One of the critical issues in the Measure I debate over whether the city needs to go from groundwater to surface water is the long-term viability of the current groundwater system.
Critics of Measure I have argued that the city can move to the deep well aquifer and away from the medium depth wells that are producing high amounts of minerals in their discharge.
However, documents forwarded to the Vanguard Monday afternoon indicate that one of the city’s major deep wells, Well 30, had to be taken offline due to manganese contamination.
An email from Dianna Jensen, the city’s Principal Civil Engineer to Utilities Manager Herb Niederberg, stated: “The results of our repeat sample at Well 30 were 1700 ppb for Manganese. This puts our annual running average for this well over the maximum contaminant level of 50 ppb (this constituent is a Secondary standard).”
She writes, “This well is currently off-line and will not be available for use until we meet with the California Department of Public Health and receive further direction. We may be able to apply for a modified permit to use this well as a Stand-by well (very limited, I believe no more than 15 days a year), until we have a plan figured out.”
Ms. Jensen went on to explain that this is one of the city’s very high capacity deep wells that produces as much as 2300 gpm in the summer months.
The city could opt to treat the manganese, but at the cost of about $2.6 million.
Herb Niederberger, in an email to City Manager Steve Pinkerton, said, “We have been quarterly monitoring Well 30 because of an increasing trend in manganese levels. The latest results of 1700 ppb (parts per billion) have be verified with resamples. The maximum contaminant level (MCL) for manganese in drinking water is 50ppb.”
He adds, “Manganese is naturally occurring and considered a secondary constituent, not a primary health hazard. Its impact on water quality is typically aesthetic as it rapidly oxidizes in the presence of chlorine and will stain plumbing fixtures a dark brown or black. The well is located in West Davis and because there is no treatment, this well is now off-line.”
However, not all of the research indicates that is correct.
Waterborne manganese is a biohazard, with high level of exposure in drinking water associated with increased intellectual impairment and reduced intelligence quotients in school-age children.
According to Wikipedia, “It is hypothesized that long-term exposure to the naturally occurring manganese in shower water puts up to 8.7 million Americans at risk.”
Mr. Niederberger also downplays the impact on the system.
He writes, “At present there is no impact to water pressure in local area. In the past we have conducted hydraulic modeling that indicates we could still meet demands with this single well out of service; however, we will have no operational redundant well as a back-up. If we were to suffer further losses in supply, we may experience low pressure this summer.”
“In theory, we could place this well on standby and use it up to 15 days this summer, but we would be required to notify the community every time the well is used,” he adds.
Yes on Measure I campaign manager Will Arnold was quick to seize on the issue, calling it “a pretty big deal.”
“The other side is saying the deep aquifer is pristine and we can meet our water needs with just the deep wells,” he told the Vanguard on Monday evening.
He believes, “The latter is predicated on all our deep wells running 24/7 at max capacity. That is clearly not a realistic scenario.”
Former Councilmember Sue Greenwald had recently argued in an op-ed, “Our water is clean and healthy, it meets all state and federal drinking water and discharge requirements, and it will be much softer and better-tasting once our two new deep wells are online. Our deep wells, with their high water quality, are in great condition and do replenish.”
She adds, “The consultant the city hired to assess the deep wells reported that he finds no sustainability problems at ‘current usage levels.’ “
Eileen Samitz, on the other hand, countered, “It is common sense that the deep aquifer is a finite resource and drawing down our wells into the deep aquifer is not sustainable long-term. It has been made clear by experts that if we were to drill down more into this limited resource, we risk depletion and/or contamination from the upper aquifers.”
Others disagreed with Ms. Samitz’s take on the deep well situation, arguing, “The intermediate aquifer is hard water, but it is not in any way harmful. With addition of the water from the deep aquifer, which produces very high quality water with no salts or selenium, our water has improved considerably in terms of hardness. There is no need for river water to address the hardness issue. Our deep aquifer water is every bit as good, and it is not grossly polluted as is river water with run-off from ag and urban uses, pharmaceuticals we flush down the drain, and other toxics.”
