In a memo the Vanguard received, sent from Woodland City Manager Paul Navazio to Davis City Manager Steve Pinkerton among others, it becomes clear that the Davis-Woodland-West Sacramento regional option for water is off the table.
The memo sent on Thursday, June 28, from the former acting Davis City Manager says: “We understand that the Davis Water Advisory Committee has an important meeting this evening, and that the agenda includes an update on the various options for partnering with West Sacramento.”
He continues, “Some Woodland City Council members have called me today to express concern over the ongoing consideration of the option whereby Davis and Woodland would partner with West Sacramento.”
“I have been asked to communicate to you (as staff support to the WAC) that – based on the analysis we have seen and reviewed – Woodland is not interested in expending resources in further reviewing a West Sacramento Option for provision of municipal water to the City of Woodland,” Mr. Navazio writes. “We do not believe that there are advantages for the City to pursue a West Sacramento alternative, given the cost, risks, and questions that still remain.”
“Put simply, while the City of Woodland respects the City of Davis’ considerations of alternative to the current Woodland-Davis Surface Water Project, the City of Woodland is committed to proceeding with the current ‘preferred’ project, whether Davis remains as a project partner, or not,” he concludes.
As time ticks down on the key date of August 21 for the Water Advisory Committee to make critical decisions on the water project, if anything the picture has become more and not less murky this week.
On Tuesday, the city council, citing time constraints, postponed discussion of the ordinance – a move that is not expected to have any impact on the timetable.
Several members of the WAC expressed stark concerns on Thursday night and Friday following their meeting that the city and the Carollo report were behind in terms of their ability to give the members real numbers to consider.
Some have gone so far as to suggest that this further delay makes it next to impossible to get the information needed for a November ballot measure.
The decision by Woodland offers, perhaps, the first bit of clarity. Davis needs to decide between two alternatives – continuing with the JPA or working with West Sacramento.
In a Davis-only option, it may be possible to delay implementation based on delayed regulatory drivers.
Carolla’s preliminary analysis argues: “The total project cost for the Davis-only option is currently lower than the cost of the Davis portion of the DWWSP. In addition, the Davis-only option has phasing advantages over the DWWSP that may allow a delay or slower increase in Davis water rates.”
This is only a preliminary analysis and it is a complex situation, but this suggests that the West Sacramento option, with Davis participating but not Woodland, might allow for a slower increase in Davis water rates.
There are drawbacks to this, as well. One is that Davis, at least now, would not be able to be partners with West Sacramento, but would purchase water from West Sacramento. One source indicated this may not be the death-knell to such a consideration.
Other cities have entered into long-term contracts with other agencies for the provision of water. A long-term contract could still provide Davis with a stable water supply for 100 years.
What is critical now is timing. Woodland is operating on a different time scale than Davis. They have to act sooner. They are prepared to go it alone if Davis is not ready to move by November.
Part of that is due to the fact that Woodland’s timeline requires them to have a new water supply by 2016 whereas Davis has until 2018. Moreover, as City Manager Pinkerton told the Vanguard earlier this week, Woodland made no plans for short-term fixes.
What that means is that, if Davis is to remain in the Woodland-JPA route, then it has to have a ballot measure ready for November.
If it decides to go to West Sacramento, it can and probably has to go to an April measure in order to get an EIR approved.
The WAC, therefore, only has a short few weeks to make a critical decision that will shape the city’s future.
One thing that appears clear, talking with several of members of the WAC – the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money.
And there are clear reasons to support this view, including the fact that at this point, that ownership and partnership cannot be on the table. There are logistical reasons as well.
The bottom line at this point is that this is a complex arrangement and no matter what we do, there will be inherent, if not fatal, flaws.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Deadlines are , more often than not, a move in the game of political “chicken”. Attempting to generate voter fear to impact what appears to now be an inevitable citizen-initiated referendum on the surface water project’s future is Woodland’s goal here.
It was always a better idea to have Woodland go it alone in resolving its water needs. Its politically apathetic voters have already permitted massive residential development which only waits for the housing market to improve. Davis and Woodland do not have the same political culture or interests,(Woodland’s vote against joining SMUD when Davis voted strongly in favor, Woodland’s main-street blight in response to its continuing love affair with big box shopping malls) and makes a Woodland/Davis “marriage” unworkable.
What monies are accruing on the JPA? I heard a few million up to this point from the WAC discussion. What actual work is being done while Davis studies?
Do you think the CC will adopt whatever the WAC recommends?
I’ll let someone on the WAC answer the other questions.
“Do you think the CC will adopt whatever the WAC recommends? “
I don’t. I don’t think that they won’t adopt what the WAC recommends, but I think the council will weigh a number of political considerations that the WAC might not.
“They are prepared to go it alone if Davis is not ready to move by November”
…what would you have expected them to say at this juncture”. This statement is of no consequence and, IMO, will be changed if in Woodland’s interests. We only have to look at the changing political rhetoric in the current Eurozone crisis to see the game of “chicken” at work.
[quote]“One thing that appears clear talking with several of members of the WAC – the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money.”[/quote]Who are these mysterious people? If they talk clearly, they should talk openly. We also should find out if they’re talking accurately about “city staff” and who it is who would not want to save money and why.
This development certainly validates the concerns some folks expressed about delaying the decision; it did have consequences. Unintended for some and intended for some, perhaps.
[quote]One thing that appears clear talking with several of members of the WAC – the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money.[/quote]
I don’t know where you got this [i][b]misinformation[/b][/i] from…
[quote]The bottom line at this point is that this is a complex arrangement and no matter what we do, there will be inherent if not fatal flaws.[/quote]
I have no idea how the Vanguard is using the term “fatal flaw”, but if the Vanguard had read the 4 tech memos, it would be clear there are no “fatal flaws” in any of the options as that term is used technically…
Clear the November ballot for the school tax renewal. Let the WAC work on their research into the winter and see what our citizen exoerts recommend on water supply issues?
Let’s do it for the kids !
[quote]Deadlines are , more often than not, a move in the game of political “chicken”. Attempting to generate voter fear to impact what appears to now be an inevitable citizen-initiated referendum on the surface water project’s future is Woodland’s goal here.[/quote]
This has absolutely nothing to do with a game of “chicken”. The problem for Woodland is that for them the Davis/Woodland/West Sac option is actually as or more expensive than if they go it alone and has the inherent risks of Woodland and Davis only being customers rather than partners is my understanding of the situation…
Elaine. Can you answer my earlier post about JPA monies accruing and what work they are doing while we study? Is the administrator still in place?
[quote]It was always a better idea to have Woodland go it alone in resolving its water needs. Its politically apathetic voters have already permitted massive residential development which only waits for the housing market to improve. Davis and Woodland do not have the same political culture or interests,(Woodland’s vote against joining SMUD when Davis voted strongly in favor, Woodland’s main-street blight in response to its continuing love affair with big box shopping malls) and makes a Woodland/Davis “marriage” unworkable. [/quote]
I find this continued demonization of Woodland unfortunate. Every city is different, w its own strengths and weaknesses, and Davis is no different. This is precisely why Davis has a reputation around the area and in the media for being arrogant…
That said, the WAC must be concerned for what is in the best interests of Davis citizens. If the West Sac option does not work out, it would not be wise to have given Woodland the cold shoulder if for some reason the city of Davis wants back in to the Woodland/Davis JPA. And there are definite drawbacks to the West Sac option. For instance, Davis would only be a customer and not a partner. We don’t know what sort of contract we can work out with Woodland – they may be unwilling to sign on to a contract for an extended period of years in light of their planned buildout. Secondly, the West Sac option does not have ozonation, but only chlorination. There is not enough room for it. That means the treated water from West Sac will probably taste very chemical. Thirdly, an EIR has not been done for this option because it is still not a formal project/proposal yet.
“I don’t know where you got this misinformation from…”
Several of your colleagues.
“I have no idea how the Vanguard is using the term “fatal flaw”, but if the Vanguard had read the 4 tech memos, it would be clear there are no “fatal flaws” in any of the options as that term is used technically… “
You’re conflating my non-technical use of the word with the Carollo report’s technical language.
“Clear the November ballot for the school tax renewal. Let the WAC work on their research into the winter and see what our citizen exoerts recommend on water supply issues? “
I don’t buy into that. The city deferred the election away from the spring for that purpose, the school board has more flexibility at this point than the city.
[quote]What monies are accruing on the JPA? I heard a few million up to this point from the WAC discussion. What actual work is being done while Davis studies? Do you think the CC will adopt whatever the WAC recommends? [/quote]
I don’t know the answer to your first question, but you can certainly send your question to city staff and they will give you that information.
As to your second question, Woodland must make a decision by the end of August on whether to expend the $3 million to $4 million necessary to fill in the water treatment facility site. This is because this process must be done before the rainy season begins, in order to impact (I believe that’s the proper term) the soil properly, and that takes time. Otherwise Woodland would have to wait an entire year to begin the project, which they cannot afford to do bc of their wastewater treatment permitting timeline. In order to avoid significant fines, they must be done with their new surface water project by 2016 as promised.
As to your third question, I cannot say whether the City Council will agree to whatever recommendation the WAC makes. But I do find it odd to think the WAC would make a recommendation after thoroughly studying the issues, and the City Council would completely ignore the WAC for some vaguely defined “political consideration”. I cannot think of a scenario where that is likely to apply or happen. Additionally, the City Council would certainly be putting itself in an uncomfortable position and inviting public backlash in the form of a referendum if it chose to ignore the advice of the WAC and the evidence, in favor of some “political consideration”.
However, ultimately it is the City Council that makes the final decision – the WAC is only an advisory body. In light of who presently is a sitting City Council member of the newly elected City Council, I have absolute faith they will do the right thing. I know every one of them to be folks who care very deeply about Davis and its citizens, and will want to do right by this city and its citizens. I think it highly unlikely that the WAC and the City Council will somehow be aligned on polar opposite ends of the spectrum when all is said and done…
Thank you Elaine. It seems another reason to allow and urge the WAC to make a timely decision is to be able to stop the money flow to the JPA if indeed that is not the final decision.
personal opinion-
Dump the WAC.
The purpose of government is to protect the people from the people. This is clearly not the case in Davis. The prudent move at this point is to continue with the JPA surface water project. It is the best option for the future. Too many heads focused on the here and now, and not 20-30 years down the road.
Davis is probably much better off going with West Sacramento alone. I suspect that Woodland would join if we call their bluff, but that is their business. There is no way that Woodland can afford to do the project alone.
As Mark Siegler pointed out, the fiscal analysis is off-base and underestimates the advantages to Davis of the Davis only option for Davis ratepayers. Frank Loge also expressed to me the feeling that the Davis/Woodland project costs are underestimated and the regional and West Sacramento costs overestimated. I spoke with the Carollo design representative, and he said that he would really need to be authorized to further refine his study to look at some of the issues brought up at the WAC.
One of the main reasons that Woodland thinks it is better off in the current project is because Davis is subsidizing Woodland under the current agreement. Davis is paying for the entire pipeline between Woodland and the Davis City borders (I pointed this out long ago).
But Woodland is much better off with the regional project anyway once proper fiscal analysis is done and O&M costs taken into account, and they are much, much better off with the regional project than with going it alone (especially since Davis should refuse to pay for the entire pipeline between Davis and Woodland).
And Davis pays considerably less with either a regional project or with a simple West Sacramento project, once the fiscal analysis is done correctly, once staff acknowledges that the West Sac intake will not need to be expanded for the foreseeable future under the Davis only scenario, and once operation and maintenance costs are taken into account.
I spoke with the West Sacramento public works director and West Sacramento is [b]VERY[/b] motivated to make this deal work. It is premature to speculate as to what the structure of the partnership would be.
(And I will say in advance that I am not going to get involved in a long and pointless argument with Matt Williams or Elaine on this issue).
I will add that when I joined the council, Davis’ plan with the partner with West Sacramento. Then staff told us that West Sacramento withdrew from the deal and that we would be doing a different project with Woodland.
It is very concerning to me that council was told initially that West Sacrament had withdrawn from the deal when in fact Davis had withdrawn (a fact that I reconfirmed after the WAC meeting.
It makes no sense for two rural towns to do such a massive project alone. But council was never given the opportunity to choose between a regional project and a Davis/Woodland project. This decision was entirely staff and perhaps consultant driven.
If the PAC involvement in the last election told us anything, it should have alerted us to the fact that big money and special interests have had an inappropriate role in a decision that will have a massive effect Davis for a generation or more.
I misplaced the following clause above: “especially since Davis should refuse to pay for the entire pipeline between Davis and Woodland”.
