By Mark Muir
The San Diego County Water Authority and its 24 member agencies have an unyielding commitment to providing a safe and reliable water supply for 3.3 million people at a reasonable cost. For the San Diego region, that results in a constant, drought-resilient supply of water that meets rigorous state and federal quality standards.
It’s not like that everywhere in California. Some rural, low-income communities face a different reality: their drinking water contains elevated levels of contaminants such as nitrates and arsenic. This public health issue and social justice challenge demands focused leadership by state officials to solve.
Unfortunately, legislation being considered in Sacramento would magnify the very problems it was designed to address by imposing a statewide tax. The tax would add approximately $130 million a year to residential and commercial water bills and approximately $30 million in the form of a taxes on fertilizer and dairy products. As a regional public water agency, we absolutely support the intent of the bill — improving drinking water quality in disadvantaged communities — but its approach is counterproductive. The problems are real, but a water tax as the funding source is wrong.
Senate Bill 623 aims to improve water security for disadvantaged communities through a “Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fee.” Make no mistake: This is a tax, and taxing Californians for something as essential as water does not make sense. It will increase the cost of water, making it less affordable. It also will put upward pressure on food prices. Call it a lose-lose for low-income residents — and everyone else.
That’s not the only problem with this bill: Imposing a statewide tax on water bills would force local water agencies to collect taxes for Sacramento. If past is precedent, state government won’t pay for this service, which will put more upward pressure on local agencies that already are stretched thin — and ultimately on water rates. In the end, ratepayers face the double-whammy of paying higher taxes and paying water agencies to collect and distribute those funds.
Additionally, the adage about the camel’s nose getting under the tent applies here. California is rife with programs in search of funding — low-income water rate assistance, forestry health and watershed protection, to name a few. Advocates and agencies already are eyeing revenues from a potential water tax, so what begins as a modest increase for ratepayers could grow rapidly as more and more projects force their way into the “tent.”
A better approach is to use money from existing sources such as the state general fund, federal safe drinking water funds, the newly authorized state cap-and-trade program, and general obligation bond funds. That would match the way the state pays for other programs and initiatives identified as statewide priorities, without taxing the very products and services that we all agree should be affordable and accessible to all Californians.
Mark Muir is chair of the San Diego County Water Authority and represents the San Dieguito Water District.
>> Subscribe to Times of San Diego’s free daily email newsletter! Click hereFollow Us: