6 ms·

The obvious solution here is to have a tiered pricing system for water, where the price per gallon increases with consumption. Increase the price of the higher

by avalys 4y ago

The obvious solution here is to have a tiered pricing system for water, where the price per gallon increases with consumption. Increase the price of the higher tiers and/or rate of increase until consumption drops to level you need. And then you don’t need to pay government employees to drive around and inspect celebrity lawns all day.

z3c0 4y ago
As the saying goes, "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. It may raise more money, but I can't imagine that it would deter consumption much, as it's already the rich using the most water.
- lalaland1125 4y ago
  > it's already the rich using the most water That's not true. The main water use is agriculture, which is a pretty small portion of our GDP and would cut down usage if we raised prices.
  - z3c0 4y ago
    Given the context of the article, I thought it was fairly obvious that I was referring to domestic use, but if it was not, I was.
    - throwaway09223 4y ago
      Sure, but your complaint is that it's punishing the poor. The reason we need to properly price water isn't to increase costs for municipal use. Those rates can stay the same, or even be reduced. The problem is that the agricultural sector is paying a fraction of the prices that municipalities pay -- or in some cases they are paying nothing at all.
      - z3c0 4y ago
        My complaint isn't that it punishes the poor, it's that it doesn't deter the rich, who are - in the context of the article - the primary issue. I just invoked an old saying to draw attention to the disparity. A tiered pricing model would likely not change anything for the poor. Agriculture and overuse of water is a different discussion that this restrictor does not presume to address.
        throwaway09223 4y ago
        The rich aren't the primary issue, though. The total water used by wealthy people in their own homes is utterly negligible. The article cites celebs like Kevin Hart, who has used (gasp) 150% of what LA would prefer him to use. This is simply a non-issue. It does not need to be addressed, at all.
- gruez 4y ago
  >There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. Good. The money they're paying for water can now fund projects to get more water for everyone else (eg. desalination plants, water diversion, or buying water rights from current farmers).
  - z3c0 4y ago
    So... let them use up the water so that it's affordable to stop them from using up the water?
    - gruez 4y ago
      The goal isn't to "stop them from using up the water", it's to charge them the true price of providing that water, and charging a bit extra so we can subsidize the price of water for the poor.
      - z3c0 4y ago
        I think this premise is sufficient in any scenario where there are disparities in the distribution of a plentiful resource, as is the case in countries with privatized water. However, when the resource is no longer plentiful, it is unwise to try the "let the market fix it" route (always a popular one on HN), because the resource in question can be consumed much faster than the systems you are describing can combat it (or can even be gotten off the ground.)
        gruez 4y ago
        >However, when the resource is no longer plentiful My previous comment mentioned acquisition methods up to and including desalination, which would make the resource virtually unlimited. If the rich want to water their huge mansion grounds and are willing to pay for a desalination plant to do it, why stop them? If they're willing to do that, and we can take a portion of that money to subsidize water supply for the poor, all the better.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  > when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor. This is true, but only because the amount of fines are typically identical regardless of income/wealth. Fines should be based on a percentage of income/wealth. A poor person being fined $1000 may end up homeless as a result. For a rich person, $1000 would, at most, be annoying and depending on how rich, might not be noticed even as much as that same poor person accidentally dropping a penny and being unable to retrieve it. Fine the rich person a more equivalent $100K, $1M or $100M, and their compliance level would increase dramatically. Fixed monetary fines brings to mind this quote: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” — Anatole France
- manholio 4y ago
  > "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." And there is nothing wrong with that: if you are poor and waste 10000 gal watering your lawn during draught, you should be punished because your are just as anti-social as the millionaire next door. I'm ok with that as long as there exists a free/low cost tire that covers the basic necessities of a regular family, so that even the poor are guaranteed a certain level of service.
- avalys 4y ago
  What is the distribution of total consumption by income range? Yes, the rich use more water per capita, but there aren't all that many rich people compared to the rest of the population. Does the top 1% of the income distribution use more water (in total) than the bottom 99%?
lostgame 4y ago
