• Water is water. Everyone should pay the same.
• Yes, they should continue to pay less for their water because agriculture is still important to the South Santa Clara Valley. They’ll close up shop and head over the hill to the Big Valley as some of their buddies have done. Are we going to support Ag or lose it?
• Yes. No farmer could afford to pay residential/commercial rates to water their crops unless the market was willing to pay $10 for a head of lettuce. However, since farming uses 80% of the water in California, we should focus more of our water saving incentives and R&D efforts there.
• Yes. They should also have less of the numerous regulations/restrictions the government is putting on them! What happened to being “the bread basket” of America? Exports (almonds especially) equals income, tax revenue.
• My gut reaction is “No” they should pay top tier, as we do when we use more gas or electricity. Upon reflection, maybe we need to know the purpose of this subsidy. Is it to make farming more viable? Keep produce prices down? Is it a quantity discount? What’s the impact of low pricing on the effort to conserve and use less water more efficiently? Whatever helps people use drip, prevent evaporation, and employ all possible conservation methods, I’m in favor of those practices.
• Yes. Farmers need all the help they can get-otherwise we will be looking at a totally developed South County!
• There needs to be different categories within each industry or residential group. The system is broken, water is not the expensive part of the equation, its what the city charges for sewer charges based solely on your water usage. A small house on a large lot pays the same as a super home on a small lot. And god forbid you have a swimming pool. eg; $78 water, $429 sewer. This is the commercial rate based on 26,000 gallons of water. Less than the winter use of a small house. Our city and county leaders are killing small business.
• This question can be thought about on many levels such as yes, since they are sustaining food for us but then no, why should they get a quantity discount when what they do requires so much more water and resources than residential users? What is fair for everyone who needs this valuable resource, especially in times of drought? I believe it is easier for residential users to conserve water, however, than for commercial users, but to make them pay more for it just doesn’t seem right.
• If we want cookie-cutter houses all over South County instead of open fields filled with peppers, garlic and corn, then charge the farmers the same as residents. So, no, agriculture water users should not pay the same rate.
