2015 CALIFORNIA-NEVADA WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY Published by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. and California-Nevada Section of the American Water Works Association TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 04 05 13 16 19 FACTORS AFFECTING RATES OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY CALIFORNIA WATER RATE SURVEY RESULTS NEVADA WATER RATE SURVEY RESULTS DROUGHT RATES WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY RESULTS Tables 09 Table 1: Water Charges by Region Comparison 12 Table 2: Connection Fee Charge Comparison Figures 14 Figure 14: Billing Frequency for Nevada Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys 14 Figure 15: Rate Structure for Nevada Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 14 Figure 16: Rate Structure Comparison for Nevada Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys 15 Figure 17: Water Charge Comparisons for Nevada Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys Figure 1: Billing Frequency for California Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 15 Figure 18: Rate Update Frequency for Nevada Agencies 17 Figure 19: Water Agencies with Drought Rates 05 Figure 2: Billing Frequency Comparison for California Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys 17 Figure 20: Drought Rate Design 06 Figure 3: Rate Structure for California Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 17 Figure 21: Agencies with Water Budgets - Drought Response 06 Figure 4: Rate Structure Comparison for California Agencies Reported in both 2011 and 2013 Surveys 18 Figure 22: California Agencies - Conservation Targets (Count) 07 Figure 5: Rate Structure by Regions for California Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 20 Figure 23: Water Agency Respondents and Wastewater Service 07 Figure 6: Rate Structure by Region for California Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys 20 Figure 24: Wastewater Billing Frequency 20 Figure 25: Wastewater Rate Structure 08 Figure 7: Water Charges by Region for California Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 20 Figure 26: Volumetric Charge Basis 20 Figure 8: Water Charges Comparison for California Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys Figure 27: Water Use Cap on Wastewater Volumetric Component 22 Figure 28: Wastewater Agency Charges 10 Figure 9: Fixed Charge Comparison 22 Figure 29: Wastewater Agency Charges Without Outliers 10 Figure 10: Variable Charge Comparison 24 Figure 30: Average Wastewater Charges by Region 11 Figure 11: 2015 Average Monthly Water Charges Comparison by County in California 24 Figure 31: Wastewater Rate Structures by Region 12 Figure 12: Rate Update Frequency for California Agencies 24 Figure 32: Agencies Providing Recycled Water Service 24 Figure 33: Pricing of Recycled Water 05 08 14 Figure 13: Billing Frequency for Nevada Agencies Reported in 2015 Rate Survey FOREWORD The 2015 California-Nevada Water and Wastewater Rate Survey is a joint effort between the California-Nevada Section of the American Water Works Association (CA-NV AWWA) and Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC). CA-NV AWWA is a ‘’”‘ϐ‹– ’”‘ˆ‡••‹‘ƒŽ ƒ••‘…‹ƒ–‹‘ †‡†‹…ƒ–‡† –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ Š‹‰ŠǦ“—ƒŽ‹–› –‡…Š‹…ƒŽ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ –‘ ‹–• ™ƒ–‡” —–‹Ž‹–› ‡„‡”• ƒ† ‰‡‡”ƒŽ ’—„Ž‹…Ǥ ‹• ƒ ƒ–‹‘ƒŽŽ› ”‡…‘‰‹œ‡† ™ƒ–‡” ƒ† ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” ϐ‹ƒ…‡ǡ ”ƒ–‡ǡ ƒ† ƒƒ‰‡‡– …‘•—Ž–‹‰ ϐ‹”Ǥ Š‹• •—”˜‡› ™ƒ• ϐ‹”•– …‘†—…–‡† „› ‹ ʹͲͲͷ –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ‹Ǧ†‡’–Š ƒƒŽ›•‹• ‘ˆ ™ƒ–‡” ”ƒ–‡• ƒ† …Šƒ”‰‡• ‹ –Š‡ –ƒ–‡ ‘ˆ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǤ  ʹͲͲ͹ǡ Ǧ ƒ† ˆ‘”‡† ƒ ’ƒ”–‡”•Š‹’ –‘ ’”‘†—…‡ –Š‡ ‡š– ‡†‹–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ”ƒ–‡ •—”˜‡› ‹…Ž—†‹‰ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ƒ† ‡˜ƒ†ƒǤ Š‡ ʹͲͳͷ •—”˜‡› ’”‘˜‹†‡• ˜ƒŽ—ƒ„Ž‡ ‹•‹‰Š–• ‹–‘ ’”‹…‹‰ ’”ƒ…–‹…‡• ‡„”ƒ…‡† „› —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ƒ…”‘•• ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ƒ† ‡˜ƒ†ƒǤ ’‡…‹ϐ‹…ƒŽŽ› ‹…Ž—†‡† ‹ –Š‹• ›‡ƒ”ǯ• •—”˜‡›ǣ » ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ „› —–‹Ž‹–› •›•–‡• ™‹–Š †‹˜‡”•‡ ‘™‡”•Š‹’ ƒ† ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‰ …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…• •‡”˜‹‰ ƒ –‘–ƒŽ ‘ˆ ͳ͸͹ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ƒ† ͳͲ ‡˜ƒ†ƒ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• » ƒ–‡ …ƒŽ…—Žƒ–‹‘• ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ’‡”–‹‡– †ƒ–ƒ ‰”‘—’‡† „› …‘—–› ƒ† •‘”–‡† „› …‹–› » ”‘—‰Š– ”ƒ–‡• ƒ† •—”…Šƒ”‰‡• ˆ‘” ™ƒ–‡” ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ˆƒ…‹‰ ™ƒ–‡” •—’’Ž› •Š‘”–ƒ‰‡• ƒ† ƒ†ƒ–‘”› …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ – •Š‘—Ž† „‡ ‘–‡† –Šƒ– –Š‡ …Šƒ”‰‡• •Š‘™ ˆ‘” ‡ƒ…Š ƒ‰‡…› ƒ”‡ †‡–‡”‹‡† „› –Š‡ ƒ‰‡…› –‘ ‹‹‹œ‡ ‡””‘”•Ǥ Š‡ ”‡’‘”– ‹• ƒ ’‘™‡”ˆ—Ž –‘‘Ž ˆ‘” …‘’ƒ”ƒ–‹˜‡ „‡…Šƒ”‹‰Ǥ ”ƒ™‹‰ …‘…Ž—•‹‘• ˆ”‘ ”ƒ–‡ …‘’ƒ”‹•‘•ǡ Š‘™‡˜‡”ǡ •Š‘—Ž† „‡ †‘‡ ‘Ž› ƒˆ–‡” ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ •‡˜‡”ƒŽ …‘—‹–› …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…• ȋ•—…Š ƒ• ‰‡‘‰”ƒ’Š›ǡ …Ž‹ƒ–‡ǡ ƒ† •‡”˜‹…‡ ƒ”‡ƒǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• –Š‡ —•‡ ‘ˆ –ƒš‡•ǡ •—„•‹†‹‡• ƒ† ‰”ƒ–•ȌǤ Š‡ †‡–‡”‹ƒ–• ‘ˆ —–‹Ž‹–› ”ƒ–‡• ƒ”‡ ˜ƒ”‹‡† ƒ† …‘’Ž‡š ƒ† †‘ ‘– ‡…‡••ƒ”‹Ž› ”‡ϐŽ‡…– –Š‡ –”—‡ …‘•– ‘ˆ •‡”˜‹…‡Ǥ Ž‘™ ”ƒ–‡ ‘” ƒ Š‹‰Š ”ƒ–‡ †‘‡• ‘– ‡…‡••ƒ”‹Ž› ‡ƒ –Šƒ– ƒ —–‹Ž‹–› ‹• ‘”‡ ‘” Ž‡•• ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡–ǡ ”‡•’‡…–‹˜‡Ž›Ǥ • ƒ ”‡•—Ž–ǡ –Š‡ •—”˜‡› ϐ‹†‹‰• ƒŽ‘‡ •Š‘—Ž† ‘– „‡ —•‡† –‘ Œ—†‰‡ –Š‡ ’‡”ˆ‘”ƒ…‡ ‘ˆ ƒ› ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ —–‹Ž‹–› ‘” –‘ ‰‡‡”ƒŽ‹œ‡ ƒ„‘—– ƒŽŽ ™ƒ–‡”Ǧ•‡…–‘” —–‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ Ž•‘ǡ ‘—” ”ƒ–‡ •—”˜‡› —•‡• ƒ •ƒ’Ž‡ –Šƒ– ‹• ‘– •–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽŽ› ”ƒ†‘Ǥ ˜‡ ™‹–Š –Š‡•‡ …‘•–”ƒ‹–•ǡ –Š‡ ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ …‘–ƒ‹‡† ‹ –Š‡ •—”˜‡› •Š‘—Ž† „‡ „‡‡ϐ‹…‹ƒŽ –‘ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• –Š”‘—‰Š‘—– ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ƒ† ‡˜ƒ†ƒǤ – ƒ ‹‹—ǡ ‹– …ƒ „‡ —•‡† –‘ ‹†‡–‹ˆ› —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• –Šƒ– Šƒ˜‡ •‹‹Žƒ” …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…• –‘ ‹…Ž—†‡ ‹ ƒ ‘”‡ ‹Ǧ†‡’–Š „‡…Šƒ”‹‰ ‡ˆˆ‘”–Ǥ ‡ ”‡…‘‰‹œ‡ –Š‡ ˜ƒŽ—ƒ„Ž‡ …‘–”‹„—–‹‘ ƒ†‡ „› –Š‡ —‡”‘—• ™ƒ–‡” —–‹Ž‹–› ’”‘ˆ‡••‹‘ƒŽ• ™Š‘ †‘ƒ–‡† –Š‡‹” –‹‡ ƒ† ‡‡”‰› –‘ –Š‹• ‡ˆˆ‘”–Ǥ Š‡‹” ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‘ ‹ –Š‹• •—”˜‡› ‹• ‰”‡ƒ–Ž› ƒ’’”‡…‹ƒ–‡†Ǥ Timothy Worley, Ph.D. Sudhir Pardiwala Executive Director California-Nevada Section, AWWA Executive Vice President Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. FACTORS AFFECTING RATES 4SHKHSX Q@SDR @QD HMBQD@RHMF @S @ O@BD E@RSDQ SG@M HMƦ@SHNM compounded with the drought and water shortages there is increasing public interest and political sensitivity to the rate setting process. In California, with the passing of Proposition 218 and the recent San Juan Capistrano court ruling, agencies are increasingly vulnerable to customer challenges in court. Agencies are struggling with controlling costs and reduced revenues from QDCTBDC R@KDR (MBQD@RHMF QDUDMTDR EQNL ƥWDC BG@QFDR HR gaining importance to achieve greater revenue stability. Factors impacting rate increases have not changed much over the last few years. However, reduced water sales has had a great impact on rates over the last couple of years and will continue to be a critical factor in the immediate future. Some of the factors that impact rates are described in the following. 1 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 WATER SHORTAGE ƒ–‡” •Š‘”–ƒ‰‡• ƒ”‡ …—””‡–Ž› „‡‹‰ ‡š’‡”‹‡…‡† –Š”‘—‰Š‘—– ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ƒ† ‡˜ƒ†ƒ ƒ• –Š‡ ”‡‰‹‘ Ž‘‘• –‘™ƒ”† ƒ ϐ‹ˆ–Š ›‡ƒ” ‘ˆ †”‘—‰Š–Ǥ  ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǡ ‹ ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”ǡ ™ƒ–‡” ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ƒ”‡ ˆƒ…‹‰ ƒ†ƒ–‘”› ™ƒ–‡” …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ –ƒ–‡Ǥ ‘˜‡”‘” ”‘™ǯ• š‡…—–‹˜‡ ”†‡” ǦʹͻǦͳͷ ‘ ’”‹Ž ͳ †‹”‡…–‡† –Š‡ –ƒ–‡ Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to develop ƒ‰‡…›Ǧ•’‡…‹ϐ‹… ™ƒ–‡” …‘•—’–‹‘ ”‡†—…–‹‘• –‘ ƒ…Š‹‡˜‡ ƒ •–ƒ–‡™‹†‡ ʹͷ ’‡”…‡– ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‹ ™ƒ–‡” —•‡Ǥ ‰‡…‹‡• ƒ…”‘•• –Š‡ •–ƒ–‡ ˆƒ…‡ ”‡†—…–‹‘• „‡–™‡‡ ‡‹‰Š– ƒ† ͵͸ ’‡”…‡–Ǥ Š‘”–ƒ‰‡• …ƒ ƒŽ•‘ „‡ …ƒ—•‡† „› ”‡‰—Žƒ–‘”› ”‡•–”‹…–‹‘• ‘ ƒ……‡••‹‰ ™ƒ–‡” ‘” ‘˜‹‰ ™ƒ–‡” –Š”‘—‰Š ƒ ƒ“—‡†—…– •›•–‡Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ –Š‡”‡ ‹• …‘…‡” –Šƒ– …Ž‹ƒ–‡ …Šƒ‰‡ ™‹ŽŽ ”‡†—…‡ –Š‡ winter snow pack in local mountains that serve as a ƒ–—”ƒŽ •–‘”ƒ‰‡ •›•–‡ ƒ† ‡šƒ…‡”„ƒ–‡ –Š‡ †—”ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‹–‡•‹–› ‘ˆ †”‘—‰Š–Ǥ —…Š ™ƒ–‡” •Š‘”–ƒ‰‡• –›’‹…ƒŽŽ› Šƒ˜‡ ƒ ƒ†˜‡”•‡ ‡ˆˆ‡…– ‘ –Š‡ ϐ‹ƒ…‹ƒŽ Š‡ƒŽ–Š ‘ˆ ƒ —–‹Ž‹–›ǡ Ž‡ƒ†‹‰ –‘ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡† ’”‡••—”‡ –‘ ”ƒ‹•‡ ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ Decreases in water sales from restrictions are a major ˆƒ…–‘” ‹ ”ƒ–‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡• ‘˜‡” –Š‡ Žƒ•– …‘—’Ž‡ ‘ˆ ›‡ƒ”•Ǥ GROWING INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS ture in California is close to or has exceeded its life ‡š’‡…–ƒ…› ƒ† ™‹ŽŽ ”‡“—‹”‡ ”‡’Žƒ…‡‡– ‹ –Š‡ ‡ƒ” ˆ—–—”‡Ǥ  ƒ› …ƒ•‡•ǡ –Š‹• ™‹ŽŽ „‡ –Š‡ ϐ‹”•– –‹‡ –Šƒ– —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ™‹ŽŽ ˆƒ…‡ •‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ– …ƒ’‹–ƒŽ ‡‡†• –Šƒ– ™‹ŽŽ ‘– „‡ ˆ—†‡† „› ‰”‘™–Š ‹ –Š‡ …—•–‘‡” „ƒ•‡Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ –Š‹• ‡š‹•–‹‰ ‹ˆ”ƒ•–”—…–—”‡ ”‡’ƒ‹” ƒ† ”‡’Žƒ…‡‡– ™‹ŽŽ Ž‹‡Ž› „‡ ‘”‡ …‘•–Ž› –Šƒ ’Žƒ…‹‰ comparable new infrastructure in service in unde˜‡Ž‘’‡† ƒ”‡ƒ•Ǥ Š‹• ˆƒ…–‘” ™‹ŽŽ •‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–Ž› ‹’ƒ…– —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‹ …‘‹‰ ›‡ƒ”• ƒ† ™‹ŽŽ Ž‹‡Ž› „‡ ƒ ƒŒ‘” driver of rate increases. INCREASING REGULATORY STRINGENCY • –Š‡ ƒ„‹Ž‹–› –‘ ‡ƒ•—”‡ ™ƒ–‡” “—ƒŽ‹–› ‹’”‘˜‡• ƒ† –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› ˆ‘” ’”‘†—…‹‰ Dz…Ž‡ƒ‡”dz ’‘–ƒ„Ž‡ ™ƒ–‡” ƒ† ‡ˆϐŽ—‡– ƒ†˜ƒ…‡•ǡ ”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘• ™‹ŽŽ ‹‡˜‹–ƒ„Ž› ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™ ƒ† —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ™‹ŽŽ ‡‡† –‘ •’‡† ”‡•‘—”…‡• –‘ ƒ…“—‹”‡ –Š‡ ‡™ –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› ƒ†Ȁ‘” ”‡…‘ϐ‹‰—”‡ –Š‡ ‡š‹•–‹‰ treatment processes. Further, individual wastewater —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ˆƒ…‡ –Š‡‹” ‘™ •’‡…‹ϐ‹… –”‡ƒ–‡– •–ƒ†ƒ”†•ǡ for example nutrient removal, and will need to plan for –Š‡ ˆ—–—”‡ –‘ †‡ƒŽ ™‹–Š ‡‡”‰‹‰ …‘–ƒ‹ƒ–• ‘ˆ …‘…‡”Ǥ ‡ „‡Ž‹‡˜‡ –Šƒ– ‹…”‡ƒ•‹‰ ”‡‰—Žƒ–‘”› •–”‹‰‡…› ƒ† ƒ†˜ƒ…‡• ‹ –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› ™‹ŽŽ †”‹˜‡ ”ƒ–‡• Š‹‰Š‡” ‹ the short term. —…Š ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‘”‹‰‹ƒŽ ™ƒ–‡” ƒ† •‡™‡” ‹ˆ”ƒ•–”—… " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 2 DECREASING PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION We have observed that more and more of the util‹–‹‡• –Šƒ– ™‡ •‡”˜‡ ƒ”‡ ˆƒ…‹‰ †‡…Ž‹‹‰ ’‡” …ƒ’‹–ƒ …‘•—’–‹‘Ǥ ‡ „‡Ž‹‡˜‡ –Šƒ– –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ –™‘ ’”‹ƒ”› ”‡ƒ•‘• ˆ‘” –Š‹• –”‡†Ǥ Š‡ ϐ‹”•– ”‡ƒ•‘ ‹• –Šƒ– ‡ƒ…Š ‰‡‡”ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ‡™ Š‘‡ ƒ’’Ž‹ƒ…‡• ‹• ‘”‡ ƒ† ‘”‡ ™ƒ–‡” ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡–Ǥ —”‹‰ –Š‡ ͳͻ͸Ͳ• ƒ† ͳͻ͹Ͳ•ǡ ‰”‘™–Š ‹ …‘•—’–‹‘ ™ƒ• ˆ—‡Ž‡† „› –Š‡ ƒ††‹–‹‘ ‘ˆ ™ƒ–‡” —•‹‰ †‡˜‹…‡• –‘ Š‘‡•Ǥ ‹–Š –Š‡ ”‡’Žƒ…‡‡– ‘ˆ ‡ƒ…Š †‡˜‹…‡ǡ ™ƒ–‡” ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡…› ‹• ‰ƒ‹‡†Ǥ Š‡ •‡…‘† ”‡ƒ•‘ ‹• –Šƒ– –Š‡ …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ‡••ƒ‰‡ Šƒ• „‡‡ ‹–‡”ƒŽ‹œ‡† „› —…Š ‘ˆ –Š‡ ’‘’—Žƒ–‹‘Ǥ …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ‡–Š‹… ‹• ”‡’Žƒ…‹‰ ‘Ž† Šƒ„‹–• ‹ •ƒŽŽ ™ƒ›•ǡ •—…Š ƒ• –—”‹‰ ‘ˆˆ ˆƒ—…‡–•ǡ ƒ† ‹ Žƒ”‰‡” ™ƒ›•ǡ Ž‹‡ ”‡’Žƒ…‹‰ –Š‹”•–› landscapes. We believe this has been accomplished –Š”‘—‰Š ’—„Ž‹… ‡†—…ƒ–‹‘ ‡ˆˆ‘”–• ƒ† ‘ˆ–‡ ”‡‹ˆ‘”…‡† „› –Š‡ ’”‹…‹‰ •–”—…–—”‡Ǥ  ƒ††‹–‹‘ǡ ƒ› —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• Šƒ˜‡ ˆƒ…‡† ™ƒ–‡” •—’’Ž› •Š‘”–ƒ‰‡• ™Š‹…Š Šƒ• ˆ‘”…‡† additional efforts to reduce per capita consumption. ‡…Š‘Ž‘‰‹…ƒŽ ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ‹…Ž—†‹‰ •ƒ”– ‹””‹‰ƒ–‹‘ …‘–”‘ŽŽ‡”• ƒ† †‡’Ž‘›‡– ‘ˆ ƒ†˜ƒ…‡† ‡–‡”‹‰ infrastructure (AMI) will continue to decrease per …ƒ’‹–ƒ …‘•—’–‹‘ –Š”‘—‰Š …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡…› ’—––‹‰ ƒ —’™ƒ”† ’”‡••—”‡ ‘ ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS As mentioned earlier, water and wastewater treat‡– –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› ‹• …‘•–ƒ–Ž› ‹’”‘˜‹‰Ǥ ‡”–ƒ‹ –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰‹…ƒŽ ‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ™‹ŽŽ ”‡•—Ž– ‹ ”‡†—…‡† …‘•–• ƒ† Ž‘™‡” ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ —’‡”˜‹•‘”› …‘–”‘Ž ƒ† †ƒ–ƒ ƒ…“—‹•‹–‹‘ ȋ Ȍ •›•–‡• ƒŽŽ‘™ ˆ‘” ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘• ™‹–Š 3 ˆ‡™‡” ‡’Ž‘›‡‡• ƒ† Š‡Ž’ –‘ ‹‹‹œ‡ ’‘™‡” Ž‘ƒ†•Ǥ • ƒ ”‡•—Ž–ǡ –Š‡ …‘•– ‘ˆ ’”‘†—…‹‰ ’‘–ƒ„Ž‡ ™ƒ–‡” ƒ† –”‡ƒ–‹‰ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” ‹ϐŽ—‡– ‹• †‡…”‡ƒ•‹‰ ™‹–Š ƒŽŽ ‘–Š‡” ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡• ”‡ƒ‹‹‰ –Š‡ •ƒ‡Ǥ ‡ „‡Ž‹‡˜‡ –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰› ™‹ŽŽ …‘–‹—‡ –‘ ‹’”‘˜‡ „‡‡ϐ‹–• –‘ …—•–‘‡”• ƒ† ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ› Ž‘™‡” ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ EFFECTIVE UTILITY MANAGEMENT —‹…‹’ƒŽ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‘ Ž‘‰‡” •‡‡ –Š‡•‡Ž˜‡• ƒ• ‰‘˜‡”‡–ƒŽ ‘‘’‘Ž‹‡•Ǥ Ž‡…–‡† ‘ˆϐ‹…‹ƒŽ• ƒ† ‰‘˜‡”‹‰ „‘ƒ”†• ‹…”‡ƒ•‹‰Ž› ”‡“—‹”‡ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• –‘ ‘’‡”ƒ–‡ ƒ• ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡–Ž› ƒ• ’‘••‹„Ž‡Ǥ  ˆƒ…–ǡ ƒ› —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• Šƒ˜‡ ‰‘‡ –Š”‘—‰Š •‘‡ •‘”– ‘ˆ ˆ‘”ƒŽ ‘’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘ ’”‘…‡••Ǥ ‡ believe that these efforts will continue to place down™ƒ”† ’”‡••—”‡ ‘ —–‹Ž‹–› ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ PUBLIC AND POLITICAL ACTION Š‡ •–”‘‰‡•– ˆ‘”…‡ ‹ Ž‹‹–‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡• Šƒ• „‡‡ –Š‡ ’‘Ž‹–‹…ƒŽ ’”‘…‡••Ǥ Š‡”‡ƒ• ‘’–‹‹œƒ–‹‘ ‡ˆˆ‘”–• ƒ”‡ „‡‡ϐ‹…‹ƒŽ –‘ –Š‡ —–‹Ž‹–›ǡ ’‘Ž‹–‹…ƒŽŽ› Ž‹‹–‡† ”ƒ–‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡• ƒ› ‘– „‡Ǥ – ™‘—Ž† „‡ —ˆƒ‹” –‘ •ƒ› –Šƒ– ’—„Ž‹… ƒ† ’‘Ž‹–‹…ƒŽ ‹ϐŽ—‡…‡ †‘‡• ‘– Šƒ˜‡ •‘‡ ’‘•‹–‹˜‡ ‡ˆˆ‡…–•ǡ ƒ• ‹– ‘ˆ–‡ ˆ‘”…‡• —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• –‘ „‡ ƒ• ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡– as possible. We believe that this will continue to have ƒ •‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ– ‹’ƒ…– ‘ Ž‹‹–‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡•ǡ ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǯ• ”‘’‘•‹–‹‘ ʹͳͺ ƒ† ”‡…‡– …‘—”– …ƒ•‡• ”‡Žƒ–‡† –‘ –Š‡ ”‡“—‹”‡‡–• ‘ˆ –Š‡ …‘•–‹–—–‹‘ƒŽ amendment. However, when a needed rate increase is ‘– ‹’Ž‡‡–‡† ˆ‘” ’‘Ž‹–‹…ƒŽ ”‡ƒ•‘•ǡ ‰‡‡”ƒŽŽ› …”‹–‹…ƒŽ ‹ˆ”ƒ•–”—…–—”‡ ”‡’Žƒ…‡‡– ‹• †‡ˆ‡””‡† ”‡•—Ž–‹‰ ‹ ‡‡† ˆ‘” ‰”‡ƒ–‡” ‹…”‡ƒ•‡• ‹ –Š‡ ˆ—–—”‡Ǥ " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY In 2015, an online survey was sent to water and wastewater service providers in California and Nevada. This self-reported survey included questions regarding the typical single-family residential water and wastewater bill, rate structure, billing frequency, connection fees, location, and service population. The survey information received provides data on 177 service providers (167 in California and 10 in Nevada). Because water usage varies widely by cities and regions, a benchmark water usage amount is needed to provide a basis to compare water rates. This survey relies on 15 ccf (hundred cubic feet) or 11,220 gallons of consumption per month as that benchmark for residential water use. The benchmark used in this survey to compare wastewater rates is 10 ccf or 7,480 gallons of residential wastewater generation per month. Since agencies have CHƤDQDMS AHKKHMF EQDPTDMBHDR SGD ƥWDC BG@QFDR G@UD ADDM MNQL@KHYDC SN QDƦDBS @ LNMSGKX Q@SD 3GD "@KHENQMH@ RTQUDX QDRTKSR @QD RNQSDC ƥQRS @KOG@ADSHB@KKX AX county and then by city. Additionally, several analyses are done on the four regions of California: Northern, San Joaquin Valley, Central Coast, and Southern. The regions are comprised of the following counties: » Northern: Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, ‘–”ƒ ‘•–ƒǡ Ž ‘”ƒ†‘ǡ —„‘Ž†–ǡ ƒ‡ǡ ƒ”‹ǡ Mariposa, Mendocino, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, ƒ ‡‹–‘ǡ ƒ ƒ–‡‘ǡ ƒ–ƒ Žƒ”ƒǡ ƒ–ƒ ”—œǡ Šƒ•–ƒǡ ‹•‹›‘—ǡ ‘Žƒ‘ǡ ‘‘ƒǡ –ƒ‹•Žƒ—•ǡ Sutter, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba » San Joaquin Valley: ”‡•‘ǡ ›‘ǡ ‡”ǡ ‡”…‡†ǡ Mono, and Tulare » Central Coast: ƒ —‹• „‹•’‘ ƒ† ƒ–ƒ ƒ”„ƒ”ƒ » Southern: ’‡”‹ƒŽǡ ‘• ‰‡Ž‡•ǡ ”ƒ‰‡ǡ ‹˜‡”•‹†‡ǡ ƒ ‡”ƒ”†‹‘ǡ ƒ ‹‡‰‘ǡ ƒ† ‡–—”ƒ Š‹• ›‡ƒ”ǯ• ‡˜ƒ†ƒ •—”˜‡› ‹…Ž—†‡• †ƒ–ƒ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ …‘—–‹‡•ǣ Š—”…Š‹ŽŽǡ Žƒ”ǡ ‘—‰Žƒ•ǡ ‡”•Š‹‰ǡ and Washoe. Given the limited number of responses, wastewater •—”˜‡› ”‡•—Ž–• ‹…Ž—†‡ –Š‡ ˆ‘—” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ”‡‰‹‘• ˆ”‘ ƒ„‘˜‡ ƒ† –Š‡ ‡˜ƒ†ƒ ƒ‰‡…‹‡•Ǥ Š‹• ‹• ‘—” •‹š–Š •—”˜‡› ‹ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒȀ ‡˜ƒ†ƒ ȋ’”‡˜‹‘—• •—”˜‡›• ‹…Ž—†‡ ʹͲͲͷǡ ʹͲͲ͹ǡ ʹͲͲͻǡ ʹͲͳͳǡ ƒ† ʹͲͳ͵ ȋ–Š‘—‰Š ƒ• –Š‡ ‹ƒ—‰—”ƒŽ •—”˜‡›ǡ ʹͲͲͷ †ƒ–ƒ ™ƒ• Ž‹‹–‡† –‘ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒȌȌǤ  –Š‡ •—”˜‡›ǡ ™‡ Šƒ˜‡ ƒ†‡ •‘‡ …‘’ƒ”‹•‘• ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰ –Š‡ „‹ŽŽ ˆ”‡“—‡…›ǡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ǡ ƒ† —•‡” …Šƒ”‰‡• „‡–™‡‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷǤ Š‡ …‘’ƒ”‹•‘• ˆ‘” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ƒ”‡ ƒ†‡ ™Š‡ ƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ„Ž‡ǡ ƒ† ‹…Ž—†‡ ‘Ž› –Š‡ ͳͲͲ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• –Šƒ– ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‡† ‹ „‘–Š –Š‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷ •—”˜‡›•Ǥ Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…• ‘ˆ „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ˆ”‡“—‡…›ǡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡•ǡ ƒ† ™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡• ƒ”‡ ƒŽ•‘ ‹…Ž—†‡†Ǥ " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 4 2015 BILLING FREQUENCY Bi-Monthly 37% Monthly 60% Annually 1% Quarterly 2% Figure 1: Billing Frequency for California Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 2013 BILLING FREQUENCY Bi-Monthly 36% Monthly 60% Annually 1% Quarterly 3% 2015 BILLING FREQUENCY Bi-Monthly 34% Monthly 62% Annually 1% CALIFORNIA WATER RATE SURVEY RESULTS BILLING FREQUENCY • •Š‘™ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ͳǡ ͸Ͳ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ‹ ‘—” •—”˜‡› •ƒ’Ž‡ „‹ŽŽ ‘–ŠŽ› ƒ† ͵͹ ’‡”…‡– Šƒ˜‡ ƒ „‹Ǧ‘–ŠŽ› ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡Ǥ ‡ Šƒ˜‡ ƒŽ•‘ ‡šƒ‹‡† –Š‡ „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ˆ”‡“—‡…› –”‡†ǡ •Š‘™ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ʹͳǤ ˜‡” –Š‡ Žƒ•– –™‘ ›‡ƒ”•ǡ ‘—” ƒƒŽ›•‹• •Š‘™• –Šƒ– –Š‡ „‹Ǧ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ‹‰ Šƒ• †‡…”‡ƒ•‡† ˆ”‘ ͵͸ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ʹͲͳ͵ –‘ ͵Ͷ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ʹͲͳͷǤ Š‹• †‡…”‡ƒ•‡ …‘””‡•’‘†• ™‹–Š ƒ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡ ‹ ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ‹‰ǡ ™Š‹…Š ™ƒ• ͸Ͳ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ‹• …—””‡–Ž› ͸ʹ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ʹͲͳͷǤ Š‹• „‡Šƒ˜‹‘” ‰‘‡• ƒŽ‘‰ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‘˜‡”ƒŽŽ ‹†—•–”› –”‡† ‡•’‡…‹ƒŽŽ› ƒ•ǣ ͳȌ ‘”‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• —•‡ ƒ—–‘ƒ–‡† ‡–‡” ”‡ƒ†‹‰ –‡…Š‘Ž‘‰‹‡•Ǣ ƒ†ǡ ʹȌ ‘”‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• †‡•‹”‡ –‘ •‡† ”‡‰—Žƒ” ƒ† …‘•‹•–‡– …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ‡••ƒ‰‹‰Ǥ ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ‹• ’”‡†‘‹ƒ–Ž› „‡…‘‹‰ ‘”‡ ’‘’—Žƒ”ǡ ƒ• ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ‹‰ Š‡Ž’• …‘˜‡› ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ ‘ …‘•—’–‹‘ ƒ† ’”‹…‹‰ –‘ ƒ ƒ‰‡…›ǯ• …—•–‘‡” „ƒ•‡ ˆƒ•–‡”Ǥ Ž•‘ǡ ƒ• ”ƒ–‡• ‹…”‡ƒ•‡ ƒ† „‹ŽŽ• ‰‡– Žƒ”‰‡”ǡ …—•–‘‡”• ƒ› ϐ‹† ‹– ‡ƒ•‹‡” –‘ ’ƒ› •ƒŽŽ‡” ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ• –Šƒ Žƒ”‰‡” „‹Ǧ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ•Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ʹ …‘’ƒ”‡• –Š‡ „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ˆ”‡“—‡…› „‡–™‡‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷǤ Ž› ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‰ ‹ „‘–Š ›‡ƒ”• ƒ”‡ …‘—–‡†Ǣ –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ –Š‡ ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ •Š‘™ ‹ ʹͲͳͷ ™‹ŽŽ „‡ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡– ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ •Š‘™ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ͳ •‹…‡ –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ͳ͸͹ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• …‘—–‡† ‹ –Š‡ ʹͲͳͷ •—”˜‡› ƒ† ‘Ž› ͳͲͲ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• –Šƒ– ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‡† ‹ „‘–Š ›‡ƒ”•Ǥ Quarterly 3% Figure 2: Billing Frequency Comparison for California Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys 5 Includes only 100 agencies that participated in both 2013 and 2015 rate surveys 1 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 