Clovis leaders say water rate hikes aim to prevent ‘an even more grim situation’
The Clovis City Council approved a new water rate schedule that will raise Clovis residents’ water bills by double-digit percentages annually starting in 2027.
Under the current water rate structure, most Clovis households pay a bimonthly service charge of $27.71, plus a volume rate based on the water usage.
Usage below 23,000 gallons per month is charged at $1.13 per thousand gallons. The rate is $1.88 per thousand gallons for water usage between 23,000 and 40,000 gallons. The rate for households using more than 40,000 gallons is $2.33 per thousand gallons. There are two tiers for non-residential water billing.
When the city implements the new structure in January 2027, the bimonthly service charge will rise to $33.46 for most of the residential units that are equipped with 5/8, 3/4, or 1-inch water meters. The per-thousand-gallon rate will be $2.02, regardless of water consumption.
The numbers represent a 21% increase in water rates for 2027. These rates will rise by another 21% in January 2028, by 18% in January 2029, and by 3% in July 2029.
This is the first time since 2009 that Clovis has made such a significant adjustment to water rates, city officials said. The city attributed the increase to inflation and the costs of maintaining and upgrading water infrastructure.
“Over the last four years, we’ve seen many of the costs to operate and maintain our water system increase significantly, pretty much doubling,” said Nick Torstensen, deputy public utilities director. “We’ve also seen our energy cost almost double.”
Torstenson said the department tried to hold off the rate increase with the hope that prices would return to normal.
“Things aren’t correcting, things are just holding and that’s why we’re here today, in recognition of the fact that those costs that we thought would come back down never did, and we had to make an adjustment,” said Torstenson. “And if we don’t today, three, four or five years from now, we could be here with an even more grim situation.”
Kevin Tuttle, assistant public utilities director, said the city plans to set aside $30 million to improve aging infrastructure in order to maintain the system’s reliability.
“When we’re talking about things like a 20-year-old plan, well, most things that are mechanical, you’re lucky to get 20 years out of them,” Tuttle said. “At a service water treatment plant, it costs about $4 million to replace a pump station. Things like that add up in a big way.”
A dozen Clovis residents came to the council meeting to express their concerns about the rising water rates.
“I’ve been to Walmart, Dollar General, and I see these people paying with their dollar bills and their pennies, their nickels,” said David Trevino, Clovis resident. “A lot of us take a lot of things for granted, but there are people who are hurting, and I just hope the City of Clovis has some kind of plan for people who can’t pay their water bills.”
Another resident, Edward Stark, suggested to the council that developers should be charged more to cover the new infrastructure costs.
“You say you have new water basins and things you want to develop. Shouldn’t the developer fees cover any of those?” Stark said. “I don’t mind taking the hike if I’m using the water, but I do mind paying for the 100 new houses that just went out in East Clovis because that developer wanted to make a couple of extra million dollars.”
The council reassured residents that developers are already paying plenty of fees to install pipes and other infrastructure.
City officials stated that the city received a total of 76 written protests. Under California’s Proposition 218, the rate change could be blocked if 50% plus one of the affected property owners file formal objections. The number of written protests received by Clovis does not constitute a majority.
The city council voted unanimously to approve the new water rate schedule.
“I was chief of police in Kingsburg. When I was there, they had kicked the can down the road on their increases, and when the day came, people were shocked, and they were outraged that they didn’t do the hard work 10 years earlier,” said Councilmember Drew Bessinger. “We can’t do that. It’s not fair to the citizens to give them a false sense of security and then hit them with a big bill.”
