Have some water

Some consultants developed a new "water plan" for Manteca and presented the results of their study at the city council meeting. As usual with these kinds of presentations, they brought some powerpoint slides and spent most of the time simply reciting the requirements of CEQA and talked very little about the actual results of their study.

Only a few details were given. It looked like they thought the public didn't need to know too much. But my favorite was when they noted the "substantial and unmitgatible impact" of "population growth." They said this (presumably bad) "impact" was caused by the fact that the main goal of the project was to facilitate the growth of the population. In other words, what the high priced environmental experts told us was that this project designed to help the population grow will have the effect of increasing the population. Hmm.

Thank you to all of you who have sent me supportive comments. (I've gotten more comments from people in Manteca about that Q&A session than any other for some odd reason.) Since the Q & A session degenerated into a debate of the meaning of a "public hearing" some were wondering what I was "getting at?" Am I opposed to the water plan? Is the cost too much? Is the plan wrong somehow?

Well, the simple answer is I don't know, that's why I was asking the questions. I don't know if $110 million is a lot. It is for the water supply for 130,000 people, and paid over 20 years. That could be anything from $7 or $20 a month extra for each household. Water isn't free, so who knows. Maybe the plan is great. But I still don't know because they never addressed any other question.

What I asked was three questions. First, what was the estimated cost? (they said about $110 million over the years to 2030). By the way, even getting that answer was difficult, they started in with a song and dance about how it was to spent over many years, etc etc and I had to rephrase the question to "if we were to build all these things today, what would it cost, about?"

That was when the mayor interrupted and told the consultants they didn't have to talk to me anymore. But anyway, I also asked if the end result of the project was 39,000 Ac-ft/yr of water, how much do we have now? It was a simple question -- Does that $110 million give us a lot more water or just a little more water? That's why I was asking what's the capacity of the water supply now. The last question was where they came up with that 39,290 Ac-ft/yr figure. They really didn't like that question for some reason. I must have stumbled onto something but I don't know what yet. Maybe it's related to the way that water will be obtained.

Let me explain one other thing. Why ask such questions? Most questions at the public meeting fall into two classifications. One is the questions from consultants, builders, "stakeholders" etc. These are usually highly technical discussions about some particular aspect that affects their business. The other type of questions are the "personal" type. Things like "you'll have to tear up my cow pasture to put in that line..." and so on.

The questions I was asking were neither of those. But I want to make clear, there is a purpose for them. It's not my intention to waste the time of the public officials or the people who make the effort to attend the public hearings. The questions I was asking were what, in my view, were the questions that would be important to you the readers and you, the people of Manteca.

That's why I asked the simple questions that were basically "What will this cost?" And, "What benefit do we get for that cost?"

If you were there, did you notice that I pointed out that the purpose of this public meeting is to provide the public the opportunity to ask questions, and people have a right to have those questions answered! (any reasonable question that is).

After I took my seat and my "time was up" the mayor asked city manager and clerk to clear that up. I'll have to review the tape but one or both of them said that the purpose of this meeting is just to take public comments and they have no obligation to answer or address anything.

Which is completely wrong: Check out the "staff report" on this very issue. This document was issued by the city in preparation for this particular meeting. It tells what the purpose of the meeting is, what is to be discussed, etc. Go to page 92 in the pdf , look under the instructions for this very item. It says:

1. Hold a Public Hearing to respond to questions or receive comments relative to the 2005 Water Master Plan and the 2005 Water Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.

Note the phrase "respond to questions."