|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Taking a stand against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed statewide drinking water tax, the Zone 7 Board of Directors unanimously voted to officially oppose the proposal at its regular meeting on Wednesday.
Director Dick Quigley stated that “taxing water sets a terrible precedent” that would burden disadvantaged communities and increase retailer costs.
Nearly 800,000 Californians lack access to safe and reliable drinking water, according to the State Water Resources Control Board, which has also identified 329 systems throughout the state that either serve contaminated drinking water or cannot provide reliable service due to inadequate infrastructure or because they lack the necessary resources to do so.
During his first few days in office, Newsom proposed a statewide tax on drinking water that would raise approximately $140 million annually to fund solutions for those communities. Revenue would be collected on drinking water for residential, business, industrial and institutional customers, and range from 95 cents to $10 a month, depending on meter size. Fees charged to dairy producers and feedlot operators would generate the remaining $30 million.
The Zone 7 board called it “unthinkable” that some California residents lack access to clean and safe drinking water, but said a drinking water tax would be “regressive” and not the right solution.
Instead, all of the agency’s directors have unanimously thrown their support behind Senate Bill 669, which would create a Safe Drinking Water Trust to help those same communities. The trust would be formed within the State Treasury and paid by general fund dollars while the state is in a budget surplus. The principal would be invested and net income from the Trust would be transferred to a Safe Water Drinking Fund overseen by the state water board.
In a statement, Zone 7 said “this proposal would create a durable funding source for costs associated with operation and maintenance and consolidation efforts and would complement existing federal and state funding sources for capital costs.”
an alameda county public servant who does not like a new tax??? who would of thunk it!
I’m generally against a tax on water too for the regressive aspect of it, but I’d like to hear something more concrete from Zone 7 than “give us your general surplus” because there’s education, transportation, water and housing all fighting over those funds.
And on that note,
“paid by general fund dollars while the state is in a budget surplus”
Yet
“this proposal would create a durable funding source”
Err that’s some doublespeak.
I’ll pay if I no longer need to water soften.. if I have no spots on my cars and shower doors sign me up.. otherwise take a hike
Before anybody imposes a tax on Pleasanton water they should be made to drink it. It is undrinkable! This is the only place I’ve ever lived that you couldn’t pay me to drink the water. It smells horrendous coming out of the pipes, tastes horrible and corrodes pipes without a water softener. We already pay a lot of money for our water – much more than we should. Come have a free taste Governor!!!
We need to impose a 2x tax on the campaign funds for every tax a politician brings to the table.
Funny how we point to trumps lack of character for cheating on his wife with a pornstar, but we blindly accept leadership from a guy that slept with his campaign managers wife…..oh, and a 19yr old. I mean he technically didn’t break the law…..
Ex gov. “Moonbeam” is starting to look a little less looney compared to this “nut”. Been here my whole life and have never been able to drink the water without filtering first, should I be getting some kind of a refund??
Where is all the water going to come from for all the new housing the city planners are slipping by us, and it certainly isn’t affordable housing being built!
For the record I have been drinking Zone 7 water unfiltered for 2 years now… It’s totally fine.
@Map,
Residential water use is 10% of the state’s water use, and half of THAT is landscaping. Residential water use is a poor argument against new housing. New housing is never affordable, but it keeps rich people from bidding up the remaining housing, so it has a benefit.
With all this new housing being built I can’t wait till the next drought and we get our water allotment cut maybe 20-25%, our water bills get increased again and zone 7 tries to sell us on recycled sewage water as the clean safe water of the future, wake up all you lovers of small towns turned into big cities the only winners here are the investors, developers, realtors and the city council.
Still haven’t seen my water bill go down after the last drought ended???
If healthcare is a right and should be free if college is a right and should be free why do we have to pay for water the most basic fundamental needs of humans
Water should be free it’s a right to have water
Just to be clear – this tax def should not apply to zone 7 water, as like other’s said, it is not suitable for drinking. My dogs will drink out of the nastiest looking creeks, puddles; they eat dry kibble, no table food, but won’t touch the tap water, unless they are desperate. I just tried one day giving them the water I drink (bottled) – oh my, they only drink from that bowl now. There is definitely a palatability problem with Ptown tap water, not to mention it’s bad effects on pipes, cars, shower doors, etc. If I wasn’t planning to move, I’d def invest in a softener going forward, but seriously – for the price, we are not getting what we pay for.
Zone Seven Water is not suitable for drinking, Zone Seven Water is not suitable for cooking. How can he call it drinking water, how can he tax it?
Zone Seven Water is suitable for flushing the toilets and Zone Seven Water is suitable for washing cloths and suitable for irrigation, period!
You all put this man in office and now you are gonna see just how crazy he is. Elections do have consequences. Jerry Brown looks like a conservative compared to newscum.
Wow – had the exact same comment.
Apparently the only rational / consistency in the logic for “fundamental rights” is that if you can’t afford them, they must be subsidized for you by those that can afford to pay for them.
In essence, this redefinition of rights are not based on human needs/fundamentals, they’re based on social economic status and the ability to access them. The higher in status; the less the fundamental “right” is. The lower in social economic status the higher the “right” is.
Human rights can’t be defined by personal economics. They should stand alone; and government should ensure access for all to those through policy, regulation, etc. Our problem today is government’s ability to scope creep by redefining what is inclusive in those rights and apparently altering the definition of what “access to them” is.