Comments on: Candidacy for CCSD Director – Rich Davega

By: Deryl Robinson

Deryl Robinson — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:41:04 +0000

Thank you. We’re available to help.

By: RichDavega

RichDavega — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 03:07:54 +0000

Deryl, thanks for your feedback. Since that meeting the Water Master Plan was issued. I have read that document, focusing on the discussion of the various alternative supplemental sources in Section 6.0. I also read Section 13, Comments & Responses and was very interested in the analysis in response to Comment Letter 29. Response 29-7 provides some detailed analysis of the expected relative costs of the projects. We are only able to project the costs and reliability of any of the projects. Desal seems to be the most reliable, not impacted by climatic conditions and the needs of other communities. It gives us the opportunity to control our own water source, and this may prove to be invaluable in future years. The cost, while more than some probably less reliable options, does not appear to me to be excessive when looking at it in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. If the solar option pans out, the costs are quite reasonable. I totally agree that we are long past the time to start over. Let’s get this done!

By: Deryl Robinson

Deryl Robinson — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:22:08 +0000

Rich, I am relieved to see your pragmatic view on the desal project. I’ll use the occasion to add that UnLOC is not pro-desal per se. We are for development of a reliable water supply that can support lifting the moratorium. That can be whatever the community supports. We have supported desal because CCSD and the community have chosen it as the best alternative. This statement is supported by past elections where pro-desal CCSD boards have been elected (two years ago uncontested), the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Board a few years ago, and the oft-maligned advisory ballot where voters and property owners together overwhelmingly approved desal as the right direction. Even when an anti-desal board was elected (Funke-Bilu/Fitzgerald/May) they ultimately realized that desal is the answer. So we know that contrary to the pronouncements by the vocal few, Cambria supports desal. UnLOC supports desal because the community supports desal.

What UnLOC does not support is stopping the process now and starting over with more studies. We’re done studying, it’s time for action.

What I am curious about Rich is the rhetorical question in your public comments to CCSD two meetings ago (I watched it online). You asked “Can this community afford desal?” Does the position you take above on Aug 24 mean that you have done the research and answered the question in the affirmative?

By: RichDavega

RichDavega — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:22:19 +0000

Brian, I am a direct debit CCSD customer, as they do offer that service. I have already asked them to send me an electronic bill or email linking me to a website where I can view the bill rather than receiving it in the mail. Their response was “we can’t do it”. I then asked about at least not sending me a return envelope, as we pay for the envelope and an additional fee for each item stuffed in the billing envelope. As you might now guess, their response was “can’t do it”. I believe that this is because they really don’t look at the bills. They just bulk print them, don’t even do any sorting, and then give them to Accurate Mailing Service for folding, stuffing, and mailing. You can be sure that if elected I will work to fix this issue.

As for Desal, I’ve reviewed the Water Master Plan. I’ll give you some thoughts here, although I think that a detailed discussion would be best. I will be doing that during upcoming “meet the candidate” sessions that are planned. I believe that after all the years of studies, the fact that we have a substantial Federal Government funding commitment, and the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers is going to fund this years’ studies, Desal is the preferred and most reliable drought-proof supplemental water source for Cambria. The other alternatives are all climate dependent and involve dealing with competing interests over a shared water supply. Having said that, we need to ensure that the current safeguards to controlled growth are preserved. I support the 4650 connection maximum buildout, which adds only the remaining current wait list. We also need to do our best to explore renewable energy sources for powering the plant, and CCSD is exploring solar power at this time. Minimizing the cost of Desal water, and only using the plant to the extent necessary, which is primarily during the dry season, are both extremely important. I’m confident that we can minimize the environmental impacts, and keep in mind that all of the supplemental water source options have environmental impacts as well.

By: Brian Griffin

Brian Griffin — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:43:28 +0000

I read your brief on postal rates and how CCSD can save money using a different system. I thought that was a thoughtful money saving idea. One other along the same line is electronic bills and payments. I use that for most of my affairs and it saves me about 4 to 5 dollars in stamps every month. Many of the big companies are no encouraging paperless billing and electronic payments. It would not be the right thing for everyone but many of us would welcome e-mail bills and electronic payments.
Thank you for having the courage to run of public office.
I would like to know where you stand on De-Sal?

By: LYNDA OLSEN ADELSON

LYNDA OLSEN ADELSON — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:25:39 +0000

Mickie (no last name) mis-spelled the word will (he/she used wil).
I think spelling and grammar are important in making a first impression when all the reader has with which to judge a candidate, at this early point, is written copy.
I do agree with Mickie-no-last-name that Rich will make a fine director!

By: mickie

mickie — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 21:08:40 +0000

Rich you wil make a fine director in spite of a few gram·mat·i·cal errors that most people make all the time.

By: LYNDA OLSEN ADELSON

LYNDA OLSEN ADELSON — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:39:58 +0000

In my previous post is an excellent reason to proofread copy.
I just spellchecked it and — of course — once it was posted I found that I had used “the” instead of “that” in the first sentence. PROOFREAD always, and that includes me!