I want to commend The Enterprise editors. Finally, there is a clearly logical comment on the CBFR. It can be found in your Sunday editorial column on Measure P, next to the last paragraph.

There is a basic principle in politics and policy creation, that the appearance of many things make them real (conflicts of interest, impropriety, unfairness, obfuscation …) and one needs to add incompetence. The CBFR hits on at least two of those points, thus its nickname the “confusion-based fixed rate” formula.

The water project is a train that has left the station, but equitable financing has been left on the platform. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that operation and distribution are part of any delivery system, be it roads, water or waste removal. As part of the financing argument, their mention are distractors. They are outliers to the real argument.

The real source of frustration is the punitive nature, almost Puritanical (think red “W” on your forehead for “waterwaster”), is the summer use multiplier applied in the following year. It is unnecessary if, in fact, another formula yields almost as much revenue and a convoluted rationalization. I can say from personal experience, when an irrigation line popped at the far end of my yard and went unnoticed, that I would have paid a heavy and unfair price under a CBFR approach.

Residents are smart enough to curtail water use in response to financial and environmental concerns without misplaced paternalism embedded in a water rate structure. Win or lose on Measure P, the city needs to drop CBFR. And contrary to your advice, they don’t need a committee to do it.

Bill Tournay
Davis

Comments

comments