They continue, “It is also inaccurate to say our deep aquifer is not sustainable. We do know that it recharges from the watersheds to the west off the coast range and somewhat also from the east. It is also a very large aquifer. Davis could continue using water from our deep aquifer for many years, just as the University has been doing for 50 years and will continue to do.”
No on Measure I representative Michael Harrington when asked for comment, questioned the timing of this announcement.
“The story is amazingly timed to coincide with the last few days of voting,” he said. “Is this the October Surprise?”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Harrington said…
“The story is amazingly timed to coincide with the last few days of voting,”
There you go again, Mike. If this announcement were indeed timed to affect the election, I for one would have preferred it break weeks ago before thousands of votes were cast.
The truth is that Davis experiences well failures quite often. This is just the latest. As the Water Advisory Committee unanimously agreed, diversifying our water supply is the prudent approach. Perhaps this happens to be the the “emergency” your side was waiting for prior to acting responsibly.
[quote]“The story is amazingly timed to coincide with the last few days of voting,” [/quote]
I agree with Will that this is very poor timing for the “Yes” campaign coming at least two weeks too late to affect a substantial portion of the vote. However, I do see a certain irony in this comment coming from an individual whose mantra seems to have been ” all in good time” used purely as a delay tactic.
I would be much more interested in hearing an evidence based response to the point actually being made, that our current wells do have vulnerabilities, than a poorly thought through jibe about political expediency.
Maybe we should rename Davis and call it Kesterson instead.
Mike Harrington does understand the science behind water. Why should he? He has a degree in Sociology and a Law degree. Only a political answer could be expected. However, I’m amazed that he would treat news of this with such disregard, criticizing only the timing go the discovery.
Does NOT understand water…..
Questions, when did the city first know of the well results? What was the original date of the documents taht were forwarded to the Vanguard?
The fact that a well went down is very consistent with what the Yes on I campaign has been stating is an important reason for diversifying water sources. It would have been much better for the Yes Campaign had this happened 6 weeks ago.
MH’s opinions/conclusions are completely irrelevant regarding any science or factual information regarding this water project. He’s too busy trying to drum up lawsuit business.
More interesting is how Bob Dunning responds. My guess is that he is too committed to “winning” for NO on I, to ever admit that there are very good reasons why Yes on I should prevail.
Question;
What authority sets the manganese levels in potable water at 50 ppb? Would this , per chance, be the same authority that decided it’s O.K. for Davisites to drink, cook and bathe in our well water, but it’s illegal to add it into the Sacramento River for export to southern California?
I wash of the salts from my plumbing fixtures about once a month with Lime Away of Edfred or just diluted pool muratic acid. It does a fine job of removing salt deposits. A small price to pay for saving $90./mo. in increased water costs from an unneeded water import scheme.
Well 30 was drilled in 2000 or 2001. I lived next door when they were drilling. It is something like 2000 feet deep. It took them months to drill, test, and then screen and case. The well was a gusher, so much so they had to upsize the pump that they had originally planned.
In about 12 years the well is crap and can’t be used!?! This just steams me. The fact we’re even still debating a surface water project is absurd. The No on I folks say our well system is sufficient. Bull! They consultant report that they base this on assumed that Well 30 would be available to pump 23-24 hours a day! Now, maybe, it can be used 15 days of the year only?!!!
As David reports, based on a trend in quarterly monitoring (that’s once every 3 months), they shut the well down. Surely, this problem has been known during this campaign and beyond. I’d guess that the significance of this was just missed, or there is some butt covering going on in public works.
I bet Ernie Head has a well site he’s willing to sell, and Mike Harrington’s ready to draw up the contract.
This makes the No on I seem even more out of touch with reality.
Roger, both US EPA and Cal Dep Public Health have the same mangancese “secondary maximum contaminant level” for drinking water.
[url]http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Manganese.aspx[/url]
As the website says, in California secondary MCLs are enforceable. 1,700 ug/L is not just a little over 50 ug/L. So this isn’t just a little problem. The well is worthless at these concentrations. Is there even the physical space at the well site for the multi-million dollar treatment system that is necessary to allow for the wells use? It was millions to install. Did we as rate payers get our moneys worth out of the well before it failed? I doubt it.
Pursuant to Section 303 (d) of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) lists the Colusa Basin Drain within the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (GCID) as a water quality limited segment due to the presence of agricultural pesticides within the irrigation return water entering the Drain*. These pesticides include:Azinphos-methyl, Carbofuran, Diazinon, Malathion, Methyl Parathion, Molinate/Ordram, and other substances of unknown toxicity.
The GCID Outfall discharges into the Sacramento River at Knights Lanting. The projected Project surface water intake is on the Sacramento River east of Woodland, and south (downchannel) of the GCID discharge.
______
*Section 303 (d) of the CWA requires all States to list impaired waters within their boundaries. The State of California has done so through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) reporting to the SWRCB. Impaired waters are those that do not meet the water quality standards that the States have set for them. The CWA requires that the States establish priority rankings for the water quality limited waters and develop Toxic Mean Daily Limits (TMDLs) for them.
From the CDPH website I posted earlier on the [u]health[/u] risks of manganese (notice, its health risks, not risks to plumbing). Read the web page for even more information.
“ATSDR (2008) reports several studies that showed decreased ability in neurobehavioral performance testing and in several educational parameters, in children exposed to high level of manganese in drinking water and diet for at least several years.
Children are considered to be particularly susceptible to possible effects of high levels of manganese exposure because they absorb and/or retain more manganese than adults (ATSDR, 2008; USEPA, 1996).
Attention to the potential health concerns of high levels of manganese in drinking water is appropriate, as the 0.5-mg/L notification level provides, given the possibility of neurologic effects at very high concentrations. Similar advisory levels for manganese have been established by the US EPA , which has a manganese health advisory level of 0.3 mg/L (USEPA, 2004), and the World Health Organization, which has a manganese health guideline level of 0.4 mg/L (WHO, 2004).”
0.5 mg/L is 500 ug/L (or ppb). Well 30 manganese exceeds this health concern level by more than 3 times!
So Sue Greenwald thinks west Davis should take on that risk during the summer so that she can save a buck, and Mike Harrington and Price’s thingks that west Davis should take on that risk during the summer so that they can create a barrier to future growth? Do you deny this!
Gosh darn it Steve, I was just about to log off!
You just won’t stop with this colusa basin drain stuff. We wouldn’t be withdrawing and treating water from the drain, so what does a regulatory listing of the drain have to do with this project? Just that its upstream? Its also upstream of West Sacramento, Sacramento, and the Delta, where something like 25 million people in California get their drinking water.
Why don’t you focus on the actual monitoring of water quality at the intake? Because it doesn’t fit your narrative of scare and fear?
Steve Hayes –
You’ve been posting about the GCID impact for months. It’s my understanding that significant testing of the water at West Sacamento intake and the Davis Woodland site has been undertaken, and demonstrated, that there are not water quality issues for either intake. Do you have some factual, scientific evidence that suggests there is a water quality problem for the Davis-Woodland surface water intake?
Unfortunately for our community, the failure of well 30 is not an isolated incident. In the last 15 years, the following wells have been destroyed because they were contaminated:
Well 12 was abandoned in 2007 because of chromium contamination.
Well 13 was abandoned in 2003 because of selenium contamination.
Well 16 was abandoned in 1998 because of nitrate contamination.
Well 18 was abandoned in 2002 also because of nitrate contamination.
Well EM2 was abandoned in 2008 also because of nitrate contamination.
Total Capacity Destroyed since 1998: 9.6 mgd
The well may not be, and probably is not, lost. Well 30 is producing from a number of formations from ~1000 ft down to ~1700 feet. The figure in the Deep Aquifer report shows that screens for water were set at 6 or 7 levels from just above 1000 ft down to ~1700 ft. One or more of these formations must be high in Mn. As a geophysicist in an earlier life I have seen this before. One must seal-off the formation or formations that are high in Mn, and use the other fresh-water formations at the other levels. I am not sure if the city has available people or contractors who can run in pipe or other and sample at each formation level? One could set a [movable] plug at some level and see if it is the deep formations that are the problem. UC Davis has a well a mile or so south of CDW 30 that produces good water from I recall ~ 1000 ft and a litte above. A worst case [unlikely] is that the city well may have to be deepened to new water formation levels.
Paul Brady
David, what’s the date on the documents you received?
The email communications were from yesterday between 4 and 5 pm.
The point is not that well 30 will be lost permanently. The point is that, according to the No on I literature, our deep aquifer wells are “in great condition” and the water is “pristine”. That is clearly not the case.
In addition, Sue Greenwald said in her op-ed, that we will have “no sustainability problems at current usage levels.” What happens if we lose a well for an extended period of time? What then?
I believe this quote from the Sacramento Bee endorsement of Measure I is especially apt given today’s news:
“While critics can find fault…they have to ask themselves: Are they really so sure their alternatives are viable? And is the city willing to shoulder the consequences if they aren’t?” – Sacramento Bee endorsement of Measure I
I’m voting yes on I.
No David, what is the date of the report, not when it was sent to you.
What was sent to me was an email from Dianna Jensen to Steve Pinkerton who then forwarded it to the council. This all occurred yesterday afternoon. Reading the email, it seems that Ms. Jensen received the test result yesterday, but I don’t have and have not seen that report.
Here is the presentation to the WAC about the deep aquifer:
[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/CityCouncil/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/General-Background/2012-03-24-item4-presentation-deep-aquifer.pdf[/url]
Summary of Conclusions from Deep Aquifer Studies Presented to the Davis Water Advisory Committee on March 24, 2012:
• The deep aquifer could supply a portion of Davis’ needs, likely around half or a little more during summer months
• Quality not as good as surface water and will likely degrade gradually with time
• UC Davis impacts, water quality trends, and subsidence impacts would need to be evaluated before increased use.
—Privatization – people who think it’s smart to spend 10’s of Millions of dollars on a water project that will be privately operated ought to have their heads examined.
—Nowhere does anyone claim there’s an immediate need for this project!
—Developers and their democrat politicians are planning for future
housing sprawl – ignoring climate change – and want this water plant.
Our groundwater has an increasing amount of contaminants that threaten our environment and public health. Davis cannot meet anticipated future regulations for the water coming into homes, or for water returned to the environment. We cannot afford to wait. Delaying the project or doing nothing at all are not options. There’s an immediate need for this project.
“Groundwater quality never improves over time.” Verne H. Scott
Professor of Water Science, Civil Engineering and Agricultural Engineering and Hydrologist, Emeritus
“…. I for one would have preferred it break weeks ago before thousands of votes were cast.”
..but this is not what the to-defeat-a-citizen-referendum campaign handbook calls for. The Yes on Covell Village campaign made the mistake of launching their Helen Thomson “mushroom cloud” letter several weeks before the balloting, time enough for it to be totally debunked and backfire on their campaign. On the other hand, then Council mayor Wolk offered her assessment ,just a few days before the balloting, that if the Wildhorse referendum to void the development agreement back in the 1980’s ( as I remember it) was successful, the developers would have a free hand to build whatever they pleased. This was found to be without foundation but not generally known to the voters until after the ballots had been cast. Undecided voters will have to decide for themselves what to conclude from these classic last-few-days-of-the-campaign “revelations”.
Godwin’s Law, Davis version, on yet another thread. CovellVillage, Tsakopolous, Gidaro, HelenThomson, all hiding behind every story.
Fact: manganese will require the well to shut down. Are you suggesting that staff made that up?
A vote for Measure I is NOT a vote for development. It is a vote for a sustainable water system for the City of Davis. The current system of depending solely on well water is unsustainable.
Speaking of growth and development, the elite community of Ganite Bay is building a dual shopping mall on the preiphery and it will stop the sales tax leakage going to Roseville and bring millions in sales and business tax revenue in to the city cofferes.
I agree that a vote for Measure I is NOT and vote for development.
But, with greater business tax revenue, we would likely not have to hit families as hard to fund this surface water project.
