 |
| . |
The question is a very good one.
When these penalties were originally proposed by the City Council, the stated purpose was to cut resident water consumption because the Sierra Madre Water Division's wells were quickly running dry. This was an emergency measure designed to help prevent what would have been a disaster for the community. While water conservation is always a good idea in our arid portion of the western dream, obviously this was a step way beyond any of that.
Here is how the need is described on the City of Sierra Madre website (link):
Water Conservation Increased Mandatory Water Conservation Measures: At the May 28, 2013 City Council meeting, the City Council implemented mandatory water conservation measures for all water customers in Sierra Madre, effective immediately. The dry winter Sierra Madre just experienced seriously affected the groundwater levels as did increased water consumption by the City’s water customers. Due to the lack of rain and increased consumption, the groundwater levels have not recovered, leading the Raymond Basin Watermaster to reduce the City’s groundwater pumping rights by almost 47%.
The City now requires that each water customer conserve a percentage of his or her July 2011 through June 2012 water use. The required percentage of conservation will vary, depending on the customer’s water use. Customers consuming 0-12 billing units of water (0-1,200 cubic feet) will be exempt from the conservation requirements. Customers using 13-17 billing units (1,300 – 1,700 cubic feet) are required to reduce their consumption by 10%. Customers using 18 units or more are required to reduce by 20%.
It is imperative that everyone in the community does everything they can to conserve water. Active, thoughtful water conservation by everyone in Sierra Madre now could help the City avoid even more stringent mandatory measures and/or the import of water from sources outside the City.
If the original stated goal was to prevent having to import water from the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, or anything like it, then obviously the City's water use restrictions did not get the job done. The wells for all intents and purposes did run dry, and we are now hooked up to the same outside water supplies as many of the other communities in the area. Our water independence is, for the time being, over. Hopefully not forever, though I do have doubts about that despite reassurances from all of the usual sources.
The City's "Mandatory Water Conservation Plan" is also on the website, though you will need to download that one for yourself. There is no available link that I can give you. Here is what is said there about civil penalties (fines):
13.24.140 - Failure to comply—Penalties: It is unlawful for any customer or user thereof of the water department to fail to comply with sections 13.24.070 through 13.24.120 of this chapter. Civil penalties for failure to comply with any of the provisions shall be as follows:
A. First Violation. For the first violation by any customer of the water department of any provision of sections 13.24.070 through 13.24.120, a surcharge penalty is imposed in an amount of twice the Tier 1 water rate per one hundred cubic feet of water or billing units.
B. Second Violation. For the second and all future violations by any customer of the water department of any provision of sections 13.24.070 through 13.24.120, a surcharge penalty is imposed in the amount of three times the Tier 1 water rate per one hundred cubic feet of water or billing units.
So again, here is the question. If civil penalties (fines) for using too much water were put into place as part of the "stringent mandatory measures" designed to help prevent our wells from running dry, are they still appropriate now that we are importing water from the SGVMWD? While certainly we are not awash in the stuff, and conservation is always the wisest choice, technically the water emergency that will soon lead to the implementation of these fines is over. We are no longer on the verge of running out of water.
Here is a perception problem that the City might want to ponder. When these fines actually begin to be imposed, and that is in the near future, they will result in a significant revenue increase for the City. We have been told on numerous occasions that the only purpose of these fines is to curb water usage by residents due to emergency conditions. But with these stated emergency conditions now past, are financial punishments still justified?
And without a demonstrable emergency to justify them, are they even legal? These civil penalties (fines) will obviously bring the City more money, but with our new and quite adequate water supply in place, don't they now become nothing more than a de facto water rate increase? One taking place well outside of the state mandated Prop 218 process?
Or, to bring the question to its next obvious level, can it be this really always was about the money?
At a time when the City's ability to impose yet another water rate increase upon residents is in some doubt, it is not the kind of question they should want people asking.
http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com