It turns out the water referendum needed every one of those 5124 signatures and probably needed to spend every dime that it did on the petition drive. That is because 1258 of the signatures, around one quarter, were found insufficient by the Yolo County Clerk’s Office.
The question is what the next step will be. The referendum needs to be placed on the ballot unless the council agrees to rescind its September 6 vote to raise rates at least 14% for the next five years. Until that issue is resolved, the rates are frozen at the current rates
The referendum was certified too late for the council to take action tonight. The next opportunity will be the December 6 meeting.
Organizer Michael Harrington failed to respond to a Vanguard request for a comment. However, he sent out a somewhat inflammatory email to the council and half of the City of Davis.
He said, “This is a courtesy notice to the Mayor and City Manager that we plan to ask the public to turn out en masse at the CC meeting that considers this matter.”
“We ask for you to set a special meeting just for this, or clear the agenda on December 6 to focus 100% on this important issue,” he said.
Mayor Krovoza told the Enterprise this morning that they had no plans at this time for a special meeting on this matter.
Mr. Harrington said, “We are going to respectfully request that the City Council immediately repeal the rate hike ordinance and enter into serious negotiations with appropriate representatives from the proponents of the referendum and the pending water initiative.”
This doesn’t seem likely to happen either.
“There is no doubt that there is great concern in the community about the water project,” Mayor Krovoza said in a statement to the Vanguard on Monday evening. “The referendum qualifying only heightens the clear need to explain the project better, consider all options for reducing costs, and to ensure the fairest possible rate structure — and likely all of these items and more, not just one or two discrete acts.”
The Mayor reiterated that he does not support a no-project option, but appears willing to look into additional ways to save money for the ratepayers.
“I believe the fundamentals of the project bring us the lowest possible long-term costs, and in a way that doesn’t just push fiscal and environmental problems on those who will follow us. But if we can do better, we will,” he said.
The Vanguard has repeatedly questioned the composition of the city’s water rate oversight committee, and on Monday Mayor Krovoza took exception to that as well.
“I believe we have excellent and balanced expertise on the new 10-member water advisory committee established by Council,” he said.
He also told the Vanguard that he believes the new general manager of the Joint Powers Authority will help in finding new ways to save money.
“Dennis Diemer — the new general manager of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency — has excellent ideas for cost control and outside funding,” he said.
“I am confident that the right next steps will emerge in the coming weeks,” he said.
But make no mistake, the referendum qualifying is a huge blow to the city, and the council is now going to have to find a way to bring the community together or risk a long and drawn-out election battle that could lead to the city having to turn back the rate increases and risk mandatory fines.
Emails from the Vanguard to Councilmember Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Stephen Souza asking for comment were not responded to on Monday evening.
The Vanguard on Monday laid out five points of concern on the water project, including concerns over the rate structure, the impact on the economy, the impact on the school parcel tax, the composition of the oversight committee, and concerns about the Design-Build-Operate process and the qualifications of two of the “operate” members of the teams that are in the process now of responding to a Request for Proposal.
The suggestion was that the Vanguard was suggesting a “tweak” in the water rate schedule. In fact, we are suggesting major changes, as we believe the schedule contains overly-onerous conservation assumptions and flat rates per household, which fail to take household size into account.
We remained concerned about the economic impacts of the rate hikes. We remain concerned that the rate hikes would take money that might normally go to schools and put them toward water.
Organizer Michael Harrington argued for disbanding the JPA, with 100% Davis ownership and operation of its own water system.
He also argued for a required independent review of the current ground water system.
Mayor Krovoza also raised a major question with the Vanguard via email, about the legality of the referendum in overturning a 218 process.
“It is very clear that you can’t overturn a 218 with a referendum,” Mayor Krovoza said.
However, others have suggested that any ordinance can be overturned via referendum. That is certainly an issue that will come up, but if it requires an initiative to overturn, the requirements for initiative are, as we now know, much less onerous.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Mayor Joe: Please show us your opinion memo supporting your claim that the referendum is unconstitutional.
Mike… if the matter goes on the ballot, and fails reverse the CC, will you shut up, or sue?
hpierce: Has Mr. Harrington done anything that he is not entitled to do?
No. Am just trying to establish what lengths he (or others) will go to to get their way. He has repeatedly brought the water supply issues into “threads” where, at first glance, the water issues are ‘non sequiturs’. I think I have asked a fair question. I seem to recall that he, himself, posed the litigation question before.
I’m sitting here laughing while reading the whiny and pissy comments from some of the pro-water posters.
So, Rusty, are you anit-water? What do you drink, wash with, flush toilets with? Vodka?
Hpierce,
I use Davis water and it has always done the job. I’ll let you use the Vodka as it sounds like you need a good stiff drink this morning.
Rusty… I do not “promote” the surface water project… anyone who believes that there will be no consequences, financially or otherwise, of relying on groundwater has their head in the sand… or somewhere else…
should have read, “[b]solely[/b] on groundwater”… I suspect, based on evidence to date, that we need BOTH.
