address Mr. Dunning’s statements that the actual water bill increases will be much higher than the 14% per year that is being put forward.
I’m trying not to conflate issues here. I think it is very important to look at each part of the project independently. The question as to who should design building and operate this project is mostly separate from what the rates will be.
Gotcha David, but if people are thinking their bill is only going up 14% and come January when they get their new bills there’s going to be sticker shock if what Mr. Dunning is saying is true.
[quote]If we do this project, I want us to (A) do it right and (B) do it affordably or are these no longers matters of concern for you now that you decided that you want it to go forward?[/quote]
[quote]I’m trying not to conflate issues here. I think it is very important to look at each part of the project independently. The question as to who should design building and operate this project is mostly separate from what the rates will be.[/quote]
But you have conflated the two issues, to wit:
[quote] We would hate to see Veolia pumping money into the Davis rate hike referendum.[/quote]
[quote][i]”While we have up until this point focused on Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…”[/i][/quote]Well, that’s an understatement for sure…. You’ve also suggested that Veolia’s role in the Israli-Palestinian conflict should make the company ineligible to bid on our project, that the water agency failed to do its job by not stopping them from bidding and that Woodland’s low ethical standards and “different” political leader(s) have had something to do with this failure to do due diligence on behalf of us (the ethically higher-quality residents of Davis).
So, you came to serious–some say questionable–conclusions while you were focusing on Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Your vagueness to this point, however, raises questions about the actual role of the company in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Before you move on to other things, please at least try to justify what you’ve already determined as fact and offered up to your loyal readers. The time has come to release your prisoners.
Is your knowledge limited to the sources you’ve listed so far: an anti-Semitic hate site that spews misinformation and a local, anti-Israel group that writes letters attempting to bring down its political enemy by boycotting Israel-related business ventures?
It would be most helpful to understand the basis of your focus on Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestianian conflict, and to know the sources of your enlightenment.
What [b]IS[/b] Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Please be specific about what you think is true about Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Over the years, I have spoken before different Davis city councils raising the question about public-private partnerships and contracts, and bringing to their attention the track record of the large multinational water corporations – the very ones whose record is finally being exposed and taken seriously here. The Council, and now the Water Agency, have not done their homework. I can not understand the motivation of those commenting here who want to charge that raising these questions is with the intent to defeat the project entirely.
These questions and the evidence now presented on the record of these corporations has been presented to the Council by me and in several op-eds in the Davis Enterprise over the years. The problem is that neither the Council nor the general public have cared to take in this information, become better informed, and follow up on it until now. Of course, some Council members have moved on, but some have not: Souza and Greenwald, and Saylor who has only changed chairs. For some background, go to Water Democracy in California http://defendingwaterincalifornia.org/ and scroll down to read various articles in this 4-page tabloid, 10,000 of which were printed and distributed in CA and in 2009 each Davis City Council member received a hand-delivered copy at a meeting from me.
“But you have conflated the two issues, to wit: “We would hate to see Veolia pumping money into the Davis rate hike referendum.””
I disagree. I brought up the issue because the NYT reported that they had put money into friendly council campaigns suggesting that if they got the contract, they might do the same in the referendum. That I do have a problem with.
“You’ve also suggested that Veolia’s role in the Israli-Palestinian conflict should make the company ineligible to bid on our project”
That has not been my position.
“Before you move on to other things, please at least try to justify what you’ve already determined as fact and offered up to your loyal readers.”
I have not determined anything as fact, I raised an issue that others have raised and now am focusing my scrutiny on other potential issues.
When you put out a request for a bid, qualified firms reply. The bids are passed on by staff to the deciding agency. The issues being brought up here don’t disqualify a firm from bidding. They may be a factor in the decision about awarding the contract. The implication that the staff should “just Google” the firm to decide if they qualify to bid is preposterous. You don’t want staff making those determinations. All of this likely leads to selection of the third firm, or possibly another request for bids to see if others of the small number of entities capable of building a project like this might be interested. But nothing disqualifies these two firms from making a bid, nor should staff be the arbiter.