Uh, that helps nothing. Outside of agriculture, it’s entirely only the rich who are wasting the water (look no farther than the recent example of Kim Kardashian from just this week on this issue) - it’s not like the lower / lower middle class has lawns to waste water on, anyway. And since the idiots like KK wasting all the water are multi-millionaires or billionaires, of which there are a greater conglomeration of in California then there are in the rest of the states - increasing the price of the water based on more usage won’t change a thing. Restricting the amount of water used by individuals in general is the only way I can see this working here. But the rich always figure out a way around everything. They always do. Same issue with the private plane bullshit going on. These people are addicted to an unsustainable lifestyle that allows them to throw money at anyone trying to put restrictions their way.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Correct. Increasing the price actually pushes toward guaranteeing that water is only for wealthy people or companies and therefore not for the poor.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Increased prices result in water being allocated to the most optimal needs. Marginal water prices mean the price for amount of water needed for a family to bathe and cook and clean costs much less than the amount of water for landscaping around an opulent home. If people are still too poor, then giving them cash (by taking from richer people) is the solution, not pricing water so low that it gets wasted Lack of sufficient water and excessive income/wealth gap are two separate problems with separate solutions.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      Welfare != surplus. Maximizing surplus is rarely the optimal thing to do.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      "Optimal" is doing a tremendous amount of lifting in your assertion, particularly in a world of grossly-unequal purchasing power. Much conveyed from birth and circumcstance rather than ability, effort, or social value.
jeffbee 4y ago
Most California utility districts do have tiered prices, but the first tier is usually pretty large, the marginal prices are really low, and the national press has a tendency to characterize even this mild scheme as "rationing" so people hate it. As an example, LADWP charges a maximum marginal rate of 17¢/gallon. You can use as much as 650 gallons per day without hitting this rate. The basic rate is 3¢/gallon.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  My water district (in California), sent out mailers a few years ago explaining their new rate structure. They said people were "conserving too much" that the fees were not covering infrastructure maintenance costs. So, they lowered the price of water and set a base fee (charged whether you use any water or not) to $54/mo.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Well, how do you expect them to fund scale-free costs? I pay $60 water service charge and another $40 wastewater service charge, every other month.
    - sillystuff 4y ago
      My original comment didn't make a value judgement on the rate restructuring, but it is true that I think the rate restructure was short-sighted. By lowering the per unit cost of water, they are discouraging conservation. And, the base fee is quite high for even our median wage earning households. I believe it would have been better to have a lower base fee that does not, alone, cover fixed costs and make up the deficit by higher fees on those with high water consumption by maintaining a high per-unit water charge. The problem with this is that by not fully covering the fixed costs with the base fee, there will be seasonal variability in funding, but basic budgeting would mitigate that. And, GGP's point about such policies dishonestly being framed as, "rationing" by opponents.
RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
I've done worked with or developed outdoor water use models for almost all water districts in the state of California. The issues cited in the article are a direct consequence of tiered rates. Districts become disinsentivised to reduce the water use for their highest using customers because thats where they make the most revenue. They need to show water use savings in gallons, but they make far more from high using customers. Its much more cost effective (gallons of water saved/reduction in revenue) for them to target users who only irrigate in the lowest use tier because thats where they receive the least revenue per unit volume water delivered.
- lostdog 4y ago
  I don't understand. Isn't the point of tiered rates so that the customer reduces their water usage?
  - RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
    Is it? One might assume on fce value and with a bit of charity that's the point. But districts are in a contradictory position. They are being mandated by state of California to reduce water usage. If they did so by mandating caps, this could work. However, their revenues would drop linearly with use in a flat rate scenario. If, rather, a district goes without caps and uses a tiered price structure, they can up the price enough on the bottom teir that the 'commoners' do cut back on water usage enough to meet their goals. However, there is a subset of users for whom price of water is not an issue. They want a putting green or driving range in the back yard. They want to feel like they are in Kauai or Maui when they sit in their backyard garden in Malibu. They already spend hundreds of thousands building a water slide in their back yard, what's a couple grand a month for the kids to enjoy it? You might think of these as extreme examples, but I've seen each of these. These people do not care about the price of water. With tiered based rates a district can maintain revenues and can make overall reductions. These rate increases happen at the bottom tier to create reductions in use and at the highest teirs to maintain revenues. The result is that all of the lower and middle income regions stop watering completely, and the wealthy just ignore any water use limitations. Some of these water users use 10-1000x as much water as a typical SFR, 5000 SQ foot lot.
sys_64738 4y ago
If you've more money then sense then this doesn't work. Restrictors sounds like a win/win for everybody.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  The point isn't to stop people from using water. Its to get them to pay for the infrastructure required to increase the water supply so there's enough for everyone.

