An estimated 6,000 lawn (and often sidewalk)-watering residents would likely see a break in their bills under a proposal that will be considered by Newton’s Board of Aldermen on Monday, Jim Morrison reports in the Newton TAB.
Alderman Deb Crossley, who chairs Public Facilities, said the primary reason for the change was fairness. Crossley thinks residents should pay only for the water they use and the sewage they put back in the system….
While more fair for those residents, the plan would also leave the city with a shortfall of sewer revenue that it has to make up. That cost would be spread among the rest of the residents [businesses and non-profits]
Meanwhile, Andy Levin weighs in here with a TAB editorial...
Alternate title: Newton to accurately charge residents for services rendered.
@Denis: Alternate to your alternate:
For those of us with ANY type of lawn (and mine is VERY small) the paying of the sewer bill for the outdoor water use has always been a frustration. Better than we are fair and charge for what is owed, especially since some older homes had two meters.
I will say that water bills in Newton are HIGH. A symptom of neglecting our infrastructure for decades.
@fig: You may have overlooked a key part of The TAB story…
In other words, the only folks who will enjoy financial benefit here will be 6,000 or so homeowners with large lawns/irrigation systems/swimming pools etc., while homeowners with small lawns and/or who only occasionally water outdoors will be picking up the savings the larger users will enjoy.
I am sincerely struggling with this. On the one hand, it does seem fairer to not charge people sewers based on water they use when it is not going into the sewers. On the other hand, it does not seem fair that non-residential users get no breaks.
The second meter is a lot fairer than the first proposal the administration cooked up, which was to “guesstimate” what people were using indoors vs. outdoors and adjust the water/sewer rates accordingly. That would have been an absolute nightmare for people who work in the water department and would have to respond to complaints about water/sewer bills. So thank God they gave up on that idea.
I also remain uneasy about the proposed tiering of the rates and who wins and loses. The so-called “micro users” (e.g. small households who do not have lawn sprinklers) will see a relatively small increase in their water/sewer/stormwater bills, the biggest residential users (i.e., residents who use enough water to take care of a golf course) will see a relatively substantial decrease overall, and “surprise” the average user will see the largest increase. The BOA could approve the second meters and adopt a different rate structure than what it currently projected, but that seems doubtful. Ironically, of course, the city wants people to use more not less water in order to fund the water/sewer/stormwater improvements it is required to do under an administrative consent order with DEP.
I am interested in hearing other opinions to help me decide. Because I am still on the fence.
@Alderman Hess-Mahan: At the Public Facilities meeting two weeks back, your esteemed colleagues who voted in favor of this proposal cited “fairness” as a major reason they supported it.
I don’t see how it is fair if it only benefits those 6,000 or so homeowners who use the most outdoor water, while folks with small yards and/or brown lawns, pick up the slack. Nor do I feel it is fair that businesses (including those whose outdoor landscaping beautifies our village centers) and non–profits are being excluded.
I’d be curious to know what the typical savings might be to someone with a large lawn in Chestnut Hill or West Newton Hill vs. the incremental increase a typical homeowner without a sprinkler system might see?
While I recognize the economic fairness in this proposal, I don’t think that all costs should always be allocated based on this kind of thinking. For example, should we allow a family that sends their kids to private school to pay reduced property taxes since they don’t use our schools? I don’t think so. I’m sure that there are many more examples.
I’m not a wonk and I haven’t read this proposal through. I know that the city must invest in upgrading our sewage system. The work Ald. Fuller and others have done to move us forward in this area is tremendous. However, as presented in the TAB and here, I’m not sure that this change to the way we meter and measure is needed.
@Michael: As I understand it, the outdoor water meters do not contribute any revenue towards the needed upgrades to our overall water/sewer/storm run-off system. This is revenue neutral, it just shifts who pays. (Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken.)
The storm water fees proposals that the board will be taking up in early 2015, would raise the revenue needed to fix our system.
