Selective Cuts in Water Rates to Be Considered : Utilities: Riordan revives controversial formula to give breaks to specific users. Mayor’s aides say legal flaws have been resolved and they are optimistic about approval.

A plan to cut rates for some residential water users that was jeopardized by legal problems has been revived by Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and is scheduled for consideration today by the Department of Water and Power Commission.

The proposed formula provides breaks to water users who live on large lots, have large families or reside in zones with higher-than-average temperatures. Because the new rates would mostly benefit San Fernando Valley residents, the issue has pitted Valley council members against their colleagues from the rest of the city.

A compromise amendment that was designed to end a deadlock between the warring lawmakers hit a snag last month when the city attorney’s office found it legally flawed and discriminatory because it provided breaks to water users in one part of the city that were not offered to similar users elsewhere.

But after meetings last week with key council members and City Atty. James K. Hahn, Riordan’s representatives said they believe they have resolved the measure’s legal flaws and are optimistic that the water rate formula will be approved when the City Council considers the measure Wednesday.

“We feel we’ll have enough votes to pass Wednesday,” said Assistant Deputy Mayor David Cobb.

The DWP now imposes a two-tier structure that is designed to promote conservation by charging 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.

Under the proposed formula change, residents who have large lots, big families or those who live in hot climates would get an extra allotment of water before the higher water rate kicks in.

But the new formula faced a deadlock in the council last month until Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg offered a compromise amendment that gives automatic breaks to residents in 38 ZIP codes in the Valley, South-Central Los Angeles and the Eastside where large families are prevalent.

Goldberg proposed the amendment because large families under the original plan had to apply to the DWP for the relief. Goldberg said she fears that many residents are unlikely to file the paperwork needed to get the break.

The relief provided to the residents in the 38 ZIP codes could cost the city up to $500,000 per year, depending on how many families take advantage of the breaks, according to DWP officials.

But the city attorney’s office told DWP officials last month that the Goldberg compromise was discriminatory because it would give breaks to all residents within the ZIP codes, including small families, while small families elsewhere in the city would not get the same breaks.

*

During meetings last week with Hahn, Goldberg and Valley Councilwoman Laura Chick, Cobb said some changes were made to Goldberg’s compromise that resolved the legal problems.

Under the changes, those water users within the ZIP codes who have less than seven family members would lose their relief once the DWP determines that they do not qualify for the break.

The DWP would identify the smaller households whenever water users in those ZIP codes request new services or when the users trigger the higher rate by using more than twice the median amount.

“Any time the customer has any contact with us, we would determine how many are in the household,” said Gerald Gewe, the DWP’s director of water resource planning. But he added that he is not sure how much effort the DWP will put into confirming which customers do not qualify for the relief.

Chick, who has been a vocal supporter of the new formula, said she has opposed the idea of automatically giving the relief to everyone within the 38 ZIP codes.

Instead, she said she would prefer that the DWP launch a publicity program to encourage all large families in the city to file the paperwork needed to get the bill relief.