Wednesday, August 27, 2014
YOLO COUNTY NEWS
99 CENTS

Bob Dunning: City water rates violate Prop. 218

BobDunning2W

By
From page A2 | January 27, 2013 |

Throughout the Great Water Rate Debate of 2011, 2012 and now 2013, the often-cited and frequently misunderstood Proposition 218 has been looming over the proceedings like the home plate umpire in the seventh game of the World Series.

Proponents of the Surface Water Project and the resultant spike in rates say they have complied with both the letter and the spirit of Prop. 218. Opponents of the Surface Water Project claim the rate structure the city of Davis plans to impose on the citizens of this town violates several key components of Prop. 218.

As lawn signs sprout like daffodils, op-eds gobble up precious space in the newspaper and brochures land on our front porches, it’s hard to know who to believe.

Prop. 218, which reads like a ratepayer’s bill of rights, lays out in detail what a city can and can’t do with a variety of taxes, assessments and fees, including water rates.

The city of Davis, for instance, is not allowed to make a profit on the water it sells to its ratepayers. It’s also not allowed to pave potholes in East Davis with the money it collects from its water customers.

This brings us to a critical element of Prop. 218 known as “proportionality.” To quote directly, “The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.”

In other words, if the city has 100 water customers and you use 2 percent of the water delivered to those customers, the city can charge you up to two percent of the total cost, but no more.

Prop. 218 further emphasizes this point by saying “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.”

Again, the city can’t charge you more for a gallon of water than it actually costs the city to deliver that gallon of water to you specifically.

And it also warns the city that “Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.”

The easiest way for the city to comply with the requirements of Prop. 218 is to charge each customer a fixed rate per gallon and be done with it. You use a gallon, it costs you a dollar. You use 100 gallons, it costs you $100. This guarantees that all water users will pay their “proportional” cost of the service.

For unexplained reasons, however, the city has come up with a three-headed monster known as the Consumption Based Fixed Rate (CBFR) that calculates the majority of your next year’s bill based strictly on the water you used the previous summer.

And once that rate has been established it sticks to you like Elmer’s Glue for the next 12 months, even if you use no water at all during that time period.

The city has yet to explain how this “look-back” feature of the CBFR even remotely complies with the “proportionality” requirement of Prop. 218.

Fortunately for all of us, I have in front of me the very rates the city intends to impose upon the ratepayers of Davis over the next five years.

And to put those rates into real terms, I will use the citywide average water use of 15 ccf per month, which translates into 180 ccf per year.

To put a face to all this, we’ll use five hypothetical Davis citizens who all use 180 ccf per year and compare their rates. If the city’s rate plan is truly “proportional,” all five ratepayers should have the exact same annual bill because all five are each using 180 ccf of water per year.

This is where things get interesting.

Just like snowflakes, no two Davis households are alike. Depending on individual patterns, some will use more water in winter, some will use more water in summer and some will use more water when Grandma visits for Thanksgiving. Which is why for purposes of this example, we’ll take into account an entire year, a year in which each of the five households uses the same 180 ccf of water.

You should know as we go through the calculations that under the CBFR, summer is defined as a six-month period beginning May 1 and ending October 31.

Ratepayer No. 1, let’s call him Joe, spends his summers in the south of France, but uses large quantities of water in the winter bathing in the large soaking tub in his bathroom on our bone-chilling foggy nights because the city won’t let him use his fireplace. He uses just 30 ccf during the six summer months, but 150 ccf in the winter for a total of 180 ccf annually.

Joe’s annual water bill in 2018, the fifth year of the city’s plan: $596.04.

Ratepayer No. 2, Dan, put in a rock garden and cactus long ago and uses 60 ccf in summer and 120 ccf in winter, again for an annual total of 180 ccf, just like Joe.

Dan’s annual water bill in 2018: $790.44. This, despite the fact he uses the exact same amount of water annually as Joe.

Ratepayer No. 3, Brett, is Mr. Steady Eddie, using the Davis average of 15 ccf per month year round, 90 in summer and 90 in winter.

Brett’s annual water bill in 2018 for the identical water use as Joe and Dan: $984.84.

Ratepayer No. 4, Lucas, loves to garden in the summer and values a healthy green lawn and his prized apricot tree. He uses 120 ccf in summer and 60 ccf in winter.