@Greg – THANKS and understood. I was just saying that I see this proposal as part of a larger “package” of needed changes, improvements and investment to our sewage infrastructure. For the most part I think these changes are very needed and past due. Those who have worked to move them forward deserve credit. However, this is one element that I don’t agree with for the reasons I gave.
The Finance Committee discussed the financial impact on residents on Monday night. Some of the backup materials are attached to the agenda. On Monday, the administration released information showing the projected impact on residential water/sewer/stormwater bills. Unfortunately, I cannot find those materials anywhere that I can link to on the aldermanic website. Those impact studies should be included with the report of the committee when it comes out on Friday. In the meantime, I will email a copy to Greg Reibman which he can perhaps post online.
Here’s the link to the document Alderman Hess-Mahan is referring to above.
Ted, I hope you are not alone in your concern of this new idea of second meters. For years I have taken measures to conserve water use as the rates annually go up and up. Second water meters for a portion of the community are not the solution and I do have a pool and sprinklers. However, I find many ways to not overly consume water during the summer. The high rates discourage people from overuse but the with less use there is less revenue.
This present proposal encourages more use by some but cuts cost. How is that helpful?
Leave the rates as they are and stop raising them every year. They are simply too high now.
I think the “6000” number may be deceiving. I have a two family house with one meter showing garden water usage. I am not a big user but see that I could save $200 to $300 / yr with a second meter. I may not use the option if it is approved since it would be a 5 yr payback but I would consider 2nd (for me 3rd) meter based on my low usage.
This certainly flies in the face of those that advocate transferring wealth to the less wealthy. In this case we are mostly transferring cost to the less wealthy? I am not buying the fairness argument in a program that favors 6000 homeowners, out of 32,000. This deserves a bigger conversation with all of the users of the regional system to be fair to all.
I think we’re all confusing the word fairness with something like unfortunate. It is unfortunate that shifting the true costs of operating and maintaining the sewage system to the users of that system will impact the majority of the users of that system. It is not unfair. It is unfair to charge residents for services they are not getting. If the goal is encourage water conservation or shift wealth back to Newton’s lower, middle, and mildly affluent classes, well maybe this isn’t the right mechanism.
@Denis: Is it fair that only some residents get to pay the “true costs,” while those who don’t get to pay the “true cost” pay more to make up the difference?
Is it fair that businesses and non-profits would continue to pay sewer fees on water they also don’t send down the drain?
And by the way, this proposal does nothing to benefit conservation. In fact, conservation is discouraged.
One thing to point out is that there is not a one to one connection between water usage and city-wide sewer usage. Newton’s aging sewer system has a great deal of infiltration. That water going onto the lawn for greener grass may not be going directly into the sewer system, but there is a good chance that at least a portion of it is going indirectly into the sewer system.
Presentation: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/40846
Broken sewer pipes, roof drains, driveway drain, improper sump pumps and other weaknesses in the infrastructure allow clean water into the sewer system.
Thank you, Jim! When I get home I’m going to dig out the letter I wrote when this issue came up years ago. (I believe it is typewritten, as in, on a typewriter!) My issue is discretionary water uses like lawn-watering, driveway car-washing, and swimming pools, vs. less discretionary uses like washing people, dishes and clothes. I’m okay with the former subsidizing the latter.
However, as someone who wants to preserve our scarce (9.2% of land) commercial property, I do think that if this is approved, it should apply to businesses as well as residential. Why punish businesses even further? Although passing this would most likely increase costs for smaller businesses, since they are less likely to have outdoor water usage, vs a large business with lawn to water, so really, better not to pass this at all.
The only way this is going to help low-volume users is if the big users who get themselves outdoor meters go so hog-wild using water that it increases total usage enough that the greater volume to spread the fixed MWRA costs over results in lower per-unit costs for small users. But that depends on how the city sets the rates, too.
