… from the L.A. Times
Op-Ed
DWP's rate increase plan just
isn't big enough
Flanked by city officials and representatives of environmental organizations, L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti signs an
executive directive on water conservation during a press conference at DWP Headquarters on Oct. 14, 2014.
(Los Angeles Times)
By MARK GOLD
JULY 22, 2015, 5:00 AM
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power recently proposed a water rate hike. If
approved by the City Council, the average DWP customer will see an increase in water rates of
about 3.8% each year for five years, with heavy users charged more for additional costs related
to delivery, treatment and the construction of supply facilities. Ultimately, these proposed
changes will add roughly $1.2 billion to DWP's coffers.
A cost-of-service-based tiered rate structure will send a strong and legally defensible signal to
water wasters during California's worse drought in more than a century. The total amount
raised, though, is not enough. If Mayor Eric Garcetti wants to realize his ambitious, big-picture
water management agenda, we must all pay more.
L.A.'s recent conservation success has been driven by investments in lawn replacement, changes
in consumer behavior and major water-saving efforts from city agencies including Parks and
Recreation, General Services and Street Services. The mayor, however, doesn't just want
Angelenos to conserve water; he has said he wants to reduce imported water 50% by 2025 — a
worthy goal that would require nothing less than a transformation of the city's water supply
portfolio. In the last two years, L.A. has imported 89% of its water from sources more than 200
miles away, including the Eastern Sierra, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the
Colorado River.
The DWP released a study in June indicating that there is potential for an additional 100,000 to
200,000 acre-feet of supply (20% to 40% of the city's current needs) from captured stormwater.
The long-term potential from L.A.'s wastewater treatment plants also is in the 100,000 to
200,000 acre-feet range. Groundwater from the eastern San Fernando Valley and other sources
could contribute in the same ballpark.
In theory, Garcetti could meet and actually exceed his 50% target. But turning potential into
reality will cost billions of dollars.
Planned water recycling, and groundwater treatment and distribution facilities in the San
Fernando Valley, combine for more than a $1-billion price tag alone; add on $500 million for
needed stormwater capture projects.
Proposition 1 state water bond funds may help to some extent, especially on the groundwater
treatment project. But this one-time cash infusion provides just a fraction of the capital costs
needed to build new infrastructure. And bond funds cannot legally be used for ongoing
operation or maintenance. Only ratepayer funds can be used for those purposes.
The city, besides, has to do more than invest in new projects; it also must improve existing
infrastructure. Last year's spectacular water main rupture near UCLA, which flooded Pauley
Pavilion with about 20 million gallons of potable water, was a high-profile example of the need
for maintenance and repair.
The DWP estimates that 435 miles of its 6,700-mile distribution system is in serious need of
replacement. Switching out these pipes by 2025 will cost $1.3 billion. But the DWP will need yet
more money to replace the hundreds of miles of pipe that are between 70 and 110 years old, as
well as all of the pipes that are seismically vulnerable. In addition, the DWP must invest
significantly in new or upgraded pumping systems, valves, drinking-water treatment facilities,
fire hydrants, tanks and reservoirs as part of the Water Infrastructure Plan.
To even have a chance at achieving the mayor's water self-sufficiency and infrastructure
improvement goals, the DWP probably would need to impose at least a 6%, rather than a 3.8%,
rate increase. This would generate an additional $650 million in revenue over five years that
could help make the city more self-sufficient.
A 6% hike may seem like a lot, but it is less than the Metropolitan Water District's average
annual rate increase of about 7% over the last decade. Los Angeles' rates would remain highly
competitive and, in fact, result in water bills that are still among the lowest in the region.
Los Angeles has been through a water infrastructure crisis before. In the 1980s, Santa Monica
Bay was one of the most polluted bodies of water in the nation because of a sewage treatment
and distribution system that was arcane and in a state of chronic disrepair. Los Angeles
ratepayers made multibillion-dollar investments that led to a healthier bay and a radically
reduced sewage spill rate per mile.
The city can meet its ambitious water supply goals, but it must first ask ratepayers to invest in a
more sustainable future.
Mark Gold is the associate vice chancellor of environment and sustainability at UCLA.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook