Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
Water officials mull new fee for home builders
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - North County Times | ∞
Some San Diego County water officials want to tack a new fee on to new housing.
Proponents say California is running out of water, and that the fee would force new development to cough up cash to offset the water it would use.
Opponents say it could add to the already high cost of housing and stymie development.
Proponents say the fee would offset new development's water use by generating money to for water conservation equipment such as low-flow shower heads and toilets, or by finding and buying "new" supplies, such as water recycling and seawater desalination.
"You could replace 5,000 toilets in existing developments," said Keith Lewinger, the Fallbrook Public Utility District official who proposed the idea at the San Diego County Water Authority's December meeting. "It (the fee) really primes the conservation pump."
But other water officials who oppose the idea said developers already pay expensive water meter fees to tap into existing water supplies.
They say a new fee would jack up housing prices, could create a de facto moratorium on home-building, and represented a knee-jerk reaction to the state's current water-supply worries.
Southern Californians are facing a possible 30 percent cut to their State Water Project supplies from Northern California in 2008 because of a court ruling to protect fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The region relies mainly on water imported from Northern California and the Colorado River - finite supplies that are not growing larger like the state's population.
Water officials statewide have called for people to voluntarily cut their water use to stretch supplies next year. Meanwhile, many San Diego County farmers and growers - including those in Fallbrook - have already been handed mandatory 30 percent water cuts.
Those actions have rankled some residents. They argue that if there were "real" water shortages, developers should be forced to stop building new homes.
Lewinger said those arguments prompted his proposal, which is expected to spark vigorous debate.
At the Water Authority's Dec. 6 board meeting, its Water Planning Committee, which includes Lewinger, voted to direct the agency's staff to talk with water agency general managers countywide, and return with possible "offset fee" proposals next year.
"I imagine this will take a minimum of six months to even come up with a straw man, a proposal," Lewinger said recently. "It (the proposal) just seemed like the right thing to do at the right time."
Two of the Water Authority board members who voted against talking about the fee idea were Mark Watton, general manager of Chula Vista's Otay Water District, and Jim Barrett, director of the city of San Diego's water department.
Both Watton and Barrett said a new fee would just mean more money for home buyers and home builders to pay.
"If you build a new house, when you go to the Otay Water District, you're already paying about $10,000 for a new (water) meter," Watton said.
Watton said water agencies needed to get people who already have homes to use water more wisely.
"Do existing homeowners need to be putting 80 inches of water onto their lawns each year?" he said. "That's more than the Amazon."
Barrett said Lewinger's fee idea could be the same as putting a moratorium on all new building. He said that was because the fee would force developers - who are in the business of building homes and not finding water supplies - to try to find "new" water to supplement Colorado River and delta supplies. Barrett suggested that water agencies such as the Water Authority were having trouble finding "new" water.
"If (new) water was real and obtainable, wouldn't we all be pursuing it now?" Barrett asked at the December meeting.
Barrett also said last week that the state's current water-supply problems could be a short-term situation, and did not warrant creating a long-term fee to tack on to development.
Barrett said state water officials and politicians could ultimately craft new pipeline and dam projects to address the delta's environmental problems.
But Lewinger said that even if the delta's problems disappeared, Southern California's key imported water supplies were not going to get bigger - meaning new development could stretch existing supplies to the breaking point.
Watton suggested that Lewinger was being overly sensitive to the complaints from growers in rural Fallbrook who have had to take 30 percent cuts. Watton, and others, said those growers and farmers voluntarily signed contracts to swallow the first water cuts in hard times in exchange for discounted water rates.
"I'm very sympathetic to the growers," Watton said, "but what gets lost in the story is that they made a business decision all those years ago to take discounted rates."
Others think Lewinger's fee proposal is a good one.
One of those was Water Authority Board Member Gary Arant, the longtime general manager of the Valley Center Municipal Water District - which also has many agricultural customers facing mandatory water cuts.
"I think it's an idea worth exploring," he said. "When you are facing a question about water supply, and asking existing customers to reduce usage, the question that keeps coming back to you is, 'How can you continue to allow new development to take place?' "
More Stories
Advertisement
skeptic wrote on Dec 23, 2007 6:14 AM:In God we trust, all others bring data. The builders are soooo altruistic and keep saying building fees jack up home prices. Common sense says that is not true AND why is there never data used to back up that claim?_____ Supply and demand pricing IS not based on production costs and profit margin, otherwise everyone would always make a profit. RIght? In the current market the fee are hitting the giant profit margin, not the consumer's wallet___If it were true, and it is not, maybe the fees are a still a good thing. Here is why: 1. The housing market is tumbling and price deflation is causing buyers to hold off. Maybe we can use fees to prop up the housing prices ;) ________Another reason is fairness and reality. One, someone has to pay for the increased capacity in the infrastructure. Isn't it most fair to make the people making the money off the liability increase pay for their impacts? If the housing market couldn't sustain the increased prices maybe that says something. Why should the rest of us subsidize developers GIANT profits margins?
Darin wrote on Dec 23, 2007 7:43 AM:People who live here often forget we live in an arid desert community and the only reason things are green is because we throw thousands of acre feet of water on them. Those greenbelts along our boulevards and our lush lawns look great but use tons of water. Turn on your irrigation and take a look at your meter turning at nosebleed velocity to keep up. Reclaimed water costs almost double to produce as raw water, and then you need cross connection experts to make sure some clown does not tie in to the potable water supply. Desal is one option, however you have to buy the same ammount of water day in and day out, so if your demand goes down you are stuck having to move the water around or find storage. We cannot continue on this path without the taps eventually running dry.
