Water board unveils steep CA cuts

SprinklerAs a closely-watched court ruling threw California’s tiered water pricing system into disarray, the Water Resources Control board made public its latest and harshest conservation targets for municipalities across the Golden State.

Detailing the plan, MarketWatch reported that “Angelenos must save another 16 percent for the year ahead, the water board said,” despite saving over 9 billion gallons, or 7 percent, over the previous year:

“By comparison, San Francisco lowered its water usage (22,351 gallons per resident) between June 2014 and February 2015 by more than 1.6 billion gallons, a saving of 8 percent from the same period a year earlier. As such it has just an 8 percent target water reduction for the 2015-2016 period, the state said.

“San Diego, which depends on water imported from outside of the city for 90 percent of its usage, must cut back on demand in the next year by 16 percent, the state water board said.”

Meanwhile, the 4th District Court of Appeal in Orange County sided with a challenge to the constitutionality of San Juan Capistrano’s tiered water pricing system. As the San Jose Mercury News reported, the court held that tiered rates “violated voter-approved Proposition 218, which prohibits government agencies from charging more for a service than it costs to provide it.”

A blow to Brown

For Gov. Jerry Brown, the ruling was an instant headache. He had recently issued an executive order, The Los Angeles Times noted, “directing water agencies to develop rate structures that use price signals to force conservation.”

In a prepared statement issued by the governor’s office in the wake of the ruling, Brown did not shy away from making his frustration plain. “The practical effect of the court’s decision is to put a straitjacket on local government at a time when maximum flexibility is needed,” he said, invoking a bottom-up view of political efficacy most often associated with Republicans. “My policy is and will continue to be: Employ every method possible to ensure water is conserved across California.”

Making waves

As CalWatchdog.com previously observed, the sweeping ramifications of the case put regulators and cities on edge. Providers could fall back on technicalities to make increased consumption more costly — charging more for water drawn from certain areas, for instance — the bureaucratic challenge involved in finding and implementing workarounds could be substantial. According to the Times, experts surmised that between two-thirds and four-fifths of water agencies in California charged tiered rates for usage.

Especially in Southern California, the ruling has thrown a monkeywrench into major plans for an overhaul of the tier system. “The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power currently uses a two-tier rate structure, but agency officials have said they are preparing to roll out a revised system that would employ four tiers and that would make high water use even more costly than it is now,” the Times reported.

Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, told the Sacramento Bee that the ruling was currently under legal review by attorneys. But plaintiffs’ attorney Benjamin Benumof told the Bee that, on their view, government could effectively promote conservation by, for instance, increasing rebates for low-flow appliances and devices.

A turn to penalties

An approach utilized in Santa Cruz offered perhaps the quickest option for municipalities straining to meet new standards without tiered rate pricing. There, the Mercury News reported, the city’s recently reinstated mandatory rationing program hits high users with a flat $50 fee per “unit” of consumption in excess of 11 units:

“That fee, which sent some water guzzlers’ bills skyrocketing, will not be affected by Monday’s court ruling, however, said Rosemary Menard, Santa Cruz’s water director, because it is clearly labeled a “penalty” in the city ordinance, and is not used to pay for daily operations of the water system.” 

5 comments

Write a comment
  1. Dork
    Dork 22 April, 2015, 11:44

    I looked but have been unable to find out the exact percentages of Cuts and Mandatory Conservation of Water the Delta Smelt are required to adhere to. Does anybody know??

    Reply this comment
  2. Jim Reardon
    Jim Reardon 22 April, 2015, 15:22

    This almost religious belief that tiered water pricing is necessary to achieve conservation must be questioned. A single (higher) rate for water that produces the same revenue as the tiers will produce immediate conservation. Furthermore, if you factor in influence of having to recover fixed costs from the sale of 25 percent less water, the single rate increase is easily justified and it send the same price signal to everyone

    Reply this comment
    • Will
      Will 23 April, 2015, 23:56

      I have never seen such an absolute quagmire in my life when it comes to water in this desert state. This is, yet another great example, of these “environmentalists” who find it more much more important to make sure that a minnow can swim/exist in the delta than it is to be certain that our state has water. Water for its economy. Water for its agriculture, for its cities and for its people.

      With all these inflated water rates/fees that the state’s water districts will be collecting plus the 7+ billion water bond measure that was passed….every single CENT of these funds should be going towards the upgrade to the water infrastructure here.

      It absolutely boggles my mind that new dams haven’t been built. Newer storage utilized instead of it all going to the ocean. New reservoirs haven’t been built. Current one’s haven’t been maintained or expanded. Water mains in the major cities are breaking just about every week. It is also critical that funds be invested in new desalination plants.

      We don’t have a choice. If we do not make these investments, we aren’t going to have a state left.

      Reply this comment
  3. LGMike
    LGMike 23 April, 2015, 14:12

    Interesting, LA and Bay area only cut last year 7-8% so they only need to cut and additional 5-6%. As I recall, during the last big crunch, San Diego cut 20-25% and continued for many years at this lower per person use even as our population increased by thousands. On top of which we have cut our more than fair share the last year but must now cut an additional 16%. Howabout the water board members cut their use by 25% and make sure the politicians do the same both in Sacramento and their home house.
    Either way, you can bet the price for water will go up as the use goes down, rather than cutting expenses and government salaries and benefits , which bet they will raise because of the cost of living.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

‘No Party Preference’ gains in CA voter registrations

“No Party Preference” continues its gradual rise in voter registrations according to new data released today by California Secretary of

Towns take heat from proposed taxes targeting streaming video

Tempting fate — and mobilized outrage from consumers and their Silicon Valley allies — municipalities around California have zeroed in on a new

China joins growing interest in CA high speed rail

Seeking to tout its market value, California’s High Speed Rail Authority recently solicited bids for private investment, drawing dozens of responses. “Facing criticism