Davis should really make it clear to Woodland ASAP that Davis will not pay for the entire pipeline between Davis and Woodland. (Staff slipped that one by the council with no discussion at all — a long story I won’t get into now).
It is critical that staff continue to analyse the Woodland/Davis/West Sacramento option and to compare it to the true (not underestimated) cost of the Davis/Woodland project, assuming that Woodland pays its fair share of the Davis/Woodland pipeline and looking at a scenario in which the problematic Conoway intake either does’t get federal funding or has permitting problems(an issue that Bill Kopper brought up with me). Again, this report should take operations and maintenance savings into account, which are huge.
If we can get more accurate figures on the full regional project costs, Woodland ratepayers just might step in.
[quote]“I don’t know where you got this misinformation from…”
Several of your colleagues. [/quote]
And which colleagues would those be?
[quote]“I have no idea how the Vanguard is using the term “fatal flaw”, but if the Vanguard had read the 4 tech memos, it would be clear there are no “fatal flaws” in any of the options as that term is used technically… ”
You’re conflating my non-technical use of the word with the Carollo report’s technical language.[/quote]
If you want to talk water, then you need to be more careful what language you use. Please explain what you meant by “fatal flaw”…
[i]”Part of that is due to the fact that Woodland’s timeline requires them to have a new water supply by 2016 whereas [u]Davis has until 2018[/u].”[/i]
Where does the 2018 deadline come from? Who determined it? What was the criteria for that date?
[i]”[u]Carolla’s[/u] preliminary analysis argues …”[/i]
Carolla ([url]http://melaniedejonge.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/adam.jpg[/url])? Or Carollo Engineers ([url]http://www.carollo.com/Pages/Home.aspx[/url])?
[quote]“I don’t know where you got this misinformation from…”
Several of your colleagues.[/quote]Real people? People in public service giving you misinformation about other people in public service? They should be ashamed, assuming you understood what they were saying.
Since you provide no quotes or attribution, what are readers to make of this kind of anonymous slander about unidentified “city staff”? Should be base our opinions on this information, as you have?
Why would you not list the names of “several” people who supposedly told you something? Why should we believe their claims, even if you got it right? Why would [u]you[/u] believe them if they didn’t want to be accountable for such a significant statement?
The more base your stories on this anonymous approach, when there’s no justifiable reason to do it, the more likely you’ll get the reputation of someone who can be “used” to pass along self-serving claims and gossip.
You should insist on attribution except in very limited situations, then you should take the time to track down the facts before you report. (In this case, did you follow up with the staff members who allegedly said this?)
What you report might be true. Wouldn’t it be worth it to find out?
Is this the kind of research you repeatedly demand of Elaine to allow her to offer her opinions?
[quote]But Woodland is much better off with the regional project anyway once proper fiscal analysis is done and O&M costs taken into account, and they are much, much better off with the regional project than with going it alone (especially since Davis should refuse to pay for the entire pipeline between Davis and Woodland). [/quote]
Apparently they don’t think so…
[quote]As Mark Siegler pointed out, the fiscal analysis is off-base and underestimates the advantages to Davis of the Davis only option for Davis ratepayers. Frank Loge also expressed to me the feeling that the Davis/Woodland project costs are underestimated and the regional and West Sacramento costs overestimated. I spoke with the Carollo design representative, and he said that he would really need to be authorized to further refine his study to look at some of the issues brought up at the WAC. [/quote]
Would all these people agree with your interpretation of what they said? The danger in interpreting what other people said is that one’s own biases tend to color what was heard/what spin is put on what was actually said…
[quote]And Davis pays considerably less with either a regional project or with a simple West Sacramento project, once the fiscal analysis is done correctly, once staff acknowledges that the West Sac intake will not need to be expanded for the foreseeable future under the Davis only scenario, and once operation and maintenance costs are taken into account. [/quote]
It would be premature for WAC members to come to any conclusions. City staff has as yet to give the WAC information on demand needs or the pared down West Sac option, which will come at our next meeting. Stay tuned…
[quote]I spoke with the West Sacramento public works director and West Sacramento is VERY motivated to make this deal work. It is premature to speculate as to what the structure of the partnership would be. [/quote]
Just as it is premature to assume which option is best for Davis…
[quote]It is very concerning to me that council was told initially that West Sacrament had withdrawn from the deal when in fact Davis had withdrawn (a fact that I reconfirmed after the WAC meeting. [/quote]
And who specifically told you this “fact”?
[quote]Re ERM’s Comments – “I find this continued demonization of Woodland unfortunate. Every city is different, w/ its own strengths and weaknesses, and Davis is no different. This is precisely why Davis has a reputation around the area and in the media for being arrogant…”[/quote]
And now Davis is also getting a reputation for being flaky and unreliable. I find it sadly ironic than the forces opposing the WDCWA water project originally attempted to denegrate Woodland as being a potentially unreliable partner. Indeed, Sue Greenwald as much as told them that to their faces when they were visiting our Council en masse to encourage our continued involvement in the project. Yet, as it turns out, it is the City of Davis running aroung like a chicken with its head cut off or screaming “the sky is falling” (or whatever other analogy you wish to draw from our city’s irresponsible political behavior).
The simple fact, widely recognized by all the political leaders in other municipalities and jurisdictions in this region, is that it is Davis that is potentially being the deal-breaker in this brouhaha. And it is Davis that is on the verge of breaking our legally binding contract with Woodland after our assurances that we were going to be a reliable partner in this project. If we bail on Woodland for a few million dollars and settle for just being a customer of West Sac’s undeniably poorer quality surface water, we have sent a clear signal to the entire region and those in state government that Davis is a city that is willing to break contracts and leave our partners in the lurch if it serves out own interests.
Do you think that every one of these cities will not stop and think if we were going to be similarly unreliable in the future. Who would want to be a partner of Davis in a Community Choice Energy consortium if they think we would bolt at the whiff of a better deal…or join us in a Regional Integrated Waste Management Program.
If I lived in a neighboring community I sure wouldn’t trust Davis in the future.
[i]”Where does the 2018 deadline come from? Who determined it? What was the criteria for that date?”[/i]
Perhaps someone else can answer my question about 2018? Elaine? Elaine? Elaine? Kramer? George?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”(And I will say in advance that I am not going to get involved in a long and pointless argument with Matt Williams or Elaine on this issue).”[/i]
Sue, I’m not sure what argument you are looking “not to have.” Care to explain.
Your points stand on their own merits.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Where does the 2018 deadline come from? Who determined it? What was the criteria for that date?”[/i]
Rich, that deadline is written into Davis’ current wastewater permit . . . by the Regional Water Resources Control Board.
With that said, based on the currently available factual information, Davis could “tune” its existing groundwater system, and for an indeterminate period of time beyond 2018 comply with the permit’s constituent levels. Such “tuning” would lapse into non-compliance if one of Davis’ deep water aquifer wells went off line. In effect it is a “no recourse” solution that the experts who have testified before the WAC agree is viable as a legitimate short-term tactic, but is not legitimate as a longer-term solution because of risk and uncertainty factors.
[quote]“If the PAC involvement in the last election told us anything, it should have alerted us to the fact that big money and special interests have had an inappropriate role in a decision that will have a massive effect Davis for a generation or more.”[/quote]Glad you’ve rejoined the [i]Vanguard[/i] Gang, Sue. You’re probably correct about the influence of PAC (as well as Citizens United and big money, generally).
I’m concerned in Davis dealings, though, about your reports–and my own observations–about how the staff might be misleading our elected representatives as a general practice.
I wonder whether the open meetings law has had the unintended effect of moving power from the council to the staff. It seems that even big business gets offered up at council meetings at the last minute with little time for your consideration and discussion, let alone public discussion.
It seems as though informational meetings with staff during which council members could exchange questions and concerns with each other as well would be great preparation for council meetings. I guess such deliberations would be violations.
It seems to put governing bodies in a bind, one that civil servants easily could manipulate into the situation where staff does the real decision-making and provides just enough information to get their wishes ratified in a rush.
Have you folks had a conversation tree where two members talk, then split up to talk to two others, etc., until you’re all satisfied that critical items get careful consideration and options get fair hearings at your meetings?
AP: [i]”… it is Davis that is on the verge of breaking [s]our[/s] [b]its[/b] legally binding contract with Woodland …”[/i]
Which contract is that, Alan. Can you state the specific terms of the contract which legally bind us to Woodland? And what does this legally binding contract say are the consequences of not fulfilling our legally binding obligation? Also, if you can provide a link to the contract itself, please do so.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”And which colleagues would those be?”[/i]
Elaine, in my personal opinion that question is pointless. I suggest you drop that line of questioning.
It really shouldn’t surprise you that there are differing opinions amongst the various WAC members.
MW: [i]”Rich, that 2018 deadline is written into Davis’ current wastewater permit . . . by the Regional Water Resources Control Board.”[/i]
Matt, can your provide a link to a document which includes this 2018 deadline? I would like to see exactly what the RWRCB said about 2018.
[quote]Perhaps someone else can answer my question about 2018? Elaine? Elaine? Elaine? Kramer? George?[/quote]
It is my understanding that the city of Davis’s wastewater permit will revise with new tighter federal and state standards in 2018. It is unclear what exactly those standards will be, but they are expected to be much more stringent than before – and hence WAC’s determination for the need to go to conjunctive use. Woodland’s permit will revise in 2016, so they are on a much “shorter leash” 😉
For technical details see [url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-02-09-item6-staff-report-wastewater.pdf[/url]
The 800 lb gorilla in the room that nobody is talking about is WATER QUALITY.
The West Sac plant is older and installed using cheaper technology that is not nearly as effective at cleaning up the human sewage, industrial, and agricultural contamination common in the Sacramento River. The best that the Carollo engineers can say about the West Sac option is that “it meets current drinking water standards” and that most other communities in the area are using it.
The simple fact, though, is that West Sac will still be sending us water that has a higher concentration of carcinogenic chemicals and a higher percentage of organic chemicals shown to be hormonal disruptors than what we would otherwise get from the WDCWA plant. That is irrefutable…ask the Carollo engineers yourself. And the WDCWA will have a far higher likelihood of meeting new drinking water standards in the future that will likely throttle down on whole classes of microcontainats in drinking water. Ask the Carollo engineers yourself!
By contrast, the WDCWA design is world-class and specifically designed to remove the minute quantities of organic chemicals that permeate Sac River water. There is a reason the big municipal water treatment agencies in the state (MWD, LADWP, EBMUD, SF, San Diego) are all using ozone even though it is more expensive. It is because they know it produces a higher quality water with fewer contaminants that the antiquated technology used by West Sac and it will continue to meet more stringent needs in the future.
I find it ironic that Sue Greenwald used her bully pulpit on the Council to howl about how terrible the Sac River water was compared to Davis well water as a justification for not importing the water. And now she is urging us to import the lesser quality Sac River water just because it is cheaper. What gives, Sue? Is it only about the bottom dollar now and water quality be damned?
I think our kids who are going to be drinking this tainted river water for years to come deserve the best water we can deliver to them…and if it costs a bit more then that is the price we must pay. After all, we are all willing to pay a substantial premium for organic foods because we do not want the contamination associated with conventional farmed food produce. Why would we turn around and accept a lesser quality drinking water? That makes no sense at all.
Correction: 2018 is the year Davis must comply with the new federal and state standards. Davis was already given a 10 year extension to comply. It is expected that new salinity standards will be forthcoming…
JustSaying said . . .
“Real people? People in public service giving you misinformation about other people in public service? They should be ashamed, assuming you understood what they were saying.
Since you provide no quotes or attribution, what are readers to make of this kind of anonymous slander about unidentified “city staff”? Should be base our opinions on this information, as you have?”
JS, my imagination is not taxed much at all to find David’s comment as credible. I am absolutely sure that there are WAC members who truly believe some version of David’s statement to be true. It also isn’t beyond the realm of my imagination to believe that there are some members of city staff who truly believe that the Woodland/Davis JPA project is demonstrably superior to the West Sac alternative. Individual people are certainly allowed to have their own personal opinions. However, I think it is a huge mistake (both factually and philosophically) to take the individual opinions of individuals and make a sweeping generality about the collective group of individuals that make up “staff.”
Bottom-line, David is reporting the subjective information that he is being presented with. It is up to us as readers and citizens to read that information and process it with balance and wisdom.
ELAINE: [i]”For technical details see http://cityofdavis.org/meeting…ewater.pdf “[/i]
There is no mention of 2018 in that document.
