So Raleigh mayor Charles Meeker wants residents to try to cut daily usage down to 25 gallons of water per day and is looking to enact a 50% increased charge on your water bill (if you're a Raleigh resident or using raleigh water). Looks like this would take effect on March 1 and you would see it on your bill in May.

Source Article: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2262767/

Quote :

"Raleigh — Raleigh Mayor Charles Meeker on Monday proposed a daily water consumption limit of 25 gallons per person and a temporary 50 percent surcharge on water bills. The daily limit and the surcharge were among seven recommendations Meeker said he would present to the Raleigh City Council on Tuesday to help conserve the city's dwindling water supply as much as possible. "We're requesting all citizens to conserve," he said. "As a city here in Raleigh and as a region, we are going to have to use water more carefully." Falls Lake, which serves as the city's primary reservoir, is about one-third full and has about 4.8 billion gallons of available water, compared with 14 billion to 15 billion gallons when at normal levels, Meeker said. Officials said the available water supply in the lake should last about 120 days. "These conditions have been out in the western part of the country for decades, and now things are sort of changing for us," Meeker said. "We are going to have to address things differently and change things in the years ahead." The average person uses 60 to 70 gallons of water daily for drinking, bathing, washing clothes and dishes and flushing toilets, according to local and national officials. Jerry Jenkins of plumbing supply company Bradford Sales Co. said low-flow toilets like the Caroma Dual-Flush could cut water usage for a four-person family by about 3,000 gallons a year, or more than eight gallons a day. Low-flow shower heads could cut another gallon or more per minute over standard showers. "It's not a short-term problem. It's a long-term (one), and we have a solution for the long term," Jenkins said. The surcharge, if approved, would be implemented March 1 and would appear on May bills, Meeker said. It could be repealed when drought conditions end, he said. The extra cost is designed to encourage conservation while offsetting the decline in revenue for Raleigh's Department of Public Utilities from that conservation, he said. "The point here is for everybody to be cutting back on their water usage," he said. Water bills will be redesigned to tell homeowners exactly how many gallons they are using, Meeker said. Current bills are based on units of water, which translate to about 750 gallons each. Raleigh officials would prefer to use tiered rates that scale charges according to water consumption, he said, but the city's software system can't accommodate that type of billing. The city is looking to upgrade its billing system in a couple of years to one that would allow tiered rates, he said. Even with a surcharge, Raleigh's water rates would be comparable to those charged by other area municipalities, Meeker said. "It's our intention to get everyone conserving so that people don't have higher water bills rather than charging higher bills and still using more water," he said. The mayor also said all homeowners, apartment complex managers and office building landlords – including state government and universities – should install low-flow shower heads, faucet restrictors and toilet inserts by March 1. The city will work with nonprofit groups to help low-income families purchase the devices, he said. The city also will ask builders to install such low-flow devices in new developments and to install outdoor irrigation systems that don't tap into the drinking water supply, he said. "We need to change our practices in this community so that drinking water is used for drinking and not for irrigation," he said. Developers haven't yet reviewed Meeker's proposals, but they realize some action needs to be done to head off building limits, said Tim Minton, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Raleigh-Wake County. "We do recognize that we're in dire straits now, and that means we have to tighten our belts like everyone else," Minton said. "What the Home Builders (Association) members are more concerned with is that you won't be able to build. If you can't build a house, landscaping is not an issue." The association plans to launch a "green council" in the coming weeks to encourage developers to use more sustainable techniques in design and construction, he said. Meeker said the 140,000 customers on Raleigh's water system should purchase rain barrels or other devices to have water for outdoor irrigation this year. The ban on outdoor watering will likely remain in place for the foreseeable future, he said. "If the dry conditions persist – I don't know if they'll persist one month or one year – we're not going to have drinking water available for lawn watering," he said. Raleigh officials plan to meet with the Army Corps of Engineers, which manages Falls Lake, to see how far discharges into the Neuse River from the lake can be cut without harming the river quality or endangering downstream water systems. Finally, Meeker said he would ask the mayors of Garner, Knightdale, Rolesville, Wake Forest, Wendell and Zebulon to enact similar proposals. The six towns purchase water from Raleigh."

