The real news is why a 50% rate hike is required - WATER CONSERVATION. Per the story linked below:
So the easy net of the story is we pay if we conserve and we pay if we don't.
Well not quite. Yes it is true that without water conservation the revenues to the water utility would have been the same. But the conservation really did save water and energy.
The new rates probably really more closely reflect what the water company should have been charging in the first place. But this is definitely the first time I have seen a water official publicly state that conserving water will drive water rates up. Though I am not sure I totally buy the argument. Less water used means less water obtained/purchased, less water processed and less transported as well as substantially lower power bills. It may mean they did not want to cut staff thinking that demand will rise again and they will need these folks when it does.
Here is a link to the story:
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15548823
What do you think?
=========================
Chambers attributes the "sharp spike" this year to a drop in water use.
"There has been a significant drop in the consumption of water," Chambers said. "When the city asked people to conserve water, people responded and significantly reduced their consumption. When the council did that, we were acutely aware - (Councilman) Doug Crane talked about it often - that would affect the utility itself, and the drop in consumption impacted revenues significantly."
=========================So the easy net of the story is we pay if we conserve and we pay if we don't.
Well not quite. Yes it is true that without water conservation the revenues to the water utility would have been the same. But the conservation really did save water and energy.
The new rates probably really more closely reflect what the water company should have been charging in the first place. But this is definitely the first time I have seen a water official publicly state that conserving water will drive water rates up. Though I am not sure I totally buy the argument. Less water used means less water obtained/purchased, less water processed and less transported as well as substantially lower power bills. It may mean they did not want to cut staff thinking that demand will rise again and they will need these folks when it does.
Here is a link to the story:
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_15548823
What do you think?
I would like to see fewer "spikes" and more consistent declines in water usage. The rates will fluctuate with the market changes, but that wont matter as much with reusable water.
Agree, more consistency would make it much easier to manage but unfortunately it also depends on events outside our control (i.e. the weather cycle). Reusable water needs to be priced to make it attractive to the market. As potable water usage increases driven by population growth and other factors the need to shift away from using drinking water quality water to non-potable water will become a more important tool in managing our finite supply of water.
I live in Atlanta and the water prices here are astoundingly high.
City of Atlanta residents and businesses have water rates that are about double the surrounding counties because of its sewer renovation project. Atlantans already pay more than people in other major cities to flush their toilets or turn on their taps: 108% more than in New York; 98% more than in Nashville; 144% more than in San Antonio.
So how do you offset these increases? Build you own water supply with rainwater collection and conserve water use with low flow fixtures and fix leaks.