Since no one has refuted Mr. Dunnings assertions that our water bills are going up much more than 14% am I to assume that it’s true? I’m guessing he’s basing it on the usage of an average residential family bacause we all know it’s very hard to almost impossible for an average family of let’s say four to stay within the baseline rates.
[b]Don Shor:[/b]
The Clean Water JPA staff and members were the arbiters. And they picked these two firms as three finalists.
[quote]David to Elaine: “And the fact that the CWA has apparently not even bothered to google these companies should alarm even you.
If we do this project, I want us to (A) do it right and (B) do it affordably or are these no longers matters of concern for you now that you decided that you want it to go forward?”[/quote]How do you know that the CWA hasn’t Googled this even more than you have? Have you interviewed the agency’s staff leader, its public outreach manager, the much maligned Mr. Marble about [u]anything[/u], let alone your Google neglect charges?
And, “even” Elaine should be alarmed about this goofy Google point? What do you mean by “even you”?
And, so it’s gotten to the point where Elaine–and anyone else who supports the project?–gets charged with not caring whether it gets done “right” or “affordably”? (Please, David, you’ve gotten way too caught up by your dedication to one side of this.) Does that slide her into the Woodland “low-standards” category, or is that only for Israeli-Palestianian ethical issues?
Two bidders down, one to go. Good work, Vanguard. Looking for yet another hard hitting article. As they say, it’s a “target rich” environment out there.
Bob Dunning’s article today picked up on the $300K of wasted PR money, which the DV also outed several weeks ago.
The DV bloggers who are part of the enabling team for the project try to explain away how any company can apply, and how staff are just supposed to pass on the interested bidder. I dont think so. I think someone or some people from the CWP sought those horrible water companies out, brought them into the fold, and probably knew about the histories of fines, litigation, cities firing them, and the criminsal allegations concerning United Water. I have a pending Public Records Act request for staff communications with United Water, as the Poster Child of what is wrong with this project; I will give the data to the media when I get it.
There should be a Truth Commission, with subpoena authority, after the June election.
[i]part of the enabling team for the project[/i]
Charming.
An open letter to United Water and the other project bidders: we know you and your paid water consultants and attorneys read this Blog.
Stay out of our local elections. We know about your history of interfering with and trying to “buy” local elected officials around the country.
If we see one dollar from any of you or your associated companies, it will backfire on you.
[quote]“That (Veolia should be judged ineligible to bid) has not been my position.”
“I have not determined anything as fact, I raised an issue (Veolia discriminates in busing contract) that others have raised….”[/quote]Sorry, David, I try to focus in on my questions and avoid giving my point of view about what it appears (to a casual observer) that you are implying when you [u]look[/u] like you’re supporting one side. I hope my revised approach will allow you to be responsive to my questions this time.
And, I’ll try not commenting on what it looks like your point is for writing up certain facts–for example, what your reasons could be for repeatedly reporting your Google findings that obviously aren’t accurate about Veolia (something you could have determined with a little more Googling or by paying attention to posts that Rich and others have made the first few times you published the lies.)
[quote]“While we have up until this point focused on Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…”[/quote]
Well, that’s an understatement for sure…. You’ve also suggested that Veolia’s role in the Israli-Palestinian conflict [s]should make the company ineligible to bid on[/s] has something to do with their potential bidding for our project, that the water agency failed to do its job by not stopping them from bidding and that Woodland’s low ethical standards and “different” political leader(s) have had something to do with this failure to do due diligence on behalf of us (the ethically higher-quality residents of Davis).
So, you came to serious–some say questionable–conclusions while you were focusing on Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Your vagueness to this point, however, raises questions about the actual role of the company in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Before you move on to other things, please at least try to justify what you’ve [s]already determined as fact [/s] already accepted as without evaluating as worthy enough to publish and offered up to your loyal readers. The time has come to release your prisoners.
