Saylor Carries Water For West Yost

Sunday's Davis Enterprise reports on the latest in a series of discussions and hearings on the city of Davis surface project.

The Vanguard has discovered that Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor, has accepted campaign contributions from a firm that has a contract to do business with the city of Davis on the highly expensive and volatile issue of water.

The city is in the process of examining a new wastewater treatment system and creating a diversion from the Sacramento River to supply the city with water. Both of these projects at this point in time would cost at least $150 million each or in other words over $300 million and likely those costs will only grow.

For a full discussion of the history of this issue please see this article, Tracing the recent history of the water supply project.

During the course of the last five years, the city has slowly moved away from a joint project with West Sacramento with water augmented from deep well aquifers, to a new water bypass, a project now in the works in conjunction with the city of Woodland and UC Davis.

Just five years ago, that plan had been dismissed as the most expensive and prohibitive financially.

But the council majority has since taken the view that this project is necessary to insure quality water to Davis and also has suggested that our stake in the project necessitates us moving forward at this time for fear of losing our place in line if we delay.

On Tuesday, the city of Davis will vote on whether or not to certify the EIR. Each step in this process moves the project closer to a fait accompli even though there has to date not been a straight up or down vote on even whether this is the strategy that the city ought to pursue.

The stakes here are enormous however. The cost of the two projects being completed at the same time would mean an extremely large increase to the residents of Davis in their water rates.

Mayor Sue Greenwald has maintained that while it is clear that we need to implement the wastewater treatment facility in order to insure that our water discharge meets state and federal standards, the timing of the water supply project could be delayed in order to protect thepocketbooks and wallets of ratepayers in the city.

On the other side of the coin has been Councilmembers such as Don Saylor who have led the way in cheerleading and supporting this project.

City Councilman Don Saylor said the river water project would “improve the water quality and it will give our city and the future generations of people who live here a more reliable source, both in terms of supply and quality.

“It will lessen the cost of the treatment needed for wastewater disposal,” he said, “and it will ensure an ongoing supply of water.

...

“I think this is a key set of decisions for our community at this point in time in our history,” he said, “because we must ensure a reliable, reasonable-quality water source for future generations. I think this is beyond politics. It is a matter of being responsible stewards of our community's future interest.”

The Enterprise article is surprisingly balanced quoting from two experts from UC Davis, Professors Jay Lund and Ed Schroeder, both of whom questioned the urgency and necessity of the project.

However, the key supporter of this project is Councilmember Don Saylor.

Councilmember Saylor's support however draws attention to a couple of his key financial and other campaign supporters.

At his announcement party earlier this year, Don Saylor was featured in a picture next to Jeff Pelz and Bruce West of West Yost Associates.

West Yost and Associates has served as the chief consultants for the city on the water project. In May of 2004, the city added to an existing consultant agreement with West Yost and Associates for the Water Supply Feasibility Study. On July 15, 2005, the council approved an MOU to complete a Project EIR report and authorizing West Yost and Associates to provide engineering services in support of the Project environmental process.

In addition to attending his party, Jeff Peltz is listed as a $100 to Don Saylor's reelection campaign as is the firm he works for West Yost and Associates itself.

So now you have a major consulting firm that is in charge of doing work on one of the most expensive projects in the city's history has been contributing to the reelection of their chief supporter on the city council.

To me this appears to be a conflict of interest. Don Saylor has accepted money for his campaign from a company that has a contract with the city. For the sake of ethics and propriety it would seem like Don Saylor should to recuse himself from deliberating on this issue. That is the only way that the citizens of Davis can insure that their leaders are not accepting quid pro quo campaign contributions from vendors who seek in exchange favorable public policy decisions for themselves and their firms. Employees and their firms who do business with the city of Davis should not be solicited by or contributing to the financial campaign coffers of city councilmembers who have the final say as to whether these firms are awarded contracts with the city. This is a clear eithical and financial conflict of interest.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

City Puts Out Propaganda Piece on Water Supply Project

Like many resident of Davis, I recently received in the mail a publication from the City of Davis' Public Works Department: "Utility Connection." I had not even received the publication yet when I got calls and emails about it, incensed not only at the content, but in the fact that this was propaganda paid for by city expense using taxpayer money.

One need look no further than the front page to realize the gist of message:

"In this special issue of Utility Connection, we offer a more detailed look at two critical public works projects. These two projects--a water supply project and a wastewater treatment project--are important to ensure a high-quality water supply for Davis citizens and protect the water quality of our rivers, wetlands and creeks."

The implication throughout this publication is that our drinking water is unsafe. This is simply not true. The drinking water is completely safe using the current water supply. There are questions about the quality, but they are not issues of safety. Several people, familiar with this situation have suggested that the city is trying to scare people into believing that current water supplies are unsafe, but this is simply untrue.

