Readers React: Higher water rates for infrastructure or revenue -- which is it, DWP?

To the editor: Talk about no good deed goes unpunished: During the hottest summer on record in Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power ratepayers managed to cut back on water use about 25% — and a rate hike is our reward. (“DWP board approves water rate hike to fix aging pipes,” Dec. 15)

First we were told that it was because the reduced water use meant reduced income for DWP; now supposedly it’s about repairing the century-old water mains that shouldn’t have been allowed to decay to the point of bursting (losing millions of gallons of water when it’s scarce, not to mention the damage and inconvenience to innocent residents) in the first place. Isn’t regular maintenance of the pipes part of what we’ve been paying for anyway?

If anything, the DWP should be fined for negligence. Fortunately this won’t happen since the money to cover the fine would end up coming out of our pockets.

Kevin Dawson, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: Is there anyone reading this newspaper who is surprised by the coming rate increase?

We’ve been told for months that the better we do at conserving water in the drought, the higher our rates would go. And once again, we are told the rate increases will cover infrastructure improvements. But we’ve had rate increases in the past to cover improvements.

The article assures us that the Los Angeles City Council must approve the new rates first. Given that any rate increase by the DWP results in an effective tax increase via revenue transfers into L.A.’s coffers, is there anyone who actually believes the City Council will say no?

By the way, the article points out that electricity rates will probably go up too. What are the chances that the DWP board and the City Council will reject that increase?

Jim Bishoff, Northridge

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook