Setback Dealt to Water Rate Compromise

An attempt to settle a rancorous dispute in the Los Angeles City Council over residential water rates was dealt a serious blow when the city attorney’s office declared a compromise proposal to be discriminatory, officials said Tuesday.

The findings put into jeopardy a proposed water rate formula that would provide breaks to water users who live on large lots, in hot climates or have large families. Since the new rates would mostly benefit San Fernando Valley residents, debate over the issue has pitted Valley council members against their colleagues from the rest of the city.

If the proposed formula is not drafted and approved by the City Council within three weeks, Department of Water and Power officials fear they won’t be able to implement the new rates in time for the upcoming summer months.

Under the current rate structure, Valley residents pay water bills that in some cases are as high as $900 during summer months. Valley Councilwoman Laura Chick said she is planning to meet with representatives of the city attorney’s office in the next few days in hopes of finding a way to salvage the proposal. If that attempt fails, she said she’ll try to meet with those colleagues on the council who oppose the measure in an effort to reach another compromise.

“I’m not willing to admit to defeat,” she said. “I want to move ahead with a proposal that is a win-win situation for everyone.”

Last week, amid a heated debate, the City Council deadlocked on the proposed formula. In an effort to break the deadlock, Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg offered an amendment that would automatically give a break to residents within certain ZIP codes in the Valley and South and East Los Angeles where large families are prevalent.

Goldberg offered the amendment because the formula plan that had been proposed provided a break for large families but only if the residents applied to the DWP for relief. Goldberg said she fears it would be very unlikely many residents would file the paperwork needed to get the break.

The council agreed to send the water rate formula and Goldberg’s amendment to the Department of Water and Power Commission for further study. The commission, a panel of residents appointed by the mayor, was scheduled to consider the issue Tuesday.

But Gerald Gewe, the DWP’s director of water resource planning, said the city attorney’s office told him that the Goldberg amendment was legally flawed and discriminatory because it would give a break to all residents within the ZIP code, including those with small families, while small families elsewhere in the city would not get the same breaks. He said the commission is still awaiting a written report from the city attorney’s office.

Assistant City Atty. Edward Schlotman declined to comment on the matter until the commission has received the written report.

Because of the finding, Gewe said the entire water rate debate is back to square one and that he has until the next DWP Commission meeting March 7 to come up with a new compromise measure that will break the City Council deadlock.

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

But in the summer of 1993, Valley residents flooded City Hall with phone calls and letters complaining about soaring water bills.

In response to such complaints, 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 proposed breaks for residents who have large lots, big families or live in hot climates. Such residents get to spend an extra allotment of water before the higher water rate kicks in.

But when that formula finally reached the City Council last week, it was opposed by several council members from South Los Angeles who complained that the water rate relief would mean higher rates for some of their constituents.

Tuesday, Goldberg said she had not heard of the city attorney’s decision on her compromise effort but is confident a compromise can still be reached to save the proposed water rate changes.

“I think there is a place to go from here,” she said. “I don’t think this is dead.”

Noelia Rodriguez, Mayor Richard Riordan’s press aide, said the mayor’s office hopes it can meet with various council members to come up with another compromise that can salvage the rate change proposal.

“Because it is such an urgent issue, you can be assured that we are going to work on this around the clock,” Rodriguez said. “We’ve been working too hard and this time we don’t want to let it slip by.”

But some of the council members who have opposed the water rate changes say they are not in a hurry to reach a compromise to save the proposal.

Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr., whose district stretches from Watts to San Pedro, said he sympathizes with Valley residents who use more water because they live in a hot climate. But he said he will not support any water rate changes that will mean higher rates for residents in his district, particularly low-income residents.

“There must be a compromise that is fair to everyone,” he said. “If there is not, then I would rather see this particular proposal die.”