DWP Proposes Summer Hike in Water Rates

In a landmark turnaround, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power staff is proposing that water rates be raised during summer months to promote conservation, the first time the big municipal water agency has attempted such a permanent, long-range conservation program.

Duane Georgeson, department assistant general manager for water, said the plan, which would take effect next year, is being proposed for two reasons.

One is pressure from environmentalists who have been trying in a series of lawsuits to restrict the city’s use of water from its historic Owens Valley and Eastern Sierra supply in Inyo County. Those suits have portrayed Los Angeles as a water waster.

The second is recognition by the department that concrete conservation steps must be taken by Southern California water agencies before Northern California legislators will support exporting more water to the south.

Officials view the department’s proposal as being of major statewide significance, because it would be one of the biggest conservation steps taken by one of the biggest Southland water agencies.

Georgeson said the summer rate hike is being proposed along with an overall 6% water rate increase being submitted for approval of the Board of Water and Power Commissioners. The 6% year-round increase, he said, is needed to pay for increased costs of water purification and delivery and for inflation.

The proposal would also have to be approved by the City Council and Mayor Tom Bradley.

Overall, the monthly bill for the average household would increase from $14.36 to $15.22 a month. The flat rate paid by water users for their water connections--$1.56 a month for the average household--would also increase, to $2.25 a month.

The conservation increase proposal involves another part of the water bill. A separate water use charge, now 66.7 cents for every 750 gallons, would be 71.6 cents in the summer and 53 cents the rest of the year.

“The aim is to promote conservation among the consumers,” said Georgeson. “The higher rate will encourage them to save water.

“On hot summer days,” Georgeson said, “water demand is almost twice as high as in winter.”

He said one aim of the summer rate would be to reduce wasteful watering. “Yard watering is almost half the summer use,” he said.

Pressure Spurred Action

Department officials and City Council aides said pressure from lawsuits and Sacramento pushed the department into action.

In the past, the department, along with other Southern California water agencies, has been accused of being less interested in conservation than in building new projects to provide more water. (The department, however, imposed water rationing during the 1977 drought as part of a regional effort to reduce importation of water from Northern California, which was hard hit.)

Recently, state legislation requiring the development of conservation plans and the fear of setbacks in the Inyo County lawsuits have caused the department to take a second look.

Georgeson said the lawsuits are particularly important. The appellate court that will make the decision on the major cases has indicated in the past that “conservation will be a major factor in its decision,” Georgeson said.

He said that the department’s attorney in the lawsuits, veteran water lawyer Adolph Moskowitz of Sacramento, had advised the department to begin a strong conservation program to help the case.

The need to convince Northern California that the south is trying to save water is also important, said Georgeson and other officials.

Water Project Defeated

Massive northern opposition to shipping water south killed a 1982 state ballot measure to expand the California Water Project, the massive aqueduct and reservoir system that begins in the Northern California mountains. Northern opponents of the plan vividly portrayed Southern California as a place where water is wasted in home swimming pools and indiscriminate lawn watering.

That defeat was considered bad news for the department, the Metropolitan Water District and other Southern California water agencies. They say water supplies must be increased, especially because available water from the Colorado River, another major Southern California source, will be reduced over the next few years because more Colorado water will be going to Arizona.

Mark Pisano, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments, has been telling local water agency officials that Northern California legislators will not agree to expansion of the state Water Project unless they are convinced that the south is doing more to conserve.

Southern California water officials said they expect to renew their fight for more Northern California water when the Legislature convenes in 1987, after the 1986 state election.