• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Tiered Water Rates Ruled Unconstitutional

conarb

Registered User
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
3,505
Location
California East Bay Area
\ said:
California’s tiered water pricing has to be based on delivery costs rather than conservation incentives, a state appeals court ruled. The verdict will have major implications on California’s efforts to conserve water amidst its unprecedented drought.The city’s water pricing system charged customers who used small quantities of water, a lower rate than customers who used larger quantities.¹
Here is a little on Proposition 218:

\ said:
Summary° The official ballot summary that appeared on the ballot said:

° Limits authority of local governments to impose taxes and property-related assessments, fees, and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterates that two-thirds must approve special tax.

° Assessments, fees, and charges must be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection, after notice and public hearing.

° Assessments are limited to the special benefit conferred.

° Fees and charges are limited to the cost of providing the service and may not be imposed for general governmental services available to the public.²
The same could be applied to smart meters charging more to TOD usage and water/sewer districts charging more in wealthy areas than in poor areas. Since building departments have been successfully sued for charging more for permits than the cost of delivery of services maybe this can be used to stop building departments from adding affordable housing to their services forcing builders to pay for affordable housing when permitting market rate housing.

¹ http://rt.com/usa/251453-capistrano-water-verdict-california/

² http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_218,_Voter_Approval_Required_Before_Local_Tax_Increases_%281996%29
 
conarb; it's not the "building" departments charging affordable housing fees, talk to "planning" for those issues. Building just happens to be, unfortunately, the fee collectors for permit issuance.
 
jdfruit said:
conarb; it's not the "building" departments charging affordable housing fees, talk to "planning" for those issues. Building just happens to be, unfortunately, the fee collectors for permit issuance.
JDFruit:

Those on the dark side keeping making that argument, to us citizens it doesn't make any difference how the government departments are broken up, the only thing that matters is what we have to pay. For instance on my Cost Control Spreadsheet I combine everything into one line item and call it "Government Fees" instead of "Permits", I want the customer to know how much the government takes, we don't care how much goes to building, planning, geology, fire, and a host of other departments.

I see in today's paper there is more discussion of this issue, Prop 218 doesn't apply to private agencies so maybe jurisdictions will be taking their water agencies private, another comment that doesn't make any sense to me and I'm sure the courts will have to weigh in on is Santa Cruz's position:

\ said:
In a mandatory rationing system imposed last year, suspended over the winter, and reimposed by the Santa Cruz City Council last week, the city allows every residential home to use 10 units of water a month. Each unit is 748 gallons.The first four units cost $1.73 per unit, and units above that cost $4.40 per unit. The city imposes a $50 fee for per unit -- believed to be the highest in the state -- on residents who use more than 11 units.

That fee, which sent some water guzzlers' bills skyrocketing, will not be affected by Monday's court ruling, however, said Rosemary Menard, Santa Cruz's water director, because it is clearly labeled a "penalty" in the city ordinance, and is not used to pay for daily operations of the water system.

"The penalties, I'm sure we're not changing," she said. "They don't have anything to do with this."¹
I thought that "penalties" were unconstitutional if they didn't go to the cost of delivery of services, if they don't where do they go, with California's (and our nation's) huge unfunded pension and health liabilities they all try anything to divert fees there, it's beyond belief that the courts would disallow fees higher than the cost of delivery of services that would presumably go to reserves end up as penalties that could go into the pockets of government employees and retirees.

I received a notice yesterday that our sanitary district is holding hearings discussing increasing it's fees, currently sewer fees are a set amount per dwelling unit or commercial type business, it was only a few years ago that the local newspaper exposed the huge salaries and pensions of this same district, even low-end employes all making in the 6 figures.

There is an old saying that "Government is a necessary evil", but we can forget that government is evil.

¹ http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27954116/california-drought-court-rules-tiered-water-rates-violate
 
To bolster Mine and Conarb's tea party tendencies, wait until they want to survey homes for occupancy numbers so water use can be charged per individual.

The long knives will come out.

And speaking of dividing, divide water use by residential percentage from all other factors, divide by conservation efforts, and pretty soon you see conservation does absolutely nothing. It's inconsequential. Makes no difference in the big scheme of things.

Brent.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
To bolster Mine and Conarb's tea party tendencies, wait until they want to survey homes for occupancy numbers so water use can be charged per individual. The long knives will come out.

And speaking of dividing, divide water use by residential percentage from all other factors, divide by conservation efforts, and pretty soon you see conservation does absolutely nothing. It's inconsequential. Makes no difference in the big scheme of things.

Brent.
That's because we are producers who earn our money legitimately, we are not government employees who need to blackmail the population to earn ridiculous salaries and benefits.

California has always had droughts, we elected water districts to plan for this, the Sierra Club and now other environmental groups have blocked and torn down dams for over a century, we have a backbone of mountains called the Sierras, if the snowpacks were stored in beautiful lakes there would be enough water and energy here forever. There are two major reasons for the shortages:

1) As I posted before the major user of water is agriculture at 80%, the major agricultural usage is marijuana, marijuana is illegal, enforce the law. Even if the addicts prevail make them import their drug from Washington where it is legal, Washington has more water than the entire country could ever use, it rains all the time up there.

2) The ****ing environmentalists want to save a tiny fish:

\ said:
According the Dennis Wyatt at the Manteca Bulletin, the Bureau of Reclamation has ordered South San Joaquin Irrigation District and Oakdale Irrigation District to release 15,000 acre-feet of water (4.8 billion gallons) this week, enough water to supply the needs of 174,301 Californians for an entire year, in order to help 6 fish swim to the Delta.

This 15,000 acre-feet release is on top of a release last months of 30,000 acre-feet.

"Correspondence between the National Marine Fisheries Service and Congressman Jeff Denham's office shows the Bureau of Reclamation wants to flush as much as 15,000 acre feet of water down the Stanislaus River in order to "save" six fish," Wyatt wrote.

"[T]he Bureau ordered South San Joaquin Irrigation District and Oakdale Irrigation District to release water this week to help on their journey. The 15,000 acre feet of water based on a statewide per capita use average could supply 174,301 Californians with water for a year to the combined populations of Tracy and Santa Barbara. Combined with last month's pulse flow release, the 30,000 acre feet of water is [sic] the equivalent of the combined annual water needs of the cities of Stockton, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon.

"And even if the six steelhead do make it to the Delta there is no guarantee they will survive to make it to the San Francisco Bay and then the Pacific Ocean." ¹
\ said:
Some utility companies in effort to entrap their customers, set up daily variable water quota, for basic rate, which when exceeded results in doubling or tripling the rates, and to make it more complicated the quota sometimes quota depends on weather verified daily, making weather prediction skills a must since you better correctly predict weather before you take shower, otherwise you’re out of luck.

Again another year NASA apologized to people of California for the forecast miss as they mixed up El Nino with La Nina already three years in the row. Patterns of ocean surface heating of equatorial Pacific are violently shifting making most longer term weather prediction models complete failure and expose severe lack of any deep understanding of complex global weather processes within American community of climatologists or atmospheric researchers.

The fact is that climate change happens but any attempts to adequately quantify it ended up so far in failure. Instead of incorporating climate change into ongoing continuous, decades long plans to readjust the agriculture and urban areas of most severe impact in order to slowly mitigate real consequences of volatility of climate, the issue is used as propaganda and political ploy to confuse and divide people with no real progress on the ground.

The fact is that there is no lack of water in California for Californians as of yet; there is lack of affordable water for small to medium farmers as well as rest of population already pauperized by ongoing severe economic crisis. It is gauging of price of water, under cover of drought, by those who hold, established before 1915, feudal-like rights to it, rights so entrenched that cannot be even amended by law, or lifted in the state of emergency.

These rights are presented as God’s given rights never to be changed by mortal man. It is not exaggeration. The California State, when their own resources are exhausted and price-contracted volume is used up has a choice to pay up exuberant prices for water from sources controlled by water moguls, and resell them to farmers at subsidized price increasing budget spending or do nothing.

And that’s exactly what is happening for three years now since governor, after serving his political cronies with plentiful water, would not upset his wife or JPM bank or both who threaten California with another credit rating downgrade if spending balloon.

Who are those moguls who concocted this fake water crisis on the back on real drought? Mostly those are major cities of southern California, so-called public utilities, theme and water parks owners as well as private interest of huge landowners and Wall Street run mega farms.

It is little publicized fact that much of the water in California is not what we would call commons but is owned by different kind of entities mostly public, private and government agencies, most of which are useless to public except for gauging prices as much as they can. ²
Those interests that control the water have Diane Feinstein in their pockets, an old college classmate, a bitch then and a bitch now.

¹ http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/1/article/122681/

² https://sostratusworks.wordpress.com/2015/03/28/california-waterworld-of-desert/
 
Top