4 ms·

My Dad used to work for the City of Tucson Water Department doing maintenance and repairs on the massive engines used to pump groundwater to the surface. I reca

My Dad used to work for the City of Tucson Water Department doing maintenance and repairs on the massive engines used to pump groundwater to the surface. I recall back in the 80's, the city began a conservation campaign dubbed "Beat the Peak", trying to persuade residents to limit water usage during peak hours in the summertime, probably 11am - 4pm, or something similar. (The campaign even had a cheesy mascot duck, Pete the Beak I think?) Anyways, the city's campaign was so successful in getting residents to limit their water usage, they announced in the next fiscal year they had to raise water rates because of lost revenue! After that my Dad would come home from work in his city employee uniform, and go water all the plants in the front yard during peak hours, on purpose so the whole neighborhood could see him LOL.

drcongo 4y ago
[flagged]
- nells 4y ago
  Where does capitalism enter the picture here?
  - yuchi 4y ago
    They interrupted the initiative for revenue loss.
    - simonh 4y ago
      Revenue loss for a state owned entity. I still don’t get the reference to capitalism.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        The state owned entity only depends so strongly on the revenue from selling water because of the capitalist system it is embedded in. If water conservation is valued then substituting that revenue in a way that doesn't waste water should be a high priority. (I'm assuming "interrupted the initiative for revenue loss" is correct for the sake of this post. If it's not then the capitalism complaint is very weak.)
        simonh 4y ago
        It doesn't matter what economic system you had, you'd still get the same problem which is that reducing utilisation of a service doesn't reduce the resources required to provide that service either immediately or linearly. Non capitalist systems still have costs, the resources for the water authority still need to come from somewhere and fundamentally that somewhere is the community. There are no shareholders to satisfy, no profit to pay to anyone, they're free to manage their service provision and costs in the best interests of the community. Just to be clear I have no problem with non-profit utilities to provide a common service or manage a common resource, I think they can make a lot of sense.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > the same problem which is that reducing utilisation of a service doesn't reduce the resources required to provide that service either immediately or linearly. I disagree with that being the problem. The way I see it, funding the utility via sales is the problem. Let's say usage drops by 50% and costs drop by 10%. Under the current business model that's a disaster. Under a central funding model, hooray costs dropped!
        simonh 4y ago
        Sure, but whether you go for a central funding model (which boils down to everybody pays regardless of use) or a user pays model, that decision has nothing to do with capitalism. In a non-capitalist system you could do either. In fact in a capitalist model you could still do either. The utility could be privately owned but have just one customer, the government. It’s not a great idea, but it does happen.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > In a non-capitalist system you could do either. You could but there's much less reason to pick that way. > The utility could be privately owned but have just one customer, the government. The government being the only customer of a utility provides it a lot of control and I would say this is an obfuscation of state ownership more than it is actually capitalism.
    - steve_adams_86 4y ago
      I suppose the underline here belongs under the fact that the initiative is fundamentally good for the environment, and using the water isn’t necessarily good for anyone beyond necessity. The need for revenue essentially encourages waste, if only to generate the revenue required for economic survival. It seems to indicate that the resource should not be a commodity at all.
    - elmomle 4y ago
      Isn't raising the rate on something one of the main tools a well-functioning government should use to constrain that thing's use? Here they got the order backwards, which is a political and planning fiasco.
    - lend000 4y ago
      Private individuals didn't control the means of production. Individual profit motive exists regardless of whether that individual has been put into a socialist country or a country with more economic freedom, so it's probably best to harness that motive to create value for others. This isn't to say the government shouldn't be regulating externalities, such as pollution or limited resources in some way. The most "anti-capitalist" country that has ever existed managed to harm the Earth more than the US [0]. [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9...
jjav 4y ago
> they had to raise water rates because of lost revenue! Same thing in some California water districts in previous drought. Asked for conservation, people conserved. Revenue went down so they jacked up the prices more than 4x! The worst part is that the largest increase was done in the base rate which you pay regardless of consumption. So now the rate structure doesn't promote conservation that much since we have to pay nearly $100/mo even on zero consumption.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  This is why I'll always vote against privatisation of utilities.
  - MisterMower 4y ago
    Weren’t those utilities public, not private?
    - mdaEyebot 4y ago
      In the US, basic utilities like power or water or gas are often handed off to a private company in a local area. It is understood that these expensive and pervasive infrastructure projects are natural monopolies - it is much more efficient to have one provider than a competitive market. Imagine what a mess it would be if you had several sets of water pipes and power lines running through your neighborhood. For one reason or another, local governments often let someone else manage all of that. Ostensibly, the tradeoff is that the utility company should be more heavily-regulated than a normal company would be. But there is also some overlap between areas, and sometimes a handful of competitors are allowed to share physical infrastructure, so in practice it's more like a hodge-podge of hyperlocal oligopolies.
      - MisterMower 4y ago
        I don’t think you answered my question.
      - deleted 4y ago
lvspiff 4y ago
as a fellow son of a Tucson Water employee dad I remember that period and it was the most hilarious thing. Pete the Beak was all over the place and I remember them telling us the city was 'sinking' and the need for the CAP was a solution to all the problems too! Yeah that went wonderfully - i remember my dad coming home from work one day and complaining about the CAP and the implementation and we were signing up for bottled water delivery.

