|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) board of directors voted Tuesday to declare a stage four critical drought and impose a district-wide 20% mandatory reduction in water use compared to 2013.
At a meeting that lasted nearly four hours, board members also took a number of other steps in response to Gov. Jerry Brown’s April 1 executive order for California’s urban water districts to cut back 25% on average.
EBMUD general manager Alexander Coate and other staff members said the actions are necessary because water storage is projected to be at near-record lows and storage in reservoirs is expected to be at only one-third of capacity by Oct. 1.
The district provides water service for Danville, parts of San Ramon, and unincorporated communities of Alamo, Blackhawk and Diablo.
The additional measures approved Tuesday include outdoor water use prohibitions and restrictions, penalties for people who use more than four times the amount of water used by the average residential customer and penalties for those who steal water or misuse water from a public fire hydrant.
The outdoor water use prohibitions and restrictions take effect immediately.
The penalties for excessive water use and stealing water, which received their initial approvals Tuesday, will take effect on July 1 if they’re approved at a second reading in two weeks. The penalty for excessive water use will show up on customers’ bills in September.
To increase supplies, the board authorized taking up to 33,250 acre-feet of water, which is about 11 billion gallons, of Sacramento River water from Freeport, a community south of Sacramento. That’s about a two-month supply of water.
To pay for the cost of buying and delivering that water, the board gave initial approval to a 25% surcharge that would take effect on July 1 and show up on customers’ bills on Sept. 1. After another public hearing, the board will hold a final vote on the proposed surcharge on June 9.
The average household that uses 246 gallons a day will see its bill increase by $11.65 per month starting on July 1 if the surcharge and a proposed regular rate increase are approved, according to officials at the water agency, which serves 1.3 million customers in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Director William Patterson said the agency has been too slow to increase its water supply and the result is, “Going forward, it will cost you more for less (water).”
Several board members suggested having the surcharge take effect before July 1 to start paying for the Sacramento River water as soon as possible.
Director Marguerite Young said, “We’re kicking the can down the road at a time we should be kicking people in the butt.”
Director Andy Katz said, “We have real costs we need to pay for so we should do it as soon as we can.”
But Coate said it would be technologically impossible to place messages about both the rate increase and the surcharge on customers’ bills by July 1.
Coate said that for now EBMUD will pay for the Sacramento River water by using leftover money in its budget and it will recoup that money after the surcharge kicks in.
EBMUD staff recommended that the excessive use penalties apply to customers who use an average of 1,152 gallons per day, which is four and a half times the average household.
But Young and several other board members proposed having the penalty kick in at a level of 748 gallons a day.
Young said she prefers to lower the level because she wants to “chop off excessive use.”
But the board voted by a 4-3 margin against lowering the threshold to 748 gallons a day.
Instead, they voted by a 6-1 margin to have the penalty kick in at 984 gallons a day, which is four times the average household.
If the penalty for stealing water receives final approval, water thieves would be fined $1,000 for their first violation, $2,000 for their second violation and $3,000 for every additional violation in a 12-month period.
By
By
By
EBMUD members confirm their action is too slow, then wants to kick customers in the butt. Perhaps they should look a little closer at themselves to find a better target for butt kicking. A
Is this restriction off of 2014 levels or 2013? We reduced our use by 30% in 2014 – don’t think we can do another 20% on top.
For those who originally voted yes on the bond and then voted Jerry Brown back into office, think about how far $90 Billion could have gone to helping build better water infrastructure and desalizination plants. Instead, we will have a high speed train. This latest purchase of water helps, but it just takes away from some other water district. It doesn’t add to the overall pool of water available to Californians.
I also notice grading and house building continuing on Camino Tassajara. When are they going to stop issuing permits for new houses/yards that are leading to even more demand for water (not to mention the water that is being used during the construction for dust control). Those of us who have lived here a long time keep conserving more and more only to see the water being used for more growth.
Finally, every water system has a certain amount of leakage. I see no mention of EBMUD spending money to more aggressively locate and fix leaks in their system.
We need to mandate that all new homes do not have lawn going in–they should be landscaped with a desert landscape look which is much more eco-friendly. Also, start to collect in a bucket the shower water you waste when it is warming up to flush the toilet.
Now is the time for a big legal firm to file a ‘Class Action Lawsuit” against EBMUD on behalp of the 1.3 million EBMUD customers.
NO…I don’t know the legal language that must be entered into the lawsuit document I will let that up to the Lawyer’s.
MOST OF “We the people” in the EBMUD system have been reducing our water usage for the past couple of years. IT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR TO DEMAND ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS ON TOP OF ALL THE REDUCTIONS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING.
