Typically, water utilities’ budgets are funded by revenue
collected through water and sewer rates. Revenue generated by
rates covers the costs of operations, as well as ongoing upgrades
and repairs to pipelines, treatment plants, sewers and other
water infrastructure.
State legislation also has affected the water rate-setting
process by requiring new processes for altering water rates, as
well as by requiring water conservation, which in turn decreases
the demand for water.
U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., convened his first hearing as
chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee
on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife, on Wednesday. Sen. Padilla
appeared on the KCRA News morning show on My58 and said the
hearing will focus on how rising water rates, aging
infrastructure and extreme weather events have affected access
and affordability of clean water across the country.
… According to a state audit in 2022, California
required an estimated $64.7 billion to upgrade its water
infrastructure. In April, the EPA awarded a fraction of that,
$391 million. To hear more about the subcommittee’s
initiatives, watch the attached video.
When’s the last time you thought about where your water comes
from? If you aren’t steeped in water policy, it’s fair to
assume you may not appreciate the complexities of managing our
water systems. But what’s vital to know is that water is the
essential building block to ensure prosperous, healthy
communities. This resource ensures housing gets built, people
can afford groceries and local businesses can offer good jobs.
Legislation introduced in Sacramento creates uncertainty that
threatens these underpinnings of our economy. As a former
legislator, I trust that my former colleagues had the best
intentions in putting these policies forward, but residents
should be aware that these bills are far reaching and will
create dramatic changes that increase costs. -Written by Jerry Hill, a former state senator
and assemblyman 19th District who represented San Mateo and
Santa Clara County residents in the California
Legislature.
Two small farming communities want to divorce the San Diego
County Water Authority and buy cheaper water from Eastern
Municipal Water District in Riverside County. The Water
Authority’s rates are some of the highest in the country,
especially for agricultural regions that Fallbrook Public
Utility District and Rainbow Municipal Water District serve.
That’s why those districts are trying to leave. The Water
Authority’s rates have been growing for years, but they’re
actually selling a lot less water. Mostly to blame are the
rising costs of transporting Colorado River water or making it
new by desalting ocean water. The Water Authority is staring
down billions in debt and will lose a large portion of their
sales once the city of San Diego, the Water Authority’s biggest
customer, launches its wastewater-to-drinking water recycling
program called Pure Water.
Legal challenges to a Monterey Peninsula water district’s
ratepayer fee that dates back a least a decade reached fruition
Friday when a judge ruled against the district for a second
time. Monterey County Superior Court Judge Carrie Panetta ruled
Friday on a motion by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management
District for a new trial after Panetta earlier ruled against
the district in a lawsuit brought by the Monterey Peninsula
Taxpayers Association over a fee the district has been charging
taxpayers. If the district is stopped from collecting the fee,
called a water supply fee, it could have a huge impact on
district revenues at a time when the Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District is partnering with Monterey One Water to
invest in the Pure Water Monterey expansion project, which the
district says could supply enough water to the Monterey
Peninsula for the next few decades.
Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District will spend about $12
million to replace engines in two of its four pump plants,
financing the project over 15 years with an estimated annual
debt service of about $1.02 million. A total of eight engines —
four each in Pump Plants 2 and 3 — will be replaced.
All that rain and snow captured in California’s reservoirs this
year means plenty of water to go around. But it isn’t doing
anything to reduce your household water bill. The Bay Area’s
largest water suppliers, including the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission and the East Bay Municipal Utility
District, are planning new rate hikes for water and sewer
service, starting this summer. Many of these increases will be
the biggest in years. San Francisco residents can
expect to see an average 8.3% annual jump in their combined
water-sewer bill over the next three years, or a cumulative 27%
increase. EBMUD customers can anticipate an 8.5% increase in
each of the next two years, or a roughly 18% total hike.
… Both EBMUD and the SFPUC, alongside other
utilities planning new rate hikes, intend to spend the bulk of
their additional revenue on capital improvements.
Diana Juarez’ granddaughters, 9 and 11, want her to buy them a
kiddie pool to splash in on triple-digit days in Niland, a tiny
town tucked in California’s blisteringly hot southeastern
corner. No way, she tells them firmly. With summer water bills
that can approach $200 a month, “that’s just water down the
drain. We can’t afford that.” Juarez and her neighbors
soon could face even higher bills. Once again, Golden State
Water Company, the investor-owned utility that serves her and
more than 1 million customers in 80 communities across
California, has asked for rate increases. And once again, the
California Public Utilities Commission is poised to approve a
legal agreement that would raise rates, this time by nearly 14%
for her community through 2024, and on average by 15% across
the company’s service area, from parts of Sacramento and Simi
Valley to Los Angeles and Orange County suburbs, and desert
communities like Lucerne and Apple Valley.
