City resists push for water meters

Sacramento Bee ^ | April 9, 2003 | Stuart Leavenworth

[farmfriend]

In its bid to block a statewide mandate on water meters, Sacramento could be compared to the Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dike.

Environmentalists, Southern California interests and the Association of California Water Agencies have all lined up to support legislation requiring water meters on all residences statewide.

[general_re]

...a typical Sacramento household would see its bills jump from $17.85 to $31.84 a month...

Expensive either way - guess that's what happens when you have to pipeline water a long way. By comparison, we're a pretty typical family of four here in upstate NY, and we get billed quarterly - runs me about $35 for three months worth of water.

[Support Free Republic]

Attention!

Our troops give so much of themselves, and we all benefit from their efforts.

The next time you look at your bank balance, why not find some way to take some money and put it towards supporting the members of our armed services in some way? Maybe find a family who has someone serving, and buy them dinner, or some groceries, or a gift for their children? Maybe find a way to contribute to a fund for the memory of any of those who have fallen? Our armed forces deserve our support in tangible ways.

[Elric@Melnibone]

Expensive either way...

Actually, not that bad; it cost me about $100 for water/sewer for the last 3 months in western WI. And its A LOT cheaper than what I had to pay in El Paso.

But what caught my eye was: requiring water meters on all residences statewide. Doesn't ANYBODY in CA have a well?

[general_re]

$100/quarter in western Wisconsin? Why so much?

Doesn't ANYBODY in CA have a well?

Guess not, or they're apparently pretty rare - must be something about the geology that makes underground springs and aquifers unlikely. Anyway, my relatives in western Wisconsin have a well, and from the sounds of your bills, it's a good thing they do ;)

[Elric@Melnibone]

$100/quarter in western Wisconsin? Why so much? Two kids who generate a lot of laundry plus take long showers.

[general_re]

Ah, so maybe that's not exactly average usage - I was worried that the Mississippi was suddenly drying up or something ;)

[farmfriend]

Expensive either way - guess that's what happens when you have to pipeline water a long way.

We don't pipeline water a long way. That would be LA. We have a dam that sits above town with a river running directly through town. Our water costs have more to do with ESA than how far we have to pipe it.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Here in AZ, I buy an acre-foot of water for about $20.00.

[general_re]

Ahhhh, so there's some endangered species of cockroach that demands protection, thus preventing expansion of the reservoir or some such. Nice. I'm sure you sleep better at night knowing that the Lesser California Brown River Snail is fully protected against extinction ;)

[general_re]

You get ~325,000 gallons of water for $20? In Arizona? My $35 buys me about 32,000 gallons - obviously I need to move to a drier state... ;)

[farmfriend]

You don't know how right you are. We must protect the ever endangered non-native salmon. Also, we have been trying to build another dam but we can't do that, it would destroy white water rafting don't you know. They are trying to increase the Folsom dam height and build up the levies around Sacramento for flood control but that will only make the problem worse and create new problems in the delta due to faster river flows but hey, they won't let that stop them.

[wanderin]

Doesn't ANYBODY in CA have a well?

When I lived in the San Fernando Valley area years ago, most wells were closed due to water pollution. I don't know if the situation has improved over the years.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I spend about 30 bucks a month, and my service is metered.

[Fifth Business]

Most homes and buildings in Chicago don't have meters.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yeah, but it is raw water - for irrigation purposes only. They recently raised the rates from around $18.00 per acre foot due to the drought.

You can probably get better rates in eastern Texas. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they are paying people $20.00 per acre foot just to take it off of their hands...

[newgeezer]

No meters? Incredible. I guess if there's no fiscal incentive for individuals to give a rip about their personal water usage, that explains why Kalifornia (and the left-coast states whose water they're using) led the charge to force 1.6 GPF toilets and low-flow showers and faucets on the entire nation.

But, wait. Kalifornians are deeply concerned about the environment and conservation. So, they don't need meters to convince them to conserve, right? </sarcasm>

Water meters also provide a reasonable basis for charging residents more equitably for services such as sanitary sewer and garbage collection, too, since their usage tends to vary based on the number of people in the residence.

[farmfriend]

ping

[glennaro]

I agree with your assessment. Water is no different than any other public utility. One should pay based on how much is used.

[general_re]

We must protect the ever endangered non-native salmon.

You know, here in the rest of the country, we have a term for unwanted non-native species - "pests". And they get "eliminated".

WTF sense does that make? If they're non-native, and they're interfering with human activity, just dynamite the d*mn river and skim 'em off with a net, and the heck with the ESA.

I guess I wouldn't fit in in California very well with an attitude like that, though ;)