active transportation and integrate “green streets,” which feature small rain gardens that collect, treat, and infiltrate stormwater runoff.


Power to the People Voter-approved changes to government tax policy was launched in 1978 with the approval of Prop. 13, a backlash against increasing property taxes. The ballot measure reduced and limited property taxes, required a higher consensus from the Legislature to increase taxes and specified that any local tax imposed to pay for specific governmental programs must be ap- proved by two-thirds of the voters. In 1996, Prop. 218 took the focus a


step further, requiring that no property- related fee or charge could be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two- thirds vote of the electorate residing in the affected area. The exception is for water, sewer and refuse collection, for which new or increased fees can only be imposed if a majority of ratepayers don’t protest. Legal interpretations have found that “sewer” does not include stormwater discharge and thus stormwater management, both for flood


control and pollution prevention, is faced with voter approval.


“Prop. 218 definitely gave greater transparency and accountability to local governments and from that per- spective, I think it was beneficial,” said Salt with Best Best & Krieger. “It has resulted in greater public participation which can also be a negative because essentially you have instances when a public agency needs to go forward with a very large capital project … where the public is fully involved but maybe a small [opposing] segment … that influ- ences elected officials in their decision- making. So I think that is a positive and a negative.”


There is concern that judges don’t necessarily have the background to understand the rate structure design process. Salt said it is “very trouble- some” that voters have to approve assessments for flood improvements and stormwater, given that municipal funds for those efforts are stretched. “Individuals feel emboldened to challenge rates now,” she said. “It’s not that the rates are incorrect but they may not like a particular project. It’s just this sense of entitlement to chal- lenge them in order to espouse a certain position as to how rate structure design is done and that truly is a function of the water agency in my opinion.”


The Eastern Municipal Water District’s Perris Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility.


Shawn Koorn, associate vice president with HDR Engineering, said the law “really hamstrings boards and councils and policy makers because even if it’s a small, vocal minority, [officials] are really leery of increasing rates.”


“A lot of it comes down to afford- ability and people not understanding what the cost of the service really is,” he said.


Protestors “are not arguing against the justification for the rate increase, they are just saying they can’t afford it,” Koorn said. “I believe there is a lot of truth to that but I also believe we may be paying $40 to $50 a month for water but we are paying $200 for cable each month.”


In some instances, fees have been struck down under Prop. 218, such as was the case in Palmdale, where an appellate court ruled that the Palmdale Water District failed to show that the proposed budget-based rates for one customer class were proportionate to the cost of providing water service in violation of Prop. 218. A decision in the case, Griffith v.


Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, “provides hope that some of the most vexing concerns regarding the inter- pretation of this law for ground water management have been laid to rest,


10


Western Water


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15