[quote]But make no mistake, the referendum qualifying is a huge blow to the city, and the council is now going to have to find a way to bring the community together or risk a long and drawn-out election battle that could lead to the city having to turn back the rate increases and risk mandatory fines.[/quote]
So now you finally concede to “turn back rate increases” will have serious repercussions such as steep fines? Not to mention subsidence issues, crumbling infrastructure, need for drilling new deep level wells, increase in construction/finance costs, etc. In other words those who vote down the surface water project may end up paying MORE IN THE LONG RUN…
Actually let me correct that: In other words those who vote down the surface water project may up FORCING ALL OF US TO PAY MORE IN THE LONG RUN…
Correction: Actually let me correct that: In other words those who vote down the water rate increases may end up FORCING ALL OF US TO PAY MORE IN THE LONG RUN…
ERM, in today’s Enterprise:
[i]“I have no problem with the referendum. The voters had a right to do that; that was their choice. The City Council is going to have to think very long and hard about what the next steps are and I think the proponents of the project are going to have to take a step back and have to think about what the next steps are.”[/i]
Precisely: [i]our choice[/i].
@DG: “Has Mr. Harrington done anything that he is not entitled to do?”
For starters … repeatedly lying to the community.
Frustration: Will someone please tell me (and I am sure many other Vanguard readers) who the 10 members of the Water Advisory Board are, and ideally, a little about their qualifications to be on this board? Finally, who chose these members and how were they appointed? I support (financially and in other ways) and admire the Vanguard and some or most of the dissident positions it takes, but it is in some sense part of the “establishment” and takes for granted sometimes that all readers have information not so handily available to “outsiders” like myself. Or did I miss it in some DE story–if so please give me the cite.
On an unrelated issue: I look forward to an answer from Krovoza, or anyone else, that the ref. is unconst., to repeat Mike’s question. Already, as I predictyed yesterday, I see the CC looking for any way that it can to avoid this getting on the June 5 ballot or being decided upon by the voters of Davis.
To very briefly answer MW’s criticisms of me yesterday: allowing all voters a voice in this major decision is a crucial issue in itself and I am not prepared to spend three quarters of my day debating the minutiae of water rate structures until much nearer a real June 5 vote–that is if there is one. It’s a simple issue of democracy at one level MW, and then there are the arguments for at least applying for a variance, as Sue has suggested, and the arguments for a complete study of the viability of our existing wells. Then there is the argument that whatever system we end up be run by the city and not a private entity. So I do not at this point accept many your basic premises, ideologically, financially, or technically MW et al. Given the broader issues at stake, which have been repeated ad nauseam on this blog for months, one almost wonders if MW has been reading the Vanguard for the last few months or is it a case of Perry/Cain amnesia?
Herman, please see November 3 Vanguard article as a starting point:
Did the City Council Miss an Opportunity in Establishing the Utility Advisory Rate Committee?
Written by David Greenwald Thursday,03 November 2011 05:55
Could we cut the nastiness now that we are at a milestone in the process. The nasty comments by several of us is disheartening at best.
[quote]MH: “We are going to respectfully request that the City Council immediately …enter into serious negotiations with appropriate representatives from the proponents of the referendum and the pending water initiative.”[/quote]
I think Mike feels that he is holding the City hostage and must give in to his demands. I personally feel that he has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the project, water issues or public finance. His speech is inflammatory and hateful in some instances, shrouded in false friendliness. What we need are people willing to work in a collaborative manner to find the best way to deal with this issue. Mike is not a good fit for this. Hopefully, cooler heads will win out here.
[quote]Could we cut the nastiness now that we are at a milestone in the process. The nasty comments by several of us is disheartening at best.[/quote]
Thank you for this observation…
To all: I’ve removed several comments. Please keep it civil.
[quote]ERM, in today’s Enterprise: “I have no problem with the referendum. The voters had a right to do that; that was their choice. The City Council is going to have to think very long and hard about what the next steps are and I think the proponents of the project are going to have to take a step back and have to think about what the next steps are.”
Neutral: Precisely: our choice.[/quote]
Let me add an additional observation – the OPPONENTS of this project are going to have to take a step back and have to think about what the next steps are…
The bottom line is that we are all in this TOGETHER. Whatever the outcome, we are ALL GOING TO PAY FOR IT…
While having worked in Sacramento while living in Davis for 27 out of 32 years, I was often on the butt-end of many jokes poking fun at “those nutty people living in the people’s republic”. None of this ever bothered me because I knew the nuttiness was mostly harmless and I was proud to live in a great community. However, with the passing of this referrendum, the nuttiness has grown harmful and I am no longer as proud of the city. Looking forward, I am starting to question the ongoing value-proposition for living here.
Frankly, we have shown ourselves to be a bunch of hypocrites. A city that is 70-80% liberal Democrat with a top education and income level, with high home equity, prone to voting for and supporting every evironmental cause… just told the rest of the state that we don’t want to pay for a water project that would reduce efluent and polution discharge.
With the passing of this referrendum, I think the Davis brand has been tarnished by so much bad water. Let’s hope we can overcome our challenges and do the right thing in the end. Meanwhile, look forward to being the butt-end of more jokes.