Is your knowledge limited to the sources you’ve listed so far: an anti-Semitic hate site that spews misinformation and a local, anti-Israel group that writes letters attempting to bring down its political enemy by boycotting Israel-related business ventures?
It would be most helpful to understand the basis of your focus on Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestianian conflict, and to know the sources of your enlightenment.
What IS Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Please be specific about what you think is true about Veolia’s role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Don: I am just getting started. And yes, enablers. Not charming, not cute, but the truth.
Four weeks ago I was desparately trying to stay out of this mess, but then I learned just how bad it really was.
Poor Nancy Price and Sue Greenwald have been waiving their arms around about this project for years; well, now the voters are fully paying attention.
We are turning in the referendum soon. Somehow we will have overcome 4 CC members who specifically, and expressly, don’t trust the voters (read Dunning today), and one of whom actually ran a blocking campaign.
Then our time and attention will be devoted to things like: “what did the JPA and Davis water staff know about these bidders, and when did they know it”? Remember Nixon and the Watergate hearings? That’s my favorite phrase from that period.
Sorry, but the tires are coming off this surface water bandwagon.
United Water? Clunk.
Veolia Water? Clunk.
Dunning’s column today that calls the city a liar for seriously understating the true magnituge of the rate hikes we face?
Clunk. Clunk. Clunk.
How many more clunks until the CC repeals the huge rate hike and studies our currently owned and controlled ground water system?
Sorry, Don, but we are just starting.
I need a CC candidate who will support the creation of a Water Project Truth Commission with power to subpoena witnesses and take swore testimony. I am serious.
Who’s going to step up and do this for the voters?
I think maybe Mike Harrington should back off from his attack campaign [edit — no personal attacks, please] so the rest of the community can have a real discussion about the water project.
rusty49 said . . .
“Since no one has refuted Mr. Dunnings assertions that our water bills are going up much more than 14% am I to assume that it’s true? I’m guessing he’s basing it on the usage of an average residential family bacause we all know it’s very hard to almost impossible for an average family of let’s say four to stay within the baseline rates.”
rusty, the 14% rise assumes a 20% (over time) conservation factor as Davis water users implement various strategies for reducing water consumption. Since consumption decreases will vary considerably at the individual residence level, there will indeed be some residences where the increase is more than 14% and residences where it is less than 14%. The 14% published calculations in the Staff Report to Council the night they adopted the rates represent an average.
[i]and studies our currently owned and controlled ground water system? [/i]
What exactly is it that you want to know?
Matt, the ordinance rate hikes dont match what was in the motion. Check out the verbiage for yourself.
“rusty, the 14% rise assumes a 20% (over time) conservation factor as Davis water users implement various strategies for reducing water consumption. Since consumption decreases will vary considerably at the individual residence level, there will indeed be some residences where the increase is more than 14% and residences where it is less than 14%. The 14% published calculations in the Staff Report to Council the night they adopted the rates represent an average.”
Are you kidding me? If what you say is true Matt than in my opinion that’s just fooling the public. That’s like saying your food bill will only go up 14% a year if your whole family agrees to eat 20% less. But if you keep eating at your current rate, your food bill will go much higher. Sounds very sneaky.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Bob Dunning’s article today picked up on the $300K of wasted PR money, which the DV also outed several weeks ago.”[/i]
In the spirit of truth, lets drill down into the $300K contract.
First, has all the $300K been spent? No.
Second, what has the money that has been spent been spent for? Virtually all of it has been spent to produce and distribute printed materials that were designed to increase the transparency of the project.
One can question whether the materials have achieved the desired level of transparency, but can one really criticize the JPA for attempting to increase transparency? I don’t think so.
We have seen a time-honored pattern play out in this issue. Residents/voters have chosen not to heed the notices of public meetings over the past two years, and now complain that they have been “surprised” and that there hasn’t been enough transparency. Their surprise is directly attributable to their own inaction.
