Water, water, but only some can drink
While I think most folks agree that we need to move toward a conservation pricing system here in Athens-Clarke County, the questions raised in this editorial and by Kelly Girtz, Carl Jordan and George Maxwell are good ones.
And they're ones I asked a while back ... namely how is this not a benefit for those who didn't conserve a few years back? Or, more to the point, somewhat of a punishment for those who did? Granted, I can concede the point made by Kathy Hoard, which is that individuals can appeal the process or the allotment, but how is that efficient government?
That's why I disagree with Hoard's assertion that this isn't perfect - far from it actually - but, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'the best we got.' Well, forgive me, but I hear this line all too often from a variety of levels of government, and I don't think it's accurate. Wouldn't the more logical course of action be to allocate a uniform amount of water usage to certain homes and industries, allow for an appeals process for variances on those and then start moving up the pricing scale after those limits are exceeded?
This mismash of 'personalized' usage, based on data from two to three years ago, doesn't spread the burden across the communit in a equitable way.
And they're ones I asked a while back ... namely how is this not a benefit for those who didn't conserve a few years back? Or, more to the point, somewhat of a punishment for those who did? Granted, I can concede the point made by Kathy Hoard, which is that individuals can appeal the process or the allotment, but how is that efficient government?
That's why I disagree with Hoard's assertion that this isn't perfect - far from it actually - but, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'the best we got.' Well, forgive me, but I hear this line all too often from a variety of levels of government, and I don't think it's accurate. Wouldn't the more logical course of action be to allocate a uniform amount of water usage to certain homes and industries, allow for an appeals process for variances on those and then start moving up the pricing scale after those limits are exceeded?
This mismash of 'personalized' usage, based on data from two to three years ago, doesn't spread the burden across the communit in a equitable way.
posted by Jmac at 7:42 AM
2 Comments:
Why not treat water--as Jordan has said many times--like gas. You pay $3 gallon, I pay $3 a gallon, Warren Buffett pays $3 a gallon. No "progressivity" in that pricing structure. It is what it is. Same way we buy Cokes and Pabsts, too.
Yeah, that sucks for poor people. But life sucks for poor people in general. Kathy Hoard's creative water pricing structure can't fix that.
Memo to Commissioners: Water costs what it costs. Charge enough to keep the water flowing, and then move on to the things you're really good at, like taking away people's property rights.
Reggie
Yep. Agreed. I'm glad that the new plan has a floor on it, so that essential use remains priced reasonably, but I'm also among those who have been conserving and not looking forward to my penalty.
Also, the problem with basing the non-market rates on someone's previous consumption is that you're allowing that person to set as an essential level of use something that may not even be close to one. We can argue about what "essential" might constitute, but I think it would far fairer to set an amount as essential. Not doing so has the effect of not getting into use problems -- too many people in a house, business being conducted illegally from a house, etc. -- but that's an issue that should perhaps be either looked at or paid for by the occupants.
Post a Comment
<< Home