@Greg. That’s kind of my point, despite my snarkiness. I think all users should pay an accurate amount for water AND sewage use. If the sewage system is a wreck due to neglect, mismanagement, normal wear and tear, or whatever cause then sewage rates should pay to fix it. I still maintain that it is not unfair that sewage costs rise for sewage users. It might suck to pay more for it, but that is the cost of the system. Maybe folks should be focusing on the whoever is responsible for managing and maintaining the system.
If we want to encourage conservation then we should implement some of the following:
-a tiered rate system. 1st N gallons cost X, next N cost X+Y, and so on
-maybe tie it to the number of residents at an address (at least for residential)
-incentives for rainwater collection systems
If minimizing impact on the sewer system is important, let’s look at incentives for grey water systems.
If wealth redistribution is the goal…….well, that’s probably another thread.
@Denis: Got it, sorry my snarkiness detector is in the shop. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
@Alderman Cote: Well said.
@DougC: Also true.
@Greg no need to apologize. I think I’m coming at the fairness angle a bit differently than most on this thread:)
While the proposed solution to the current unfair system of assessing sewer charges may be imperfect, this does not justify the continuation of the current system where the lawn/garden-waterers are required to subsidize everyone else’s sewer charges and have done so for many years. The “subsidy” is the exact opposite of what is being argued here. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Our Alderpeople should not be penalizing lawn/garden-watering homeowners here in The Garden City.
@LaureP: I agree fully with your basic argument.
The problem is, this proposal isn’t even close to “imperfect.” Only about 20 percent of Newton’s households would enjoy this solution while the remaining households will be asked to pay more for water they won’t be putting down their drains either.
Our Alderpeople should not be penalizing the Garden City’s businesses, churches, schools and other non profits either. But under this plan, they would be.
Thanks to Jim Cote for stressing a different take on “fairness” Julia for defining the difference between discretionary and non discretionary water use, and for Doug C for pointing out that infiltration problems modify a direct correlation between what is used and what goes into the sewers for treatment. I hope these points make it into the final deliberation and vote on this issue.
One reason the sewer water inflow is very high is that many homeowners empty their pools in the fall directly into the street sewer. Some don’t know this practice is illegal. Pool service companies do this regularly. Sump pumps are also emptied into the sewer system. I suppose if a homeowner fills a pool with city water they have a right to empty it into the sewer because the rates have been levied already on the owner. Another reason not to change the existing law.
@Colleen, the street drains are connected to the stormwater system, not the sewer. But it is illegal to drain your pool into the street drain.
@Greg–I’ve been mulling this shift over for some time. Newton NEEDS to cover the costs of the pipe and pumps it owns, clean up stormwater (and prevent flooding), plus pay for MWRA charges (which go up annually to cover the debt from the Boston Harbor Cleanup and the more secure, cleaner water supply that we enjoy).
So one way or another, I accept that my water utility bills (incoming, outgoing & drainage) will rise. I’m not sure that moderate/average users should be paying more while large users with lawns & pools are paying less–shouldn’t they be encouraged to examine options such as cisterns or wells rather than using drinking water outdoors? Don’t they have greater financial flexibility than the moderate user?
That said, I also wonder how the second meter will affect some of your Chamber members. The price of water for “irrigation”-level users will rise significantly as part of the installation of second meters in the model under discussion. But some business/industrial users (or potential users, like biotech, large restaurants or food processors) would also be charged in this bracket, while also paying full sewer charges (they won’t be pouring that water into landscaping). How will that affect location decisions? Will that cause industrial users to think about moving to a lower-cost community?
@Andrea: Good questions. Let’s start by acknowledging that the outdoor meter plan, as I understand it, does not contribute any of the revenue that we need to address our infrastructure. All it does is shift sewer fees from some users to others. (I know you understand this but I want to make sure others do as well.)