GFN wrote on Dec 23, 2007 7:51 AM:I totally agree with Skeptic: "The builders are soooo altruistic and keep saying building fees jack up home prices. Common sense says that is not true AND why is there never data used to back up that claim?" Here's data: the home prices skyrocketed from 2001-2005 by 80% or more. Was it because of the increase in water fees? NO!!! Did the Builing Industry of America, with it's altruistic members who were making tens of millions on every project more than they anticipated, share some of the "windfall profits" with the water departments, the schools, or the traffic funds during this glorious period? NO!!! They should change the acronym to BIG...building industry of greed.
bob the builder wrote on Dec 23, 2007 7:54 AM:Either fees or moratorium will work. Very late but still better than nothing. Vote out all incumbents they are to blame for allowing reckless development.
GFN wrote on Dec 23, 2007 8:16 AM:It is absurd to ask current residents to cut back on their water usuage because there is a water crisis, and there is, without putting a moritorium on new growth until new water sources become available. A moritorium will force the government, builders, and those related to the building industry to come up with some solutions pretty quick, something they should have done during the halcyonic days of the early 2000's.
JSten wrote on Dec 23, 2007 8:49 AM:Its ironic that the Fallbrook PUD manager is taking the lead on this when there seems to be lax conservation enforcement on the home front. I live near their treatment plant and you can usually see water running down the street in the mornings and evenings right near the plant on Alturas. Imposing new fees on developments is nothing new. If the fees are targeted to specific programs intended to develop new supplies to serve the new developments, that it is appropriate and necessary. However, added fees and costs will not necessarily cut demand. Water rates have had an historic weak effect on demand and once the public gets used to the new rates, demand goes back up again. Having a base line allotment of water per property is perhaps the only way to curb demand. Provide a basic amount of water, for a reasonable rate, and escalate for those who cant seem to rein in their usage. There can be provisions for landscaping and other factors, but once the base line is set exceeding the base line would be costly. Wanton water waste should be against the law, with enforcement. We see all around us those that don't seem to care about the cost and effect of wasting water. We should focus on these people right now.
North County Havoc wrote on Dec 23, 2007 11:00 AM:I think Bob the Builder has it right...BILL HORN...RECKLESS DEVELOPMENT....Yep....pretty much describes what has happened on his watch, with his help and leadership (oh yea...Pardee too!)
transplant wrote on Dec 23, 2007 12:21 PM:we got a nuclear power plant in san diego county, how about using it to make clean water?
Derek wrote on Dec 23, 2007 9:01 PM:People won't voluntarily conserve until the cost of not conserving is no longer affordable.
Think a little deeper wrote on Dec 23, 2007 9:05 PM:So if people like Bob the Builder are correct, if the builders stop caving into the demands for their product by consumers, the water using population will decrease? How so? More people use more water. And more people aren't being caused by building more houses, they are being caused by . . . well, you know what. So shall we start making you know what illegal? No more babies, people. Those babies are causing a water shortage. Look at the real cause and effect and see if anyone is interested in reducing the birth rate. I have a hunch that there won't be any takers. Quit blaming the symptoms and start dealing with a reality that no one is willing to change or curtail. It's freakonmics 101. Find new water sources or stop having babies.
Either/ Or wrote on Dec 24, 2007 8:14 AM:It is as plain as the nose on your face ! Have new project builders pay an increased fee to provide funds for retrofitting and conservation measures as well as utilize the same conservation measures OR create a moratorium on new hook-ups until the water shortage is over. There is no choice. Having existing homeowners cut back their water use to provide the water for new developments is ABSURD. If the water districts want conservation by everybody, they MUST enact new practices. People know when they are being flim-flammed.
Tighten Our Belts ??? wrote on Dec 24, 2007 8:18 AM:We cannot be asked to "tighten our belts" when the water districts won't place a moratorium on new water hook-ups. They just want everybody to conserve so they can sell more meters and sell more service. We have just so much water available. Either NO NEW METERS or a hefty fee on developers to fund the new conservation measures that will be required IF they do allow new hook-ups.
anotherview wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:34 AM:Statewide, farmers overuse and waste water. Farming activity now consumes about 85 percent of the available state water supply. Households use about 5 percent. The rest goes to government, industrial, and commercial. Simple math shows that forcing farmers statewide to lower their water use by only 5.88 percent would equal the amount of water households use. Further, about 30 percent of farm irrigation water goes to waste in runoff from the land. Via political pressure, however, farmers resist (1) improving their farm irrigation practices and (2) recycling farm water runoff. The Golden State has plenty of water available, but the distribution and use of this water does not happen rationally. Farmers grab most of the water, and then waste nearly a third of it. So any fair and sound solution to the water supply problem must require farmers statewide to stop using and wasting so much water. Then others will have enough water.
To: Anotherview wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:59 AM:Maybe statewide our farmers use 85 percent of the available state water supply, but here in San Diego County, they use 11 % of our water supply. They are already conserving. I truly wonder what the "water laws" actually are. Don't the people who get the water first have more control over how much they use. The water is on their land, isn't it. I would like to know where the "Water Rights" actually lie. I think that we in Southern California are huge consumers of the water.
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (9572)
- TEMECULA: Protesters line intersection (5874)
- ESCONDIDO: 3 DUI arrests, 46 impounds at checkpoint (4708)
- ESCONDIDO: City's dreams of an 'upscale' downtown may be dying (4440)
- ESCONDIDO: Victim's roommate recalls July 4 shooting, friends gather for vigil (4120)
Advertisement