ELAINE: [i]”Correction: 2018 is the year Davis must comply with the new federal and state standards. Davis was already given a 10 year extension to comply.”[/i]
What I would like from any one of you who is citing a 2018 deadline is a source document which cites 2018. I have been searching online for one and none is apparent. Even the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board documents make no mention of a 2018 deadline for Davis.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Matt, can your provide a link to a document which includes this 2018 deadline? I would like to see exactly what the RWRCB said about 2018.”[/i]
Here you go Rich [url]http://davismerchants.org/water/CityofDavisdischargepermit2010.pdf[/url]
[quote]“Elaine, in my personal opinion that question is pointless. I suggest you drop that line of questioning. It really shouldn’t surprise you that there are differing opinions amongst the various WAC members.”[/quote]I’d agree that WAC members have different opinions, a definite attribute on a citizen committee. This really is a question about the validity of David’s reporting, not a challenge to other committee members’ views.
Are you really letting Elaine know in a nice way, and the rest of us realize, that there are several WAC members secretly claiming that “the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money”? Elaine thinks David’s reporting “misinformation”; is this your gentle way of letting her know that she’s wrong?
Are you verifying the truth of claim about the city staff being against the route even if it’s cheaper? Maybe you and all the other WACers except Elaine heard the “city staff” say this. If so, what are their reasons?
Does the WAC have any ground rules or informal agreements about how they’ll deal with media if they have “differing opinions” from others. Secretly leaking stuff, whether true or not, can do more damage to the working relationships of a group than Elaine’s request for confirmation that such reports are accurate.
Rich, it is in the detail of Davis’ specific permit, which is the document in the link above. That is the date when the “Time Schedule Order” elapses. You will not find any 2018 date references in general Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board documents.
Matt: [i]”Here you go Rich … “[/i]
Unfortunately, Matt, I had already seen that document 15 minutes ago and it does not confirm anything about Davis having a 2018 deadline, as David Greenwald reported. It does mention the year 2018 in passing, once, but that does not confirm in any way that 2018 represents a deadline for Davis.
Here is the sole 2018 reference: [quote] The Discharger has projected that a new tertiary treatment system could be completed as early as 2015 or as late as the end of 2018 for facilities to provide a tertiary (or equivalent) level of treatment and year-round itrification/denitrification. The Discharger anticipates the new treatment system would be able to comply with priority pollutant water quality standards for all constituents except selenium. [/quote] Again, it seems like no one can cite a reliable source which says or implies that we must have our water system upgraded or fixed by 2018 to meet federal or state standards.
In addition to the Central Valley RWQCB docs, I have looked over the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System guidelines, as well, and again, there is no tie to 2018 in general, and none for Davis in particular.
I am quite amazed that all the most informed water mavens who comment on here all agree that 2018 is our deadline, but not one of you can provide a reliable source for that year being a deadline? You all must have at one time or another read a source which said our deadline is 2018? Please, find that source and cite it.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”I’d agree that WAC members have different opinions, a definite attribute on a citizen committee. This really is a question about the validity of David’s reporting, not a challenge to other committee members’ views.”[/i]
I have no problem at all with David’s reporting on this specific subject.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Are you verifying the truth of claim about the city staff being against the route even if it’s cheaper? Maybe you and all the other WACers except Elaine heard the “city staff” say this. If so, what are their reasons?[/i]
I can not, and will not, speak for individual members of staff. However, I will draw a parallel for you that should answer your question. The WAC voted unanimously to remove the “groundwater only” alternative from future consideration. In my own personal opinion, that alternative was indeed the least expensive alternative for Davis in the short term. However, there was considerable risk and uncertainty that came with a “groundwater only” system approach that made relying on a simple cost analysis unwise. Therefore you will find my comment on the WAC video strongly voicing 1) my opposition to that alternative, and 2) my support for eliminating it as an option. Individual members of staff may have similar feelings about the relative merits of the Woodland and West Sac alternatives. As Jay Lund said in his testimony before the WAC, we need to be prepared for the eventuality that whatever decision we make will be wrong . . . because it is almost a certainty that whatever decision we make will indeed be wrong.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Unfortunately, Matt, I had already seen that document 15 minutes ago and it does not confirm anything about Davis having a 2018 deadline, as David Greenwald reported. It does mention the year 2018 in passing, once, but that does not confirm in any way that 2018 represents a deadline for Davis.” [/i]
Rich, you need to read the detail of the Time Schedule Orders that are part of the permit.
Rich, on page F-48 is the following . . .
[i]”The Discharger has indicated in the 30 January 2007 supplement to the Infeasibility Report that additional time may be required beyond 18 May 2010 to comply with final effluent limits for selenium. Based on the Discharger’s performance in implementing their corrective action plan and implementation schedule to obtain new municipal water supplies, the Regional Water Board may consider at a future date issuance of a Time Schedule Order to provide additional time to comply with final effluent limits for selenium.”[/i]
. . . and on page F-7
“E. Planned Changes
If reuse is not feasible and the Discharger finds it necessary to construct a new WWTP, the Discharger anticipates it will take longer than five years (one permit term) to complete the upgrade to tertiary. The Discharger has projected that a new tertiary treatment system could be completed as early as 2015 or as late as the end of 2018 for facilities to provide a tertiary (or equivalent) level of treatment and year-round nitrification/denitrification. The Discharger anticipates the new treatment system would be able to comply with priority pollutant water quality standards for all constituents except selenium. Removal of the overland flow system as part of the upgrade to tertiary would improve the effluent quality for most constituents, but would likely cause an increase in effluent selenium. Achieving compliance with the CTR effluent selenium limitations would most likely require a change in the City’s water supply.
This Order includes a time schedule for the completion of tertiary treatment, as described in the Discharger’s 25 July 2007 Infeasibility Report as the shortest practicable compliance schedule. This Order also incorporates time necessary to evaluate the feasibility of agricultural reuse at Conaway Ranch and the elimination of a surface water discharge. The Discharger anticipates that to conduct the necessary studies and evaluate the feasibility of reuse it will take two years from the adoption date of this Order. If the Discharger determines that it is not feasible prior to the end of the two year study period, the Discharger will immediately resume its plans to construct a new WWTP.”
MW: [i]”Rich, you need to read the detail of the Time Schedule Orders that are part of the permit.”[/i]
I have done that, Matt. There is no reference to 2018 in them. There is no reference I could find for anything 10 years or 11 years after the adoption date (10-25-07).
If you believe the information is in that document you linked to, then please, copy the information and show how it gives us a 2018 deadline. I am unconvinced that you know what you are talking about at this point, because you don’t seem willing or able to provide anything that points to 2018, and because nothing in the city of Davis docs shows a 2018 deadline, as far as I could find.
Rich, you need to get the specific language of the Time Schedule Order document. The effluent levels in the permit mandate compliance by 2007 and the Time Schedule Order puts certain time line realities on the non-compliance with those 2007 effluent levels that affects the fine levels, but not the realities of being in compliance or out of compliance.
You are doing your homework, and as always I admire that. You just aren’t digging deep enough into the maze of documents that the Regional Water Resources Control Board issues for each jurisdiction. I personally went out to their office in Rancho Cordova last year and found out that none of their records are computerized. If you want to understand the provenance of the limits and terms for any individual jurisdiction you have to sort through their filing cabinets on site.
[quote]“Elaine, in my personal opinion that question is pointless. I suggest you drop that line of questioning. It really shouldn’t surprise you that there are differing opinions amongst the various WAC members.”[/quote]
I have no problems w differing opinions on the WAC.
[quote]Does the WAC have any ground rules or informal agreements about how they’ll deal with media if they have “differing opinions” from others. Secretly leaking stuff, whether true or not, can do more damage to the working relationships of a group than Elaine’s request for confirmation that such reports are accurate.[/quote]
No, the WAC has no ground rules, other than WAC members must make sure to denote they are only giving their personal opinion and not speaking for the WAC.
And thanks JustSaying, for framing the issue precisely…
The problem with citing a source without naming them in the WAC is that there is no way to verify the accuracy/inaccuracy of any statements attributed, to wit this statement: “One thing that appears clear, talking with several of members of the WAC – the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money”. This may be merely the opinion of the Vanguard of what was said or meant, and that was not what was said or meant at all.
The reason I am a stickler on this issue is because in the past, a WAC member’s comments were taken completely out of context and twisted beyond all recognition to mean something entirely different by a commenter, then regurgitated on this blog as something the WAC member said. The WAC member was extremely angry and tried to get the statement pulled, but by the time it was discovered it was too late bc the article was no longer on the side bar and readily accessible. Rehashing a “version” of what someone else said, without getting a name and exact quotes, is questionable at best and can be highly misleading and dishonest.
Rich: welcome to my world since last August. The project proponents go on and on about deadlines and the sky will fall, but when I look at their materials, there never seems to be support for what they tell us.
Your discovery that the 2018 citation lacks support is just the latestexamples of my experiences.
Matt: just take a breath, relax, acknowledge the WAC and community are not ready for a November ballot on a specific project, and continue your studies.
[quote]“I am absolutely sure that there are WAC members who truly believe some version of David’s statement (that to be true.”[/quote]Matt, your 11:15 post answers most of my questions/comments in my 11:24 note. I can see how David could have run into a WAC member, or several, with a gut feeling that someone in the city staff, or several, with an opinion that the “JPA project is demonstrably superior”–“despite the fact that it (the other option) would likely save money.”
I also can see how a [i]Vanguard[/i] policy to minimize the use of anonymous, unverified charges could bring all of us closer to an accurate understanding of what’s really happening. David can help us “process it with balance and wisdom” by how he investigates and reports.
I worry that sometimes he stops looking when he gets to something that supports his view and, thereby, misses chances to find valuable information.
Building a reputation that the [i]Vanguard[/i] isn’t interested in attributing claims increases the odds of getting used by people who want to undermine something without accepting responsibility for the truth of their allegations.
For all these reasons, I agree 100% with what you write:[quote]“I think it is a huge mistake (both factually and philosophically) to take the individual opinions of individuals and make a sweeping generality about the collective group of individuals that make up ‘staff’.”[/quote]
Sue did that research when she (accurately) determined that there simply was no way to delay the WWTP Upgrade, which must be done by 2018. The problem is that the WWTP Upgrade eliminates the current Overland Flow method for treating selenium and our already bad levels of selenium discharge will get markedly worse when Overland Flow goes away.
With that said, I will repeat, that “tuning” the existing wells could allow us to walk the knife edge of compliance past 2018, but it is a solution “without a net.”
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Matt: just take a breath, relax, acknowledge the WAC and community are not ready for a November ballot on a specific project, and continue your studies.”[/i]
Michael, there is no reason to make that decision prior to August 6th.
[quote]I worry that sometimes he stops looking when he gets to something that supports his view and, thereby, misses chances to find valuable information.
Building a reputation that the Vanguard isn’t interested in attributing claims increases the odds of getting used by people who want to undermine something without accepting responsibility for the truth of their allegations.
For all these reasons, I agree 100% with what you write:
“I think it is a huge mistake (both factually and philosophically) to take the individual opinions of individuals and make a sweeping generality about the collective group of individuals that make up ‘staff’.”[/quote]
Nicely said!
[quote]“…we need to be prepared for the eventuality that whatever decision we make will be wrong . . . because it is almost a certainty that whatever decision we make will indeed be wrong.”[/quote]What a terrible situation in which to find yourselves. One thing, you folks certainly are earning your pay. Particularly since some are finding you wrong [u]before[/u] you make your decision.
[quote]“Building a reputation that the Vanguard isn’t interested in attributing claims increases the odds of getting used by people who want to undermine something without accepting responsibility for the truth of their allegations.”[/quote]Good point, JS. But, you missed a point that’s almost as important: Lack of attribution keeps the alleged original source(s) from being able to followup and tocorrect the “record” since no one (including the sources) knows who supposedly said what. What if David ever got something wrong because he didn’t quite get the point someone was trying to make?
Matt, I am going to leave this discussion for awhile. Life interrupts. I appreciate your trying to answer my questions. But I am still unsatisfied. The parts from the permit you quote state that Davis has projected* that it can complete the “new tertiary treatment system … as late as the end of 2018.
But it does not confirm what David Greenwald wrote: ” … Woodland’s timeline requires them to have [b]a new water supply[/b] by 2016 whereas Davis has until 2018[/b].”
Where is there any mention of a new water supply by 2018 for Davis in your document, Matt?
Moreover, it is not even a deadline for the new WWTP. All it says is that under this permit, Davis [u][i]projects[/i][/u] it can complete the water treatment improvement by the end of 2018. If it were a deadline, it would say it is a deadline, and it would say what would happen were Davis to miss that deadline. As such, what you have pointed to is not a deadline. It is a projection. And it has nothing to do with the new water supply being in place by 2018.
* “[b]The Discharger has projected[/b] that a new tertiary treatment system could be completed as early as 2015 or as late as the end of 2018 for facilities to provide a tertiary (or equivalent) level of treatment and year-round nitrification/denitrification.”
