Reflecting the intensity of community concerns, the City Council voted unanimously Wednesday to reject the DWP’s water shortage rate hikes but agreed to revisit the issue next week.
It was clear from the debate that the DWP’s legacy of failures and indifference to public concerns has caught up with it — as they did in leading to the defeat of Measure B last month.
Inequities in the rate structure, the failure to institute conservation measures long ago, lack of individual meters in apartment buildings were among the issues raised and most of all the failure of process that has excluded the Neighborhood Councils, DWP Community and the public in general.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn, in an impassioned speech, put it best:
.
Here’s the LA Times online report:.
Saying they did not have enough time to fully study the matter, the Los Angeles City Council today rejected a proposed water conservation ordinance..
The measure, however, which is designed to reduce Los Angeles water use by 15%, is not dead. A council committee is expected to review the matter and send it back to the Los Angeles Water and Power Commission for another vote as early as next week..
The proposal would increase water rates for users who exceed a certain base allocation. City water department officials say that 85% of single-family homeowners and 94% of low-income residents would not see an increase in their water rate or would even pay less under the proposed ordinance..
One week. Does that define sufficient time to study this issue to you or not?
Anyway, this water rate increase is not being defined in yet another way. It’s another water rate increase ON TOP OF NEW QUARTERLY RATE INCREASES THAT BEGAN APRIL 1.
At my (hot!) Valley house, provided we turn on the sprinklers, that’s about a $38.00 rate increase every two months!
And, continuing with the definition of “water rate increase” – ever since I learned that that the Mayor plans on initiating mandatory water rationing around May 1, this question looms largely in my mind. Why aren’t the laws being changed to allow recycling of water, i.e., shower, washing machine rinse cycles, etc.? So-called grey water?
Clearly, there is a lack of imagination at the DWP about what defines water useage! At least Janice Hahn solidified that point today at Council.
I have horses, and not a lot of money. Thus I live in the hottest part of the SFV, paying extra for heating, cooling, and fuel costs due to longer commutes so that I can live this way of life. In our area, there are as many charro riders as gringos. Here, horse keeping is not a rich person’s privilage. It’s a way of life that crosses ethnic and economic boundaries.
Horses are agricultural in nature. They use water and create dust. To maintain a clean, healthy environment — which really means applying good horsekeeping practices — dusty areas need to be hosed down, animals and stabling must be kept clean.
Beyond location, DWP completely ignores us horsekeepers in their rate plans. Numerous NCs with horses in their boundaries have made requests of DWP to do so. So far, nothing.
If you think about it, average folks with horses have already been driven out into the hottest parts of the city, if they’re even still in the city at all. We’re already forced to pay higher everything for utilities.
Without including the impact horsekeeping has on water use, the penalties the DWP is proposing for homes that exceed certain levels of useage may be the sword that finally dispatches the few horsekeeping neighborhoods in this town.
Once again DWP GM H.David Nahai & company are trying to rush a new rate increase past the city council. This time the council is not allowing the fast shuffle and vetting what really is going on. Maybe because of the Brown act? DWP Nahai and company is taking advantage of the water charge increase from MWD to raise rates by surcharging the second tier. The fact is if DWP reduces the first tier water allocation by 15% most single family homes will pay close to a hundred dollars or more for their water charge each bimonthly bill. Apartment property owners will be increased thousands of dollars. Sub water metering apartment houses is not inexpensive because of reconfiguration of plumbing water lines. So this will not work. The 15% first tier reduction makes it easier to go into second tier at the huge rate surcharge increase. Once again Nahai is acting like a vampire and sucking the blood $$$ out of the ratepayers. Maybe Tony V will get wise and show him the exit or drive a wooden stake through him.
I urge all of you to contact your councilmember and voice your displeasure with this second tier rate surcharge increase. Just posting on blogs will not get the job done. Defeating Measure B Solar Plan proves strength is with the activist ratepayer.
And still, DWP never loses. If the usage goes down too far to make money (by conservation having an impact), rates go up. If there’s “too much” water being used, rates go up.
