COMMENTARY – Council Commits to Woodland-Davis Project. The big news on Tuesday night was not that the Davis City Council committed to the Woodland-Davis project, which has long been a done deal despite the efforts of at least one councilmember to preserve the West Sacramento option as long as possible.
That the decision was unanimous might be mildly surprising, but the big news was the decision by the council to capitulate to legal counsel on the critical issue of the advisory versus binding vote.
In so doing, the council yielded to advice that seemed overly cautious in drawing on legal constraints. The reasoning defies logic, as there has to be a way to bind the council to the voters’ decision.
The measure reads, “Should Davis proceed with participation in the Woodland Davis Clean Water Project to provide 12 million gallons per day of surface water to Davis water consumers and use groundwater as necessary at an estimated construction cost to Davis of approximately (undetermined amount) and subject to approval of increased water rates by the water customers under Proposition 218?”
Proponents of the measure can defend their support of the advisory vote in legalistic terms that were amply laid out by Harriet Steiner, both verbally and in writing on Tuesday. They can argue that only a fool would not listen to the voters’ advice.
But then again, we know differently. The voters have no assurance that their voice will be listened to – not even 12 months after a sufficient number signed a petition to place the September 6 rate hikes on the ballot.
The decision by council now leaves open two alternatives for the Water Referendum Committee, led by former Davis City Councilmember Michael Harrington, to jump through.
His first option will be to attack the initiative on the merits.
On Tuesday night, he did not offer much in the way of hints as to what is to come, telling the Vanguard simply, “The City Council is rushing this again. It’s disappointing.”
That echoes the analysis he submitted last week when it became clear that the option would be to go to Woodland.
Last week, Mr. Harrington and the Referendum Leadership Committee recommended, “The CC immediately halts moving towards a March 2013 ballot, and informs Woodland and the JPA that the City of Davis is not ready to proceed with that specific project.”
He argues, “The City has not worked out a realistic number for how much new potable water we will need, and the current rate system is unconstitutionally disproportional.”
The rushed question comes into play and he can hearken back to the decision at the fateful September 6, 2011 council meeting as evidence, joined by the general discontent for the notion of the JPA, the idea of the DBO and privatized water operations, and of course the anticipated rate hikes that have not been resolved.
That is, of course, a route that Mr. Harrington and others likely would have taken regardless of council actions on Tuesday night.
However, the move by council offers up a new opportunity for the Referendum Leadership Committee.
They no longer have to play by the rules set forth by council – instead they can control the terms of debate by placing a competing measure on the ballot – this being a binding measure that would effectively tie or force the hands of council.
Regardless of the route the Referendum Leadership Committee opts to go, the council has enabled them to seize the high ground. They can now play the trust card – the council decided to follow legal advice from their counsel rather than trust the people with the decision on water.
In politics, the simplest answer is always the most convincing. The council having to sit down and explain in legalese terms why they could not go with a binding vote is not going to work against a much simpler rhetorical device.
The problem with the council’s decision is that they decided to follow legal advice – advice that is often overly cautious, attempting to avoid the slightest possibility of legal entanglements.
But legal advice in the political world usually plays right into the hands of those wishing to seize upon the political initiative. It is penny wise, but ultimately pound foolish.
The city potentially will get rolled on this issue. They have, in effect, opened a whole second front – an open and exposed and vulnerable second front. One that has the potential to bring them down without even a fight on the merits.
Democracy and trust in the people is so paramount to our political system that even people who might be inclined to support the water project on the merits will look at this with caution.
Worse yet, the council has essentially taken a leap of faith here. They have no rates. They have yet to decide on a rate structure. The public will eventually know what will happen to their rates under this plan. That is the other critical front.
As I have said for a number of months now – if the rate increase does not fix the disproportionality issue and if the rate increase seems to resemble the tripling of the water rates, this project is as good as DOA.
As we noted earlier this week – the public will not know who the bidders are for the water project before they cast their votes in March. The reason is that the bidders are not even going to submit their bids until after they know what Davis decides to do.
That becomes a problem for the proponents of this project, as well. Now the opponents of the water initiative can run against Veolia AND United Water. They can enlist the pro-Palestinian community to raise that issue while attacking the corruption of United Water.
That is a gift to the opponents that the proponents have yet to anticipate, but could become critical.
The bottom line is that the council has made a mistake – they listened to legal advice rather than political advice, and by failing to find a way to have a binding measure, they have put the entire project in jeopardy.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David – your statements about “democracy and trust” is confusing to me. The current City Council has followed through and valued the work of the WAC–which has held transparent and highly informative meetings throughout this year. Council members divided up responsibilities for engaging Woodland and West Sacramento leaders and it was clear that the process was not designed to merely rubber stamp the Woodland option. Last night’s vote was 5-0.
On this basis what has the CC done to reduce trust in the process? Those who have opposed the Woodland option have used inuendo and fear to try to stop the project. Yes, I said “stop”. There is no result that would be acceptable to them except no surface water project at all. For them or you to claim (or insinuate) that one cannot trust the CC (or the WAC) at this point because the CC has decided to go with an advisory vote makes no sense and rings hollow.
As I have follwed the open and transparent process of deliberations I have learned a tremendous amount and feel like I am in a position to make an informed choice about this project. As a citizen I can ask for nothing more.
