4 ms·

"it's not as if this property owner isn't paying for the extravagant water usage." That's kind of the problem though, he isn't. Water is notoriously subsidize

by swalsh 11y ago

"it's not as if this property owner isn't paying for the extravagant water usage." That's kind of the problem though, he isn't. Water is notoriously subsidized. It's hard to make the case that 12 million gallons of clean water would only cost $90k. The system kind of has built into it this spirit of "everyone needs clean affordable water". There was no limit put in place, so there's some people taking crazy advantage of it.

irixusr 11y ago
Agreed, which is hardly his/her fault, but rather California/LA politics' fault. Raise prices, or put a multi-tier pricing, or whatever; but harassment for social engineering's sake is creepy.
- chucknelson 11y ago
  Agree that harassment isn't the way to go about this, but I think we can put a good amount of blame on the individual here - selfish water usage doesn't seem like a great idea in California.
  - irixusr 11y ago
    See my post bellow estimating how large their lot should be assuming golf-course irrigation. I came with ~5 acres This individual is a jerk, no doubt, but 5 acres is small, so their overall usage compared to the total for LA county isn't very significant. LA county as a whole is abusing water. I'd suggest a tiered pricing scheme. Current rates for water usage bellow what 99.9% of what the LA uses (to make it politically expedient), and two orders of magnitude larger otherwise.
- ergothus 11y ago
  I'm a bit on the fence: On the one hand, no, being crazily abusive of the situation IS his/her fault. Legal does not imply moral or ethical, for good reasons. We legislate the minimum necessary because more restrictive legislation would harm people who have valid reasons/exceptions. Then we rely on social pressure to encourage people to not abuse that gray area. So we have someone blatantly abusing the system. (And while I tend to give people extreme benefit of the doubt, I have troubles believing that someone is ignorant of the drought and their relatively high water usage - if it's not the property owner, then it's someone maintaining the property that hasn't raided the issue) I am not at all a fan of mob justice - but at the same time to ignore the role of social pressure in maintaining a balance is to invite a society I don't want to be part of: where everything not explicitly illegal is therefore endorsed. Mob Justice can be a terrible thing: it's applied unequally, tends to ignore subtleties and justifications, and is hard to put back in to the bottle. At the same time, the law can not be the only determination of what is "right", "good", or "encouraged". We need to find some middle ground, where society can disapprove, and the disapproval has weight but not so much weight as to strangle or suffocate someone that doesn't conform.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  How is this not completely the fault of the person using such extraordinary amounts of water? Are they not an adult? Do they not have full control over their actions?
  - irixusr 11y ago
    LA literally steals water from Mexico (see Colorado river and the fact that it doesn't flow into Mexico anymore). So this author's holier-than-thou attitude strikes me as a bit rich: Angelinos are water abusers[1] in general and without exception. They're just sour someone's better at wasting water then they are. That being said, I don't support this gentleman's water usage. But I would increase the water price high enough to hurt everyone into conservation. [1]A city abuses water when they use water beyond the capability of it being replenished. So it's much harder to waste water in T.O. than in LA.
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  Actually, hiding behind the letter of the law when your actions are horribly antisocial is creepy.
  - irixusr 11y ago
    Then change the law so that authorities within rule of the Law address the issue. Outing people, be they gun owners in NY state or water abusers in LA is harassment. This is not that different from J. Edgar Hoover threatening to "out" homosexuals who didn't do his bidding in the 50s; at the time homosexuality offended the sensibilities of people in the same way that water wastage offends some today. We might agree with the merits of limiting water use, and celebrate our advancement in the treatment of sexual minorities (I do for both), but harassment outside of the Law is abuse.
adanto6840 11y ago
A tiered rate system fixes this entirely IMO. Las Vegas does this and it seems quite effective: http://www.lvvwd.com/custserv/billing_rates_thresholds.html http://www.lvvwd.com/custserv/billing_rates_thresholds.html
- josu 11y ago
  From the article: >That's already in the works at LADWP, which could go from a two-tier system to four tiers. Marty Adams of the DWP told me that in the case of the highest user in Bel-Air, the $90,000 annual cost of water would rise to about $125,000. Instead of tiered, there could be a progressive multiplier, e.g. a multiplier equal to the gallons used: 1 gallon = $1 ; 10 gallons = $100; 100 gallons = $10,000.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    Water use squared doesn't really make sense as a charging scheme. There should be a per-gallon rate that everyone things is plenty, and that (or a small multiple) should be the max.
    - josu 11y ago
      No, it doesn't, it was just an example of a multiplier system, rather than a multi tiered system.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        What does "multiplier system" mean? If you're multiplying by gallons, then you're measuring water use squared. If you're multiplying by fixed numbers, that's just a complicated way of doing tiers.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
dntrkv 11y ago
A "simple" solution would be to use a system like we do for our taxes where the first X amount is completely subsidized, the next Y amount is less subsidized, the next Z amount is even less subsidized, etc...
- tinco 11y ago
  Exactly. And then just make these tiers be per occupant, and perhaps per square feet of land area if you're feeling generous. It can just be two tiers too. Either you're within the limits of what seems acceptable to a person living on a certain amount of land, or you're not.
- landryraccoon 11y ago
  Its not even necessary. Do you realize how insanely, ridiculously cheap metered water service is? The current price for water service in San Francisco is $5.45 for 748 gallons or less than one cent per gallon. If they tripled the meter price for everyone the poor could still afford everything they need to shower, drink and cook. Only very heavy users would be affected. Source: http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168 http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168
cperciva 11y ago
As I said: And if you think that $90,000/year isn't enough to reimburse society for this water usage... raise the damn prices.
- JabavuAdams 11y ago
  And how will you do that if the most wealthy have such obvious disregard for good policy? This is an adversarial situation.
VLM 11y ago
That price per gallon is very high compared to the rest of the country. Water is cheap, even during a drought. The problem is the pool of water is shrinking as the population expands. People worried about that should leave the area to almost anywhere in the country where water is even cheaper and not a shortage. The "standard" for water billing is $ per 1000 gallons. Why, I donno. They're paying $7.50, I'm paying a mere $1.69 as a residential drinker. Sewage fee is much higher than actual water cost... I can get an extra meter for irrigation water and pay much less, because the expensive to operate and expensive to expand sewage treatment plant does not process irrigation water. Most of my "water" bill actually goes to the sewage plant. Water is almost too cheap to meter in the east... sewage, on the other hand, is expensive to treat, and sometimes I think its the only reason we have water meters... I'm not sure its reasonable to assume something that costs 4x "normal" long term sustainable pricing is being subsidized, unless the true cost of living in a drought is 10x or 100x or whatever and the .gov is subsidizing it somehow as a service to the poor. More data would be necessary to come to a conclusion.