by avalys 4y ago

z3c0 4y ago

As the saying goes, "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. It may raise more money, but I can't imagine that it would deter consumption much, as it's already the rich using the most water.

lalaland1125 4y ago
> it's already the rich using the most water That's not true. The main water use is agriculture, which is a pretty small portion of our GDP and would cut down usage if we raised prices.
- z3c0 4y ago
  Given the context of the article, I thought it was fairly obvious that I was referring to domestic use, but if it was not, I was.
  - throwaway09223 4y ago
    Sure, but your complaint is that it's punishing the poor. The reason we need to properly price water isn't to increase costs for municipal use. Those rates can stay the same, or even be reduced. The problem is that the agricultural sector is paying a fraction of the prices that municipalities pay -- or in some cases they are paying nothing at all.
    - z3c0 4y ago
      My complaint isn't that it punishes the poor, it's that it doesn't deter the rich, who are - in the context of the article - the primary issue. I just invoked an old saying to draw attention to the disparity. A tiered pricing model would likely not change anything for the poor. Agriculture and overuse of water is a different discussion that this restrictor does not presume to address.
      - throwaway09223 4y ago
        The rich aren't the primary issue, though. The total water used by wealthy people in their own homes is utterly negligible. The article cites celebs like Kevin Hart, who has used (gasp) 150% of what LA would prefer him to use. This is simply a non-issue. It does not need to be addressed, at all.
gruez 4y ago
>There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. Good. The money they're paying for water can now fund projects to get more water for everyone else (eg. desalination plants, water diversion, or buying water rights from current farmers).
- z3c0 4y ago
  So... let them use up the water so that it's affordable to stop them from using up the water?
  - gruez 4y ago
    The goal isn't to "stop them from using up the water", it's to charge them the true price of providing that water, and charging a bit extra so we can subsidize the price of water for the poor.
    - z3c0 4y ago
      I think this premise is sufficient in any scenario where there are disparities in the distribution of a plentiful resource, as is the case in countries with privatized water. However, when the resource is no longer plentiful, it is unwise to try the "let the market fix it" route (always a popular one on HN), because the resource in question can be consumed much faster than the systems you are describing can combat it (or can even be gotten off the ground.)
      - gruez 4y ago
        >However, when the resource is no longer plentiful My previous comment mentioned acquisition methods up to and including desalination, which would make the resource virtually unlimited. If the rich want to water their huge mansion grounds and are willing to pay for a desalination plant to do it, why stop them? If they're willing to do that, and we can take a portion of that money to subsidize water supply for the poor, all the better.
sillystuff 4y ago
> when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor. This is true, but only because the amount of fines are typically identical regardless of income/wealth. Fines should be based on a percentage of income/wealth. A poor person being fined $1000 may end up homeless as a result. For a rich person, $1000 would, at most, be annoying and depending on how rich, might not be noticed even as much as that same poor person accidentally dropping a penny and being unable to retrieve it. Fine the rich person a more equivalent $100K, $1M or $100M, and their compliance level would increase dramatically. Fixed monetary fines brings to mind this quote: “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.” — Anatole France
manholio 4y ago
> "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." And there is nothing wrong with that: if you are poor and waste 10000 gal watering your lawn during draught, you should be punished because your are just as anti-social as the millionaire next door. I'm ok with that as long as there exists a free/low cost tire that covers the basic necessities of a regular family, so that even the poor are guaranteed a certain level of service.
avalys 4y ago
What is the distribution of total consumption by income range? Yes, the rich use more water per capita, but there aren't all that many rich people compared to the rest of the population. Does the top 1% of the income distribution use more water (in total) than the bottom 99%?

