The letters in Friday’s edition by Mr. Raveling and Mr. Prada present contrary viewpoints. This causes a response.
It seems to be the old “form (Raveling) vs. substance (Prada)” comparison that haunts us all in political matters. And in this case, “substance” has trumped “form.”
The obvious flaw in Mr. Raveling’s comment is that it is a 2011 comparison of water rates well before the full impact of EID’s recent rate increases is felt by some ratepayers, particularly the Single Family Residence (SFR) classification. The methodology is also suspect.
The increase in rate was based on the Cost of Service Survey (COSS) in 2010. The stated “Principles” for that survey state for numerous principles that the rate structure be “fair and reasonable.” With rates established as outlined by Mr. Prada for the SFR, a concern arises about the “fair” part of the principles. It seems not all ratepayers are created equal. This is apparent when comparing the rates for, among other, SFR (significantly higher) and Agricultural (measurably lower) classifications. A more just distribution of costs is required to achieve the “fair(ness)” factor in the COSS.
The “reasonable” factor was met because EID is significantly in debt due to past actions. (The description of these debt-incurring decisions is left to others.)
A realignment of the rates is required to accomplish this goal of reducing debt “fair(ly).”