by swalsh 11y ago

irixusr 11y ago

Agreed, which is hardly his/her fault, but rather California/LA politics' fault. Raise prices, or put a multi-tier pricing, or whatever; but harassment for social engineering's sake is creepy.

chucknelson 11y ago
Agree that harassment isn't the way to go about this, but I think we can put a good amount of blame on the individual here - selfish water usage doesn't seem like a great idea in California.
- irixusr 11y ago
  See my post bellow estimating how large their lot should be assuming golf-course irrigation. I came with ~5 acres This individual is a jerk, no doubt, but 5 acres is small, so their overall usage compared to the total for LA county isn't very significant. LA county as a whole is abusing water. I'd suggest a tiered pricing scheme. Current rates for water usage bellow what 99.9% of what the LA uses (to make it politically expedient), and two orders of magnitude larger otherwise.
ergothus 11y ago
I'm a bit on the fence: On the one hand, no, being crazily abusive of the situation IS his/her fault. Legal does not imply moral or ethical, for good reasons. We legislate the minimum necessary because more restrictive legislation would harm people who have valid reasons/exceptions. Then we rely on social pressure to encourage people to not abuse that gray area. So we have someone blatantly abusing the system. (And while I tend to give people extreme benefit of the doubt, I have troubles believing that someone is ignorant of the drought and their relatively high water usage - if it's not the property owner, then it's someone maintaining the property that hasn't raided the issue) I am not at all a fan of mob justice - but at the same time to ignore the role of social pressure in maintaining a balance is to invite a society I don't want to be part of: where everything not explicitly illegal is therefore endorsed. Mob Justice can be a terrible thing: it's applied unequally, tends to ignore subtleties and justifications, and is hard to put back in to the bottle. At the same time, the law can not be the only determination of what is "right", "good", or "encouraged". We need to find some middle ground, where society can disapprove, and the disapproval has weight but not so much weight as to strangle or suffocate someone that doesn't conform.
s73v3r 11y ago
How is this not completely the fault of the person using such extraordinary amounts of water? Are they not an adult? Do they not have full control over their actions?
- irixusr 11y ago
  LA literally steals water from Mexico (see Colorado river and the fact that it doesn't flow into Mexico anymore). So this author's holier-than-thou attitude strikes me as a bit rich: Angelinos are water abusers[1] in general and without exception. They're just sour someone's better at wasting water then they are. That being said, I don't support this gentleman's water usage. But I would increase the water price high enough to hurt everyone into conservation. [1]A city abuses water when they use water beyond the capability of it being replenished. So it's much harder to waste water in T.O. than in LA.
JabavuAdams 11y ago
Actually, hiding behind the letter of the law when your actions are horribly antisocial is creepy.
- irixusr 11y ago
  Then change the law so that authorities within rule of the Law address the issue. Outing people, be they gun owners in NY state or water abusers in LA is harassment. This is not that different from J. Edgar Hoover threatening to "out" homosexuals who didn't do his bidding in the 50s; at the time homosexuality offended the sensibilities of people in the same way that water wastage offends some today. We might agree with the merits of limiting water use, and celebrate our advancement in the treatment of sexual minorities (I do for both), but harassment outside of the Law is abuse.