drcongo 4y ago

[flagged]

nells 4y ago
Where does capitalism enter the picture here?
- yuchi 4y ago
  They interrupted the initiative for revenue loss.
  - simonh 4y ago
    Revenue loss for a state owned entity. I still don’t get the reference to capitalism.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      The state owned entity only depends so strongly on the revenue from selling water because of the capitalist system it is embedded in. If water conservation is valued then substituting that revenue in a way that doesn't waste water should be a high priority. (I'm assuming "interrupted the initiative for revenue loss" is correct for the sake of this post. If it's not then the capitalism complaint is very weak.)
      - simonh 4y ago
        It doesn't matter what economic system you had, you'd still get the same problem which is that reducing utilisation of a service doesn't reduce the resources required to provide that service either immediately or linearly. Non capitalist systems still have costs, the resources for the water authority still need to come from somewhere and fundamentally that somewhere is the community. There are no shareholders to satisfy, no profit to pay to anyone, they're free to manage their service provision and costs in the best interests of the community. Just to be clear I have no problem with non-profit utilities to provide a common service or manage a common resource, I think they can make a lot of sense.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > the same problem which is that reducing utilisation of a service doesn't reduce the resources required to provide that service either immediately or linearly. I disagree with that being the problem. The way I see it, funding the utility via sales is the problem. Let's say usage drops by 50% and costs drop by 10%. Under the current business model that's a disaster. Under a central funding model, hooray costs dropped!
        simonh 4y ago
        Sure, but whether you go for a central funding model (which boils down to everybody pays regardless of use) or a user pays model, that decision has nothing to do with capitalism. In a non-capitalist system you could do either. In fact in a capitalist model you could still do either. The utility could be privately owned but have just one customer, the government. It’s not a great idea, but it does happen.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > In a non-capitalist system you could do either. You could but there's much less reason to pick that way. > The utility could be privately owned but have just one customer, the government. The government being the only customer of a utility provides it a lot of control and I would say this is an obfuscation of state ownership more than it is actually capitalism.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    I suppose the underline here belongs under the fact that the initiative is fundamentally good for the environment, and using the water isn’t necessarily good for anyone beyond necessity. The need for revenue essentially encourages waste, if only to generate the revenue required for economic survival. It seems to indicate that the resource should not be a commodity at all.
  - elmomle 4y ago
    Isn't raising the rate on something one of the main tools a well-functioning government should use to constrain that thing's use? Here they got the order backwards, which is a political and planning fiasco.
  - lend000 4y ago
    Private individuals didn't control the means of production. Individual profit motive exists regardless of whether that individual has been put into a socialist country or a country with more economic freedom, so it's probably best to harness that motive to create value for others. This isn't to say the government shouldn't be regulating externalities, such as pollution or limited resources in some way. The most "anti-capitalist" country that has ever existed managed to harm the Earth more than the US [0]. [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9266764 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-pictur_b_9...

jjav 4y ago

> they had to raise water rates because of lost revenue! Same thing in some California water districts in previous drought. Asked for conservation, people conserved. Revenue went down so they jacked up the prices more than 4x! The worst part is that the largest increase was done in the base rate which you pay regardless of consumption. So now the rate structure doesn't promote conservation that much since we have to pay nearly $100/mo even on zero consumption.

WeylandYutani 4y ago
This is why I'll always vote against privatisation of utilities.
- MisterMower 4y ago
  Weren’t those utilities public, not private?
  - mdaEyebot 4y ago
    In the US, basic utilities like power or water or gas are often handed off to a private company in a local area. It is understood that these expensive and pervasive infrastructure projects are natural monopolies - it is much more efficient to have one provider than a competitive market. Imagine what a mess it would be if you had several sets of water pipes and power lines running through your neighborhood. For one reason or another, local governments often let someone else manage all of that. Ostensibly, the tradeoff is that the utility company should be more heavily-regulated than a normal company would be. But there is also some overlap between areas, and sometimes a handful of competitors are allowed to share physical infrastructure, so in practice it's more like a hodge-podge of hyperlocal oligopolies.
    - MisterMower 4y ago
      I don’t think you answered my question.
    - deleted 4y ago

lvspiff 4y ago

as a fellow son of a Tucson Water employee dad I remember that period and it was the most hilarious thing. Pete the Beak was all over the place and I remember them telling us the city was 'sinking' and the need for the CAP was a solution to all the problems too! Yeah that went wonderfully - i remember my dad coming home from work one day and complaining about the CAP and the implementation and we were signing up for bottled water delivery.