Watch for the CC to try a quick one year, 14%, to buy them a year to get to the big money.

The problem is not merely the proposed water rates, but the scope, extent, design, construction and operations of the entirety of the presently planned water system (including river water out-take, sewage treatment, JPA, private builder-operator, and so forth) devised by a few and imposed by the City Council on the many. Qualifying the referendum was a hurdle that had to be got over to get a chance to deal with “the problem” — it was the last desperate means to avoid a really big mess, and that was its only job: to give us the chance we now have to craft a comprehensive water plan that works for the good of the whole at a cost we can all carry.

As to what such a good, affordable plan would look like, my understanding, from the best, most intelligent and altruistic on all sides of this issue, including real water treatment and water use experts either now at or recently retired from UCD, is that an appropriately scaled and wisely crafted mix of water, water delivery, and water treatment, under purely publicly-owned and operated aegis, would be entirely possible at rates we could afford now and without saddling our children with either over-built facilities or bloated debt. This is what at least one City Council member, Dan Wolk, has said to me he is now looking to achieve, which is not only laudable in itself, but exemplifies a maturity to go beyond any earlier missteps. His Council colleagues would do well to emulate and support Dan’s acumen and refreshing lack of hubris in this matter. Certainly, by the very act of appointing me — a critic of the Council’s project and a volunteer for the referendum — to the Utility Rate Commission, Stephen Souza has arguably also grasped the nettle fairly and looks to move in Dan’s direction, and if so I applaud him, because whatever my disagreements with Stephen may be over the Council’s plan, there is no doubt in my mind that he’s passionate about water. To the degree we can all now move beyond mere partisanship I’m sanguine great things can be achieved.

As to the eventual rates, as a recently appointed member of the Utility Rate Committee, I am open to public input of opinion and look to measure citizen concerns and fiscal circumstances against any fair solution to our water needs as the latter evolves. Naturally, it is impossible at this point to voice any specific set limit to those rates, but in my mind the only fair rates are those which represent the actual cost of delivering the water to the tap and processing its return to nature. Using an incremental reward system for conservation against an actual measured baseline of normative water use might be a part of such a water billing system, but punitive rate structures which punish water users for not matching some hypothetical figure while attempting to service the debt on over-built, growth-subsidizing systems have already been demonstrated locally in nearby jurisdictions as simply pushing water rates ever higher in service of the bloated debt incurred to build them. That failed model isn’t useful to pursue, and I am sure, given the membership of the Utility Rate Committee, Davis can do better.

No matter what rate structure one devises there will be some flaws. The key is to devise a structure that 1) minimizes the flaws, and 2) has the ability to address the “affordability” challenges you’ve described. I believe the rate structure that the Irvine Ranch Water District has been using since 1991 is extremely good at doing both. Since they have been using this rate structure for 20 years, it has more complexity than Davis needs, but a simplified version would work as follows:

Each home would get a “water budget” with two components. First, the base “indoor water use” budget is calculated by multiplying 55 gallons per day (20,075 gallons per year or 1,673 gallons/month) times the number of residents in the home. That translates to 4.5 ccf per person per bimonthly billing period. Second an “outdoor water use” budget is calculated using a typical lawn of 1300 square feet using 8.44 ccf per bimonthly billing period.

So a person living alone in Irvine has a combined indoor/outdoor bimonthly water budget of just under 13 ccf. The combined budget for a family of two goes up to 17.4 ccf. For a family of three it is 21.8. For a family of four it is 26.3. For a family of five it is 30.8. For a family of six it is 35.3.

Once the budget for a house is set, then the following rates apply:

USAGE – LOW VOLUME (0-40% of Budget)$0.91 per ccf
USAGE – RESPONSIBLE CONSERVATION (41-100% of Budget)$1.22 per ccf
USAGE – INEFFICIENT (101-150% of Budget)$2.50 per ccf
USAGE – EXCESSIVE (151-200% of Budget)$4.32 per ccf
USAGE – WASTEFUL (201%+ of Budget)$9.48 per ccf

In addition to the calculated consumption amount there is a fixed bimonthly Service Charge.

Mike Harrington has already said about this kind of structure, “Matt: why would anyone disclose how many live there? Also, people frequently move, so the data become obsolete very quickly.”

The answers to those questions are really quite simple. 1) We already provide household population numbers on our Tax Returns and to the Census, why not to the Water Department in order to have everyone have “fair” rates? 2) Dealing with changes would be as easy as when the family that buys a house contacts the City to turn on the water and sewer service, they simply would provide one number in addition to all the other demographic data they currently provide.

That is a start toward dealing with your desires for a fair rate structure Bob. What does everyone think?