A Water Tax?

[Airbrush]

There is an draught here in California. I wonder when will it get so critical that the price of water actually starts to go up significantly? I recall seeing on my water bill the water cost for me is about two gallons of water for one PENNY. Water cost seems to stay the same no matter how low our supply is. Some big water users may be wasting water and not bothering to fix leaks because water cost is low. Local govt encourages people to save water and replace lawns with local draught-resistant plants. Do you think that in the future there will be a "big" tax on water, like a 100% tax? Maybe just in California, or other states as well? Maybe other countries might consider this with population growth. This tax can be used to build desalination plants. How much does it cost to build a desalination plant big enough to make a difference?

[Ten oz]

San Diego county is building a desalinisation plant. That is an interesting start. I think changing the our source of supply is necessary. As for a tax; I don't think it would go far enough to change habits. Regulation is required. Building contractors should not be allowed to build homes and facilities with landscapes that require daily watering for example. Perhaps water pressure should be lowered so sinks, showers, and facets in general push out less water per minute.

[Airbrush]

People who use only the water they need, would not experience a water tax. It would be progressive to tax the big water users more. Food producers should also get a break, but they need to use water more efficiently. They will not strive for efficiency until the price for water goes up. A progressive water tax is simpler than regulation or reducing water pressure. Let the economics of supply and demand establish a fair price for water. But tax the heaviest users most, especially property with huge lawns, which should go towards either building more desalination plants, or increase efficiency of usage and reclaimation with new technology.

 

Water bills already have tiers for water cost, but that is only the beginning.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

Your farmers are already paying a whole order of magnitude more than they paid last year for water.

 

There are already penalties for using more than the average.

 

And remember that one big reason water is so cheap is the same reason prostitution makes good business sense: You got it, you sell it, you still got it.

 

IF it ever decides to rain again in California.

 

Tell you what, we've had a really wet summer here, so your percentage of the Colorado River lower basin (58.7%) should hopefully make up for some of your drought. Even in a wet year, we Coloradans know how to conserve.

[iNow]

I'm not convinced that tax and cost incentivization like this will ever be enough to change consumption enough to have a meaningful impact, especially when you factor in how the population grows each day and hence more net water is demanded even if usage per resident declines. Per capita reductions in demand help, but only at the margins.

 

I'd probably focus more on finding structural ways to reduce the demand (think efficiency and tech) and in parallel seek to replace the manner by which that demand is supplied. Desalination was mentioned above and that would help address these challenges as one smart starting place.

[MigL]

I live in Ontario, Canada and we probably have the largest fresh water reserves in the world per population.

I don't water the lawn ( you should see the weeds )

I shower at work when I can ( 7 days out of 14 ).

My water bill is still a couple of hundred dollars ( Can ) for a 3 month period.

 

A few yrs ago our municipality told us that no maintenance had been done on the sewer systemsince the 60s. They then proceeded to double our water bills.We pay for water coming in AND water going out. But I still don't see any sewer upgrades or maintenance being done !

 

Its not lackof natural resources that'll be the death of us, Its the mismanagement.

[CaptainPanic]

I thought I would just add the situation in the Netherlands, for comparison. In the Netherlands (which is a wet river delta with plenty of rain), we pay:

• 40-80 euro/year for the connection
• 0.90-1.80 euro/m³ for the water

For that price, the water is delicious and healthy. It is tested more thorough than bottled water, and contains sufficient minerals, and no added taste from additives (e.g. chlroine smell). (Source for prices and quality both in Dutch).

 

A water tax of 0.33 euro/m³ was introduced in 2013. (Opposition parties in parliament still oppose the tax). It was supposed to reduce water consumption, and thereby make the country more sustainable. Personally, I think that tax was just introduced as a source of government income in a time of economic crisis.

I struggled to find reliable data for the water price in California, but this source suggests it is 0.80 $ for 500 gallons, which means California water is much cheaper than in the Netherlands. I have no idea about quality there.

[iNow]

It's even cheaper than that in Austin, but they charge both coming and going. So, while I pay for water usage, I also pay for waste water drainage.

 

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Water/Rates/Approved_Service_Retail_Water_2014-15.pdf

[Phi for All]

It's even cheaper than that in Austin, but they charge both coming and going. So, while I pay for water usage, I also pay for waste water drainage.

 

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Water/Rates/Approved_Service_Retail_Water_2014-15.pdf

 

Cities are greedy that way.

 

On a visit to Germany a while back, I saw that many homes had gutters that led to a single downspout, which emptied into a series of large catch-barrels so they could reclaim rainwater for their backyard gardens. I looked into doing something similar and found out it's illegal to collect rainwater in that kind of quantity in Colorado. The water belongs to the people of the state, so I would be depriving others in my zealous drive for personal sustainability.

[CaptainPanic]

It's even cheaper than that in Austin, but they charge both coming and going. So, while I pay for water usage, I also pay for waste water drainage.

 

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Water/Rates/Approved_Service_Retail_Water_2014-15.pdf

 

I also pay for the drainage (or rather for the sewage pipes and the treatment to make sure that our surface waters stay clean). I think it is completely reasonable that you pay for your own waste.

[CharonY]

Depending on region Germany is quite expensive, typically around 2 euros per m³ water plus about 120-170% sewer surcharge. US and Canadian rates are far lower than that, even in rather dry areas such as Nevada and Arizona (and there the sewer surcharge is closer to 90% of the water bill). But then I think Germany has some of the highest or second highest water prices in Europe.

 

That being said:

 

I live in Ontario, Canada and we probably have the largest fresh water reserves in the world per population.

I don't water the lawn ( you should see the weeds )

I shower at work when I can ( 7 days out of 14 ).

My water bill is still a couple of hundred dollars ( Can ) for a 3 month period.

