Per aspera ad astra

This is the third time I’ve seen the groundwater charge presentation, and I keep coming back to the chart of the projected increases. Here it is again:

How many entities feel confident enough to get up and say “You’re going to be paying almost 10% more per year, every year, into the foreseeable future”? I can’t imagine anyone doing that if the audience is paying attention. And here, of course, the audience isn’t paying attention.

I think that there are needs that require investment. Upgrades to water treatment plants, environmental enhancements to riparian habitat, and, although it’s not on the District’s list, investment in recycled water capacity are all necessary and expensive. Darrin Taylor said today that, were construction costs rising at their historical 3% per year rather than 7%, the projected water rate increases would be more like 4% per year. And the District itself has to buy water from the state and the federal government, at costs that are also set with little public oversight.

I’m less thrilled about paying for retiree health benefits, although I agree that those commitments must be honored. (As I said before, what’s funny is the fact that merely finding out how much they really cost has prompted changes.)

Is it a good thing that no one comes to the groundwater charge hearings? Is it better that the District has the freedom to raise rates as it sees fit, to fund programs that it feels are required? Of course I don’t think so, since my whole candidacy is based on the need for greater public oversight.

But it’s true that public approval for increased funding is hard to get. And the District isn’t out there selling the water treatment plant upgrades.