“And which colleagues would those be?”
I’m sure you can figure it out
[quote]Elaine: “And which colleagues would those be?”
David: “I’m sure you can figure it out.”[/quote]Suspicions confirmed!
“Real people? People in public service giving you misinformation about other people in public service?”
Why do you say misleading? Because Elaine did? She seems to differ with a number of her colleagues.
” Should be base our opinions on this information, as you have?”
No, you should talk to city staffers yourself and draw your own conclusions.
“Why would you not list the names of “several” people who supposedly told you something? “
Because they did not give me permission to give their names.
“Why should we believe their claims, even if you got it right?”
Don’t believe me, talk to them yourself. If you don’t trust me, I don’t know why you read this site.
“Is this the kind of research you repeatedly demand of Elaine to allow her to offer her opinions?”
I would be happy if Elaine even spent a quarter of the time I do looking into the claims I make.
“Perhaps someone else can answer my question about 2018? Elaine? Elaine? Elaine? Kramer? George?”
I believe that is when the state/ federal requirements increase for our discharge constituents.
Elaine: Also, I know you know at least one person who I spoke to because he told you. So you don’t try to pull this stuff again.
To Rich Rifkin: I don’t know if my explanation will help you or not, but essentially (and Matt, you can jump in if I am incorrect) the city was issued a wastewater discharge permit in 2007 to comply w certain standards that it failed to meet. It was granted a 10 year extension to comply (through 2017). It is at that time, when the extension expires (beginning 2018), the “jig is up” for Davis!
[quote]
Have you folks had a conversation tree where two members talk, then split up to talk to two others, etc., until you’re all satisfied that critical items get careful consideration and options get fair hearings at your meetings? [/quote]
This is called a serial meeting, and is illegal under the Brown Act.
Matt: Bill Streng and the Chamber GRC both addressed the WAC last week when I was there. Mr. Streng stressed that he would like to see fixed rates. So do I. And it is clear as spring water that there is no way the city is going to have a specific project, with specific rates, with an EIR, that is legally binding, in time for the November ballot.
You realize that if the City proceeds with the proposed plan to use the ballot measure to simply refer to Prop 218 for the rates, the city will lose? Maybe I should just sit here, and let you guys do that. And watch the voters take all of you project proponents apart, plank by plank. Read Bob Dunning the other day? It’s called foreshadowing ….
Your proposed plan to split the project info and rates into two different places that a voter has to review will mean that any opponents have to file their opposition without any specific project or rates to discuss? So, what I would do is use the ballot statement to hammer you and your friends for what you all tried to do to us last fall with the bogus Sept 6 rates, the hurry up and wait Chicken Little theme that you guys pushed, and now again, the hurry up with a November ballot and the voters will know that the WAC never finished its research, and the CC again is shooting blind. If a project goes down in November, you can kiss off voter approval of anything the CC tries on water for at least several years.
Why not wait, and try to get it right?
Elaine: “Nicely said!”
Except of course you know that’s untrue, it’s why I called you up and spoke to you for 30 minutes yesterday.
[quote]JustSaying: What a terrible situation in which to find yourselves. One thing, you folks certainly are earning your pay. Particularly since some are finding you wrong before you make your decision.[/quote]
LOL Yes, it is frustrating to be told what you should decide as a WAC member before all the evidence is in; told you are “arrogant” and a “sucker” and other good things… 😉
[quote]dmg: Why do you say misleading? Because Elaine did? She seems to differ with a number of her colleagues. At least five people told the same thing, some of them unsolicited.[/quote]
[quote]dmg: Don’t believe me, talk to them yourself.[/quote]
Talk to who? How would anyone be able to verify anything if the colleagues who supposedly said a certain thing are unnamed?
[quote]If you don’t trust me, I don’t know why you read this site. [/quote]
In other words I should allow you to say misleading things uninterrupted and unchallenged? What kind of a Chair of the WAC would I be if I allowed that?
[quote]JustSaying: “Is this the kind of research you repeatedly demand of Elaine to allow her to offer her opinions?” [/quote]
Yes, I do seem to be singled out and held to an extremely high standard, don’t I? I’m flattered 😉
I haven’t looked at this for awhile, but my current understanding is that we have our final limits for selenium and are in compliance. When the new wastewater treatment plant is built and operating, we will have to reduce selenium a little bit, but our two new deep water wells and our repiping of the municipal landscaping water needs directly to our intermediate wells means that we will have be able to meet those limits even after the new plant is operating (the new plant, while better at removing nitrogen, will be a little bit worse at removing selenium).
We will be negotiating the salinity. We do not know whether or not we will be out of compliance. I am not aware of any 2018 deadline that would require surface water to be in place.
[quote]dmg: Elaine: Also, I know you know at least one person who I spoke to because he told you. So you don’t try to pull this stuff again.[/quote]
Told me what? That “city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money”? No one said those words to me…
To dmg: Instead of talking at cross purposes, let me explain where my problem is with the following statement made by the Vanguard:
[quote]One thing that appears clear, talking with several of members of the WAC – the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money.[/quote]
Had you said “One thing that appears clear TO ME, talking with several of members of the WAC – I BELIEVE the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money.”, I would have had no complaint(you are entitled to your opinion as am I), altho I might have disagreed w your conclusory generalization about “city staff”. I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess as to what city staff are thinking unless I actually asked them the question directly. I wouldn’t care to rely on hearsay from “several WAC members”, whoever they might or might not be, what city staff perhaps thinks.
[quote]Elaine: “Nicely said!”
dmg: Except of course you know that’s untrue, it’s why I called you up and spoke to you for 30 minutes yesterday.[/quote]
What’s not true? Yes you called me up and talked with me. But never did I say to you “the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money.” nor did I say “The bottom line at this point is that this is a complex arrangement and no matter what we do, there will be inherent, if not fatal, flaws”.
Further follow-up: the water consultant who addressed the WAC last Thursday seemed to be describing a project that was sized for a city like Stockton, with a per person demand that far exceeded anything Davis has seen from its residents for years. The thrust of the report seemed to be tailored for the Woodland JPA project that was pushed by staff and the West Yost water consultants over the past ten years. It came across as completely unbelievable. Of course, the same staff and West Yost Associates who gave you the Woodland Davis JPA project, and the Sept 6th rates, are still sitting at the table, still trying to push a project sized and designed to double Davis’ population. It’s been the goal since the 1988 General Plan and Lois Wolk pushed this project every year she was on the CC. They all want a population of 150,000, to go with the expansion plans of UCD.
Connect the dots. Saylor is just the latest politician representing the land and water and construction interests who stand to gain millions in land value increases and profits. I am now adding Mayor Joe Krovoza to the list, as the main holder over from the last CC who spearheaded those facially bogus rates to the Sept 6th CC meeting. Dan and Rochelle voted for those rates, but I think they were trusting Joe and Steve, drank the JPA West Yost Kool Aid, and went along with the rate plan that staff pushed. Joe and Steve led the charge, and Joe remains, up for re-election in 2014.
[quote]Rich Rifkin: Moreover, it is not even a deadline for the new WWTP. All it says is that under this permit, Davis projects it can complete the water treatment improvement by the end of 2018. If it were a deadline, it would say it is a deadline, and it would say what would happen were Davis to miss that deadline. As such, what you have pointed to is not a deadline. It is a projection. And it has nothing to do with the new water supply being in place by 2018.[/quote]
I agree that the term “deadline” is probably not completely accurate. As Matt and Sue have pointed out, in the short term the city can probably comply with the wastewater standards in the permit with the use of deep well water. But as Matt points out, as a long term strategy, that won’t work for very long. At some point the city will need to go to conjunctive use (surface and ground water combined). That may be beyond the year 2018. But it is the year 2018 when the state will have no forgiveness for not stringently meeting the standards. Does that help?
ERM: I just want to thank you for serving as Chair of the WAC. It’s tons more work than being a sitting member. You run a good meeting from my being there and watching. You always try to hear everyone, and even when things get contentious, you hold your cool. Thank you for letting me speak to the WAC last week.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Matt, I am going to leave this discussion for awhile. Life interrupts. I appreciate your trying to answer my questions. But I am still unsatisfied. The parts from the permit you quote state that Davis has projected* that it can complete the “new tertiary treatment system … as late as the end of 2018.
But it does not confirm what David Greenwald wrote: ” … Woodland’s timeline requires them to have a new water supply by 2016 whereas Davis has until 2018.”[/i]
Reasonable questions Rich, and your confusion is understandable. In the permit document you see explicitly stated that the deadline for compliance is 2007. I don’t think you are going to have any problems finding that. The quickest easiest way to do so is to open the document in Acrobat/Preview and then search for the key word “selenium.” You will find the 2007 date in the text and the threshold values in the tables. The language you discussed regarding the new water treatment plant pertains to the Regional Board’s acknowledgement that Davis is “making progress toward a permanent solution” and as a result they issued the Time Schedule Order that doesn’t change the thresholds themselves or the 2007 compliance date, but suspends the fines during the duration of the Time Schedule Order. Time Schedule Orders can not be issued for any period longer than 10 years, and the one we are currently under is scheduled to expire in 2018 (October I believe). My homework at the Regional Board (I have personal friends who work for the Board in enforcement) and with other agencies in the Central Valley very clearly and forcefully told me that Davis would get no extension of the Time Schedule Order past 2018.
The new WWTP Upgrade will address other constituents that changing water sources will not address. Those constituents are collectively referred to as those addressed by “Tertiary Treatment.”
[quote]“One thing that appears clear TO ME, talking with several of members of the WAC – I BELIEVE the city staff does not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money.”[/quote]
I think you are trying to parse words here. First of all, it’s a given that it appears clear to me since I am the one writing. Your second correction is tenuous because based on my conversations it seemed clear to them that certain staff did not want to go the West Sacramento route. If I re-wrote it, I would have changed “the staff” to “some staff”
Rich, the following from [url]cityofdavis.org/meetings/natural/03_26_Agenda_Packet.pdf[/url] should be helpful for you.
“Compliance Schedules, Variances and Timelines
There are three methods the Regional Board has the authority to use to grant time to comply with new limitations in NPDES permits: in-permit compliance schedules, time schedule orders (TSOs), and Cease and Desist Orders (CDO). TSOs and CDOs are not compliance schedules in the permit that actually delay application of final effluent limitations. Instead, TSOs and CDOs may provide the City with protection from mandatory minimum penalties (MMPs) for not meeting the final limitations in the permit. MMP protection is designed to protect the City while it plans and implements necessary changes to comply with certain final limitations adopted in the NPDES permit. For constituents addressed in a TSO or CDO, the City is still considered to be in violation of such permit limitations if they are exceeded. TSOs and CDOs do not protect the City from liability being brought under third party lawsuits. However, to date, we are aware of no third party lawsuits attempting to claim liability where MMPs have been not been assessed because of an adopted TSO or CDO.
Currently the Regional Board does not have authority to grant variances to water quality objectives. A variance policy is being drafted specifically for salinity but may potentially include other constituents. This policy must go through many levels of review and approval, including the Regional Board, State Water Board, Office of Administrative Law and USEPA prior to the Regional Board having the authority to grant any type of variance for any constituent. The earliest this variance policy may be implemented is sometime in 2013 if no challenges to the policy are presented.
Current adopted timelines
The City has asked for and received the following in-permit compliance schedules and TSO protections:
•In-permit compliance schedule: The City has been given 10 years (2007-2017) to comply with final effluent limitations for BOD, TSS, Turbidity, Coliform, Aluminum, Ammonia and Iron. Ten years is the maximum amount of time the Regional Board can grant to an agency to comply with adopted final effluent limitations. The ten year limitation is established in a statewide policy, adopted by the State Water Board and approved by USEPA. The Regional Board does not have the discretion to grant any more time beyond what is already in the permit for these constituents. To change the Regional Board’s discretion, the State Water Board would need to amend its policy, and the change would need to be approved by USEPA. The Charrette Plan will provide the City with treatment processes that comply with the final effluent limitations for all of these constituents.
•Time Schedule Order (TSO): The City has one TSO which provides protection from MMP’s for selenium, cyanide and copper. The TSO protection for copper expires in September 2014 and selenium and cyanide expire February 2015.
Attachment A provides details for each constituent listed above, the proposed method of compliance and the potential for additional compliance time.
Selenium is discussed in further detail with EC and Boron.”