The publication makes four key points.

• The city's water supply is 100 percent groundwater
• There is a limited supply of groundwater
• New water quality regulations must be met but the necessary upgrades are costly
• The health of the groundwater basin is at risk

Currently, the city relies mainly on intermediate depth aquifers. These aquifers have been a reliable source for groundwater since the 1950s. These aquifers have never failed to recharge even in leaner water years. The only question has been water quality. And what is important to understand, is that it is not water quality of the water supply, but rather water quality of the discharge. In other words, the water that we drink, unpleasant as it may be, falls within the standards that are considered acceptable by state and federal water standard guidelines. The problem is that when it is discharged, it does not fall within the standards of wastewater guidelines.

Here is where we get into controversy. The city, the city's engineers, and the city's water consultants that they have hired from various companies, have suggested that the only solution to this problem, is to import surface water from the Sacramento River, which requires building a costly bypass and intake facility to draw the water in. Now of course it turns out, that that water will always be available during the winter, but in drier years it will not be readily available for use during the summer months, which means we will have to rely on our own groundwater to supplement it regardless.

The city is arguing that there is a limited supply of groundwater, however, that is likely not true. First, as mentioned previously the intermediate-depth wells have never failed to recharge. There is no evidence at this point in time that deep aquifers have a limited supply. Most experts familiar with this situation have estimated that there is enough water from deep well aquifers to supply us with 30 to 50 years of water--even if they don't recharge.

Even under the so-called conjunctive use model that uses surface water in conjunction with groundwater, we require the use of deep well aquifers to provide the water that is not available during lean times from the Sacramento River.

Given current estimates of the capacity of the deep well aquifers, it is conceivable that we may have to, in 50 years, import surface water. The city is using this fact to argue that we need to do it now, but many experts not currently getting paid by the city suggest that there is no evidence that we need to do it now.

Economists would suggest that we forestall and avoid major capital improvement projects as long as possible. This is due to advances in technology that may improve upon current methods of delivery, thus reducing costs and make whatever investments and expenditures obsolete by the time they go online. We thus need to look into the possibility of going to deep well aquifers and see if that will give us the kind of quality improvements that would enable us to forestall such a huge expenditure--and we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars of Davis ratepayer money for the surface water project in addition to another set of hundreds of millions for the wastewater project, that we have to do now in order to meet current regulations.

Once again however, the city is trying to scare the citizens by implying that we have a limited supply of groundwater, that the health of the groundwater is at risk, and that the only way to meet new water quality regulations--and these are again outflow regulations not intake regulations--is to import surface water.

The city has by-and-large arrived at these conclusions without sufficient study of deep aquifer alternatives.

Why is that?

Here we need only to follow the money. Remember two weeks ago in the Davis Enterprise, we saw the picture of Jeff Pelz and Bruce West chatting with Don Saylor at his announcement party? These two gentlemen were from West Yost Associates. West Yost Associates is the water consulting engineer company that is in charge of designing and constructing the new water intake system.

So here you have the owners of a major company that will be earning tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from a city contract, at the re-election party for a city councilmember who has been a stalwart for pushing through this project.

Coincidence? I don't believe in such things.

Here you have associates from a company standing to make huge profits from city contracts openly supporting a councilmember for re-election. At the same time, you have the city financing this neat little propaganda piece to its residents implying that we lack adequate water supplies without importing water and that the water is unsafe.

I do not trust the analysis from interested parties in this process. If we are going to undertake such a huge capital expenditure, I want to be sure. And when I see things like the picture of Don Saylor with West Yost Associates at his fundraising party and then read a propaganda piece funded by the city, I do not have confidence that we are getting independent analysis. I fear that we are getting sold this project by companies trying to make millions and councilmembers currying favors for key supporters.

We need to start asking tough questions about this process before it is too late.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Saylor Announcement: The Rest of the Story

Don Saylor announces his bid for reelection, and the Davis Enterprise treats it as a headlining story, not only above the fold, but at the very top of the paper. We of course have known since January that Saylor would be running for reelection, and it is worth noting that his counterpart and colleague Stephen Souza did not get above the fold treatment when he announced his reelection bid a few months back.

However, this story is not about placement, it is not about what Saylor said on Friday night, and it is about what he did not say and what was not reported. You've heard the news; now you will hear... the rest of the story.

In the photo on the right from the Davis Enterprise, Saylor is shown talking to Bruce West and Jeff Pelz from West Yost Associates. What the Davis Enterprise does not tell you is who West Yost Associates is and what their connection to Davis City government entails. West Yost Associates are the water consulting engineers who have been receiving city money to design and construct the new water intake system. That's a project estimated to run the city between $150 and $300 million dollars and likely to increase residents' water rates by two to three fold over the next 10 years or so.