2015 RATE STRUCTURE Declining 2% Uniform 20% 167 agencies from California reported rates in the 2015 survey. The number of agencies that reported in both surveys is 100. RATE STRUCTURE ‹‰—”‡ ͵ †‡‘•–”ƒ–‡• –Šƒ– ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• …‘•–‹–—–‡ ͹ʹ ’‡”…‡– ȋ͸͸ ’‡”…‡– ‹…Ž‹‹‰ǡ ͸ ’‡”…‡– „—†‰‡–Ȍ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ƒ‘‰ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‹ –Š‹• ›‡ƒ”ǯ• •—”˜‡›Ǥ Š‡ Dz‘–Š‡”dz …ƒ–‡‰‘”› ‹…Ž—†‡• ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• •—…Š ƒ• ϐŽƒ–ǡ •‡ƒ•‘ƒŽǡ ƒ† ‹‹— …Šƒ”‰‡ ˆ‘” …‘•—’–‹‘ ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ Š‹Ž‡ —‹ˆ‘”ǡ ‹…Ž‹‹‰ǡ ƒ† †‡…Ž‹‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ƒ”‡ ™‡ŽŽ ‘™ ƒ† Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ ‹ —•‡ „› ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ˆ‘” ƒ› ›‡ƒ”•ǡ –Š‡ —„‡” ‘ˆ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• —–‹Ž‹œ‹‰ ™ƒ–‡” „—†‰‡– ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ‹• ‹…”‡ƒ•‹‰Ǥ ƒ–‡” „—†‰‡–Ǧ„ƒ•‡† ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ƒ”‡ ƒ –›’‡ ‘ˆ ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ ‹ ™Š‹…Š –Š‡ „Ž‘… †‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘ ‹• †‹ˆˆ‡”‡– ˆ‘” ‡ƒ…Š …—•–‘‡” „ƒ•‡† ‘ ƒ ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡– Ž‡˜‡Ž ‘ˆ ™ƒ–‡” —•‡ „› –Šƒ– …—•–‘‡” ƒ† –Š‡ ’ƒ”…‡Ž ‘ˆ Žƒ† •‡”˜‹…‡†Ǥ Š‡ –‹‡”• ƒ”‡ –›’‹…ƒŽŽ› •‡– „ƒ•‡† ‘ ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡– indoor and outdoor use allocations. Please consult the authoritative AWWA manual, M1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Chargesǡ ‘” …‘–ƒ…– ‹ˆ ›‘— ™‘—Ž† like additional information on rate structures. ‹‰—”‡ Ͷ •Š‘™• –Š‡ –”‡† ‘ˆ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ˆ”‘ ʹͲͳ͵ –Š”‘—‰Š ʹͲͳͷǡ ™‹–Š ƒ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡ ‹ ‹…Ž‹‹‰ „Ž‘…• ˆ”‘ ͸ͺ ’‡”…‡– ȋ͸͵ ’‡”…‡– ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ƒ† ͷ ’‡”…‡– ™ƒ–‡” „—†‰‡–Ȍ ‘ˆ •—”˜‡› ”‡•’‘†‡–• –‘ ͹ͳ ’‡”…‡– ȋ͸ͷ ’‡”…‡– ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ƒ† ͸ ’‡”…‡– „—†‰‡–ȌǤ Ž› ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‰ ‹ –Š‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷ •—”˜‡›• ™‡”‡ ‹…Ž—†‡†Ǥ ˜‡” –Š‡ Žƒ•– –™‘ ›‡ƒ”•ǡ ‘—” ƒƒŽ›•‹• •Š‘™• –Šƒ– ™ƒ–‡” „—†‰‡– ”ƒ–‡• Šƒ• ‹…”‡ƒ•‡† ˆ”‘ ͷ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ʹͲͳ͵ –‘ ͸ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ʹͲͳͷǤ Š‹• Šƒ• „‡…‘‡ ƒ ‹…”‡ƒ•‹‰Ž› ’‘’—Žƒ” ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ †‡•‹‰‡† –‘ ‡•—”‡ ‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡– —•‡ ‘ˆ ™ƒ–‡”Ǥ Š‡•‡ ”‡•—Ž–• ƒ”‡ …‘•‹•–‡– ™‹–Š ǯ• ‡š’‡”‹‡…‡Ǥ Inclining 66% Other 6% Budget 6% Figure 3: Rate Structure for California Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 2013 RATE STRUCTURE Declining 1% Uniform 26% Inclining 63% Other 5% Budget 5% 2015 RATE STRUCTURE Declining 1% Uniform 21% Inclining 65% Other 7% Budget 6% Figure 4: Rate Structure Comparison for California Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 6 2015 RATE STRUCTURE BY REGIONS Figure 5: Rate Structure by Regions for California Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 80 Number of Agencies 60 40 20 0 Counts % Counts San Joaquin Valley % Counts Southern % Northern Counts % Central Coast Other 3 25% 0 0% 5 7% 1 8% Budget 0 0% 7 11% 2 3% 0 0% Inclining 8 67% 39 62% 48 66% 12 92% Declining 1 8% 0 0% 2 3% 0 0% Uniform 0 0% 17 27% 16 22% 0 0% ʘ 5$7( 6758&785( &203$5,621 %< 5(*,216 Figure 6: Rate Structure by Region for California Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys 50 Number of Agencies 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2013 2015 2013 San Joaquin Valley 2015 2013 Southern 2013 2015 Central Coast Budget 1 0 4 4 0 2 0 0 Other 0 1 0 0 5 5 0 1 Inclining 5 6 25 25 24 26 9 8 Declining 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Uniform 1 0 12 12 13 9 0 0 Š‡ ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ ˜ƒ”‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ͷ •Š‘™• –Šƒ– ‡–”ƒŽ ‘ƒ•– ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ Šƒ• –Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡•– ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ™‹–Š ‹…Ž‹‹‰ –‹‡”‡† ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ȋͻʹ ’‡”…‡–Ȍ –Šƒ– ™‘—Ž† –‡† –‘ ’”‘‘–‡ …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘Ǥ  ‘—–Š‡” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǡ ͸ʹ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡ •—”˜‡›‡† ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ”‡’‘”–‡† ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• …‘’ƒ”‡† –‘ ͸͸ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ‘”–Š‡” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǤ ‘—–Š‡” ƒ† ‘”–Š‡” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ Šƒ• ͵ͻ ƒ† Ͷͺ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ”‡’‘”–‹‰ ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ”ƒ–‡•ǡ ”‡•’‡…–‹˜‡Ž›Ǥ ƒ–‡” „—†‰‡– ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ƒ”‡ ’”‡†‘‹ƒ–Ž› ˆ‘—† ‹ ‘—–Š‡” 2 2015 Northern ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ȋ•‡˜‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡•Ȍ ™‹–Š –™‘ ”‡’‘”–‡† ˆ”‘ Northern California. ‹‰—”‡ ͸ʹ …‘’ƒ”‡• –Š‡ …Šƒ‰‡• „› ”‡‰‹‘• ƒ† •Š‘™• ”‡Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž› Ž‹––Ž‡ …Šƒ‰‡ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ’”‡˜‹‘—• •—”˜‡› …‘†—…–‡† ‹ ʹͲͳ͵Ǥ ˆ ‘–‡ǡ –™‘ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ”‡’‘”–‡† ™ƒ–‡” „—†‰‡– •–”—…–—”‡• ‹ ‘”–Š‡” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ˆ‘” ʹͲͳͷ ˜‡”•—• œ‡”‘ ‹ ʹͲͳ͵ǡ ƒ• ™‡ŽŽ ƒ• ƒ †‡…Ž‹‡ ‹ ”‡’‘”–‡† —‹ˆ‘” ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ˆ”‘ ͳ͵ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• –‘ ‹‡Ǥ Compares only agencies participating in both 2013 and 2015 surveys (100 agencies) 7 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 CHARGES • ‡–‹‘‡† ’”‡˜‹‘—•Ž›ǡ ƒŽŽ …Šƒ”‰‡• ‹ –Š‹• •—”˜‡› ƒ”‡ „ƒ•‡† ‘ –Š‡ ƒ••—’–‹‘ –Šƒ– –Š‡ —–‹Ž‹–› ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ …—•–‘‡” —•‡• ͳͷ ……ˆ ͵ ȋͳͳǡʹʹͲ ‰ƒŽȌ ’‡” ‘–ŠǤ ‘” —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• –Šƒ– †‘ ‘– „‹ŽŽ ‘–ŠŽ›ǡ –Š‡ …Šƒ”‰‡ ™ƒ• …ƒŽ…—Žƒ–‡† ‘ –Š‡ ƒ••—’–‹‘ ‘ˆ ͳͷ ……ˆ ’‡” ‘–Š —•ƒ‰‡Ǥ – •Š‘—Ž† „‡ ‘–‡† –Šƒ– –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ —•ƒ‰‡ …ƒ ˜ƒ”› •‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–Ž› ˆ”‘ ƒ‰‡…› –‘ ƒ‰‡…›Ǥ ‘” ‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ —•ƒ‰‡ ‹ ƒ„”‹ƒ ‹• ʹ ……ˆ ’‡” ‘–Š ƒ† –Š‡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ ‹• †‡•‹‰‡† ˆ‘” –Šƒ– Ž‡˜‡Ž ‘ˆ —•ƒ‰‡ •‘ –Š‡ …Šƒ”‰‡ ƒ– ͳͷ ……ˆ ’‡” ‘–Š ™‹ŽŽ „‡ Š‹‰Š ™‹–Š ƒ –‹‡”‡† ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ͹ •Š‘™• –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ϐ‹š‡† …Šƒ”‰‡ ƒ† ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡ …Šƒ”‰‡ ‹ –Š‡ ˆ‘—” ”‡‰‹‘• ‹ ʹͲͳͷǤ Š‡ ‡–”ƒŽ ‘ƒ•– ”‡‰‹‘ Šƒ• –Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡•– ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ”ƒ–‡ ‹ ‘—” •—”˜‡›ǡ ™Š‹…Š ‹• ƒ„‘—– ̈́ͺʹ ’‡” ‘–ŠǤ Š‡ ƒ ‘ƒ“—‹ ”‡‰‹‘ Šƒ• –Š‡ Ž‘™‡•– ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽǡ ™Š‹…Š ‹• ƒ„‘—– ̈́ͶͲ ’‡” ‘–ŠǤ Š‹Ž‡ ‘”–Š‡” ƒ† ‘—–Š‡” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ •Š‘™ ˜ƒ”‹ƒ–‹‘ „‡–™‡‡ –Š‡ ϐ‹š‡† ƒ† ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡ …‘’‘‡–•ǡ –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ ‹• •‹‹Žƒ”Ǥ 2015 RESIDENTIAL WATER CHARGES BY REGION $100 $90 $81.57 $80 $70 $59.80 $48.81 $50 $39.79 $40 $37.10 $33.75 10.36 $30 $20 29.43 $10 ‹‰—”‡ ͺͶ •Š‘™• –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡• ȋ•‡’ƒ”ƒ–‡† „› ϐ‹š‡† ƒ† ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡Ȍ „› ”‡‰‹‘ ˆ‘” –Š‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ •—”˜‡›•Ǥ  ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ǡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ‹ –Š‡ ƒ ‘ƒ“—‹ ƒŽŽ‡› Šƒ˜‡ –Š‡ Ž‘™‡•– ™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡• ™Š‹Ž‡ Central Coast water service is the most expensive. $61.46 $60 $22.70 $32.76 $27.70 $San Joaquin Valley Southern Average Variable Charge Northern Central Coast Average Fixed Charge Figure 7: Water Charges by Region for California Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey ʘ &203$5,621 2) 5(6,'(17,$/ WATER CHARGES BY REGION $100 $90 $76.09 $80 $70 $58.29 $62.39 $55.02 $60 $50 $38.07 $40 $30 $20 $10 $9.86 $60.46 $45.16 $42.76 $12.33 $38.15 $40.57 $28.84 Figure 8: Water Charges Comparison for both$26.18 2013 and 2015 Surveys $30.42 $28.20 California Agencies Reported in $21.82 $20.14 $80.42 Figure 8: Water Charges Comparison for California Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys $32.06 $59.97 $35.25 $28.40 $16.12 $2013 2015 2013 San Joaquin Valley 2015 Southern Average Variable Charge 2013 2015 Northern 2013 2015 Central Coast Average Fixed Charge 1 ccf = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons of water Compares only agencies participating in both 2013 and 2015 surveys (100 agencies) 3 4 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 8 Over the past two years, water rates have increased due to the drought situation in California and increasing water costs. ƒ„Ž‡ ͳ •—ƒ”‹œ‡• –Š‡ †ƒ–ƒ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ͺ ƒ† •Š‘™• –Š‡ „‹‡‹ƒŽ ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡• ˆ‘” ‡ƒ…Š •—”˜‡› ”‡‰‹‘Ǥ Š‡ †ƒ–ƒ ‹†‹…ƒ–‡ –Šƒ– –Š‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡• ‹ ™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡• ƒ”‡ —…Š Š‹‰Š‡” –Šƒ –Š‡ ‘•—‡” ”‹…‡ †‡š ȋ Ȍǡ ™Š‹…Š ”‘•‡ ͳǤͷ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ͳǤ͸ ’‡”…‡– ‹ ʹͲͳͶǡ ƒ• ’”‘˜‹†‡† „› –Š‡ —”‡ƒ— ‘ˆ ƒ„‘” –ƒ–‹•–‹…•Ǥ Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡•– ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡ ‹ –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ‘–ŠŽ› ”ƒ–‡• ‹• ‹ –Š‡ ƒ ‘ƒ“—‹ ƒŽŽ‡›ǡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‡† „› –Š‡ ‘”–Š‡” ƒ† ‘—–Š‡” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ”‡‰‹‘•Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ͻ •Š‘™• –Š‡ Š‹‰Š ƒ† Ž‘™ ‘–ŠŽ› ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ ϐ‹š‡† ™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡ …‘’ƒ”‹•‘• ‹ –Š‡ ˆ‘—” ”‡‰‹‘• ˆ‘” –Š‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ •—”˜‡›•Ǥ Ž–Š‘—‰Š ™ƒ–‡” ”ƒ–‡• ‘ ƒ ™Š‘Ž‡ ƒ”‡ –”‡†‹‰ Š‹‰Š‡”ǡ –Š‡ ϐ‹š‡† …Šƒ”‰‡• ‘ˆ–‡ †‘ ‘– ‹…”‡ƒ•‡ ƒ• —…Šǡ ‡š…‡’– ˆ‘” those in the Central Coast where there appears to be a ‰”‡ƒ–‡” ‡’Šƒ•‹• ‘ ϐ‹š‡† …Šƒ”‰‡• ƒ† …‘””‡•’‘†‹‰ Ž‘™‡” ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡ …Šƒ”‰‡•Ǥ ’”‘’‘”–‹‘ƒŽŽ› Ž‘™‡” ϐ‹š‡† …Šƒ”‰‡ ‡ƒ• ƒ Š‹‰Š‡” ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡ …Šƒ”‰‡ ˆ‘” ™ƒ–‡” …‘•—’–‹‘ǡ ™Š‹…Š •‡†• ƒ •–”‘‰‡” ’”‹…‹‰ •‹‰ƒŽ ˆ‘” …‘•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† ‰‹˜‡• ƒ …—•–‘‡” ‘”‡ …‘–”‘Ž ‘˜‡” their water bill. ‹‰—”‡ ͳͲ •Š‘™• –Š‡ Š‹‰Š ƒ† Ž‘™ ‘–ŠŽ› ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡ ™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡ ˆ‘” ͳͷ ……ˆǡ ™Š‹…Š ‹• …‘’ƒ”‡† ƒ‘‰ –Š‡ ˆ‘—” ”‡‰‹‘• ˆ‘” –Š‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ •—”˜‡›•Ǥ ‘‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡•– ƒ† Ž‘™‡•– variable rates are reported in the Central Coast and ‘”–Š‡” ”‡‰‹‘•Ǥ Note: Figure 9 and Figure 10 compare only agencies participating in both 2013 and 2015 surveys. ʘ &203$5,621 2) 5$7( 6758&785(6 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY SOUTHERN NORTHERN CENTRAL COAST 2013 $38.07 $58.29 $55.02 $76.09 2015 $42.76 $62.39 $60.46 $80.42 12% 7% 10% 6% % Increase Table 1: Water Charges by Region Comparison 9 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 ʘ &203$5,621 2) :$7(5 ),;(' &+$5*(6 %< 5(*,21 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 2013 2015 High Low San Joaquin Valley $65.00 $10.00 $65.00 $11.00 High Low Southern $51.10 $0.00 $53.53 $0.00 High Low Northern $55.30 $6.52 $63.33 $8.41 High Low Central Coast $65.63 $0.00 $109.06 $11.91 Figure 9: Fixed Charge Comparison ʘ &203$5,621 2) :$7(5 9$5,$%/( &+$5*(6 %< 5(*,21 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 2013 2015 High Low San Joaquin Valley $22.50 $0.00 $38.83 $0.00 High Low Southern $77.56 $0.00 $79.10 $0.00 High Low Northern $104.79 $0.00 $88.34 $0.00 High Low Central Coast $125.60 $18.75 $83.41 $18.90 Figure 10: Variable Charge Comparison " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 10 $9(5$*( 0217+/< :$7(5 &+$5*(6 &203$5,621 %< &2817< $Shasta $20 $40 $21.30 Merced $21.37 $23.53 Su er $23.85 $32.78 Inyo $34.00 Yolo $44.32 Amador $45.00 El Dorado $45.15 Stanislaus $45.30 Yuba $45.47 Kern $45.50 Orange $49.87 Plumas $51.07 Humboldt $51.77 Mariposa $54.10 Los Angeles $54.57 $59.81 Ventura $60.79 Sonoma $63.59 San Bernardino $64.15 Mono $64.26 $66.72 $70.19 Lake $71.82 Placer $72.15 Contra Costa $72.31 Santa Clara $74.41 San Benito $74.71 Santa Cruz $83.24 $86.97 San Mateo $93.35 Alameda $93.50 Santa Barbara Mendocino $99.78 $105.21 Figure 11: 2015 Average Monthly Water Charges Comparison by County in California 11 $200 Average Variable $57.14 Tuolumne San Diego $180 $41.75 Riverside San Luis Obispo $160 $40.34 $43.89 Marin $140 $36.65 Imperial Solano $120 $28.50 Siskiyou Calaveras $100 Average Fixed Tulare Sacramento $80 $18.64 Bu e Fresno $60 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 ‹‰—”‡ ͳͳ •Š‘™• –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ‘–ŠŽ› ”ƒ–‡ ˆ‘” ͳͷ ……ˆ „› …‘—–›Ǥ ƒ•‡† ‘ ‘—” •—”˜‡›ǡ –Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡•– rates are found in Mendocino ‘—–›ǡ ™Š‹Ž‡ –Š‡ Ž‘™‡•– ”ƒ–‡• ƒ”‡ ‹ Šƒ•–ƒ ‘—–›Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ͳʹ †‹•’Žƒ›• –Š‡ ›‡ƒ” ‹ ™Š‹…Š –Š‡ ʹͲͳͷ •—”˜‡›ǯ• —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• Šƒ˜‡ ‘•– ”‡…‡–Ž› —’†ƒ–‡† –Š‡‹” ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ …Ž‡ƒ” ƒŒ‘”‹–› ‘ˆ ”‡•’‘†‡–• ȋ͹Ͷ ’‡”…‡–Ȍ Šƒ˜‡ updated their rates within the ’ƒ•– –™‘ ›‡ƒ”• ȋʹͲͳͶ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷȌǤ Š‡ ʹͲͳ͵ •—”˜‡› ”‡’‘”–‡† –Šƒ– ͸ͳ percent of utilities had updated their rates within the previous –™‘ ›‡ƒ”• ȋʹͲͳʹ ƒ† ʹͲͳ͵ȌǤ ƒ„Ž‡ ʹ •—ƒ”‹œ‡• –Š‡ …‘’ƒ”‹•‘ ‘ˆ …‘‡…–‹‘ …Šƒ”‰‡ ȋ•›•–‡ development fee) data for the ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷ •—”˜‡›• ™Š‡”‡ data is available. This compar‹•‘ ‹†‹…ƒ–‡• –Šƒ– –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ …‘‡…–‹‘ …Šƒ”‰‡ Šƒ• ‹…”‡ƒ•‡† „› ͳͳ ’‡”…‡– ‹ –™‘ ›‡ƒ”•Ǥ MOST RECENT 5$7( 83'$7( 6800$5< 3ULRU WR 2013 18% 2013 8% 2015 30% 2014 44% Figure 12: Rate Update Frequency for California Agencies ʘ &203$5,621 2) &211(&7,21 )((6 2013 2015 HIGHEST $28,600 $33,275 LOWEST $750 $743 $9(5$*( $5,970 $6,622 &+$1*( $9(5$*( 11% Table 2: Connection Fee Charge Comparison " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 12 NEVADA RATE SURVEY RESULTS 10 agencies from the Nevada region responded to the survey and of those 10 agencies, eight are common to the 2013 and 2015 survey. The data below displays the trends in billing frequency, rate structure, and charges. BILLING FREQUENCY • •Š‘™ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ͳ͵ǡ ƒ Žƒ”‰‡ ƒŒ‘”‹–› ȋͻͲ ’‡”…‡–Ȍ ‘ˆ –Š‡ •—”˜‡›ǯ• ”‡•’‘†‡–• Šƒ• ƒ ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ‹‰ •–”—…–—”‡Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ͳͶ …‘’ƒ”‡• –Š‡ „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ˆ”‡“—‡…› „‡–™‡‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷǤ Ž› ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‰ ‹ „‘–Š ›‡ƒ”• ƒ”‡ …‘—–‡†Ǣ –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ –Š‡ ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ •Š‘™ ‹ ʹͲͳͷ ™‹ŽŽ „‡ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡– ˆ”‘ –Š‡ ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ •Š‘™ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ͳ͵ •‹…‡ –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ͳͲ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• …‘—–‡† ‹ –Š‡ ʹͲͳͷ •—”˜‡› ƒ† ‘Ž› ‡‹‰Š– ƒ‰‡…‹‡• –Šƒ– ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‡† ‹ „‘–Š ›‡ƒ”•Ǥ ‹ŽŽ‹‰ ˆ”‡“—‡…› ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‡‹‰Š– ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‰ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• †‹† ‘– …Šƒ‰‡ „‡–™‡‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷǤ RATE STRUCTURE ‹‰—”‡ ͳͷ †‡‘•–”ƒ–‡• –Šƒ– ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• …‘•–‹–—–‡ –Š‡ ƒŒ‘”‹–› ȋͺͲ ’‡”…‡–Ȍ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ƒ‘‰ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ‹ –Š‹• ›‡ƒ”ǯ• •—”˜‡›Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ͳ͸ †‹•’Žƒ›•ǡ ‹ ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ǡ –Š‡ ™ƒ–‡” ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡• ‘ˆ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ‹ ‡˜ƒ†ƒǤ Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ‡‹‰Š– ƒ‰‡…‹‡• –Šƒ– ”‡•’‘†‡† –‘ „‘–Š –Š‡ ʹͲͳ͵ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷ •—”˜‡›Ǥ  ʹͲͳ͵ǡ ƒŽŽ ‡‹‰Š– ƒ‰‡…‹‡• Šƒ† ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡•Ǥ  ʹͲͳͷǡ •‡˜‡ ‘ˆ –Š‘•‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• Šƒ† ‹…Ž‹‹‰ ”ƒ–‡ structures and one had a uniform rate structure. 13 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 2015 BILLING FREQUENCY Bi-Monthly 10% 2015 RATE STRUCTURES Inclining 80% Monthly 90% Uniform 20% Figure 13: Billing Frequency for Nevada Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey Figure 15: Rate Structure for Nevada Agencies Reported in 2015 Survey 2013 BILLING FREQUENCY 2013 WATER RATE STRUCTURES Monthly 87% Bi-Monthly 13% Inclining 100% 2015 BILLING FREQUENCY 2015 WATER RATE STRUCTURES Monthly 87% Inclining 87% Bi-Monthly 13% Uniform 13% Figure 14: Billing Frequency for Nevada Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys Figure 16: Rate Structure Comparison for Nevada Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 14 CHARGES • ‹ –Š‡ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ •‡…–‹‘ǡ ƒŽŽ …Šƒ”‰‡• „‡Ž‘™ ƒ”‡ „ƒ•‡† ‘ –Š‡ ƒ••—’–‹‘ –Šƒ– –Š‡ —–‹Ž‹–› …—•–‘‡” —•‡• ͳͷ ……ˆ ȋͳͳǡʹʹͲ ‰ƒŽȌ ’‡” ‘–ŠǤ ‘” —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• –Šƒ– †‘ ‘– „‹ŽŽ ‘–ŠŽ›ǡ –Š‡ …Šƒ”‰‡ ™ƒ• …ƒŽ…—Žƒ–‡† ‘ –Š‡ ƒ••—’–‹‘ ‘ˆ ͳͷ ……ˆ ’‡” ‘–Š —•ƒ‰‡Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ͳ͹ †‹•’Žƒ›• Š‹‰Šǡ Ž‘™ǡ ƒ† ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ‘–ŠŽ› ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ ™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡• …‘’ƒ”‹•‘• –Š”‘—‰Š‘—– –Š‡ ‡–‹”‡ •–ƒ–‡Ǥ Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ …Šƒ”‰‡ ”‡ƒ‹‡† –Š‡ •ƒ‡ ƒ– ƒ”‘—† ̈́ͶͺǤ ‹‰—”‡ ͳͺ †‹•’Žƒ›• –Š‡ ›‡ƒ” ‹ ™Š‹…Š ‘•– —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• Šƒ˜‡ ‘•– ”‡…‡–Ž› —’†ƒ–‡† –Š‡‹” ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ ƒŽˆ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• Šƒ˜‡ —’†ƒ–‡† –Š‡‹” ”ƒ–‡• ™‹–Š‹ –Š‡ ’ƒ•– –™‘ ›‡ƒ”• ȋʹͲͳͶ ƒ† ʹͲͳͷȌǤ Š‹• ‹• —’ ˆ”‘ –Š‡ Ͷ͵ ’‡”…‡– –Šƒ– ”‡’‘”–‡† —’†ƒ–‹‰ ”ƒ–‡• ‹ –Š‡ –™‘ ›‡ƒ”• ’”‡…‡†‹‰ –Š‡ ʹͲͳ͵ •—”˜‡›Ǥ ʘ &203$5,621 2) :$7(5 &+$5*(6 $100 $90 $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 2013 2015 High $91.72 $91.72 Low $22.96 $23.81 Average $47.60 $48.07 Figure 17: Water Charge Comparisons for Nevada Agencies Reported in both 2013 and 2015 Surveys 0267 5(&(17 5$7( 83'$7( 6800$5< 3ULRU WR 2013 30% 2013 20% 2015 20% 2014 30% Figure 18: Rate Update Frequency for Nevada Agencies 15 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 DROUGHT RATES As California, Nevada, and the rest of the Western U.S. continue into the ƩIWK \HDU RI GURXJKW PDQ\ ZDWHU agencies have adopted drought rates RU GURXJKW VXUFKDUJHV DV D ZD\ WR GULYH mandatory conservation and recover ORVW UHYHQXH IURP UHGXFHG ZDWHU VDOHV Of the 177 participants in the survey, 158 agencies responded to the survey section on drought rates. As indicated in Figure 19, of the 158 respondents, SHUFHQW KDYH LPSOHPHQWHG GURXJKW UDWHV ZKLOH SHUFHQW KDYH QRW )ROORZ XS TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG RI DJHQFLHV DV WR KRZ WKHLU drought rates are determined, their targeted levels of conservation, and about allocation reductions for DJHQFLHV ZLWK EXGJHW EDVHG UDWHV " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 16 AGENCIES WITH DROUGHT RATES ƒ–‡” ƒ‰‡…‹‡• Šƒ˜‡ ƒ’’Ž‹‡† ˜ƒ”›‹‰ ‡–Š‘†‘Ž‘‰‹‡• –‘ –Š‡ …ƒŽ…—Žƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡‹” †”‘—‰Š– ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ ˆ –Š‡ ʹͺ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ™Š‘ Šƒ˜‡ ‹’Ž‡‡–‡† †”‘—‰Š– ”ƒ–‡•ǡ ʹͷ ƒ•™‡”‡† Š‘™ –Š‡› ƒ””‹˜‡ ƒ– –Š‡‹” ”ƒ–‡•Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ʹͲ •Š‘™• –Šƒ– …‘•– ‘ˆ •‡”˜‹…‡ ’”‘˜‡† –‘ „‡ –Š‡ ‘•– …‘‘ ‡–Š‘† ƒ– ͶͲ percentǤ  –Š‡ Dz –Š‡”dz …ƒ–‡‰‘”›ǡ ƒ•™‡”• ‹…Ž—†‡† ‡š…‡‡†ƒ…‡ ’‡ƒŽ–‹‡• –‘ ϐ‹š‡† •—”…Šƒ”‰‡• ‘” ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ ‹…”‡ƒ•‡•ǡ „—– ‘Ž› ˆ‘” •’‡…‹ϐ‹… –‹‡”•Ǥ Drought 5DWHV 18% No Drought Rates 82% BUDGET-BASED ALLOCATIONS Figure 19: Water Agencies with Drought Rates DROUGHT RATE/SURCHARGE BASIS Other (please VSHFLI\ 48% Cost of Service 40% ‹‰—”‡ ʹͳ •Š‘™• –Šƒ– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ͳ͸ ™ƒ–‡” ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ™‹–Š „—†‰‡–Ǧ„ƒ•‡† ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡•ǡ ͳͳ ȋ͸ͻ percent) are —•‹‰ ƒŽŽ‘…ƒ–‹‘ ”‡†—…–‹‘• ƒ• ’ƒ”– ‘ˆ –Š‡‹” †”‘—‰Š– ”ƒ–‡ ”‡•’‘•‡ ™Š‹Ž‡ ϐ‹˜‡ ȋ͵ͳ percent) do not. Within ƒ ™ƒ–‡” „—†‰‡– ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ǡ ”‡†—…‡† ƒŽŽ‘…ƒ–‹‘• ‹• ‡ˆˆ‡…–‹˜‡Ž› ƒ †”‘—‰Š– ”ƒ–‡ ‹ ƒ† ‘ˆ ‹–•‡ŽˆǤ › ”‡†—…‹‰ –Š‡ ƒŽŽ‘…ƒ–‹‘ ˆ‘” ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ „—†‰‡–•ǡ ƒ† –Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ ”‡†—…‹‰ –Š‡ –‹‡” ™‹†–Š•ǡ …—•–‘‡”• ‘˜‡ –‘ –Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡” –‹‡”• ‡ƒ”Ž‹‡” ‹ –Š‡‹” —•‡Ǥ  –Š‹• •‹–—ƒ–‹‘ǡ ƒ …—•–‘‡” ™Š‘ †‘‡• ‘– ”‡†—…‡ –Š‡‹” ™ƒ–‡” —•‡ ™‘—Ž† ’ƒ› ‘”‡ ˆ‘” ™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡ ‹ –‹‡• ‘ˆ †”‘—‰Š–Ǥ REDUCTION TARGETS – CALIFORNIA AGENCIES All Rates are Increased by D 3HUFHQWDJH 18% Figure 20: Drought Rate Design BUDGET ALLOCATION REDUCTION No 31% DROUGHT RATE CALCULATION ‹‰—”‡ ʹʹ ‹ŽŽ—•–”ƒ–‡• –Š‡ –ƒ”‰‡– ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ ”‡†—…–‹‘ ”ƒ‰‡• –Šƒ– ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–‹‰ ™ƒ–‡” ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡† ƒ• –Š‡‹” ‰‘ƒŽ•Ǥ Š‡ …Šƒ”– •Š‘™• –Š‡ …‘—– ‘ˆ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ™Š‘ …Š‘•‡ ‡ƒ…Š ”ƒ‰‡Ǥ Š‡ ”ƒ‰‡• •Š‘™ …‘””‡•’‘† to the State of California Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) conservation tier standards as part ‘ˆ ‘˜‡”‘” ”‘™ǯ• š‡…—–‹˜‡ ”†‡” ǦʹͻǦͳͷ …ƒŽŽ‹‰ ˆ‘” •–ƒ–‡™‹†‡ —”„ƒ ™ƒ–‡” •ƒŽ‡• ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‘ˆ ʹͷ percentǤ Š‡ ʹ͹ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ”‡•’‘†‹‰ –‘ –Š‹• “—‡•–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ •—”˜‡› •‘—‰Š– ƒ ‹‹— ‘ˆ ͳ͸ǦʹͲ percent ”‡†—…–‹‘ ‹ ™ƒ–‡” —•‡ǡ ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‘•– …‘‘ ”ƒ‰‡ „‡‹‰ ʹͶǦʹͺ percent. Greater than half of all respond‹‰ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ˆƒŽŽ ‹–‘ –Š‹• ”ƒ‰‡Ǥ Š”‡‡ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• •‘—‰Š– ”‡†—…–‹‘• ‰”‡ƒ–‡” –Šƒ ͵͸ percent. Yes 69% Figure 21: Agencies with Water Budgets - Drought Response 17 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 3(5&(17$*( 5('8&7,21 ʘ &2817 16 14 Frequency 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 <8% 8 - 12% 12 - 16% 16 - 20% 20 - 24% 24 - 28% 28 - 32% 32 - 36% > 36% Agency Count Figure 22: California Agencies - Conservation Targets (Count) " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 18 WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY RESULTS %NQ SGD ƥQRS SHLD SGD "@KHENQMH@ -DU@C@ 1@SD 2TQUDX has collected wastewater data from our water agency respondents who also provide wastewater service. In our inaugural year of wastewater service reporting, 87 of the 177 agencies participating in the water service section presented responses on their wastewater service. Included in the wastewater section are responses on recycled water service and pricing. WASTEWATER SERVICE PROVIDED • •Š‘™ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ʹ͵ǡ ͺ͹ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ͳ͹͹ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• •—”˜‡›‡† ”‡’Ž‹‡† –Šƒ– –Š‡› ’”‘vide wastewater serviceͷ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ ˆ‘—” ˆ”‘ ‡˜ƒ†ƒǤ Š‡ •—”˜‡› ”‡•—Ž–• –Šƒ– ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™ •—ƒ”‹œ‡ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡ …Šƒ”‰‡• ˆ‘” ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ …—•–‘‡”•Ǥ ‹‰—”‡• ‹…Ž—†‡ ”‡•—Ž–• ‘ –Š‡ –›’‡ ‘ˆ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ǡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ „‹ŽŽ „› ”‡‰‹‘ǡ ƒ† „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ˆ”‡“—‡…›ǡ ƒ‘‰ ‘–Š‡” †ƒ–ƒǤ BILLING FREQUENCY Š‡ •—”˜‡› ƒ•‡† ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• –‘ †‡•…”‹„‡ –Š‡‹” „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ˆ”‡“—‡…› ˆ‘” •‹‰Ž‡Ǧˆƒ‹Ž› ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ …—•–‘‡”•Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ʹͶ •Š‘™• –Šƒ–ǡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ™Š‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡ǡ ‘•– „‹ŽŽ ‘–ŠŽ› ȋ͸͹ ’‡”…‡–Ȍǡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‡† „› „‹Ǧ‘–ŠŽ› ȋʹ͸ ’‡”…‡–Ȍǡ ƒ† ƒ—ƒŽŽ› ȋ͸ ’‡”…‡–ȌǤ ‡ ƒ‰‡…› „‹ŽŽ• “—ƒ”–‡”Ž› ƒ† ‘‡ ƒ‰‡…› †‹† ‘– ”‡•’‘† –‘ –Š‡ “—‡•–‹‘Ǥ RATE STRUCTURE ‹‰—”‡ ʹͷ •Š‘™• –Š‡ –›’‡ ‘ˆ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ —–‹Ž‹œ‡† „› ”‡•’‘†‡–• ˆ‘” ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡Ǥ Š‡ ƒŒ‘”‹–› —•‡ ƒ ϐ‹š‡†ǡ ‘” ϐŽƒ–Ǧˆ‡‡ǡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡Ǥ ʹͺ ’‡”…‡– —•‡ ƒ …‘„‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ϐ‹š‡† ˆ‡‡ ’Ž—• ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… …Šƒ”‰‡Ǥ Ž› ͳ ’‡”…‡– —–‹Ž‹œ‡• ƒ ‡š…Ž—•‹˜‡Ž› ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡Ǥ 5 It should be noted that of the 177 agencies surveyed, only 163 responded to the question and 14 declined to state. 19 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 $*(1&,(6 3529,',1* :$67(:$7(5 6(59,&( %$6,6 )25 92/80(75,& &+$5*( Winter Usage 40% No Actual Usage 45% Yes 3HUFHQWDJH of Actual Usage 15% Figure 26: Volumetric Charge Basis Figure 23: Water Agency Respondents and Wastewater Service WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY :$7(5 86( 0$;,080 )25 92/80(75,& &+$5*( Yes 19% Monthly 67% Bi-Monthly 26% No 81% Annually 6% Quarterly 1% Figure 27: Water Use Cap on Wastewater Volumetric Component Figure 24: Wastewater Billing Frequency WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE Fixed 71% Fixed + 9ROXPHWULF 28% 9ROXPHWULF Figure 25: Wastewater Rate Structure " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 20 VOLUMETRIC CHARGE ‹‰—”‡ ʹ͸ †‡Ž˜‡• ˆ—”–Š‡” ‹–‘ –Š‡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡Ǥ – examines the basis for the volumetric portion of ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” ”ƒ–‡• ˆ‘” –Š‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• –Šƒ– —•‡ ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… ‘” ϐ‹š‡† ’Ž—• ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… •–”—…–—”‡•Ǥ ˆ –Š‡ ʹͷ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• that have a portion or all of the wastewater rate as ƒ ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… …Šƒ”‰‡ǡ ʹͲ ”‡•’‘†‡† –‘ –Š‡ ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™Ǧ—’ “—‡•–‹‘ǣ Dz Šƒ– ‹• –Š‡ „ƒ•‹• ˆ‘” ›‘—” ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… …Šƒ”‰‡ǫdz ‹‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ȋͶͷ ’‡”…‡–Ȍ —•‡ ƒ…–—ƒŽ ™ƒ–‡” –‘ †‡–‡”‹‡ –Š‡ ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… …Šƒ”‰‡Ǥ ‹‰Š– ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ȋͶͲ ’‡”…‡–Ȍ —•‡ ™‹–‡” ™ƒ–‡” —•ƒ‰‡ ™Š‹…Š ƒ••—‡• –Šƒ– ƒŽŽ ™ƒ–‡” —•‡ ƒ– –Š‡ –‹‡ ‰‘‡• –Š”‘—‰Š –Š‡ •‡™‡” •›•–‡ ƒ• –Š‡”‡ ‹• Ž‹––Ž‡ –‘ ‘ ‹””‹‰ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ƒ•–Ž›ǡ –Š”‡‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ȋͳͷ ’‡”…‡–Ȍ —•‡ ƒ ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ ƒ…–—ƒŽ —•ƒ‰‡ –‘ ‡•–‹ƒ–‡ ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” ϐŽ‘™• –Šƒ– ƒ”‡ …‘ŽŽ‡…–‡† ƒ† –”‡ƒ–‡† ‹ –Š‡ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” •›•–‡Ǥ ˆ –Š‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• –Šƒ– ‹…Ž—†‡ ƒ ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… …Šƒ”‰‡ ƒ• ƒ …‘’‘‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ǡ ͺͳ ’‡”…‡– †‘ ‘– Šƒ˜‡ ƒ …ƒ’ǡ ‘” ƒš‹—ǡ ‘ –Š‡ ˜‘Ž—‡ …Šƒ”‰‡ǡ ™Š‹Ž‡ ͳͻ ’‡”…‡– †‘ Šƒ˜‡ ƒ ƒš‹—Ǥ ‹‰—”‡ ʹ͹ ‹ŽŽ—•–”ƒ–‡• –Š‡•‡ ’”‘’‘”–‹‘•Ǥ Š‡ …ƒ’• ˆ”‘ ”‡•’‘†‡–• ”ƒ‰‡ „‡–™‡‡ ͳͲ ……ˆ ƒ† ͵ͷ ……ˆ ’‡” •‹‰Ž‡Ǧˆƒ‹Ž› ƒ……‘—–Ǥ CHARGES ŽŽ …Šƒ”‰‡• ‹ –Š‹• •—”˜‡› ƒ”‡ „ƒ•‡† ‘ –Š‡ ƒ••—’–‹‘ –Šƒ– –Š‡ —–‹Ž‹–›ǯ• ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ …—•–‘‡” —•‡• ͳͲ ……ˆ ’‡” ‘–Šǡ ‘” ͹Ǥͷ ‰ƒŽǡ ‹ˆ –Š‡ ”ƒ–‡ •–”—…–—”‡ ‹…Ž—†‡• ƒ ˜‘Ž—‡–”‹… …Šƒ”‰‡Ǥ ‘” —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• –Šƒ– †‘ ‘– „‹ŽŽ ‘–ŠŽ›ǡ –Š‡ …Šƒ”‰‡ ™ƒ• …ƒŽ…—Žƒ–‡† ‘ –Š‡ ƒ••—’–‹‘ ‘ˆ ͳͲ ……ˆ ’‡” ‘–Š —•ƒ‰‡Ǥ 21 ‹‰—”‡ ʹͺ •Š‘™• –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡ ˆ‘” –Š‡ ͺ͹ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• –Šƒ– ”‡•’‘†‡† –‘ –Š‡ •—”˜‡›Ǥ Š‡ …Šƒ”‰‡• ƒ”‡ †‹•’Žƒ›‡† ‹ ƒ „‘š ’Ž‘–ǡ ƒŽ•‘ ‘™ ƒ• ƒ „‘š ƒ† ™Š‹•‡”• ’Ž‘–Ǥ  –Š‡ ‰”ƒ’Šǡ –Š‡ ‘”ƒ‰‡ ƒ† „Ž—‡ …‘„‹‡† „‘š •Š‘™• ™Š‡”‡ –Š‡ …‡–”ƒŽ ͷͲ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ”‡•’‘•‡• Ž‹‡ ‘ –Š‡ ”ƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡•Ǥ Š‡ –‘’ „‘—†ƒ”› ‘ˆ –Š‡ „‘š ȋ–‘’ „‘—†ƒ”› ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‘”ƒ‰‡ ’‘”–‹‘Ȍ ‹†‹…ƒ–‡• –Šƒ– ͹ͷ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ ƒŽŽ ”‡’‘”–‡† …Šƒ”‰‡• Ž‹‡ „‡Ž‘™ ̈́Ͷ͵ǤͶͺǤ ‡š–ǡ –Š‡ Ž‘™‡” „‘—†ƒ”› ‘ˆ –Š‡ „‘š ȋ„‘––‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ „Ž—‡ ’‘”–‹‘Ȍ ‹†‹…ƒ–‡• –Šƒ– ʹͷ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ ”‡•’‘•‡• ™‡”‡ Ž‘™‡” ‘” ‡“—ƒŽ –‘ ̈́ͳͺǤͲͲǤ Š‡ „‘—†ƒ”› †‹˜‹†‹‰ –Š‡ ‘”ƒ‰‡ ƒ† „Ž—‡ ’‘”–‹‘• ‘ˆ –Š‡ „‘š ‹†‹…ƒ–‡• –Š‡ ‡†‹ƒǡ ̈́͵ʹǤͷͺǡ ™‹–Š ͷͲ ’‡”…‡– ‘ˆ –Š‡ ˜ƒŽ—‡• ”‡’‘”–‡† Ž‡•• –Šƒ ‘” ‡“—ƒŽ –‘ ‹–Ǥ Ž‡ƒ•‡ ‘–‡ –Šƒ– –Š‹• ‹• ‡ƒ”Ž› ‹†‡–‹…ƒŽ –‘ –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ ̈́͵ʹǤͺͶ ȋ‘– •Š‘™ȌǤ ‡ •‡‡ –Šƒ– ŠƒŽˆ ‘ˆ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡ …Šƒ”‰‡• ˆ‘” ͳͲ ……ˆ ‘ˆ —•‡ ˆƒŽŽ• „‡–™‡‡ ̈́ͳͺǤͲͲ ȋ–Š‡ ʹͷ–Š ’‡”…‡–‹Ž‡Ȍ ƒ† ̈́Ͷ͵ǤͶͺ ȋ–Š‡ ͹ͷ–Š ’‡”…‡–‹Ž‡ȌǤ The whiskers extend to the minimum and maximum …Šƒ”‰‡Ǥ Š‡ ‹‹— …Šƒ”‰‡ ”‡’”‡•‡–‡† ‹• ̈́͹ǤͷͲ ƒ† –Š‡ ƒš‹— ȋͳͲͲ–Š ’‡”…‡–‹Ž‡Ȍ ‹• ̈́͹ͺǤͷͶǤ Š‡ ”‡† ƒ”‡”• ƒ„‘˜‡ –Š‡ ƒš‹— …Šƒ”‰‡ ”‡’”‡•‡– ‘—–Ž‹‡”•ǣ –Š‡•‡ …Šƒ”‰‡• ƒ› „‡ †—‡ –‘ Ž‘…ƒŽ ‘” ƒ‰‡…› •’‡…‹ϐ‹… …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…•ǡ ƒ† ƒ”‡ —‹“—‡ –‘ –Š‡•‡ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡•Ǥ Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ –Š‡› ƒ”‡ ‘– ‹…Ž—†‡† ƒ• ”‡’”‡•‡–ƒ–‹˜‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ †ƒ–ƒǤ Š‡ ‘—–Ž‹‡”• ”ƒ‰‡ ˆ”‘ ̈́ͺ͸Ǥ͸ͺ –‘ ̈́ͳͺͲǤ͸Ͷ ’‡” ‘–ŠǤ ‹‰—”‡ ʹͻ •Š‘™• –Š‡ „‘š …Šƒ”– ™‹–Š –Š‡ outliers removed. " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER CHARGE Figure 28: Wastewater Agency Charges $200 $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER CHARGE WITHOUT OUTLIERS $90 Figure 29: Wastewater Agency Charges Without Outliers $80 $70 $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 22 CHARGES BY REGION ‹‰—”‡ ͵Ͳ •Š‘™• –Š‡ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” …Šƒ”‰‡ „› ”‡‰‹‘Ǥ • –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ‘Ž› ˆ‘—” ”‡•’‘†‡–• ˆ”‘ ‡˜ƒ†ƒǡ ƒŽŽ ”‡•’‘•‡• Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ ‹…‘”’‘”ƒ–‡† ‹–‘ ‘‡ …Šƒ”–Ǣ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ‹• †‹˜‹†‡† ‹–‘ –Š‡ ˆ‘—” ‰‡‘‰”ƒ’Š‹…ƒŽ ”‡‰‹‘•ǣ ƒ ‘ƒ“—‹ǡ ‘—–Š‡”ǡ ‘”–Š‡”ǡ ƒ† ‘ƒ•–ƒŽǤ Š‡ …Šƒ”– •Š‘™• –Šƒ– ‘”–Š‡” ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ Šƒ• –Š‡ Š‹‰Š‡•– ™ƒ•–‡™ƒ–‡” ”ƒ–‡• ‘ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ˆ‘” ”‡•‹†‡–‹ƒŽ …—•–‘‡”•Ǥ Southern California has the lowest rates. Nevada rates ƒ”‡ …Ž‘•‡ –‘ –Š‡ ‘˜‡”ƒŽŽ ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒ ƒ˜‡”ƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ ̈́͵ͻǤ͵ͺǤ RATE STRUCTURE BY REGION ‹‰—”‡ ͵ͳ ‹†‹…ƒ–‡• –Š‡ „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ’‡”‹‘† •–”—…–—”‡• ‹’Ž‡‡–‡† „› ”‡‰‹‘Ǥ …”‘•• ƒŽ‹ˆ‘”‹ƒǡ ‘–ŠŽ› „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ‹• –Š‡ ‘•– …‘‘Ž› —•‡† „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ’‡”‹‘†Ǥ ‡˜ƒ†ƒǯ• ˆ‘—” ”‡•’‘†‡–• ƒŽ•‘ ƒŽŽ „‹ŽŽ ‘–ŠŽ›Ǥ ‹Ǧ‘–ŠŽ› ‹• –Š‡ •‡…‘† ‘•– —•‡†Ǥ —ƒŽ „‹ŽŽ‹‰ •—”’ƒ••‡† “—ƒ”–‡”Ž›ǡ ™‹–Š ϐ‹˜‡ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–•ǡ ˆ‘—” ‘ˆ ™Š‹…Š ™‡”‡ ‹ –Š‡ ‘”–Š‡” ”‡‰‹‘Ǥ —ƒ”–‡”Ž› „‹ŽŽ‹‰ ™ƒ• ‘Ž› —•‡† „› ‘‡ ƒ‰‡…› ‹ –Š‡ ‘”–Š‡” ”‡‰‹‘ ƒ† ‘ ‘–Š‡”•Ǥ RECYCLED WATER ‡…›…Ž‡† ™ƒ–‡” …ƒ „‡ ƒ ˜ƒŽ—ƒ„Ž‡ –‘‘Ž ‹ ”‡†—…‹‰ ’‘–ƒ- 23 „Ž‡ †‡ƒ† ƒ† ”‡†—…‹‰ •–”‡•• ‘ •‘—”…‡• ‘ˆ •—’’Ž›Ǥ ‰‡…‹‡• ƒ”‡ ‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‰ –Š‡ ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽ ‘ˆ ƒ††‹‰ ƒ ”‡…›…Ž‡† ™ƒ–‡” …‘’‘‡–ǡ ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”Ž› ‹ Ž‹‰Š– ‘ˆ ‡š–‡†‡† †”‘—‰Š–Ǥ –—†› ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ™‡”‡ ƒ•‡† ™Š‡–Š‡” ‘” ‘– –Š‡‹” ƒ‰‡…› …—””‡–Ž› ’”‘˜‹†‡† ”‡…›…Ž‡† ™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡Ǥ ˆ –Š‡ ͳ͸Ͳ ”‡•’‘†‡–•ǡ Ͷʹ ’”‘˜‹†‡ ”‡…›…Ž‡† ™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡ ™Š‹Ž‡ ͳͳͺ †‘ ‘–Ǥ Š‹• –”ƒ•Žƒ–‡• –‘ ‘‡ ‘ˆ ‡˜‡”› ˆ‘—” •—”˜‡›‡† ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ ”‡…›…Ž‡† ™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡Ǥ ‡•—Ž–• ƒ”‡ •Š‘™ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ͵ʹǤ RECYCLED WATER PRICING Š‡ •—”˜‡› ƒŽ•‘ ƒ•‡† ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ ”‡…›…Ž‡† ™ƒ–‡” •‡”˜‹…‡ Š‘™ –Š‡› ƒ””‹˜‡† ƒ– –Š‡‹” ’”‹…‹‰Ǥ ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž› ŠƒŽˆ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ’”‹…‡ ”‡…›…Ž‡† ™ƒ–‡” ƒ• ƒ ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ’‘–ƒ„Ž‡ ™ƒ–‡” ”ƒ–‡Ǥ ™‡Ž˜‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ Ͷʹ ”‡•’‘†‡–• •–ƒ–‡† –Šƒ– –Š‡› —•‡ …‘•– ‘ˆ •‡”˜‹…‡ǡ …‘˜‡”‹‰ ‡ƒ”Ž› ‘‡Ǧ–Š‹”† ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ‰‡…‹‡• ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ ”‡…›…Ž‡† ™ƒ–‡”Ǥ ‡˜‡ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• —•‡ ‘–Š‡” ‡–Š‘†‘Ž‘‰‹‡•Ǥ ‘” ‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ ‘‡ ‡–Š‘† —•‡• ’‡”…‡–ƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ’‘–ƒble rate for one customer class and the market rate for ƒ‘–Š‡” ™‹–Š‹ ‘‡ ƒ‰‡…›Ǥ ‹ƒŽŽ›ǡ ‘‡ ’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ– —•‡• the market rate and one did not provide a response. ‡•—Ž–• ƒ”‡ •Š‘™ ‹ ‹‰—”‡ ͵͵Ǥ " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 $9(5$*( :$67(:$7(5 &+$5*( %< 5(*,21 $50.0 $44.8 $45.0 Figure 30: Average Wastewater Charges by Region $43.0 $41.8 $38.4 $40.0 $35.0 $28.9 $30.0 $25.0 $20.0 $15.0 $10.0 $5.0 $San Joaquin Southern Northern Central Nevada BILLING FREQUENCY BY REGION Figure 31: Wastewater Rate Structures by Region 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 San Joaquin Southern Northern Central Nevada Quarterly 0 0 1 0 0 Annually 0 1 4 0 0 Bi-Monthly 0 9 12 1 0 Monthly 4 19 25 6 4 5(&<&/(' :$7(5 6(59,&( 5(&<&/(' :$7(5 35,&,1* Yes 26% No 74% Cost of Service 31% 3HUFHQWDJH RI 3RWDEOH 5DWH 46% Other (please VSHFLI\ 20% Figure 32: Agencies Providing Recycled Water Service Market Rate 3% Figure 33: Pricing of Recycled Water " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 24 25 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 El Dorado Irrigation District Placerville LAKE Mil Potrero Mutual Water Company Dune 3 Mutual Water Co. LLC Lake County Special District Clearlake Oaks County Water District Lake County Special District Lake County Special District Lake County Special District Pine Mountain Club Ridgecrest !NM@MY@ Clearlake Oaks Finley Kelseyville Kono Tayee Lake County Special District Lake County Special District Lake County Special District Lake County Special District Lake County Special District Mt Hanna N. Lakeport Soda Bay Spring Valley Starview Callayomi County Water District Mojave Public Utility District Middletown Sundale Mutual Water Company Vaughn Water Company !@JDQRƥDKC Mojave &QDDMƥDKC "NTMSX 6@SDQ #HRSQHBS !@JDQRƥDKC Lancaster & Rosamond Arvin Community Services District Arvin KERN City of Bishop Bishop INYO City of Calexico Calexico McKinleyville City of Eureka Eureka McKinleyville Community Services District Bakman Water Company Fresno ,03(5,$/ HUMBOLDT FRESNO EL DORADO Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. City of Pittsburg Pittsburg CONTRA COSTA South Tahoe Public Utility District Contra Costa Water District Concord South Lake Tahoe Valley Springs Public Utility District Valley Springs South Lake Tahoe Calaveras Public Utility District San Andreas &$/$9(5$6 Amador Water Agency South Feather Water and Power Agency Oroville Dublin San Ramon Services District Water Service Provider BUTTE Dublin & San Ramon Service Area AMADOR ALAMEDA County 01/01/2000 08/26/2014 10/20/2011 07/21/2005 08/20/2014 06/01/2014 09/09/2010 09/15/2003 09/18/2003 07/01/2012 01/16/2011 02/01/2013 07/01/2014 03/01/2015 01/01/2013 04/01/2013 06/01/2014 01/01/2012 07/01/2014 08/01/2008 01/01/2015 07/01/2014 05/06/2014 04/04/2015 01/01/2014 01/01/2015 04/01/2015 04/01/2006 07/01/2014 01/01/2014 07/01/2014 05/05/2014 $ƤDBSHUD Date Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Quarterly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Quarterly Tri-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Billing Frequency $20.00 $32.20 $45.73 $41.53 $43.42 $40.00 $70.21 $22.09 $25.53 $32.36 $19.08 $23.50 $28.75 $21.50 $65.00 $39.95 $21.95 $11.00 $34.00 $43.89 $12.14 $35.10 $13.65 $37.02 $36.00 $27.69 $24.46 $17.50 $30.50 $36.04 $15.00 $13.00 $32.56 Fixed Charge $7.50 $38.50 $66.71 $19.80 $92.78 $24.20 $28.39 $14.70 $14.70 $36.79 $53.81 $20.50 $38.83 $14.96 $3.60 $10.20 $18.75 $29.51 $26.78 $14.85 $12.90 $21.84 $50.91 $51.75 $8.25 $8.70 $6.30 $32.00 $60.94 Commodity Charge $27.50 $70.70 $112.44 $61.33 $136.20 $64.20 $98.60 $36.79 $40.23 $69.15 $72.89 $44.00 $67.58 $36.46 $65.00 $43.55 $32.15 $29.75 $34.00 $43.89 $41.65 $61.88 $28.50 $49.92 $36.00 $49.53 $75.37 $69.25 $38.75 $44.74 $21.30 $45.00 $93.50 Total Charge Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Budget Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Other Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Other Uniform Inclining Inclining Other Inclining Other Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Declining Inclining Budget Rate Format 379 980 1,330 2,735 87 1,200 290 2,625 637 443 300 1,500 4,000 1,100 30,400 8,505 19,000 3,879 40,516 15,200 28,000 13,960 33,000 3,000 100,000 66,183 500,000 900 4,000 17,000 37,764 78,300 Service Population 3 4 7 12 3 45 4 9 6 4 9 4 16 47 40 23 33 34 7 10 11 16 14 7 9 24 7 10 Current Avg. Res. Usage CALIFORNIA WATER SURVEY PARTICIPANTS $2,000 $20,816 $4,776 $4,776 $7,360 $4,900 $12,450 $2,500 $2,500 $3,673 $1,500 $3,100 $10,000 $4,343 $4,850 $4,160 $2,000 $2,802 $2,000 $18,718 $12,690 $18,966 $3,245 $4,222 $12,000 $12,246 Res. Connection Fee " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 26 3/$&(5 ORANGE MONO MERCED Tahoe City Public Utility District Meadow Vista County Water District Meadow Vista Squaw Valley Public Service District City of Santa Ana Santa Ana Tahoe City Moulton Niguel Water District Laguna Niguel Olympic Valley Laguna Beach County Water District Laguna Beach Costa Mesa City of Fountain Valley City of Brea Mesa Water District Brea Fountain Valley Anaheim Public Utilities Winton Water and Sanitary District Winton Bridgeport Public Utility District Hilmar County Water District Hilmar Anaheim City of Ukiah Ukiah Bridgeport North Gualala Water Company City of Fort Bragg Gualala Fort Bragg MENDOCINO Mariposa Public Utility District North Marin Water District Mariposa Walnut Valley Water District Walnut, Diamond Bar, West Covina, Pomona, Rowland Heights Novato City of Vernon Vernon 0$5,326$ City of Santa Monica City of Pico Rivera Water Authority Pico Rivera Santa Monica Kinneloa Irrigation District Pasadena San Fernando Water Department Palmdale Water District Palmdale Newhall County Water District Long Beach Water Department Long Beach Santa Clarita 0T@QSY 'HKK 6@SDQ #HRSQHBS Lancaster & Palmdale San Fernando City of La Verne City of Inglewood Inglewood City of Lakewood City of Downey Downey Lakewood Suburban Water Systems Covina, West Covina, La Puente, Glendora, Hacienda Heights La Verne Burbank Water and Power Water Service Provider Burbank Service Area MARIN LOS ANGELES County 01/01/2015 07/01/2014 01/01/2015 03/01/2015 04/01/2015 11/01/2014 07/01/2014 01/01/2015 07/01/2014 02/01/2015 11/18/2006 07/01/2011 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 01/15/2015 09/01/2014 10/15/2014 06/01/2014 01/01/2015 03/01/2015 05/01/2015 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 01/31/2013 01/01/2015 01/01/2015 10/01/2014 01/01/2015 09/01/2014 02/09/2015 10/01/2012 07/01/2014 01/01/2015 07/01/2014 $ƤDBSHUD Date Monthly Annually Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Billing Frequency $59.00 $63.33 $57.30 $4.53 $10.79 $13.78 $6.16 $10.75 $9.38 $5.00 $64.26 $17.94 $24.80 $32.25 $40.60 $29.00 $34.15 $15.00 $18.29 $7.52 $15.27 $16.47 $16.81 $53.53 $32.05 $13.56 $23.13 $13.50 $36.40 $13.50 $10.97 $18.68 $11.16 Fixed Charge $23.11 $37.04 $19.25 $30.58 $22.15 $63.75 $41.70 $51.00 $46.15 $33.38 $40.95 $107.73 $65.10 $19.95 $51.72 $41.52 $27.48 $51.83 $34.54 $23.49 $43.80 $52.95 $11.25 $38.25 $15.60 $36.57 $36.08 $52.50 $23.39 $39.66 $43.41 Commodity Charge $82.11 $100.37 $76.55 $35.11 $32.94 $77.53 $47.86 $61.75 $55.53 $38.38 $64.26 $17.94 $24.80 $73.20 $148.33 $94.10 $54.10 $66.72 $59.81 $35.00 $51.83 $49.81 $39.96 $60.61 $106.48 $43.30 $51.81 $38.73 $50.07 $72.48 $66.00 $34.36 $58.34 $54.57 Total Charge Inclining Other Inclining Budget Budget Budget Uniform Uniform Inclining Uniform Other Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Uniform Inclining Uniform Uniform Budget Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Rate Format 9,331 926 3,900 330,000 171,000 56,916 108,000 40,963 348,000 425 8,500 5,000 16,185 2,627 2,000 60,000 113,000 55,000 92,185 44,000 39,000 1,950 115,000 469,428 22,400 59,081 32,211 113,000 293,500 105,000 Service Population 8 10 35 13 12 4 14 14 20 25 8 3 70 12 24 15 21 60 18 45 12 24 25 48 20 17 Current Avg. Res. Usage $2,500 $14,685 $1,200 $820 $6,542 $2,786 $3,600 $7,770 $4,705 $2,580 $33,275 $743 $4,865 $2,766 $3,000 $8,251 $3,400 $960 Res. Connection Fee 27 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 SAN BERNARDINO SAN BENITO SACRAMENTO 5,9(56,'( 3/80$6 3/$&(5 County 07/01/2014 04/01/2015 Hesperia Water District Lake Arrowhead Community Services District City of Needles Hesperia Lake Arrowhead Needles Running Springs Water District Crestline Village Water District Crestline Running Springs City of Colton Big Bear Lake Colton West Valley Water District City of Big Bear Lake Big Bear City Cucamonga Valley Water District 02/01/2015 Big Bear City Community Services District Arrowbear Lake Rialto, Colton, Fontana 01/02/2008 Arrowbear Park County Water District Apple Valley Rancho Cucamonga 07/01/2015 Mariana Ranchos County Water District Hollister County of San