Thankfully the water crisis is essentially over, though apparently the triangle is still "abnormally dry". But it seems like we could start doing a lot more to promote water conservation in non-emergency situations.

For example, during the worst of period of the drought, Raleigh forbid people from watering their lawns and tried to enforce those rules with the police without much success.

It seems to me that a graduated water pricing system would have been a better move--increasing the price of water for residential consumers as they use more. That way, they could just raise the higher price tiers when water became really scarce (it would also help protect poor families that don't consume much water). Plus, such a system would seem to promote water conversation year-round, and not just during emergency situations.

Does anyone else have any ideas? Or maybe you think the issue should be very low on our priority list?

I'm relatively new to the subject, so any pointers to good websites would also be nice if anyone's got em. I'm also trying to find a group working on the issue, the local Sierra Club doesn't even seem to list it as one of their policy issues.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM. Reason : ``]

6/27/2008 11:48:13 AM

actually we are back into the "drought" category, and falls lake is once again below normal levels.

6/27/2008 11:55:50 AM

now this whole tiered system would be a bad idea... a lot of companies are based in north carolina due in part to our cheap water... if we start increasing their rates it could seriously effect our economy when those companies up and leave for other areas.

6/27/2008 11:57:09 AM

I like the idea.

Does anyone here have enough local political savvy to be able to speak to its chances?


^ what if we manipulated the law so as to give tax credits for recycling water when possible? Either way, arguing that they come for cheap water doesn't hold . . . well . . . water if we're to the point where they don't have access to any on account of severe drought restrictions.

6/27/2008 11:57:53 AM

If memory serves correctly, the City of Cary already has tiered pricing and Raleigh City council is looking into the issue.

6/27/2008 11:58:42 AM

Quote :

"a lot of companies are based in north carolina due in part to our cheap water"

really?

6/27/2008 11:59:44 AM

Wow.
http://www.newsobserver.com/weather/drought/story/1113367.html

So it seems. I've spent the last week wrapping up grad admissions stuff and neglecting my real job, so I guess i missed it.

But...on the bright side...my thread is now even MORE relevant!

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:26 PM. Reason : ``]

6/27/2008 12:00:00 PM

Quote :

"now this whole tiered system would be a bad idea... a lot of companies are based in north carolina due in part to our cheap water... if we start increasing their rates it could seriously effect our economy when those companies up and leave for other areas."

-Smath

I was thinking the same thing, that's why I thought we would restrict the pricing system to residential units. Or maybe apply the same rates to everyone, but give businesses subsidies to help them pay for the new rate hikes.

PS* Tree, I don't know about the triangle specifically (i need to find some sort of stats site), but many manufacturing processes would simply not work without huge ammounts of water (paper manufacturing comes esspecially to mind, because one of the largest employers of Haywood County, my home county, relies on the Blue Ridge Paper mill for employment). Plus there are restraunts, environmental service companies, and many more that use much much much more water than residences.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ``]

6/27/2008 12:02:33 PM

on one hand i think it would be a good idea and a fair way to encourage conservation, but on the other it would be bad for the large companies located here for access to cheap water...

Quote :

"really?"

yeah i read that.

6/27/2008 12:07:35 PM

Quote :

"Haywood County, my home county"

That explains everything.

6/27/2008 12:09:06 PM

Well, it looks like Raleigh is already looking into it.

Quote :

"Mayor Charles Meeker says Raleigh residents who use the most water should pay gradually more for it, a change he hopes would cut water waste in the drought-prone capital city. Meeker said he has no specific rates in mind, and the City Council hasn't begun considering the concept he floated Thursday in announcing his new agenda. ... The varied rate structure probably would apply only to residential customers, Meeker said, which is typical elsewhere. "

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/806757.html

I wonder what the hold up is. The biggest problem I can see is figuring out who will set the price and how. I mean, the system would have to be set up so that revenue would cover costs. But how do we decide the rate for each tier? I wonder how they do it in Cary. My bet is that they just guess and see what flies. I dunno if there's a better way to do it.

[Edited on June 27, 2008 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ``]

6/27/2008 12:21:48 PM

my biggest concern with water conservation in this city is how raleigh utilities structure their water funding.

as far as i understand it: raleigh water is funded specifically through fees for consumption of water. Thus, it would seem that they have no incentive to decrease water consumption in the city. all they do is raise more money and then build a new treatment plant when there is a problem (as they are planning to do now). plus they keep expanding coverage of where our water system is used into neighboring communities. as long as it's in the best interest of the people in charge of our water for people to use more water, i don't think much is going to change in the long-term until we're in a REALLY bad situtation.

6/27/2008 12:53:08 PM

I don't remember where I was reading it, but there are places in North Carolina that dams could be built to increase the current water storage capacity several times over. Yes, it would involve flooding territory, but it would be a technological solution guaranteed to work.

Our water storage capacity could be improved overnight if we give up on flood control because we keep our current reservours well below capacity so we have somewhere to store rain storms to prevent the rivers from rising too much.

6/27/2008 1:04:46 PM

Quote :

"Wow. http://www.newsobserver.com/weather/drought/story/1113367.html So it seems. I've spent the last week wrapping up grad admissions stuff and neglecting my real job, so I guess i missed it. "

yeah, i was gonna say (after reading your first post) that I heard a sound bite the other day that despite all that rain last month, we are in a worse spot now than we were at this time last year. And given the heat and lack of rain in the past month, it's not looking good for the summer.

I hate the way the media (i.e. local news) reports and continues to report these stories
Last summer: "There's a big drought, no rain!" but they make no mention of conservation or question the authorities about mandatory restrictions
Last fall after restrictions were put in place: "why didn't they enact restrictions earlier?"
This spring: "we've had a wet month. Why are we still under water restrictions!?"

6/27/2008 1:06:24 PM

This whole "drought" theory is a myth concocted by the local government in order to control our lifestyles.

6/27/2008 1:57:55 PM