Harsh Water Rates, Monthly Bills Hurt Valley Water Customers : Shifting from a 60-day statement would improve the utility’s cash flow. Consumers, especially those in the Valley who face huge summer water bills, could better plan their budgets.

Valley homeowners are inundating City Council members with complaints about exorbitant water bills, reported to be as high as $700.

Two factors contributing to this uproar are an antiquated bimonthly billing system and a punitive two-tier water rate structure, adopted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in December to enforce conservation.

Under the two-tier structure, homeowners who use more than 2,800 cubic feet a month in the hot months from June through October are punished with a higher rate that almost doubles their water bills.

This rate structure represents a triumph of sorts for “activists” who believe you can discourage the use of certain products and change people’s habits by passing laws that raise prices artificially.

Former Mayor Tom Bradley appointed three such activists to the five-person Board of Water and Power Commissioners. They designed the billing structure to discourage water use.

Ironically, this manipulation of the rates by the liberal Bradley Administration could undermine the DWP’s reputation for providing low-cost water and electricity. This, in turn, could lead to demands to privatize the city-owned utility.

However, even if a case can be made for such a rate structure, it places a disproportionate burden on Valley residents, since San Fernando Valley temperatures average 10 degrees hotter than the rest of the city and properties are larger and need more water to maintain.

This was recognized early on by Councilmen Joel Wachs and Hal Bernson, as well as by several homeowners groups, and they opposed the new rate structure. Unfortunately, they did not have enough support on the City Council.

Now the Valley council members, including newcomer Laura Chick, are reported to be scrambling to see whether anything can be done to provide homeowners with relief.

Their chances of accomplishing this have improved, since two of the three activists, Michael Gage and Mary Nichols, are no longer on the commission, and Mayor Richard Riordan has appointed two Valley residents, Judy M. Miller and Marcia Volpert, in their places.

Even if they are successful, the public can expect continuing pressure to conserve water, despite the fact that the state is no longer experiencing a drought. This is because the city of Los Angeles is almost totally dependent on water imported from three distant watersheds, and this once-abundant supply is no longer adequate to meet projected growth.

The DWP alludes to this problem in a mailing it is sending to its customers in an attempt to quiet the furor over the bills.

Rates will continue to escalate as increasing population absorbs the limited water supply.

However, there is a way to soften the impact of bills. That is for the DWP to adopt a monthly billing system.

Since everyone is conditioned to monthly billing as a normal business procedure, some people do not realize that they get a bimonthly DWP bill.

This represents an accumulation of two months of electric and water usage, plus miscellaneous fees and taxes collected for other agencies.

When this horrendous blockbuster arrives in the mail, it is enough to make someone with a good income turn pale and others wonder if they can pay.

Monthly billing would allow customers to budget properly for this expense and pay their bills in smaller installments.

This idea is not new. It was discussed as far back as 1970, when the electric industry warned that the nation’s electric rates could double by the 1980s, resulting in rate shock and serious political and public relations problems for utilities.

Southern California Edison Co., which serves much of Southern California outside of Los Angeles, took the warning seriously. In 1980 it converted to monthly billing, at some expense, but with few customer complaints.

The DWP, on the other hand, rejected the idea after studies determined that the added expense would necessitate an increase in rates. In spite of these fears, there is good reason to believe that there would be compensating benefits.

Monthly billing would improve the DWP’s cash flow and sharply reduce the millions of dollars lost yearly to skip artists and others who manipulate the long billing delay to their advantage.

Because the original studies were done internally, the new Board of Water and Power Commissioners should hire an outside firm to do an objective study of monthly billing--a study that would weigh the expense against the savings and the intangible benefits of showing compassion for the consumer.