Some Marin County residents could see 20% increases to their
water bills this summer if officials vote Tuesday evening to
boost rates. Marin Municipal Water District said the increase
is needed because of rising costs and decreasing
revenues — partly driven by people responding to calls for
conservation and using less water. The proposal includes
rate increases for the next four years starting July 1. The
average single-family customer would see their bimonthy
bills — which are currently $138.66 — jump by $31.96
this summer, followed by a $20.48 increase in July 2024, $16.27
in 2025 and $11.43 in 2026.
The Marin Municipal Water District is poised to adopt one of
its largest rate hikes in decades on Tuesday — a move that will
increase water costs for customers by about 20% — but staff
costs are not the driver, utility officials said. Agency staff
and governing board members said one of the primary reasons
behind the increase is to create new water supplies to avoid
what occurred in 2021, when the agency faced the possibility of
depleting its reservoirs amid a historic drought. … A common
point of debate among ratepayers is how much of their water
bills are going to staff wages, pensions and other benefits.
Staffing costs account for about 40% of the district’s overall
budget, but only comprise 4% of the proposed rate hike set to
go before the board on Tuesday, said Bret Uppendahl, the
district finance director. In 2022-2023, the district operated
on a $116.1 million budget, which includes an operating budget
of $92.2 million and a capital budget of $23.9 million.
As expected, California American Water Co. is flatly refusing
to consider the offer public water officials made to buy out
the company’s Monterey Peninsula’s water system, saying the
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District has no legal
authority to do so. The water district believes it does. …
The district said their attempt is neither reckless nor
infeasible, rather it is mandated by Measure J that directed
the district to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of
a public takeover of Cal Am’s system. Cal Am insists
Measure J only required the district to conduct a study, not
move forward with a takeover.
With phase one of San Diego’s Pure Water sewage recycling
system nearly half built, city officials are making major
adjustments to plans for constructing the rest of the system in
order to avoid delays and potentially shrink overall costs. To
cope with severe flooding at the Morena Boulevard pump station
that threatens to delay the start of operations by more than a
year, city officials now plan to temporarily recycle only 40
percent as much sewage so they can start on time in mid-2025.
Should two rural North County communities be allowed to
purchase cheaper water from outside of the San Diego region in
a desperate attempt to save farming — even if it
could mean slightly higher bills for other ratepayers? That’s a
question elected leaders will have to answer in coming weeks,
as a years-long attempt by water managers in Fallbrook and
Rainbow to flee skyrocketing rates comes to a head.
… The situation is largely unprecedented in California,
only made possible because the rolling North County countryside
is already directly connected to water pipes in Riverside
County. The savings for the two water districts would be
substantial, according to a detailed report released
Thursday.
It’s a good thing for California American Water Co. that rate
increases aren’t determined by a popularity contest, otherwise
state regulators on Tuesday would have sent the Monterey
Peninsula water purveyor packing. Members of the California
Public Utilities Commission, or CPUC, held a two-part hearing
at Seaside City Hall Tuesday afternoon and evening to solicit
public viewpoints on an application – called a rate case —
filed by Cal Am to increase water rates over a three-year
period beginning next year. The CPUC got an earful. All but two
of the 17 speakers who testified to the CPUC representatives
were highly critical of Cal Am. One of two who did not lodge
complaints said there was plenty of water in the Carmel River
aquifer, which wasn’t the focus of the hearing.
California American Water is once again getting public
backlash—this time over a proposed plan to increase everyone’s
water bill. Every three years, Cal Am has to submit a rate plan
to the California Public Utilities Commission, who’s currently
in the midst of reviewing the proposal and receiving public
feedback. On Tuesday, the commission held a meeting in
Seaside to hear from Monterey County customers as it considers
Cal Am’s proposal to increase revenue by over $55 million
statewide over the next three years, and thereby, increase the
bill for ratepayers. In Monterey County, the proposed revenue
increase is about $10 million. But starting January 2024,
Cal Am says the average water bill could actually decrease.
The Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
has been sued along with its board of directors by a trustee of
Bell Ranch. David Garst filed suit on April 3, alleging the
district violated Propositions 13, 218, and 26, Government Code
section 54999.7, along with common law of utility rulemaking,
when the TCFC passed a $0.29 per acre registration fee on June
20, 2022. The lawsuit was the subject of a special meeting that
was a joint closed session with the County Board of Supervisors
and the TCFC on April 18. That meeting was held one day after
the regular April 17 meeting was canceled. In the 15-page
filing, He’s asking that the court vacate and rescind the fee
and refund him any payment of the fee, to stop charging him
based simply on the amount of acreage he owns, absent any
evidence in the rate-making record that demonstrates the basis
to impose the charge and “Commission a cost of service analysis
to establish a sufficient basis for charges.”
