Analysis of Surfside’s Water Rates: Comparisons and Underlying Factors

Recently, the president of Surfsides home owner association  highlighted the community’s water rates, drawing comparisons with other cities. A Board member noted during the budget debate that Surfside’s base water rate as part of the budget cost members just  $31, significantly lower than Vancouver’s approximate rate of $100. This rate forms part of the dues paid by members, raising questions about why Surfside’s rates are markedly lower compared to other water districts. What they failed to research was the details of the water rates and investment in stormwater management.

A deeper dive reveals that surfside charges lot owners for water , unlike nearby areas such as Ocean Shores, Long Beach, and Ocean park that do not charge base water rates for lots not connected to the water service. Only properties with water meters are billed, directing these fees towards the maintenance of the water system and service delivery to residents. In contrast, the average water rates across more than 20 cities near Vancouver, WA, include a base water rate of $42.93, with additional charges for sewer and stormwater management averaging $73.91 and $14.98 respectively. The lack of stormwater fee underscores the lack of investment in stormwater management. The reliance on septic tanks versus sewers is not covered but has an environmental impact. However, the standard practice is to not charge for base water that is unconnected.

Interestingly, Surfside does not impose a stormwater management fee. The community’s investment in this area is minimal compared to other cities that actively fund storm drainage systems, sewers, and tree programs that significantly aid in managing stormwater. There is control of the level of water in the lake and canals. This does provide critical stormwater management helping preventative  flooding However, investment in other stormwater management areas is minimal. This lack of funding could partially account for the lower water rates mentioned. Such underinvestment in stormwater management could leave Surfside susceptible to flooding, particularly as rising sea levels and more severe storms affect coastal regions in Washington.

Assessing Surfside’s Annual Fee Collection from Unmetered Lot Owners and Its Impact on Water Rates

Surfside collects $372 annually from 700 unmetered lot owners according to the stated rate of 31 dollars, a practice that effectively subsidizes lower rates for those who are connected to the water system. If all members connected to the water system were to pay these fees, the average water rate would be more in line with general utility rates, amounting to approximately $41 per month.

The case of Ocean Shores is particularly relevant here. Previously, the city charged lot owners for water services even though their lots were not connected to the water supply. This practice was challenged in the 2004 legal case, Carrillo v. City of Ocean Shores, where the court ruled that Ocean Shores must cease charging water rates to these lot owners.. This precedent raises questions about the fairness of similar charges in Surfside. Essentially, ethics is about doing the right thing—so, is it fair to charge lot owners for water as part of fees when they don’t use any?

Legal and Environmental Considerations

This situation calls for a legal review to determine whether Surfside’s practices align with Washington state laws regarding utility charges. The differentiation in charges between connected and unconnected lots may warrant a reevaluation of what constitutes fair and legal billing practices for water rates.

Stormwater Management in Washington Cities: Strategies to Combat Flooding and Climate Change

Cities across Washington are actively engaging in comprehensive stormwater management practices to mitigate flooding risks and combat climate change. These areas have implemented various strategies, including the installation of advanced drainage sewers, the promotion of rain gardens, tree canopy growth through planting and preserving trees, and the construction of storm ditches,  which efficiently channel rainwater and reduce overflow. Additionally, local governments have enacted construction ordinances that prioritize stormwater management and emphasize the importance of preserving existing trees while also expanding urban tree canopies. These legislative efforts not only help manage stormwater but also enhance the city’s resilience against climate change by improving air quality and reducing urban heat islands. Collectively, these investments are crucial in safeguarding homes from flooding and promoting environmental sustainability in Washington’s cities.

Counterproductive Policies: How Tree Removal and Height Restrictions Hinder Flood Prevention in Pacific County and Surfside”

Pacific County and Surfside are inadvertently hindering flood prevention measures by removing trees and implementing tree height restrictions, which limit canopy growth. Although these trees are removed because they are deemed hazardous, the height restriction policies lead to these trees dying in the first place due to topping. The claim that they are doing a service to the community is the ultimate hypocrisy. This practice contradicts efforts to expand tree canopies as part of stormwater management policies. Moreover, it is particularly alarming that this leads to the reduction of tree canopies in vital areas near waterways. This approach acts as an anti-stormwater policy, running counter to initiatives aimed at expanding tree canopies. Even more concerning is the resulting depletion of tree canopies in critical areas close to waterways. We are essentially prioritizing a distant view of an ocean for lack of preparation to reduce flooding that may end up  costing residents millions of dollars in damages to homes. Here is an article this last december due to an atmospheric river causing significant damage.

https://www.foxweather.com/extreme-weather/washington-flood-threat-rain-snowmelt-rivers-roads

Surfside’s Low Water Rates: A Misleading Benefit?

Surfside’s low water rates may initially appear beneficial to residents, but they could signal a deeper problem: insufficient investment in critical infrastructure for flood prevention and stormwater management. Although board members may highlight the advantages of these low rates, their history of inadequate investment in storm management and policy that limit tree canopy growth is concerning. Board members should commit to forward-thinking, best practices in stormwater management, especially given that their tree-cutting and tree height restrictions decisions run counter to tree-preservation efforts by mayors and county officials across Washington. While ignorance of litigation over water fees in places like Ocean Shores might be understandable, ignoring the scientifically proven benefits of expanding tree canopies and preserving trees for effective stormwater management is another matter entirely. The board’s communication with members, which boasts about low water rates, represents a case of self-promotion gone wrong, overshadowing the critical need for substantial investments in infrastructure and a overturning a policy of tree height restriction.

Engaging Professional Experts in stormwater Management: policy driven by science.

In other cities, professional experts manage public water utilities under the guidance of mayors and city councils. Cities and counties in Washington are following guidance from scientific experts  in establishing urban forestry plans and stormwater management

They also acknowledge that providing water services is part of a broader set of duties that includes protecting residents from the impacts of climate change and flooding. These utilities focus on delivering water efficiently, while also prioritizing the implementation of stormwater management and tree canopy expansion strategies, based on professional consultations and scientific studies. They collect fees from residents to  invest in infrastructure and urban forestry, recognizing the importance of managing stormwater to protect homes and residents, even if it results in higher rates. It is clear that this board needs to seek the advice of professionals or science experts when setting stormwater management  or tree preservation policy.

This situation underscores the importance of investing in utility services that balance economic factors of lower water rates  with investment in stormwater management for environmental protection.  Looking ahead, it’s crucial for communities in Surfside and Pacific County to prioritize long-term investments in stormwater management urban forestry plans  and overturning policies such as tree height restrictions that ultimately damage a natural solution to stormwater management.