Laura Hart-Special to the Sun

It's time to fix that leaky faucet and maybe install a few “low flow” showerheads, because on Friday the California Public Utilities Commission issued a proposed decision regarding California Water Service Company's application for a rate hike to offset costs needed to comply with new federal and state water quality standards for arsenic levels in drinking water.

The commission will likely confirm the rate hikes at its next meeting, tentatively scheduled for Aug. 24, according to CPUC spokesperson, Terry Prosper. The rate hikes, which ominously started out as a request for a 75 percent increase, were met with tough opposition from residents of the valley who crowded into the public hearings held last year to inform the CPUC that the community could not afford to bare the burden of the elevated water prices.

With two plans on the table, one that would put the onus of expense directly on the residents of the KRV, and a second proposal which spreads the costs throughout the Cal Water customer base, the commission has decided to make a little history, while offering some relief to the community at the same time.

The proposed decision, said Diana Brooks an analyst with the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, an office of the CPUC that represents the concerns of the customers, contains a rate support fund which will give assistance to all Cal Water customers in the KRV.

“There's a little over a million dollars in assistance and that assistance is coming from the other Cal Water ratepayers across the state.”

Brooks said the plan would impose a small surcharge, less than a penny per 100 CCF used, on customers within the Cal Water district, allowing a credit for local residents. “It will come in the form of $20 per month, per customer, for everyone in the KV district.”

Generally, Brooks said, water rates are set district by district, based on the cost of service for each separate district. And Cal Water's original proposal for shared costs involved levying the increase on all its customers thereby lowering the requested rate hike overall. But in this case, circumstances required a novel approach to the problem. “This is the first time we've ever done something like this.”

Along with a $20 credit, the commission approved a low income rate assistance plan which would allow residents who qualify to receive additional savings in the amount of $10 per month. “So, if someone is low income, they're going to get a total of $30 per month.”

The proposed decision contains both good news and bad news for residents, though, in that there will be an increase in the meter charges and water costs will take a steep 33 percent climb, rising from $2.659 to $3.5642 per CCF of water used.

But things could've been worse, as the Kern County Board of Supervisors, after receiving recommendations from the Water Resources Committee who opposed the plan to spread the rate out over the customer base, drafted a letter to the CPUC in opposition of the proposed rate structure.

“It did come back to our board a couple months ago at the request of the water commission for the board of supervisors to adopt a resolution opposing this and the board passed that on a 4-to-1 vote. I voted against it,” said 1st district supervisor, Jon Mcquiston.

Mcquiston said he drafted his own letter to the CPUC encouraging the shared rate plan and opposing the resolution of his fellow county supervisors. He said the decision by the CPUC to alleviate the burden of the rate hikes from falling squarely on the shoulders of this mountain community is a fair one. “It's good news for the residents of the Kern River Valley.”

Cal Water manager, Chris Whitley, said while the company had little choice but to ask for a rate increase to meet i's obligation to comply with new water quality standards, it has backed all the proposals that would keep the valley from being unfairly impacted by the rate hikes.

“We proposed these programs because we care about our customers and understand that rate increases can be difficult,” he said.

With the government continuously passing new laws and regulations, such as, in this case, lowering the bar on arsenic levels requiring expensive corrective measures, and also in the case of the Kern Valley Hospital that has been given a deadline to bring some of its buildings into compliance with new state seismic regulations, there has been little in the way of support for businesses and communities impacted by these mandates.

McQuiston said although you can trace this water rate hike back to the Environmental Protection Agency, he does not know of any mitigating measures taken to address the costs of complying with the regulations.

“This is just a classic example of an unfunded mandate by the federal government, I'm not aware of any monetary programs in place to deal with the issue.” McQuiston said.

South Fork School District Board of Trustees member, Allan Jaffe, said the school district regularly faces mandates with no financial backing, and the schools often scramble to find funding to comply with new regulations.

“Don't pass unfunded mandates,” Jaffe said. “If you think it's so important then put some money behind it.”

Jaffe, who attended and spoke at the public hearings regarding the water rate increase, said he thinks the proposed decision is not as oppressive as some of the other potential remedies.

“This particular settlement is great. But caution is the word, one needs to recognize it's not forever.”

According to the CPUC, utility company's rates are examined in three year cycles, which leaves the door open for potential increases in the near future.

And what other implications does a steep increase in water costs cause in a rural, mountain community? Jaffe said, he thinks much like when gas prices rise people drive less and he is concerned that in this area, rated as a high fire risk area, that people will stop watering their landscaping to try and save money. And he believes this could lead to a potential fire safety issue.

Ken Stevens, Battalion Chief with the Kern County Fire Department, said during a recent wildfire in Wofford Heights, structures were spared from the flames because the homes had well tended landscaping.

“You know why the structures didn't burn in the Wofford Heights fire, because the structures were surrounded by properly irrigated landscaping. That and good firefighting,” Stevens said.

The fire chief said, each summer they measure the local vegetation for “live fuel moisture” which tells them how susceptible the brush is to burning.

“The live fuel moisture is the main determining factor on whether a plant will burn or not. So, yes, watering is very critical whether it's a natural vegetation or ornamental shrubbery that's been planted by the homeowner.”

Stevens said under watering plants and vegetation can lead to dangerous conditions around homes. If a fire were to start in the home, the fire could spread off the property via the dehydrated vegetation. He suggests removing landscaping that requires heavy watering and switching to less thirsty plants rather than just not watering.

“It would be a drought condition if people stopped watering. We learned a long time ago that ornamental shrubbery will burn just as readily as wildland fuels, natural vegetation, if it's not watered.”

Ed Royce, President of the Kern Valley Fire Safe Council, said he understands the concerns regarding residents improperly irrigating their landscaping due to the prohibitive costs of water. And agrees that this practice could lead to some dangerous conditions. Because of the fire related nature of the issue, Royce has decided to include the concerns on the Fire Safe Council's agenda at it's next board meeting in Aug.

Yoke Chan, Project lead for the DRA, said the fire safety issue was not, to her knowledge, considered during the rate hike process.

However, the proposed decision is not final until the commission confirms the proposal, possibly next month.

Although, there is no designated public comment period at this time, Marcus Nixon, assistant public advisor, with the CPUC‘s public advisory office, which helps consumers navigate through the red tape involved in rate hike proceedings, said residents can still share their concerns prior to the hearing date.

“The comment period has passed, but correspondence is always a route open and available to the public.”

Nixon said correspondence can be sent to the Public advisory office via email or regular mail, and all comments will be passed on to the commission. And any issues that may not have been brought out during the proceedings can be addressed, now, before the final decision is made.

“The commission values community input and our office will get involved in things that they may have overlooked.”

Comments can be sent to the Public Advisor's office at 320 W. 4th St. Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90013 or Public.advisor.LA@CPUC.ca.gov .