. . . continued
“Wastewater Constituents of Concern not treated by the Charrette Plan
•Selenium: The 2007 permit includes a final limitation for selenium. As noted above the City currently has TSO protection for selenium through February 2015. The existing facility typically meets the final limitation for selenium now as the existing overland flow treatment process removes selenium. The overland flow process will be abandoned in the new plant design because it adds aluminum, copper, turbidity, and suspended solids at levels greater than the permit limitations for these constituents. Keeping the overland flow process to remove selenium would require significant capital investments in additional processes to address the constituents the overland flow process adds. The proposed Charrette treatment process will not remove selenium.
•EC and Boron: Regional Board staff has indicated their intention, as identified in language in the 2007 permit, to provide final limitations for EC and Boron in the upcoming 2012 renewal of the City’s NPDES permit. The City has no final limitations for these constituents in the current permit. It is likely that the City will provide justification to the Regional Board to include an in-permit compliance schedule for these constituents provided findings can be made that the City is working towards a viable solution to meet these limitations – such as moving to a water source lower in these constituents. Under the State Water Board’s compliance schedule policy, the maximum in-permit compliance schedule that the Regional Board has the discretion to adopt for these constituents is ten- years.
These dissolved constituents (Selenium, EC and Boron) are very difficult and costly to remove from the waste stream; the most challenging issue with removing the dissolved constituents is disposal of the waste brine. The most likely solution to achieving compliance with permit limitations for these constituents is a change in water supply.
Potential for additional time to comply with permit limitations
As outlined in Attachment A there are some limited options for additional time extensions or protection from MMP’s.
•2017 permitted constituents (BOD, TSS, Turbidity, etc.): The only protection potentially available for these constituents is a TSO. The City will technically be in violation of its permit for these constituents if a TSO is granted. Based on conversations with Regional Board staff, because the Regional Board has already approved ten (10) years for the City to comply with these limitations, it is unlikely that Regional Board staff would support findings to grant TSO protection for these constituents unless construction of the new treatment plant was taking place. An initial TSO can only protect the City from the imposition of mandatory minimum penalties for a period of five years.
•Selenium: The current TSO expires February 2015. Based on new law that became effective in 2011 the City can ask for an additional five (5) years of protection from MMP’s as long as it can be demonstrated that the City is making diligent progress towards compliance with the permit limitation.
•EC and Boron: There is no current final limitation for these constituents in the 2007 permit. The Regional Board staff has informed the City that they intend to adopt final limitations in the 2012 permit renewal (which in fact may not be adopted until 2013). The City can request, with justification, an in-permit compliance schedule to meet these final limitations. The schedule for meeting these limits must be as short as possible and cannot exceed ten (10) years.”
So bottom-line, one could argue that 2015 is our real deadline, but because the WWTP Upgrade will not remove the Overland Flow process that addresses selenium until 2018, we can think of 2018 as our functional deadline.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I haven’t looked at this for awhile, but my current understanding is that we have our final limits for selenium and are in compliance. When the new wastewater treatment plant is built and operating, we will have to reduce selenium a little bit, but our two new deep water wells and our repiping of the municipal landscaping water needs directly to our intermediate wells means that we will have be able to meet those limits even after the new plant is operating (the new plant, while better at removing nitrogen, will be a little bit worse at removing selenium).
We will be negotiating the salinity. We do not know whether or not we will be out of compliance. I am not aware of any 2018 deadline that would require surface water to be in place.”[/i]
Sue’s initial sentence is substantially correct. We do have incidents of non-compliance currently, but they are not of sufficient frequency or duration to put us out of compliance for selenium in aggregate. However, the reason that her statement is true is because we have the Overland Flow process currently as part of our WWTP. With the WWTP Upgrade, that Overland Flow process goes away, and we will virtually immediately go into a non-compliant status. As I said in prior comments, and will say again, tuning of the wells will help us walk the knife’s edge of being compliant vs. not being compliant. That may be able to buy us a bit of short-term time past 2018, but it is a tactic that will have no tolerance for error.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I think you are trying to parse words here. First of all, it’s a given that it appears clear to me since I am the one writing. Your second correction is tenuous because based on my conversations it seemed clear to them that certain staff did not want to go the West Sacramento route. If I re-wrote it, I would have changed “the staff” to “some staff”[/i]
Actually you are both parsing words, and since it looks like so much fun, here is how I would do the parsing . . .
One thing that appears clear after talking with several of members of the WAC, those specific WAC members believe that some members of city staff do not want to go forward with the West Sacramento alternative despite the fact that it would likely save money. My own (David Greenwald’s) belief is in concert with the beliefs of those specific WAC members . . . I (David Greenwald) too believe that some members of city staff do not want to go to the West Sacramento route despite the fact that it would likely save money.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Further follow-up: the water consultant who addressed the WAC last Thursday seemed to be describing a project that was sized for a city like Stockton, with a per person demand that far exceeded anything Davis has seen from its residents for years.” [/i]
Michael, you and I have had our differences of opinion, but on the above statement I agree with you 100%. It was very frustrating to hear Carollo had not integrated in scaled down assumptions in creating their report.
With that said, after my personal frustration has worn off, I do think there are some very logical reasons why they chose the path they did, specifically . . .
1) Even though the WAC has talked about scaling back the capacity of the WDCWA plant, we as yet have not reduced those “intentions” into actual sizing numbers. That means that . . .
2) In order to show an apples-to-apples comparison of the two alternatives they sized them with comparable assumptions.
3) 20/20 hindsight says that a better sequence of meeting topics might have been to have the WAC complete the process of agreeing on the scaled down assumptions before getting the West Sac analysis from Carollo, but further delay would probably have been met with more wailing and gnashing of teeth, so they did what they could with the data they had and an intent to modify as further assumption adjustments were made by the WAC.
4) More 20/20 hindsight says that receiving the Woodland message a week ago would have made the process easier for all parties, but again, Carollo had to go forward with the assumptions that were known at the time.
5) Your “per person demand that far exceeded anything Davis has seen from its residents for years” is easy to understand. Specifically, both Woodland and West Sac are only now getting to the point where they are installing water meters, and as a result the per capita water consumption in West Sac is in excess of 280 gallons per person per day, in Woodland is in excess of 230 gallons per person per day, and in Davis was 152 gallons per person per day. Further complications with the per person per day calculations is that both West sac and Woodland have considerably more Commercial and Industrial water usage than Davis does. All that non residential consumption is added to their system totals, but with zero offsetting population. To put that factor into numerical perspective, Davis’ gallons per person per day calculation would rise from 152 to 205 if the non-residential consumption were removed. In 2007 our gallons per person per day calculation was 199, 31% higher than it is today. If West Sac and Woodland achieve a similar water conservation over the next 5 years their gallons per person per day numbers will come down to 215 and 175 respectively.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”The thrust of the report seemed to be tailored for the Woodland JPA project that was pushed by staff and the West Yost water consultants over the past ten years. It came across as completely unbelievable. Of course, the same staff and West Yost Associates who gave you the Woodland Davis JPA project, and the Sept 6th rates, are still sitting at the table, still trying to push a project sized and designed to double Davis’ population. It’s been the goal since the 1988 General Plan and Lois Wolk pushed this project every year she was on the CC. They all want a population of 150,000, to go with the expansion plans of UCD.”[/i]
You are entitled to your opinion, but recognize that it is only an opinion
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Connect the dots. Saylor is just the latest politician representing the land and water and construction interests who stand to gain millions in land value increases and profits. I am now adding Mayor Joe Krovoza to the list, as the main holder over from the last CC who spearheaded those facially bogus rates to the Sept 6th CC meeting. Dan and Rochelle voted for those rates, but I think they were trusting Joe and Steve, drank the JPA West Yost Kool Aid, and went along with the rate plan that staff pushed. Joe and Steve led the charge, and Joe remains, up for re-election in 2014.”[/i]
Now you are diving into the realm of conspiracy theory. That too is your prerogative. I hope you don’t mind If I don’t go there with you. We have enough to do in sorting out the facts. Adding a process of sorting out the specuslations would more thandouble our workload.
[quote]Sue’s initial sentence is substantially correct. We do have incidents of non-compliance currently, but they are not of sufficient frequency or duration to put us out of compliance for selenium in aggregate. However, the reason that her statement is true is because we have the Overland Flow process currently as part of our WWTP.–[b]Matt Williams[/b][/quote]Matt, it is impossible to have a discussion with you because you cut and paste but you don’t read and understand.
I anticipated your comments about the overland flow process and addressed them in my initial comment. Additionally, we have been over this many times in the past.
Once again, we will be able to meet our selenium final limits even with the new wastewater treatment plant with our new deep aquifer wells, our repiping of intermediate wells for irrigation. We might need an extra well for mechanical back-up.
[i]We might need an extra well for mechanical back-up.[/i]
You’re proposing to dig another deep well just for backup?
[i]Once again, we will be able to meet our selenium final limits even with the new wastewater treatment plant with our new deep aquifer wells, our repiping of intermediate wells for irrigation.[/i]
Use of the deep aquifer was not intended as a long-term solution for Davis’ water problems. It is fraught with problems. We’ve been over those problems many times before. Meeting out selenium limits with the deep wells is not a sustainable solution. Repiping the intermediate wells for irrigation is a trivial portion of the total. We would be running the wells constantly, which is irresponsible and not the way municipal agencies do things. That is why the surface water option is necessary.
[b]@Don Shor:[/b]The deep aquifer might or might not theoretically be a long term solution, but that is not the point. The only thing we are discussing is whether we have some 2018 deadline, or have time to fully assess the Wast Sacramento option. We have time to assess the West Sacramento option.
Matt: thanks for your thoughtful response. And I hope my public comments to the WAC will help develop a set of baseline project specifications that the package to the voters will include.
What do you think about my points to include in the voter package?
The Referendum Committee is going to develope a proposed baseline list, specific for a large utility project.
Mike, I published last week the items I think should be in the Sample Ballot. my thoughts haven’t changed since then. I did stop at the Elections Office to get a copy of a past Sample Ballot and actual Ballot to better understand format, etc. I’m in the process of putting together a water question specific version for review. If you want to meet and go over what I’ve put together, I’d be glad to meet with you. I believe the content should be identical regardless of when the actual vote takes place.
Here’s what I published . . .
[i]In addition to the mandated activities under Prop 218, I propose that the same Prop 218 detail documentation will be 1) incorporated by reference into the ballot itself, 2) distributed in hard copy and/or electronic copy to all registered Davis voters in the format of a Sample Ballot as a “Sample Ballot Supplement”, and 3) provided and discussed in community workshops and discussions/dialogue on both the rates and the costs well in advance of the first date where mail ballots can be submitted. Further, all during the month leading up to the Tuesday, November 6th Election Day, more workshops and discussions will take place.
Like any sample ballot info on an initiative, the “Sample Ballot Supplement” would contain 1) the actual ballot language, 2) an independent analysis of the impact of the ballot, 3) a set of statements in support and against and rebuttals to those statements. In addition to those “normal” contents would be 4) all the specific detail about the rates and underlying costs and underlying project details that are required by the State for a Prop 218 notice.
Our goal will be to mail the “Sample Ballot Supplement” at the same time as the official Sample Ballot for all the other election day decisions is mailed, and therefore we will need to have rates approved by Council and the Prop 218 language finalized by September 9th. Doing so means that the non-partisan analyst’s written analysis of the rates will be completed by September 19th, as will the argument statements for and against the Ordinance, the underlying rates and the underlying project. The rebuttals to the for and against arguments will be completed by September 29th. The printing will be completed October 3rd and the mailing from West Sac Regional Post Office will happen October 5th, so that arrival at the mailing address of each registered voter on the Election Office’s Sample Ballot mailing list takes place by October 7th (election day minus 29 days), which the Election Office has told me is the target delivery date for the official Sample Ballots.
All arguments will be together with the rates and underlying cost and project details. We are not trying to take away the sample ballot “characteristics” simply to mail it to the voters in two parts.
If we follow this process we will have 1) some property owners who receive a Prop 218, but no Sample Ballot Supplement because they are not registered voters, 2) some registered voters who receive a Sample Ballot Supplement but no Prop 218 because they are not property owners, 3) some registered voters who will receive both, and 4) some lucky people like me who will receive neither because we are not registered voters in the City and are also not property owners of record for the purposes of the Prop 218 notice.[/i]
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, it is impossible to have a discussion with you because you cut and paste but you don’t read and understand.”[/i]
Sue, when you made that comment I imagine you were looking in a mirror.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”I anticipated your comments about the overland flow process and addressed them in my initial comment. Additionally, we have been over this many times in the past.
Once again, we will be able to meet our selenium final limits even with the new wastewater treatment plant with our new deep aquifer wells, our repiping of intermediate wells for irrigation. We might need an extra well for mechanical back-up.” [/i]
And you were wearing your rose colored glasses. You clearly didn’t listen to Rob Beggs of Brown and Caldwell, Jay Lund of UCD and Graham Fogg of UCD. I even think you will find that if you check in with Ed Schroeder you will find that he disagrees with your analysis as a long term solution.
