“The poor & those on fixed incomes suffer, while the rich waste water with abandon.”
The “poor” (many more single person households than those above bottom 20%) and “those on fixed incomes” (mostly retires) also consist of habitats with less water-per-capita consumption, smaller houses, fewer, smaller or non-existent yards (apartments) than everyone else and will, in fact, on a per-capita basis be hit not as hard by higher water fees. In fact, because the “rich” consume so much more, on a per-capita basis, they will also be nit the hardest with the higher fees and be paying the largest share of the total fee revenue.
“Access to clean affordable (essentially free) water is a foundation of modern society dating back to before the Romans.”
First; “affordable” has never meant “essentially free”.
Second; whenever and where ever water is not priced based on supply and demand, issues of drought are always more of a systemic problem, with little wiggle room in people’s expected usage to make reasonable adjustments without draconian measures.
Third; while getting water from where it is to where it is needed has always been a hallmark of a civilization that solves problems, instead of moving away from them, just who water was transported for and why, as well as access and “affordability” have not been achieved by any one set of universal measures - before, during or since “Roman Times”.
“California is in a drought. Water must be conserved or many will go without. People need a certain amount to eat, bathe, & crap. All other water usage is mostly optional. In times of drought, the lawns & cars should be secondary to basic human needs.”
And, making it more expensive for those who consume more WILL convince people to voluntarily shut off or reduce unessential water usage, out of self-interest to obtain a lower water bill.
And yes, the best rates would even be “progressive”, charging “a” for “x” cubic feet, “b” for every “y” cubic feet between “x” and “z” and “c” for every “y” cubic feet above “z” (letting local districts fill in the rates and numbers for a,b,c and x,y,z, as their supply and demand needs dictate).
In the end, the price of the supply will help control the demand; and do so with greater efficiency and justice than any water patrol.
Streisand uses as much water as a small subdivision, about $2,000.00 a month. Get her first
There are people here that require entire new piping to supply the vast amount of water that their shower demands, get them first.
If the issue is a water shortage then you have to stop the waste period.
People making 2 to 20 million dollars a year and paying a water bill of tens of thousands of dollars are not going to change their lifestyle or replace a $3,000 dollar shower head or an array of 10 shower heads with a single water saver shower head, just because the LA Times mentions a price increase.
This isn’t about market prices, it is about reducing water use and in my work I see that the middle class and lower already accomplished that many years ago, you can barely squeeze anything more from them as far as conservation goes.
I look for ways to do that in their homes and I just can’t find much to work worth. In the mean time my rich customers keep coming up with new ways to waste water and want ever larger plumbing systems to bring it all in.