This is a thought that helps paint the true impacts of the NIMBY, NO-GROWTH-AT-ALL-COSTS power in this city. We don’t have enough tax revenue, so residents have to keep emptying their pockets.
This begs the question: can we continue to afford no-growth?
As long as we are sharing the river water project and the proposed waste water treatment plant, I vote for a complete merger with Woodland. We can get a piece of the shopping mall revenue, develop the remaining ag land between Davis and Woodland’s Spring Lake development, and maybe even build a new Arena there like Stockton. After all, no-holds barred development seems to have worked well for Stockton’s city finances. Our new utopia could be called Daviland or Woodavis
For Paul Brady:
Hi Paul, Wouldn’t you need to test each level since the Mn could be from more than one place in the profile? What would it cost to run such tests? I’m sure its cheaper than abandoning the well but these continued and various costs do offset some portion of the surface project.
eagle eye said . . .
“—Privatization – people who think it’s smart to spend 10’s of Millions of dollars on a water project that will be privately operated ought to have their heads examined.”
eagle eye I know you are smarter than the above comment indicates. You read the Vanguard regularly, so you have read the following information several times when have posted it in the past. But in case you did miss it, here it is one more time.
The question you ask [about privatization] in your first paragraph is a superb one. It is one I asked myself in my journey as a WAC member and Michael Bartolic and I mutually batted that question around quite a bit over the past 12 months. The simple answer is that you can do exactly that. In fact the City of Seattle has two DBO built plants with the same design as the WDCWA plant. As noted in one of my prior comments above, I was able to contact Alex Chen the City of Seattle employee who manages their two DBO water treatment facilities.. In addition to all the information he provided me on DBO scope and quality, he also shared with me that the City of Seattle had seriously considered at one time the possibility of converting the plant from DBO operation to city employee operation.
[b]They completed a detailed analysis of what the costs currently were from their DBO operator vs the costs that public operation would be. What they found was that the two costs were within a fraction of 1% of each other. My response to him when he told me that was, “Well that should have made your decision easy. Ties go to the public operator.” [/b]
He said in response (and I paraphrase from memory), “No, that wasn’t the case. The reason is that even though the money was equivalent there was one huge difference that made our decision to continue with the DBO operator easy. Specifically, they are a crucial and valuable part of the continuing warranty of the Design Build work. For no additional dollars we have the operator ferreting out problems that are challenging the most efficient operation of the plant. When they identify any possible problems they have full access and free access to the Design and Build resources within their own company. If Seattle took over the operation then the access to those problem solving resources would no longer be either full or free. We would find ourselves in the situation of any normal arms length product warranty situation, where the two parties spend time and money determining whether the problem is covered by the warranty or not. In the DBO model there is no incentive to waste time and money acting out the “blame dance” because both “pockets” from which the money and resources needed to fix the problem are within the same organization.”
The way that the WDCWA bid specification documents are written (as I understand it), the contract term for the operations coincides with the warranty period of the design and build . . . 15 years. Thanks to Brett Lee, the default for what happens after 15 years is not continued private operation, but rather a conversion to public operation. I think Alex Chen would call that “having our cake (the warranty) and eating it too (the ability to convert after the end of the warranty period).
The sky is falling!
Thank you, Nancy our Reserve Units have arrived!
Nancy and MIke: Let’s pretend for a moment that it’s about 2016. Let’s pretend that your dream has come true: Measure I had been defeated and the surface water project is abandoned. The intermediate wells highest in selenium have been abandoned, and the city now relies on six deep wells for 100% of its water. One of them tests high in manganese and has to be shut down.
You do the math.
I would like to do a little simple math, but it has to be based on yet more assumptions, some of which happen to swing one way and some the other. 1) The deep wells will continue to have water quality that lets us meet our wastewater standards, if not, we need another source such as the JPA 2) For all 6 to need to run 24/7 means we are continuing to be the water hogs we have always been. We could conserve significantly but probably collectively won’t, we love our unsustainable life styles too much. But if we did conserve 50%, we would not need another source, such as the JPA.