Bottom-line, by choosing to go the way you are choosing to go, you are playing fast and loose with the long term well being of the citizens of Davis.
I believe it is fair to say that you and I will have to agree to disagree on the point you are trying to make.
Actually Sue, I have a proposal for you. Lets have a public debate with you and I both being on teams of six debaters. My debate team will be Rob, Jay, Graham, Ed, Ken Loy and myself. Feel free to choose any five people you want to, and then name the time and place. You can choose the debate moderator. Anyone you choose will be fine with me.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Don Shor:The deep aquifer might or might not theoretically be a long term solution, but that is not the point. [b]The only thing we are discussing is whether we have some 2018 deadline[/b], or have time to fully assess the Wast Sacramento option. We have time to assess the West Sacramento option.”[/i]
No, that is the only thing you are talking about. The rest of us are looking at a far less short-sighted horizon.
[i]”Actually Sue, I have a proposal for you. Lets have a public debate with you and I both being on teams of six debaters. My debate team will be Rob, Jay, Graham, Ed, Ken Loy and myself. Feel free to choose any five people you want to, and then name the time and place. You can choose the debate moderator. Anyone you choose will be fine with me.”[/i]
I like this idea. How can I help set it up?
The debate on the vanguard is fascinating in that there are several very informed smart people with completely different ideas. I keep thinking how could I get this out to the general voting public? When the debates started I even purchased a URL and web hosting service and was working with Don Shor to publish key documents. But, then upon reflection, I determined that it was too complicated to just post the technical details.
The WAC is doing good work, and there are well-meaning people on both sides of the blog debate. However, I think it would be great to host a series of general public (televised?) debates so we educated more of the general population of the pros/cons, cost/benefits and the risks for doing nothing or not enough. Educating the public will also help prevent another FUD effort from Mike Harrington.
David, how about having the Vanguard host this? I will contribute to the costs.
[quote]“[u]dmg[/u]: Elaine: The problem with citing a source without naming them in the WAC is that there is no way to verify the accuracy/inaccuracy of any statements….Except of course you know that’s untrue, it’s why I called you up and spoke to you for 30 minutesyesterday]…..Also, I know you know at least one person who I spoke to because he told you. So you don’t try to pull this stuff again.”
[u]Elaine[/u]: “I don’t know where you got this misinformation from…The problem with citing a source without naming them in the WAC is that there is no way to verify the accuracy/inaccuracy of any statements….Talk to who?”[/quote]Get a room, you two!
[quote][b]Sue Greenwald[/b] said: “@Don Shor:The deep aquifer might or might not theoretically be a long term solution, but that is not the point. The only thing we are discussing is whether we have some 2018 deadline, or have time to fully assess the Wast Sacramento option. We have time to assess the West Sacramento option.”
[b]Matt Williams responded[/b]: No, that is the only thing you are talking about. The rest of us are looking at a far less short-sighted horizon.[/quote]Come on Matt, cut the one-upmanship. Many of us, myself included, are looking for a wise long term strategy which involves finding a cost-effective way to provide for long-term water infrastructure, and we do not have to rush it to meet your fantasy 2018 deadline.
[i]your fantasy 2018 deadline
[/i]
Here’s the discharge permit. Note the number of things that expire in October 2017.
[url]http://davismerchants.org/water/CityofDavisdischargepermit2010.pdf[/url]
“Here’s the discharge permit. Note the number of things that expire in October 2017. “
The world has changed dramatically since 2007. There is no doubt,IMO, that the expiring discharge permit issues will be extended or not vigorously pressed by draconian penalties if Davis demonstrates that it is continuing to diligently work towards meeting the water standards in a manner that is economically and politically viable. The hearsay opinions reported here of most likely mid-level State Water Board staff are just that. This decision will be largely shaped by POLITICAL(generic usage) rather than rigid ideological considerations.
It appears more and more likely that the above will require, as a first step, the rejection of the current surface water plan( with or without minor “tweeking” of it) by a citizen-initiated referendum. This was the opinion(and last public statement on this issue) voiced by our current interim Public Works Director.
davisite, two good posts, especially when brought together. The homework I did last year in very actively pursuing the possibility of getting the Regional Board to allow the pushing back of the WWTP Upgrade, did boil down to the fact that any decision that they made would indeed be principally driven by political considerations. However, the universal opinion of the many, many people I talked with (both at the Regional Board and from the management of WWTPs from various cities in the Central Valley) was that the politics would actually work against Davis rather than for Davis, as you have argued. FWIW, that is the same point Sue Greenwald has made from the dias many, many times. When many people are saying the same thing there usually is a logical reason for it, and in this case that logical reason was consistently explained as follows . . . Davis has delayed and delayed and delayed over the years while virtually every jurisdiction actually took the steps and incurred the cost to comply with the regulations. Davis has been out of compliance since 2007 and if the Regional Board extended the TSO past 2017 the political uproar from communities that are much more fiscally challenged than Davis is would be loud and long. Everyone felt that was political dynamite.
Further, while a TSO protects a community from governmental fines, it does not insulate the community from civil lawsuits. Environmental groups would no doubt line up to sue Davis in civil court if the Regional Board extends the TSO. The fact is that we are exposed to such civil lawsuits right now.
Finally, take a look at your second post and help me understand how “the rejection of the current surface water plan (with or without minor “tweeking” of it) by a citizen-initiated referendum” is consistent with and evidence of “Davis demonstrates that it is continuing to diligently work towards meeting the water standards in a manner that is economically and politically viable”? I could be wrong, but I don’t see any “dillgently working forward” in your second post.
davisite2
[quote]There is no doubt,IMO, that the expiring discharge permit issues will be extended or not vigorously pressed by draconian penalties if Davis demonstrates that it is continuing to diligently work towards meeting the water standards in a manner that is economically and politically viable.[/quote]
As someone who has not chosen to invest as much time and energy into informing myself about the details of the options as have you and Matt, it looks as though Matt has put forward some sound arguments around the issue of an extension of the permits to avoid penalties. You seemed quite sure that they would be extended. Although you clearly stated this was your opinion, I am wondering what on what evidence that opinion is based ? Can you clarify ?
[quote]Michael Harrington: Further follow-up: the water consultant who addressed the WAC last Thursday seemed to be describing a project that was sized for a city like Stockton, with a per person demand that far exceeded anything Davis has seen from its residents for years.[/quote]
Further discussion on demand needs is forthcoming. The only thing that occurred at the last WAC meeting is that an apples to apples comparison was done between the surface water project as proposed and the West Sac option. Because we ran out of time, staff was not able to begin the discussion of actual sizing for Davis’ true needs – so stay tuned!
[quote]Michael Harrington: ERM: I just want to thank you for serving as Chair of the WAC. It’s tons more work than being a sitting member. You run a good meeting from my being there and watching. You always try to hear everyone, and even when things get contentious, you hold your cool. Thank you for letting me speak to the WAC last week.[/quote]
I appreciate your vote of confidence. Yes, my style is to make sure all voices are heard, and to remain calm under fire – which is not always easy, believe me! 😉
[quote]Jeff Boone:The WAC is doing good work, and there are well-meaning people on both sides of the blog debate. However, I think it would be great to host a series of general public (televised?) debates so we educated more of the general population of the pros/cons, cost/benefits and the risks for doing nothing or not enough.[/quote]
As nice an idea as this is, it is a bit premature IMO. Everyone needs to wait until all the information is in – we have a huge learning curve here to know what exact options are and their specific details, based on revised demand needs…
[quote]davisite2: It appears more and more likely that the above will require, as a first step, the rejection of the current surface water plan( with or without minor “tweeking” of it) by a citizen-initiated referendum. This was the opinion(and last public statement on this issue) voiced by our current interim Public Works Director.[/quote]
The problem w this assessment is that it assumes the current surface water project as proposed will be the preferred alternative, which will not necessarily be the case…
[quote]medwoman: As someone who has not chosen to invest as much time and energy into informing myself about the details of the options as have you and Matt, it looks as though Matt has put forward some sound arguments around the issue of an extension of the permits to avoid penalties. You seemed quite sure that they would be extended. Although you clearly stated this was your opinion, I am wondering what on what evidence that opinion is based ? Can you clarify ? [/quote]
Any of this is merely speculation as to what the SWRCB will do. Even the SWRCB doesn’t know what it will do bc Davis doesn’t yet know what it is going to do.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said:
We are currently negotiating a new discharge permit. We don’t know what it will be. It is a long process. We have many administrative and legal remedies as well. This is what other cities do; they pursue their remedies. When other cities have pursued their administrative and/or legal remedies regarding salinity, they have usually won.
Furthermore, when we have recalculated our salinity figures, we have found that we can probably meet likely standards with our new deep water wells, repiping intermediate wells for municipal irregation and with optimizing our groundwater management. We will also have the option of water softener regulation. Since we will soon be entirely within the deep aquifer even under existing plans, water hardness will not be as much of an issue.
If we weren’t concerned about long-term supply, we could probably meet our discharge requirements without surface water for the foreseeable future.
However, that is not what I am proposing. I am merely proposing that we take the time to fully analyze the West Sacramento option, and we certainly have more than enough time to do that.
Matt or anyone else could come up with some far-fetched potential risks. Everything in city management involves risk/benefit calculations. I could go on and on about the risks the city faces by not having a fourth fire station or by not have more police officers. It is all a matter of risk/benefit analysis and the financial risks involving the current cumulative wastewater/surface water plans are huge and the benefits speculative.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”However, that is not what I am proposing. [b]I am merely proposing that we take the time to fully analyze the West Sacramento option,[/b] and we certainly have more than enough time to do that.
Matt or anyone else could come up with some far-fetched potential risks. Everything in city management involves risk/benefit calculations. I could go on and on about the risks the city faces by not having a fourth fire station or by not have more police officers. It is all a matter of risk/benefit analysis and the financial risks involving the current cumulative wastewater/surface water plans are huge and the benefits speculative.”[/i]
Sue, absolutely no one . . . I repeat absolutely no one . . . has suggested that the West Sac alternative should not be thoroughly explored. If you read that into anyone’s comments then you need to reread those comments again. Further, I and others have spent personal time to analyze the currently issued West Sacramento bonds to identify as much as an additional $53 million of potential savings in interest expense over and above the M&O savings and Capital Expense savings that have been laid out.
West Sac is indeed, as you pointed out earlier, a very motivated partner. That is the reason why Toby Ross, West Sac’s City Manager already had a recently completed analysis (by his Public Works Director) in his hands at the first City Managers meeting Steve Pinkerton attended. At the same time as you took steps to ask Steve to reach out to West Sac to explore whether they might be interested in a collaboration, they were doing the detail work to be able to reach out to Davis from a position of knowledge.
However, good intentions don’t make a deal. There are lots of details that are still to be discussed. Based on what we heard on Thursday (and since Thursday as well), West Sac is definitely not offering “shared governance” of a regional water plant. What they are offering is a long-term contract to sell us water. Steve Bayley from Tracy laid out how such a water purchase agreement can work very well, so I for one want to know more about that. On the other hand the Woodland City Council members have very clearly stated that they do not consider any offer from West Sac that isn’t shared governance of a regional plant as unacceptable. That is their right so to do. Davis doesn’t appear to feel as absolutely about that issue.
Finally, regarding “far-fetched risks” you really need to talk to Jay Lund and graham Fogg and Rob Beggs about those risks. I defer to their expert opinions. Each of them has forgotten more about water than you and I will ever know.
[b]@Matt Williams[/b]: West Sacramento wanted a regional system. They had obviously written us off because we were at the point of no return as far as they could tell. They did not approach us, we approached them. You clearly have some ego stake in a certain historical perspective, but I am not going to engage you on that because it isn’t important at this point.
I have talked at length with Jay Lund and have talked Graham Fogg in the past and have read his various comments. I started talking with them years before you got involved with Davis politics (although you live in El Macero and told me that you didn’t want to be annexed and to pay Davis taxes).
Jay is not familiar with the specific Davis regulatory situation. I know that because I talked with him fairly recently. Neither is Ed Schoeder or George Tchobanoglous. When I have conveyed the most up to date information to them, they have always been receptive and flexible. They are not ideologues.
