Water pricing could be used more productively
Andy Brod's Ideas article Sept. 23, "Water woes: Pricing, not policing, will limit water use in Greensboro," should have pumped up some new thinking.
Brod recommends harnessing the power of pricing: "The key is to maintain a low price for the first few thousand gallons used, in order not to affect essential activities like drinking and bathing. But for higher levels of water use, which tend to be for discretionary activities like lawn watering and car washing, the price should rise sharply in order to provide the necessary incentive not to waste or overuse water."
The city currently employs a mild escalation of water rates as consumption levels rise for residential use, and a flat rate for businesses. The incentive to save water is minimal.
We think Andy's proposal has a great deal of merit and could forestall the need to severely restrict water use generally. What do you think?
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
It makes sense theoretically, but I wonder how it would work in the real world?
I think we can assume that many excess users of water under the current situation are somewhat impervious to the costs.
Water rates might have to be raised by a factor of ten times or greater to have the desired effect.
I am reluctant to give our government the authority to enact such a drastic change.
It might lead to incremental price increases for low and average water users because of the creep factor.
As an aside, do we know how much in fines have been collected under the current regulations, and who the violators were?
Posted on October 4, 2007 2:53 PM
Andy's proposal is a good one. As his article points out, a variant is already used here, just with very little increment in prices.
To address Bubba's concern about the "creep factor," I would recommend coupling the water rate hike with a modest, off-setting property tax decrease. Alternatively, the extra funds could be used to cover costs associated with the aging water infrastructure (e.g., to avoid issuing or reduce the amounts of new sewer and water bonds).
Posted on October 4, 2007 3:10 PM
Not to mention the cost of developing the Randleman reservoir and delivering clean water from there to here.
High Point today decided to double rates for water consumption above 11,250 gallons per month. It's been selling water at lower rates for higher levels of consumption.
Posted on October 4, 2007 3:35 PM
I should have disclosed that Andy's office at UNCG is next door to mine.
Posted on October 4, 2007 4:34 PM
Does that make you smarter, or him?
Posted on October 4, 2007 4:39 PM
Neither of us had any choice in the matter, though I'm happy that it worked out that way. When I arrived last year, I was simply assigned to the office next door.
The main downside of the department's location decision is that the combined output of hot air on our side of the building makes things uncomfortable. It undoubtedly contributes to my interest in global warming issues :)
Posted on October 4, 2007 5:18 PM
Can anyone say 'exponential pricing curve"?
Posted on October 4, 2007 5:52 PM
I I just spent a few days in the Smokies. The water level in the streams is as low as I have every seen them. The question becomes, will higher water prices have any effect? NO! Answered my own question. Cars where bumper to bumper. Gas prices are high,no one seems to care other than gripe about it.
Posted on October 5, 2007 4:50 AM