22 replies to this topic

[kcrides99]

Yah I am sure most cities will keep tiers until sued.... Most city attorneys look at daily operation and decisions based on risk... Is the city likely to get sued on this, doubtful.

That's why I have asked if anyone has sued the city for violating measure w.... They could be operating under the assumption that no one will sue so they are safe.... You only get in trouble in court so until that happens they can continue proceeding as desired knowing they have a certain level of risk

[cw68]

Yah I am sure most cities will keep tiers until sued.... Most city attorneys look at daily operation and decisions based on risk... Is the city likely to get sued on this, doubtful.

That's why I have asked if anyone has sued the city for violating measure w.... They could be operating under the assumption that no one will sue so they are safe.... You only get in trouble in court so until that happens they can continue proceeding as desired knowing they have a certain level of risk

Yes, I believe it was legally challenged. It was referenced in the white paper on the City's page (note to the copy editor, it is not "1850's" or "1990's") but I don't have the specifics here.

I still think something's fishy.

[folsom500]

I actually think a tiered pay rate is a good incentive for those that watch their monthly expenses.   Loath to use too much water to move the the next tier....

I know I will have to venture there in the summer months but it is always something I want to keep away from.

 

I also have no issue with it's use as it is used for Smud and PGE as well. 

 

All the water district would have to do if challenged and lost would be to add a few high paid 'consultants' to increase their 'cost' or just raise the base amount.

 

It is OK as it is....except I do think there should be a calculation for base or first tier based on lot size.   

[The Average Joe]

You might want to rethink your position. As a public utility, by state constitution, they are only allowed to charge what it costs to produce.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 12  PUBLIC UTILITIES


SEC. 3.  Private corporations and persons that own, operate,
control, or manage a line, plant, or system for the transportation of
people or property, the transmission of telephone and telegraph
messages, or the production, generation, transmission, or furnishing
of heat, light, water, power, storage, or wharfage directly or
indirectly to or for the public, and common carriers, are public
utilities subject to control by the Legislature.  The Legislature may
prescribe that additional classes of private corporations or other
persons are public utilities.



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 12  PUBLIC UTILITIES


SEC. 4.  The commission may fix rates and establish rules for the
transportation of passengers and property by transportation
companies,... 



CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 12  PUBLIC UTILITIES


SEC. 8.  A city, county, or other public body may not regulate
matters over which the Legislature grants regulatory power to the
Commission. ...

Now, you would think the commission could just set rates at whatever they want, BUT Prop 218 applies :

 

Proposition 218 restricts property-related fees, defined as fees imposed "as an incident of property ownership." The drafters of Proposition 218 indicate that it was their intent to include most fees commonly collected on monthly bills to property owners, such as those for water delivery, garbage service, sewer service, and storm water management fees.

 

A recent suit confirmed by the superior court and appellate court says this:

 

The 3-0 ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeal upholds a Superior Court judge’s decision that found that charging bigger water users incrementally higher rates violates a voter-passed law that prohibits government agencies from charging more than the cost of a service.

[ducky]

According to the city newsletter they are going to have the water play features at the parks open for this weekend.  The decision was made in light of the city exceeding its conservation target of 32 percent.  I am happy with this decision.  Plus, the water is recirculated and is really a minimal use.

 

Beginning at noon today, the water features will operate daily from 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at John Kemp, Livermore, and Nisenan.

 

Add:  One news channel is making this sound like a poor decision, but I don't see why.  We are talking about providing a way for children to cool off and play outdoors during hot summer days who don't have a pool at home and can't afford daily visits to the aquatic center.  It keeps parents from filling kiddie pools in their yards, which would be water that doesn't get recirculated.  If not watering my lawn means children can cool off and have some fun, I'm happy to do it.

There are other splash parks that are operating in the Sacramento area like Swanston. 

[Robert Gary]

Smud and pg&e are regulated utility monopolies. The city is a municipality. The court case only applies to municipalities. And I do think it's wrong for the city to profit on services provided even if it makes your conservation bone feel good.

[ducky]

Smud and pg&e are regulated utility monopolies. The city is a municipality. The court case only applies to municipalities. And I do think it's wrong for the city to profit on services provided even if it makes your conservation bone feel good.

 

I totally agree, but they are already trying to create a workaround to that.  Senator Wieckowski wants a 300 percent tax on excessive water use.  Who defines excessive?  Large family?  Like to have a garden in the summer for fresh veggies?  It's SB789.

[The Average Joe]

How bout a 300% tax rebate from stupidity from elected and appointed officials...