Motivations for Measure U
Measure U was conceived and initially promoted by Bruce Holloway with the support of Debra Loewen. Holloway discovered that a rarely-used stipulation in Proposition 218 allowed voters to partially repeal a newly enacted rate structure simply by collecting at least five percent of customer signatures and thereby placing an initiative on the ballot. Holloway’s primary motivation for Measure U was a concern that the substantial increase in “fixed” charges was unfairly limiting the ability of low-income ratepayers to lower their bill by reducing their water consumption. He was also dissatisfied with the Proposition 218 requirement that over 50% of ratepayers must formally object to a new rate structure in order to reject it.
These motivations are likely to resonate with at least some voters. However, Measure U is also being promoted with three secondary justifications that demand closer scrutiny:
An implicit premise of Measure U is that SLVWD failed to consider the plight of low-income ratepayers in formulating its new rate structure. This is simply false. Part of the motivation for the tiered rate structure was to shift the burden away from low-income ratepayers to the extent that this was legally feasible and fiscally sound. The District also strengthened its Ratepayer Assistance Program in conjunction with the new rate structure.
Another implication of Measure U is that certain fixed charges can be easily eliminated, and that annual increases in the Service Charge can be capped, without causing any significant harm. This is not true. The “Capital Charge” and the “CZU Fire Surcharge” are specifically aimed at enabling the District to pursue critical infrastructure projects. There is nothing “unfair” about expecting everyone to pay their share, and eliminating these charges would force the District to engage in the lengthy and expensive process of developing a new rate structure while incurring monthly revenue losses of $170,000. Limiting increases to the Service Charge to 2% per year (whereas operating costs will almost certainly increase more rapidly) will be highly disruptive to the District’s fiscal stability.
The deeper misconception underlying Measure U is that it provides a more democratic and generally superior means of establishing water rates. It does not. The Directors on the Board are democratically elected and commit substantial time and energy toward understanding SLVWD business—like establishing water rates. In contrast, Measure U requires the general public to come up to speed on all the complicated issues involved in setting water rates before it can vote on a proposal originating from a small group of citizens acting on their own. This might make sense if the elected representatives were grossly incompetent. But if this were the case (and it is not), the obvious remedy would be to simply vote them out of office.
From this perspective, Measure U can be most generously understood as a product of both good intentions and serious misconceptions.
Previous: What led to the new SLVWD rate structure?