So yeah, I'm not sure most people will be able to use less water than the minimum they are using already. I mean, I can't afford to replace my appliances with more water efficient ones. I already installed a low-flow shower head (but it's 2.5gpm, if I take a 10 minute shower I've already gone past the 25 gallon/day goal...), and I might be able to put some 1 quart containers or something in the toilet tanks to reduce the amount of water they use. There's no way I'm going to cut my usage by 33% though, which means come May I'lll be throwing more money at Raleigh so they can continue to do nothing. I didn't see anything in that article about restricting development or requiring new developments/houses to pay something like a water investment tax so they can pay for the city's water resources budget requirements. As is it just looks like they're going to tax existing residents more with this "temporary surcharge" (we know how those work out!) to get them to pay for this continued development that the city leaders didn't plan for proper.

Yeah... YOUR THOUGHTS, TWW?

1/7/2008 11:29:54 PM

Considering water isn't that expensive, I think most people are probably just going to shrug off the 50% surcharge and keep using however much they feel like they need to. Its just going to be another tax and it will probably not be used to help the problem at all.

He also needs to do something to get big businesses to cut back more. But, this being Meeker, I don't see that happening. He's all about catering to the big boys. Just look at the PROP ordinance he pushed through for regulating land lords, it screws over the little guys and then the big apartment complexes are pretty much exempt. Watch this surcharge not even apply to some businesses.

Quote :

"Even with a surcharge, Raleigh's water rates would be comparable to those charged by other area municipalities, Meeker said. "

And this statement has permanent increase written all over it.

1/8/2008 12:03:19 AM

Makes sense.

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2008 12:12:30 AM

Quote :

"...10 minute shower... "

Masterbate somewhere other than the shower.

1/8/2008 12:40:56 AM

^ seriously. I probably shower 5 times a week, but then again I don't bother to work out or do anything that would cause me to be dirty. But when I do shower, it's about 4-5 minutes.

Quote :

"The mayor also said all homeowners, apartment complex managers and office building landlords – including state government and universities – should install low-flow shower heads, faucet restrictors and toilet inserts by March 1. The city will work with nonprofit groups to help low-income families purchase the devices, he said. The city also will ask builders to install such low-flow devices in new developments and to install outdoor irrigation systems that don't tap into the drinking water supply, he said."

I don't see how that doesn't help your

Quote :

"I didn't see anything in that article about restricting development or requiring new developments/houses to pay something like a water investment tax so they can pay for the city's water resources budget requirements."

At least they have to be starting on the right foot. They're not paying more, but they are being forced to conserve more and that's better than just money.

1/8/2008 1:35:46 AM

problem with the fees is:


1)they won't use the money to help acquire more water or make reservoirs

2) it'll be like every other tax hike and they won't bother to take it away

1/8/2008 1:39:23 AM

This is a dumb idea. Only something like 20-25% of the water usage is residential, which means if everyone does manage to cut usage by 30 or 50%, you'll only save about 7-12% on total water usage.

Where as businesses, accounting for the rest, can cut their usage down by just a 1/10th, and save the same amount. If he's going to surcharge people, it should be businesses, not residents.

1/8/2008 1:40:01 AM

Quote :

"^ seriously. I probably shower 5 times a week, but then again I don't bother to work out or do anything that would cause me to be dirty. But when I do shower, it's about 4-5 minutes. "

I'd say you would be in the minority on that amount of time. I'd bet the average person is around 10 minutes, with some being almost 20. This would be especially true in the winter when people want to stay under the warm water and not out into the cold air to dry off.

1/8/2008 1:43:58 AM

^ oh, i know, i'd like to stay there for a while too. But I realized I wasn't 9 years old and had things to do. no wait, not really, but still, I guess I care about the environment more than the average person (damn appalachian hippies converted me).

^^, I think you're right. I work at a restaurant and we have plenty of water running all the time that i try to turn off if i ever see it. Dishes, people washing their hands every couple minutes, mopping...I realize these things need to be done, but sometimes I walk into the back and the waters running with nobody paying any attention and the sink overflowing. I've tried to tell my co-workers, but hey, we're just a bunch of unskilled laborers who don't know any better.

