County's Steady Water Increases Spured by Conservation

The city of Sonoma is likely to see an increase of a little over 4 percent to its water rates in the upcoming fiscal year – but county officials say such an increase is normal and actually reflects trends of conservation and prudent spending.

The Sonoma County Water Agency, which supplies water to most of the county's municipalities, and provides 95 percent of the city of Sonoma's water, is recommending that water rates for the Sonoma area increase 4.28 percent, according to Brad Sherwood, Public Information Officer for the SCWA.

However, while SCWA's decision will have some impact on Sonoma City's overall fiscal situation, it will not have an immediate or direct impact on Sonoma residents because the city imposed its own year-over-year water rate increase of 5 percent for a five-year time period beginning in 2008 and ending in 2013, according to Milenka Bates, Sonoma's Public Works Director.

“We do our best to normalize the rate increases so that (residents) do not see a large increase in one year … You're not getting hit with a 30 percent increase one year and a 2 percent increase the next,” she said. “We have the water rate we are sold (by the SCWA) and we take that and determine what the program expenses are and if we need capital improvements and with that we do a planning document (to determine local rates).”

Sherwood said the SCWA has proposed the same flat-rate increase for the 2011-2012 fiscal year for every municipality it supplies, which equates to a 5 percent increase for most of the county but a 4.28 percent increase for the two districts – the City of Sonoma and Valley of the Moon – that are supplied by the Sonoma aquifer (all of which adds up to about an 80 cent per-month increase for the average Sonoma County household, he said).

The reason for the discrepancy is that the existing water rates for those two municipalities are slightly higher than those for other districts (making the flat-rate increase a lower percentage of the overall cost of water), due to the cost of a 2008 capital project to repair part of the Eldridge Madrone segment of the Sonoma Aquifer – which is being paid off gradually through an add-on to the district's water rate.

No proposed rate changes by the SCWA can take effect until they are ratified by the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors -- which is scheduled to vote on county water rates for the 2011-2012 fiscal year (which begins July 1) on April 19, Sherwood said.

“It's up in the air until the Board gives us their approval,” Sherwood said. “They work with a group called the Water Advisory Agency and the Board will listen to their recommendation. We work with their staff and the Board of Supervisors and our contractors – which are the cities we sell water to – and figure out a rate to charge. It's a collaborative effort.”

Sherwood said the SCWA's rates have been increasing at about a 5 percent clip for the last 15-20 years, adding that two key factors are driving those increases. One is the cost of the federally-mandated Russian River Biological Opinion assessment, a 15-year study aimed at protecting certain endangered species of fish in the Russian River through information-gathering and environmental improvement projects; the other is a trend toward conserving water among county residents, and a resulting decline in the volume of water being sold.

“We sold less water last year-- roughly 4 percent less last year from the year prior -- and when we're reducing deliveries by 4 percent it adds 4 percent to our rates,” Sherwood said. “It's usually a direct, one-to-one correlation (between the percentage drop-off in consumption and the resulting rate increase).”

Sherwood said the SCWA shaved operating and maintenance costs this year (through work furloughs and reduced power use, among other measures) to avoid having to impose an even larger rate increase of around 8 percent.

He also said that, even though rate increases are a corollary of water conservation, measures to save water actually prevent what could be more dramatic and unpredictable cost fluctuations.

“That is our goal – we are in the business of water conservation,” he said. “People say, 'Why do I have to conserve if you're going to charge me more money?' Well, there are unseen savings because the Water Agency and our contractors have to pay for capital improvement projects, such as expanding the pipelines and building more pumps, and that would be the outcome if use went up. It would cost millions of dollars to expand our water supply system.”

Bates said Sonoma has taken a number of different measures to help spearhead water conservation on a city level, including reducing water costs to residents who furnish their gardens with “drought-tolerant” plants, and imposing penalties on water-wasters. She said the city is aiming for a 20 percent reduction in water use by the year 2020 through a number of conservation policies.

“Residents have to fix any leaks they have, and they can't just spray water or waste water," she said. "If you do you'll get (a notice) and if you continue to waste or don't repair leaks we can impose a civil penalty.”

Such efforts appear to be paying off. According to figures provided by Sonoma Water Conservatin Coordinator Kathy Toohey, Sonoma's water usage has been steadily declining. Sonoma residents used 2,382 acre feet of water in 2005; 2,312 in 2007; 2,065 in 2009; and 1,951 in 2010.

“Sonoma is different from other cities,” Bates said. “It's small, but we have a lot of tourists, and we have a lot of hotels and other buisnesses that use water. We don't want to stop that, but we want to curtail it as much as possible.”