Of these assumptions, which ones do you think are likely and therefore what is the answer?
Re: “The way that the WDCWA bid specification documents are written (as I understand it), the contract term for the operations coincides with the warranty period of the design and build . . . 15 years. Thanks to Brett Lee, the default for what happens after 15 years is not continued private operation, but rather a conversion to public operation.”
Matt–this is a very important piece of information; but I wonder if it is widely known (I wasn’t aware of it).
I’ve been waffling on the water project vote; this tends to tip me in favor of surface water project.
For this accomplishment alone; Brett Lee has earned his laurels as councilmember, as far as I’m concerned.
Matt–you should get word out on this to those campaigning for the surface water project; I think a substantial fraction of “no” votes may be tipped the way because most people’s perception is of a completely privatized operation that we are locked into forever; getting out word of actual contract could swing many voters!
Brilliant Nancy, just brilliant. Can you go any deeper?
Nancy, we’re still waiting for you to provide the statistics supporting your contention that US and EU munipalities are overwhelmingly transitioning from privately operated water supply systems to publicly operated systems. So far, you have only cited one example, Paris.
-Michael Bisch
In 2003, Atlanta retook control of its water system from United Water after 4 years of complaints about poor quality of service, maintenance backlogs, and a rate increase.
The Peperdine law Review: [u][b]Privatization of Public Water Services: The States’ Role in Ensuring Public Accountability[/b][/u] illustrates that that the benefits of public vs. private municipal is not what many would think.
[quote]The issue that cities or water districts initially face when deciding whether or not to privatize is whether or not a private firm will really save money in capital costs and/or operations. The common – but simplistic -wisdom among advocates for privatization, and perhaps even among some policy makers, is that private firms both construct and overate water supply systems more cost-effectively than do public entities. However, two economists’ comprehensive review of all of the empirical studies by independent researchers comparing private and public water utilities in the United States show inconclusive results. Four studies found that private utilities have lower costs or are more efficient, while five studies found that public utilities have lower costs or are more efficient. Three studies show no difference in costs or efficiency. The economists note that the most informative study illustrates that the size of the utility makes a difference,with large-scale public utilities operating more efficiently than large-scale private utilities, but small-scale public utilities operating less efficiently than small-scale private utilities[/quote]
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=plr
Related to the Atlanta situation in 2003…
[quote]United Water, a subsidiary of the giant French company Suez, has acknowledged problems with its management of the Atlanta system. But it has also said it was stuck with trying to run a system in unexpected disrepair, while losing at least $10 million annually under a $22 million-a-year contract that the city refused to renegotiate.[/quote]
I have some experience with similar issues having directed a data center for a large bank, and then having senior management outsource the operation in a cost-cutting move. Given that we were later in the game for this strategic move, there was already a body of best-practice knowledge out there to help ensure the change worked well. In a nutshell, those recommendations all focused on excellent contract design and ongoing contract management.
I would guess that those projects that retuned less than adequate results did so because the incompetents of the public entities charged with designing the contract, and then managing the contract. A well-designed contract would include performance incentives and performance penalties. It would include robust termination for cause clauses. It would include arbitration processes, and a process for negotiating ongoing contract amendment as things change and new information is uncovered.
Basically, the public entity would need to perform well managing the contract relationship. My guess is that in most of these cases the public entity did a lousy job, and hence the contractor’s performance eroded until there were enough public outcries for a change back.
Here is another concern… in many cases I would suspect that there would be a conflict of interests… especially public-sector union interests. These would be people with a vested interest to see the private provider fail so that the system would go back to public-sector hands and more union members would result.
So in Atlanta, United Water which is a subsidiarity of a multibillion dollar multinational company negotiated and signed a multimillion dollar contract to run a large municipal water system without ever doing an analysis of what the existing system consisted of. I think a more likely scenario is that they put in a lowball bid to get the contract to run the system thinking that once they were in the door they could re-negotiate the terms of the contract, which unfortunately it appears they were not able to do.
