C.A. 4th;
G048969
The Fourth Appellate District affirmed a judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded the action for further proceedings. The court held that Prop 218 does not prevent public water agencies from passing to their customers the capital costs of long-term improvements to provide additional increments of water. The court held further that Prop 218 requires public water agencies to calculate the actual costs of providing water at various levels of usage. Finally, the court held that a water agency failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that its fees did not exceed the cost of service attributable to a parcel where it simply allocated costs among rate tiers based on pre-determined usage budgets.