 

 

Depending on how large your family is, this could a bit high, especially considering the savings you do. Looking at a couple of cities in Ontario, the price appears to be in the 1.4-1.6 $/m³ range plus about 117% sewer surcharge. The average water use in Canada is 329 liters per day/capita, so in a month that would be ~9870 liters per month. The water bill (neglecting service fees and taxes) should be then around $34 per person/month (all in CAD). If that is a lot different from what you expect, you may want to check for small leakages, as they do add up quite a bit, as I found out.

[iNow]

Returning to the OP, the tax would likely harm the low income families most, yet they're much less likely to be the ones using water in inappropriate volumes. The volume users will tend to be larger companies or recreational areas and in many cases those groups will easily be able to absorb the additional costs without so much as noticing (see also: Las Vegas fountains and golf courses).

[CaptainPanic]

Returning to the OP, the tax would likely harm the low income families most, yet they're much less likely to be the ones using water in inappropriate volumes. The volume users will tend to be larger companies or recreational areas and in many cases those groups will easily be able to absorb the additional costs without so much as noticing (see also: Las Vegas fountains and golf courses).

 

I agree that the lower incomes are typically less able to absorb an extra tax or expense. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think that the Dutch water tax was really meant to reduce water by average citizens. It was just additional tax income in a time of economic crisis.

 

That said, the large industries felt it too. And while a golf course in Las Vegas might have money to spare (do they?), industries like steel plants don't. So, as a result of this tax, these companies will first complain bitterly, and then investigate the reduction of water usage, and that means the tax works.

[iNow]

Good point. I was painting with far too broad a brush in my previous post.

[Airbrush]

Your farmers are already paying a whole order of magnitude more than they paid last year for water.

 

There are already penalties for using more than the average.

 

 

Good info! Interesting that water costs for food producers in the California central valley, the "most productive agricultural region" in the world (does that mean the greatest food producing region in the world?), has increased by as much as 10 TIMES.

 

The largest farmers are now paying the equivalent of a 1,000% water tax. That is just the beginning. How far can this drought go?

 

I just reviewed my last water bill. Now I'm paying an average water cost of one cent per gallon. A few years ago it was one HALF a cent per gallon. That is a 100% price increase that was not noticeable on my water bill, because water still only costs me about $52 per month.

 

"....California residents can now be cited $500 per day for using drinkable water to wash a sidewalk or driveway, for excessively watering lawns, and for washing a car without a shutoff nozzle...."

 

I quit using the lawn sprinkers in my BACK yard over a year ago and my water usage for this past August was 20 HCF and August a year ago I used 29 HCF. I saved 31% on my water bill by not using the lawn spinklers in my back yard. (I just water a few plants by hose.)

 

In the next few years, can the cost of water increase so much that people start complaining like they did about the price of gas?

Edited October 13, 2014 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

In the next few years, can the cost of water increase so much that people start complaining like they did about the price of gas?

 

Tough to say, but I'd think there are more things you can do to reduce your water use than to reduce your use of gasoline. If you can't use public transportation or at least carpool, it's not always feasible to buy a more efficient vehicle to save on gas. Commutes to work are often inflexible. But a little focus will probably show how water can be conserved on a daily basis without spending much.

[Airbrush]

 

Commutes to work are often inflexible. But a little focus will probably show how water can be conserved on a daily basis without spending much.

 

Yes, and if the world's population finally reaches zero population growth soon ENOUGH, we should have plenty of cheap water for everyone for the long term.

[Robittybob1]

drought not draught -

 

 

There is an draught here in California.

[Airbrush]

drought not draught -

 

OMG! Well I finally learned how to spell the word.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Airbrush

[Sensei]

I am paying $27 per 8 m^3 per month for water. So it's $3.4/m^3.

That's plenty enough for taking a bath every day (120 Liters * 30 days = 3.6 m^3)

Nobody is calling it tax. Simply "price of delivery of water"..

 

The average water use in Canada is 329 liters per day/capita, so in a month that would be ~9870 liters per month.

Average? 10 m^3 is a lot of water. Enough to make a full bath 3 times per day per person (not just shower)..

Edited October 15, 2014 by Sensei

[Airbrush]

My last water bill says I use an average of 258 gallons every day, during July and August!

 

That comes from watering the lawn with the sprinklers. That is the single major water usage for people, irrigating lawns and plants.

[Phi for All]

I have my sprinkler system set up very efficiently, and I check the forecasts to see if I should poke the "Rain Delay" button that stops the system for 24 hours. I've sent complaint letters to the city where I live asking them to figure out how to stop their sprinklers on rainy days, to no avail. Sometimes citizens have a more conservation-oriented outlook than municipalities.

 

That said, I was kind of shocked when I realized I was leaving the water on after wetting my toothbrush. Not a huge waste, but a stupid one. And I must have been doing it for years because I still have to force myself to remember to shut it off until I'm done and need to rinse.

 

Also, in the summer when I shower (no baths!), I run the water just enough to get wet, then shut it off and soap up, turning it back on just to rinse off the soap. But in the winter the hot water just feels too good so I leave it on the whole time (still just 5-6 minutes either way). Since my house is usually the same temperature no matter the season, it must be a psychological thing.

[iNow]

We are currently only allowed to water our lawns one day per week, only on a very specific day of the week depending upon our address, only for a max of 20 minutes at a time, and even then only before for 7 AM or after 7 PM.

[Airbrush]

One day a week to water a lawn seems extremely stingy. How can a lawn survive that in a triple-digit heat wave?

 

Here in Socal we are allowed 3 days per week.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Airbrush

[iNow]

One day a week to water a lawn seems extremely stingy. How can a lawn survive that in a triple-digit heat wave?

Would you rather lawns survive or people do? The math on this is not hard, IMO.