lostgame 4y ago

Uh, that helps nothing. Outside of agriculture, it’s entirely only the rich who are wasting the water (look no farther than the recent example of Kim Kardashian from just this week on this issue) - it’s not like the lower / lower middle class has lawns to waste water on, anyway. And since the idiots like KK wasting all the water are multi-millionaires or billionaires, of which there are a greater conglomeration of in California then there are in the rest of the states - increasing the price of the water based on more usage won’t change a thing. Restricting the amount of water used by individuals in general is the only way I can see this working here. But the rich always figure out a way around everything. They always do. Same issue with the private plane bullshit going on. These people are addicted to an unsustainable lifestyle that allows them to throw money at anyone trying to put restrictions their way.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
Correct. Increasing the price actually pushes toward guaranteeing that water is only for wealthy people or companies and therefore not for the poor.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Increased prices result in water being allocated to the most optimal needs. Marginal water prices mean the price for amount of water needed for a family to bathe and cook and clean costs much less than the amount of water for landscaping around an opulent home. If people are still too poor, then giving them cash (by taking from richer people) is the solution, not pricing water so low that it gets wasted Lack of sufficient water and excessive income/wealth gap are two separate problems with separate solutions.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Welfare != surplus. Maximizing surplus is rarely the optimal thing to do.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    "Optimal" is doing a tremendous amount of lifting in your assertion, particularly in a world of grossly-unequal purchasing power. Much conveyed from birth and circumcstance rather than ability, effort, or social value.

jeffbee 4y ago

Most California utility districts do have tiered prices, but the first tier is usually pretty large, the marginal prices are really low, and the national press has a tendency to characterize even this mild scheme as "rationing" so people hate it. As an example, LADWP charges a maximum marginal rate of 17¢/gallon. You can use as much as 650 gallons per day without hitting this rate. The basic rate is 3¢/gallon.

sillystuff 4y ago
My water district (in California), sent out mailers a few years ago explaining their new rate structure. They said people were "conserving too much" that the fees were not covering infrastructure maintenance costs. So, they lowered the price of water and set a base fee (charged whether you use any water or not) to $54/mo.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Well, how do you expect them to fund scale-free costs? I pay $60 water service charge and another $40 wastewater service charge, every other month.
  - sillystuff 4y ago
    My original comment didn't make a value judgement on the rate restructuring, but it is true that I think the rate restructure was short-sighted. By lowering the per unit cost of water, they are discouraging conservation. And, the base fee is quite high for even our median wage earning households. I believe it would have been better to have a lower base fee that does not, alone, cover fixed costs and make up the deficit by higher fees on those with high water consumption by maintaining a high per-unit water charge. The problem with this is that by not fully covering the fixed costs with the base fee, there will be seasonal variability in funding, but basic budgeting would mitigate that. And, GGP's point about such policies dishonestly being framed as, "rationing" by opponents.

RosanaAnaDana 4y ago

I've done worked with or developed outdoor water use models for almost all water districts in the state of California. The issues cited in the article are a direct consequence of tiered rates. Districts become disinsentivised to reduce the water use for their highest using customers because thats where they make the most revenue. They need to show water use savings in gallons, but they make far more from high using customers. Its much more cost effective (gallons of water saved/reduction in revenue) for them to target users who only irrigate in the lowest use tier because thats where they receive the least revenue per unit volume water delivered.

lostdog 4y ago
I don't understand. Isn't the point of tiered rates so that the customer reduces their water usage?
- RosanaAnaDana 4y ago
  Is it? One might assume on fce value and with a bit of charity that's the point. But districts are in a contradictory position. They are being mandated by state of California to reduce water usage. If they did so by mandating caps, this could work. However, their revenues would drop linearly with use in a flat rate scenario. If, rather, a district goes without caps and uses a tiered price structure, they can up the price enough on the bottom teir that the 'commoners' do cut back on water usage enough to meet their goals. However, there is a subset of users for whom price of water is not an issue. They want a putting green or driving range in the back yard. They want to feel like they are in Kauai or Maui when they sit in their backyard garden in Malibu. They already spend hundreds of thousands building a water slide in their back yard, what's a couple grand a month for the kids to enjoy it? You might think of these as extreme examples, but I've seen each of these. These people do not care about the price of water. With tiered based rates a district can maintain revenues and can make overall reductions. These rate increases happen at the bottom tier to create reductions in use and at the highest teirs to maintain revenues. The result is that all of the lower and middle income regions stop watering completely, and the wealthy just ignore any water use limitations. Some of these water users use 10-1000x as much water as a typical SFR, 5000 SQ foot lot.

sys_64738 4y ago

If you've more money then sense then this doesn't work. Restrictors sounds like a win/win for everybody.

colinmhayes 4y ago
The point isn't to stop people from using water. Its to get them to pay for the infrastructure required to increase the water supply so there's enough for everyone.