Proponents of Measure P have raised four objections consistently to the consumption-based fixed rate water rate structure: 1) increased cost, 2) fairness to homeowners, 3) conservation will not lower cost and 4) the CBFR is too complicated. Consideration of each of these objections should be made in deciding whether to vote yes or no on P.

Since 1990, there have been several studies of our water supply, including one by the National Water Research Institute. The uniform recommendation has been that Davis needed to invest in a surface water source.

Our individual bills will increase in coming years regardless of the rate structure used. The surface water project is a significant capital investment, wells need to be replaced and the overall system requires maintenance.

Fairness is always a matter of viewpoint. If the cost per gallon was constant, people living in condominiums might feel that subsidizing homeowners with lawns was unfair. The size of our water supply system is based on summer demand. A reasonable approach is to ask those most responsible for the size required to pay more for water.

The tier system used by most communities addresses that issue by increasing the unit cost of water as use increases. Some communities, such as Santa Cruz, add a surcharge for out-of-city users as well. The Water Advisory Committee, after a long study ,determined that the CBFR structure was a more equitable approach to making the water rates fair.

Conservation will not significantly lower our bill under any rate structure. If we buy a car and leave it in the garage, our gas bill will be zero but we still must make the monthly payments. The same is true for our water system.

The objection that the CBFR is too complicated is surprising. The calculations are quite simple; there is an example in our most recent utility bill and on the city’s website and there are only three numbers involved. For a community with the education level of Davis, this should not be an issue.

Ed Schroeder

Davis

Comments

comments