Years ago, when I was talking with George Tchobanolgous, Ed Schoeder, Jay Lund, Andy Bale, Tom Howard and, separately Graham Fogg, Graham was the most keen on a surface water project, but even he did not put a time frame on it, and he never has.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”@Matt Williams: West Sacramento wanted a regional system. They had obviously written us off because we were at the point of no return as far as they could tell. They did not approach us, we approached them. You clearly have some ego stake in a certain historical perspective, but I am not going to engage you on that because it isn’t important at this point.”[/i]
Sue, I never said West Sac didn’t want a regional system. They were more than happy to have a regional system, but with the governance of that system being 100% in their control. Said another way, they wanted Davis as a regional customer.
What possible ego stake could i have in this? The fact is that West Sac had reason to begin their own internal analysis of whether they had enough excess capacity to meet Davis’ water needs, and that reason predated your outreach to Steve Pinkerton. That doesn’t diminish in any way shape or form the fact that you spoke to Steve and asked him to reach out to Toby Ross at the City Managers meeting. It simply says that the interest was mutual rather than unilateral. If there is anyone with ego invested in these events, it appears to be you.
Regarding Jay and Graham, you stated, “Matt or anyone else could come up with some far-fetched potential risks.” I was simply pointing out that the “far-fetched risks” you are referring to regarding the deep aquifer were expressed by Jay and Graham and Rob Beggs in testimony before the WAC. I defer to their individual and collective knowledge and experience. As Jay said in his testimony before the WAC, we need to be prepared for the eventuality that whatever decision we make will be wrong . . . because it is almost a certainty that whatever decision we make will indeed be wrong.
The Woodland Davis Clean Water Project is dead. Good riddance to the JPA and our having to listen to Woodland CC come to our town and chew us out. Those political leaders are probably going to bankrupt those poor and middle class residents
Question: Anyone have ideas on unwinding ourselves ftom this nightmare JPA project? The image I have in my mind is from the movie Rosemarys Baby
Let’s move on to a serious analysis of using the Conaway Ranch winter water and store it, then pump it out in the dry summers
Same for a West Sacramento source of winter water we can store and pump out in the summer months
And we should study how to promote rain water catching and reuse
WDCWP is nowhere near dead. It may well be the best alternative of those before the WAC and the council, for reasons of long-term source, local control and ownership, and water quality, among other things. Our ET rates are too high for rainwater storage to be much of a factor.
Don: I hugely respect your views, but this one you are not looking past the sprinkler showers to the reality on the other side
Mike, why is it important to share what is at best conjecture at this stage of the process?
[i]”They were more than happy to have a regional system, but with the governance of that system being 100% in their control.”[/i]
Matt, why is it contrary to the interests of Davis if West Sacramento is “100% in control of the governance” of the surface water system? Isn’t the most important question what sort of a deal Davis can strike with West Sac, in terms of how much water we can take and how much that costs and how long the deal would be in effect?
My understanding is that with the WDCWA, UC Davis wants for itself to be a water buyer from Davis and Woodland. Isn’t that effectively what type of relationship we would have with West Sac as you see it? And if that kind of a relationship is good enough for UC Davis, why would it be such a deal-breaker for the City of Davis (assuming we can strike acceptable terms in a contract)?
We have not negotiated an agreement with West Sacramento, so we have no idea what type of governance there would be. That said, we don’t have control with the Woodland/Davis JPA either. We have a 50% vote, which could be problematic in the long run and a recipe for gridlock.
I cold envision a number of scenarios with West Sac. What about a lease with an option for buy-in in 25 years when our wastewater treatment plant is paid off? That might be a way to keep our water bills lower in the interim while helping West Sac pay for their excess capacity and share their operation and maintenance costs. West Sac would be lining up a potential partner for future expansion. We would have the advantage of getting some of our infrastructure in place and slowing our groundwater usage. Our original project alternative was an intake and treatment plant near the West Sacramento intake anyway, so we would have a number of logical alternatives for the future.
There are many possibilities to explore. Since, contrary to the assumptions presented to us last week, West Sacramento would not have to be expanded in the foreseeable future under the Davis/West Sacramento alone scenario, the costs to the Davis rate payers should be significantly less expensive, especially after operations and maintenance is properly factored in.
Rich, it isn’t now. I’m not sure where you got the impression that I thought it is.
However, in 2004 when Davis had no water rights to bring to the table, that was a different situation.
With that said, the members of the Woodland City Council I have spoken to face-to-face with in the past two weeks unanimously feel that not having shared governance is contrary to the interests of Woodland.
Regarding the “most important question” there really are a whole lot of “most important questions” regarding going with West Sac instead of the Conaway Ranch intake location . . . some of which are the unraveling of the JPA, whether Conaway will sue Davis for breach of agreement ovr the upgrade of the intake facility, whether the water rights can split, whether the water rights location can be relocated after splitting, etc., etc., All of those are issues that have unknown answers at this point in time. They are also issues that will affect how the deal Davis can get from West Sac ultimately is ultimately valued.
If you read through my prior posts in this thread you will see that I pointed out that Steve Bayley from Tracy did a superb job of outlining how successful their “water purchase” approach has been. They have historically negotiated 40-year purchase agreements, and there appears to be no reason that Davis and West Sac can’t do the same.
I think it’s worth pulling Alan Pryor’s post forward from a May thread. I grew up with chlorinated water. I think Davis residents should know they will be paying more for water that tastes worse than what they are drinking now:
“The devil in the details is the water with regard to West Sac is water quality and not contractual concerns. Simply said, West Sac water, IMHO, is not of sufficiently high quality to consider using for potable use in Davis. This is because the method they use for oxidation of organic contaiminants and disinfection is UV instead of ozone. Ozone, as is planned for the WDCWA, is a far superior oxidixzing agenet and destroys more contaminants far faster than UV while doing a much better job of disinfecting the water with fewer disinfection byproducts.
More unoxidized organic contaminants in the water means West Sac has to add more chlorine to the water to overcome the organic demand in order to acheive a stable chlorine residual for disinfection of the delivered water. The high residual level of organics in the water combined with high levels of chloring means that the water has a high level of classes of organic compounds called trihalomethans and haloacetic acids. Current federal drinking water standards require that these chlorinated hydrocarbons (called disinfection byproducts) be low in drinking water because they are carcinogenic or potentially carcinogenic (such as chloroform). West Sac, while potentially meeting the minimum level of disinfection byproducts required by law, is still loaded up with them. It is not good drinking water quality for those concerned with the highest purity and least contamination possible.
In addition to the formation of these potentially harmful disinfection byproducts, [b]addition of high levels of chlorine also makes West Sac water taste like crap with an overbearing chorine taste due to the formation of chloramines and similar chlorinated compounds. [/b]
Most high quality water plants using surface water now use ozone as their primary oxidizing agent for this main reason. MWD and LADWP collectively ozone billions of gallons of water per day that they bring in from N. California and the Eastern Sierra through their canal network. Almost all river water treated in Europe is ozonated. It is the state of the art and is planned for the WDCWA. West Sac does not use this approach and they have a resultant low quality water which would raise howls of objections from Davis resident.”
If West Sacramento had ozone treatment, the CWPJA zealots would be raising the alarm about the carcenogenic bromate that results from ozone treatment (look it up).
I can understand people who want redundancy in our water supply, but I have trouble understanding people’s seemingly strong emotional connection to the most expensive possible project.
She, thank you for your comments
Sue, I’m not a CWPJA “zealot.” Why don’t you cool it with the insults? I specifically highlighted the issue of taste. Chlorinated water does taste and smell bad. I grew up with it.
Don, in the classic parable the answer was, because its her nature.
Wow. Suddenly chlorinated water, which is the only surface water that the vast majority of us ever tasted, tastes worse than Davis deep aquifer water?
A small minority of surface water in the United States is treated with ozone. Hardly any surface water in Northern California is treated with ozone. When people said that our groundwater tastes worse than surface water, they were comparing it to chlorinated surface water. No one said that Davis groundwater tastes worse than ozonated surface water, because no one even knew what ozonated surface water tastes like.
Suddenly, ever since we learned that West Sacramento doesn’t have ozone treatment, chlorinated surface water tastes worse than Davis groundwater.
How about a taste test in the blind ?
SUE: [i]”What about a lease with an option for buy-in [b]in 25 years when our wastewater treatment plant is paid off[/b]?”[/i]
Matt Williams told me on May 10 that our wastewater treatment plant will be fully paid for in 2021, after I asked him how long it was going to be before the WWTP would be paid for. I then referenced Matt’s claim in my May 23 Enterprise column ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/the-unions-behavior-avaricious/[/url]), attributing the remark to him: [quote] Matt Williams, who serves on the city’s Water Advisory Committee, told me on May 10 that the sewage plant will be fully paid off in nine more years “on or before June 30, 2021.”)[/quote] That Sue says the WWTP will be paid for in 25 years and Matt says less than 9 raises the question: Who is right? And if it is Sue, where is she getting her numbers from? I think Matt got his from the City of Davis, which keeps a wastewater fund. Maybe Matt can clarify.
The reason I think the paid-off date is very important is because I strongly agree with Sue’s assertion that having to pay for our WWTP and the surface water project at the same time is cost prohibitive to too many Davis residents. Thus, I like Sue’s idea of paying off one before we start the other.
So if Matt is right about 2021–and that claim that we are forced by some deadline to have a surface water project in place in 2018 turns out to be without merit; I think even the water projects most ardent supporters now concede that deadline regards just the WWTP and not surface water–I think Sue’s plan of not starting with surface water until the WWTP is paid for is a superior idea for everyone in Davis, save Jim Burchill and his pipesmokers, plumbbobs and steamheads.
Rich, a delay from 2018 to 2021 (or even 2023) is the kind of short-term horizon that the “tuning” of the existing wells would work well for, so even if the 2018 deadline turns out to be with merit (your words), creating a timeline where overlap does not exist can still be achieved.
[b]@Rich Rifkin:[/b]I never know where Matt Williams gets numbers from; Matt’s numbers are often a mystery to me.
We will not have our wastewater treatment plant paid off in “less than 9 years” — Matt is simply wrong about that.
Rather than trying to reconstruct Matt’s logic when he floated this analysis, I just asked Paul Navazio if we would have our wastewater treatment plant paid off in 9 years, and he said “absolutely not”. I reported this back to Matt on this blog, but he went on his merry way with his unique logic.
The short answer is that we will have our wastewater treatment plant paid off when we pay off the bond that we finance it with, and we haven’t floated the bond yet or determined its term.
We do have a reserve built up since we already raised the wastewater rates and probably raised them higher than necessary since we saved so much money on the redesign, but we also need a reserve, according to Paul.
Sue, you are having a senior moment once again. To help you jog your memory I repost here the numbers you have read many times before, both here in the Vanguard and directly in the City of Davis Final Budget 2011-2012
Page 3-10 of the City of Davis Final Budget 2011-2012 shows the following entries for Fund 532 the Sewer Capital Replacement Reserve. 1) the June 30, 2011 Working Capital Balance was $28,005,946, 2) the addition to that balance for the 12 month period after paying all the Fund 531 M&O expenses was $6,864,991, 3) as shown in the annual numbers below, repeating that $6,864,991 annual amount means the $95.5 million will be fully paid on or before June 30, 2021 . . . less than 10 years from now.
June 30, 2011 = 28,005,946
June 30, 2012 = 34,869,946
June 30, 2013 = 41,733,946
June 30, 2014 = 48,597,946
June 30, 2015 = 55,461,946
June 30, 2016 = 62,325,946
June 30, 2017 = 69,189,946
June 30, 2018 = 76,053,946
June 30, 2019 = 82,917,946
June 30, 2020 = 89,781,946
June 30, 2021 = 96,645,946
Actually, to be fair to Sue, she may not be having a senior moment at all. She simply may be conveniently choosing not to remember the numbers because they don’t support her personal agenda.
@Matt Williams,
Again Matt, I showed your reasoning to Paul Navazio, and he said it was incorrect.
I am not going to get into another argument with you about “Matt math”. I remember wasting a lot of time during the Wildhorse Ranch debates before I found the flaw in your blizzard of numbers.
Just call up Paul Navazio our former finance director, and ask him to explain it to you. He’s now in Woodland, but he would be happy to answer your questions.
Sue, I have talked to Paul. You asked him a different question . . . specifically when would the City actually pay off any Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade bonds. However, that is not the right question to be asking. The question that is germane to the cash flow analysis is when would the City have enough Sewer CIP funds in hand to be able to pay off the Bond if they so chose.
The reason that is the correct question is that no matter whether the City chooses to make (or not make) the event of paying off the bond happen, the rate structure will continue to accrue CIP set-aside money. The only way that that accrual will no longer happen is if the rate structure approved by the citizens is altered.
Matt,
While we are collecting more money than we need for the wastewater treatment plant, Paul said that you are overestimating the amount of that overage.
