Water is EXCEEDINGLY undervalued. It may be a profit driver, but only if you consider the cost of the resource as $0 (or in the cases of government reservoirs HIGHLY subsided acquisition costs). They only price in treatment and delivery. And therein lies the real problem because that water IS going away. It's being mined from aquifers that recharge infinitely slower than they are mined in most cases. And surface water flows are being reduced more and more every year because of land use practices and watershed structures. They're is no accounting for the future costs that will be needed to develop a new water supply when this one runs out. It's just pump today and let tomorrow with about tomorrow (i.e., F those future people).

After living a few years in San Antonio, it's good to be back where the only water bill is a little more electricity, there is actual dirt to hold water, and more water than my children can use in their lifetime.

Sean98 said:

---

Water is EXCEEDINGLY undervalued. It may be a profit driver, but only if you consider the cost of the resource as $0 (or in the cases of government reservoirs HIGHLY subsided acquisition costs). They only price in treatment and delivery. And therein lies the real problem because that water IS going away. It's being mined from aquifers that recharge infinitely slower than they are mined in most cases. And surface water flows are being reduced more and more every year because of land use practices and watershed structures. They're is no accounting for the future costs that will be needed to develop a new water supply when this one runs out. It's just pump today and let tomorrow with about tomorrow (i.e., F those future people).

---

Agree wholeheartedly that it is undervalued.

Treatment and delivery are the primary costs associated with potable water systems, there are others, but these encompass the lion's share of any costs. And, generally speaking, once you get the capital construction costs of treatment plants off the books, the costs are relatively small.

Most places, at least in Texas and AZ where I'm most familiar with the water industry, are weaning off aquifer related sources. Surface water supply is where the industry as a whole is going, which is good and bad. Good because it reduces the demand on aquifers, bad because surface water is both an unpredictable resource as well as a more expensive to treat resource.

Most states that I've halfway paid attention to are actually looking at long term future plans for water useage...which has both good and bad aspects associated with it. Good because it is recognized that it is more or less a finite resource and must be better managed. Bad because, well, politics generally gets its grubby hands in the mix and turns the best of intentions into something much more and much uglier.

Undervalued by municipal authorities yes...but that doesn't mean it should cost more to consumers.

Conservation and restricted uses will not fix anything and tiered pricing just wastes money.

Look at oil/energy in the 70s versus today. The landscape can change.

Quote:

---

Conservation and restricted uses will not fix anything

---

Of course they will. There are lots of examples of communities / municipalities signicantly reducing their water demands despite population growth.

Our-turn-to-rule said:

---

Undervalued by municipal authorities yes...but that doesn't mean it should cost more to consumers.

Conservation and restricted uses will not fix anything and tiered pricing just wastes money.

Look at oil/energy in the 70s versus today. The landscape can change.

---

Going to disagree.

If it is undervalued, then logic dictates it should be priced according to the value. Not saying that it needs to jump to $10.00 a gallon or anything crazy...but even at higher tiered values, you are talking about less than half a penny per gallon. That simply does not promote any function of non-excessive use because the cost is largely insignificant. And it's not just a user issue with lack of conservation - purveyors have small incentive to reduce leakage in their systems because of the same low cost - and it's even lower for them.

Conservation will, and has, changed a lot of how water is viewed and used in a whole lot of places. Look at the rise of water re-use systems, especially in the more arid environments. 20 years ago reuse was not much of an industry, but now it's a design factor in a lot of projects. It's even starting to become somewhat widely used in Texas, and we are, generally speaking, behind the curve in terms of water systems when compared to a lot of other places in the country. Same with alternative types of source water use - the move from aquifer to surface, the push to use brackish water (especially on the coast) in lieu of surface or aquifer - all are various forms of conservation, and that doesn't even get into the changes in the farming industry that I see people here talking about on occasion.

The only comparison you can make with oil and water is that they are commodities, but it stops there. Completely different industries with the primary difference being that one is a private sector industry and the other is almost purely a public sector industry - different rules, different regulations, different overall end goals. Not to mention that one is a consumed product and the other is a used product that has alternate and downstream uses beyond the main use. Once you burn gasoline, you dont' get it back - a whole lot of your water can be re-used.

Require the following:

1) no more irrigation systems tied into water supply systems. If you want to irrigate, install a Rainwater collection system. Once you've used the reserves, you're done watering until it rains.
2) declare war on cedars
3) require sites with reservoirs to pump their cleaned wastewater back into the reservoirs, rather than downstream.
4) Keep water restrictions active all year long.

As for (3) keep in mind that there are almost always downstream allocations as well, and as part of the reservoir management operations they are required to release a certain amount of flow downstream for both the health of the river system and the downstream needs of other water users. Dumping treated water into the river system below the dam allows additional natural filtering to occur before it's next "destination."