I wish i could know what I personally used, I might be around only 25 gallons per day anyways.

1/8/2008 2:44:37 AM

Quote :

" a temporary 50 percent surcharge on water bills."

Quote :

"It could be repealed when drought conditions end, he said. "

Quote :

"offsetting the decline in revenue for Raleigh's Department of Public Utilities from that conservation, he said. "

Say hello to permanent price hikes. If they need to do that, fine, but I hate it when it's disguised as "for the greater good".

Also: "Please stop using water, but don't stop paying us!"

1/8/2008 8:27:42 AM

If this tax goes into effect, it's not ever going away.

1/8/2008 8:52:16 AM

Charles Meeker is an idot.

1/8/2008 8:56:24 AM

everyone on this board is an idiot, and for the first time, Meeker might be on to something... free markets.




If the city would let the price of water fluctuate with supply and demand like any other good or service, then rationing would be inherent in the system as opposed to forced in the system.


You may not think that you can't get your consumption down to 25 gallons/day, but if you were looking at $1.00 or $2.00/gallon, I bet you would real quick.

It's not that extreme... yet. But if we really are looking at the bottom of the barrel of water in Raleigh, there will be no mechanism to stop excess water usage because city water does not exist on the plane of free markets.

1/8/2008 9:08:11 AM

they should have a tiered rate system... the more water you use, the more you should pay for it. that would give a lot more incintive to stay under a certain threshold.

1/8/2008 9:36:01 AM

^ that is the fairest solution

I guess what meeker is saying is that system alone is not fiscally responsible for the city since they are having to spend more money right now procuring water and people are cutting usage making their bills lower and thereby decreasing water revenue overall.

1/8/2008 9:45:59 AM

i'll just shower with bottled water...it's about to be cheaper than paying for city water anyway.

1/8/2008 9:48:42 AM

So does cary get its water from Jordan? I assume we have our own water system over hear, and are unaffected by these changes, Right?

1/8/2008 10:26:47 AM

I think the main thing that would help would be some feedback.

One of the old apartments I had rented had cold water _and_ hot water included in the rent. I shudder to think how cavalier I was about water usage back then. I had no idea how much I used, I never really thought about it.

I moved into a brand new apartment in 2001. They had electronic meters for each apartment and we got a separate water bill that detailed our monthly usage. It was cheap, but I couldn't ignore the amount of water I used any more. Def a step in the right direction.

Now that I own a house its pretty cut and dried. Water use is either me or my wife. We've cut our usage by about 40% according to the last few bills and we're about tapped out (haha). Seriously, I can't imagine how we could cut our usage any more. Short showers, always full loads of laundry and dishes, using extra water that would have gone down the drain to flush toilets. Rain barrels are our next step. After that I suppose we could go to paper plates but then its fill up the landfill vs save water.

-- Dave

1/8/2008 10:31:10 AM

^ good for you. I think people need to be as conscious as you are about this.

But the pocketbook is where this can be fixed. Let water price fluctuate with supply and we'll see people cut back WITHOUT a mandate for it to be so.

That's the beauty... you don't have to have a government organization threatening you if you don't. All of us will conserve.

1/8/2008 10:37:03 AM

i've filled my house with about 500 gallons of bottled water. i'll be selling it on rdu craigslist real soon. go water go!

1/8/2008 10:43:38 AM

Quote :

"Let water price fluctuate with supply and we'll see people cut back WITHOUT a mandate for it to be so."

then you'd just have an agregate of heavy users in effect pushing the price up for everyone, including those who conserve.

Quote :

"proposed a daily water consumption limit of 25 gallons per person"

how do they determine how many residents a household has, especially rental homes that fluctuate frequently?

1/8/2008 10:47:50 AM

Quote :

"then you'd just have an agregate of heavy users in effect pushing the price up for everyone, including those who conserve."

yes, that's called a market.


Since water is not infinite, we cannot treat it as it is... which is the way our current system is designed.

1/8/2008 10:50:56 AM

Wow! A democrat who believes in free market capitalism!

