Meeker Cracks Down on Water Use: How You Can Help

rt
01/08 07:23 PM

I agree that increased water use rates are an important tool for conservation.  Nothing grabs the attention quite like a pocketbook issue.

That being said, I really think it’s wrong to raise rates for use of the first 25 or so gallons per-person, per-day.  Clean water is just this side of clean air as a basic human right. 

I recognize that water is, more than ever, a limited resource which needs to be managed.  But that reality doesn’t change the fact that some basic usage is necessary to human health and sanitation. 

There is also the issue of counting persons, and not households.  Without tracking how many residents lived in a given dwelling, any basic allocation would presumably have to be done at the household level.  This raises other equity issues that aren’t easily solved.  For instance, a person living alone in a three bedroom house might be allocated three person’s basic-needs water before being charged at the next rate tier. 

Until a rate scheme can be implemented that is sensitive to these issues, I don’t feel that cost should be used as a major tool for conservation management.

Also, I’ve seen nothing in the discussion about what would be done with the excess revenues generated by a rate hike.  I would propose that this income be directed to conservation programs (water saving device vouchers, rain barrels, etc.), development of new water resources and assistance for low-income households affected by the new rates.

Thanks to Mr. Meeker for starting the discussion around the use of cost as policy tool.  But let’s consider the implications before putting it into play.

Kurt S.
01/08 08:35 PM

What about the corporate water guzzlers?

RaleighRob
01/08 08:47 PM

Definitely would like to see fines for violations make some steep increases.  WRAL a few days ago was interviewing a woman in north Raleigh who said half her neighbors got caught for lawn watering but just shrugged off the $1000 fine as spare change. 
I see that as a penalty not being painful enough.

Chad
01/08 08:56 PM

If the 50% fee is implemented it would apply to them too… as well as government buildings, restaurants, sports complexes… everything. This fee hasn’t been enacted yet because the Mayor wants to continue to encourage individuals and businesses to take it upon themselves to reduce their own consumption.

At the meeting today Council member Thomas Crowder called for the creation of a list of native drought resistant plants to be allowed in landscaping on government grounds. He also said that a ‘bold’ plan for water use needs to be developed for year round implementation.

Barden
01/09 01:49 PM

Update: Apparently, the Mayor’s office was inundated with calls and emails protesting the 50% rate plan. The city council has delayed voting on it, but did approve a resolution whereby the city would request the installation of “low-flow” devices throughout the city by March 1st…talk about a measure with no teeth to it!

RaleighRob
01/09 02:38 PM

^ I guess that goes to my last post….if the city council didn’t approve rate increases, they should look again at fines and penalties for violations.  Double, heck…Triple them! 

And Crowder’s proposal to only plant native drought-resistant plants on government property is a no-brainer.  Perhaps a tax incentive for businesses and residents to do the same?

David
01/09 04:16 PM

I don’t understand the adamant fight against rate increases. If water is scarce, it should be more expensive.  Although I do agree with rt that there is a certain amount that is a basic right.  Adam Smith’s invisible hand needs to be let loose on this.  Then the same McMansions that insist on no codes to limit their swelling, can deal with their libertarian solutions and get charged to hell for watering their lawn, whirlpool tubs and frequent car washes. Its things like heavily subsidized water(its practically free!) that allow people to consume at such gargantuan levels.

rt
01/09 08:44 PM

Three things that would help a pricing scheme reduce usage:

1) Rate Tiers - For fairness’ sake, we shouldn’t jack up the rate for basic subsistence usage.  And there’s a pretty fair argument that the highest tiers should be downright punitive.

2) Variable Rates - Rates would change dynamically depending on the supply situation.  Higher in dry times to discourage use, lower in wet times with a floor determined only by costs of delivery.  These could change as often as moment to moment or on a longer scale, say monthly.

3) Rate and Usage Monitors - For consumption to go down, citizens need to know two things: how much they’re using and how much it costs.  There should be an indicator INSIDE the home that shows current usage and the unit cost.  People will play all sorts of games with themselves to control these numbers once they have these numbers in front of them. 

These ideas would work just as well for electricity and natural gas consumption.

But who am I kidding?  We don’t even have the structure in place to do two tier billing.

JZ
01/10 01:29 PM

Will this include the State Government facilities?  Last time the State was asked to play well with others (conforming to Raleigh City Zoning Ordinances), they enacted a law exempting them from having to follow those codes.

Will the Governor support this initiative in his own backyard?