Council Effort to End Water Rate Rift Dissolves in Failure

After more than two years of study and nearly two hours of contentious debate, the Los Angeles City Council failed Tuesday to reach a consensus on a new water rate formula that gives breaks to single-family residents who live in hot climates, on large lots or have big families.

The deadlock came as representatives from South and Central Los Angeles protested the formula, saying the breaks would benefit San Fernando Valley residents while forcing many other residents citywide to pay higher rates.

“What they want to do is subsidize the wealthy,” said an angry Councilman Nate Holden, who represents parts of Central Los Angeles.

In the midst of the debate, the council voted three times--and failed three times to gain a majority to adopt or reject the formula.

After more than 90 minutes of squabbling, the council voted 10 to 3 to send the entire matter to the Department of Water and Power Commission, instructing that citizens panel to study the matter further and consider drafting a new proposal.

The deadlock represented the latest of several clashes between Valley lawmakers and representatives of South and Central Los Angeles--two camps that already share a tenuous relationship.

“Each of us could add a little tweak to the formula that could make it better for them, but that doesn’t help,” said a frustrated Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, whose attempt at introducing a compromise plan failed to quell the debate.

The stage was set for the clash in early 1993 when the city adopted a two-tier rate structure that was designed to promote water conservation by imposing a higher rate for customers who use more than twice the city’s median amount of water and a lower rate for more frugal users.

But when the formula took effect in the summer of 1993, Valley residents flooded City Hall with phone calls and letters, complaining about water bills that, in some cases, were as high as $900 for a two-month period.

Valley voters demanded relief, arguing that the new formula was unfair to residents who they said must use more water because they have larger lots and live in a hotter climate.

In response, the Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Water Rates decided in June, 1994, to keep the basic two-tier formula intact to promote conservation. But the committee also included breaks for residents who have large lots, big families or live in hot climates. Such residents get to use an extra allotment of water before the higher water rate kicks in.

Although DWP representatives said most of utility’s 452,000 single-family customers would receive lower bills under the formula change, such assurances failed to cool the long, acrimonious debate--a battle that put the future of the entire proposal into question.

Councilman Rudy Svornich Jr., who represents Watts and Harbor area neighborhoods, objected to the formula, saying it was unfair to many of his constituents.

“Rue be the day in this city when we create a situation when a child prior to going to sleep at night, says to his parents, ‘May I have a glass of water before I go to sleep?’ and the parent answers, ‘No, you can’t because someone has to fill their pool,’ ” he said, drawing a chorus of objections.

Councilman Hal Bernson, who represents portions of the Valley, quickly responded, calling Svornich’s comment “one of the most outrageous statements I have ever heard.”

Later, he pointed at Svornich across the council floor and said that the current two-tier system forces Valley residents to pay a disproportionate amount for water.

“Subsidies are exactly what your district is getting from residents of the San Fernando Valley,” he said.

Several pleas to build a consensus failed.

“I think what we have here is the best of two years of deliberations and the time to act is now,” Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said.

Councilwoman Laura Chick agreed, saying: “Accepting this is creating equity. It is saying that there are more than one type of water user.”

Goldberg, who represents Hollywood, proposed an amendment that would provide an automatic break to residents who live within certain ZIP codes that are traditionally home to large families. Those ZIP codes are in Pacoima, South Central and East Los Angeles.

She said she introduced the amendment because the formula plan that is proposed provides a break for large families but only if the residents apply for the relief with the DWP. Goldberg said she fears many residents are unlikely to file the paperwork needed to get the break.

Nearly a dozen residents spoke during the meeting, most testifying against the new formula. Some offered their own ideas for an equitable water formula.

“People live where they choose to and water rates should be the same wherever you choose to live,” said Gertrude Schwab, one of about a dozen Wilmington residents to speak out against the formula change.

Gordon Murley, president of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Assns., said he supports a water rate formula that establishes the amount of water a family can use before the higher rate takes effect based on the historical water use of each single-family house.

“There has to be equity and the history of the water bills is the only way to reach equity,” he said.