I'm trying to figure out how much water I'm consuming - so I know how much my bill is fixing to go up. The reports say the per water charge is by 1,000 gallons. But my College Station water bill says MGW next to water consumption. What sort of measurement is that?

Probably Roman Numeral M=1000 Gallons of Water

This whole idea ticks me off. As it stands, I'll get to pay the highest rates because I have 6 people in my house. It would be more fair to charge on a per capita basis.

Devil: this is what happens when less than 10% of the citizens vote for city council: higher taxes, more spending, $500+ per sq. foot city halls.... If the city stopped funding things like charities, the arts council and other expenses and focused on core services this new tax (or price increase or fee, whatever the "progressive" term is these days for a tax) probably wouldn't happen.

hmmm.

Municipal Gouging-Water (as a sub category of MG)

per capita?

Do you mean charge by the number of people?

How could that be checked?

Why does the city council pretend to think that the people that are using more water are not paying for it. This plan is similar to charging an extra 10 cents per gallon for gasoline to SUV or pickup truck owners because they use more gas.

I will not be voting for any members of this council in the next election. Not just because of this, but because they are fiscally irresponsible in general.

tax - do you also believe that the same should apply to the federal income tax?

No, I am a strong believer in replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. ("The Fair Tax"

amen

Well, I guess we need to form a group and start running for city council.

I too am tired of the wasteful spending the city does. For example - SO much money was wasted on that new fire station. With the city having its own people for the parks to do lawncare and such - why did a landscaper have to be paid a ton of $ to do the landscaping. Have you seen how much stuff is planted around the station?

There is also many other places in the city that wasteful spending could be stopped...

MGW is the billing unit for water, which is thousands of gallons of water. I guess when the billing system was set up someone thought we were are fluent in Latin.

Here is a calculation for a sample bill of 30,000 gallons (30 MGW)
First 5,000 gallons: 2.22 * 5 = 11.10
Next 5,000 (up to 10,000 gal): 5 * 2.88 = 14.40
Next 10,000 (up to 20,000 gal): 10 * 3.54 = 35.40
Next 5,000 (up to 25,000 gal): 5 * 4.20 = 21.00
Usage over 26,000 gal: 5 * 4.86 = 24.30
Total water charge = $90.72 + meter charge of $9.98 = $116.18

Commercial rates are going up 10%, which percentage-wise is a big jump.

The per capita idea that has been mentioned would be water budget based rates. That is an option that College Station can consider for the future, but it requires more work, time, and study than is possible for the coming budget year. I don't know if the existing billing system is set up to handle that.

Some of the other concerns that have been raised are, "what about College Station's landscaping ordinances?" No kidding. We require landscaping, with irrigation systems, for commercial sites, and then we don't put any standards on the irrigation system, so one could put in an irrigation system that's more like an "irritation system". Well, that is changing.

A new state law, effective January 1, 2009, requires cities with population over 20,000 to have an irrigation ordinance specifying minimum standards for irrigation systems. Those minimum standards include: installation by a licensed irrigator (i.e., someone who, theoretically, knows what they are doing); rain sensor to shut off irrigation during a rain event; no watering of the pavement (who knew?); no spray irrigation in areas less than 5 feet wide. Also, the irrigator has to *show the owner how to operate the system and give them a plan showing where everything is*. So basically the rule is requiring an irrigation system that waters plant material only, and gives the owner knowledge and control over the system. What a concept. Irrigators across the state supported this rule change.

[FWIW, speaking as a person (taking off my city hat) I think the fair tax is a good idea.]

[This message has been edited by egret (edited 8/8/2008 6:43p).]

Egret...Historically, most rates have been "cost of service" based. Cost of service rates put the fixed costs in up front in the first few units so everyone pays their fair share and then the more you use, you are just paying for the variable costs. That way, you aren't subsidized or subsizing someone else.

This "new system" I keep hearing about seems to be in direct opposition to cost of service based rates required by regulators (of course COCS isn't regulated). So now we are using water rates for subsidizing and income redistribution?

What the city is doing is punishing struggling families with small children (do they understand how much clothes washing is done) along side of my idiot neighbors who are watering their driveways in the middle of the hot afternoon.

They claim that they are doing this to "encourage conservation" but in the same breath are already salivating at the $11 million revenue coming in to be used on "capital improvements."

Maybe we should all stop bathing in protest and start attending the council meetings in droves.