Since this going to go to a vote, I wonder if anyone in the city is researching ways to reduce the cost to voters by getting more stimulus money, grants, etc. Alternatively, is there a way to “sweeten the pot” for likely “no” voters: e.g. seniors, low income people by giving them a break of rates? Personally, I don’t like this idea, as I’d have to pony up their discount, but that is how lots of school bonds are passed.
There is no real doubt that the city will have to pay for the surface water project; the only question is do we pay now or much more later. The council has to find a way for this to pass.
[i]”there are the arguments for at least applying for a variance, as Sue has suggested, and the arguments for a complete study of the viability of our existing wells. Then there is the argument that whatever system we end up be run by the city and not a private entity.”[/i]
All of those are points that the community should be considering with any alternative it chooses. I’ve been arguing for more than three months that we should be applying for any and all variances that allow us to sequence the projects. The reality is that all such variances apply to the wastewater treatment plant upgrade, not our source of water. Therefore any granted variance will be most valuable in sequencing the wastewater upgrade [u]after[/u] the source water improvements. What kind of “viability of our existing wells” study do you propose. The intermediate wells have been fully studied. We know we need to retire those wells and replace their production with water that is not chemically compromised. Any study of wells needs to focus on water that would replace the intermediate well production we need to retire.
Herman said . . .
[i]”So I do not at this point accept many your basic premises, ideologically, financially, or technically MW et al. Given the broader issues at stake, which have been repeated ad nauseam on this blog for months, one almost wonders if MW has been reading the Vanguard for the last few months or is it a case of Perry/Cain amnesia?”[/i]
What are my basic premises that you don’t accept? It is easy to make a sweeping generalized, unsupported statement like you just did. It is another thing altogether to back it up with supporting facts. Said another way, you are long on rhetoric, but woefully short on substance.
[quote]Frustration: Will someone please tell me (and I am sure many other Vanguard readers) who the 10 members of the Water Advisory Board are, and ideally, a little about their qualifications to be on this board? [/quote]
My qualifications:
1) Attorney
2) Applied mathematician
3) Have been employed as public school teacher, junior college instructor, computer software consultant, systems analyst, lawyer in private practice, volunteer attorney for Senior Legal Hotline, facilitated legal clinic in West Sacramento
4) Chair Davis Senior Citizens Commission – recommended based water rates on consumption rather than flat rate
5) Vice-Chair Yolo County Commission on Aging & Adult Services – gives me a countywide perspective on the surface water project
6) Volunteer Attorney Yolo County Multidisciplinary Team – main function is to assist in preventing physical and financial elder and dependent adult abuse
7) Have studied the surface water project/wastewater treatment plant upgrade for approximately 5-6 years
8) Was on the informal advisory committee that lowered the rates from 3.3 times the current rate to approximately 2 times the current rate for the average residential user assuming 20% conservation
9) Have worked on various issues at the county and city level, including saving the Davis Senior Citizens Commission from elimination, and shepherding the Carlton Plaza Davis assisted living facility through city processes to fruition despite stiff city staff resistance
You will have to decide for yourself whether you deem me qualified to sit on the utility rate advisory committee…
Each city council member selected two people to be on the utility rate advisory committee…
[quote]Since this going to go to a vote, I wonder if anyone in the city is researching ways to reduce the cost to voters by getting more stimulus money, grants, etc. Alternatively, is there a way to “sweeten the pot” for likely “no” voters: e.g. seniors, low income people by giving them a break of rates? Personally, I don’t like this idea, as I’d have to pony up their discount, but that is how lots of school bonds are passed. [/quote]
All of the issues you have raised are being looked at…
Neutral, thanks for the reference. (BTW,I note that the composition of this committee is not listed on the Davis City “Water Information” page). I agree with David, in his Nov. 3 piece, that allowing council members two appointments each just perpetuates the existing politics without providing an objective or neutral voice or review that we really need.
On another matter: I am getting really tired of proponents of the measure calling opponents grossly irresponsible!!! As many have said, we want the existing proposal scrutinized much more carefully in ways that might lead to a cheaper and better solution and one operated by the city. Is it really so outrageous to ask for seven months to look into this? It so only to those who have a totally uncompromising and fanatical commitment to the current proposal as demonstrated by the tomes that some people, that I have already mentioned, find time to write on this blog every day. Would these same people rather that we were paying for a $200 million waste water project rather than a $108 million one?
And in terms of responsibility, should for some reason, Davis or Woodland default on their obligations or have severe ecponmic difficulty as a result of the hikes, can we garnish your assets and re-possess your homes regardless or not of whether you live in Davis?
As for Jeff Boone, I am sure he will find plenty of people willing to help him move to Sacramento where (like most places) any progressive activism on the part citizens in Davis (or any other community for that matter) is characterized as essentially looney left politics. If Jeff wants to live in an apathetic city with little grass roots political organization or opposition, Sacramento will fit the bill well. And while he is there he can push for a new stadium and a $2.4 billion sewer program. I am sure most voters in Sacramento would hardly notice.
