San Diego Adopts Water Rates That Reward Savers : Conservation: Mayor ‘keeps the faith’ with residents who helped city meet its voluntary conservation goals.
SAN DIEGO — Prodded by Mayor Maureen O’Connor to “keep faith with those who kept faith with us,†the San Diego City Council on Tuesday adopted a new water-rate structure that financially rewards people who conserve while penalizing those who fail to reduce their water consumption.
By a 5-3 vote, the council--ending a months-long debate that some City Hall staffers joked lasted longer than the drought that spawned it--approved a water-rate plan proposed by O’Connor that will reduce bills for water savers while dramatically raising prices for those whose water use has increased over the past two years.
The mayor’s plan will also impose hefty surcharges--in some cases, up to six times the current rates--on single-family homeowners whose water use far exceeds the city’s average, even if those individuals conserve.
The council’s vote Tuesday, largely a reaffirmation of an April action, applies only to water use in single-family homes. Action on a new water-rate schedule for commercial, industrial and multifamily users in apartments and condominiums was deferred until next week.
Offered as an alternative to a more expensive rival proposal by City Manager Jack McGrory, O’Connor’s plan was hailed by its supporters as a way to reward those San Diegans who have heeded the city’s call for voluntary water conservation amid the continuing drought.
“I am not going to raise the rates on the people of this city that were so good to us,†O’Connor said, noting that San Diegans have voluntarily cut their water use by about 30% since March. “By God, I’m going to keep faith with them.â€
Under her plan, the city’s 190,000 single-family users will need to reduce water consumption by at least 20% over 1989 levels simply to prevent their water bills from increasing.
For example, an average family using 350 gallons of water daily--the same amount it used in the same month two years ago--now pays $16.84 monthly.
By reducing its consumption by 20%, or 70 gallons daily, the family’s monthly bill would drop to $13.60. However, if the family failed to achieve the 20% water savings goal, it would face an automatic penalty of $10 monthly or 25% of its bill, whichever is greater--which in this case would produce a monthly charge of $26.84.
In contrast, McGrory’s plan--based on the amount of water used, rather than comparisons with any earlier period--would have produced only a modest 75-cent monthly savings for the same average family that met the 20% conservation target. Among single-family users who consume more water than citywide averages, McGrory’s plan would have resulted in sharply higher bills than O’Connor’s plan, even if those individuals scaled back water use.
From O’Connor’s perspective, the combination of higher water rates and reduced use constituted a “double whammy†that punished, rather than rewarded, San Diegans’ “spectacular response†to voluntary conservation measures over the past four months.
“This community took the criticism (over resisting mandatory water restrictions) up and down the state, and even from within,†O’Connor said. “There’s two ways you can lead: one by faith in the people, or two, by fear and being punitive. . . I’m not going to penalize those people who stood with us when we needed them most.â€
Large-volume water users would fare worse under the mayor’s proposal, even if they reduce their consumption by 20% or more. Families that use about 1,250 gallons daily, for instance, would see their current monthly bill of $55.72 rise to $173.50. Even with a 20% use reduction, the family’s bill would increase to $107.62, more than double the current $44.92.
Because it will raise less revenue than McGrory’s plan, O’Connor’s water-rate schedule leaves the city facing about a $1-million deficit--a shortfall that the mayor and other council members argued could be offset by reducing the Water Department’s $154-million capital improvements budget.
Pointing out that the budget for those water projects has grown by 50% over the past three years, O’Connor said: “We can find that $1 million, and probably a whole lot more.â€
“If it’s so easy, right now, where is that million dollars?†shot back Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer, who, along with Councilman Tom Behr and Councilwoman Judy McCarty, supported McGrory’s plan.
O’Connor was joined in the majority by Councilmen Ron Roberts, John Hartley, Wes Pratt and Bruce Henderson. Councilman Bob Filner missed the vote, which had been postponed more than a dozen times since last spring by deadlocks, lack of quorums and simple legislative indecisiveness.
In the end, the council instructed McGrory to report back next week on possible cuts to cover the $1-million gap, as well as to pay for a possible rebate to “super-savers†who reduced their water use at least 50% from 1989 in March and April, when public concern over the drought peaked. The city attorney’s office, however, still is examining the legality of the proposed retroactive rebate.
The higher base rates proposed in McGrory’s plan reflected, in part, an attempt to compensate for the lost revenue likely to result from San Diegans’ reduced water use, which O’Connor described as “now a way of life in this town.†The additional millions of dollars that his plan would have raised were needed, McGrory argued, to help replace crumbling pipes and for other water-system improvement projects.
O’Connor convinced her colleagues that McGrory’s plan “sent the wrong message†to San Diegans, particularly in light of the fact that water rates were increased twice in the late 1980s.
“We’ve raised the water rates on the people of San Diego enough,†O’Connor said. “This is the time to say, ‘Thank you.’ â€
Saving Water, Money
How new San Diego water-rate structure would affect the average single-family home using 350 gallons of water daily: Current monthly water bill: $16.84 New bill: $26.84 Bill if usage is cut by 20% daily (70 gallons): $13.60
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