And yes, the added cost of paying for these shifting sewer fees — plus the bigger need to increase storm fees next year to actually do the work we need to do — will be a big burden on our businesses and non-profits. And yes, I suppose it could be a factor that might discourage a large employer from choosing Newton. All this stuff adds up.
“All it does is shift sewer fees from some users to others.” No, it will shift sewer fees from non-users to actual users.
All this speculation about what the adoption rate will be. Even if the payback is several years, the meter is an asset that goes with the property. Some residents with irrigation systems will want the second meter on principle alone.
I also love how certain people look at the status quo and find justice in penalizing outdoor water users because it does not meet their political objectives. Waltham and Lexington have second meter programs and the world has not ended.
I think this plan makes no sense at all. Everyone pays for city services they don’t use. That’s just the way it works. As well as the example of people paying the same property taxes even though they send their children to private schools, people with no children and seniors get no break from taxes because they don’t use the schools. Seniors may have raised students here who went to public schools, but the taxes keep going up even though their income goes down. Not everyone needs the services of the police or fire departments the same amount, but we all foot the bills because we live here. Taxes don’t change when different political parties are elected. On and on. Communities share the costs of running their town and don’t get to puck and choose what they pay.
Lowering sewer fees for the few who use more water and raising them for those who don’t is ridiculous. Making Newton even more attractive to people who can afford pools, large lots and sprinkler systems is not necessary. Evidently it’s attractive enough to pay the exorbitant prices being paid for land.
I would have less difficulty with the proposal if the we weren’t discussing potable water. All of the attention seems focused upon whether the water goes into the sewer system without considering that every drop of water sprinkled onto lawns and put into pools is clean, treated and drinking quality water. In balancing fairness, perhaps it isn’t so unjust to penalize those who use drinking water for outdoor uses. (Self disclosure: I have a small pool.)
Fairness, Ha!: right now, people who water their vegetables, flowers and grass pay for sewers they do NOT use. How is that fair? In fact, they have been subsidizing the rest of the city who have not paid full price for what they themselves use. Time for a change!
@Isabelle: It isn’t fair. But neither is a solution that helps ~ 20 percent of Newton’s homeowners while the other 80 percent find themselves in an even “less fair” situation.
I finally finished reviewing all of the reports, memos, charts and PowerPoint presentations on second meters, and I still haven’t made up my mind. But here are a few random thoughts about what is “fair” that have been running through my head.
1. Fair is fair. Except when it isn’t. For instance, if we were being fair across the board, logically every alderman who supports second meters because it is “fair” would also support a pure PAYT (pay-as-you-throw) trash policy, so that the biggest generators of trash would pay their proportionately fair share of the cost. That is not the case.
2. Life is unfair. Coincidentally, for everyone I have heard from who wants a second meter for outdoor water use, I have heard from someone else who has recurring problems with flooded basements or backyards. Interestingly, some of the people with flooding problems live next door to people with garden and lawn irrigation systems. Hmm. Is that a coincidence, too?
3. Fair enough(?) Allowing residential users to have a second meter but not nonprofits or commercials users is unfair. We can always change it later. But if we allow everyone to have second meters now, sewer fee revenues would take an even bigger hit, and residential sewer fees would have to be that much higher to make up the difference. Is it fair to hit residents with an even bigger increase AND an increase in the stormwater fee all at once? Maybe what seems “fair” depends on whose ox is being gored.
4. Fair warning. Once the city fixes its I&I problem, which could reduce the sewer flow by up to 60%, sewer rates theoretically should go back down. Yay, us! But, will the Board of Aldermen then be asked to change the water fee structure again so that the biggest outdoor users will not have to pay the highest rate because it is unfair?
5. All is vanity and nothing is fair. Let’s get real. This is a first world problem. While we here in Newton are debating whether to make things fair for people who use clean drinking water to make their yards lush and green, the UN estimates that 783 million people do not have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion do not have access to adequate sanitation. ‘Nuff said.
