Tiered water rates hinge on court decision
By Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle
California cities could lose a big tool to encourage water conservation in an intently watched court case from San Juan Capistrano, a picturesque mission town in Orange County where a taxpayer group has challenged the city’s authority to charge homeowners more money for using more water.
The Capistrano Taxpayers Association won in lower court, and a state appeals court is expected to rule any day. If the taxpayer group prevails, water districts say, it could make it harder for them to achieve the deep reductions in water usage Gov. Jerry Brown ordered last week.
With the Sierra snowpack at a record low of 5 percent of normal, water officials argue that pricing incentives for residential consumers are vital to encourage conservation. Since a severe drought in the 1980s, about two-thirds of urban water utilities have used tiered rates, which charge higher prices for higher volumes of water used.
But the taxpayers group won at trial court in 2013, arguing that Proposition 218, approved by California voters in 1996, bars any local government agency, including water utilities, from raising rates above cost. The city appealed and a decision is due this month.
Proposition 218 is a follow-up to Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 law that prevents local governments from raising property taxes without approval by two-thirds of voters. Looking to make up for that loss of revenue, local governments quickly began turning to various fees and assessments. Taxpayer groups responded with Proposition 218, which requires fees for essential services be based solely on the cost of providing them.
Well now isn’t this just precious.
Ok, how about charging, at cost, for every gallon used. Second homeowners, who use no water for a huge majority of the time, pay nothing as their house sits empty and the meter doesn’t turn. No overage, big penalties or junk fees stapled to our bills please, just cost.
I own a residential lot whose owner, in 1978, paid for a sewer hookup to STPUD, because she was forced to. NO home, no development on this lot. But STPUDs position is that they get FULL PRICE per month for a hookup that doesn’t exist. Their position is that they don’t know for sure whether it is being used or not……..pfffft. Clearly willful ignorance on their part. They could easily check local permitting and assessors records for this info. But I digress.
What IS the real cost per gallon? Water companies, and trash companies who extract full price for services not used, as in a second home market like ours, are laughing all the way to their next paid vacation and fat retirement plans. It’s a racket.
Ok Kate, does STPUD have this ‘cost’ information available in light of this voter initiated Proposition 218? I’m sure cost can be skewed and interpreted and inflated in many different ways…….
Atomic, There is an extreme amount of unfairnss in the
billing for vacation homes and full time residents.
Yes, we all need to pay for improvements to water and sewer lines and new equipment and upgrades.
To me it does not seem right that the people who visit their Tahome once a year should be billed for something they rarely use.
So I see both sides of the issue and don’t fully agree with either. I wish I had the answer! OLS
We can look at it this way. When one buys a home in South Lake they are aware that they will pay STPUD and So Tahoe Refuse wheather they use the services or not. Call it a tax if you will. Not the intent of Prop 218. I must say that if the second homeowners didn’t have this “Tahoe Tax” than our rates would be much higher. Purely selfish on my part.
OLS: The came they bought now they pay….just like the rest of us. I couldn’t care less about second home owners and their woes. They knew this going in and many turn their houses into vacation rentals that wreck our quiet neighborhoods.
County Gal, Point taken. I’ve just heard complaints over the years, from so many, why they have to pay a bill for services they are not recieving as they have no trash and rarely use the STPUD water.
It would be like going into a resturaunt and not seeing anything on the menu you wanted. So you don’t order and as you leave you are handed a bill for food you didn’t order… Sounds like a Monty Python sketch,eh?
Being billed for services not used or needed is not right. Thats my take on it. Old Long Skiis
p.s. And now for something completely differnt… Delphinium and Hollyhock seeds got planted 3 days ago.
Atomic, cost per gallon is exactly the wrong question. The cost they are trying to recover is installing pipes and wells. The cost per hook-up is the same whether you use water or not. If they also add the marginal cost of water in a variable rate you wont even notice it on your bill.
Moral, it’s exactly the right question. Of course the cost of a gallon of water has to include infrastructure, delivery, maintenance, etc. It is still a cost. Prop 218 prohibits charging more than ‘cost’ for public utilities. Randomly raising water rates , or tiering as you increase your use, sounds like it is against the law to me. I’m using the same pipes, same pumps, valves etc. How does the next gallon over the first tier rate cost so much more? Granted, higher rates would help with preservation, but it runs contrary to the proposition.