Several ratepayers have asked about unabashed EID promoter Paul Raveling’s brazen claims that EID has low water rates. Confused that their individual EID water bills don’t mesh with Raveling’s claims, ratepayers want to know the truth.
Thank you for reading the MtDemocrat.com digital edition. In order to continue reading this story please choose one of the following options.
If you are a current subscriber and wish to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com, please select the Subscriber Verification option below. If you already have a login, please select "Login" at the lower right corner of this box.
Special Introductory Offer
For a short time we will be offering a discount to those who call us in order to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your print subscription. Our customer support team will be standing by Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm to assist you.
If you are not a current subscriber and wish not to take advantage of our special introductory offer, please select the $12 monthly option below to obtain access to MtDemocrat.com and start your online subscription
Purportedly backing Raveling’s claims is his self-manufactured analysis of 2011 water rate comparisons throughout California. But here’s the “rub:”
1) At the 1500 cubic foot usage water consumption rate chosen by Raveling, EID has implemented and approved rate hikes of 42.4 percent in 2012 (remember the “50/50” rate change reversion back to pre-2009 rate structuring?), 11 percent in 2013, and 11 percent coming in 2014 … a water rate hike surge of 75 percent just in this three year period alone. Raveling’s numbers for 2011 disingenuously and deviously ignore this rapid $206 annual climb in EID rates. (Even more confounding is that Raveling ignored using his own self-generated “Rate Calculators” found on the EID Website.)
2) EID receives property tax subsidies that most water agencies, including neighboring Folsom, do not. So EID’s “all-in, property tax inclusive bills” average $153 more annually than in Raveling’s willfully misleading portrayal of EID cost efficiencies.
3) Through accounting gimmicks, EID’s rates exclude $9 million annually of deferred debt repayment and unfunded pension costs. This effectively adds another $139 annually of rates if these deferred and unfunded costs were properly included in current rate requirements.
Altogether, Raveling has willfully and/or ineptly misrepresented and understated EID’s water comparative cost efficiencies by $498 per ratepayer annually … some $41.50 monthly higher than the scant $1.52 monthly comparative difference Raveling portrayed in his published letter.
With such distorted data portrayal, it is no wonder that EID’s current board-majority love to hear Raveling pontificate during public comment at EID board meetings. They further cry out “hear-hear” when Raveling submits his latest fantasy distortions to the Village Life and Mountain Democrat.
But EID bills don’t lie. Irrespective of Raveling’s unwillingness to let truth stand in his way, EID ratepayers know transformational change is needed on EID’s board when they go to the polls this coming November.