1/8/2008 11:03:28 AM

So how would this work for dorms and hotels??


Does each dorm only get 25 gallons of water a day?

1/8/2008 11:18:48 AM

No, there is no quota. They're just charged a market rate for the water based on supply and demand. Rest assured, rates of hotels/dorms will reflect the increase in the price of water just as rates for canned foods reflect the price of oil when it goes up (because of the necessity to transport).

If cable distributors can figure out how to give access to cable to individual homes and dorms/hotels/apartments, why does this seem to be an impossible task for water?

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2008 11:23:45 AM

HAVE YOU SEEN WATERWORLD!!!!!

1/8/2008 11:30:44 AM

Quote :

"yes, that's called a market. Since water is not infinite, we cannot treat it as it is... which is the way our current system is designed."

point is, there would be no incentive for people to conserve if the price was going up for them regardless.

1/8/2008 11:36:03 AM

Seriously?

So people won't conserve if their water bill was at $30/mo one month and $60/mo for the same amount of water the next? You don't think that will cause people to say, holy shit, my water bill just doubled, lets cut back?

What if water was extremely scarce and their bill was $200 for a month?

If you think no, then you have no concept of economics or personal finance and I hope you have more money than God, because you'll need it.

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2008 11:40:10 AM

Quote :

"So people won't conserve if their water bill was at $30/mo one month and $60/mo for the same amount of water the next? You don't think that will cause people to say, holy shit, my water bill just doubled, lets cut back"

Exactly,if i'm already conserving as much as possible, and my bill doubles for no reason other than others' heavy use what can I do?....

as opposed to having a tiered system where the highest users face progressively higher rates, so you're actually targeting the problem instead of having low users absorb some of the cost for nothing.

1/8/2008 11:49:09 AM

why should water cost more to some but less to others?

If TWC went around selling Package A cable to houses in N. Raleigh at $150/mo and Package A to houses on the East Side at $70/mo, that would be immoral if not illegal.

Water isn't infinite and you want to treat it as it is. If water really is RUNNING out, and the prices were outrageously high to where you could only afford to buy water for drinking, then you'd find yourself conserving a lot more than you THINK you can conserve. You may think you're doing all you can but I guarantee you you're not and you never will unless drastic price fluctuations hit the market. So basically, you'll run the city dry.

1/8/2008 11:56:28 AM

When oil is "scarce" (quotations for sarcasm because supply is meeting demand and we're paying high prices because of speculators and market manipulation) the price goes up. If water is becoming more scarce, a free market response is the best way to bring the consumption down before mandatory (i.e. emergency) measures are needed.

1/8/2008 12:04:42 PM

Quote :

"If TWC went around selling Package A cable to houses in N. Raleigh at $150/mo and Package A to houses on the East Side at $70/mo, that would be immoral if not illegal."

which is why you pay based on a tiered rate. you pay a premium for extra services, instead of everyone paying a flat rate, while only a handfull have the extra benefits.

Quote :

"why should water cost more to some but less to others"

it wouldn't, the rate, based on useage, would tier the same for everyone....the first x# gallons would be the same for all who used it, the next x# gallons the same thing. there shouldn't be a punishment for conserving, which in effect would be the result of a flat rate increase.


[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2008 12:05:30 PM

^ are you really not getting this?

With price levels that are below market and affordable, there is ZERO incentive to conserve unless you're altruistic, in which 1% of the population will conserve.


But if the masses are hit with higher prices across the board, we won't need emergency measures until absolutely necessary.

1/8/2008 12:09:47 PM

Quote :

"But when I do shower, it's about 4-5 minutes."

that's a damn quick shower. Mine average 20 minutes, most of which is just standing there under the hot water. Sometimes I'll go in there for > 1 hr if I turn on the steam jets. Unlimited hot water FTW

1/8/2008 12:13:34 PM

^ You know who else liked long showers?