The rates that were approved are short-term rates, and they were based on a more expensive wastewater treatment plant. If we keep them this high, we could choose to pay off our bond somewhat earlier (although not as much earlier as you state). However, that would mean that citizens would be paying for approximately $400,000 worth of water/wastewater costs at the same time which, again, would make us one of the most expensive water/wastewater towns in the state. The whole reason to lower to cost of the wastewater treatment plant was to make sure that doesn’t happen.
The reality of your myopic perspective on the Wildhorse Ranch debate was that you again were following this same “event” logic. The fact that you arbitrarily decided (because it suited your purposes) that an “event” would happen outside the parameters you were setting did not in any way change the accounting accrual realities of the accounting transactions when the whole process was concluded.
Said another way, you are very good at (and consistent in) choosing to “frame” discussions in a limited way so that the whole picture is not included in the discussion. That is your nature, and explains why fewer and fewer people are willing to swim across the river with you on their backs.
Matt, even you ultimately had to acknowledge that you were wrong.
Sue Greenwald
[i]”While we are collecting more money than we need for the wastewater treatment plant, Paul said that you are overestimating the amount of that overage.”[/i]
Sue, I am not estimating anything. I am taking the numbers directly from the City’s official Budget. As I have said in all my prior posts on this subject, each year in the future will have different revenue and expense numbers from those in this year’s official Budget, but simple mathematics (arithmetic) really) says that if the numbers are representative and are repeated then the $95.5 million will be paid off on or before June 30, 2021.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The rates that were approved are short-term rates, and they were based on a more expensive wastewater treatment plant. If we keep them this high, we could choose to pay off our bond somewhat earlier (although not as much earlier as you state). However, that would mean that citizens would be paying for approximately $400,000 worth of water/wastewater costs at the same time which, again, would make us one of the most expensive water/wastewater towns in the state. The whole reason to lower to cost of the wastewater treatment plant was to make sure that doesn’t happen.”[/i]
Again you are being myopic. Go back to the discussions between Rich Rifkin and you will quickly see that what Rich was discussing how long the surface water plant would need to be delayed if the cash outflows for water and wastewater did not overlap.
Instead of trying to change a discussion to suit your personal needs, why don’t you try and join the conversation as it exists.
Matt,
Rich was relying on your figures, and your figures overestimated the speed of the pay-off under our current higher rates according to Paul Navazio.
Matt, we could pay off the wastewater treatment plant in one year if rates were high enough — like something over $4,000 a year for one year would do it.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, even you ultimately had to acknowledge that you were wrong.”[/i]
Actually, I didn’t. It became very clear that Parlin had accepted the fact that they were going to lose and it became meaningless to continue to be a neutral voice regarding the financial analysis.
Mark’s argument all along on that particular affordable housing portion of the whole picture was framed from the perspective of comparing “no project” to “project.” That was only part of the picture. The transaction analysis also needed to compare “project” in the Parlin scenario to “project” in a non-Parlin scenario.
It is a little bit like evaluating the accounting implications of “puts” and “calls” If you only analyze their impact of those security instruments from the perspective of their never being “struck” on, then you get a very different answer than you do if you do a complete analysis that also includes situations where they are indeed struck on.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, Rich was relying on your figures, and your figures overestimated the speed of the pay-off under our current higher rates according to Paul Navazio.”[/i]
There you go again Sue. Did you click on the links Rich provided? He understands the provenance of discussions. Do a little due diligence and then step in front of a mirror.
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Matt, we could pay off the wastewater treatment plant in one year if rates were high enough — like something over $4,000 a year for one year would do it.”[/i]
That is true Sue, but in that case you would be dealing with fantasy rates or hypothetical rates. The rates that generated the numbers in the City of Davis Final Budget 2011-2012 that resides on the City website. Those are real rates. You do know the difference between reality and fantasy don’t you?
Matt,
Please stop the ad hominum attacks.
It is a fact that you have sometimes resorted misleading math according to our finance director.
Plain and simple: Paul Navazio, our finance director, said that we would not pay off our wastewater treatment plant in 9 years at current rates.
Pay off = retire the bonds
Pay off = accrue sufficient capital in order to pay off the bonds.
You were asking for the former and he answered your question. You needed to ask the latter.
I will ask nim about my misleading mathe the next time I see him.
Sue, if you look up ad hominem you will find that “argumentum ad hominem” is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. Wiki notes that ad hominem reasoning is commonly referred to as a logical fallacy, but that it is more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.
Said another way argumentum ad hominem is the failure to engage a claim being made in an argument and instead substituting an argument about the person for an argument about the claim.
With that said, are there any claims you have made in the posts in this thread where 1) I have not engaged your claim directly, or 2) I have substituted a comment about you for an argument about the claim?
If you want to see a text book example of argumentum ad hominem you need go no further than this . . .
[i]Sue Greenwald
05/07/12 – 01:43 AM
…
@Matt Williams:Lucky I just tuned in before turning in. I’d like to remind you that you don’t vote in Davis elections; you live in El Macero.
The first time I met you, you were upset that some new home construction was being planned south of El Macero. You started aggressively lobbying me to support new home construction adjacent to West Davis instead of near your house. Then you demanded a dedicated seat on the housing steering committee for El Macero. When I reminded you that El Macero had opposed the city’s attempt to annex it years ago, and hence El Macero residents don’t sit on our city committees, your response was a defiant: “Yes, we don’t want to be annexed!!!”
So Matt, I will patiently listen to you when you lead the El Macero Citizens for Annexation to Davis movement.[/i]
Not only was that comment ad hominem, it was wholly unsupported by the facts, which are available for all to see in the City Council meeting video archives at the Library.
Matt, my comment to you was not an ad hominum attack. It was a statement of fact, i.e., you told me personally that you didn’t want El Macero annexed because you didn’t want to pay Davis taxes, and I do think there are legitimate questions concerning how much representation El Macero residents should have when they turned down the offer to be annexed.
Davis has a problem because some of the most affluent neighborhoods in our planning area have not been annexed to Davis, and hence Davis does not get the benefit of the property taxes. Yet, these citizens benefit from proximity to Davis, and use our facilities, staff time, etc.
Since you speak loudly and voluminously on Davis issues while you neither live nor work in Davis, I will ask you again: “Will you support the annexation of El Macero to Davis?”
If will lead a citizen movement of El Macero citizens to reconsider annexation by Davis, I would be more inclined to take you seriously when you speak about City of Davis decisions.
Sue, it absolutely was ad hominem . . . You did not address the issue being discussed for even one millisecond in your post. Instead you substituted an attempt to negate the truth of the claims being made by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. That was absolutely text book argumentum ad hominem.
You are again remembering our conversation selectively to suit your purposes. I did not tell you personally that I didn’t want El Macero annexed because I didn’t want to pay Davis taxes. I told you personally that El Macero had a long history of the residents of El Macero formally deciding by vote not to be annexed into the City. The bulk of that history predated my arrival from Tennessee in 1998. You tersely responded, “Yes . . . you have turned us down six or seven times.” I didn’t have enough personal experience in Yolo County at that time to have a personal opinion about annexation one way or another, but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight I don’t think that the El Macero residents have any issue with who gets their tax money. The principal driver as I heard it at annual meetings of the Homeowners Association was that they simply wanted to be accountable to the County rather than to the City. By doing so, decisions about the design of new houses, paint color, front yard set backs, green waste on the streets clogging the bicycle lanes, the absence of street lights, and many other issues would be controlled by the El Macero community.
During my term on the Board of the El Macero Homeowners Association, both as a member and as its president, I have formally resurfaced the issue of annexation to Davis no less than three times, and the results of those efforts on my part provide the answer your question, [i]”Will you support the annexation of El Macero to Davis?”[/i] is that it really doesn’t matter what my personal position is on your question. Under LAFCO rules any annexation decision is made by a vote of the residents of El Macero, and based on those annual meetings where annexation was formally discussed, I am only 1/1000th of the answer to your question.
Regarding your comment, [i]”Yet, these citizens benefit from proximity to Davis, and use our facilities, staff time, etc.”[/i] what staff time is devoted to Davis citizens? The ones that come to mind quickly are water and sewer and fire . . . and El Macero does indeed pass their tax dollars through to the City of Davis under a 1975 contract between the County and the City. What other staff time is spent by the City of Davis on El Macero?
The reason that I came forward to Council with my public comment suggestion that you so vehemently object to was because I found out that the City and County and LAFCO have negotiated the fact that El Macero is formally in the City’s planning area. So asking the City to expand its HESC process to incorporate the whole City of Davis planning area somehow did not appear to be out of bounds. Obviously, you felt then and you feel now that that was an erroneous conclusion on my part.
For the record (once again), here is the text of my comments on that long ago issue. The balance of those comments stands in stark relief:
[i]Good evening Mayor Greenwald and City Council Members, my name is Matt Williams. I have lived in Yolo County for the last nine years. I speak tonight in respectful support of the General Plan Update / Housing Element Steering Committee’s efforts to date.
With that said, I believe the Steering Committee could be even more effective and representative if it were expanded to include five additional members. Specifically, representatives from each of the following:
• UC Davis
• The Associated Students of the University of California, Davis (ASUCD)
• The Davis Joint Unified School District, and
• Residents of the areas covered by the Pass-Through Agreement that are outside Davis’ city limits.
If added to the Committee, those representatives would bring ideas, thoughts and positions, to the Housing Element Update process that will make it even more effective than it already is.
I believe each of you have a personal connection to these suggested additions.
• Mayor Greenwald meets with Chancellor Vanderhoef regularly in their 1×1’s
• Council Member Heysteck works closely with ASUCD
• Mayor ProTem Asmundson’s connection to the workings and issues of the School District benefit everyone in Davis
• Council Member Saylor’s district is adjacent to the Northwest Quadrant of the Davis City Edge, and
• Council Member Sousa’s adjacent to the Southeast Quadrant
I urge you to act on these natural connections and each appoint one additional member to the Housing Element Committee. If you do I strongly believe the General Plan Update will be both more representative of our community as a whole and more effective in serving the interests of that community.
If you have any questions regarding this request I will be glad to answer them. Thank you.[/i]
Matt, you are deflecting the issue.
You told me personally that you wanted a special seat on the housing steering committee for El Macero, and when I responded to you personally by asking if you would support El Macero being annexed, you answered: “NO.”
The whole point that I have been trying to make, Matt, as that being a resident of El Macero who pays no Davis taxes, it is great to hear your point of view, but I think it would be more appropriate for you to refrain from monopolizing blog discussions on Davis issues.
Sue, that is wishful thinking on your part. The reason I took the time to write up the public comment and read it was that it was important for it to be balanced. In my discussions with Holly Bishop and Pam Nieberg and Tim Allis and Sheryl Gerrity and Alan Pryor and the other members of the Association of Davis Neighborhood Associations about the issues underlying the public comment, they were very clear about the provenance associated with the Pass Through Agreement and Davis’ Sphere of Influence. My discussions with Lamar and Steve about this issue were balanced. Only you took affront to what was read into the record. I didn’t understand it then, and I don’t really understand it now, but the reality is that you are entitled to your own opinion.
Please reread the text of the comment. Nowhere in it is a seat for El Macero requested. Just as the South Davis General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (SDCAC) just created by the Board of Supervisors represents all the citizens in the Southeast Quadrant of the Planning Area (El Macero, Willowbank, Royal Oaks, and the homes along Mace south of El Macero), my request for a Southeast Quadrant seat (in conjunction with the other four areas delineated in the public comment) could just as easily have been filled by someone from Willowbank as someone from El Macero.
With all that said, just exactly what issue is it that I am deflecting?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The whole point that I have been trying to make, Matt, as that being a resident of El Macero who pays no Davis taxes, it is great to hear your point of view, but I think it would be more appropriate for you to refrain from monopolizing blog discussions on Davis issues.”[/i]
Interesting thought Sue. Are you saying that if you don’t pay any County taxes that you should be silent on all discussions about Yolo County issues?
Matt, Davis residents do pay county taxes. If I lived in Solano County, yes, I would take a back seat in discussions. I might weigh in, but I wouldn’t monopolize their blogs.
Interesting comment Sue. What taxes do you pay to the City as opposed to the County. Parks Tax clearly is one. What are the others?
Sue Greenwald said . . .
[i]”If I lived in Solano County, yes, I would take a back seat in discussions. I might weigh in, but I wouldn’t monopolize their blogs.”[/i]
FWIW, I did a quick inventory of the 20 most recent Vanguard threads. Out of 721 comments I was the author of 46, which translates into one of my comments out of 15 (6.3%). 17 of the 46 have been in this little back-and-forth with you over the past 36 hours. Absent those 17 my “monopolization” goes down to 4% or 1 post out of every 25. Those numbers speak for themselves