I was going to lay off the water topic for a while, honest, I was, BUT . . .
I just received our water bill, which in itself is not blog worthy, but once I started reading the lead story in this month's city newsletter, I felt a rant coming on.
Here's the article's title:
I just received our water bill, which in itself is not blog worthy, but once I started reading the lead story in this month's city newsletter, I felt a rant coming on.
Here's the article's title:
New Water Rates Encourage Conservation
Now, I don't know about you, but when I read that, I got excited. Imagine my disappointment when I found out the specifics. To encourage conservation, our city's water department is going to increase the rates of higher usage customers. This seems like a good plan and I commend them solely on the basis of their good intentions.
However, I don't believe the plan is going to encourage anything except complacency. For the 20% of their customers who consume approximately 50% of the water, they are going to increase the rate for each 1,000 gallons of water used over 18,000 gallons by 56 cents. For 1,000 gallons. That's 17.85 gallons per penny!
In the city's own example, a high user consuming 20,000 gallons a month, would be charged an extra $1.12. Somehow, I'm not sure $1.12 is that much of an incentive to use less water. Even a really high user like Lance Armstrong would be charged only $174.72 more (that is, if Mr. Armstrong lived in my city). I don't think he'd notice an extra $100 on his water bill when he's already paying more than two grand.
What if the city were to charge a penny more for each gallon over 10,000 gallons? That would get these high end users' attention. Then, this hypothetical high user consuming 20,000 gallons a month would pay an extra $100. That would be much more noticeable on Mr. John Q. Public's monthly bill and a higher incentive for Mr. Public to decide that continuing to overwater the fescue in the middle of the worst drought Texas has seen since 1917 is not the smartest thing he's every done. Even Mr. Armstrong couldn't fail to notice the extra $3,200 on his water bill.
I also suggest that instead of focusing on the higher usage 20% with slap-on-the-wrist rate increases, the city should be working on incentivizing the lower usage 80%. An 18,000 gallon monthly threshold seems outrageously high. What if the monthly base fee was raised to $15.00 and included the first couple thousand gallons? What if . . . I don't know, we did anything that would shake us up and help us realize our current pace of consumption is not sustainable.
Our city gets 75% of its water from Lake Georgetown which is currently over 17 feet below normal. Isn't NOW the right time to start thinking a little bit smarter? Nine years ago (the latest census available), our city had over 61,000 residents in over 21,000 households. 21,000 households multiplied by 18,000 gallons a month equals 378 million gallons of water a month. That's 378,000,000 gallons which is a daily average per person of over 200 gallons. That's DOUBLE the estimated national average of daily water usage in this, the highest consuming country ever known on this planet. Have I mentioned we're in an exceptional drought?
Oh, but wait . . . there's more. You want to know the best part of my city's feeble attempt at Encouraging Conservation? These increased rates (I guess a 1.9% increase is still technically an increase) are only in effect for five months. What about the other seven???
Okay, I'm done ranting. I think I need some chocolate.
That'll teach me to check my mail.
However, I don't believe the plan is going to encourage anything except complacency. For the 20% of their customers who consume approximately 50% of the water, they are going to increase the rate for each 1,000 gallons of water used over 18,000 gallons by 56 cents. For 1,000 gallons. That's 17.85 gallons per penny!
In the city's own example, a high user consuming 20,000 gallons a month, would be charged an extra $1.12. Somehow, I'm not sure $1.12 is that much of an incentive to use less water. Even a really high user like Lance Armstrong would be charged only $174.72 more (that is, if Mr. Armstrong lived in my city). I don't think he'd notice an extra $100 on his water bill when he's already paying more than two grand.
What if the city were to charge a penny more for each gallon over 10,000 gallons? That would get these high end users' attention. Then, this hypothetical high user consuming 20,000 gallons a month would pay an extra $100. That would be much more noticeable on Mr. John Q. Public's monthly bill and a higher incentive for Mr. Public to decide that continuing to overwater the fescue in the middle of the worst drought Texas has seen since 1917 is not the smartest thing he's every done. Even Mr. Armstrong couldn't fail to notice the extra $3,200 on his water bill.
I also suggest that instead of focusing on the higher usage 20% with slap-on-the-wrist rate increases, the city should be working on incentivizing the lower usage 80%. An 18,000 gallon monthly threshold seems outrageously high. What if the monthly base fee was raised to $15.00 and included the first couple thousand gallons? What if . . . I don't know, we did anything that would shake us up and help us realize our current pace of consumption is not sustainable.
Our city gets 75% of its water from Lake Georgetown which is currently over 17 feet below normal. Isn't NOW the right time to start thinking a little bit smarter? Nine years ago (the latest census available), our city had over 61,000 residents in over 21,000 households. 21,000 households multiplied by 18,000 gallons a month equals 378 million gallons of water a month. That's 378,000,000 gallons which is a daily average per person of over 200 gallons. That's DOUBLE the estimated national average of daily water usage in this, the highest consuming country ever known on this planet. Have I mentioned we're in an exceptional drought?
Oh, but wait . . . there's more. You want to know the best part of my city's feeble attempt at Encouraging Conservation? These increased rates (I guess a 1.9% increase is still technically an increase) are only in effect for five months. What about the other seven???
Okay, I'm done ranting. I think I need some chocolate.
That'll teach me to check my mail.
No comments:
Post a Comment