voiceofsandiego.org: Cafesandiego... The Problems with Irvine Ranch's Celebrated Water Prices
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

The Problems with Irvine Ranch's Celebrated Water Prices

Published: Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:17 PM PDT



I have very mixed thoughts on the Irvine Ranch Water District's household water budget scheme for pricing water that some have pointed to as a model for what San Diego should do.

First, the good points of this scheme:

  • It is a major improvement on what San Diego is currently doing.
  • It has the appearance of being fair and rational.
  • The water budget concept gives households some idea of what is a reasonable amount of water for them to use is and the pricing structure is geared toward this concept.
  • The first block of water is priced much lower at about 1/3 of what San Diego is currently charging. It is a much more sharply tiered system than San Diego has and hence encourages conservation.
  • The scheme is not that hard to administratively implement in spite of comments to the contrary by San Diego officials.

Now the bad:

  • The monthly base fixed fee ($7.75) per household is too high but is much better than San Diego's monthly current base fee of over $17.
  • The tiered structure has five blocks which is still not quite enough.
  • The price jumps of the last two blocks are too steep: The next to last block doubles the price and the final block doubles that one.
  • The "labels" on these last two blocks (excessive and wasteful) are a bit Big Brotherish and you need some households to use more water at high prices to keep the cost down for the larger number of households who do conserve.
  • By basing a large part of the allocation on yard size, the Irvine Ranch is effectively subsidizing fairly heavy water use by single family detached homes at the expense of apartment and condo dwellers.
  • Long term, the Irvine Ranch Water District scheme will slow down a transition toward drought resistant landscaping relative to what a per what a per dwelling unit or per person (implemented via number of bedrooms) scheme would achieve.
  • Larger water budgets are given to households in hotter areas which effectively subsidizes development in such areas. There is a variance procedure that is administratively complicated. It allows households to receive more water if (a) more people are documented in legally acceptable ways as living at the dwelling unit than the standard formula assumes, (b) it is documented that the house has larger amounts of vegetation than was assumed by the standard formula, (c) if medical conditions require more water (but I am not sure exactly how this would come into play), (d) being a licensed day care facility and (e) even for filling swimming pools.


-- RICHARD CARSON




4 Comments so far on this story...

[forgive the crap formatting that VoSD creates...] Richard -- I agree with your "good points" but not ALL of your "bad" points. In fact, you seem to disagree with yourself. Under good, you like the sharp tiers, but then you say they are too steep. 1) I like the tiers and I like their steepness. 2) I don't know why there should be more than five tiers. I think there could be three (basic, normal, luxury), and I do not mind those labels... 3) I *totally* agree on the subsidies to landscaping. Here's more (incl. my alternative): link

Posted by David Zetland | reply to this comment
October 30, 2009 1:31 pm

I have two acres and use less than most people with a 50x100 lot. How come? Drought tolerant native vegetation only needs water in the late summer and early fall. People want to demonize it but the truth is it needs less water to be hydrated and safe. So yes, don't subsidize watering of landscaping. It causes bad behavior.

Posted by Janet | reply to this comment
October 30, 2009 7:41 pm

I grow weary of hearing about your yard. If I want to be surrounded by native desert plants, I'll go down to Anza Borrego. But when I'm enjoying my little urban backyard, I'll do so with nice green tropical flowery plants around me and will continue to do so until the development of large home tracts and unlimited infill is halted. I do my part to conserve in other ways but I am not prepared to give up everything just because some developer wants to pad his bank account at my expense and government refuses to build a decent delivery infrastructure using desal and reuse.

Posted by larry | reply to this comment
November 1, 2009 9:19 am

You need to educate yourself before throwing stones. My yard is a green oasis, not a desert landscape with cactus and rocks. It has beautiful trees, shrubs and plants which are green year round and require little water. Google toyon, coast live oat, California lilacs, penstemon, mission manazanita, lemonade berry, for example, and then tell me these plants are ugly.

Posted by janet | reply to this comment
November 3, 2009 8:18 pm


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
67a8056



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.