Water Advisory Committee members

Mark Siegler and Bill Kopper, appointed by Councilwoman Sue Greenwald

Frank Loge and Steve Boschken, appointed by Mayor Joe Krovoza

Elaine Roberts Musser and Michael Bartolic, appointed by Councilman Stephen Souza

Jerry Adler and Doby Fleeman, appointed by Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson

Alf Brandt and Helen Thomson, appointed by Councilman Dan Wolk

Alternate members are Jane Rundquist (Souza), David Purkey (Krovoza), Walter Sadler (Greenwald), Petrea Marchand (Wolk) and Matt Williams (Swanson)

When: The WAC meets at 6:30 p.m. on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month

Where: Community Chambers, City Hall, 23 Russell Blvd.

Watch it: Live on Government Channel 16 and as recorded video on the council and commissions’ home page on the city’s website, www.cityofdavis.org

By Matt Williams

Let me start by saying that the opinions and perspectives presented here are those of the author and not the opinions and perspectives of the Water Advisory Committee, of which I am an alternate member.

Please take a look at the activities of the WAC over the past five months, with a key question in mind, “Are you being served?”

By way of background, in a Feb. 9 Enterprise op-ed piece, Michael Bartolic clearly stated he believes his responsibility as a member of the WAC is more to the citizens of Davis than it is to the members of City Council, because it was the citizens who:

* Voiced their opposition to the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency’s joint powers authority surface water plan;

* Collected signatures for the referendum;

* Signed the referendum; or

* Seriously considered any of the above.

Those citizens appear to fall into two broad categories, with multiple groupings within each category. The groupings are not mutually exclusive. Many citizens clearly belonged to more than one grouping.

The categories and groupings are:

Those who opposed the JPA plan outright:

* Those who see any added water capacity as contributing to population increase in Davis, and that removing access to water makes it very difficult (impossible) for developers to get regulatory approval to build on their land around Davis.

* Those who have serious doubts about the objectivity/intentions/actions/competence of city of Davis staff/council … some would even include concerns about fraud.

* Those who as a matter of principle object to any increase on either rates or taxes.

* Those who believe this is really a Woodland problem, and that the JPA makes Davis a captive and minority partner subject to non-Davis whims/power plays.

* Those who have serious concerns about “privatization” of any water system.

* Those who have serious doubts about the objectivity (due to profit motive) of the private sector design-build-operate firms and/or the private sector consultants/experts.

Those who were concerned about one or more aspects of the JPA plan, but as yet didn’t oppose it in its entirety:

* Those who believe the process leading to the approval of the plan is 1) proceeding too quickly, and/or 2) lacks sufficient transparency and citizen input. This group typically is not sure that the surface water project is the best alternative, and that perhaps other options are out there that have not been sufficiently explored by the JPA and/or city of Davis staff. Many in this group believe a vote of the people is needed.

* Those who see the rate increase in dollars and cents terms, and simply can’t afford the increase in these hard economic times.

* Those who have a business in which water is a key component (Sudwerk, swimming clubs, etc.), and see the rate increase as a huge change to their cost of doing business and/or their ability to continue to stay in business.

* Those who see the rate structure approved in September as structurally unfair and don’t want to think about the JPA plan until the fairness issues in the rate structure are addressed.

* Those who have serious ethical concerns about the bidding DBO firms and/or the DBO model itself.

* Those who have serious competitiveness concerns about the DBO bidding process’ structural ability to result in truly competitive vendor bids for one or more of the design, the build, and/or the operate portions of the DBO model.

So, how has the WAC engaged the key issues of these citizen groupings?

Thus far the WAC has:

1. Done a thorough job of questioning the sizing of the proposed surface water plant. Cost estimates for reduced water treatment capacity have not yet been received. When those cost estimates are provided, I fully expect considerably more questions. The WAC has done a lot and there is more to do.

2. Placed a decision of “groundwater only” vs. “conjunctive use” (ground water and surface water) at the front of the process.

3. Rather than relying on staff or JPA consultants for expert scientific, risk and legal information about the deep aquifer, the WAC has had numerous thorough presentations from industry experts Graham Fogg, a hydrology professor at UC Davis; Jay Lund, chairman of the UCD Watershed Science Center; Rob Beggs from Brown and Caldwell; Ken Loy from West/Yost; and Kelly Salt and Rob Sawyer from Best, Best and Krieger.

4. Made a unanimous decision at the May 10 WAC meeting that 1) fully endorsed having a dual-source system containing both surface water and groundwater, and 2) completely removed from consideration sole reliance on groundwater as the long-range water supply for the city.

5. Made a unanimous decision with one abstention at the June 14 WAC meeting to recommend to the council that it place a binding vote on the Nov. 6 ballot for the approval or rejection of the Proposition 218 water rates that will be published by the city in September.

For those who see any added water capacity as contributing to population increase in Davis, steps 1-3 above are direct engagement of the issues at the heart of “no population increase” interest group. The most committed of the no-growthers will not like the result of step 4, but in the unanimous opinion of the members of the WAC, the risks associated with a groundwater-only solution based on the city’s current mix of intermediate- and deep-aquifer wells are simply too great.