YES…there are some that have not done their part. But most of us have.
Wake up Lawyer’s and call on us to put $50.00 on the table and file the lawsuit. $50 x’s 1,000,000 + customers = WOW $50 Million +.
Just a thought…Thanks for listing Julia Pardini, from Alamo
When a private company is faced with an unavoidable cost increase (purchase of extra water, which I agree with) and decreasing revenues (from lower water usage), they commonly look to cut operating costs (staff and salaries plus other things) before raising their product’s cost. What is EBMUD doing to increase their efficiency and lower their operating costs? Do they have any incentive to do this?
While I agree with punitive rates for excessive water use, these extra revenues should not be allowed to maintain “business as usual” operating costs.
You all miss the big picture here. Back when the CoCo supervisors approved the expansion down Tassajara, long ago now, (which is a story for another day) I asked that question at the hearing, of the increased water demands (as well as the lack of infrastructure planning) They flatly acknowledged that they would provide the necessary water by imposing restrictions on all of US. Flat out, no hesitation. This has been the plan all along. No surprises here, just waiting for it to happen. Now that the camels nose is under the tent, we’ll never see a time without restrictions.
It’s not about water, it’s about control. King Jerry, in his first terms, as well as the subsequent dopes in the high office, all had opportunities to push for more water storage. Not on their agenda. Remember, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.
Okay, time for our periodic reality check:
Julia, I suggest you get folks to chip in to pay a lawyer to sue God, for failing to make it rain and snow in quantities to your liking.
Long term? We had a serious drought back in the 70’s. Should we have abandoned BART construction because there was a drought? It may rain more next year. Water supply changes. But population growth and the unforgiving nature of physics which makes it take less energy to transport people from here to LA by high speed trains instead of jets won’t. Reacting to every immediate issue by foregoing all long term planing about everything else is not smart planning for a state. What’s more, given that more frequent and more severe droughts are a predicted consequence of global warming, do you really think that desalinization plants, which require massive energy consumption per gallon produced, is really such a good idea?
Phil, private companies a) operate with a profit margin and b) have the luxury of filing for bankruptcy and walking away if things don’t work out. EBMUD doesn’t. EBMUD has to deliver water, period. They have very little leeway to “lower their operating costs” – it’s a non-profit entity to begin with. While striving for greater efficiency is always a laudable goal, the fact that there’s now a drought doesn’t mean there’s suddenly “low hanging fruit” that can be plucked to save money. In fact, the challenges posed by trying to supply an adequate (if not unlimited) amount of water to everyone in this time period requires more work than usual.
Out of all the “me-me-me” posts here, Suburban Resident makes one sensible point: why do we all have lawns? Lawns such down a lot of water. We don’t eat grass. We don’t drink that water either. On the continuum of valuable uses for a limited resource, where should “watering lawns” rank along with watering crops, industrial uses, flushing toilets, and fracking? Food for thought.
I have posted about this before, I know…..but does EBMUD continue to sell water to Coca-Cola for their Dasani Water brand? I have not seen this issue addressed yet!
We gave up our rather large lawn back in the early 80’s later 90’s during another one of our droughts. When new homes started being built later, the developers put lawns in them all. When will this insanity stop? We need to set permanent restrictions in California. There are three new monstrosities next to me on what used to be horse property. They all have their sprinklers going early in the AM, every day! Doesn’t seem to me that there is much cooperation.
Peter:
I have been here since 1955 and supported both the construction of I680 and BART. I drilled water wells during the drought in the 1970’s so I am very familiar with it and even made some good money off it in the past. You are correct about long and short term planning. In fact, I would argue our current situation is due to poor long term planning. I know you will jump all over me for this suggestion, but this state could be self-sufficient if we wanted. Of course there would be consequences. If we allowed production of natural gas through fracking or other means, we could use it to power co-generation plants that would produce electricity for electric cars and power desalinization plants.
As for the high speed train, it will be a drain on the state’s financial resources forever. I have traveled all over the world and ridden on the various high speed trains, including the famous TGV in France and the Bullet trains in Japan. None of them make money and all continue to receive tax subsidies to keep them afloat. Not only that, the fares are very similar to the airfares. They are more convenient in that you don’t need to go through security before boarding (I predict that will change in the future). If you will recall, the extra 1/4% sales tax we all pay was put into place back in the mid 60s as a temporary tax to help fund BART until it was running and self-sufficient. It has been 50 years now and that tax is still there helping fund BART (and by the way, most places in the world have much better transit systems than BART).
Conservation of resources is a must. How we handle our demand for resources beyond that is the big question.