To me the merit of this project is twofold: it allows us to diversity our water supply, a critical thing to do as we look forward to a time of less certainty about water supply; it forces us to start paying the economic cost of water in contrast to the “subsidized rates” we have enjoyed in the past. I say “subsidized” because we have not paid for the externalities that our cheap water (and subsequent overuse) have created.
I agree that a fair rate structure will be critical going forward. I hope there is enough risk taking capacity in our city to adopt the approach that Matt Williams has developed. I am not sure if that will happen but I hope it does. I am like everyone else in that I do not relish the idea of paying higher (much higher) rates for water. However, I also realize that we cannot continue to underpay for what is an increasingly rare necessity of life. The fact that it is a necessity should not diminish the need to pay for it and to pay a price that will assure its continued delivery into the future.
Sorry, one other point: Add my name to the list of Davis citizens who believes we elect CC members to gather information and make hard decisions on our behalf. Direct democracy (so called), as we have seen in California, is no panacea and can be just as easily manipulated as representational forms of democracy.
Robb: The question is not the group for whom there is no acceptable answer, but rather for the middle group of people who neither are dead set for or dead set opposed. I have a lot of respect for the process that has gone forward, but I think it was a huge mistake for the council to listen to legal advise on a political issue and that will cost them.
The campaign of mistrust will happen regardless of what the City Council does or doesn’t do. Fundamental to the “no-tax-end-government-waste” party is fomenting distrust wherever and whenever possible. It’s a religion. I wish the “Referendum Mis-leadership Committee” and others that are planning to oppose the water project would take a little drive up to Monticello Dam and gaze out over the surface of the reservoir and reflect on the fact that with a little vision, and trust, Davis could be benefiting from that project for a fraction of the cost of diverting Sacramento River water 55 years later. If we, as a community, pass up this opportunity Davis citizens will be looking back in 2060 wondering why we blew the “no-brainer” of a paltry $200/month water from the Sacramento River.
This time I hope we make a good record of the names of the people who lack vision so their memory can live on in infamy and a monument to their self-centered blindness can be erected and dedicated to the new water project for 2070 that will require citizens to pay $1,000/month in 2012 dollars.
monticello is ancient history. the davis populace is not stupid and can be trusted to make a good decision. the referendum occurred for the same reason that now it has been decided to make it only an advisory vote, the hubris of the council. it was foolish to rush the plan last year and now the ultimate hubris to make it an advisory vote, which makes me and i am sure others, angry. anger does not drive good decisions.
Democracy involves our elected city council making hard decisions but democracy can also involve the referendum process if a large part of the populace doesn’t like those decisions.
“This time I hope we make a good record of the names of the people who lack vision so their memory can live on in infamy”
there would seem to be a fine line between innovative project and bridge to nowhere. i don’t think anyone is in the position of sanctimonious declarations here. after all, we were set to approve a boondoggle, citizens rose up, and now no matter what we do we will have a better project and more affordable. the question though is one of principle – i am willing to support the project if they are willing to make it a binding vote.
[i]”monticello is ancient history.[/i]”
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana
“[i]anger does not drive good decisions.[/i]”
So stop fomenting anger and make a rational decision instead. The process carried forward by this Council has been deliberate and transparent and their decisions have been rational and well reasoned. You may choose to disagree with them, however there truly is nothing here for you or anyone else to get angry about.
mark:
I did not mean to forget, just that it is way too late for monticello water, of course.
and i will make a responsible decision, but i find it insulting when they thumb their noses at the public. i also agree the project will be better than the state it was in last year.still several unknowns of course too.
Please help me understand how this decision constitutes thumbing their noses at the public. I am just not seeing it. If this CC receives the message that the public is opposed to their actions they will reconsider. Of that I am sure.
After the process we have gone through over the past 8-10 months I am not sure what else they should have done. Please do not condemn these folks for being the ones that have finally taken responsibility for making a decision on the water issue. This was never going to be easy but they have acted with transparency and humility.
I congratulate them for doing something that is unfortunately very rare among elected officials in these times: providing leadership. We see it so seldom that at times we fail to see it when it is displayed.
Robb: I appreciate your comments and am willing to consider that i may be misinterpreting what is behind making the vote advisory rather than binding.
There is little question that the unanswered issues that were offered by Matt in a previous thread held the potential of raising more questions that would make the pro-JPA argument open to serious question. Attempting to silence further discussion/analysis with deadlines was tried by the Council majority with the Whitcomb’s Covell Village project and only served to galvanize the majority No on Measure X vote. There is no requirement for this advisory ballot measure to be on the March ballot with critical outstanding pieces of information not available. It was a far-gone conclusion that it would be advisory rather than mandatory. The Council would not risk letting the voters make this decision. One can be certain that if the advisory ballot measure is rejected, the Council will cosmetically tweek the JPA plan to appear responsive to the voters and attempt to move forward with it.
[quote]One can be certain that if the advisory ballot measure is rejected, the Council will cosmetically tweek the JPA plan to appear responsive to the voters and attempt to move forward with it. [b]- davisite2[/b][/quote]Of course. And there will be nothing to stop them.
“One can be certain that if the advisory ballot measure is rejected, the Council will cosmetically tweek the JPA plan to appear responsive to the voters and attempt to move forward with it”. – davisite2
Another way of seeing this might be … One can be certain that if the advisory ballot measure is rejected, the Council will attempt to modify the JPA plan to meet the genuine concerns of the voters and attempt to move forward with it.