@Aldermen Hess-Mahan: Can you think of an example of a good public policy that makes something financially “fairer” for a minority (i.e. 20 percent and in this case, presumably, a generally wealthier group) while making it “less fair” for the majority (the other 80 percent plus non-profits, commercial property owners and apartment/condo complexes with four or more units)?
BTW, here’s an example of where it is justified. We all know that the owner of house accessed at $800,000 who has no children will pay the same property taxes as the owner of the exact same house who has six kids in our schools. It’s not “fair”, but it’s good public policy that we all share the cost of educating the children in our community.
But this one is not fair AND not good public policy.
What is different about living in Newton rather than Lexington or Waltham on this issue? Apparently, there is more to the bargain when you choose to live in Newton. Class warfare, social agendas, and social engineering should not be part of the discussion. The proposal corrects a known misapplication of the sewer charge to outdoor users. period. It’s an administrative matter. Unlike the property tax which pays for a multitude of services without a breakdown, the sewer charge is a specific charge for a specific service. Maybe auto excise should be paid by all residents whether or not they have a vehicle. Same thing.
@Lauren:
Your comment suggests that perhaps you are not fully up to speed on the specific proposal before our aldermen Monday night. In the event, you don’t, or for those reading along who don’t, I suggest re-reading the TAB article.
But just to summarize, the city estimates that about 6,000 people would find the $1,000 or so investment in an outdoor meter financially beneficial, while 80 percent — plus non-profits, commercial, larger apartment/condo complexes, will have pick up the cost saved by those 20 percent.
(The 6,000 just to be clear doesn’t represent all lawn waterers, just the largest lawn waterers. So some get the “fairness break,” other get less fairness.)
As for your auto excise tax analogy. Here’s a better one: Imagine exempting the owners of BMWs, Ford Broncos and Lexus from the excise tax and let’s pretend that represents a net loss of $1 million dollars in tax revenue. Now let’s split that $1 million and add it to the bills of the rest of the car owners in Newton.
Is that fair?
Greg, my post concerning random thoughts about “fairness” was somewhat tongue in cheek (except for #5).
IMHO, this is more about politics than policy. I think providing clean water and sanitation are every bit as essential municipal services as public education, public safety, roads, sidewalks, and waste disposal. The cost of most of these are paid for entirely out of the common weal through taxes. By contrast, water, sewer and stormwater costs are paid for out of user fees. I suppose if we wanted to be totally “fair” we could charge the 20% of Newton households who have children in public school tuition instead of paying for it out of income and property taxes. We could even charge the minority who have a medical emergency or is victim of a crime or whose house catches on fire for police and fire services. That would be “fair” in a certain sense, but would also be adding insult to injury.
There will be winners and losers if this passes, no doubt about it. And there will be people of every socio-economic class who will benefit or suffer, depending upon their particular circumstances. The question that my colleagues and I must answer, I believe, is not whether this system will be fairer, but whether it does more harm than good. And I still do not have the answer to that question.
Most of Newton’s sewer costs are unrelated to normal flow conditions. MWRA’s charges to the city are mostly based on population, high flows during floods, and industrial sewage strength. City expenses to run the sewers are essentially unrelated to flows. The second meter bigwigs are bringing in large amounts of MWRA water from Central Mass and dumping it into our groundwater and streets. The second meter users with their big lawns should not get to transfer all of their big savings in this proposal on to the small lawn and no watering households.
The spreadsheets shown in Ted’s link suggest that average homes with no second meters will see a $100-$250 increase in their sewer bills due to the is transfer. There should be some form of additional I&I charge IN ADDITION to the top water rate charged on the second meter usage.
The city should also charge plenty to install/inspect the new meters so it does not reduce service on the sewer lines themselves.