With that said, is there a lot of work to do to achieve an optimal solution? Absolutely.
Is David off base in publishing today’s article. No.
JMHO
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”I need a CC candidate who will support the creation of a Water Project Truth Commission with power to subpoena witnesses and take swore testimony. I am serious.
Who’s going to step up and do this for the voters?”[/i]
[b]I nominate Mike Harrington
Does anyone want to second that nomination?[/b]
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt, the ordinance rate hikes dont match what was in the motion. Check out the verbiage for yourself.”[/i]
I would much rather see you publish the differences here Mike. That way all the Vanguard readers will benefit from your hard work. There is no need for me to reinvent your wheel. Please publish as soon as possible.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Are you kidding me? If what you say is true Matt than in my opinion that’s just fooling the public. That’s like saying your food bill will only go up 14% a year if your whole family agrees to eat 20% less. But if you keep eating at your current rate, your food bill will go much higher. Sounds very sneaky.”[/i]
Rusty, I suggest you go to both the Staff Report and the video of the Council meeting and you will see that there was nothing sneaky done.
With that said, was it hard to understand for lay people like you and me? Absolutely.
Matt, thanks, but no thanks. I might retire again after we turn in the referendum.
[quote]Since no one has refuted Mr. Dunnings assertions that our water bills are going up much more than 14% am I to assume that it’s true? [/quote]
How do you refute exaggerated claims by a columnist, when you have no idea upon which he bases those assertions? The average residential ratepayer will have their water rates increased by 14% per year for the next five years. Very simple. Very straightforward…
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt, thanks, but no thanks. I might retire again after we turn in the referendum.”[/i]
In my best imitation of Arte Johnson . . . Interesting, very interesting.
Correction: …upon WHAT he bases those assertions…
“With that said, was it hard to understand for lay people like you and me? Absolutely.”
Matt, I have been following this and honestly didn’t know that the 14% rates hikes were predicated on using 20% less water. Why wouldn’t the staff have put out numbers based on the average consumption per household with the real percent hike divulged and include a caveat that if you conserve 20% then your bill would only be 14% higher per year? It makes one wonder how many others out there don’t know this?
[quote]I need a CC candidate who will support the creation of a Water Project Truth Commission with power to subpoena witnesses and take swore testimony. I am serious. [/quote]
“The truth”? Or the “truth” as YOU frame it – YOU who wants to kill the project and demonize those who support it?
Matt, a question. Was the original 218 notice of rate hikes also based on a 20% conservation factor? Or was that just added in to the new lowered rates?
@ rusty: Increased water rates leads to conservation.
From a study:
“On average, in the United States, a ten percent
increase in the marginal price of water can
be expected to diminish demand in the urban
residential sector by about 3 to 4 percent. (This
is equivalent to saying that U.S. residential water
price elasticity is in the range of –0.3 to –0.4).
– The price elasticity of residential water demand
is similar to that of residential electricity and
gasoline demand in the United States.
– Price elasticity can be expected to be greater
under higher prices, all else equal.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Matt, I have been following this and honestly didn’t know that the 14% rates hikes were predicated on using 20% less water. Why wouldn’t the staff have put out numbers based on the average consumption per household with the real percent hike divulged and include a caveat that if you conserve 20% then your bill would only be 14% higher per year? It makes one wonder how many others out there don’t know this?”[/i]
rusty, in virtually every report and document and meeting over the past two years, Conservation has been a front and center portion of Davis’ overall strategy vis-a-vis water. As a result historical average consumption is not expected to be the going forward average consumption, and promulgating rates based on those higher historical consumption volumes would have produced a flawed model. Some of the “transparency” materials produced under the $300K contract Bob Dunning and Mike Harrington are excoriating were designed to help lay people like you and me understand this rate modeling complexity.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Matt, a question. Was the original 218 notice of rate hikes also based on a 20% conservation factor? Or was that just added in to the new lowered rates?”[/i]
rusty, yes it was.