[quote]Here is another concern… in many cases I would suspect that there would be a conflict of interests… especially public-sector union interests. These would be people with a vested interest to see the private provider fail so that the system would go back to public-sector hands and more union members would result.[/quote]
Another example of that omnipotent union boogeyman that is responsible for every evil in the world!
[i]Another example of that omnipotent union boogeyman that is responsible for every evil in the world! [/i]
I didn’t write that. I think there are plenty of examples of well-organized and run public-sector facilities and service. But there needs to be a factual contrast to the all too common demonization of those private for-profit service providers, don’t you think?
I tend to see the private providers as more acceptable because the public sector can oversee them. However, who oversees the public-sector? When the public-sector screws it up, we end up with long-term structural issues that cannot be resolved because there is no higher power.
Do you honestly think demonetization of public service union employees does not occur? The higher powers are the managers, dept heads, city managers, city council members, and mayors of the municipalities who are supposed to be providing ongoing oversight and supervision of their depts. These are the same higher powers that provide oversight and supervision of the contract for the privately run systems. My experience in over 20 years in state and local govt. is that it is not the unions who are often the problem, but it is often the managers and supervisors who cannot or will not do their job. It is also often the case that when they are doing their job, politics from above intervenes and they are directed to do something contrary to what is most effective from an operational standpoint.
The report was prepared by Pepperdine University law school which is not a bastion of liberal, union-loving, anti-capitalism politics by any stretch of the imagination. The report basically stated that there is not a clear advantage to either municipal or private runs systems that can be applied to every scenario.
I am not concerned about the professionalism of public vs. private sector management of our water. I am sure there are good examples of well-run and of poorly run utilities in both private and public sectors. What concerns me is the relative cost of the personnel. We know that the current contracts with public employees are much higher overall than private. If it takes 20 employees at varying levels of technical skills and management to run a Davis water plant, how much would that cost in the long run (salary, pensions, benefits) if they were public employees? How much would it cost if we were paying a private firm instead?
This isn’t an attack on public employee unions. They have done a great job of negotiating contracts for their members. And it is certainly true that the oversight of the public sector could, [i]in theory[/i], keep those costs in line. But the[i] reality[/i] is that present contracts would probably form the basis of employment, and the present contracts for public employees are simply not in line with what is paid in the private sector.
In short: it is probably cheaper to run the utility privately, even with profit for the investors included.
[i]Do you honestly think demonetization of public service union employees does not occur?[/i]
No. Though I think it does not occur enough… Well not so much “demonization”, but just an honest assessment of inefficiencies and crappy performance.
[i]My experience in over 20 years in state and local govt. is that it is not the unions who are often the problem, but it is often the managers and supervisors who cannot or will not do their job.[/i]
I don’t disagree, but often their jobs are made much more difficult by unionized labor. And in the PEU case, it is politicized union labor. The ability to get things done and do a good job at a reasonable cost is directly related to the demonstrated performance of the workforce held together by a work culture that demands excellence and a single dedication and focus on the mission, and a sense of urgency to accomplish things. Unionized labor will distract from these things at least, and will block them in many cases.
Unions destroy much of the ability for effective personnel management, and corrupt the incentives and “skin in the game” criteria that otherwise leverages the potential positive benefits of the pursuits of self-interest. If you are a poor performer and non-unionized, you either get your act together or you are helped to realize that you are in the wrong job/career and have to move on. If you are a poor performer in a union labor shop, you will be much better protected from being forced to change or move on. More union workers will stay on even as a sub-standard performer. Other potential high performers will eventually lose their motivation to strive since there is no commensurate reward. The macro effect is mediocrity in the entire workforce and a lower-than-possible performance for the enterprise. But, it does not mean that employees do not work hard (a mouse running on a wheel can work as hard as one foraging for food). So, when they are challenged on their performance mediocrity, they rebel because they are working hard. So then there is the conundrum of management… and many just throw up their hands and try to hold on to their jobs until retirement kicks in.