On my street, 80% of homeowners have irrigation systems. All of them allow their sprinklers to run twice daily from June through Oct. Three of those months don’t even need watering as rain is plentiful. None of these homeowners modify their computerized systems when rain is abundant. What a waste of water. This new policy proposal actually is an incentive to use more water than is necessary. If I spent $1000. for a second meter I would be less likely to conserve water use. There is no reason to cut back especially when most residents presently do not moderate their water consumption.
Ted, I don’t mean this as a wiseacre comment, but it is a bit troubling that after what has clearly been a lot of analysis on your part, it sounds like you still haven’t decided on which side you fall on this. Is this really that close a call?
I hear the argument that for a number of years those who have irrigation systems have been subsidizing those who don’t, by absorbing a greater share of the sewage charges than is fair. Is that a fair statement, in your view?
If not, we should just leave everything alone. If yes, seems like some adjustment is necessary. Is your dilemma that you’re not sure the proposed solution is best? Is there another option that you’ve proposed that is more fair?
Fair question, Dan.
It is true that those who have irrigation systems have been paying sewer fees for using water that does not directly enter the sewer (although some of it is getting in through I&I). On the other hand, we all bear the environmental and financial costs of phosphates and other chemicals used in lawn and garden care that get washed into the groundwater, the storm drains and into Crystal Lake and the Charles River by residents using irrigation systems. So it is a little bit too facile to focus on the one and not the other, particularly when we are also simultaneously considering raising the stormwater fees.
As Greg points out, commercial and nonprofits users would be excluded. That has ramifications and consequences too.
Finally, the financial impact studies are based on certain assumptions about usage and proposed rates that may or may not bear out. The city has embarked on an aggressive capital improvement campaign to fix the I&I and other infrastructure problems, which requires that it be funded by almost 4% annual increases in water/sewer/stormwater fees. How we decide this question has a substantial impact on who shall bear the greatest burden of those increases. There is also a perverse incentive for the city and MWRA to encourage more usage of water not less. I am troubled by that.
As I said above, there will be winners and losers. So, I want to make sure we do this right and for the right reasons. There are smart people with integrity on both sides of this issue and I do not think I am alone in my ambivalence toward this measure.
Ted said, “The city has embarked on an aggressive capital improvement campaign to fix the I&I and other infrastructure problems, which requires that it be funded by almost 4% annual increases in water/sewer/stormwater fees. How we decide this question has a substantial impact on who shall bear the greatest burden of those increases. ”
Is this perhaps an argument for not changing the current formula until we know a bot more about the makeup of those I&I related items?
To your point of the perverse incentives you cite, what of making the new rate for the outside meters enough higher still to make things revenue neutral? I too am troubled by this, and if the objective is to simply make the pricing system more fair, isn’t there an argument for increasing still more the “irrigation system” rate to do something to provide proper incentives?
Greg, your analogy is what’s not fair. Underlying your premise is the assumption that all irrigators are rich pigs who are undeserving of “fair” treatment. That is your point and you have a captive audience in Ald. H-M who consistently uses class-baiting to push his social agenda. Yours and his demonization of outdoor waterers is insulting . There are many gardeners who are using organic fertilizers and natural weed control to grow flowers and vegetables and are only watering when they need to. But you don’t want to hear about that since it does not fit your narrative.
And those people “who only water when they need to” probably won’t get outdoor meters!!
Why are you refusing to acknowledge the reality of this proposal?
The reality of this proposal is that it does not go far enough and grant the same opportunity to businesses and non-profits. It should, we can agree on that. But the proposal’s failure to include these groups has nothing to do with whether it is the right thing to do (allocate sewer charges to sewer users as other Towns have done). And, the law can be amended later to include these groups – so says the Alderperson above.
@Lauren P: Finally we agree!
Mostly.
Here’s what I worry about: Once/if the aldermen pass this, there’s no way they’ll go back and add second meters for non-profits and businesses. There’s too much revenue at stake (and businesses don’t vote). And if they did where would that lost revenue go? Onto the backs of the 80 percent of those occasional water user/small property owners who are already going to get slapped with a $100-$250 increase in their sewer bills if the board passes this tomorrow.
