Landscape Water Conservation Rate Structures - Fair and Effective vs. Easy and Unfair
11 Oct, 2010 By: Andy Smith, CIC, CID, CLIA i-newsOver the course of the last several years, many water utilities have been engaged in developing water price strategies as a means to encourage conservation. Obviously, when the cost of something goes up, the door is opened for scrutinizing how it is used. Water is no exception. In fact, many claim that overall, water is grossly underpriced and its cost should increase significantly. That might reduce water consumption, but it might not be equitable and could lead to disastrous consequences.
Any conservation rate structure development process has to begin with an understanding of the fundamental value of the landscape. Turfgrass, plants, trees and shrubs produce oxygen, sequester carbon, cool the air, prevent erosion, and the list goes on. These hard benefits are all in addition to the fact that the living landscape is aesthetically pleasing and make our outdoor living environment pleasant to interact with. Unless there is agreement that these attributes are valuable to affected stakeholders, water will be priced to significantly limit landscape use.
Establishing how much water the landscape needs is becoming an easier task as time passes. Looking at weather data along with the size and composition of the landscape, one can determine a close estimate the landscape’s water needs. Knowing this information is critical as this can and should be the baseline for conservation rates. The idea is to keep the price of water equitable when it is used effectively. As use goes beyond what is reasonable, the rates increase exponentially as a penalty for wasting water. One of the best examples I have found over time is that of the Irvine Ranch Water District. The base water allocation is determined by the size of the landscape in relation to the locally agreed upon plant mix. As water use goes beyond that baseline, the price goes up.
Fundamentally, the idea of using price as a signal to limit waste is a good one. Unfortunately, some utilities have taken a shortcut by deploying rate structures that have no basis in science; they simply set flat, volumetric tiers with associated charges. If a person has 4,000 square ft. of landscaping, they are subject to the same block rates as someone with 20,000 square ft. of landscaping. That is not an equitable way to charge for water and it certainly shows no appreciation for the value green spaces provide for communities.
So what can the industry do? The answer is simple, engage. Altering rate structures requires a significant public process in most cases. There is often time to engage and participate in the process. The local industry needs to participate and make sure participants understand the net value of the landscape and the applied science of water use in the landscape. Above all, if price is to be used to foster conservation, rates should penalize water waste and be kept affordable for legitimate, effective use.
Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster.