Los Angeles County Supervisors Look to Water Fee for New Developments, Potential Water Tax

Los Angeles County Supervisors last week considered two options intended to improve water supplies in the local area on an on-going basis. Supervisor Sheila Kuehl presented two motions, one focused on water-neutral developments or a water fee for new developments and the second which looks at tax options to pay for future drought conditions.

Kuehl proposed that new housing and commercial developments show no net increase in total water consumption. Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas who co-authored the water-neutral proposal, said that Los Angeles County should set an example regarding water conservation.

Water-neutral developments, also known as a net-zero water ordinance, could be achieved through initiatives such as water recycling, drought-tolerant landscaping and low-flow plumbing fixtures. Supervisor Don Knabe and business groups expressed concern the such requirements of new developments could result in less affordable housing and the county’s attempts to resolve homelessness.

Gary Toebben, president of the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce argued, through written correspondence with the board that, “There is a real concern that net zero water consumption…will drive up the cost of housing and exacerbate the current housing crisis. Knabe echoed Toebben’s comments saying, “Housing is a huge issue…this could have a dramatic impact on our ability to proceed.”

Kuehl’s proposal, also co-authored by Supervisor Hilda Solis, countered Knabe saying there are “ways we can work around this so we don’t put a squash on housing.” Kuehl shared that Santa Monica is a local city that has adopted a net-zero water ordinance and new construction has continued to increase.

Kuehl noted if projects can’t get to net-zero through their own initiatives and resources, that developers could support hospitals and schools with retrofit projects in order to achieve water neutral goals.

Developers have voiced their disagreement to Kuehl’s proposals. “This appears to be another attempt to ram through legislation in a rush,” said Dustan Batton with the L.A. County Business Federation (BizFed). Other business advocates encouraged the board to slow down and review net-zero ordinance economic impacts.

Kuehl’s motion anticipates a year-long process with input from developers and others. Ultimately the board’s vote concurred with that time-line for gathering input and asked that existing policies be reviewed before any new legislation is enacted.

Kuehl’s second motion addressed potential tax options for a Drought Resiliency Work Plan focusing on capturing rainfall and preventing runoff of trash and toxic substances. Kuehl noted the Federal Clean Water Act saying that federal and state authorities are looking for the county and its 88 cities to implement water efficiencies.

“We’re required to do it,” said Kuehl.

Former L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky initiated that “Clean Water, Clean Beaches” proposal in early 2013 as a means to pay for regional stormwater projects. Supervisors defeated that initiative 4-1 after heated input from both businesses and residents.  The measure was estimated to have cost $54 per typical single-family home.

Supervisor Michael Antonovich expressed concern that Kuehl’s drought plan was akin to Yaroslavsky’s earlier plan saying that, “property owners will still have to pay.” Antonovich said that state water bonds, already approved should instead be focused on building new reservoirs. He countered that the needed infrastructure to build the systems for rainwater capture and recycling should come from the state and federal government.

Though no funding for the proposal was included in Kuehl’s motion, the board directed the Department of Public Works to return in 45 days with a plan and to submit a proposal for funding in 90 days.

Kuehl noted not taking action on water conservation and new initiatives could result in penalties in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Over both praise from environmental groups and opposition voiced by business entities the board directed the Department of Public Works to return in 45 days with a plan and to submit a proposal for funding of the plan in 90 days.