Water Districts and City Hall Never Saw a Drought and Price Increase They “Didn’t” Like – Nobody “Needs” California Almonds – Court Rules “tiered water rates are unconstitutional” – Thank You Jim Reardon

In a ruling with major implications for California’s water conservation campaign, a state appeals court on Monday ruled that a tiered water rate structure used by the city of San Juan Capistrano to encourage conservation was unconstitutional.

The Orange County city used a rate structure that charged customers who used small amounts of water a lower rate than customers who used larger amounts.

But the 4th District Court of Appeal struck down San Juan Capistrano’s fee plan, saying it violated voter-approved Proposition 218, which prohibits government agencies from charging more for a service than it costs to provide it.

“We do hold that above-cost-of-service pricing for tiers of water service is not allowed by Proposition 218 and in this case, [the city] did not carry its burden of proving its higher tiers reflected its costs of service,” the court said in its ruling.

The stakes are high because at least two-thirds of California water providers, including the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, use some form of the tiered rate system.

Gov. Jerry Brown immediately lashed out at the decision, saying it puts “a straitjacket on local government at a time when maximum flexibility is needed. My policy is and will continue to be: employ every method possible to ensure water is conserved across California.”

Brown added state lawyers are now reviewing the decision.

It also remains unclear what effect the ruling would have on other agencies that use tiered rates.

The court said that tiered prices are legal as long as the government agency can show that each rate is tied to the cost of providing the water.

San Juan Capistrano resident Jim Reardon is part of a group challenging the city over its tiered water-rate structure.

“The water agency here did not try to calculate the cost of actually providing water at its various tier levels,” the court said of San Juan Capistrano. “It merely allocated all its costs among the price tier levels, based not on costs, but on pre-determined usage budgets.”

The highly anticipated decision comes in the wake of Brown’s executive order directing water agencies to develop rate structures that use price signals to force conservation. His order, which also requires a 25% reduction in urban water usage, marked the first mandatory water restrictions in state history and came as the state enters a fourth year of an unrelenting drought.

A group of San Juan Capistrano residents sued that city, alleging that its tiered rate structure resulted in arbitrarily high fees. The city’s 2010 rate schedule charged customers $2.47 per unit — 748 gallons — of water in the first tier and up to $9.05 per unit in the fourth. The city, which has since changed its rate structure, was charging customers who used the most water more than the actual cost to deliver it, plaintiffs said. The law, they argued, prohibits suppliers from charging more than it costs to deliver water.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power currently uses a two-tier rate structure, but agency officials have said they are preparing to roll out a revised system that would employ four tiers and that would make high water use even more costly than it is now.

Experts say 66% to 80% of California water providers use some type of tiered rates. A 2014 UC Riverside study estimated that tiered rate structures similar to the one used in San Juan Capistrano reduce water use over time by up to 15%.

An author of the study, Ken Baerenklau, said the effect was greatest on the heaviest water-users. In a previous interview with The Times, he said that if the court found in favor of the plaintiffs, as it did Monday, the decision “would be a big deal” because it would “stand in the face of significant momentum” toward tiered rates.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-water-rates-case-20150405-story.html

California almonds are a popular bagged treat in China’s convenience stores and supermarkets and a must-have item in holiday gift baskets.

As big a global money-maker as California’s agriculture is, though, it’s little more than a blip in the state’s economy. And that’s driving the debate on water use.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Almonds-get-roasted-in-debate-over-California-6209631.php

I can assure you that there is no legal basis for a shopping mall like the one you’re describing to forbid photography

Dave,

I’ve just been eavesdropping as a cc on this matter but I can assure you that there is no legal basis for a shopping mall like the one you’re describing to forbid photography on its premises, whether by a journalist or anyone else.

If a mall visitor were using a camera (or a shoehorn or a Baby Ruth) in a manner to disrupt, harass or deter the lawful activities of others, that conduct could be a basis for asking the person to leave.

But photography as such is a communicative activity which, pursuant to decisions of the California Supreme Court, cannot simply be barred by a proprietor of commercial property who has opened that property to traffic and casual congregation by the general public. Anyone rousted, ousted or arrested for taking a picture would have a tort case against the mall and/or the police that many lawyers would be happy to take.

By the way, instead of barring dogs from this mall, its owners should hire them as security guards and get rid of the two-legged specimens, who don’t seem to have the fine discrimination and judgment that most canines display.

P.S. If you are not already on the list, and if you do not object (just let me know), I will add your e-mail address to our free weekly newsletter subscriber list; please adjust any SPAM filters you may have accordingly.

Terry Francke
General Counsel
Californians Aware
http://www.calaware.org]http://www.calaware.org