The City has posted extensive information on the City’s website. It even has a rate calculator so families can calculate the actual increases for their particular household. Go to: http://cityofdavis.org/pw/water/
You can also read all of the information about the water project that the City has pulled together. Talk about transparency. If the rate increases are a surprise to you, then it is your own fault.
I am just astounded at the lack of information so many commenting on this site have about the magnitude of the corporatization/privatization agenda at every level -local to global. Please go to the Food and Water Watch website section on water, or read Water Justice Struggles in California at
http://defendingwaterincalifornia.org/
All you need to do is know what happened in Stockton a number of years ago when the Mayor and City Council ramrodded a deal through to privatize the wastewater treatment, or how the community of Felton, near Monterey, finally took their system public after failed private service for years after California Water (subsidiary of American Water)was purchased by a huge German Water multinational (RWE).
The reason Veolia and the others desperately want this DBO contract is 1) they make money on the design and build by subcontracting and on the operations side on the rates and rate structure. Because of the growing economic crisis in this country (not just the last few years), Federal and state governments are strapped for funds and so rate-payers are bearing the cost of what the public sector should be funding to build and non-profit public water agencies should provide. And, the water multinationals are trying to cash in. They left Latin America where the water justice movement in many countries since the late 1990s has emerged in support of public water, and have come to the US looking to profit.
“If the rate increases are a surprise to you, then it is your own fault.”
Ryan, you’re right. Stupid me. I had no idea. I guess I fell for that soundbite that our rates were only going up 14% per year. I was thinking that maybe I could keep it a little lower with some conservation. Now I find I have to conserve 20% just to keep it at 14%. My point is that I have followed this better than most and I still had no idea. How many others are in the same boat?
Matt, thank you for filling me in, I appreciate your patience.
[quote]The average residential ratepayer will have their water rates increased by 14% per year for the next five years. Very simple. Very straightforward…[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, according to staff estimates of construction costs, a 14% increase in year six will be needed as well.
[quote][i]”Four weeks ago I was desparately trying to stay out of this mess, but then I learned just how bad it really was….I need a CC candidate who will support the creation of a Water Project Truth Commission with power to subpoena witnesses and take swore testimony. I am serious. Who’s going to step up and do this for the voters?”[/i][/quote][quote][b]”I nominate Mike Harrington….”[/b][/quote]Any further nominations? Nominations are closed, and Michael Harrington is selected by acclamation. Freed at last…Freed at last….Thank god almighty, Mike’s freed us at last….
Oops, what have we done? Does this mean you’ll be more open and accountable than you been during the last month when you show up to be sworn in at the council chambers? Or will your public statements continue to reflect the same opportunistic, self-indulgent, nasty, comedic, demagogic ring they’ve incessantly shown during the four weeks of water project postings?
Maybe the only hope we have left to avoid a full council term of these divisive attack tactics is that your referendum crusade will end up, regardless of the merits, with inadequate signatures to keep your shenanigans in the pubic marketplace.
I don’t remember your prior public service to be as sketchy as this has been. What happened?
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Ryan, you’re right. Stupid me. I had no idea. I guess I fell for that soundbite that our rates were only going up 14% per year. I was thinking that maybe I could keep it a little lower with some conservation. Now I find I have to conserve 20% just to keep it at 14%. My point is that I have followed this better than most and I still had no idea. How many others are in the same boat?
Matt, thank you for filling me in, I appreciate your patience.”[/i]
Not a problem rusty. I had to come up to speed myself. I actually would prefer to see a very different rate structure, but it is possible that what I personally like would be seen by others as anathema.
This is very much a “you can’t please all the people all the time” situation. That is why I believe Mike Harrington is consistently not answering the many detailed questions posed to him. He understands that his answers will be very problematic for many of the readers here and the voters in the davis electorate.
