4 ms·

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.
- manholio 4y ago
  > These people do not care about the price of water. They will if the top tire price is $10000/gal. It might be politically unpalatable to push such prices, but it would surely solve the consumption problem without compromising revenue.
- avalys 4y ago
  Is part of the problem here that there just aren't that many rich people? If there are a few people in a district of 100,000 who are using 1000x as much water as a normal household, and those people cut their usage 100%, that's still much less overall savings than convincing the remaining 99,990 people to cut their usage by 20%. Yes, it looks bad that rich people can consume whatever they want and the masses of poor people are the ones that have to conserve, but if this is the reality of the situation then focusing on the rich seems rather petty and spiteful.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  Are the water authorities really earning much from these massive users? This[1] says they fined Kim Kardashian $2,325 for overuse. That's nothing to her. They have plenty of room to increase those prices and earn more money. They have 2 goals: earn money and reduce usage. The solution to both is to raise prices. Why aren't they doing it? As long as the lowest tier is wide enough for all reasonable household indoor use and has a low price, I don't see why it would have a big negative impact on regular people. Sure their lawns will turn brown. But it sounds to me like that's inevitable; there's simply not enough water to keep everyone's lawns green. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/08/24/1119112184/kim-kardashian-kevin-hart-dwyane-wade-water-usage-violation https://www.npr.org/2022/08/24/1119112184/kim-kardashian-kev...
- bcrosby95 4y ago
  A water slide wouldn't use anywhere near a couple grand worth of water per month.
zbrozek 4y ago
Suppose you're a billionaire. Quite a few of them live in my town. Do you actually care at all? Do you even know what you spend on water? I'd wager not. Someone down the street from me is not a billionaire, but the property tax savings of operating a "farm" (a vineyard) pays for a huge amount of water. And it's totally worth it for him. There's so many perverse incentives baked into California life that it's hard to express to people outside without sounding like anything but a paranoid raving lunatic.
sidewndr46 4y ago
When water is a tiny percentage of your monthly costs, you could care less. For example, my dad pays for actual water used. Not sewer, he provides that himself. As a result a 35000 gallon a month bill costs him something like $25. They obviously don't use that much each month, but he isn't concerned by the sometimes high bill that comes in.

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.

manholio 4y ago
> These people do not care about the price of water. They will if the top tire price is $10000/gal. It might be politically unpalatable to push such prices, but it would surely solve the consumption problem without compromising revenue.
avalys 4y ago
Is part of the problem here that there just aren't that many rich people? If there are a few people in a district of 100,000 who are using 1000x as much water as a normal household, and those people cut their usage 100%, that's still much less overall savings than convincing the remaining 99,990 people to cut their usage by 20%. Yes, it looks bad that rich people can consume whatever they want and the masses of poor people are the ones that have to conserve, but if this is the reality of the situation then focusing on the rich seems rather petty and spiteful.
Thorrez 4y ago
Are the water authorities really earning much from these massive users? This[1] says they fined Kim Kardashian $2,325 for overuse. That's nothing to her. They have plenty of room to increase those prices and earn more money. They have 2 goals: earn money and reduce usage. The solution to both is to raise prices. Why aren't they doing it? As long as the lowest tier is wide enough for all reasonable household indoor use and has a low price, I don't see why it would have a big negative impact on regular people. Sure their lawns will turn brown. But it sounds to me like that's inevitable; there's simply not enough water to keep everyone's lawns green. [1] https://www.npr.org/2022/08/24/1119112184/kim-kardashian-kevin-hart-dwyane-wade-water-usage-violation https://www.npr.org/2022/08/24/1119112184/kim-kardashian-kev...
bcrosby95 4y ago
A water slide wouldn't use anywhere near a couple grand worth of water per month.

zbrozek 4y ago

Suppose you're a billionaire. Quite a few of them live in my town. Do you actually care at all? Do you even know what you spend on water? I'd wager not. Someone down the street from me is not a billionaire, but the property tax savings of operating a "farm" (a vineyard) pays for a huge amount of water. And it's totally worth it for him. There's so many perverse incentives baked into California life that it's hard to express to people outside without sounding like anything but a paranoid raving lunatic.

sidewndr46 4y ago

When water is a tiny percentage of your monthly costs, you could care less. For example, my dad pays for actual water used. Not sewer, he provides that himself. As a result a 35000 gallon a month bill costs him something like $25. They obviously don't use that much each month, but he isn't concerned by the sometimes high bill that comes in.