Bernardino - CSA 70 J 12/19/2014 Sunnyslope County Water District Aromas City of Ontario 06/24/2014 Aromas Water District Sacramento Ontario 12/21/2014 Sacramento Suburban Water District Rancho Murieta Oak Hills 07/01/2014 Rancho Murieta Community Services District 07/01/2014 01/01/2015 04/27/2010 01/01/2015 07/01/2014 11/01/2014 07/01/2013 01/01/2012 07/01/2014 11/01/2014 01/01/2015 08/01/2010 Coachella Valley Water District 06/12/2014 08/27/2013 Pine Cove Water District Idyllwild 01/01/2015 04/01/2015 Lee Lake Water District Lake Hemet Municipal Water District Hemet & San Jacinto Rancho California Water Agency Coachella Water Authority Coachella 01/01/2012 Temescal Valley Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company Bermuda Dunes 07/01/2014 Temecula Quincy Community Services District Quincy 07/01/2015 07/01/2014 Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District East Quincy Services District Quincy Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Wildomar City of Portola Portola 06/01/2006 Indian Valley Community Services District Greenville 02/01/2015 01/01/2006 San Juan Water District Graeagle Water Company 01/01/2015 $ƤDBSHUD Date North Tahoe Public Utility District Water Service Provider Graeagle Tahoe Vista Service Area Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Billing Frequency $27.14 $22.21 $14.19 $22.75 $30.40 $38.49 $34.38 $19.64 $17.50 $16.70 $42.97 $57.66 $24.50 $38.00 $22.79 $32.30 $5.46 $31.38 $7.00 $20.87 $19.06 $16.58 $28.50 $30.00 $13.80 $5.75 $26.15 $26.46 $28.32 $32.09 $20.25 $32.40 $42.02 Fixed Charge $60.90 $32.80 $26.00 $35.10 $33.83 $7.50 $38.16 $20.00 $67.20 $24.15 $31.52 $23.34 $54.00 $38.70 $38.65 $55.68 $13.50 $22.95 $15.70 $32.95 $13.20 $35.93 $42.70 $35.45 $22.50 $14.55 $19.45 $9.60 $37.40 $37.05 $18.60 $12.00 $15.30 Commodity Charge $88.04 $55.01 $40.19 $57.85 $64.23 $45.99 $72.54 $39.64 $84.70 $40.85 $74.49 $81.00 $78.50 $76.70 $61.44 $87.98 $18.96 $54.33 $22.70 $53.82 $32.26 $52.51 $71.20 $65.45 $36.30 $20.30 $45.60 $36.06 $65.72 $69.14 $38.85 $44.40 $57.32 Total Charge Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Budget Inclining Budget Budget Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Other Uniform Uniform Other Uniform Inclining Rate Format 4,862 73,016 186,000 166,866 10,589 3,600 15,000 92,000 7,446 47,000 25,600 12,300 1,349 1,485 19,189 2,700 173,000 5,488 320,000 16,000 147,600 128,232 1,095 50,000 43,633 6,159 1,728 2,500 2,000 3,000 737 37,260 15,000 Service Population 8 24 42 24 18 13 3 10 5 4 8 3 16 13 15 23 22 22 20 8 18 49 11 14 8 26 33 Current Avg. Res. Usage $5,382 $7,099 $9,116 $9,849 $1,270 $14,895 $3,010 $8,676 $8,588 $3,450 $7,895 $9,950 $12,790 $3,707 $6,000 $1,561 $8,997 $3,200 $2,500 $3,729 $3,818 $4,015 $15,154 Res. Connection Fee " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 28 SANTA CLARA SANTA BARBARA SAN MATEO 6$1 /8,6 2%,632 SAN DIEGO SAN BERNARDINO County 09/01/2014 Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District Fallbrook Public Utility District Escondido Fallbrook 01/01/2013 02/01/2015 08/19/2014 Vallecitos Water District Santa Fe Irrigation District Valley Center Municipal Water District Borrego Water District San Marcos Solana Beach Valley Center 07/01/2014 06/01/2013 02/03/2015 01/01/2014 County of San Luis Obispo - CSA 10A Los Osos Community Services District San Miguel Community Services District County of San Luis Obispo - CSA 23 County of San Luis Obispo - CSA 16-1 Templeton Community Services District Cayucos Los Osos San Miguel Santa Margarita Shandon Templeton 10/20/2014 07/01/2014 Montecito Water District City of Santa Barbara City of Santa Maria City of Solvang Vandenberg Village Community Services District City of Milpitas City of Morgan Hill City of Palo Alto San Jose Water Company Montecito Santa Barbara Santa Maria Solvang Vandenberg Village Milpitas Morgan Hill Palo Alto San Jose 07/01/2014 Redwood City 01/01/2015 07/01/2013 01/01/2015 07/28/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 08/14/2015 07/01/2014 City of Daly City City of Redwood City Daly City 07/22/2008 01/10/2012 05/01/2014 Cambria Community Services District Cambria 01/16/2011 Atascadero Mutual Water Company Atascadero 01/01/2015 Yuima Municipal Water District Pauma Valley 07/01/2015 07/01/2014 09/01/2014 Sweetwater Authority 01/01/2015 Carlsbad Municipal Water District Chula Vista & National City 10/21/2014 Apple Valley Heights County Water District Carlsbad 01/01/2015 09/13/2008 07/01/2014 $ƤDBSHUD Date City of Upland Alpine Water Users Association Twin Peaks Upland County of San Bernardino - CSA 64 Water Service Provider Spring Valley Lake Service Area Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Billing Frequency $21.05 $14.67 $8.41 $13.68 $23.78 $109.06 $30.01 $14.22 $38.66 $26.13 $16.06 $17.05 $33.50 $30.71 $14.69 $22.88 $61.41 $11.91 $18.00 $35.12 $35.76 $29.24 $29.29 $37.97 $39.24 $28.85 $8.60 $21.08 $48.00 $18.78 $22.50 $23.50 Fixed Charge $55.05 $98.16 $32.65 $53.95 $20.60 $50.56 $58.42 $83.41 $70.20 $68.60 $75.90 $25.56 $49.58 $35.11 $20.40 $73.90 $47.68 $80.23 $18.90 $34.50 $59.96 $49.05 $49.70 $48.23 $50.82 $56.90 $79.10 $55.75 $32.50 $21.65 $74.25 $13.79 Commodity Charge $76.10 $112.83 $41.06 $67.63 $44.38 $159.62 $88.43 $97.63 $108.86 $94.73 $91.96 $42.61 $83.08 $65.82 $35.09 $96.78 $109.09 $92.14 $36.90 $69.62 $95.72 $78.29 $78.99 $86.20 $90.06 $85.75 $87.70 $76.83 $80.50 $40.43 $96.75 $37.29 Total Charge Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Other Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Uniform Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Rate Format 1,044,400 66,861 40,000 70,000 6,712 5,363 101,000 92,756 13,500 86,000 104,000 7,674 1,295 1,259 2,300 7,086 2,592 7,000 30,048 2,000 25,295 19,400 97,481 1,350 35,000 22,650 186,900 84,838 800 75,670 2,534 12,682 Service Population 13 12 14 17 15 12 23 13 9 10 8 8 10 5 2 15 27 63 14 26 11 11 20 27 22 Current Avg. Res. Usage $5,000 $1,910 $4,670 $13,109 $6,070 $2,638 $24,478 $2,800 $1,500 $9,490 $8,100 $9,000 $19,600 $4,644 $11,549 $6,846 $2,674 $2,400 $3,931 $9,500 $3,768 $1,454 Res. Connection Fee 29 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 Forestville Water District Russian River County Water District Sweetwater Springs Water District City of Santa Rosa Valley of the Moon Water District Town of Windsor Lake Don Pedro Community Services District Forestville Forestville Guerneville & Monte Rio Santa Rosa Sonoma Windsor La Grange Casitas Municipal Water District City of Oxnard City of Port Hueneme Oak Vew Oxnard Port Hueneme Winters Wheatland YOLO YUBA City of Wheatland City of Winters 1HN /K@Y@ 6@SDQ "NLO@MX (MB El Rio 9(1785$ Tuolumne Utilities District Sonora City of Dinuba Dinuba TUOLUMNE City of Yuba City Vallejo Water Division Vallejo Yuba City City of Vacaville Vacaville Sutter Community Services District City of Weed Weed City of Waterford McCloud Community Services District McCloud Sutter Bella Vista Water District Waterford City of Anderson Anderson Redding City of Riverbank 07/01/2011 Scotts Valley Water District Scotts Valley Riverbank 07/01/2014 "HSX NE 2@MS@ "QTY 2@MS@ "QTY 10/01/2014 01/01/2014 07/01/2012 01/01/2013 07/01/2013 04/09/2015 07/22/2014 01/01/2014 09/01/2014 03/01/2015 07/01/2014 07/01/2010 09/01/2014 01/01/2015 07/01/2014 08/01/2010 07/01/2014 07/01/2013 03/01/2014 03/01/2015 12/01/2014 06/01/2015 10/01/2014 12/15/2014 07/01/2015 01/01/2015 2@M +NQDMYN 5@KKDX 6@SDQ #HRSQHBS Boulder Creek 11/19/2013 $ƤDBSHUD Date Central Water District Water Service Provider Aptos Service Area TULARE SUTTER STANISLAUS SONOMA SOLANO SISKIYOU SHASTA SANTA CRUZ County Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Billing Frequency $45.47 $20.09 $37.62 $14.30 $23.34 $24.01 $36.38 $20.85 $20.98 $9.01 $13.40 $14.65 $53.00 $9.13 $8.17 $12.52 $33.28 $18.50 $28.70 $22.20 $16.05 $20.95 $40.00 $18.53 $11.71 $24.43 $21.08 $30.64 $20.00 Fixed Charge $20.25 $57.00 $45.33 $15.54 $26.01 $23.43 $2.68 $17.70 $21.45 $3.40 $30.00 $49.47 $44.99 $58.28 $40.05 $44.00 $34.44 $53.28 $22.74 $4.62 $7.05 $88.34 $71.53 $63.00 $28.85 Commodity Charge $45.47 $40.34 $94.62 $59.63 $38.88 $50.02 $59.81 $23.53 $20.98 $26.71 $34.85 $18.05 $83.00 $58.60 $53.16 $70.80 $73.33 $62.50 $63.14 $75.48 $38.79 $25.57 $40.00 $25.58 $11.71 $112.77 $92.61 $93.64 $48.85 Total Charge Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Declining Uniform Uniform Uniform Declining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Uniform Uniform Uniform Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Rate Format 3,495 6,950 22,500 196,720 65,000 2,200 44,000 23,966 65,000 2,904 312 23,000 1,415 27,000 23,500 180,000 9,000 3,700 2,500 118,000 94,000 3,000 1,300 17,619 10,000 10,500 90,000 28,205 2,700 Service Population 14 11 12 20 18 9 15 16 10 7 7 7 9 17 11 24 9 10 10 Current Avg. Res. Usage $3,133 $18,365 $3,000 $3,034 $7,500 $10,000 $5,283 $1,680 $8,025 $5,000 $11,173 $19,976 $5,827 Res. Connection Fee " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 30 WASHOE 3(56+,1* DOUGLAS CLARK CHURCHILL County 01/01/2013 07/01/2012 11/19/2013 Gardnerville Water Company Kingsbury General Improvement District Round Hill General Improvement District Gardnerville Stateline Zephyr Cove 05/19/2014 Incline Village General Improvement District Truckee Meadow Water Authority Incline Village Reno & Sparks 01/24/2014 07/01/2014 Lovelock Meadows Water District Lovelock 04/20/2015 Virgin Valley Water District 12/02/2011 01/01/2015 Mesquite & Bunkerville City of Henderson Moapa Valley Water District Henderson 7/1/2006 $ƤDBSHUD Date Moapa Valley City of Fallon Water Service Provider Fallon Service Area Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Billing Frequency $18.54 $27.54 $33.60 $57.00 $62.92 $14.50 $35.00 $29.79 $12.45 $15.00 Fixed Charge $24.22 $14.52 $9.20 $28.80 $9.31 $20.50 $24.23 $19.46 $16.05 Commodity Charge $42.76 $42.06 $42.80 $57.00 $91.72 $23.81 $55.50 $54.02 $31.91 $31.05 Total Charge Inclining Inclining Uniform Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Inclining Uniform Rate Format 385,000 9,313 5,619 1,300 2,800 5,000 19,579 8,500 285,000 8,600 Service Population NEVADA WATER SURVEY PARTICIPANTS 16 8 11 10 16 14 23 18 11 Current Avg. Res. Usage $7,500 $4,740 $2,500 $11,455 $5,770 $1,982 $1,600 $4,000 Res. Connection Fee 31 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 South Tahoe PUD South Lake Tahoe Tahoe City Public Utility District City of Portola East Quincy Services District Olympic Valley Tahoe City Portola Quincy * F = Fixed, V = Variable, F+V = Fixed Plus Variable 3/80$6 3/$&(5 Moulton Niguel Water District Squaw Valley Public Service District Laguna Niguel City of Santa Ana Brea Santa Ana City Of Brea Napa 1$3$ ORANGE Napa Sanitation District Bridgeport Bridgeport Public Utility District Winton Water and Sanitary Dist Winton MONO MERCED Hilmar County Water District Long Beach Water Department Long Beach City of Ukiah City of Santa Monica Santa Monica Hilmar City of La Verne La Verne Ukiah City of Inglewood Inglewood MENDOCINO Lake County Special District Kelseyville Mariposa Public Utility District Lake County Special District Lacosan 1 Mariposa Lake County Special District Corinian Bay Lake County Special District Lake County Special District Middletown S Lakeport Lake County Special District Lacosan 3 0$5,326$ LOS ANGELES LAKE Mojave Public Utility District KERN City of Bishop Clearlake Oaks County Water District Bishop INYO City of Calexico Mojave Calexico ,03(5,$/ Clearlake Oaks McKinleyville HUMBOLDT McKinleyville Community Services District El Dorado Irrigation District Placerville EL DORADO Amador Water Agency Valley Springs PUD Valley Springs Dublin San Ramon Services District Water Service Provider &$/$9(5$6 Dublin & San Ramon Service Area AMADOR ALAMEDA County 07/01/2015 08/01/2014 01/01/2015 07/01/2014 04/01/2015 03/01/2015 12/01/2014 07/01/2014 11/18/2006 07/01/2011 07/01/2014 07/01/2011 10/15/2014 10/01/2014 05/01/2015 07/01/2014 10/01/2012 08/24/2006 12/03/2010 09/14/1995 12/15/2011 09/14/1995 12/03/2010 07/01/2012 03/01/2015 07/01/2014 08/01/2008 07/01/2014 01/01/2014 04/01/2006 02/01/2015 07/01/2013 $ƤDBSHUD Date Monthly Monthly Monthly Annually Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Annually Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Quarterly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Billing Frequency $55.49 $40.30 $38.41 $42.42 $22.68 $0.50 $7.88 $39.15 $78.54 $49.16 $26.35 $62.44 $29.00 $7.80 $4.50 $7.50 $31.51 $26.03 $20.00 $53.95 $16.30 $28.34 $45.93 $13.13 $30.00 $38.08 $17.57 $33.34 $35.98 $49.50 $86.68 $30.21 Fixed Charge $3.04 $24.50 $3.61 $46.30 $3.10 $14.90 $38.78 $1.13 Commodity Charge $55.49 $40.30 $38.41 $42.42 $22.68 $3.54 $7.88 $39.15 $78.54 $49.16 $26.35 $86.94 $29.00 $11.41 $46.30 $4.50 $7.50 $31.51 $26.03 $20.00 $53.95 $16.30 $28.34 $49.03 $13.13 $30.00 $38.08 $32.47 $33.34 $74.76 $50.63 $86.68 $30.21 Total Charge F F+V F F F F+V F F F F F F+V F F+V V F F F F F F F F F+V F F F+V F+V F F+V F+V F F Rate Format* 2,500 2,000 9,331 926 171,000 330,000 40,963 78,500 425 8,500 5,000 16,185 2,000 469,428 92,185 32,211 2,625 14,596 191 24 1,132 8,940 4,000 3,879 40,516 15,200 33,000 100,000 900 37,764 78,300 Service Population $3,378 $5,324 $1,000 $3,588 $8,723 $2,400 $5,918 $- $1,050 $2,239 $1,700 $4,876 $10,345 $4,776 $4,876 $9,435 $6,000 $3,000 $2,000 $4,817 $13,119 $6,162 $16,656 Res. Connection Fee CALIFORNIA WASTEWATER SURVEY PARTICIPANTS " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 32 Running Springs Water District Carlsbad Municipal Water District Running Springs Carlsbad City of Vacaville City of Santa Rosa Forestville Water District Forestville * F = Fixed, V = Variable, F+V = Fixed Plus Variable SONOMA SOLANO Santa Rosa McCloud Community Services District Vacaville City of Weed Weed McCloud SISKIYOU City of Anderson Anderson 2@M +NQDMYN 5@KKDX 6@SDQ #HRSQHBS Boulder Creek City of Palo Alto Palo Alto SHASTA Vandenberg Village CSD City of Milpitas City of Solvang Solvang Vandenberg Village City of Santa Maria Santa Maria Milpitas City of Redwood City City of Santa Barbara Redwood City Templeton Community Services District Templeton Santa Barbara San Miguel CSD San Miguel SANTA CRUZ SANTA CLARA SANTA BARBARA SAN MATEO 6$1 /8,6 2%,632 SAN DIEGO Cambria Community Services District Lake Arrowhead Community Services District Lake Arrowhead Cambria Hesperia Water District Valley Center Municipal Water District County of San Bernardino - CSA 64 Spring Valley Lake Hesperia Valley Center City of Upland Upland Vallecitos Water District City of Needles Needles San Marcos Arrowbear Park County Water District Arrowbear Lake SAN BERNARDINO Sunnyslope County Water District Hollister SAN BENITO Rancho California Water Agency Temecula Rancho Murieta CSD Lake Hemet MWD Hemet & San Jacinto Rancho Murieta Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District 07/01/2014 01/01/2015 03/01/2014 07/01/2014 03/01/2015 10/01/2014 01/01/2015 07/01/2012 07/28/2014 07/01/2014 10/20/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 11/01/2014 06/01/2013 01/01/2012 02/01/2013 07/01/2014 01/01/2015 07/01/2014 02/01/2015 01/02/2008 07/01/2014 07/01/2014 11/01/2014 12/19/2014 12/21/2014 07/01/2014 06/12/2014 01/01/2014 07/01/2013 Coachella Valley Water District Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, Wildomar 07/01/2014 08/01/2010 Quincy Community Services District Quincy 06/01/2006 $ƤDBSHUD Date Indian Valley CSD Water Service Provider Greenville Service Area SACRAMENTO 5,9(56,'( 3/80$6 County Annually Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Annually Monthly Monthly Billing Frequency $119.80 $21.60 $56.61 $40.10 $24.72 $21.37 $149.00 $29.31 $43.47 $72.20 $34.10 $17.42 $15.70 $68.77 $34.36 $37.09 $32.52 $51.20 $37.45 $26.03 $36.32 $48.28 $22.99 $45.90 $21.89 $39.24 $35.00 $95.93 $45.32 $38.75 $30.00 $43.50 $24.50 $45.82 $18.00 Fixed Charge $99.30 $8.40 $14.50 $27.30 $18.43 $6.09 $56.40 Commodity Charge $119.80 $120.90 $65.01 $40.10 $24.72 $35.87 $149.00 $29.31 $43.47 $72.20 $34.10 $17.42 $43.00 $68.77 $34.36 $37.09 $50.95 $51.20 $37.45 $26.03 $42.41 $48.28 $22.99 $45.90 $21.89 $39.24 $35.00 $152.33 $45.32 $38.75 $30.00 $43.50 $24.50 $45.82 $18.00 Total Charge F F+V F+V F F F+V F F F F F F F+V F F F F+V F F F F+V F F F F F F F+V F F F F F F F Rate Format* 2,500 180,000 94,000 1,300 3,000 10,000 28,205 66,861 70,000 6,712 5,363 101,000 92,756 86,000 7,674 2,300 7,000 25,295 97,481 84,838 4,862 15,000 92,000 12,682 75,670 3,600 1,349 19,189 5,488 147,600 50,000 128,232 320,000 1,728 3,000 Service Population $11,743 $9,265 $10,500 $1,908 $5,347 $7,010 $4,977 $3,096 $5,441 $8,332 $9,000 $8,935 $9,039 $842 $5,646 $9,033 $1,826 $6,412 $1,570 $2,850 $17,925 $8,203 $3,200 $8,621 $4,851 $4,339 Res. Connection Fee 33 " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 City of Port Hueneme Port Hueneme City of Winters * F = Fixed, V = Variable, F+V = Fixed Plus Variable YOLO Winters City of Oxnard Oxnard 9(1785$ Tuolumne Utilities District Sonora TUOLUMNE City of Yuba City Yuba City SUTTER City of Waterford Water Service Provider Waterford Service Area STANISLAUS County 01/01/2015 07/01/2012 10/01/2013 02/23/2010 09/01/2014 07/01/2014 $ƤDBSHUD Date Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Bi-monthly Monthly Monthly Billing Frequency $45.00 $36.00 $21.07 $35.59 $38.39 $30.51 Fixed Charge $16.20 $13.85 Commodity Charge $61.20 $36.00 $34.92 $35.59 $38.39 $30.51 Total Charge F+V F+V F+V F F F Rate Format* 6,950 22,500 196,720 44,000 65,000 312 Service Population $4,734 $3,800 Res. Connection Fee " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 34 Henderson Zephyr Cove Incline Village DOUGLAS WASHOE Water Service Provider Incline Village General Improvement District Round Hill General Improvement District City of Henderson City of Fallon * F = Fixed, V = Variable, F+V = Fixed Plus Variable Fallon CLARK Service Area CHURCHILL County 05/19/2014 11/19/2013 01/01/2015 03/01/2015 $ƤDBSHUD Date Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Billing Frequency $46.13 $54.00 $25.78 $30.00 Fixed Charge $20.10 Commodity Charge $66.23 $54.00 $25.78 $30.00 Total Charge F+V F F F Rate Format* 9,313 1,300 285,000 8,600 Service Population NEVADA WASTEWATER SURVEY PARTICIPANTS $7,100 $1,800 $3,000 Res. Connection Fee .0 at WASTEWAIER RATE 5 BACKGROUND ON CA-NV AWWA & RFC 7+( &$/,)251,$ʘ1(9$'$ 6(&7,21 ‹• –Š‡ Žƒ”‰‡•– ”‡‰‹‘ƒŽ •‡…–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‡”‹…ƒ ƒ–‡” ‘”• ••‘…‹ation with about one-tenth of the AWWA membership. ‹…‡ ͳͺͺͳǡ Šƒ• Ž‡† –Š‡ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ƒ† †‹••‡‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ™ƒ–‡” ‹†—•–”› ‰—‹†‡Ž‹‡•ǡ •–ƒ†ƒ”†•ǡ ’”‘…‡†—”‡•ǡ –”ƒ‹‹‰ ƒ† ‘–Š‡” ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘Ǥ ‘ ˆ—Žϐ‹ŽŽ ‹–• ‹••‹‘ ‘ˆ Ž‡ƒ†‹‰ǡ ‡†—…ƒ–‹‰ǡ ƒ† •‡”˜‹‰ –Š‡ †”‹‹‰ ™ƒ–‡” …‘—‹–› –‘ ‡•—”‡ ’—„Ž‹… Š‡ƒŽ–Š ƒ† –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ •ƒˆ‡ ƒ† •—ˆϐ‹…‹‡– ™ƒ–‡” ˆ‘” ƒŽŽǡ Ǧ AWWA offers a number of educational opportunities •—…Š ƒ• …‘ˆ‡”‡…‡•ǡ ™‘”•Š‘’•ǡ ƒ–‡” †—…ƒ–‹‘ ‡‹ƒ”•ǡ ƒ† –Š‡ ƒ–‡” ‘ŽŽ‡‰‡Ǥ Ǧ ƒŽ•‘ ƒƒ‰‡• •‹š ’”‘ˆ‡••‹‘ƒŽ …‡”–‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹‘ ’”‘‰”ƒ• •‡”˜‹‰ ‘˜‡” ʹͲǡͲͲͲ ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ•ǡ Š‡Ž’‹‰ –‘ ‡•—”‡ †”‹‹‰ ™ƒ–‡” •ƒˆ‡–› ˆ‘” ‘˜‡” ͵ͷ ‹ŽŽ‹‘ ’‡‘’Ž‡Ǥ Š‡ ‡…–‹‘ ’—„Ž‹•Š‡• ƒ “—ƒ”–‡”Ž› Œ‘—”ƒŽǡ Source, and Š‡Ž’• †‹••‡‹ƒ–‡ –‡…Š‹…ƒŽ ‹’—– ‘ †”‹‹‰ ™ƒ–‡” ‹••—‡• –‘ •–ƒ–‡ ”‡‰—Žƒ–‘”• ƒ† Ž‡‰‹•Žƒ–‘”•Ǥ 5$)7(/,6 ),1$1&,$/ &2168/7$176 ,1& 5)& was ˆ‘—†‡† ‹ ͳͻͻ͵ –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ •‡”˜‹…‡• –Šƒ– Š‡Ž’ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ˆ—…–‹‘ ƒ• •—•–ƒ‹ƒ„Ž‡ ‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘• ™Š‹Ž‡ ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ –Š‡ ’—„Ž‹… ™‹–Š …Ž‡ƒ ™ƒ–‡” ƒ– ƒ ƒˆˆ‘”†ƒ„Ž‡ ’”‹…‡Ǥ ‹–Š –Š‹• ‰‘ƒŽ ‹ ‹†ǡ Šƒ• ‰”‘™ –‘ „‡…‘‡ –Š‡ Žƒ”‰‡•– ƒ† ‘‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ‘•– ”‡•’‡…–‡† —–‹Ž‹–› ϐ‹ƒ…‹ƒŽ ƒ† ƒƒ‰‡‡– …‘•—Ž–‹‰ ’”ƒ…–‹…‡• ‹ –Š‡ ƒ–‹‘Ǥ Šƒ• ‡š’‡”‹‡…‡ ’”‘˜‹†‹‰ –Š‡•‡ •‡”˜‹…‡• –‘ Š—†”‡†• ‘ˆ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ƒ…”‘•• –Š‡ …‘—–”› ƒ† ƒ„”‘ƒ†ǡ ƒŽŽ‘™‹‰ –Š‡ –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ –Š‡‹” …Ž‹‡–• ™‹–Š ‹‘˜ƒ–‹˜‡ ƒ† ‹•‹‰Š–ˆ—Ž ”‡…‘‡†ƒ–‹‘• –Šƒ– ƒ”‡ ˆ‘—†‡† ‘ ‹†—•–”› „‡•– ’”ƒ…–‹…‡•Ǥ Š”‘—‰Š‘—– –Š‡‹” Š‹•–‘”›ǡ –Š‡› Šƒ˜‡ ƒ‹–ƒ‹‡† ƒ •–”‹…– ˆ‘…—• ‘ –Š‡ ϐ‹ƒ…‹ƒŽ ƒ† ƒƒ‰‡‡– ƒ•’‡…–• ‘ˆ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡•ǡ „—‹Ž†‹‰ ƒ •–ƒˆˆ ™‹–Š ‘™Ž‡†‰‡ ƒ† •‹ŽŽ• –Šƒ– ƒ”‡ ‡š–”‡‡Ž› •’‡…‹ƒŽ‹œ‡† –‘ –Š‡ •‡”˜‹…‡• –Šƒ– –Š‡› ’”‘˜‹†‡ǡ ƒ† –Š—• ƒŽŽ‘™‹‰ them to provide their clients with independent and objective advice. ’‡”•‘‡Ž Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ …‘†—…–‹‰ –Š‡ …‘’”‡hensive national Water and Wastewater Rate Survey „‹‡‹ƒŽŽ› •‹…‡ ͳͻͺ͸ ƒ† Šƒ˜‡ …‘Ǧ’—„Ž‹•Š‡† –Š‡ •—”˜‡› ™‹–Š •‹…‡ ͳͻͻ͸Ǥ Š‡ •—”˜‡› Šƒ• ‡š–‡•‹˜‡ †ƒ–ƒ ‘ —–‹Ž‹–‹‡• ƒ…”‘•• –Š‡ …‘—–›Ǥ Š‡ ʹͲͳͶ Water and Wastewater Rate Survey can be obtained on the AWWA website. $'',7,21$/ &23,(6 2) 7+( 6859(< CAN BE OBTAINED BY CONTACTING: CA-NV AWWA at 909.291.2113 10435 Ashford Street, 2nd Floor Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 We welcome any suggestions for enhancing the survey as a benchmarking tool for the utilities we serve. For questions or comments, contact Sudhir Pardiwala or Kevin Kostiuk. 68'+,5 3$5',:$/$ .(9,1 .267,8. 3 626.583.1894 F: 626.583.1411 E: spardiwala@raftelis.com 3 213.262.9309 F: 626.583.1411 E: kkostiuk@raftelis.com " +(%.1-( ȃ-$5 # 6 3$1 -# 6 23$6 3$1 1 3$ 2415$8 36 ZZZ FD QY DZZD RUJ 10435 Ashford Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 ZZZ UDIWHOLV FRP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2270 Los Angeles, CA 90071