Re: Moscow's water policy

[Michael Cantrell <macantr@uidaho.edu>]

It does seem that a new rate structure is in order--in combination with an
organized look at how other regions have reduced their water consumption.
At the same time, I think we need to minimize any increased financial
burden on those who use minimal amounts of water and use a reasonable
approach for businesses, etc. that need to use more water but are taking
conservation measures.

John Danahy made the comment that "We already have a water surcharge added
to the homeowners water bill during summer, but that doesn't help much."
If this is correct, then it makes sense that there should be an increase
in these rates.  I am imagining a rate table that continues to increase,
in ever larger increments, as summer water useage goes up for the
homeowners with larger water useage.

When it comes to my lawn, I am one of those parties who has room for
reform, and I suspect this would help motivate me.

Mac Cantrell

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Priscilla Salant wrote:

> Visionaries,
>
> To encourage water conservation, it seems to me we have three options.
>
> First, we can regulate water use as we're doing now (presumably on a
> temporary basis).  If you water when it's not your day, you get fined. This
> option seems somewhat inflexible, given the experiences of the household
> that wasn't allowed to water their newly seeded lawn, and John G's getting
> raked over the coals for not turning off his sprinklers when he was sick.
>
> Second, we can rely on people's environmental conscience.  We would have to
> trust ourselves to act in the best interests of the community.
> Unfortunately, now that I've discovered the magic of watering regularly and
> wastefully this summer, I hardly trust my own environmental conscience let
> alone anyone else's.
>
> And third, we can raise water rates, thus providing financial incentives to
> conserve.  The more you use, the more you pay.  Not only would that
> decrease demand (if rates were increased enough), it would also generate
> enough money to maintain the system without running a deficit.
>
> Or so one would expect.  Last night's Daily News reported that the city
> looked at moving to a rate structure that would reward people for saving.
> However, staff found that "conservation rates wouldn't bring in enough to
> keep the utility solvent."
>
> I don't understand how this could be the case.  And I'd like to know what
> others think about implementing a new rate structure in lieu of regulating
> and just plain hoping people do the right thing.
>
> Priscilla Salant
>
>
>
>