Comments on: BS/EACD declares alarm stage drought

By: Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:44:08 +0000

There is no way to reduce or control water usage if growth is not restricted. Just will not happen. We do not need growth – in the end you have a mess. If you want what growth provides, move to Austin or any other large city that sang the growth tune until it choked..

By: Bill Peterson

Bill Peterson — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:38:44 +0000

Generally, if not always, we simply report the water use restrictions directly, as you’ll see from looking at the “related articles” listed on the right. Kyle and San Marcos, for example, impose specific water use restrictions on their customers, as the stories detail. However, it’s a little different with the BS/EACD because the residential or commercial user is not a direct BS/EACD customer. The BS/EACD customers are municipalities and private water companies, which the BS/EACD calls “permittees.” In this alarm stage case, the BS/EACD imposes mandatory 20 percent reductions on its permittees. The permittees, in turn, impose restrictions on their customers, as the local municipalities have done.

Tiered pricing for water use is common for municipalities. It’s also common for municipalities in Texas to over-charge for water so they can keep taxes down. If municipalities increase water rates for drought events, then we’ve got a circumstance in which the municipality “profits” from a water shortage. The extra money for the municipality would either reduce the property tax rate, or it would go towards paying the aquifer district fines for over-pumping.

I’m not sure an outfit like the BS/EACD would necessarily approve of a water price increase for drought times. The main concern for the BS/EACD is to conserve the resource. If a municipality raised rates during drought, it could be that customers would use water like always, paying the little extra to provide the city with the money to pay its fine for missing the reduction target. In that case, the city has little motive, besides a sense of responsibility, for enforcing use restrictions. I’m not suggesting that city governments are so craven. I’m only wondering if increased rates during drought would achieve water conservation any better than mandatory restrictions for which violations can be eye-balled.

By: Phil

Phil — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:08:26 +0000

It would be helpful if this and other websites, along with the paper would create a direct link to the rules of Stage 1 drought restrictions. Better yet would be a market approach that raises the price of “excessive” water use during times of drought. Currently San Marcos bills a flat rate of $18.98 for the first 8,000 gallons. The price goes up to $4.45 per thousand gallons up to 10,000 gallons, $5.57/1,000 gallons up to 25,000 gallons and $6.18/1,000 after that. I suggest those teirs need some adjustment and the top users be charged more during drought events. The current system punishes all users, even those using the least amount of water, by dictating when and how they can water.

By: Todd Webster

Todd Webster — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:33:16 +0000

Ted,

As Hays County continues to grow at such a rapid rate, what you’re suggesting could really happen. At some point, it may become necessary to amend the stages so that the the “non-drought” stage is more aggressive with respect to conservation measures.

Kyle has really done a good job on both the conservation and supply sides of the water issue. Diversifying the city’s water supply to lessen its reliance on ground water combined with thoughtful conservation requirements that gradually increase as conditions grow more severe seems to have worked well.

Addressing longterm water management in this area is only going to grow in importance.

By: Ted Marchut

Ted Marchut — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 18:31:16 +0000

I’ve often wondered if it wouldn’t be a good idea to *always* be in stage 1 (unless a higher level is required).