If you've ever dug into the USACE reservoir operating manuals/guidelines... well, I feel sorry for you, but you'd be amazed at the number of considerations (some appropriate, some not in my mind) that are taken into account.

We have friends who live in Copper Ridge and were very angry, mainly due to the fact the increase stated was substantial and they don't believe it's increased that much (the usage). Developers are planning to put another 140 homes out there, according to them. Will likely be a problem for years to come, if this is any indication.

ATMTWS said:

---

Require the following:

1) no more irrigation systems tied into water supply systems. If you want to irrigate, install a Rainwater collection system. Once you've used the reserves, you're done watering until it rains.
2) declare war on cedars
3) require sites with reservoirs to pump their cleaned wastewater back into the reservoirs, rather than downstream.
4) Keep water restrictions active all year long.

---

I find it interesting that we instantly want to blame the people paying to use it instead of the people making money to supply it. When 33% plus of the water supplied is wasted by the people who own the infrastructure, this should be #1 on your list. Start there and we can chat about the user once this is corrected.

You'd also have to pass laws to change HOA requirements to keep a nice yard and landscape in a residential setting.

What about commercial properties (multi-use, hotels, apartments, shopping, etc.)? These guys basically have a running competition to have nicer curb appeal than the place next door to attract tenants, shoppers, and customers. You going to convince landscape architects to design zero scape? Most went for drip irrigation and low flow heads until the cost, effectiveness, and maintenance became apparent.

AGGODDESS said:

---

We have friends who live in Copper Ridge and were very angry, mainly due to the fact the increase stated was substantial and they don't believe it's increased that much (the usage). Developers are planning to put another 140 homes out there, according to them. Will likely be a problem for years to come, if this is any indication.

---

As previously stated, my understanding is that NBU doesn't really know what the usage actually is.

Ragoo said:

---

something must be going on. here is the neighborhood.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7411988,-98.2488821,2896m/data=!3m1!1e3

outdoor related, notice the proximity to Dietz gun range.

---

Somebody check for bullet holes in the water tank! I think we found the problem!

Ragoo said:

---

AGGODDESS said:

---

We have friends who live in Copper Ridge and were very angry, mainly due to the fact the increase stated was substantial and they don't believe it's increased that much (the usage). Developers are planning to put another 140 homes out there, according to them. Will likely be a problem for years to come, if this is any indication.

---

As previously stated, my understanding is that NBU doesn't really know what the usage actually is.

---

This sounds more like something went wrong at NBU and they are not admitting it.

Deats said:

---

Ragoo said:

---

AGGODDESS said:

---

We have friends who live in Copper Ridge and were very angry, mainly due to the fact the increase stated was substantial and they don't believe it's increased that much (the usage). Developers are planning to put another 140 homes out there, according to them. Will likely be a problem for years to come, if this is any indication.

---

As previously stated, my understanding is that NBU doesn't really know what the usage actually is.

---

This sounds more like something went wrong at NBU and they are not admitting it.

---

i suspect the reason for the boil notice was a combination of two separate issues, one being a known low pressure system/issue the other being a sudden appearance in water draw down when actually may not have been the case or not to the extreme magnitude as reported in the paper.

If these homes irrigate .25 acres (and many do - Google Earth) with 1 inch of water, plus home use...very easy to see a 1,300 gallon use in 1 day.

I'd say it's possible.

Let's not forget that we learned on the Politics board (and a post here on the OB), that human population and water quantity are not real issues. They are made up issues by the government as a control mechanism. Heck, use more, all you have to do is turn on the faucet.

My immediate thought as well. When an instrument gives you a super crazy reading start troubleshooting that instrument to make sure it is reading correctly. Many times people jump to conclusions that it's accurate and true.

ATMTWS said:

---

Require the following:

1) no more irrigation systems tied into water supply systems. If you want to irrigate, install a Rainwater collection system. Once you've used the reserves, you're done watering until it rains.
2) declare war on cedars
3) require sites with reservoirs to pump their cleaned wastewater back into the reservoirs, rather than downstream.
4) Keep water restrictions active all year long.

---

1. Would agree
2. Would agree
3. As sean said, it's not nearly as simple as that, especially when you consider how many point of use and point of deposits there are on most river systems....and that there is some amount of water in each system that needs to flow to the bays, else you have a whole lot of ecological issues that I doubt you want to really deal with or pay for.
4. Depends on the stress on the system. Keeping restrictions year round is essentially using water as a mechanism for fines, money generation, power, etc. Not exactly something I think most people want to deal with at a local, state or federal level.