The good news for unions is that – at least in this state – lawmakers and trial lawyers have “progressed” private labor regulation and law to a point that many private companies are also hamstrung from managing for a high-performing workforce. The job-entitlement mentality has grown, and it is more prevalent these days of a growing nanny-state-demanding population. We are heading to a situation like France were private employees work 30-hour work weeks, get several breaks every day and six weeks of vacation every year and cannot be fired or laid off.
[quote]We are heading to a situation like France were private employees work 30-hour work weeks, get several breaks every day and six weeks of vacation every year and cannot be fired or laid off.[/quote]
Or like Germany where the Govt mandates 4 weeks paid vacation plus 9-13 paid holidays! Lord knows how lazy those Germans are! Maybe if they worked harder like us they might be able to engineer and assemble something worthwhile.
Wesley–great info. on the Pepperdine study; accords with what I’ve suspected and with other utilities (electric, gas)public vs private.
Also nice handling of Frankly’s responses, which seem to spring from an ideological rather than an empirical (like the Pepperdine study) basis.
I will give you Germany. Really, please take it. You and DT Businessman. Their GDP growth and that of all of unionized, socialist Europe is looking really crappy right now. Their model is no more sustainable than Japan’s has been (the other low birth-rate, democratic-socialist country with a purely export economy). It is just a matter of time before they too cannot compete with the non-union Pacific Rim countries. Have you driven a Hyundai lately?
If your point is that unionized labor can do good work, I won’t deny that. In fact, those Hostess workers did a great job making Wonder Bread and Twinkies before they bankrupted the company.
The Pepperdine study was “inconclusive”. So, what it the exact point you are trying to make with it?
The point of the Pepperdine study is that privatization of municipal water systems is not the holy grail that will solve all of the world’s water system problems. In some situations it is an effective solution, and in others it is not.
I think a low birth-rate, democratic-socialist, export driven economy is more sustainable than a import the worlds uneducated/unskilled, you’r-on-your-own, borrow from the world so you can spend 150% of what you earn economy.
Speaking of Hyundai…..in the Aug 9, 2012 AutoBlog: [quote]Union works at Hyundai resumed walkout on Wednesday after failing to workout a deal with management. About 45,000 unionized workers had been requesting that South Korea’s largest automaker increase wages, and they’ve also been urging to end the nightshifts that workers say are dangerous.[/quote] It looks like the Pacific Rim has already discovered the union, and yes you are right, those union Hyundai workers do know how to assemble a good product.
The world will be a healthier place to live in with the demise of Twinkies and Wonder Bread. When is the last time you ate a Twinkie or chose spongy Wonder Bread over a artisan or organic bread? I find it difficult to believe that they were still able to sell any of that toxic garbage. The demise probably had more to do with a stodgy, moribund management that did not act to diversify a product base that hasn’t changes with the times than the union demands. The union stubbornness just moved the date of funeral up a little.
“The report basically stated that there is not a clear advantage to either municipal or private runs systems that can be applied to every scenario.”
Wesley506, has it occurred to you that you’ve now gutted Nancy Price’s argument?
-Michael Bisch
[i]I think a low birth-rate, democratic-socialist, export driven economy is more sustainable than a import the worlds uneducated/unskilled, you’r-on-your-own, borrow from the world so you can spend 150% of what you earn economy. [/i]
I agree with the “import the worlds uneducated/unskilled… borrow from the world so you can spend 150% of what you earn” parts of that statement. But the entire EU including Germany is heading toward another failed experiment of collective forms of socialism.
Hyundai labor is unionized… in fact I don’t know a single major car-maker that isn’t. My point is that German engineering isn’t a unique bragging right today and will be less and less tomorrow.
The union killed Hostess. It will be sold to a Pacific Rim buyer and the products will live one.
I don’t think privatization is a panacea; I do think it is on average a better approach as long as the contact and ongoing contract management is solid.
W[quote]esley506, has it occurred to you that you’ve now gutted Nancy Price’s argument? [/quote]
My intent was not to advocate for one position or the other, but merely to point out that this appears to be a well researched study that illustrates that privatization appears to be the best approach is some situations, municipal run better in others, privatization is not always without problems, and that the trend in the USA is increasingly toward privatization.