As follow-up to my comments to Herman above, no matter what rate structure one devises there will be some flaws. The key is to devise a structure that 1) minimizes the flaws, and 2) has the ability to address the “affordability” challenges you’ve described. I believe the rate structure that the Irvine Ranch Water District has been using since 1991 is extremely good at doing both. Since they have been using this rate structure for 20 years, it has more complexity than Davis needs, but a simplified version would work as follows:
Each home would get a “water budget” with two components. First, the base “indoor water use” budget is calculated by multiplying 55 gallons per day (20,075 gallons per year or 1,673 gallons/month) times the number of residents in the home. That translates to 4.5 ccf per person per bimonthly billing period. Second an “outdoor water use” budget is calculated using a typical lawn of 1300 square feet using 8.44 ccf per bimonthly billing period.
So a person living alone in Irvine has a combined indoor/outdoor bimonthly water budget of just under 13 ccf. The combined budget for a family of two goes up to 17.4 ccf. For a family of three it is 21.8. For a family of four it is 26.3. For a family of five it is 30.8. For a family of six it is 35.3.
Once the budget for a house is set, then the following rates apply:
USAGE – LOW VOLUME (0-40% of Budget)$0.91 per ccf
USAGE – RESPONSIBLE CONSERVATION (41-100% of Budget)$1.22 per ccf
USAGE – INEFFICIENT (101-150% of Budget)$2.50 per ccf
USAGE – EXCESSIVE (151-200% of Budget)$4.32 per ccf
USAGE – WASTEFUL (201%+ of Budget)$9.48 per ccf
In addition to the calculated consumption amount there is a fixed bimonthly Service Charge.
Mike Harrington has already said about this kind of structure, [i]”Matt: why would anyone disclose how many live there? Also, people frequently move, so the data become obsolete very quickly.”[/i]
The answers to those questions are really quite simple. 1) We already provide household population numbers on our Tax Returns and to the Census, why not to the Water Department in order to have everyone have “fair” rates? 2) Dealing with changes would be as easy as when the family that buys a house contacts the City to turn on the water and sewer service, they simply would provide one number in addition to all the other demographic data they currently provide.
I believe that is a start toward coming up with a “fair” rate structure. What does everyone think?
@Jeff Boone:[quote]… the nuttiness was mostly harmless and I was proud to live in a great community. However, with the passing of this referrendum, the nuttiness has grown harmful and I am no longer as proud of the city. Looking forward, I am starting to question the ongoing value-proposition for living here.[/quote]This is a very important point that cannot be stressed enough!
Davis is in decline, and the blow-back from our dysfunctional politics (in this particular case driven largely by David Greenwald, Sue Greenwald, Michael Harrington, and Bob Dunning) is likely to have increasingly serious negative consequences to the community.
Don Shor,
“To all: I’ve removed several comments. Please keep it civil.”
Mr Shor, you erased my posts which weren’t over the top at all and in response to other posts but you then leave:
“Mike… if the matter goes on the ballot, and fails reverse the CC, will you shut up, or sue?”
and,
“@DG: “Has Mr. Harrington done anything that he is not entitled to do?”
For starters … repeatedly lying to the community.”
I sometimes wonder about the fairness on here.
Clarification or information question in the light of Rusty 49s post: Is Don Schor really the moderator, or censor, of comment on the Vanguard blog? I always assume that task fell to David. If it is partially Don’s job why is this the case?
rusty: I wasn’t singling you out. I saw an argument starting, and decided to nip it in the bud.
Herman: I am the moderator. I was asked to do it, and I accepted. If you have questions about it you can contact me at donshor@gmail.com. If you have complaints about it you can contact David. He also, obviously, has capability of removing and editing posts.
“Looking forward, I am starting to question the ongoing value-proposition for living here.
Frankly, we have shown ourselves to be a bunch of hypocrites. A city that is 70-80% liberal Democrat with a top education and income level, with high home equity, prone to voting for and supporting every evironmental cause… just told the rest of the state that we don’t want to pay for a water project that would reduce efluent and polution discharge. “
I fear you’re exactly right Jeff . I have long understood the difficulty of explaining science issues, but one would hope that would be less so in Davis . The fact that some of the biggest “Boosters” on this blog have worked to derail the project is bizarre to me . I am also surprised that the political and, I assume, financial opportunists have been so successful at directing the debate .
[quote]Da Vinci students present water information nights
Da Vinci High School’s environmental science students invite all members of the Davis community to a pair of water education nights intended to educate the community and raise awareness about the myths and realities of Davis water.
The students will present information on watersheds, fresh water, water treatment, the Woodland-Davis water supply project, funding for the water supply project and water conservation.
The events will take place on Wednesday, Nov. 30, from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. at International House Davis, 10 College Park, and on Thursday, Dec. 1, from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Stephens Branch Library, 315 E. 14th St.
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/schools-news/da-vinci-students-present-water-information-nights/[/url]
[/quote]
Jeff B.: Here’s your chance. You can attend a public Da Vinci presentation and decide for yourself in person if Davis schools are offering education that has any relevance to issues in 2011.
wdf1: Thanks for the heads-up. I have a conflicting appointment that I will try to move so I can attend. Note that I have always applauded Da Vinci as being a net positive when compared to the status quo.