For those who have serious doubts about the objectivity/intentions/actions/competence of city of Davis staff/council: As noted in step 3 above, rather than relying on staff or JPA consultants for expert scientific, risk and legal information about the deep aquifer, the committee heard numerous thorough presentations from a broad range of independent water experts.

For those who object as a matter of principle to any increase on either rates or taxes: The most committed of the “read my lips” interest group will not like the result of step 4, because that alternative is the only one that could result in no water rate increase.

But again, the risks associated with a groundwater-only solution based on the city’s current mix of intermediate- and deep-aquifer wells are simply too great in the unanimous opinion of the members of the WAC.

With that said, steps 1-3 above are direct engagement of the issues at the heart of the desire of this interest group. In my opinion, there is absolutely no question that the vast majority of the members of the WAC are totally committed to choosing the most fiscally responsible solution to Davis’ water challenges.

For those who believe this is really a Woodland problem, and that the JPA makes Davis a captive and minority partner: The best way to address this concern has been to independently validate the issues and concerns that are central to Davis’ water conundrum.

As noted in step 3 above, the WAC has received considerable independent scientific, risk and legal information in numerous thorough presentations from industry experts. The transparency by which this independent information has been presented, viewed, recorded and archived for reviewing has been robust, to say the least.

For those who have serious concerns about “privatization” of any water system: The “heavy lifting” on the issues central to this interest group are still to come; however, that doesn’t mean that there hasn’t been considerable progress in 1) expanding the understanding of the “operate” part of the design-build-operate option, and 2) bringing another “public” option back into the mix in the form of a West Sacramento surface water option.

West Sacramento currently has excess capacity at its existing, fully operational Bryte Bend surface water treatment facility (the two geodesic domes just below the west end of the Interstate 80 bridge over the Sacramento River), which is operated by “public” employees. There are lots of details that still need to be researched to determine if this is the best option, but it is clearly addresses “privatization” concerns.

For those who have serious doubts about the objectivity of the private sector firms/consultants/experts: All of the steps detailed above have proactively addressed the concerns of this interest group. There is more to do, but I believe the transparent process the WAC has charted will continue to provide the people in this interest group with the information they need to substantially mitigate (if not completely eliminate) their concerns about whether this is a private process or a public one.

For those who feel the process leading to the approval of the plan is 1) proceeding too quickly, and/or 2) lacks sufficient transparency and citizen input: If there is any one group that has been best served by the WAC process thus far, it is this one. I would go so far as to say that simply by being on the WAC, all of the 15 WAC members are ex-officio members of this interest group, and we will all get the right to tell the council how we feel at the polls in November.

For those who see the rate increase in dollars and cents terms, and simply can’t afford the increase in these hard economic times: I believe the members of this interest group are being very well served by the WAC process to date. There is absolutely no question, in my opinion, that the vast majority of the members of the WAC are totally committed to choosing the most fiscally responsible solution to Davis’ water challenges.

If they do that, the resultant rates will be as low and as affordable as possible given the current regulatory environment.

For those who have a business in which water is a key component: If you are a member of this interest group, I strongly urge you to go on the city website and watch the presentation by the Bartle Wells rate consultant on April 12 and the Prop. 218 presentation on March 8 by Kelly Salt, an acknowledged expert lawyer on water rates.

You will come away from those two presentations knowing that water rates for all Davis water users must be (and have been) proportional and consistent with the costs of delivering water in Davis.

For those who see the rate structure approved in September as structurally unfair: We affectionately refer to this interest group as “the Bob Dunning interest group.” At the risk of throwing a little humor into an otherwise rather dry op-ed, if Dunning isn’t complaining, you know the WAC has done a good job of thus far engaging the concerns of this interest group. Stay tuned, though; Dunning is a stern task master.

For those who have serious ethical concerns about the bidding DBO firms and/or the DBO model itself and/or the DBO bidding process: The major engagement of the issues central to this interest group is yet to come, but with that said, the fact that the city of West Sacramento has formally expressed a renewed interest in exploring the possibility of providing surface water to Davis, Woodland and UCD may totally eliminate the concerns of this interest group because the plant will be publicly operated.

That is a summary of how the WAC process to date has engaged the various interest groups who expressed concerns in 2011 about the proposed JPA project. I hope it has been useful to you.

In closing, I’d like to ask three questions that I encourage you to comment on:

* When you look at the interest groupings above, are there any citizens who are either missing or whose interest is inadequately described?

* Is this list a good guide for the WAC, or are there other voices that need to be heard?

* When you look at the WAC’s activities to date, are you being served?

— Matt Williams is an El Macero resident and an alternate member of the city of Davis Water Advisory Committee. He was appointed by Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson.

water dropW

The Davis Water Advisory Committee is working hard to thoroughly research Davis’ future water source and delivery options, as well as the rates to pay for them. BigStock photo

sacto riverw

The Davis Water Advisory Committee has unanimously endorsed supplying Davis’ future water needs using both surface water from the Sacramento River and ground water. Courtesy photo

Comments

comments