5 ms·

one side effect of Proposition 218, put forth by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, was that it became illegal to charge any household more than the costs

one side effect of Proposition 218, put forth by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, was that it became illegal to charge any household more than the costs of conveyance to that parcel. It was illegal to charge punitive rates to send a price signal to wasteful users. Why does punishing wasteful users require charging them more per unit? If I waste a lot of milk, like by bathing in it, I'm punished by having spent way more on milk than a normal person. "Use twice as much, spend twice as much" is fair.

bombcar 3y ago
Because water is so cheap (cheaper than dirt) that it’s not punitive at all to pay for twice or ten or a hundred times normal.
- eru 3y ago
  On the one hand, if water is so cheap, why do you need to punish people for using a bit more of it, then? On the other hand, if water is so scarce that you need to discourage people from using a bit extra, why do you price it so cheap in the first place?
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    Here you find yourselves at the crossroads. Everyone needs water to live. The actual price of water, fairly pricing in long term externalities, may be too much for a family of four to afford their 8 or 10 kgals a month. At least for many such families. But when you price it at the marginal cost to pump out the extra gallon, it becomes economical to do silly stuff like grow water intensive crops in the desert and draw the city's aquifer down. Hence the conundrum. Price it fair, some people can't afford flush the toilet. Subsidize it at a flat(ish) rate, or even just ignore externalities, some people can afford to destroy the commons. So, conservation pricing.
    - eru 3y ago
      > Everyone needs water to live. The actual price of water, fairly pricing in long term externalities, may be too much for a family of four to afford their 8 or 10 kgals a month. At least for many such families. Depends on where you live. And perhaps we shouldn't encourage people to live in such dry areas where an honest pricing of water would make living unaffordable? > But when you price it at the marginal cost to pump out the extra gallon, it becomes economical to do silly stuff like grow water intensive crops in the desert and draw the city's aquifer down. Your pricing should take the longer term into account. An auction style pricing can do that. (Or a system that simulates auction-style pricing. No need to go through all the hassle of actually holding auctions.) > Hence the conundrum. Price it fair, some people can't afford flush the toilet. Subsidize it at a flat(ish) rate, or even just ignore externalities, some people can afford to destroy the commons. So, conservation pricing. That sounds like your conclusion is driving your argument. Give poor people money, if you want to help them. Instead of mucking around with prices. They can then use the money to either pay for water or move somewhere less inhospitable. Or spend it on something they like even more than either of these two alternatives. Btw, flushing toilets with drinking-quality water sounds like a big waste. You should only do that when you have plenty of water to go around. Perhaps that family wants to buy a composting toilet, and pocket the savings? Instead of flushing water down the drain every day?
      - bombcar 3y ago
        > Depends on where you live. And perhaps we shouldn't encourage people to live in such dry areas where an honest pricing of water would make living unaffordable? This is a really big aspect of it, and "save water" applied without thought can be counter-productive. Where I live, the water comes out of the ground in wells, goes through the system, and leeches back into the ground in a giant septic system (that they call the wastewater treatment plant). It's pretty well contained and as long as we are nowhere near the limit the main thing sewer/water is paying for is maintenance of the system. That is NOT the case everywhere in the USA, especially the states where water is piped in from miles and miles away. I do agree that much of the problems we have is forcing public utilities (water, power, transit) to ALSO be social programs; this dual-goal always ends up messing things up.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Because like other utilities, homeowners often get vastly subsidized usage. Which can be fine until it starts running out.
    - eru 3y ago
      I would suggest to drop the subsidies, instead of bolting on extra rules.
    - rocqua 3y ago
      I believe that, in the case of water, homeowners tend to pay high prices, whilst farners get incredibly low prices and businesses can usually get sweetheart deals if they are big enough.
- outside1234 3y ago
  So we need to make water less cheap
eru 3y ago
Water economics are weird. Not because of anything directly in the economics, but because people have really weird ideas and emotional attachments. So instead of charging a market rate proportional to usage (plus a fee to access the network etc, and giving poor people money to afford all this), there's all kinds of weirdness and grandstanding. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/25/fake-consensualism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/25/fake-consensualism/ for a wider exploration of sacred value and taboo trade-offs. People seem to prefer having the government snoop on and micromanage what you use your water for, eg watering your lawn or filling your pool, instead of charging people a reasonable rate like you suggest.
- ggm 3y ago
  "people" here includes farmers, miners, and a swag of other corporate entities. It's not just about tapwater for people and the public utility function, it's about water rights and costs in the food chain and construction and mining industries, amongst others. Farmers at least should know they have to operate in a market, with all kinds of conditionality on interrupting flow, capture of water which falls over their land (but is not entirely theirs to keep, because they are in a catchment for a water supply for other people) -And the same with bore water: there's no extraction without impacting somebody else, unless you're in a very unusual position: ground water is another shared commons. Reticulated water in domestic contexts? Sure. A lot of people don't understand the social and economic pressures. Down here in Australia, with 10+ year droughts across large metro areas recent history and investment in desalination plants, we have a very good idea of the limits to domestic water usage which can be required of us. The farmers in NSW are at war with themselves and riverine management processes around retention of water flows over land, in the streams.
- pvdoom 3y ago
  Those examples you give are absolutely things that should be taken into account for - i.e. watering your lawn or filling your pool should be much more expensive than other uses.
  - eru 3y ago
    Why? For the rest of the community, it doesn't matter whether you water you fill your swimming pool or flush the toilet a few extra times. Or does it?
squokko 3y ago
Because there is a highly nonlinear utility of water, where enough to drink and cook is essential for survival, enough to bathe and wash is essential for a decent life, and then... nothing. If milk was $200 a gallon you could simply not buy any and you'd be fine, which is not the case with water.
- causality0 3y ago
  So charge for water on a non-linear scale, like taxes.
  - squokko 3y ago
    Yes? I was answering your question of why to do that.

bombcar 3y ago

Because water is so cheap (cheaper than dirt) that it’s not punitive at all to pay for twice or ten or a hundred times normal.

eru 3y ago
On the one hand, if water is so cheap, why do you need to punish people for using a bit more of it, then? On the other hand, if water is so scarce that you need to discourage people from using a bit extra, why do you price it so cheap in the first place?
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  Here you find yourselves at the crossroads. Everyone needs water to live. The actual price of water, fairly pricing in long term externalities, may be too much for a family of four to afford their 8 or 10 kgals a month. At least for many such families. But when you price it at the marginal cost to pump out the extra gallon, it becomes economical to do silly stuff like grow water intensive crops in the desert and draw the city's aquifer down. Hence the conundrum. Price it fair, some people can't afford flush the toilet. Subsidize it at a flat(ish) rate, or even just ignore externalities, some people can afford to destroy the commons. So, conservation pricing.
  - eru 3y ago
    > Everyone needs water to live. The actual price of water, fairly pricing in long term externalities, may be too much for a family of four to afford their 8 or 10 kgals a month. At least for many such families. Depends on where you live. And perhaps we shouldn't encourage people to live in such dry areas where an honest pricing of water would make living unaffordable? > But when you price it at the marginal cost to pump out the extra gallon, it becomes economical to do silly stuff like grow water intensive crops in the desert and draw the city's aquifer down. Your pricing should take the longer term into account. An auction style pricing can do that. (Or a system that simulates auction-style pricing. No need to go through all the hassle of actually holding auctions.) > Hence the conundrum. Price it fair, some people can't afford flush the toilet. Subsidize it at a flat(ish) rate, or even just ignore externalities, some people can afford to destroy the commons. So, conservation pricing. That sounds like your conclusion is driving your argument. Give poor people money, if you want to help them. Instead of mucking around with prices. They can then use the money to either pay for water or move somewhere less inhospitable. Or spend it on something they like even more than either of these two alternatives. Btw, flushing toilets with drinking-quality water sounds like a big waste. You should only do that when you have plenty of water to go around. Perhaps that family wants to buy a composting toilet, and pocket the savings? Instead of flushing water down the drain every day?
    - bombcar 3y ago
      > Depends on where you live. And perhaps we shouldn't encourage people to live in such dry areas where an honest pricing of water would make living unaffordable? This is a really big aspect of it, and "save water" applied without thought can be counter-productive. Where I live, the water comes out of the ground in wells, goes through the system, and leeches back into the ground in a giant septic system (that they call the wastewater treatment plant). It's pretty well contained and as long as we are nowhere near the limit the main thing sewer/water is paying for is maintenance of the system. That is NOT the case everywhere in the USA, especially the states where water is piped in from miles and miles away. I do agree that much of the problems we have is forcing public utilities (water, power, transit) to ALSO be social programs; this dual-goal always ends up messing things up.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Because like other utilities, homeowners often get vastly subsidized usage. Which can be fine until it starts running out.
  - eru 3y ago
    I would suggest to drop the subsidies, instead of bolting on extra rules.
  - rocqua 3y ago
    I believe that, in the case of water, homeowners tend to pay high prices, whilst farners get incredibly low prices and businesses can usually get sweetheart deals if they are big enough.
outside1234 3y ago
So we need to make water less cheap

eru 3y ago

Water economics are weird. Not because of anything directly in the economics, but because people have really weird ideas and emotional attachments. So instead of charging a market rate proportional to usage (plus a fee to access the network etc, and giving poor people money to afford all this), there's all kinds of weirdness and grandstanding. See https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/25/fake-consensualism/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/08/25/fake-consensualism/ for a wider exploration of sacred value and taboo trade-offs. People seem to prefer having the government snoop on and micromanage what you use your water for, eg watering your lawn or filling your pool, instead of charging people a reasonable rate like you suggest.

ggm 3y ago
"people" here includes farmers, miners, and a swag of other corporate entities. It's not just about tapwater for people and the public utility function, it's about water rights and costs in the food chain and construction and mining industries, amongst others. Farmers at least should know they have to operate in a market, with all kinds of conditionality on interrupting flow, capture of water which falls over their land (but is not entirely theirs to keep, because they are in a catchment for a water supply for other people) -And the same with bore water: there's no extraction without impacting somebody else, unless you're in a very unusual position: ground water is another shared commons. Reticulated water in domestic contexts? Sure. A lot of people don't understand the social and economic pressures. Down here in Australia, with 10+ year droughts across large metro areas recent history and investment in desalination plants, we have a very good idea of the limits to domestic water usage which can be required of us. The farmers in NSW are at war with themselves and riverine management processes around retention of water flows over land, in the streams.
pvdoom 3y ago
Those examples you give are absolutely things that should be taken into account for - i.e. watering your lawn or filling your pool should be much more expensive than other uses.
- eru 3y ago
  Why? For the rest of the community, it doesn't matter whether you water you fill your swimming pool or flush the toilet a few extra times. Or does it?

squokko 3y ago

Because there is a highly nonlinear utility of water, where enough to drink and cook is essential for survival, enough to bathe and wash is essential for a decent life, and then... nothing. If milk was $200 a gallon you could simply not buy any and you'd be fine, which is not the case with water.

causality0 3y ago
So charge for water on a non-linear scale, like taxes.
- squokko 3y ago
  Yes? I was answering your question of why to do that.