Comments on: Stormwater tax drowns voters

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 21:18:02 +0000

Good question.

Let me reply by saying did anything in the Proposition that authorized funding for California’s High Speed Rail Project allow what policy makers are now doing with that program?

Here is a law article that explains the intent of AB 2403:

Stormwater Management Services That Provide a Water Supply Source May Be Funded With Water Service- New Legislation Defines Water for Purposes of Proposition 218 to Include Water from Any Source

Link: http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40&an=33121&format=xml

EXCERPT: In adopting AB 2403, the Legislature made specific findings that the legislation is declaratory of existing law, which would include the decisions in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Griffith. It further declared that the legislation is in furtherance of the policy contained in California Constitution article X, section 2, and the policy that the use of potable domestic water for nonpotable uses, including, but not limited to, cemeteries, golf courses, parks, highway landscaped areas and industrial and irrigation uses, is a waste or an unreasonable use of the water within the meaning of article X, section 2 if recycled water is available.

By: Roger Mann

Roger Mann — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:40:08 +0000

I can’t see where or how AB2403 would mandate that stormwater must be used for public landscaping. Could you point me to that language in AB2403, or tell me how you infer that stormwater must be used for public landscaping?

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 21:26:20 +0000

In reply to Roger Mann. Thanks for your comments. The new law mandates capture of stormwater for public landscaping.

By: Roger Mann

Roger Mann — Tue, 28 Oct 2014 20:19:21 +0000

I’m an economist and I’ve worked on some stormwater projects in California. Probably, most existing stormwater capture is for groundwater recharge, not landscape irrigation. In some places there are existing channels, basins (such as old gravel pits) and other facilities that can be used to recharge stormwater at a cost much less than the cost of rain barrels. It’s also important that stormwater capture can either reduce the damage caused by stormwater entering coastal waters, or the costs required to treat that stormwater. No guarantee that any agency will spend funds wisely, but there are opportunities to save money and water with stormwater capture.

By: Bill - San Jose

Bill - San Jose — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:43:00 +0000

“Even expensive oceanwater desalination at $55.21 per household per month during drought would be 59 percent lower than the cheapest stormwater reclaiming technology of rain barrels at $136.06 per household per month during drought. – See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2014/10/21/stormwater-tax-drowns-voters/#sthash.SNX5rbrr.dpuf”

Pretty obvious choice here and this has been knowledge for as long as I have been here.