By Michael Harrington, Pam Nieberg and Nancy Price

To date, many studies and large amounts of data for the water project have been provided to the city of Davis Water Advisory Committee. The WAC was appointed by the City Council to make decisions on the appropriate preferred project by type, timing of construction and size, as well as sustainability, fiscal responsibility and affordability, and sound science.

The WAC, however, cannot carry out its mandate without a cost-benefit analysis conducted by a reputable, fully independent consultant. It is time for the Davis City Council to call for an independent cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the Davis Water Advisory Committee has the facts needed to make the best recommendation of a water project in the public interest.

This independent analysis must be free of the taint of West Yost Associates, who provided the obviously flawed analysis to the city that led to the successful water referendum on rates and the wise decision by the City Council to appoint the WAC. Only when such an analysis is done can the WAC satisfy its mandate and obligation to us, the public, who will pay for project.

In order for the WAC to determine an appropriate preference, the WAC requires facts and an objective analysis. For example, it is important to recognize that deep well water is safe to drink from the source, while Sacramento River water must be expensively purified before it is safe for consumption.

At present, studies and data are posted on websites of the Davis City Council, the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency and the Water Advisory Committee. But it takes time and persistence to wade through them to sort fact from fiction and reliable analysis from opinion and assertion.

Key elements the cost-benefit study should address are:

* Per capita water consumption: Davis’ per capita water use declined continuously over the recent decade, as posted by the city to the WAC website. At present, Davis’ water consumption figures are 25 percent less than presented in the project environmental impact report. Further outreach and education by the city could hasten and amplify that decline through best practices, which could further reduce per capita and city water use.

* Regional-local population growth: Studies of population growth into the future, posted by various sources including local and regional newspapers, indicate growth will be in the 0.3-0.6 percent range, not the arbitrary 1 percent figure blindly used in prior studies. Combined with falling per capita consumption, our water use appears likely to flat-line. Yet, we have seen no analysis of the cost benefits of down-scaling the project to meet real expected needs.

* Fiscal impact: Based on current information, the city apparently has not analyzed household income figures to determine what residents can afford, and how senior citizens on fixed incomes and poor households can be legally assisted to enjoy their basic human right to clean water in any higher-cost system. Also, a cost-benefit analysis would show the level at which discretionary income would be impacted and the effects of such impacts on the local economy.

* Ecological concerns: We know part of the surface water we may take comes from the Trinity River watershed, thus harming salmon for native people’s fisheries in Northwest California. We also know that every gallon taken from the Sacramento River encourages salt intrusion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Yet these factors have never been acknowledged by city staff or consultants, nor their costs discussed by the WAC.

* Salt load versus over-use of water softeners: Currently, our sewage discharge meets current standards for salinity. Even with mild reduction in over-softening, the city could meet possible future standards for decades to come. Why are we designing a system for a substance that may not be an issue? What is the cost-benefit analysis for a city softener-reduction program versus replacement of safe deep well water by very expensive-to-treat river water?

* Public versus private: A cost-benefit analysis would compare project costs under public management and operation to those under private management, taking into account that private business must be profitable and return value to its shareholders. The WAC has seen no cost-benefit analysis for “privatization” instead of the tried and true norm of open public bids under separate cover for the design, then construction and possibly operation — under firm, city-controlled oversight — of any chosen system, including full public management and operation.

The key elements discussed above, with others to be identified, are why, at this crucial juncture, we call for an independent, comprehensive cost-benefit analysis — a basic requirement before any further decisions are made in our name. We, the public, have a right to accurate, current data to evaluate the project options and fiscal impacts in order to be informed when voicing our choice to the WAC and to the City Council. We deserve — and we demand — no less.

— The authors are Davis residents and leaders of last fall’s referendum on water rates. Harrington served as a member of the Davis City Council from 2000 to 2004.

Comments

comments