I just posted this on the other thread, but it's worth repeating: The concept behind the proposed rate system is to reward responsible behavior, and assess the cost of expanding the water system to the high volume users that are driving the necessity of expanding the system. But what I believe was not clear in the Eagle article is the fact that lower consumption is billed at that lower rate, so that customers who are responsible with their water usage will only see a small increase in their water bill. Let me provide an example, for a customer who used 12,000 gallons in a month - their bill would be = 5 x $2.22 plus 5 x $2.88 plus 2 x $3.54 and plus the meter service fee of about $10. But at the other end of the scale, if this same customer was to use 40,000 gallons in a month, the usage above 25,000 gallons would be billed at the highest rate of $4.86 per thousand. The whole idea is to set up the system so that a family like yours can be prudent about their water usage and see only a small increase in their water bill, whereas the high volume users will pay a larger increase and fund the required capital expenses.

Well, under the existing structure, your "idiot neighbor" who is watering the driveway is paying the same volumetric rate that your "water wise neighbor" on the other side of the street is paying. That doesn't seem fair either.

My family size doubled this past May, and I began running the dishwasher and washing machine almost daily, but my water usage didn't double.

Wastewater flow tends to remain constant throughout the year at 6 to 7 million gallons per day. That tells me that people's indoor usage is fairly consistent.

The $11 million figure, is for EVERYTHING, capital improvements included. It is consistent with the total budget in previous years. Capital improvements include fixing broken water lines, upgrading old water lines, installing new water wells, installing a parallel water transmission line so we can bring more water into town...etc. If we did none of those things, your rates would be very low (or I guess nonexistent), and I would argue that your quality of life would be diminished.

I admit I'm having trouble keeping up with everyone's comments & questions, but keep them coming. We are finally having serious discussions about the value of water, and that is something that has needed to happen for a long time.

[Well, under the existing structure, your "idiot neighbor" who is watering the driveway is paying the same volumetric rate that your "water wise neighbor" on the other side of the street is paying.]

Again, if this is at the gas pump, the guy driving the 10mpg pick up is paying the same voulmetric rate as the one driving the Prius.

What's unfair about that?

If you're upset about the cost what would you do to reduce water usage?

I'm interested in what the responses would be. I personally see the increase in rates a way to forcibly reduce water consumption. I would, however, like to see a larger increase in rates for commercial customers.

How about more incentives to conserve and reuse water? I installed two rain-barrels to catch run-off from my roof to use for potted plants and the grass. You would be amazed how much water you collect! I could use 3 more rain-barrels, but they are a bit pricey (got two on the "scratch-n-dent" isle for $79 each).

The city recycles and encourages composting, but I haven't seen any programs that address water-retention & reuse. Perhaps a rebate to those who have such systems?

Businesses don't pay taxes; they collect them from individuals by increasing the costs of their goods/services. Increasing rates for commercial accounts eventually comes out of the "residential" pocket.

Wish more folks would have voted with me this past election.

Well, if the city REALLY wants to encourage conservation - they should, as should TAMU. All this good advice I have seen on other threads about landscaping to make use of less water - lets see some of that. Lets see some % decrease in the water the city itself uses.

My question is once they get the millions of dollars needed will they lower the rates back down to where they are now?

And yes, we need to start preparing for the next council election now.
This is only the beginning.

Hey crazycatlady (LOVE your username, btw) and others...

You will see more conservation programs & outreach from College Station in the future. I've been talking about it for almost the last 10 years or so, but institutionally/governmentally, we weren't there yet.

At the January 24 City Council workshop I presented a menu of conservation options to City Council (which was a different Council than we have now), and they supported the programs as presented. It included ways to tighten up City operations as well as programs for residential & commercial-most of the options and suggestions that you've all presented here. If you click on the workshop agenda for that day the presentation is there as a downloadable PDF.

Rainwater harvesting is a great idea, I promote it, and AFAIK, it is allowed for commercial as well as residential uses. Producer's sells barrels and then you can get the supplies to connect to your gutter at Lowe's, Home Depot, and similar stores. I also have a link to info about rainwater harvesting on the Utilities website: http://www.cstx.gov/utilities

egret, Thanks for the info. What a deal to purchase rain barrels tax-free; I actually purchased mine on line from out of state for that reason. Forgiving taxes on water conservation efforts is good thinking.