Chaos as tiered water rates struck down by court (Orange: costs, storage)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

I washed my trucks on my front lawn last night. Lots of stares fom people driving by and a few comments from the neighbors.

Water Wars coming soon to a water district near you.

Washing cars at home was disallowed years ago, here in Santa Fe. People take them to car washes, or just don't bother to wash them. Not a big deal.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Washing cars at home was disallowed years ago, here in Santa Fe. People take them to car washes, or just don't bother to wash them. Not a big deal.

California duster. A fabulous invention.

http://calcarduster.com

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

California duster. A fabulous invention.

California Car Duster Company - Home Page

My brother loves those! He uses them to dust in the house.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by GoldenZephyr

Fantastic ruling, water rates shouldn't be profit centers.

However, as is been said, if the government was serious about conserving water, they wouldn't be spending all their energy worried about penalties for showers, lawns, and glasses of water in restaurants. The focus would be on the fact of more water is used for Almonds than all the water used by every business, home and lawn in Los Angeles and San Francisco combined over multiple years.

Since Jerry is welcoming even more almond orchards while droning on constantly about peoples showers, I know he is not serious about the drought, but instead interested in advancing a political agenda and inflicting maximum suffering on the people of California.

I read the case and it does have solid legal reasoning based on a former California proposition with which I was not familiar. In any case, I can easily see how someone could consider tiered payment schemes as nothing more than a tax. I think it is a tax and since the proposition does not permit Governor Brown's tiered system, we have a problem. After all, we do not pay on a tier system for most services we receive in the private sector. Of course with utilities, a tiered system permits the state to tax the rich to subsidize the cost of utilities for poor persons. The distinction I guess is that water is in short supply, and likely always will be in this highly populated arid environment. Therefore, there are public policy arguments that operate in favor of the tiered system that make it tolerable for me. Otherwise, I have to agree that in general, such actions are government overreach.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I read the case and it does have solid legal reasoning based on a former California proposition with which I was not familiar. In any case, I can easily see how someone could consider tiered payment schemes as nothing more than a tax. I think it is a tax and since the proposition does not permit Governor Brown's tiered system, we have a problem. After all, we do not pay on a tier system for most services we receive in the private sector. Of course with utilities, a tiered system permits the state to tax the rich to subsidize the cost of utilities for poor persons. The distinction I guess is that water is in short supply, and likely always will be in this highly populated arid environment. Therefore, there are public policy arguments that operate in favor of the tiered system that make it tolerable for me. Otherwise, I have to agree that in general, such actions are government overreach.

punish people instead of fixing the problem.

[NinaN]

I wonder if this will lead to getting rid of tiers in electricity. Same concept right?

[davidt1]

If there is no tiered system, basic rate will most likely be raised. the middle class will be hit the hardest. Golf courses with elite memberships that include judges, lawyers and politicians will benefit.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by davidt1

If there is no tiered system, basic rate will most likely be raised. the middle class will be hit the hardest. Golf courses with elite memberships that include judges, lawyers and politicians will benefit.

All it would mean is everyone pays the same amount per gallon.

when did making people pay the same mount for the same product become a jab at the middle class?

[davidt1]

I don't know how tiered water rate is, but I assume it's similar to the tiered electricity rate I am paying. Under this tiered electricity everyone is paying the same. Those who choose to use more than their allotted amount pay more for the extra usage.

If you choose to use more, you pay more. How is this a tax on the rich, or anyone for that matter?

If the base rate is raised, it won't affect everyone the same way.

The poor probably get subsidies.

A rate increase will take a larger percentage out of a $50K middle salary than it does a $250K salary.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by davidt1

I don't know how tiered water rate is, but I assume it's similar to the tiered electricity rate I am paying. Under this tiered electricity everyone is paying the same. Those who choose to use more than their allotted amount pay more for the extra usage.

If you choose to use more, you pay more. How is this a tax on the rich?

If the base rate is raised, it won't affect everyone the same way.

The poor probably get subsidies.

A rate increase will take a larger percentage out of a $50K middle salary than it does a $250K salary.

Every other product that is consumed, which water is one of them, the rich and poor pay the same amount. If you go to the gas station the price of gas doesn't change based on your income, same for the grocery store or the car lot.

Relatively speaking, water is very cheap, especially when you are not watering a lawn. Expecting people to pay for the infrastructure to treat and deliver said water is not unreasonable.

Not everything has to be a battle between the rich and the poor.