CA ‘conundrum’: Water use down, bills up

water meter 2Californians reacted impressively to Gov. Jerry Brown’s late-spring call for major water conservation, cutting usage by 27 percent in June. But many aren’t happy about it — because for millions of ratepayers, conservation hasn’t led to cost savings.

Newspapers around the Golden State have focused on this seeming contradiction.

This story is from this week’s Orange County Register:

It’s a conundrum statewide: Officials demand that people conserve water. People respond, and water use goes down. But less water sold means less money flowing into public coffers, so prices rise to make up for lost revenue.

 

Folks feel that they’re being punished for conserving. But what else can the water agencies do to cover fixed costs, which don’t fluctuate like the rain? …

 

Southern California cities and water districts are selling less water now than they did back in 2003, but are bringing in much more money nonetheless, a Register analysis found. Rising rates are an integral part of that equation … . The cost of water has doubled and rates at most agencies have risen in recent years, and is expected to rise even more.

‘The financial logic is inexorable’

Last week saw a similar piece in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Whenever drought hits, Californians invariably do their part to save water. They cut back on watering lawns, shorten showers and fix leaks.

 

This conservation ethic has taken hold quickly during the current drought. Ratepayers in San Diego County and elsewhere in the state are meeting or often significantly exceeding their state-mandated reduction.

 

Now for the unpleasant but predictable sequel. As water use goes down, the rates charged are going up. And many of those good citizens, who are dutifully pitching in for the public good, are outraged. But the retail water agencies, who directly supply residential, business and agricultural customers, say they have little choice.

 

The financial logic is inexorable. If you sell less of something, to balance the budget you must either cut costs, raise the price, or a combination of both, the agencies say.

The Los Angeles Times also reported on sharply rising rates in areas served by the L.A. Department of Water and Power, but without the context of recent conservation drives.

Agencies ‘uncomfortable’ with conservation

David Sedlak, a professor of civil engineering at UC Berkeley and a water infrastructure expert, suggested this issue is a little bit more complicated in an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle:

Water utilities have an uncomfortable relationship with conservation. They prefer that we consumers gradually reduce per capita water use as our region’s population grows so they don’t have to make costly investments in new supplies. When we abruptly start cutting water use during a drought, the utilities fear the resulting plunge in their revenue. They have good reason to worry: During the last drought, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power had to lay off workers when it experienced a $70 million revenue shortfall after customers answered the city’s call for conservation by decreasing water use by 30 percent.

 

Some of the blame for the misconception about the relationship between water consumption and the cost of providing water lies with how we are billed for water. To incentivize conservation, California’s utilities have created complex billing schemes in which rates go up when consumers use more than a reasonable baseline allocation of water. This is an effective way of rewarding conservation and making life a little easier for low-income families, but it feeds into the mistaken idea that water is a commodity rather than a fixed-price service.

But to consumers shocked by higher bills, just about any justification is likely to produce a sharp response or be dismissed as double-talk. Here’s how San Diego resident John Oliver responded to a Union-Tribune story about conservation forcing higher costs:

“And this is yet another reason why I refuse to cut my use below the level I want to use water at,” he wrote on Facebook. “Anyone who falls for this ‘There’s a drought, it’s terrible, we all have to do our part, but not the smelt or the almond farmers or the developers or the poor or the sick or the elderly or the illegal aliens’ nonsense is a fool.”

6 comments

Write a comment
  1. fredtyg
    fredtyg 4 August, 2015, 12:12

    This should be no surprise to those of us who have paid attention over the last two or three years. I recall reading letters and comments in the Santa Rosa Press- Democrat about this.

    Sonoma and Mendocino counties have been fighting drought for at least a couple years already and thus have been conserving the best they can the whole time. The cries of outrage over their rising water bills was no surprise, but neither was the reason for it. It takes a certain amount of money to support the system. If they don’t make enough, they have to raise rates.

    Here in Humboldt I’m not sure it would work that way, at least those of us drawing from the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District. We could probably stop using any water- assuming that’s possible- and our bills might remain the same because of the way they’re structuring rates here.

    Reply this comment
  2. desmond
    desmond 4 August, 2015, 18:25

    How many water department ahauls retire at 55 with 80 percent of their pay? Euthanasia baby. Conserve and exterminate.

    Reply this comment
    • bob
      bob 4 August, 2015, 18:48

      That’s the case here. The water district here is in deep with unfunded pension liabilities and they take it out on the rate payers.

      Reply this comment
  3. bob
    bob 4 August, 2015, 18:47

    Hah, the peasants get uppity. And this will happen for energy, too. The peasants will do their part and cut back only to see the cost of their utility bills and the price at the pump sky rocket due to AB32 and the rest of this global warming nonsense.

    But will the sheeple ever wake up and vote out the tyrants? Heck no.

    Reply this comment
  4. Queeg
    Queeg 4 August, 2015, 19:01

    Comrades,

    Less choice, higher cost makes the Visigoths antsy. Wear rags doomers in empathy and hide behind ya gates!

    Reply this comment
  5. desmond
    desmond 5 August, 2015, 18:09

    Nope, grim reaper costumes for the noble task of euthanizing the Calpers fund reducers. Hail to the Euthanizers for they do God’s work.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Chris Reed

Chris Reed

Chris Reed is a regular contributor to Cal Watchdog. Reed is an editorial writer for U-T San Diego. Before joining the U-T in July 2005, he was the opinion-page columns editor and wrote the featured weekly Unspin column for The Orange County Register. Reed was on the national board of the Association of Opinion Page Editors from 2003-2005. From 2000 to 2005, Reed made more than 100 appearances as a featured news analyst on Los Angeles-area National Public Radio affiliate KPCC-FM. From 1990 to 1998, Reed was an editor, metro columnist and film critic at the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in Ontario. Reed has a political science degree from the University of Hawaii (Hilo campus), where he edited the student newspaper, the Vulcan News, his senior year. He is on Twitter: @chrisreed99.

Related Articles

President Arnold?

Three years ago I reviewed Ian Halpern's biography of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, “The Governator: From Muscle Beach to His Quest

Why ‘climate change’ is a useless phrase

In the late 2000s, “climate change” began replacing “global warming” as the phrase used to encourage government intervention to prevent

Mass transit for poor frowned on in Bay Area

There’s plenty of research that shows that bus rapid transit is far the most cost-effective type of mass transit, with