[i]”Ryan, you’re right. Stupid me. I had no idea. I guess I fell for that soundbite that our rates were only going up 14% per year. I was thinking that maybe I could keep it a little lower with some conservation.”[/i]
Use the water calculator provided to figure this out for your household. Then read the ways you can conserve to lower your rates. There are rebates for toilets, etc. available to assist homeowners in this.
If the City raises rates, it should expect that people will conserve to keep their rates lower. Also in the plan is a water rate subsidy for low-income households. So, the City in order to pay for the water project it needs to estimate what it expects will be received. Allowing for 20% conservation and other factors, the City is expecting an AVERAGE of a 14% increase for the City, even with factoring in conservation as a reaction to the increase.
I never implied that people are stupid. I just think that they haven’t been paying attention, until suddenly the rate increases are here.
Ryan Kelly said . . .
[i]”I never implied that people are stupid. I just think that they haven’t been paying attention, until suddenly the rate increases are here.”[/i]
I think you are right Ryan. There is a big difference between being surprised and being stupid.
Justsaying: get a grip, my friend. Stoning me for helping the referendum to ensure that Davis voters get the final say on these huge water rates?
Hating me for getting the data several nights ago that fully outed United Water for being indicted in Indiana for corruption?
You sound like just another of those haters who sit safely and annonymously at computer terminals and spew garbage. Get a life.
Matt: you also ask thoughtful questions. Sorry if I cannot get back to you on everything. I have young kids at home, two fulltime businesses, and now I walked into this surface water mess a few weeks ago. I promise I will catch up soon with you. Let’s get togther and go through the piles of documents together. I would say we will have 7 months, but my 60% chance prediction is that Souza and Wolk will make sure this rate hike ordinance is repealed before Christmas by the CC. Who wants to run on a plank of vastly higher taxes today? The orginance will be on the same ballot as their re-election.
[quote]Elaine, according to staff estimates of construction costs, a 14% increase in year six will be needed as well.[/quote]
In year six, any water rate increases must go through another Prop 218 process, and a referendum if the public so chooses…
[quote]Matt: you also ask thoughtful questions. Sorry if I cannot get back to you on everything. I have young kids at home, two fulltime businesses, and now I walked into this surface water mess a few weeks ago. I promise I will catch up soon with you. Let’s get togther and go through the piles of documents together. I would say we will have 7 months, but my 60% chance prediction is that Souza and Wolk will make sure this rate hike ordinance is repealed before Christmas by the CC. Who wants to run on a plank of vastly higher taxes today? The orginance will be on the same ballot as their re-election.[/quote]
You are still consistently dodging the questions…
[i]”my 60% chance prediction is that Souza and Wolk will make sure this rate hike ordinance is repealed before Christmas by the CC. Who wants to run on a plank of vastly higher taxes today?”[/i]
If the referendum is placed on the ballot, then we vote on it. It would not be possible to change that by any action of the City Council and push the vote to another election. That is my understanding. I don’t think this will be a focal point of any candidates platform. It is you that has this as an “election defining issue” and are in search of candidates who have this as a bases for their candidacy.
Ryan: actually, the CC has three choices: 1) do nothing, and it goes on the next general ballot (June 2012); 2) repeal; or 3) hold a special election.
The latter option is a non-option, because it will cost the city hundreds of thousands, and the CC who voted for that would face an easy recall.
I dont know about your experience with elected office, but when you run for office, you have to declare your position on issues. I would hazard an educated guess that the water rate hikes will be the big issue.
I am pretty confident that anyone who supports the huge rate hike for the surface water will lose vast numbers of votes. This is from being in the middle of the referendum hurricane and getting voter input.
That’s why I am confident at 60% that Souza and Wolk will come to their self-interested political senses, and repeal the rate hike so it’s not on their June ballot. Or, if they leave it, then I think I know the outcome of that election. Guessing, but just from my limited experience.
I suppose there is a slight possibility that the CC majority could daydream about putting the rate hikes on the March ballot, but that is for the school district. If the CC tried to put its huge rate hike on the same ballot with a school parcel tax renewal, I think that the DJUSD School Board might actually wake up, and come to CC public comment and yell at the CC?
