A RECENT HERALD ARTICLE about the Benicia Community Sustainability Commission (“CSC puts brakes on suspension of grants,” Nov. 19) suggested that some of the CSC’s members still do not “get it” that the City Council, not they, makes city policy.

It was reported that some commission members “remained upset that the panel’s recommendations were not followed exactly.” No, the CSC recommendations were not followed, and that is a good thing. For starters, the recommendations in question were for funding that did not follow the Valero-Good Neighbor Steering Committee settlement agreement, which clearly states that priority must be given to projects that reduce water use. Projects that reduce energy use or greenhouse gas emissions may be funded, but only if the CSC finds that they provide greater value than proposed water-reducing projects.

The settlement agreement does not give the CSC a free hand to fund anything it pleases — it must make findings that clearly demonstrate the “greater value” of projects if they deviate from the priority of water use reduction.

In its last round of funding, the CSC clearly did not follow the agreement: it did not critically evaluate proposals, and it did not present the required findings to support its recommendations. Now some members are proposing to repeat this debacle by not following the advice of their chairperson, who wants to slow down, revise the process and get it right.

Last time around, the CSC made recommendations that did not give a priority to water-saving projects, and it presented no findings or statements to the Council that explained or justified its deviation from the settlement agreement. Commissioners also were derelict in their duty to the public to critically evaluate projects, simply taking at face value whatever applicants told them, no matter how absurd the claims were. For example, one applicant claimed water savings based on replacing lawns with low-water-use gardens. They assumed the lawns get watered with 1 or 2 inches per week — failing to recognize that at 1 inch per week that lawn is grossly overwatered, and at 2 inches it is nearly a swamp. The applicants grossly overestimated the water savings, and the CSC uncritically accepted the calculations.

Worse, the CSC came up with its own water and energy program and estimated a citywide savings of 15 percent in the first year and 30 percent in the second by funding low-water-use toilet and washer rebates. For the amount of money involved, this would be an extraordinary achievement if it were not based on crazy water savings estimates. Aside from the exaggerated savings per household, they claimed they would retrofit “8,000 resident homes and 500 businesses the first year” with another “8,000 homes and 500 businesses the second year.” Imagine that, 16,000 homes and 1,000 businesses retrofitted — in a city with only 8,600 homes and 550 businesses connected to the water system!

Despite being warned their water savings estimates were grossly exaggerated, the CSC sent the project to the Council uncorrected. No wonder the Council did not follow the CSC’s recommendations “exactly.”

Finally, the ratings of the projects by the CSC were baffling: One project with more water and energy savings than all the others combined got the fewest points, a project that actually cost more water got funded, and there was no explanation of exactly how or why the ratings were made by commissioners.

It is unfortunate that a majority of CSC members want to repeat this sad performance. Instead, the CSC should take the advice of its chairperson, who wants to delay, correct the mistakes and do it right.

The CSC must do the following if they are to regain credibility in their recommendations for funding: First, the process must be completely transparent; currently it is impossible to go through the CSC minutes and documents to determine why one thing got funded and another did not, other than it got more points. (More points for what? They don’t say.)

Next, if the CSC wants to fund projects without a priority for water savings, they need to justify their reasoning and make findings of greater value based on substantial evidence, then present those findings with evidence — along with a detailed methodology for rating projects — to the Council for the Council’s concurrence. And when the CSC rates projects, the categories for ratings must be clearly explained and ratings of each member in each category for all the projects must be made public. Commissioners, furthermore, should be prepared to justify their ratings at a public meeting.

Also, it is vitally important that the CSC critically evaluate applications — no more uncritical acceptance of bogus water and energy savings. If the CSC is not up to the job of critically evaluating project proponents’ claims, they should ask city staff to help review the estimates and critique them, or get outside help. Finally, the CSC must present its recommendations for funding to the Council as the recommendations that they are, because the Council, not the CSC, is the proper authority for final approval.

Dr. Greg Gartrell has lived in Benicia since 1988. He retired in 2013 from his position as a water manager, and has over 40 years experience in water resources. He earned his doctorate in environmental engineering science at the California Institute of Technology.

Sharing is caring!