Lucas’s annual water bill in 2018 for those same 180 ccf: $1,179.24.

And finally, Ratepayer No. 5, Rochelle, lives on a large lot with six kids who love to run through the sprinklers on our 105-degree summer afternoons. She uses 150 ccf in summer and 30 ccf in winter.

Rochelle’s annual water bill for 2018: $1,373.64, a whopping $777 a year more than Joe for the same amount of water. Turns out Rochelle is paying an average of $7.63 per ccf while Joe is paying only $3.31 per ccf.

Keep in mind that each of our five ratepayers used the exact same “proportion” of water (180 ccf) during the course of a year. The only difference is that their use pattern varied, which is what one would expect in a diverse and interesting community.

The fact their bills vary so wildly for the same amount of water is proof positive Prop. 218’s requirement of “proportionality” is violated by the CBFR rate structure. Dramatically so, in fact.

And for those naysayers who are so in love with the project that they can’t tell fact from fiction, be assured that these figures were double-checked — to the penny — with the city of Davis official in charge of calculating such rates.

If this thing ends up in court, as it no doubt will, the city won’t have enough attorneys to explain how it costs $1,373.64 to deliver 180 ccf to Rochelle but only $596.04 to deliver the exact same amount of water to Joe.

But good luck trying.

— Reach Bob Dunning at bdunning@davisenterprise.net

Comments

comments

.

News

Mr. Dolcini goes to Washington

By Tanya Perez | From Page: A1

 
Yolo grows sunflower seeds for the world

By Margaret Burns | From Page: A1 | Gallery

True Blue Devil Arnold gave back starting in high school

By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: A1 | Gallery

 
Dinner, auction benefit Yolo County CASA

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

Farmworkers’ son wins prestigious NIH scholarship

By Julia Ann Easley | From Page: A3 | Gallery

 
Interested in Portuguese? Drop by I-House

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

Play groups offered by Center for Families

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

 
Solar-cooking workshop set at Food Co-op

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

Chat with Poppenga at coffee shop

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

 
Give blood and get a free movie ticket

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

Sunder campaign distributes signs

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A3

 
Back-to-school party benefits Archer campaign

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

Breast cancer program examines surgery

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

 
Crisis nursery bill on governor’s desk

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

Global warming on group’s agenda

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

 
A sweet reward for turning in cash

By Kathy Keatley Garvey | From Page: A4

Try yoga, meditation at Holistic Health Center

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

 
Yolo Federal to hold photo contest

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A4

Troops get ‘Hugs From Home’

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A4

 
Raley’s pays $1.6 million to settle hazardous-waste lawsuit

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A4

 
Documentary reveals ‘The Village Under the Forest’

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A5

UCD West Village gets an electric Zipcar

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A5

 
Little Rock hero featured at reunion

By Enterprise staff | From Page: A7

 
UCD ranks No. 16 for serving the public interest

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A7

Wolk’s infrastructure bill clears state Senate

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A9

 
.

Forum

Obama risks alienating Latinos

By Tom Elias | From Page: A6

 
A water plan for all of California

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A6

Tom Meyer cartoon

By Debbie Davis | From Page: A6

 
MRAP sends the wrong message

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

Play structure idea endorsed

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

 
Thanks for firearms info

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A6

.

Sports

Buschman, Cats mute the Sounds

By Enterprise staff | From Page: B1

 
New coach eager to see his Aggie charges hit the courses

By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B1 | Gallery

Shaw respects Aggies, while is Gould happy to get a shot at Stanford

By Bruce Gallaudet | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
Devils prep for tough 2014 volleyball schedule

By Chris Saur | From Page: B1 | Gallery

Bumgarner deals as Giants blank Rockies

By The Associated Press | From Page: B1 | Gallery

 
Carter’s blast send Astros past A’s

By The Associated Press | From Page: B2

Sports briefs: Online registration ends Friday for Labor Day Races

By Enterprise staff | From Page: B8 | Gallery

 
.

Features

Field to fork: Play catch-up with summer’s produce

By Dan Kennedy | From Page: A10 | Gallery

 
.

Arts

.

Business

.

Obituaries

Franco M. Navazio, M.D.

By Special to The Enterprise | From Page: A4

 
.

Comics

Comics: Wednesday, August 27, 2014

By Creator | From Page: B6