In recent years at the behest of then-Gov. Jerry Brown and other officials, residents in and around San Jose scaled back on watering lawns and long showers to conserve water.

But, as the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished.

San Jose Water, the local water company, recently sent out a public notice saying it wants to impose a year-long surcharge beginning this summer. The reason? To recover what it described as an “under-collection” of more than $9 million in fixed costs.

“The under-collection was a result of water conservation measures established by the State of California and the Santa Clara Valley Water District,” the notice said.

In other words, thank you for following the rules and limiting your water usage, but that’s hurt our bottom line, so we’ll be sending you a bill.

If the company gets what it wants, more than a million people in San Jose and surrounding areas, from Campbell and Los Gatos to Saratoga, will have seen their rates rise about 7 percent this year alone.

The latest notice has sparked anger from residents, who have taken to sites like Nextdoor to complain.

“Not our problem,” wrote one man, urging his neighbors to protest the move.

If the California Public Utilities Commission, which is tasked with regulating privately owned public utilities, approves the surcharge, the monthly bill for a typical customer will increase by $2.19, or about 2.26 percent, according to the water company. Its parent company SJW Group recently filed a new application in Connecticut to merge with Connecticut Water after a failed attempted merger last year.

“We understand why a conservation-related surcharge might be difficult for a SJW customer to understand, particularly as they continue to practice conservation in their own lives,” Jayme Ackemann, a spokeswoman for the water company, said in an email. “The CPUC sets water rates up to three years in advance based on anticipated consumption. When consumption falls due to conservation or other factors, utilities cannot recover the fixed costs necessary to deliver safe, high quality and reliable water service.”

It’s not the first time the company has sought to impose a surcharge because of water conservation, and residents of other cities have also seen similar increases on their bills in recent years. In 2017, for instance, the East Bay Municipal Utility District agreed to increase water rates 20 percent for two years.

In November, San Jose Water announced it had received approval to increase rates 4.55 percent in 2019. The higher rates took effect in January. At the time, the company said the decision would reduce rate uncertainty for customers.

Terrie Prosper, a spokeswoman for the CPUC, said the company has been “recovering uncollected balances” since the drought was first declared in 2014. The matter will be decided, she continued, before July 1, but she did not specify an exact date.

“Currently, the CPUC has authorized a more realistic consumption number that may be much closer to what customers will consume,” Ackemann wrote. “In this case, we are hopeful that this alignment between authorized and actual usage will allow us to recover our fixed costs thereby eliminating such future filings or significantly reducing the amount of under-collection we will seek to recover in future filings.”

Residents have until April 18 to lodge their protests.

Last year, the CPUC opened an investigation into whether the water company over-billed customers by millions of dollars for decades. The agency said it would consider whether the water company should refund customers and face penalties. That case is ongoing.

“This open investigation does not have any bearing on rate filings pending before the CPUC while the investigation is ongoing,” Prosper said.

Related Articles San Jose’s Post Street is now the city’s first LGBTQ district

Opinion: Valley Water prepared for fires, potential power outages

Water service to shut off overnight in areas of El Sobrante next week Rita Benton, co-founder of the group Water Rate Advocates for Transparency, Equity and Sustainability, filed billing complaints that led to the ongoing investigation. The group, she said, was already sending protest letters in response to the latest proposed surcharge.

“They already increased rates, they’re already getting more than they should be getting and now they’re claiming it’s because of conservation?” Benton said. “That’s ridiculous.”