Letter: EID election letter writer had it wrong

Reader input
-A +A
J. Smith’s letter to the editor said the EID election is about issues, and facts are the most important issue. His claim that water rates are “up 133 percent” under the current board is false, as is Alan Day’s claim of “nearly 100%”. To illustrate this I’ve just added another graph to to compare actual and claimed percent increases for a sample case of 2,000 cubic feet consumption per billing period — about midway between my own low winter and high summer usage. For this usage Alan Day’s claim is 2.18 times the actual percentage increase and J Smith’s claim is 2.89 times the actual percentage increase. The added graph is in “Additional Notes” Detail Page 5 of the fact check of Alan Day’s campaign statements. Web viewers can also get a directory listing containing it to find (1) the data behind the graph, and (2) actual rate information in copies of EID documents. The most generally useful of these are the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, in the “financial_reports” subdirectory. A part of some of the discrepancies in Division 5 is that they rely on data preceding Harry Norris’ term. A glaring example is Alan Day’s claim that EID debt has tripled. The only way to make that claim is to count the factor of 2.4 increase in 2003, when our Division 5 director was Al Vargas, not Harry Norris. I believe firmly that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one can have their own facts. We, the public, need to facts instead of political beliefs and biases. Paul Raveling, El Dorado Hills