Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Added Water Restrictions


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 MikeinFolsom

MikeinFolsom

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:38 PM

http://www.folsom.ca...271&Preview=Yes

Yet the new construction continues.

#2 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 06 May 2015 - 02:54 PM

So they are shutting down the water features at the parks (Kemp, Livermore & Nisenan), but keeping the aquatic center open that some families can't afford.  Couldn't they just maybe limit days and hours for those water features.  Those closures might not save water if the only option left for a family is to get a kiddie pool and fill it up at home.



#3 Sports Junkie

Sports Junkie

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 06 May 2015 - 04:51 PM

So they are shutting down the water features at the parks (Kemp, Livermore & Nisenan), but keeping the aquatic center open that some families can't afford.  Couldn't they just maybe limit days and hours for those water features.  Those closures might not save water if the only option left for a family is to get a kiddie pool and fill it up at home.

I agree with you. They ought keep those open and turn off the one at the aquatic center. Families are going to resort to running in the sprinklers, slip n' slides, etc. I also think they need to keep the grass semi green at the dog parks. Many of us with dogs or animals will want access to some green stuff if we let ours go. Honestly $1000 isn't enough of an incentive to let my lawn die!



#4 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 01:36 PM

Great article http://www.nytimes.c...ities.html?_r=0 .

 

Not a water expert but it seems to make sense - You use more water than a fair amount you pay more just like SMUD. Seems like the only way it would work in California is if it was the same across the state...

 

thoughts?



#5 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 May 2015 - 02:54 PM

Great article http://www.nytimes.c...ities.html?_r=0 .

 

Not a water expert but it seems to make sense - You use more water than a fair amount you pay more just like SMUD. Seems like the only way it would work in California is if it was the same across the state...

 

thoughts?

I can't read the link because it wants me to subscribe, which I don't want to do.  If it relates to charging more than the cost of service, no thanks.  We already have tiered rates for residential.  I believe businesses in Folsom pay a base rate based on the size of their water connection and then the same rate per gallon no matter how much they use.

 

Also, by state law, agencies can't charge more than the cost of service.  There was recently a lawsuit in Orange County, I believe it was San Juan Capistrano, where the residents won because the city couldn't prove the rates they were charging reflected the cost of service.

 

Would you really want the city to be able to charge more than the cost of service?  Seems like a good way to gouge current residents to fund more development.



#6 Carl G

Carl G

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,674 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 May 2015 - 02:56 PM

The issue I see with this is the court case cited.  If government agencies are allowed to charge only the actual cost for services, tiered schemes like the article talks about are illegal.

 

I wonder if parking, speeding, and red light tickets can be challenged under this law?  Does it really cost $200+ for issuing a parking ticket?



#7 kcrides99

kcrides99

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 220 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 03:03 PM

SMUD is in some trouble then as well as PGE



#8 mrdavex

mrdavex

    Superstar

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 794 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 03:38 PM

SMUD is in some trouble then as well as PGE

 

The difference with SMUD and PGE is that they buy power from many different sources and utilities across the country, as opposed to the water districts that only get their water from the same 1-2 sources all the time.  During the peak hours, M-F 4-7 PM, the demand for electricity surges and so they have to bring online peak generating facilities (i.e. simple cycle gas turbines) that are less efficient than the base load power plants, and cost more per kWH.  So the utilities are actually passing on the real cost of power generation to the customers.  SMUD is actually proposing to abolish tiered rates and instead charge by the time of day the electricity is used.  So 4-7 PM weekdays would be more expensive, but mornings and evenings would be much cheaper.  Whereas, the cost of water doesn't actually change based on the time of day.  


--
"Let's just hope Comcast doesn't own any tanks."
-Robert X. Cringely

#9 jpow5

jpow5

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 04:36 PM

I'm confused. I thought Folsom already had tiers. Doesn't the price increase if your usage is in the higher tiers? What does it mean then? Thanks for helping me understand. 

