That's a plan to discuss
An interesting little nugget in this article isn't that we're close to reach 35 percent reduction in our water usage via voluntary means and an outdoor restriction (yay us!), but that both Commissioners Carl Jordan and David Lynn endorsed a pricing system to conserve water.
We've talked about that here some, and I think the discussion in question is more that Step F is a plan designed to deal with a specific crisis (i.e. the drought) and not meant to be a long-term conservation plan (something which was noted by Mayor Heidi Davison).
If we're discussing a long-term conservation plan which deals with sound management of our water, then I would definitely be open to using a pricing system as one component of said plan. I don't want to build the entire system around it, but would rather see a particular lower fee for a certain level of consumption (whatever the average household usage would be for instance), and then markedly higher rates per cubic foot (or so) if one exceeds the predetermined level.
This would be in addition to, of course, proper use of restrictions on outdoor watering.
We've talked about that here some, and I think the discussion in question is more that Step F is a plan designed to deal with a specific crisis (i.e. the drought) and not meant to be a long-term conservation plan (something which was noted by Mayor Heidi Davison).
If we're discussing a long-term conservation plan which deals with sound management of our water, then I would definitely be open to using a pricing system as one component of said plan. I don't want to build the entire system around it, but would rather see a particular lower fee for a certain level of consumption (whatever the average household usage would be for instance), and then markedly higher rates per cubic foot (or so) if one exceeds the predetermined level.
This would be in addition to, of course, proper use of restrictions on outdoor watering.
posted by Jmac at 2:34 PM
1 Comments:
You know, I rarely agree with both David and Carl when they agree on the same item. But I do on this one. I don't think pricing should be the sole drought management plan response, but it needs to be an element. If the average family of two uses about 200 gallons a day, then a rate structure for residential use should be something along this line if you ask me (the $ are for illustrative purposes only and are shown per day):
0 - 200 gallons a day = $0.01 per gallon.
201 - 400 gallons a day = $2 + $0.02 per gallon over 200.
401 - 600 gallons a day = $6 + $0.05 per gallon over 400
601 - 800 gallons a day = $16 + $0.10 per gallon over 600
801 - 1000 gallons a day = $36 + $0.20 per gallon over 800
1001 - 1200 gallons a day = $76 + $0.30 per gallon over 1000
1201 - 1500 gallons a day = $106 + $0.40 per gallon over 1200
etc.
The pricing should be structured to ensure that basic water needs are met at a reasonable rate for every family regardless of income. But excessive use needs to be penalized on exponential scale.
Post a Comment
<< Home