Don Saylor has been a strong champion of the new water project despite strong reservation from many progressive, environmental, and smart growth groups. The project has drawn strong questioning from a number of university faculty who are experts in water quality. These experts have great concerns about the costs of the project, wisdom of transporting Sacramento River Water, alternatives, environmental impacts, etc. However, the city led by Don Saylor has heard very few of these concerns at least in public, and one of the reasons is the insistence of Don Saylor to push this project through. So here you have associates with a company that has millions of dollars worth of business with the city at an event supporting Don Saylor's bid for reelection, meanwhile Saylor has refused to support an independent, outside second opinion regarding the feasibility of postponing this project until the $200 million wastewater and storm water upgrades are paid off.

But there is more. As the Vanguard has demonstrated in the past, Saylor continues to want to have it both ways--supporting development projects while talking about sustainability and a lighter environmental footprint.

According to the paper, Saylor said, "sustainability cannot be accomplished by 'saying no to every development opportunity.'"

Sounds like a fair enough statement, but then there is no mention of Saylor's track record on development. In fact, it is hard to think of a development opportunity that Saylor has not supported. Saylor hasn't "said no to every development opportunity," he's said no to almost no development opportunities.

On this score, no mention of the ardent support that Don Saylor had for Covell Village. He was outspoken as a supporter of Covell Village both in the planning phase and in the ballot initiative phase. In fact, he was much more than just a supporter--he and his council majority colleagues actively campaigned for the proposal--acting as advocates and cheerleaders for it. He acted as an advocate for developer interests on the Covell project as a member of the council. This is a proposal that was voted down by the Davis voters by nearly a 60-40 margin, and yet Don Saylor supported it, strongly. Now he wants to suggest that we cannot say no to every development opportunity.

Likewise, Don Saylor was a strong advocate for Target, an initiative that passed by the barest of margins last November despite a $300,000 campaign that outspent the opposition by over 10 to 1. As with the Covell Village project, he worked on the Target campaign and helped to get it passed. These are two of the biggest development projects ever proposed in Davis and Don Saylor was supporting both of them.

Don Saylor's statement about not turning down every development opportunity rings false, in fact, I wonder if there has ever been a major development opportunity that Saylor has opposed in Davis. Frankly, if he supported Covell, he's probably going to support them all. Those of you who are nervous about the 3rd and B Street Visioning Project might want to keep that in mind.

Those of you who voted against Covell Village should be wary that there are plans and have been discussions both in council and in the Housing Element Committee to look into Covell Village II. This is not just about punishing Saylor for his past votes, it is for ensuring that the residents of Davis, 60% of whom voted against Covell Village, have their choice respected by their elected representatives on the council.

Saylor also made veiled reference to "sustaining the fabric of community."

According to the Enterprise:

"By that, Saylor was referring to the tone of public discourse in Davis which has, at times, crept into the uncivil. He pointed guests to copies of an op-ed piece he wrote for The Davis Enterprise about community relations."

Well if Saylor wants to wage his campaign based on civility, I would suggest he is opening a giant hornet's nest. If Saylor wants to point people toward his op-ed piece, I will point Vanguard readers toward my response to his op-ed piece, entitled: Who is Saylor to Lecture US on Civility in Public Discourse? In that piece, specific incidents are mentioned where Saylor himself is uncivil--attacking both the Mayor and Councilmember Lamar Heystek--sometimes rather viciously.

Don Saylor wants to talk about civility does he? Where was Don Saylor when his colleague Ruth Asmundson attacked Mayor Greenwald on the dais?

Asmundson stated:

"It's just unfortunate that the mayor cannot run the meeting more efficiently... If we have a more efficient meeting then we can finish all these things."

As it turned out the problem was not so much that the mayor couldn't run a meeting more efficiently it was that certain council members, namely Asmundson and Saylor spoke for a disproportionately long time compared to their colleagues. Of course, Saylor never spoke against the uncivil tone that his ally used, and yet he wants to lecture us about bringing civility to this community? How about starting by putting your money where your mouth is.

Politicians get away with making misleading statements because no one calls them on the truth. When Saylor wants to run a campaign based on half-truths and tries to have it both ways to confuse the voters into believing he is environmentally conscious and that the debate is really over not turning down every development, he attempts to insult the intelligence of the voters of this town. The voters know that Saylor has a reputation as a strong supporter of even development projects that are voted down by massive margins and as a man who is quick to be just as uncivil to other individuals as he falsely accuses them of being to him.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting