default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

State of the City Mayor Bob Johnson focuses on new business, rising employee costs

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • roy bitz posted at 7:47 pm on Tue, Nov 15, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 503

    Be glad the city is unable to bll for the air we breath----yet.
    You make a good point regarding waste water vs treat and drink water billing. I hate to think that one day a waste water meter would be mandated.
    Good news though:
    Mayor Johnson says NCPA will be buying at least some of Lodi's waste water for a cool million dollars a year.
    This million dollars may be rebated to rate payers----or maybe it will be diverted to pet projects such as the grape bowl. The council recently announced a plan to transfer ( TAKE ) $200,000 from electric utility to pay for things at the grape bowl.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:50 pm on Tue, Nov 15, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Bitz: Also, regarding meters, I read a teeny, tiny paragraph at the very end of the COL utility newsletter this past summer that the COL is hoping to cash in by increasing waste water charges to home owners - they will tie the meter usage to waste water so the more water one uses, the higher the waste water charge, whether or not the water runs into the sewer system or not. I am assuming that high usage for garden/landscape purposes that does not necessarily end up in the COL drainage systems will count toward higher rates.

  • roy bitz posted at 7:59 pm on Sun, Nov 13, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 503


    Thanks for commenting on my comments.
    Ron--I believe some growers are concerned about salt water creeping into our ground water especially those nearer the Delta. If this was a "real" concern I think the council gentlemen would have shouted it out loud and clear-- they did not.
    Joanne--I hope you are right--that the State will provice some funding for the surface water treatment plant. However, since the council gentlemen have never mentioned this possibility, I doubt this will happen.
    I think our council gentlemen have misrepresented the need for this project. They have used and continued to use fear tactics to push this boondoggle.
    The points I wish to make :
    *Ground water overdraft is a rural problem---not a city problem.
    *This massive will save only about 3% of the ground water overdraft problem.
    *Those outside the city limits can pump unlimited/unrestricted amounts of ground water while city water customers are forced to purchase water meters and pay for every gallon we use.
    *I believe our then three council gentlemen misrepresented the cost/benefit of this project.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:05 pm on Sun, Nov 13, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Bitz - A while back I was checking out AB 2572, the water meter bill, and part of that legislation mandated that cities would have to comply with the bill in order to apply and/or qualify for state funds for water treatment facilities.

    I believe that this funding was an impetus for the COL to pursue the "treat and drink" facility near Lodi Lake which, like you, I believe to be a huge waste of taxpayer money.

    I do rely on your comments on this project since you seem to keep very up-to-date on the water situation in Lodi. Thank you for that.

  • Ron Werner posted at 10:31 am on Sun, Nov 13, 2011.

    Ron Werner Posts: 101

    Roy - the construction of the treatment plant is not only about ground water draft. Some think that once the peripheral canal is built salt water intrusion from the delta will occur in ground water as the fresh water is diverted south. Since nobody knows if brackish intrusion will occur or when, we cannot wait until it happens to start to solve the problem. The peripheral canal will change water usage in our area and not for the better.

  • roy bitz posted at 3:54 pm on Sat, Nov 12, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 503

    Sorry all--my laptop has a hair trigger

  • roy bitz posted at 3:51 pm on Sat, Nov 12, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 503

    8% of the two hundred thousand acre feet over draft problem---those living outside the city account for 92% of the problem.
    The city says the plant will cost some 36 million dollars. This may be true but the TOTAL cost of this massive project is closer to two hundred million dollar

  • roy bitz posted at 3:37 pm on Sat, Nov 12, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 503

    Are you referring to the waste water treatment plant at White Slough or the new "treat and drink" water treatment plant at Lodi Lake?
    My comments refer only to the "treat and drink" plant at Lodi Lake.
    I do not believe this plant will make a dent in the ground water over draft is a rural problem---the entire city of lodi uses only about over draft

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:41 pm on Sat, Nov 12, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Water meters = eligibility for state funds for water treatment plant = license to spend taxpayer money whether we need it, whether it works or whatever. As long as we (COL) don't miss out on "free" money.

  • roy bitz posted at 11:56 am on Sat, Nov 12, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 503


    The ground water over draft is some 200,000 acre feet annually.
    The city of Lodi uses some 16,000 acre feet of water annually.
    This project will save just 6,000 acre feet of ground water annually, 3% of the over draft.
    The over draft is a rural problem---not a city problem. This project is a boondoggle in my view.
    I hope Mr. Johnson or Mr. Hansen will tell me my data is wrong and prove once and for all that this is a "good use of rate payer money.

  • roy bitz posted at 11:49 am on Sat, Nov 12, 2011.

    roy bitz Posts: 503

    Two questions:
    1. Clean water---at what cost?
    2. WIll the surface water treatment plant really preserve the city's ground water?

    The total cost of the surface water treatment will project will be some two hundred million dollars. The 36 million dollar figure does not include the millions spent on infrastructure so far, the cost of the bond, operation of the plant or the cost of the water.

  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:37 pm on Fri, Nov 11, 2011.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Johnson must be kidding:

    "Nobody wants dirty water, nobody wants dirty air, but at what cost do we have to make these things clean?” he said."

    Apparently, the City of Lodi just passes the cost of this mess on to the taxpayer. The big PCE/TCE fiasco caused by several local businesses and the ensuing legal battle was passed on to COL utility customers in the form of an extra charge on our water bills.

    Funny that the City got smart back in March and, instead of listing the charge as a line item on the bill, they just incorporated it into the basic charge for water.

    If government regulations had been stiffling when these businesses decided to pollute our water by dumping chemicals, I wouldn't be out $110 every year to pay for it.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:18 am on Fri, Nov 11, 2011.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    But it’s not all good news.
    Unfunded state mandates are causing the city millions of dollars every year, Johnson said.
    “We are getting killed, as a city and as a business entity, by some burdensome regulations out of Sacramento. Nobody wants dirty water, nobody wants dirty air, but at what cost do we have to make these things clean?” he said.

    I think Mr Trovinger must be shocked and surprised that some perceive government regulations stifling , expensive and a reason to move jobs to a more business friendly environment...



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists