The tiered water fees seem like a fair idea.
The primary goals for this new rate structure are education and the practice of water conservation. Whether or not residents adopt these goals is entirely up to them. I have read articles about large/ multi family residents and landlords with renters who don’t wish to pay for the resources they need/choose to use. Just because large numbers of people elect to reside together in a single dwelling should not automatically entitle them to get more water at a cheaper price.
One way to make sure that we all do our part in conservation is to make everyone pay a user fee.
If the city starts to make exceptions for high occupancy groups, then they will need to do the same for those that don’t use all ‘their’ water. Logistically, I don’t know how the city would be able to monitor the number of residents in any given home on any given date.
Who is going to police every household? Or, the reverse situation could come into play, when a two-person family has their grown children return home. Would residents be able to change their status as the need arises?
I believe this to be a choice versus conservation issue. Conservation is for all of us, not just for those that wish to do their part and participate.
Water is a shared resource and the choices we collectively make when using this resource will impact us and the generations to follow. Each household should abide by the same rules.
If larger numbers of people choose to live under one roof and more water is being used, then they should be expected to pay for the extra.
If they don’t want to pay the higher costs that come with a large ‘family’ then they, not the city, will have to figure out creative alternatives to suit their needs.
Judy Craig