So, I have one more question for you:
I agree with you, it is unfair to charge sewer fees on water that doesn’t go down the drain. But how is it fair to support a proposal that only corrects this unfair system for a minority of property owners and makes everyone pick up the check for the rest?
Lauren P, class baiting was not what I intended. In fact, I made the point that residents of all socio-economic classes will benefit or suffer based on their particular circumstances. My primary concern has been and is that the reconfiguration of tiers is intended to capture as much of the lost revenue as possible from the people who are somewhere in the middle in terms of usage. Based on the administration’s financial impact study, those folks will pay up to twice as much as or more than the average increase. Ironically, some of those people may have lawn irrigation systems but may decide not to pay for a second meter because it makes more economic sense in their particular circumstance to use less water instead of paying for a second meter which will charge at the highest rate.
A modest proposal:
This whole issue only arises due to our local water/sewer history. For many, many years water was cheap, bills were small and there was no separate sewer charge. The sewers were just one part of our water system that was paid for by our water bills.
Some number of years ago, after Boston Harbor had become extremely polluted, the courts found that the Boston area cities/towns handling of sewerage was in violation of our environmental laws and ordered that it be cleaned up. A huge and very expensive metro-wide project began to re-engineer our entire sewer system. The system was built, Boston harbor’s transformation was miraculous, and there was a huge bill to be paid.
The MWRA apportioned that bill to each of the towns and water bills skyrocketed. Nobody was going to like this and it was inevitable that people weren’t going to be happy about it. Rather than just raise the water rates, the towns instituted a new separate charge for sewerage, largely as a way to call attention to what as driving the big rate hikes.
Previous to this, all costs of sewerage disposal were just figured in as part of the cost of the system.
Let’s return to the previous system. Remove the separate charge for sewerage and fold it back into the water rates as it was for many years. Once done, no one is being treated unfairly. No one is being “charged for something they aren’t using”. We’ll all be charged just for our water instead.
The previous city I lived in calculated monthly sewage charges for each year based on water consumption during three winter months when it was assumed that little or no water was used for outdoor irrigation or filling pools. This seems much simpler than installing a second meter, and perhaps fairer to those who don’t use enough water for irrigation to justify the cost of a second meter.
There were also ongoing water shortages due to drought, so in addition to strict rules on irrigation frequency, the city also had incentives for using “gray water” and rainwater collection for irrigation.
Ald. H-M, I keep hearing that the proposal is flawed and that is the reason to vote against this. The rates, like the scope of the law, can be amended later to adjust for unintended consequences should they arise. The issue remains fairness of the current billing practice for the sewer charge. It isn’t fair. There is no justification for continuing the status quo except that it is already in place. But that doesn’t make it right. The current arbitrary allocation of sewer charges amounts to a subsidy through a separate “sin tax” for outdoor water use. If that is what you support, then just say so and call it that. My concern is that, instead you portray this issue as a matter of privilege (“first world”) and the concerns of the privileged are not as honorable or worth championing because to do so you are furthering that privilege at the expense of the “less privileged.” I would submit that not every vote is an opportunity to push that social agenda. Sometimes fair is just doing the right thing.
@Lauren P: Do you understand that every dollar someone with an outdoor meter saves under this proposal will be tacked onto everyone else’s bills?
That’s more than “flawed” that’s wrong.
Lauren P, having clean water and sanitation is a privilege, and we ought to be willing to pay for it. But what is “right” in this instance is filtered through a political lens, not some universal moral principle. And politics is the art of compromise.
The current plan includes some political compromises which are intended to benefit second meter users while protecting “micro users” and especially average users from sharper price increases by charging second meter users the highest rate for water, excluding businesses and nonprofits and spreading the increases to make up for lost revenue over the widest swath of users. In those respects, the rate structure somewhat resembles the Internal Revenue Code, which instead of a flat rate uses progressive tax rates, deductions and tax credits in an effort to be “fair” but is at best an imperfect instrument riddled with political compromises. Mostly, I want to make sure we get the balance right.