None of this is really all that complex.
What’s really interesting to me is: how did United Water, with their criminal indictments, and the involvment with corruption of public officials in Atlanta, and getting fired by other California public agencies, get so far on the list of bidders? You know, right, that the JPA was closing the list since they had three “qualified” bidders?
We are turning in Monday.
Ryan: call me sometime. 759-8440.
[quote]“That’s why I am confident at 60% that Souza and Wolk will come to their self-interested political senses, and repeal the rate hike so it’s not on their June ballot.”[/quote]What a delightful concept.
Are you positive that your “limited experience” has resulted in such a cynical view of how our current elected leaders view their trust? I don’t agree, but your political threats may have more impact than I’ve grown to expect would affect Councilmen Souza’s and Wolk’s political decisions.
Have you discussed your evaluation of Stephen and Dan with them to assure they see themselves as calculating as you do? I not, I’m confident at 85.7% that they won’t meet your expectations.
JustSaying: I was reading the Washingtonpost.com article tonight about the supercommittee that has been stalemated for two months over lack of agreement to come to any agreement that would raise taxes. Now, why do you think those Republicans are so adamant? Maybe it’s the drubbing the Dems got in 2010 over taxes?
Why do you assume your two CC members are ignorant about how to get elected?
They are not going to run on higher taxes, period.
This stuff is not rocket science, JustSaying.
[i]Why do you assume your two CC members are ignorant about how to get elected?[/i]
This is a pretty interesting statement, and it demonstrates what is wrong with communities, states and this nation. Your statement implies that CC members are concerned primarily interested in short term voter reaction and re-election. We certainly see that from Obama now. But perhaps our CC members are actually interested in doing the right thing for Davis, regardless of the consequences in the next election. That is certainly how I want my representatives acting.
Further, your statement is very damning of the Davis electorate. You imply that they are uninterested in doing the “right thing” for the community, but rather they are only interested in what happens in the short term. This issue is actually why I believe that renters, on balance, should not be allowed to vote in this referendum. While some renters will be citizens for many years, far more will be long gone in a couple of years, when the fines are levied and property values decline because Davis is running out of groundwater.
If the referendum succeeds, I hope there can be a substantive debate on the merits of the project, and that we can move away from the soundbite hysteria that you’ve introduced. This issue is actually very complicated on many fronts – not rocket science, but complicated and mutifaceted. Understanding the right choice for the community will take dozens of hours of study and consideration. And I’m confident that many Davis voters CAN understand the issues if they spend the time. However, if the issue is decided on the likes of your arguments (or any other misleading soundbites), then we will have proven why issues like this shouldn’t go to a common vote.
Adam Smith: I very much appreciate your taking the time to write a thoughtful piece; it helps us understand your points better.
When the dust settles down, I will try to do the same. It’s just that I am racing from thing to thing right now, and earlier today before they went off for counting, I was looking at a big pile of signatures that if they are not turned in soon, a nearly half-billion dollars worth of ratepayer money from two small Yolo cities is going to fly right out the windows of our communities. Maybe someone should hire Brinks to bring these things in? Everything will settle down soon, and maybe the community can hold some old fashioned teach-ins for each of the major subjects.
Frankly, Davis just does not have the money anymore for this large facility, and I think the households will vote it down solely on that basis. But everyone should learn more about water, and the referendum will be a good thing for that.
David
My apologies for my apparent breach of blogging etiquette this morning. The only reason that I addressed my comments directly to you was that when I started, I was the first commenter ( although Rusty apparently beat me to it). I was in no way attempting to link you either philosophically or tactically with Michael Harrington. Forgive me ?
[quote]In year six, any water rate increases must go through another Prop 218 process, and a referendum if the public so chooses..[b].E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]Elaine, we have been through this before. Once the bonds are issued, we have to raise rates to cover the bond payments.