2013 City-Wide Residential Metered Water Rates

Class of Service

Jan. 2013 Rate

Single – Family (1”) Base $ 15.00

Single - Family Low Income $ 9.45

Manufactured Home $ 6.83

Manufactured Home - L.I. $ 4.27

 

Uniform Commodity Charge/CCF

0-20 CCF $ 1.08

20-40 CCF $ 1.30

Over 40 CCF $ 1.60

 

East Area Surcharge$ 12.00

 

 

http://www.folsom.ca...water_rates.asp



#10 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 May 2015 - 04:51 PM

SMUD is in some trouble then as well as PGE

du dah da done!!!



#11 Carl G

Carl G

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,674 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 May 2015 - 05:05 PM

I would think that SMUD is questionable.  Aren't they a municipal district and not a strict government agency?  PG&E can do whatever they want as that law wouldn't apply to them.



#12 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 May 2015 - 05:09 PM

I'm confused. I thought Folsom already had tiers. Doesn't the price increase if your usage is in the higher tiers? What does it mean then? Thanks for helping me understand. 

2013 City-Wide Residential Metered Water Rates

Class of Service

Jan. 2013 Rate

Single – Family (1”) Base $ 15.00

Single - Family Low Income $ 9.45

Manufactured Home $ 6.83

Manufactured Home - L.I. $ 4.27

 

Uniform Commodity Charge/CCF

0-20 CCF $ 1.08

20-40 CCF $ 1.30

Over 40 CCF $ 1.60

 

East Area Surcharge$ 12.00

 

 

http://www.folsom.ca...water_rates.asp

 

That's what I said.  We already have tiered charges.  I guess the city could be in trouble if the higher tiers are more than what it costs to deliver the water.

 

Also, that East Area Surcharge shouldn't be on bills any longer, or so I thought.  Is it still showing up on bills for that area? That was supposed to somehow go away when they sold the Folsom water to Aerojet.

 

I also thought the pool surcharges were going away since they started the tiered pricing.



#13 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 May 2015 - 05:49 PM

i read an article the orther day- where a news crew directly asked folsom water if they were going to change their tier structure since the ruling. They stated no. Not until further instructions during current drought conditions identify an alternative plan for high use consumers. 

 

ofcourse Gov Brown got pretty riled at the whole water tier scandal- so I suspect most water agencies wont budge until pushed



#14 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 May 2015 - 05:56 PM

i read an article the orther day- where a news crew directly asked folsom water if they were going to change their tier structure since the ruling. They stated no. Not until further instructions during current drought conditions identify an alternative plan for high use consumers. 

 

ofcourse Gov Brown got pretty riled at the whole water tier scandal- so I suspect most water agencies wont budge until pushed

 

That's what I figured.  Unless someone files a lawsuit challenging them to prove the Tier 3 is what it costs to get that extra water to that resident, they won't change.  I personally don't have any reason to quibble even though I got into the higher tier last summer because of a timer malfunction.  My bills in winter are lower than they were under the flat rate and higher when I use more in the summer.  I still feel like the baseline is pretty fair.  If they start messing with the baseline to where even in the winter we are in higher tiers, people might want to object.



#15 jpow5

jpow5

    Veteran

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 07 May 2015 - 06:40 PM

 

That's what I said.  We already have tiered charges.  I guess the city could be in trouble if the higher tiers are more than what it costs to deliver the water.

 

Also, that East Area Surcharge shouldn't be on bills any longer, or so I thought.  Is it still showing up on bills for that area? That was supposed to somehow go away when they sold the Folsom water to Aerojet.

 

I also thought the pool surcharges were going away since they started the tiered pricing.

Sorry. I misread what you were saying about tiered rates. 

 

The East Area surcharge was changed sometime last year. Our bill now lists it as "Fazio East Area Water" and it is $4.20.

 

We also have a pool and I don't see a specific surcharge for that.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users