[b]@Biddlin and Voter 2012[/b]I have a real problem with the tone of some of you. What I am seeing is a lot of ad hominum and demeaning comments about anyone who disagrees with you. This is not good.
I for one have been studying this issue for years, I have a good understanding of the science and I have talked to scores of professionals with a good understanding of the science.
In fact, I believe that we are in denial about the cost of our new water-related expenditures relative to the costs that have been imposed on other cities.
$300 million of new water-related costs for a city of 65,000 puts us in the league with cities nationally that have gotten into major trouble lately.
Guys, our cumulative water-related new expenditures are far greater than those of other cities. Much greater. If we don’t do something to substantially lower the cumulative costs, there will be widespread ramifications. Substantially lowering the costs will probably have to involve some phasing in of at least portions of one of the major projects.
I’m really tired of detailing, week in and week out, the misconceptions and misinformation that I have been reading on these pages.
In short, we have not exhausted our regulatory remedies, we will not lose our water rights if we can negotiate relief with the WRCB, we probably do not have a major selenium problem, the water quality in our aquifer would would take decades to centuries to degrade if it does, our well water is safe and “clean” and our water/wastewater costs will most definitely not be average for the region if we proceed according to the current plan — they will be far, far higher than average for the region and also high by statewide standards.
I would prefer to postpone the wastewater treatment plant if we have a choice, but we have to get the cumulative costs down somehow.
$300 million of new water-related expenditures is too much for a city of $65,000. Even Porter-Cologne, the state’s clean water act upon which the federal Clean Water Act was modeled, acknowledges that fiscal impacts have to be taken into account in implementation.
At the very least, I want to be on record for pointing out that the current course, if unmodified, will be likely to have serious negative effects on the city for the next 30 or 40 years.
Sue:
[i]we probably do not have a major selenium problem,
[/i]
Untrue. Want to go over it again? I have rebutted you time and time again on this.
[i] the water quality in our aquifer would would take decades to centuries to degrade if it does
[/i]
Totally untrue. Want to go over it again? Your numbers don’t add up. You are misconstruing Dr. Fogg. I have rebutted you time and time again on this.
[i]I’m really tired of detailing, week in and week out, the misconceptions and misinformation that I have been reading on these pages. [/i]
I am really tired of responding to your failure to prove these two points above, week in and week out, and have you act as though you have proved your point.
You haven’t.
[quote]Untrue. Want to go over it again? I have rebutted you time and time again on this.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]Don, I have explained this in great detail to you. I have talked with the city staff who are in charge of this, and they have never really analyzed it, but the numbers aren’t bad and the regulations can probably be met with the dilution already planned. Time will prove me right on this one. I will bet you a good dinner.
[quote]the water quality in our aquifer would would take decades to centuries to degrade if it does — [b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]I am quoting the University’s leading groundwater expert.
I sent in a Public Records Act request to the Mayor today, asking for the legal document that supports his comments to the Davis Enterprise and Vanguard less than an hour after he was notified that the referendum qualified that he thinks supports his out-of-the-blue position that the referendum is unconstitutional, and “obvious” to anyone who looks. It is not obvious; I looked before I started this referendum; I looked last night. Zip. Nada.
Waiting.
Calendar December 6 CC meeting; show up; and demand a repeal.
“In most any city where groundwater is the sole source of drinking water and landscape water, however, [b]it is possible for demand to grow to the point that groundwater overdraft occurs. [/b]In that case, the aquifer system would not dry up and blow away, but there would be more severe restrictions on water use, like vastly reducing landscape watering, which is a large but non-essential part of the water demand. (I realize, it’s an uphill battle in N. CA to get people more accustomed to lack of green grass, but since landscape watering in this part of the world is the largest part of the urban water budget, this issue will be receiving more and more attention.)”
–Dr. Graham Fogg, quoted on Rich Rifkin’s blog.
Let’s discuss that [b]”demand to grow to the point that groundwater overdraft occurs”[/b] part of the quote.
You have never addressed my concern that your proposal would amount to taking the current pumping from the deep aquifer from 2300 a-f (UCD) to 5300 a-f (UCD incl West Village, currently allowed) to another 8000 a-f for the City of Davis to replace the 57% of our water supply that is selenium-heavy.
Or simply to replace the oldest wells.
Maximum total change in deep aquifer pumping: 13300 / 2300.
That is a 578% increase in pumping. Let’s be conservative and say you only need to replace part of that. Maybe only a 300% increase in pumping from the deep aquifer.
What metric are you going to use to determine that we are doing ok with that aquifer?
The City/UCD groundwater management plan has a number of monitoring requirements for the current use of deep aquifer water. Have you looked at those?
When will it suddenly be necessary to reduce deep aquifer pumping due to increased nitrate contamination, increased salinity contamination, or measurable subsidence?
When that happens, what is likely to be the first management tool to kick in? Reduced water supply. Like “vastly reduced landscape watering.”