There will be another 14% increase in year six according to current staff estimates of price. Are you suggesting that citizens can just vote to default on our bond payments? Once those bonds are issued, we have to raise rates to repay them.
[quote] Then read the ways you can conserve to lower your rates.—[b]Ryan Kelly[/b][/quote]Since everyone will be conserving, the most you will likely be able to do is to conserve so that your costs will not be higher relative to your share of the total city-wide costs than they are today. Your water costs will still double or triple, depending project costs, O&M costs and interest rates. It is unlikely that you will really be able to “save” money by conserving.
In terms of low-income discounts; they would have to come out of our general fund, and we are already expecting long-term deficits.
Sue, you are playing with semantics. Any money that is not spent is “saved.” That unspent money will be available to spend on other household purchases or be put into a “savings account” or added to the household’s portfolio of investments.
So bottom-line, conservation efforts will 1) result in a lower bill, 2) result in a smaller payment than if there had been no conservation, and 3) “saved” money.
[quote]There will be another 14% increase in year six according to current staff estimates of price. Are you suggesting that citizens can just vote to default on our bond payments? Once those bonds are issued, we have to raise rates to repay them.[/quote]
I repeat, the 14% increase in year 6 must go through another Prop 218 process.
[quote]Since everyone will be conserving, the most you will likely be able to do is to conserve so that your costs will not be higher relative to your share of the total city-wide costs than they are today. Your water costs will still double or triple, depending project costs, O&M costs and interest rates. It is unlikely that you will really be able to “save” money by conserving. [/quote]
You assumption is incorrect that “everyone will be conserving”. Those who cannot afford to may not conserve. Some businesses cannot conserve, bc of the nature of their business. In consequence, that will assist others who do conserve. Furthermore water conservation, according to the two UCD experts YOU HAD THE CITY CONSULT, will save money on the wastewater treatment side.
[quote]I am just astounded at the lack of information so many commenting on this site have about the magnitude of the corporatization/privatization agenda at every level -local to global. Please go to the Food and Water Watch website section on water, or read Water Justice Struggles in California at http://defendingwaterincalifornia.org/ [/quote]
Check out the following article on the subject of private vs public:
[url]http://www.pacinst.org/publications/essays_and_opinion/public_or_private_editorial.pdf[/url]
Correction: Those who CAN afford IT may not conserve…
[quote]I repeat, the 14% increase in year 6 must go through another Prop 218 process.—[b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]And I repeat, Elaine: Are you seriously suggesting that citizens can vote not to pay the bills [b]AFTER[/b] the bonds are issued? Are you seriously suggesting that the city can default on our bond payments? If this is a widespread attitude, then no one will lend us the money that we need for water-related infrastructure.
We have to make up our minds [b]BEFORE[/b] the bonds are issued, and that means telling people what their rates will likely end up being; not finessing the issue with a sixth year rate increase which you are saying that we are not committed to.
Any other message is terribly irresponsible.
I repeat, the 14% increase in year 6 must go through another Prop 218 process.
[b]E Roberts Musser:[/b]So you really think it is an option for Davis to default on our bonds? If not, you shouldn’t keep repeating this.
Sue and Elaine, why would the extra year not be able to be at the same rates as the prior year? Why is it a foregone conclusion that [u]another 14%[/u] has to be added?
Just curious.
[quote]Sue and Elaine, why would the extra year not be able to be at the same rates as the prior year? Why is it a foregone conclusion that another 14% has to be added? [/quote]
There IS NO FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT A 14% INCREASE WILL BE NEEDED IN YEAR 6. It all depends on what finance rate we can get, etc. The problem is the longer we delay, the more costs are piled onto the project, making the extra 14% more likely…
To Sue Greenwald: I am repeating FACT…
Elaine, help me . . . are you also saying that if the rates are favorable the year 5 increase may be less than 14%?
“There IS NO FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT A 14% INCREASE WILL BE NEEDED IN YEAR 6. “
I don’t believe you are correct about that.