1/8/2008 12:14:51 PM

i totally get it

a tiered system would do exacly the same thing in a more equitable way

no matter who you are or how much you use, you will pay the same amount (and a small base increase would not be out of the question) until your use becomes excessive. then, it would be the excessive user, not the conservationist who gets the bill.

water isn't like oil, everyone has a right to a basic amount of water to live. If someone wants to buy up all the oil supply, fine I either need to pay more to secure the needed supply, or go without. but everyone is entitled to a basic amount of water at an affordable price.

1/8/2008 12:14:59 PM

Quote :

"I'd say you would be in the minority on that amount of time. I'd bet the average person is around 10 minutes, with some being almost 20.."

god damn people take showers longer than 10 minutes? i usually have music blaring from stereo in the shower, and my showers last about 1-1.5 songs(3-5 minutes). what the hell else should i be doing in the shower to last another 10-15 minutes(besides the obvious answer )

1/8/2008 12:15:02 PM

Quote :

"water isn't like oil, everyone has a right to a basic amount of water to live. If someone wants to buy up all the oil supply, fine I either need to pay more to secure the needed supply, or go without. but everyone is entitled to a basic amount of water at an affordable price."

wrong. it's not a right and you're treating it that way and removing it from the market makes it sound like droughts be damned, you get your water anyway... even if there is no water left.

Yeah, if you wanna go and build a well, that is YOUR WATER AND YOUR RIGHT. But if there is a finite amount of water for an amount of people, it's no longer YOUR water. You purchase your water like you purchase chicken from the grocery.


Is chicken a right? WHy not? There's a finite amount of it?


We all pay market prices for chicken.

1/8/2008 12:21:20 PM

Quote :

"god damn people take showers longer than 10 minutes?"

It takes me ten minutes just to wash my hair.

1/8/2008 12:25:01 PM

You'd do it a lot quicker if water were $2.00/gal

1/8/2008 12:25:39 PM

Quote :

"^ You know who else liked long showers?"

my girlfriend?

1/8/2008 12:25:47 PM

Quote :

"that's a damn quick shower. Mine average 20 minutes, most of which is just standing there under the hot water. Sometimes I'll go in there for > 1 hr if I turn on the steam jets. Unlimited hot water FTW"

have you driven past lanier lately

1/8/2008 12:29:41 PM

Quote :

"You'd do it a lot quicker if water were $2.00/gal"

not necessarily....if you had enough money that it didn't really hurt you to pay that much. now, if you paid 5$ per gallon after the first 25 gallons, 10 after the first 50, ect.....the abusers would start to feel harsher effects while not punishing those who already conserve.

1/8/2008 12:31:08 PM

this thread is baffling me, no wonder the lakes are losing water

1/8/2008 12:33:31 PM

I'm not necessarily saying a tiered system is bad for water usage. I am saying that if water were open to market forces, there would be no "stage 1" or "stage 2" restrictions... the only time you would hear about it is if we were in an emergency because people will only ration when they have to ration. Right now, we really don't have to ration expect for by thread of the government. People are washing their cars in their garages. If water were expensive, they wouldn't be doing that.

1/8/2008 12:34:48 PM

honestly, how hard would it be to helicopter in an iceberg and drop it in the lake?

1/8/2008 12:56:39 PM

Quote :

"You'd do it a lot quicker if water were $2.00/gal"

Not much quicker.

My bf and I on well water, and I am painfully aware of our water usage. I was even before these droughts, as I grew up on well water, and my parents always harped about water usage and their ailing septic tank.

If anything, what I'd probably resort to is washing my hair in the sink, first, and then taking my shower. I have really thick hair, and it's also very long.

Quote :

" Mine average 20 minutes, most of which is just standing there under the hot water. Sometimes I'll go in there for > 1 hr if I turn on the steam jets. Unlimited hot water FTW"

This is very despicable of you, joe.

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM. Reason : lfkj]

1/8/2008 12:57:43 PM

stupid fucking yankees moving down here caused this.

1/8/2008 1:13:08 PM

Is Meeker Republican?

^ I know right. Shouldn't we be charging a "move in" tax? We have to build all this infrastructure to support them and their families. Transplanted Yankees are killing us just as much as illegal immigrants.

[Edited on January 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2008 1:13:48 PM

it all started with that damn hockey team.

1/8/2008 1:20:28 PM