San Diego City Council pushes back on proposed water rate hike

Facing public backlash and a reluctance to raise yet another bill on city residents, the San Diego City Council voted 8-1 to delay a decision on a proposal to increase water and wastewater rates dramatically in the next four years.

But it’s not delayed for long. The item will return at 2 p.m. Oct. 28. The proposal before the council was to increase water rates by 63% through 2029 and wastewater rates by 31% in the same period.

Dozens of city residents balked at the rate hike, as did council members.

“I’ve been talking to my constituents and they are not having this,” said Councilman Stephen Whitburn. “This is a nonstarter. I want to send this back to staff and I want to see the lowest possible number.”

If the plan had been approved Tuesday, water rates would have increased by 63% through 2029, and wastewater rates by 31%.

“The main driver of the water rate increase is higher costs to purchase water from the San Diego County Water Authority, which are passed on to the city’s customers,” a statement from the city read.

“Purchasing water from the SDCWA is the second largest individual expense for the entire city of San Diego.”

Yet Councilman Kent Lee on Tuesday said the way the city was going about seeking a rate increase was “eroding public trust,” and he blasted Mayor Todd Gloria and his administration for “not meaningfully taking into account” comments by members of the public.

He said he would vote no on water rate hikes unless the process could transparently show the need for them, but he also acknowledged the city would have to foot the bill for water from the SDCWA.

Other reasons for the proposed hike include increasing costs of maintenance, rising energy rates, Pure Water Phase 1 operations and more.

“The city is dedicated to minimizing rate increases for its customers by focusing on long-term financial planning, making strategic infrastructure investments, securing grants and low-interest financing, and maximizing the use of local water resources,” the city had explained in its statement.

Periodic rate adjustments address critical challenges, the city said, including replacing aging infrastructure and addressing rising costs for materials, chemicals, and energy.

A report released Friday by the city’s Independent Budget Analyst found that the costs were a bitter pill to swallow, but necessary medicine all the same.

Studies prepared by the Public Utilities Department “demonstrate the need for increased revenues for both systems in order to maintain operations,” the IBA report read. “In the current environment of declining water sales and wastewater flows which generate revenue for the systems, this inevitably means increasing rates.”

But the IBA warned that “without additional revenues to support the system” the utilities department will need to cut expenses, either through decreased operating costs or lower spending on capital improvements, options that come with “significant risks and tradeoffs that the council should be aware of prior to making their final decision.”

If the council had passed the proposed rate hikes, costs would have gone up in January. For a 1-inch meter, the monthly water service charge is $46.63.

That would have increased to $56.83 in January 2026 and $65.08 the following year.

By January 2028, the cost would have risen to $72.57, the $80.56 per month after January 2029.

Rates all would have risen at a similar percentage, from the smallest meter sizes (5/8 and 3/4 of an inch) to 16 inches.

The IBA determined that “the wastewater system is in a healthier position due to regular rate increases over the past four years, while the water system is in the most need of financial assistance due to increasing water purchase costs and lower financial buffers due to the lack of regular rate increases prior to 2023.”

Lower rate revenues, the IBA found, “will require reductions to operating expenditures, with the most acute impacts occurring within the Water System during FY 2026 and 2027.”

Updated 6 p.m. Sept. 20, 2025