On top of this usual outcome over the years, the City Council, with the Mayor at the lead, continues to press on for putting more people into the city in business or residential forms, straining the infrastructure at all points.
If we conserve, then is that to allow the increase for more population to be supported? Is this the point? or should there be some slowing down of the growth, more than the economy has forced- about the only positive function to come out of the downturn of the economy?
It seems that mandatory conservation efforts was the inevitable result of the city’s promotion of development and deals with developers. The “densificatioin” has headed us to a poorer quality of life based on politically created fallacies. One big one being the “transit corridors”, i.e., bus and rail routes, that reduce the need to supply the usual parking spaces when building since- and here’s the fiction- the public transportation will serve the needs, thereby reducing car ownership for those living along the “transit corridors.”
Reality gives us a different picture and not everyone has a job on the transit route or if they could arrive at work by current routes, the real-times would be disproportionately high compared to driving. (Last year’s story in the L.A. Times documenting a non-car trip to a Dodger game was a vivid and scary example of several problems and the cost-benefit analysis was disfavoring public transportation.
The public officials’ planning and honest assessments of the city’s life-needs just are something they don’t do well- maybe I should just say, “something they don’t do.” And using any form of the word “honest” with the work of politicians already creates a condition of incompatibility with whatever function you want to examine.
I understand the need for conservation. I understand the need for DWP to cover its fixed costs and hopefully maintain its credit rating, especially given the Water System’s five year $2.8 billion capital expenditure program.
But I do not appreciate DWP putting the Neighborhood Councils, the Board of Commissioners, and the City Council in a vice where we all are pressured into making quick decisions, especially given the overly complicated rate structure and the lack of a thorough analysis of the financial implications on each class of user.
Why does the DWP (and the City) seem to enjoy operating in a dysfunctional manner? Why are the citizens always the ones left holding the bag when the City (and the DWP) fail to plan for the future. Councilmember Hahn has it right. Jack Humphrevile above has it right. The blogger from Eagle Rock has it right. So how come our City and DWP can be so wrong? What will it take for them to learn that it is not right to ram things down our throats and that there must be adequate public debate? When will they learn that we will no longer swallow their lack of planning as a reason or excuse to go full steam ahead with half-baked plans? The City hasn’t demonstrated any true commitment to water conservation. It approves new projects with conditions about conservation that are completely unenforceable and nobody seems to care. LEEDS designations are thrown about as though they will solve all problems (or reduce consumption) created by new developments. We deserve to have leadership that demands comprehensive planning and a respect for those that pay the bills. The DWP is a culprit in this mess… and the rate payers, while needing to conserve and change habits should not be treated as the bad guys. We don’t need to be punished for our leaders’ failure to plan and act responsibly. Doesn’t the lesson of Measure B still ring a bell?
Another shortsighted DWP fiasco. For years I have taken every step possible to reduce my water usage at my house. I have Energy Star Appliances, I water my lawn only 2 times per week (during the summer only), my sprinklers are adjusted to most efficiently distribute the water that is used, I have zoned the sprinklers so that I can reduce the water in certain areas that do not need as much water and increase in the more water thirsty plantings, I use a cover on my pool during the hot days to reduce evaporation, all my toilets are low flow, my shower heads are all water conserving types and many other steps to insure that my family of 4 are using the least amount of water possible.
The proposals that the DWP has put forth therefore seem very unfair to me. My neighbor, in contrast, who has done nothing to reduce their water consumption in the past could merely cut back from watering every single day of the year (including rainy days) to 3 days a week and easily meet the 15% reduction target. His bills would be reduced and he would feel no pain doing so. I on the other hand would have my bills raised with no way to mitigate the increase as I have already taken every measure possible short of sponge baths for my family (and that would probably not meet the quota).
Obviously, I am in favor of reducing our water consumption and the strain we put on our planet. The proof is in my past actions. However, this shortsighted plan punishes those who were proactive and corrected wasteful practices voluntarily. I would wager this will do little to give the worst offenders the incentive to cut their water usage. I hope that the honorable members of the council are able to put together a more fair-minded plan to achieve the goals necessary to protect our water supply.
I adore your page and I will keep on subscribing