Sub-committee on tiered water rates

of

The Ad hoc Committee On Conservation

One More Time

It appears as if reports of the demise of the Sub-committee on Tiered Water Rates of the ad hoc committee on Conservation of the BWD Board have been greatly exaggerated.

It was never my intention to produce Gonzo-Summaries of the regular monthly BWD Board meetings since the District provides both agendas and minutes for them. At their meeting on 25 January, however, the behavior of a majority of Board was so outrageous – even for them – that it requires comment.

On the Board’s agenda for that date was consideration of "Proposed Tiered Rate Schedules" (aka "conservation pricing"). The Sub-committee on Tiered Water Rates – including a number of citizen volunteers – had spent months working on the rate schedule. The General Manager and staff of the District, in particular, had done yeoman’s work researching and analyzing data on local water use and surveying other water districts that successfully employ this common strategy to reduce consumption. Despite all of these good efforts and a number of audience members from several sectors of the community who rose to support conservation pricing or tiered water rates, however, three of the four Directors present (Anderson, Jones, Mendenhall, hereafter "the gang of three") opposed implementation of Tiered Water Rates and prevented the issue from coming to a vote.

Tiered water rates are one of the strategies for reducing water consumption included in the BWD Groundwater Management Plan adopted in September 2002. One of the gang of three, (Anderson) was on the BWD Board at that time. None of the recommendations included in the GMP have ever been implemented and the plan has never been updated or modified. This would have been an opportunity for the board to take at least a first, extremely modest step toward actually doing something about the overdraft instead of just talking about it. Predictably, after nearly three and one half years of doing nothing, a majority of the Board opted to keep on doing so.

What is most disturbing about their actions/inaction in this matter is that the agenda for this meeting specifically called for consideration of "proposed tiered water rates." The question of whether the board would accept the concept of graduated water rates based on use should have been and presumably was settled before forming a sub-committee to devise a specific tiered rates proposal. In fact, there was prima fascie evidence that it was acceptable in the BWD GMP (see paragraph above).

Based on that, members of the sub-committee worked diligently and in good faith over an extended period of time on the rate schedule. If the gang of three was opposed to this device in principle, as they clearly are, they should have made their opposition known at the outset and saved the sub-committee members a great deal of time, the district a great deal of money, and everybody a great deal of frustration. That they did not do so marks them as at least inconsiderate, irresponsible, arbitrary and capricious – among other things.

The gang of three offered several and various rationalizations for their opposition. All were lame. Most made no sense. A couple of others might have been dealt with had they been made known earlier in the process. Still others were impossible to satisfy by design and obviously intended only as insurmountable roadblocks. Worst of all, they betrayed a shameful and inexcusable ignorance of the structure, purpose, and function of conservation pricing; a complete indifference to the serious threat posed by our overdraft; and a continuing unwillingness to do anything about it. It was a performance that even this board should have been embarrassed by; but apparently was not.

The Chair, Mrs. Shimeall, asked that the Sub-committee on Tiered Water Rates be reconstituted to continue its work and try to find an acceptable version of Tiered Water rates; but to what end? The gang of three opposes the concept itself; so no amount of tinkering with the rate structure will satisfy their baseless objections. It is simply a charade, a farce, and a waste of more of everyone’s time and ratepayer’s money.

Nonetheless, for anyone who is interested, there will be a meeting of the ad hoc committee on conservation on 8 February, where the issue of tiered water rates will be revisited. You should consider, however, that working on a tiered water rates proposal is beating a dead horse so long as the gang of three remains on the board; and the ad hoc committee on conservation, despite its name, has no discernable purpose. So, if you are really desperate for something to do or are prone to masochistic tendencies, you might want to attend. If I had a choice between that and a root canal, however, I would take the root canal – without anesthetic even.

Extremely regrettably submitted by your humble scribe: D. W. Dickinson