adanto6840 11y ago

A tiered rate system fixes this entirely IMO. Las Vegas does this and it seems quite effective: http://www.lvvwd.com/custserv/billing_rates_thresholds.html http://www.lvvwd.com/custserv/billing_rates_thresholds.html

josu 11y ago
From the article: >That's already in the works at LADWP, which could go from a two-tier system to four tiers. Marty Adams of the DWP told me that in the case of the highest user in Bel-Air, the $90,000 annual cost of water would rise to about $125,000. Instead of tiered, there could be a progressive multiplier, e.g. a multiplier equal to the gallons used: 1 gallon = $1 ; 10 gallons = $100; 100 gallons = $10,000.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Water use squared doesn't really make sense as a charging scheme. There should be a per-gallon rate that everyone things is plenty, and that (or a small multiple) should be the max.
  - josu 11y ago
    No, it doesn't, it was just an example of a multiplier system, rather than a multi tiered system.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      What does "multiplier system" mean? If you're multiplying by gallons, then you're measuring water use squared. If you're multiplying by fixed numbers, that's just a complicated way of doing tiers.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

dntrkv 11y ago

A "simple" solution would be to use a system like we do for our taxes where the first X amount is completely subsidized, the next Y amount is less subsidized, the next Z amount is even less subsidized, etc...

tinco 11y ago
Exactly. And then just make these tiers be per occupant, and perhaps per square feet of land area if you're feeling generous. It can just be two tiers too. Either you're within the limits of what seems acceptable to a person living on a certain amount of land, or you're not.
landryraccoon 11y ago
Its not even necessary. Do you realize how insanely, ridiculously cheap metered water service is? The current price for water service in San Francisco is $5.45 for 748 gallons or less than one cent per gallon. If they tripled the meter price for everyone the poor could still afford everything they need to shower, drink and cook. Only very heavy users would be affected. Source: http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168 http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168

cperciva 11y ago

As I said: And if you think that $90,000/year isn't enough to reimburse society for this water usage... raise the damn prices.

JabavuAdams 11y ago
And how will you do that if the most wealthy have such obvious disregard for good policy? This is an adversarial situation.

VLM 11y ago

That price per gallon is very high compared to the rest of the country. Water is cheap, even during a drought. The problem is the pool of water is shrinking as the population expands. People worried about that should leave the area to almost anywhere in the country where water is even cheaper and not a shortage. The "standard" for water billing is $ per 1000 gallons. Why, I donno. They're paying $7.50, I'm paying a mere $1.69 as a residential drinker. Sewage fee is much higher than actual water cost... I can get an extra meter for irrigation water and pay much less, because the expensive to operate and expensive to expand sewage treatment plant does not process irrigation water. Most of my "water" bill actually goes to the sewage plant. Water is almost too cheap to meter in the east... sewage, on the other hand, is expensive to treat, and sometimes I think its the only reason we have water meters... I'm not sure its reasonable to assume something that costs 4x "normal" long term sustainable pricing is being subsidized, unless the true cost of living in a drought is 10x or 100x or whatever and the .gov is subsidizing it somehow as a service to the poor. More data would be necessary to come to a conclusion.