This water plan rewards the big users at the expense of those who have been diligently reducing their water use. Leaving out of the Bartle Wells Associates' study the "drought surcharge" element, seems to be an effort to conceal the inequity. (With the drought surcharge included, the change for those using the least is +37.3%, for the average household, +29.63%, and for the largest industrial user, -4.79%.)

This billing scheme blatantly, overtly, favors commercial and industrial use over household use -- despite (a) the fact that commercial and industrial users, are the most cost-effective 'point sources' for water savings and re-use; and (b) the fact that commercial and industrial users should be factoring the cost of their water use, into the cost of doing business.

I'd like an explanation of why this proposal benefits the citizens who live in, and have families invested in, Menlo Park.

@George,
It all stems back to the idiocy of Prop 218, which we, the voters of California said yes to. Prop 208 deemed that governmental agencies cannot set prices for services, including utilities, that aren't based on the cost of providing the service. Prop 218 pretty much prohibits government set tiered pricing, even for the the purposes of conservation, and the 4th District Court of Appeal concurred in their ruling against San Juan Capistrano.

Web Link

Prop 218 totally flies in the face of conservation. I'm hoping the drought will wake voters up to the ugly side effects of what seemed to be a legitimate "smaller government" proposition.

Barbara,

Thank you for writing about the water rate increase! I posted three times about the new 2-tier rate scheme that pits the average user against the large home owner, industrial users and other large businesses.

We will be there.

why not 100% or maybe even 200% or 300% why stop at 30% in fact increase the rates by 1000%.

Why not just have us queue up with buckets every morning at City Hall for our daily allocation? Isn't that where this is heading?