Great letter in the TAB by a homeowner complaining that the City of Newton hasn’t accommodated his request for a second water meter so that he can distinguish the water he uses for basic needs (bathing, eating, flushing) from the water he uses to keep his lawn unseasonably green.
Could not agree more. Every Newton home with a built-in irrigation system should get a second water meter. And the city should charge double triple for the water used outdoors.
The Newton homeowner writes:
Owning two homes in the city, my water bills would be reduced by approximately one half without the unfairly assessed sewerage charges for water that goes directly into the ground in the same state it came from the tap.
I’ll try to find out what what the sewerage charge is, but on first read, this seems like the homeowner uses at least twice the amount of water on his lawn as he does for the aforelisted basic needs. That’s nuts. That’s ecologically irresponsible.
Update: Using the link provided by Alderman Ted, if the homeowner were to cut his water bill in half if the sewerage charge were removed for water used keep his lawn green, he’s using 1.52 to 1.67 times as much water to water his lawn as he’s using for basic necessities. Sewarage is 60% of the water rate, at all rate levels.
Sean, the current water/sewer rates are here.
MWRA community assessments comprise a substantial portion of Newton’s water/sewer charges to customers. Any discussion about second water meters for lawn irrigation that would not charge for sewer rates should include a study of the impact on combined charges for residents and businesses with a single meter that includes both water and sewer charges. I doubt that residents without lawn irrigation systems would be happy about receiving higher bills to pay for others to have a second meter that does not charge for sewer.
The city is also embarking on a major underground infrastructure improvement plan to fix problems that cost the city and its residents a lot of money every year. These problems include infiltration and inflow (I&I), leaks, sewer backups and overflows, steadily increasing MWRA sewer rates, fire hydrant flow deficiencies and increased federal requirements for stormwater management. That will cost more money initially and save much more in the long run. For example, a 50% reduction in I&I (i.e., rainfall and groundwater that gets into the sewer system) would save almost $4 million a year. The primary causes of I&I are leaky sewer pipes and improper connections from public (e.g. catch basins) and private (e.g., driveway and roof drains and sump pumps) sources.
Dear Letter Writer –
Sorry, but this is wrong on so many levels, I don’t know where to begin! It’s like saying you shouldn’t pay gas tax on what goes in your cigarette boat because the tax is for roads! Not the same you say? Irrigating your Home Depot sod is not for excessive pleasure? Bull! What other excessive pleasures you got? Kidney shaped pool? Huge water pond with albino koi, a water fall, and a statute of a tiny Mitt Romney peeing resources into the wind? And what’s stopping you from asking one of your servants to hook up your new sixth bathroom and the carriage house to your “special” water meter?
Tap a well for cripes sakes. Don’t ask us little people to pay for your excess! If you don’t know what I mean, take a look at your property tax bill. Now compare it to mine. What exactly did you do to use 6 times the amount of city resources as I did? You got it — nuttin. Suck it up.
Here’s a more constructive suggestion: http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/civica/inc/displayblobpdf2.asp?BlobID=38967
I’d propose charging 4X for users with automatic built in sprinkler systems that run on rainy days, with an extra surcharge for sprinklers that water the sidewalks.
Now wondering if this the same neighborhood that complains about leaf blowers. Think about it…
I’d like to take strong issue with one of the comments made by this letter writer in which he states that the water used on lawns returns to the aquifer unchanged, and with no negative impact on the environment. To the contrary, given the widespread use of chemicals in the form of herbicides and pesticides to establish and maintain those unnatural greenscapes, the water actually washes those chemicals into the aquifer. Perfect lawns do not come without an environmental cost.
http://athome.audubon.org/eliminate-or-reduce-pesticide-use
@Lisap. I was about to write something virtually identical to what you posted. Some of these pesticides and herbicides also find their way into the sewers and onto the waste treatment plant at Deer Island. I’m not sure about the state of the technology since I left EPA, but these non-point sources used to be more difficult to control and treat than household wastes or pollution from the pipe.
Letter Writer might consider actually paying for water service. The property water bills are rather minimal. Why the attention when youre not paying for the basics?
Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how strong feelings on a subject force some people to ignore facts and skew language. Answer me this, O defenders of the aquifer: where in all your rants about Home Depot sod and unnatural greenscapes is there room for someone like me who plants organic grass seed, uses organic fertilizers, natural weed control, and a detector that prevents irrigation for days after a rain, and who just wants to pay their fair share for water treatment? Isn’t this the approach we should be encouraging people toward instead of castigating them along with the Scott’s Squad? Next time try to make your responses factual, unbiased, and productive if you really want to effect change and not just come across as a flamer.