Letter: Explaining tiered water rates
To the community,
Regarding the successful challenge of tiered rates in San Juan Capistrano, I wanted to share the district’s perspective with you. We feel that the challenge was successful on the grounds that the extremely high top tiers at SJC were unsupported by any expense analysis, and were, by SJC’s own admission, purely punitive in nature in order to financially coerce high water using customers to reduce their usage.
At the district, we only have two tiers, and that’s for residential customers only. The second tier is 50 percent higher than the first tier, and only is used when the customer exceeds the average residential use in the district by approximately 73 percent for the quarter. Last year, the district only collected about $33,000 from the differential pricing for the use in this second tier.
Our water conservation program expenses, geared largely to reduce the landscape watering causing these higher use amounts virtually always occurring in the summer quarters, were approximately $180,000.
The district is not concerned about defending our current pricing structure, given the expenses of running our water conservation program.
Richard Solbrig, South Tahoe Public Utility District general manager
So if someone exceeds the average residential use by 73 percent for a quarter year they will pay 50 percent more for the water above the 73 percent? Are residences being compared by the size of the family? Is a home with a yard and 2 parents with 3 children being compared to an apartment with 1 occupant?
If the higher fee isn’t meant to be punitive why isn’t the fee charged just reflect the cost of providing the additional gallons? It might even be less for the higher use since the fixed costs of the district are being spread over more gallons?
Mr. Solbrig, I do agree the District is not concerned about defending the current pricing structure because the article explanation doesn’t really sound any different than the San Juan Capistrano structure. I don’t see an expense analysis which explains why $180,000 is spent and only $33,000 is collected or is there $147,000 being saved by people not using more water?
advocate, well done. Is this not an explanation of how this district is charging tiered rates based on some random reverse engineered gobblygook? Proposition 218 is very clear. The district cannot charge more than the COST of the product. Richard Solbrig sounds smug to me. Richard, you need to prove why the higher consumption rates costs the district more to produce, not some silly explanation of how your ‘program’ costs exceed the revenue generated by the higher rates. This rate structure is clearly punitive to higher users and seemingly violates the voters’ will. Seems this thing is going to have to be ground down,one stubborn district at a time.
Where does Heavenly fit into this tiered structure Mr. Solbrig?