Cal-Am Water has its sights set on your wallet, and this past week it made its case to California's Public Utilities Commission. For background, the reason is two fold: one to restore the Seaside aquifer; the second is for planning, building, and operating a desalination plant in Moss Landing. Nobody disputes that somebody's going to have to pay for these projects: but Cal-Am's spin is that rate payers should start paying now in order to avoid even larger rate hikes down the line.

Opponents - and count our Editorial Board among them - say not so fast. We oppose approving the rate hike at this time for myriad reasons. We don't know how long we'll be paying the higher fees. We don't know when the projects will be complete (or even IF they'll be complete). And finally we're not convinced all the alternatives to pay for the project have been considered.

One idea: why not pass along some of the cost of these projects, not just to residents, but to tourists as well. Why not impose some sort of transient or occupancy tax on hotel rooms and other tourist based businesses that operate with Cal-Am provided water? We'll bet the hospitality industry won't like the idea. Hotel managers will be first in line trying to convince us that if we make Peninsula tourists pay more for water, Peninsula tourism will dry up. But that argument won't wash. Just look at "the location" we have to offer! We also know that plenty of other tourism-based economies put a significant tax burden on tourists to reduce the tax burden on locals. We say, why not here? Just imagine: the 150-thousand or so Rodeo and Moto-GP visitors in our area this last weekend alone. That could have added up to enough extra greenbacks to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Bottom line: the PUC should not approve Cal-Am's proposed rate hike, at least not yet. Instead, Cal-Am should set about the business of working with local governments to try to find a way to tap into these new water supplies without tapping any deeper into all of our pockets. We think a transient occupancy tax could at least be considered as part of the solution.