will pay at the same rate as someone who uses 3-5000 gals a month...so where is the incentive for businesses to conserve?...

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G048969.PDF

The Judges cite Article XII, Section 6 of the State Consitutiuon (passed in 1997 as Proposition 218):



I hate to say this but (b)(3) is a clear statement that any FEE imposed for do to being an owner of a home (and that includes water service) must be uniform when it comes to usage, i.e. the same fee per gallon if you use one gallon or a million gallons of water. Thus the PROPORTIONAL costs of providing water service is the same only if the charge per gallon is the same.

What is needed is to change this law. California does have a way to do so and if the State Legislature acts they can ask the people to repeal this Constitutional provision.

Now, I do expect an appeal, more to keep the subject off the backs of the State Legislature then anything else. The problem on appeal is how do you "Proportional" charge for different levels of usage? The Court did suggest that the charge everyone for treating "recycled" water could be unfair to those low water users who do NOT use such water, while industrial users of water could use such water but then sent that issue back to the trial court to make a ruling on. On appeal, the California Supreme Court will be asked to rule that Proportional can be done by increments as done by San Juan Capistrano Water but the court of Appeal had a problem with such a ruling, how does it meet the requirement that ALL FEES BE BASED ON ACTUAL USAGE AND SUCH FEES ONLY COVERS ACTUAL COSTS OF THE SERVICE (B) (1) of the above law.

Sorry Section 6 is poorly designed for a drought heavy area when it comes to water service, but it is the law of California and must be followed till changed. The Law clearly needs changed, but I do NOT see the Courts doing it for changing laws is the job of the State Legislature NOT the Courts.

How do regulatory issues, aside from using such sweeping and obtuse language, become entrenched in a Constitution?? Seems completely silly.

This was added to the California Constitution by Voter Initiative NOT legislative action. When California adopts a new proposition, it can be added to its State Constitution instead of its Code of State Statutes. The difference is how many people you need on the Petition, 5% of all voters in the previous election for changing a Statute, 8% of all voters if you are changing the State Constitution. Anyone can propose a change and if enough voters sign the petition it is on the ballot in California (and if voted for by the voters it joins the State Constitution).

Most other states with Voter Initiatives do NOT permit changes to their State Constitution, but California does. Thus you get these section that should NOT be in a State Constitution but are in California State Constitution for the people voted it in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition

I can tell you almost without a doubt that the people putting right-wing loudmouths like Mr. Perry up to this probably live in the Hunt Club.

The Hunt Club (known by many locals as the 'C*nt Club', for obvious reasons) is an upscale, virtually segregated gated community northeast of downtown known for its very lush landscaping; of all of San Juan's subdivisions, none would be curtailed in their water use by these tiers than they.

While certainly not the only million-dollar subdivision in Orange County, the Hunt Club is also known for its right-wing vitriol. Keep in mind that these are mostly your nouveau-riche, Teahadist Republicans - as opposed to the more respectable "country club" Republicans one tends to find in Newport Beach, for instance. Exceptions, as always, abound.

This story, then, seems to do not only with political chicanery aimed at Governor Brown or the right's childish objections to public oversight; but also about an issue near and dear to our hearts at DU: inequality. And one of the most stark reminders of this phenomenon you may ever see in this country, is the drive from west Capistrano -with its parched, shrubby front-yards- and the Hunt Club just one mile east, with its acre-sized lots carpeted over in mature fruit trees and Bermuda grass (sprinklers on at all hours).

Figured it would help!

LINK TO LA TIMES ARTICLE

I do my laundry on the weekend when electricity is cheaper.

But I am honestly surprised that the city challenged this, the constitution is very clear and it just seems to be tax money wasted.

telecom companies can charge tiered rates based on data usage...

So as long as it maximizes profits, it's ok, but if it's for conservation and the environment, it's a no-no...

... companies are not part of a government service.

It looks to me like the problem here is the law. The court had no choice the law is simple and clear. CA has a simple option, change the law perhaps through referendum.

But they probably won't and they will hence bear the consequences.

raise the water rate and give a rebate break to all those making under x amount of money.

not the most graceful solution but it would still put the sting to those over using water.

Appeals court seems wrong, but is correct.

Most voters bought into the Big Gummint anti-tax lies.. many still do.
It's the fault of voters nad idiots who promote the "Big Gummint takin' away our freedoms and money" lies.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_218,_Voter_Approval_Required_Before_Local_Tax_Increases_%281996%29

Just charging more is not going to work. Just means rich people will not conserve. But if the water shuts off after the monthly threshold is reached, you can be sure they would conserve.

You should let me buy water-credits from the peasants who have postage stamp lawns. You know, like pollution credits. Let their little mini-lawns dry up. Be fair!

Cactus, succulents, and deep rooted native perennials are the way to go.

There must be another way.