Novato area residents could see higher water rates beginning
this summer under a proposal by the North Marin Water District.
The district is proposing to increase rates by 9.5% in July,
which district staff said would increase the median residential
customer’s bimonthly water bill by about $12. The proposed rate
hike is about 3% more than those adopted in recent years.
District General Manager Tony Williams said the larger rate
hike is needed to address inflation impacts, lower water sales
from continued conservation and a doubling of rates to purchase
imported water from the Sonoma Water agency, which is Novato’s
main source of water.
As California slowly emerges from
the depths of the COVID-19 pandemic, one remnant left behind by
the statewide lockdown offers a sobering reminder of the economic
challenges still ahead for millions of the state’s residents and
the water agencies that serve them – a mountain of water debt.
Water affordability concerns, long an issue in a state where
millions of people struggle to make ends meet, jumped into
overdrive last year as the pandemic wrenched the economy. Jobs
were lost and household finances were upended. Even with federal
stimulus aid and unemployment checks, bills fell by the wayside.
The bill is coming due, literally,
to protect and restore groundwater in California.
Local agencies in the most depleted groundwater basins in
California spent months putting together plans to show how they
will achieve balance in about 20 years.
Low-income Californians can get help with their phone bills, their natural gas bills and their electric bills. But there’s only limited help available when it comes to water bills.
That could change if the recommendations of a new report are implemented into law. Drafted by the State Water Resources Control Board, the report outlines the possible components of a program to assist low-income households facing rising water bills.
In the universe of California water, Tim Quinn is a professor emeritus. Quinn has seen — and been a key player in — a lot of major California water issues since he began his water career 40 years ago as a young economist with the Rand Corporation, then later as deputy general manager with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and finally as executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. In December, the 66-year-old will retire from ACWA.
During drought, people conserve water. That’s a good thing for
public water agencies and the state as a whole but the reduction
in use ultimately means less money flowing into the budgets of
those very agencies that need funds to treat water to drinkable
standards, maintain a distribution system, and build a more
drought-proof supply.
“There are two things that can’t happen to a water utility – you
can’t run out of money and you can’t run out of water,” said Tom
Esqueda, public utilities director for the city of Fresno. He was
a panelist at a June 16 discussion in Sacramento about drought
resiliency sponsored by the Public Policy Institute of California
(PPIC).
This printed issue of Western Water examines water
infrastructure – its costs and the quest to augment traditional
brick-and-mortar facilities with sleeker, “green” features.
This printed issue of Western Water examines the
financing of water infrastructure, both at the local level and
from the statewide perspective, and some of the factors that
influence how people receive their water, the price they pay for
it and how much they might have to pay in the future.
This printed issue of Western Water looks at some of
the pieces of the 2009 water legislation, including the Delta
Stewardship Council, the new requirements for groundwater
monitoring and the proposed water bond.
This printed issue of Western Water examines the
changed nature of the California Water Plan, some aspects of the
2009 update (including the recommendation for a water finance
plan) and the reaction by certain stakeholders.
This printed copy of Western Water examines the challenges facing
small water systems, including drought preparedness, limited
operating expenses and the hurdles of complying with costlier
regulations. Much of the article is based on presentations at the
November 2007 Small Systems Conference sponsored by the Water
Education Foundation and the California Department of Water
Resources.
This printed issue of Western Water features a
roundtable discussion with Anthony Saracino, a water resources
consultant; Martha Davis, executive manager of policy development
with the Inland Empire Utilities Agency and senior policy advisor
to the Delta Stewardship Council; Stuart Leavenworth, editorial
page editor of The Sacramento Bee and Ellen Hanak, co-director of
research and senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of
California.
Many Californians don’t realize that when they turn on the
faucet, the water that flows out could come from a source close
to home or one hundreds of miles away. Most people take their
water for granted; not thinking about the elaborate systems and
testing that go into delivering clean, plentiful water to
households throughout the state. Where drinking water comes from,
how it’s treated, and what people can do to protect its quality
are highlighted in this 2007 PBS documentary narrated by actress
Wendie Malick.
A 30-minute version of the 2007 PBS documentary Drinking Water:
Quenching the Public Thirst. This DVD is ideal for showing at
community forums and speaking engagements to help the public
understand the complex issues surrounding the elaborate systems
and testing that go into delivering clean, plentiful water to
households throughout the state.
It’s no secret that providing water in a state with the size and
climate of California costs money. The gamut of water-related
infrastructure – from reservoirs like Lake Oroville to the pumps
and pipes that deliver water to homes, businesses and farms –
incurs initial and ongoing expenses. Throw in a new spate of
possible mega-projects, such as those designed to rescue the
ailing Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the dollar amount grows
exponentially to billion-dollar amounts that rival the entire
gross national product of a small country.