With your proposal, significantly more pumping would occur from the deep aquifer in order to dilute out the selenium and replace aging infrastructure. You haven’t addressed this concern.
The selenium remains an issue. The old wells remain an issue. Everything you propose goes to the deep aquifer.
To summarize some of the issues:
1. delaying surface water project:
salinity (intermediate aquifer)
selenium (intermediate aquifer)
subsidence (intermediate aquifer)
contamination (deep aquifer)
risk of UCD wells dropping (deep aquifer)
2. delaying water treatment plans:
coliform and other discharge issues
3. going forward with surface water project:
cost of doing two projects at once
[b]Don Shor[/b]Yes, Don, the university groundwater expert said [quote]“it is possible for demand to grow to the point that groundwater overdraft occurs”[/quote]But our demand has been decreasing substantially. Our University groundwater expert made it clear that he supports importing surface water and thinks it important that we “secure” our water rights, which we have already done, but that the timeline is not that critical, especially given our decreasing usage, and that the timeline is measured in “decades” (to centuries).
Postponing one or the other projects can certainly be looked at, given the disproportionate costs of completing both projects at once. There are ways to assure that we will complete both projects within the next 20 or 25 years, and I would support doing so. There might even be the the possibility of postponing our wastewater treatment plant; I was told by the regional WRCB that technically, our ammonia limits could be extended until 2025.
We have people in Davis who can afford extraordinarily high rates, and people who can’t. Half of our households make under $60,000 a year, 40% of our students are on Pell grants, and the pensions and savings of seniors on fixed income erode quickly with even modest inflation.
Once again, a time-honored way of managing the costs of extraordinarily expensive infrastructure projects is the phase them in.
[i]”our demand has been decreasing substantially….”
[/i]
Everything you are proposing will substantially increase the demand [i]on the deep aquifer[/i] by far more than city water use has declined. That is what we are talking about — demand on the deep aquifer — [i]not overall city demand[/i]. Dr. Fogg’s comment was in response to a question about the deep aquifer. You are proposing a significant increase in use of the deep aquifer.
Demand on the deep aquifer will grow from 2300 acre-feet to [i]many thousands more. [/i]
Give him a call. Ask him if he thinks it is ok to increase use of the deep aquifer by a factor of 2x, 3x, 4x, or 5x.
I urge the council to act on Sue and Matt William’s proposal to seek a delay in the wastewater project. You and I and others all agree on this.
Any delay in the surface water project carries too many risks.
[quote]Everything you are proposing will substantially increase the demand on the deep aquifer by far more than city water use has declined–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]No Don, I explained this yesterday. 80% of our water goes to irrigation, and hence does not end up contributing to the waste flow. If we replumb some of our shallow wells for city irrigation, we will be using a higher PERCENTAGE of our deeper water for household use which goes down the drain and a lower percentage for irrigation. We will thus have more dilution of the selenium which ends up in the waste flow without increasing our deep water pumping at all.
(Also, we are planning to do some additional pumping from the deeper levels even if after we import surface water, so that also will increase selenium dilution).
[quote]On another matter: I am getting really tired of proponents of the measure calling opponents grossly irresponsible!!! As many have said, we want the existing proposal scrutinized much more carefully in ways that might lead to a cheaper and better solution and one operated by the city. Is it really so outrageous to ask for seven months to look into this? It so only to those who have a totally uncompromising and fanatical commitment to the current proposal as demonstrated by the tomes that some people, that I have already mentioned, find time to write on this blog every day. Would these same people rather that we were paying for a $200 million waste water project rather than a $108 million one? [/quote]
I understand your concerns, and greatly sympathize with your views. However, the fact of the matter is the water quality standards are going to kick in in the year 2017 come h_ll or high water. We can delay, but it will likely come at a steep cost, and “aye, there is the rub”…. As a member of the Woodland City Council said, the new water quality standards amount to an “unfunded mandate”…
Let us assume for arguments sake that:
1. Sue Greenwalds’s plan to use new deep aquifer wells is sufficient to bring us into compliance with the Selenium and Salinity standards
2. We have access to sufficient water rights from the deep aquifer to meet our needs
3. That the deep aquifer is so vast that there is no limit on the amount of water we can pump from it over the next 20 years
4. Subsidence is not an issue.
We don’t really have a ‘no additional cost’ solution to our water problem (though some who post here seem to think we do). We are already on the hook for $100 million plus for the waste water component and our share of the surface water project is currently estimated at $150-200 million, so that sounds like a total cost of $250-300 million for the combined solution.
Sue keeps telling us that [i]”$300 million of new water-related expenditures is too much for a city of 65,000.”[/i]
So my question is, how much money will be required to build the necessary infrastructure (buying the land, securing the water rights, drilling the wells, tying into the existing system, and of course, replumbing the City’s landscape water system (as Sue just proposed) in order to implement her proposed strategy for cleaner input water using the deep aquifer?
$50 million?
$100 million?
$200 million?
I have no idea what that number is, other than it is greater than zero. Since all the experts (including Sue) agree that the surface water project will eventually be needed, how much do we save today by delaying the surface project until later?
What is the total cost (in today’s dollars) if we do delay?
Finally, If we assume that the costs will be amortized over 20-30 years, what is the actual annual per capita cost difference between doing the surface water project today, and doing it in 10-20 years (including Sue’s proposed changes to our current infrastructure)?
In other words, if we follow Sue Greenwald’s plan, how much do we actually save?
Do you have an answer Sue?
My Plan B has been laid out several times.
I am waiting to here from project proponents and the City what their Plan B is.
The current rate hikes are not going to survive, in my opinion. My best guess is that the CC is going to repeal them on December 6th, and try for a one year hike via Prop 218 (and face another referendum), then try again for the big numbers.
Meanwhile, I don’t think the Woodland hikes are going to survive, in spite of the best efforts of Mr. Marbles and his and Mr. Souza’s felony indicted supporters at United Water.
Our initiative is going to be on the June ballot, so Steve is still going to have to face the voters on his budget-busting city water policies and rate hikes, and his support for the likes of United Water.
So, Mayor Krovoza: what is the City’s plan for a water system going to be when the dust settles down in June and he has a bare majority still standing? That’s the only interesting question to me. I have a Plan B, ahve put it out there repeatedly, and not gotten any response from the City. Where is the City’s Plan B?
Sue: [i]”80% of our water goes to irrigation, and hence does not end up contributing to the waste flow. If we replumb some of our shallow wells for city irrigation, we will be using a higher PERCENTAGE of our deeper water for household use which goes down the drain and a lower percentage for irrigation.”
[/i]
80% of household water goes to irrigation, on average.
The city is not replumbing water for household uses from the high selenium wells.
The city is going to divert about 450 acre-feet, over the next decade, to irrigation of the city’s parks.
That is what was in this link I provided yesterday:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/watershiftirrigation.png[/img]
450 acre-feet. Wells that are high selenium produce approx. 8000 acre-feet.
Your numbers don’t add up to anything like what is necessary to reduce selenium levels to the current discharge standards.
IS there a conflict of interest to be concerned about with regard to Mayor Krovoza’s “day job” being a career position with UCD Davis and a possible legal dispute between UCD and our city over the use of our shared deep aquifer water?
“@Biddlin and Voter 2012 I have a real problem with the tone of some of you. What I am seeing is a lot of ad hominum and demeaning comments about anyone who disagrees with you. This is not good.”
And I have a real problem with your obvious effort to stake out this sanctimonious position. You are an elected official, yet you come on this blog to endlessly post pedantic, evasive, and repetitive talking points – while completely ignoring efforts to engage you in an honest dialog. This is, as you say, not good.
[i][quote]“My Plan B has been laid out several times.”[/quote][/i]Michael, please provide a link that gets us to your solution for dealing with the water issues now that it’s clear you are against the plan the city has developed. I have read repeated requests for you to describe your solution. I have read your repeated refusals to do so.
You have kissed off this legitimate question so often–as you just minutes ago are doing yet again–it seems obvious that you either: 1.) are ignorant of what people are asking you to produce or 2.) are engaging in Big Lie propaganda techniques.
You’ve used the [u]Vanguard[/u] for weeks to personally attack in very offensive ways our city’s leaders and many others who care about Davis and work hard to improve our city.
It’s a little surprising your personal attacks have continued unabated; my guess is that Don feels constrained because he’s taken the time to educate himself about the issues and doesn’t want to look like he’s censoring your unenlightened, personal attack posts. And, of course, David is so enamored with his own “stop everything in its tracks” campaign, your campaign fits right in.
You’ve either misrepresented, out-right lied or kept secret the source of the referendum support (when, so far, it appears you’ve been the leader, spokesperson and cover for the whole thing). It was cute for awhile, but has become unseemly as your campaign tactics have become more disgusting.
Your posts provide all heat and zero enlightenment for the rest of us, regardless of how we feel about the water issue. You keep contending that you have a solution (“it’s out there”). I suggest it’s time to put up or shut up. Please be specific.
Where is your thoughtful solution, the one that drove you to conduct your referendum campaign. Stick your url right here———-}. Thank you.
Justsaying: feel better now? (No moderator, I dont want you to remove the post that makes him look so badly.)
To all: please avoid personal attacks, and stick to the issues.
Don: so remove his post. God help me if I say 1/2 of what these guys say directly against me.
“Back of the envelope calculation for the surface water project…”
Total Cost = $200,000,000
Annual Interest Rate = 10%
Amortization = 30 Years
Annual Payment (interest + Principle) = $21,216,000
Per Capita = 21,216.000 / 65,000 = $326 / Year or $27.20 / Month
(all water used by individuals, none by City, none by business)
With four kids at home that means nearly $2000 / year in my household (ouch!). But what are some comparable numbers…
Comcast Basic Cable = $30 / Mo
Medium Drip Coffee (Peet’s), $2 per day, 5 days per week = $43 / Mo
For most people in this town, this amount is a non-issue. Since the City and businesses are responsible for a significant percentage of the total water use, the actual amount will be considerably less. On average though, the maximum increase in total costs will be less than $30 per month per person.
