Bud Harris, 78, and grandson David Moreira, 27, obeyed the message to conserve but it will soon mean higher water rates at their Mississauga home. ANDREW WALLACE/TORONTO STAR
Posted on 01/27/2008 6:44:19 AM PST by Libloather
The high cost of using less water
Municipalities discover inconvenient truth: Lower consumption means less revenue
Jan 26, 2008 04:30 AM
Phinjo Gombu
Staff Reporter
Bud Harris, 78, and grandson David Moreira, 27, obeyed the message to conserve but it will soon mean higher water rates at their Mississauga home. ANDREW WALLACE/TORONTO STAR
For years the message drummed into Bud Harris, 78, and his grandson David Moreira, 27, was conserve, conserve.
And conserve they did, along with thousands of others across the GTA, watering their lawn less, replacing old toilets and installing water-efficient showerheads.
"We are trying to be economical and trying to do it to preserve the Earth as well," said Moreira, a locksmith who lives with his retired grandfather in a 1950s-era subdivision in Mississauga.
They've done all the right things, he says, 70 per cent for economic reasons and 30 per cent for environmental reasons.
But that win-win sentiment belies an inconvenient truth – one that came out in a recent unguarded comment from Durham Region's works czar, Cliff Curtis. Asked about declining water consumption, he told the Star:
"Conservation is killing us."
Realizing what he'd just said, Curtis smiled broadly and quickly added that there were, of course, a thousand reasons to conserve.
But one thing is certain: Conservation is putting cash-strapped municipalities in a bit of a pickle.
Tougher post-Walkerton regulations, growing communities and a rising backlog of crumbling pipes needing to be fixed are driving up costs even while diligent consumers are lowering their consumption and the size of their bills.
Toronto alone is facing about $800 million worth of repair and replacement work, since half of the city's water mains and 30 per cent of its sewer pipes are more than 50 years old. But last year, total revenue was only $604 million.
Other regions are hurting, too.
Peel Region treasurer Dan Labrecque estimates his region has lost $7 million to so-called "revenue or billable flows shortfall." The need to make up for that lost money accounts for nearly half of Peel's proposed 16 per cent water rate hike (expected to be phased in at 12.5 per cent).
"A number of factors are contributing to this, including the success of our water consumption (reduction) efforts," said Labrecque. "We've pointed it out to council saying, here's the trend, we don't know if it's a sustainable trend, or whether it's an adjustment because of changes, the Al Gore movie and all that kind of stuff."
Individual efforts are an obvious part of the change in consumption. For example, Peel's water use didn't increase last summer even though it was one of the driest on record; people took the message to heart and watered their lawns less.
That's been augmented by changes in the building code requiring more efficient equipment in new homes, and by programs that subsidize replacements in older homes.
Last year, homeowners in Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon installed some 7,103 subsidized low-flush toilets, compared with just 204 two years earlier.
The trend is the same everywhere.
Last year, Torontonians consumed 374 cubic million metres of water, a huge drop from the 424 million cubic metres that poured from the city's taps in 1988.
A staff report attributes the decline to "an underlying systematic trend towards lower consumption, partly due to greater promotion and awareness of water efficiency initiatives," plus the loss of some major industrial consumers and price sensitivity.
Toronto's 9.4 per cent hike in the water rate – expected to be repeated annually for some years to come – reflects a trend across the GTA. Blended water and wastewater rates are rising everywhere as consumption continues to drop: 6.5 per cent in Halton, 9.5 per cent in Durham, 11.6 per cent in Markham and 9 per cent in Peel.
On the plus side for conservation is the possibility that municipalities could save significantly if existing infrastructure, including the water plants, last longer – or if building new ones can be postponed. Also, less water use means less energy is needed to treat and pump water and wastewater – meaning savings on the power bill and fewer greenhouse emissions.
But in the short term, municipalities are forced to look for other solutions, including revising the water rate structure to reflect that, while conservation is good, there's a price to be paid for it.
"If we want to promote conservation, should our billing practices reflect that?" wonders Labrecque, reflecting the direction he's getting from politicians.
"Fixed levies might be part of the new structure," Labrecque said, adding that there would have to be clear direction from the political side to go that route.
Other ideas floated by politicians and water staff include charging bottled-water producers more for using municipal water; creating block rates; and – taking a leaf from the hydro sector – charging higher rates for people who use more water at peak times.
"It's ironic," chuckled Mississauga Councillor George Carlson, chair of the city's environment committee, speaking of the success of the water-conservation message. The payoff for cleaning up our act may be that we end up paying more.
Canadians, according to the Canadian Environmental Law Association, are among the most wasteful water users in the world, at more than 300 litres per person per day – second only to the United States. The fact that our water comes so cheap has a lot to with that. And it's a message that's starting to get through.
"It seems to me we haven't been paying what we should be paying for water over the years," Mississauga Councillor Pat Mullin mused at a recent regional council meeting.
Locally, when conservation promotion is done as vigorously as it has been in Peel, retrofitting homes can have a dramatic effect.
Johann Manente, Peel's point person in the effort, pointed out that in the region's 30 public housing apartment buildings, almost 4,000 units have been retrofitted for water conservation.
The savings per unit were about 360 litres per day – the equivalent of running the tap on full for 25 minutes.
Depending on your point of view, that project alone saved – or cost – the regional treasury almost $550,900.
Manente said the region's ultimate goal is to reduce water consumption by up to 10 per cent in the next seven years.
Labrecque said what's needed next is a more detailed engineering analysis of how Peel Region's million-plus residents and 70,000 businesses are using water, to get a better handle on the trend.
"I've identified it as a positive – people are using less," he said. "How much less is very complicated.
"The alternative is to tell them to use more water so we can get more money," he said with a big smile. "But that's not our goal."
Yes, it is.
Same thing going on in Cleveland!
Glad I live out in the woods with my own well/septic.
My economy can’t ‘keep up’ others economies...
Hah - unlike the private sector which would cut prices to encourage more consumption, the public sector will just raise the water rates to pay for the “loss” in taxes. This should be no surprise to anyone.
They are going to put a meter on your well and charge you for both water in and the same for calculated waste water. It’s a done deal. They are just figgerin a crisis angle to sneak it into legislation at the county levels.
Note to self: Never trust statistics put out by leftist groups.
Wonder what they mean by "wasteful water use", and how they "measured" it...
No, on second thought, I don't wonder - I know implicitly that their definition was chosen in a way that would make the United States "look" wasteful, regardless of actual facts...
And clogged sewer lines.
According to our sewer guy, low-flow toilets are the best thing that ever happened to his business.
A while back I came across some web site that pointed out that a regular flush of water moves it's "package" only about a foot and a half down the pipe (laterally) and the packages just wait for another flush to come and nudge them along. Goes to reason that less flow equals less nudging.
Based on the hygiene of the lefties I've met, they probably mean bathing.
Snort.
Consider, though, that as the rates go up, people will use even less water, which will lead to higher rates, which will lead to ....
Well then what is the truth?
It is just absurd liberal-think from an alternate universe for any public utility to claim there is a “shortage” of water.
The only real shortage here is a shortage of the willingness of the water company to make the investment in the means to provide water of suitable quality. This also translates in the willingness to state what it will cost the customer. Some utilities, especially those operated by governments, just cannot bring themselves to do this so they succumb to the temptation to try to sell the public any excuse that sounds plausible. Such excuses are not sustainable (a concept liberals insist we must obey when it comes to energy), for very long in the face of a public used to having clean, safe water supplies.
Ok, call a spade a spade
If I live in a city, and use it’s resources
then I am responsible for assisting in
supporting the city’s infrastructure,
to the degree that I am using it.
Raise local taxes or Raise usage fees.
Pay up.
Always beware of people freely mixing annual budget numbers with long term maintenance and capital equipment costs.
You are absolutely right. I live in Central Texas where we’ve already had a tax forced on our individual water wells. “Oh, it’s JUST $12.00 a year” they say. Yeah, for now; next it’ll be a monthly fee then double that per month and yes, any idiot can see some sort of meter system being forced upon us. Oh yes, it’s all done in the name of “conservation” don’t you see?
Meanwhile, large subdivisions are going in without a problem, hmmmmmm, I thought we had a water crisis??
A good friend installed a state of the art cistern system right during a prolonged “dry spell” (drought to non-Texans) and it works beautifully. Initial cost was close to a water well but wonderfully low maintenance technology—and yes, healthy as well.
So, how does paying some newly created government water well bureauracy conserve anything? I’s time to take back our country from these scum folks. Frogs+kettle, get it??
Bizarre. Canada I am sure has noe water supply problems at all. Check your atlas and look at the many many lakes.
So why call it “waste” when you use water? hmmm.
Illegal in some parts of the country. Rainwater comes under government contol, and can't just be caught and saved, it belongs on the ground.
It's illegal as hell, but environmentaly responsible as well as economical. When you use grey water with soap residues and such you don't even need fertilizer in your garden. Plants absolutely love it. Just watch the bleach usage. Hypochlorite kinds are bad. Peroxide kinds are OK.
The first home I bought had Stainless 55 gallon drums with holes in them burried in all the gardens. The downspouts all drained into them. Never had to water a thing to get it to grow.
"Fixed levies might be part of the new structure," Labrecque said, adding that there would have to be clear direction from the political side to go that route.
If you charge fixed rates, the cost per consumer will skyrocket, as there is no incentive to turn the water off when you go to work. Water the lawn 3X a day.
If you charge customers more the less they use, you will get the same results.
This would be true if they charged less the more they used, which of course they won't do.
Also, there's a game theory angle on this since the rates depend on the aggregate use, and are time delayed. Suppose rates would come down with higher aggregate use. Who will be the ones to pump up their usage and pay higher bills for a few years so that everybody can enjoy lower rates in due time?
I can barely maintain my laughter with the idea of a country with as much fresh water as Canada (look at a topographic map) thinking they have to conserve fresh water.
It is still cheap at twice the price.
I average less than 100 liters per day.
Just one reason why I pay a 'rain' tax. Yes, I do.
“The waters of the state”, I believe they call it...
what they mean by “wasteful water use
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The obvious answer would be backyard swimming pools and underground sprinkler systems and swamp coolers. Personally, I think low flush toilets are stupid. If they were really serious about conserving water, they’d outlaw backyard swimming pools and sprinkler systems and swamp coolers. toilets are nothing in comparisson.
Why does it have to be initiated by the consumer? Why couldn’t the producer initiate it?
I doubt very much that that’s what they have in mind - it’s not so easy to get accurate statistics on those water usages. Knowing the way that environmentalists “think”, I’d guess that it is much more likely that they are referring to water usage in areas such as agriculture and manufacturing, which would account for a high per-capita usage figure in the US, bacause the US grows a lot of food, raises a lot of livestock, and manufactures a lot of ‘stuff’. That kind of enviro-think is certainly at the heart of the bogus way that they calculate that the US is the world’s worst “polluter” of greenhouse gases...
Tell me you're not serious???
Problem is, our governor has thought of so many cockamamie ways to tax us -0 that this would be a mild one...we are the highest taxed state - but way down in the cellar per capita income...
Recently, a man who lives/works/pay taxes in Mass., but has a camp in Maine, where he flies in with his small private plane. He pays taxes on his property and tries to leave as much money in the local community as he can = gases up, repairs, supplies, etc///
He goes back from vacation to his home state and gets a bill for $26,000 "Use Tax" for his plane,from Maine - the same amount he paid in Mass. when he bought the plane. The you-know-what hit the fan as these private pilots belong to organizations and are a large group = I haven't heard yet how that's shaking down - except, if not resolved, there will a lot less tourism money come summer.
Another sweet tax pot he tried this year was: All stores that sold gift certificates = any cert. not used in two years, the stores would be billed by the state for 60%!
Well, the big boys, like WalMart, Home Depot, got together and sent a 'group letter' to the Gov., letting him know that they would, as a group, take it all the way to the Supreme Court and if the governor wanted to put out the legal fees for that - bring it on. (The state had already calculated how much largess they would pull in from this scheme and actually accounted for it in the budget. Now they are scrambling...)
Another scheme was to tax restaurant workers on the meals they got as part of their employment (they already only get about half, if that, the hourly minimum wage) = AND that tax was going to be calibrated by the state AND retroactive!
And so it goes - the democrats never met a scheme to steal money that they didn't embrace... Too many flatlander libs from blue states moved up here in the past 40 years and took over the state...Maine used to be a dyed-in-the-wool Republican state
A family full of liberals who lived in Wyndmoor, Pa moved to Maine, while they maintained residency in both states. The son is a local rat politician in montgomery county Pa. They saw Maine as an oasis for their ideals. Sounds like you’re getting just what they wanted. Very big on free money from the state if ya know.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.