Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Water and Sewer
#1
The this article today headlined "Kitchener's water, sewer rates rising faster than inflation" and saying that all three cities in the Region will have above-inflation increases in water and sewer rates in the next decade, highest in Kitchener where they might rise as much as 7.6 percent annually over the next ten years.

I'm ambivalent about this when I read it. Water is pretty cheap here, and I'm not disbelieving if those who manage the system say that rates have not been enough in the past to keep up with maintenance. A lot of Kitchenerites had sticker shock I think at the increase last year (10%), but from talking to people I think there's understanding that this is not capricious.

I wonder why we continue to have flat water rates in the Region. Hamilton has two tiers of rates (above ten cubic meters of consumption a month the rate doubles). In London, there are a number of different tiers of rates, and below seven cubic meters of monthly consumption there is no consumption charge.

This is a great way of handling things as it reduces the cost burden to low-use (who are perhaps more likely to be low-means) users, and clean water is after all a human right. It also incentivizes usage reduction more than a flat rate might: on the whole, high-consumers presumably have a greater ability to cut usage and under tiered rates would also have greater financial incentivize. The Region has stated usage reduction as a goal.

I'm surprised we haven't taken this approach here yet, as I generally find we're pretty progressive about such things. I've read about our stormwater credit system in books about good public policy.

I wonder if we'll explore changing the way we price water, or perhaps even charging varying fixed costs related to things like lot size (not a bad proxy for the amount of infrastructure needed to serve a given user). It seems that allowing costs to escalate across the board continually would put undue pressure on vulnerable users, and wouldn't be the best way to meet our goals (like reduction in consumption).
Reply


#2
I think there will be the usual groans from those who always claim to be tapped out, but I would hope that most people will understand that our water and sewage infrastructure must be kept in good condition. Unless there is a clear link to water conservation, I'm not sure I see the logic of a tiered pricing system.
Reply
#3
(12-04-2015, 12:49 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I think there will be the usual groans from those who always claim to be tapped out, but I would hope that most people will understand that our water and sewage infrastructure must be kept in good condition.  Unless there is a clear link to water conservation, I'm not sure I see the logic of a tiered pricing system.

I honestly think the people who are closest to tapped out never hear their groans heard. I know the types you mean, and they don't usually seem to be the people who need or care to keep their consumption near the minimum. But I really do think most people understand the need.

Supposedly there is a link between tiered pricing and conservation. But I've also read evidence suggesting that it doesn't work nearly as well as usually expected.

I personally find the equity argument much more compelling. It seems incorrect to charge a litre of water used for cooking or cleaning by a low-income household at the same price as a litre of water used to water a lawn.
Reply
#4
(12-04-2015, 01:00 PM)MidTowner Wrote:
(12-04-2015, 12:49 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I think there will be the usual groans from those who always claim to be tapped out, but I would hope that most people will understand that our water and sewage infrastructure must be kept in good condition.  Unless there is a clear link to water conservation, I'm not sure I see the logic of a tiered pricing system.

I honestly think the people who are closest to tapped out never hear their groans heard. I know the types you mean, and they don't usually seem to be the people who need or care to keep their consumption near the minimum. But I really do think most people understand the need.

Supposedly there is a link between tiered pricing and conservation. But I've also read evidence suggesting that it doesn't work nearly as well as usually expected.

I personally find the equity argument much more compelling. It seems incorrect to charge a litre of water used for cooking or cleaning by a low-income household at the same price as a litre of water used to water a lawn.

Yes, after my post, I thought about it and I could see an argument for charging more for, say, filling your swimming pool than for flushing your toilet.  I guess it's a matter of where the tiers are set.
Reply
#5
(12-04-2015, 01:00 PM)MidTowner Wrote:
(12-04-2015, 12:49 PM)panamaniac Wrote: I think there will be the usual groans from those who always claim to be tapped out, but I would hope that most people will understand that our water and sewage infrastructure must be kept in good condition.  Unless there is a clear link to water conservation, I'm not sure I see the logic of a tiered pricing system.

I honestly think the people who are closest to tapped out never hear their groans heard. I know the types you mean, and they don't usually seem to be the people who need or care to keep their consumption near the minimum. But I really do think most people understand the need.

Supposedly there is a link between tiered pricing and conservation. But I've also read evidence suggesting that it doesn't work nearly as well as usually expected.

I personally find the equity argument much more compelling. It seems incorrect to charge a litre of water used for cooking or cleaning by a low-income household at the same price as a litre of water used to water a lawn.

Yes. My understanding is that if you help people contextualize their consumption with respect to average consumption it helps people reduce above-average consumption.
Reply
#6
In Woolwich (where we resided until recently), the water/sewer rates are actually heavily regressive, with a single price per cubic metre, but with a heavy reserve charge. The water rates are about 15% below Kitchener, but the reserve charges are substantial (a total of $26/month). We are not low income, but we are low consumption (no swimming pool, no lawn watering etc) and frequently the reserve charges were about the same as the consumption charges, meaning the cost per cubic metre is far higher at low consumption levels.

It looks like Kitchener has no reserve or service charge? (I haven't seen our first bill yet, and can't remember from the last time we lived in Kitchener.)
Reply
#7
(12-04-2015, 04:50 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It looks like Kitchener has no reserve or service charge? (I haven't seen our first bill yet, and can't remember from the last time we lived in Kitchener.)

You're right (and it's a good point): Kitchener has no fixed charge, only consumption charges. In a month when you consume no water, the water and sewer part of your utilities bill will be zero.
Reply


#8
(12-04-2015, 04:50 PM)tomh009 Wrote: In Woolwich (where we resided until recently), the water/sewer rates are actually  heavily regressive, with a single price per cubic metre, but with a heavy reserve charge.  The water rates are about 15% below Kitchener, but the reserve charges are substantial (a total of $26/month).  We are not low income, but we are low consumption (no swimming pool, no lawn watering etc) and frequently the reserve charges were about the same as the consumption charges, meaning the cost per cubic metre is far higher at low consumption levels.

It looks like Kitchener has no reserve or service charge?  (I haven't seen our first bill yet, and can't remember from the last time we lived in Kitchener.)

That kind of pricing makes sense to me. A lot of the infrastructure costs are going to be the same regardless of consumption levels. If the billing is based purely on consumption, then you run into the situation that we have where people feel that they are being punished for conservation. More conservation means less water is used, reducing revenue, which means that rates need to go up to pay for fixed costs.
Reply
#9
(12-04-2015, 05:50 PM)timc Wrote: That kind of pricing makes sense to me. A lot of the infrastructure costs are going to be the same regardless of consumption levels. If the billing is based purely on consumption, then you run into the situation that we have where people feel that they are being punished for conservation. More conservation means less water is used, reducing revenue, which means that rates need to go up to pay for fixed costs.

It's not a bad point, but in that case, the fixed charges should be tied to the amount of infrastructure actually used. If you have a reserve charge intended to cover the cost of the infrastructure, but that charge is the same for (say) the account of a large suburban home or of a unit in a building that has separate water meters, the latter is clearly subsidizing the former.
Reply
#10
(12-04-2015, 07:25 PM)MidTowner Wrote:
(12-04-2015, 05:50 PM)timc Wrote: That kind of pricing makes sense to me. A lot of the infrastructure costs are going to be the same regardless of consumption levels. If the billing is based purely on consumption, then you run into the situation that we have where people feel that they are being punished for conservation. More conservation means less water is used, reducing revenue, which means that rates need to go up to pay for fixed costs.

It's not a bad point, but in that case, the fixed charges should be tied to the amount of infrastructure actually used. If you have a reserve charge intended to cover the cost of the infrastructure, but that charge is the same for (say) the account of a large suburban home or of a unit in a building that has separate water meters, the latter is clearly subsidizing the former.

It appears that Waterloo does differentiate in this regard.

In any case, I do wonder whether these reserve/service charges are included (by The Record and others) when comparing water/sewer costs -- they do make a difference.
Reply
#11
(12-04-2015, 07:34 PM)tomh009 Wrote: It appears that Waterloo does differentiate in this regard.

In the case of water, Waterloo has different fixed charges for the size of meter, as most municipalities would. That's going to vary between different sizes of industrial consumer, residential, etc. But it doesn't have to do with the length of pipe needed to service your location.

Waterloo (and Kitchener) both have very progressive stormwater charges, if you're thinking of that.
Reply
#12
Yes, that's what I was thinking. Woolwich is flat $13/month for waste water whether you have half an acre or live in a townhouse.
Reply
#13
Regional staff are recommending construction of a new water treatment plant to be built at Strange St pumping station in Kitchener.

It would also involve 4-6 months of water main construction in 2017/2018 from the William St pumping station in Waterloo that would cross LRT at John and follow IHT from John to Glasgow.

Staff are hopeful of coordinating construction with IHT improvements.

http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...DF#page=32
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply


#14
(05-03-2016, 07:58 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: It would also involve 4-6 months of water main construction in 2017/2018 from the William St pumping station in Waterloo that would cross LRT at John and follow IHT from John to Glasgow.

Is there any concern about LRT disruption? Can they do the work under King Street without impacting service?
Reply
#15
Will be interesting to see how they get the water main under the hopefully in-service LRT tracks at John:
http://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/region...f#page=129
 
The recommended alternative for the William Street and Strange Street WSS’s is a single treatment facility located at the site of the Strange Street WSS. Water from the William Street WSS will be pumped to the common WTP at the Strange Street WSS by a watermain along Herbert Street, John Street, the Iron Horse Train and Glasgow Street. At the intersection of Glasgow Street and Belmont Avenue, a connection will be made to the existing watermain that leads to the Strange Street WSS. The layout of the WTP at Strange Street involves building the WTP connected to and in behind the
existing pumping station building, thereby preserving heritage attributes while maintaining the original purpose of the building.
 
2018/19 Strange St WTP construction
2018 water main construction
2019/20 Modifications to William pump station
2020 completion
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links