DWP Approves Increase In Water Rates; Then State Revises Allotment

There's another water shortage in the news from today's L.A. TIMES, "L.A. water rates revised to penalize heavy users; Changes probably won't raise rates for low-income users, but residents who don't cut usage by 15% would pay more than normal. The city still expects a water shortage this summer," By Bettina Boxall, that brought a lot if issues up for city consumers. (Then there was a second story out for the next edition, as you read on below.)

I sent an email to the reporter to try to get a better picture of what we have coming up, according to her story:

"3-18-09
Dear Ms. Boxall:

In reference to the current story of yours about water usage requirements, I still don't see what the "base rate" is, specifically, or, alternatively, just how is the "base rate" calculated or applied to a consumer?

What are the "higher overall summer rates" that now look to be the "regular" rates if they are changing to year-round application?

Why does Villaraigosa still push development projects and encourage more people to move to Los Angeles in the face of such strains infrastructure and obvious with the water supply? Why make a poor situation worse? Nahai and Villaraigosa are not honest in their approaches or motivations.

Could this be another device created primarily for the "generation of revenue" that the Mayor urged Council to work on increasing last year?

Question on story text:
"The outdoor curbs, which have to be adopted by the City Council, could take effect next month."
Does that mean that the Council MUST adopt the described curbs or that they have to be approved by Council before they can have any effect?

Finally, do you know of what opportunity is present for changing any of this proposal and how difficult it is in practical terms, taking into account the "rubber-stamp" character of the Council when the Mayor presents them with a task?

Your story is very depressing, but the situation is made worse by the manipulation of the situations by Villaraigosa and his "yes-man" Nahai that operates invariably to the detriment of the consumer/ rate-payer/ L.A. resident.

Reader in Eagle Rock,
Robert Guevara"


The L.A. TIMES reporter did kindly respond to some of my questions today, and she wrote a follow-up story about the State's announcement to allot more water. First, Ms. Boxall's reply:

"The base category is set according to typical usage for that sized lot
and in that climate zone.

DWP's rates are seasonaly adjusted...they go up in the summer. Under
the new price structure, they will stay the same year-around -- not
falling in the winter.

The outdoor curbs have to be approved by the council to take effect.
The council does not have to act on the price hikes, which will
automatically take effect unless the council blocks them.

Bettina "

In the story that is online now and will appear in tomorrow's print edition, Ms. Boxall reports on some changes that the State announced that sound less dire, and adds more to the planned changes that the DWP commission requested, "State to deliver more water to Southern California; Allocations to water agencies will be increased by 5% thanks to storms in late February and March. But officials caution that deliveries will still be far less than normal," By Bettina Boxall.

From the story, the updated numbers looks better, although we are not at a "normal" level from the recent rainfall.

"With the winter storms, statewide snowpack has grown to 86% of average for this
date. Reservoir storage is 75% of the norm and statewide precipitation levels
are nearly normal."

This second story does clear up some of the questions raised by the earlier story, and it includes some important additional facts influencing the conditions that we are experiencing in terms of the water supply and the water rates to be charged by the DWP. Below is a relevant part of the story from this L.A. resident's point of view:

Projected deliveries from the State Water Project, which provides about a third
of urban Southern California's water, have risen to 20% of full allocation, from
15%.

Agencies seldom get their full contractual allotments. Typical
deliveries are closer to 70% of allocations. If they remain at 20%, water
shipments would be among the lowest on record for the four-decade-old state
project.

Los Angeles water and power commissioners cited the delivery
figures Tuesday when they approved rate increases to promote a 15% drop in city
water use.

The price increases, which will go into effect June 1 unless
blocked by the City Council, will raise second-tier rates by 44%.

The City Council will most likely approve every change requested by the DWP as they invariably act in a unanimous fashion whenever changes happen to be coming from the Mayor, as these were described in the last month. My concern is that the DWP will use these provisions to extract a few more dollars under the guise of "non-compliance" with the rules. As individuals, we have very little influence on this and the city council is under pressure to "generate revenue" as the parking meter rate hikes provide as a constant reminder. The track record of the City Council and the DWP supports my low expectations for action "beneficial to the consumer" on these matters.

I would be surprised to see the Council make any changes to the proposed changes when it means there's more in charges to be realized for the same consumption of water, and the summer rate becoming a full-time rate will only cost us more. As I mentioned earlier, we have shortages here with water, as an example. We already are told that the police department is staffed to low, and that traffic solutions mean not using cars as much, and on and on with almost everything in the infrastructure of the city being strained to the limits or beyond.

With all those problems, you STILL see the politicians, led by Mayor Villaraigosa, pushing development and changing the city scene by the policy of "densification" that packs more people into less space, and gives us LESS parking accommodations in new construction because of the fiction of "transit corridors" that are supposed to be a substitute for personal use of cars.

All that does is make it easier for the developers to make a profit on sales when they don't have to include the parking facility that is part of the existing codes. It's a political favor for favor outcome that works to help the politicians and the special interests. It's my opinion, but I am not alone in that opinion.

And to add this, the "transit corridors" that are supposed to be the saving feature really are bus routes or rail lines like the Gold Line as you see in Lincoln Heights on Avenue 26 and the Pasadena Freeway. At that location you can see the huge development that arose in the last couple of years on the site of a furniture manufacturer and the old Thrifty film processing plant among many businesses replaced. You can see this very clearly when you travel north on the I-5 (Golden State Freeway) as you pass the North Broadway exit.