Sewer Rate Rollback Sought

When San Fernando Valley residents raised a stink last year about sewer rates, lawmakers agreed to revamp the rate structure in their favor, approving a new formula for calculating bills that was widely expected to benefit the Valley.

But now, with the new rate structure barely in place, Valley residents are again complaining that their bills are too costly, and they’ve successfully lobbied council members to consider the issue anew.

“I can’t see paying these kind of charges,” said Frank Miars, a retired Granada Hills postal bookkeeper whose last sewer bill was $65.54. “This is the highest ever.”

The concerns have prompted City Councilman Hal Bernson, who represents areas of Chatsworth, Granada Hills and Northridge, to introduce a motion Tuesday that would give an additional break on sewer costs to owners of large plots of land.

Bernson said these ratepayers are being penalized under the new system because much of the water they use ends up on lawns and gardens, not down the sewer.

“If you flush a gallon, you should pay for a gallon, but you shouldn’t have to pay for what you don’t flush,” said Francine Oschin, Bernson’s assistant chief deputy.

Rising sewer rates--in part the price of cleaner water in Santa Monica Bay--have sparked fierce battles at City Hall in recent years.

These have often pitted Valley homeowners against less affluent inner-city residents with smaller lots and fewer outdoor plants to water, and hence, lower sewer rates.

Residential sewer charges are calculated through complex formulas based on water consumption. Sewage is not usually measured by meters, as is tap water, said Shahram Kharaghani, an engineer with the city Bureau of Sanitation.

Water flowing into a house should provide a rough measure of how much flows out--provided the portion used to water outdoor plants is subtracted, he said. But just how to calculate outdoor consumption has been cause for much argument.

The new system, approved last year by the City Council--including Bernson--is based on each household’s consumption of water the previous winter, a time of year when people would be expected to irrigate less, so their water consumption should most closely match their waste-water output.

But Miars, the retired postal bookkeeper, hasn’t seen any benefit because his automatic sprinkler system watered his lawn like clockwork all last winter.

As a result, he is now being charged a sewer rate based on a relatively high rate of winter water use. He doesn’t regret keeping the sprinklers on, he said: “That grass cost me over $1,000, I don’t want to throw that away,” he said.

The same is true for Alex Figueroa, whose most recent bimonthly sewer bill was a whopping $320. Figueroa also has an automatic watering system that ran all through last winter, boosting her water consumption rate. “I was perfectly fine with the old system,” she said, adding that she’s now learned her lesson and has stopped watering the lawn.

Kharaghani, of the Sanitation Bureau, argued against the changes Bernson is proposing, which include shortening the period that so-called “winter use” is measured and giving an extra discount to owners of large properties. “Once we start giving breaks to one group, others are going to want them,” he said.

Those unhappy with their rates should consider turning off their sprinklers during the rainy winter months, said Kharaghani, adding that such measures are only reasonable given that water is a scarce resource in Southern California.