I have some smart, principled colleagues who have indicated they will be voting against this. I have tried to keep an open mind and will be looking forward to tonight’s deliberation to better understand how and why each of my colleagues are coming out on this. And then, after what I hope will be thoughtful consideration, we will vote on it.
Found it! And I feel my March 1999 letter to Mayor Cohen is still valid. http://newton.business/village14/files/2014/12/Malakie_2ndWaterMeterLetter032999.pdf
Greg, I will say the same thing to you I said to Lauren P: there is no universal moral principle here and no “right” or “wrong.” Rather, there are political and policy considerations that cut both ways.
The proposed rate structure charges the highest rate for outdoor use. That serves both political and policy purposes. It serves both the political purpose of mitigating the loss of revenue from second meters which will be spread to other users and the policy purpose of promoting water conservation (studies have consistently shown that pricing is the most effective way to promote conservation, where as mandates such as low flush toilets or water saving devices are easily circumvented by flushing twice and taking longer showers absent a price differential that charges a premium for higher rates of usage).
Similarly, the exclusion of business and nonprofits serves the political purpose of limiting the loss of revenue by limiting the number of eligible users of second meters, and thereby mitigating the impact of sewer fee increases for average users. It isn’t strictly speaking”fair” but it remains an option that can be adopted in the future.
@Alderman Hess-Mahan: My argument all along has been: “Don’t support this if your reason for doing so is fairness.” Because it’s not fair. If you support it as a policy decision, then I may disagree with the policy, but I understand and respect your position.
Also, count me as one who is extremely skeptical that your esteemed colleagues would ever add non-residential customers to the program at a later date. There’s too much lost revenue at stake and businesses and non-profits don’t vote.
My preference would be: Fix our infrastructure first, get control of our I&I, then let’s talk about second meters.
Another “Lauren P” in Newton! Who knew???
I always post, when I do, under Lauren Paul. Lauren P c’est n’est pas moi.
I am also known as Lauren Gibbons Paul.
Fair enough, Greg (no pun intended).
The issue of second meters was last debated in 1999. There is a memo from DPW dated June 4, 1999, which is attached to the Finance Committee Report, which explains the basis for the MWRA sewer assessment. The memo states, in relevant part that:
Ted is on my wavelength here — I also was thinking ‘the more things change..’ re my 1999 letter linked to earlier, in which I also noted the non-volume related portion of the sewer assessment. But since Lauren Paul is speaking French, I will say it in French: ‘plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.’ Sorry, can’t do cedilla and circumflexes.
Here is the MWRA’s webpage on sewer rates.
It states in relevant part:
So, based on my reading of the MWRA’s own rate structure, completely eliminating the sewer fee from second meters is not as straightforward a question of fairness as it would perhaps appear at first blush.
It just passed, 14-9, 1 absent. See the Twitter feed for Ayes & Nays.
@Julia: Thanks so much for tweeting the entire meeting.
Disappointed in the results but hope those aldermen who said they would come back to this and offer outdoor rates for non-profits and businesses will be true to their word.
Thank you, Greg. I do have a weird idea of how to enjoy my night off work.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the rate-setting stage, and even more interesting when people start getting their bills. (In time for next election?)
They sure don’t seem inclined to let BC get outdoor rates!
This entire idea of second meters over time could evolve out of control if the city keeps raising all the rates. People could share a second meter and jointly pay for water use. Water could be stored in tanks and transferred to house usage.
Ten years from now the water usage could be very different based on escalating rates.
Baker mentioned other ways people could divert water from the second meter. Perhaps over time many more people would find less expensive ways to establish a second meter and thus lower their water costs.
All in all the long term effects of 2nd meters could prove to be a mistake.