Rich Rifkin – please correct my mistakes.
[i][quote]“Justsaying: feel better now? (No moderator, I dont want you to remove the post that makes him look so badly.)”[/quote][/i]So, Michael, you whine to the moderator instead of responding–for the Nth time? After all the obvious and outright personal attacks you’ve dropped here against various [u]Vanguard[/u] posters and other community folks, you want protection from Don? Or, is this just more of your repartee aimed at avoiding the repeated requests for you to produce your water solution, the one that’s “out there.”
I will feel better when you:[i][quote]“please provide a link that gets us to your solution for dealing with the water issues now that it’s clear you are against the plan the city has developed. I have read repeated requests for you to describe your solution. I have read your repeated refusals to do so.”[/quote][/i]Are you going to? Or am I going to have to feel better by satisfying my rapidly growing suspicion that you have nothing to offer the conversation.[i][quote]“Don: so remove his post. God help me if I say 1/2 of what these guys say directly against me.[/quote][/i]What have I said that you consider a “personal attack”? What of my questions and comments do you think are “not sticking to the issues”?
I am sincerely interested in how someone jumps into the public discussion, devotes two months to leading a battle against the established, elected leadership and avoids offering any alternative solution.
The [u]Vanguard[/u] provides you a forum, as far I can remember without requiring you to meet its “personal attack” standard. I think you should at least back up your statements about yourself and what you’re representing.
Will you provide link(s) to your water project alternative solutions, the same ones that you contend you’ve already offered up? I have to believe that–if you can and if you do–we’ll both “feel better.”
“Per Capita = 21,216.000 / 65,000 = $326”
Without even looking at the math, the concept of population is not what should be considered, rather per household since the negative impact on household budgets is the issue. This could easily double or triple this number.
Sue Greenwald: “$300 million of new water-related costs for a city of 65,000 puts us in the league with cities nationally that have gotten into major trouble lately. “
Like where? If you want to compare us to Jefferson County AL. that recently filed for bankruptcy they had $4.1 billion in debt compared to our proposed$300 million at the high end. They have ten times as many people but their incomes are significantly lower $46000/family vs 73,000/family according to the 2000 census. Also interest rates are lower now and Hopefully Davis will be smarter about our financing options..
So where else are you eluding to that we are in league with? Certainly Jeff City AL. is a stretch of a comparison.
Oh yeah, water bill will be lower than phone bill, much lower than mortgage or property taxes.
[b]Toad[/b]: Jefferson County’s per household liability was about $11,000 when they ran into trouble. People stopped paying bills, and the district resorted to risky loans in order to get costs down. At about $300 million of new water related expenses, our costs per single family will be equal to or greater than that (single-families pay a larger portion of the water costs than apartments and we don’t have much industry).
We won’t resort to risky loans of course, but I expect to see strains in our system at that level of per household expenditure.
SG “Jefferson County’s per household liability was about $11,000 when they ran into trouble.”
Assuming this is true our finances would still be better of because of our higher incomes. If we came in on budget and borrowed at lower rates we would be better off still. So who else would you like to compare us to?
Jeff Co AL. debt/household closer to $12,000 from sewer but total debt closer to $16,000/household at time of bankruptcy filing.
$11,000 liability per unit in new water-related costs is the number in the report that I read about the Jefferson County bankruptcy, but the point is that it is very close to the Davis number. Jefferson County is the home of the University of Alabama, so it is a mixed district.
The point I made is that $11,000 per unit got Jefferson County into trouble. I said that we wouldn’t be likely to take the same course, but that we would be likely to experience strains to our system.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Sue, are you advocating water rates stay as they are? What would be an acceptable rate increase?
Free and reduced lunch
Jeff County AL 47%
Davis no school over 25 % most around 15%
Those fighting to stall or kill this surface water project over rate concerns should consider that this is an ugly chicken coming back to roost over past policies and politics.
When you think about it…
We 75-80% liberal Democrat Davisites have:
1.Voted “yes” for every national and state environmental cause.
2.Elected union-friendly politicians who negotiated generous wage and benefit agreements.
3.Prevented residential growth which would serve to mitigate each resident’s share of water rate costs.
4.Maintained a business-hostile attitude, and blocked non-core commercial development which would have increased tax revenue.
5.Failed to exploit the economic potential of expanded retail which would have increased tax revenue.
Now we are whining about having to supplement the cost of required infrastructure improvements through higher fees. I’m sorry, but stepping outside our fair city looking in, we appear to be a bunch of highly-educated spoiled children.
I have a couple of policy/accounting questions:
A.Why can’t we consider cutting city staff and benefits to help pay for the surface water project?
B.Why can’t water rate increases be mitigated with a more sophisticated and aggressive economic development plan to bring in more tax revenue?
[quote][i][b]David M. Greenwald[/b]
11/15/11 – 07:07 AM…
hpierce: Has Mr. Harrington done anything that he is not entitled to do?[/i][/quote]What kind of question is this, David? This is a free country. Has he broken any laws? As you tend to say, the real question is something else. Are his actions productive for the community, and are his methods honest and honorable?