The installation of meters will not, in and of themselves, reduce demand

Forwarded conversation

Subject: The installation of meters will not, in and of themselves, reduce demand

------------------------

From: Richard Hallett <richard.hallett@gmail.com>

To:  WaterCommitee

Date: 23 March 2010 10:09

The title of this message is a quote from the Draft Water Efficiency Plan June 2009.  It is no longer part of the final plan found on the website.  This is an extremely important statement that is being ignored.

The Water Efficiency Plan states (page 15)

It is well established that water meters are the most effective measure for reducing water

demand and locally a universal metering program  is expected to result in annual reductions

of 20-25% based on evidence from neighboring communities that have recently become

universally metered  

Staff Reports often include a similar statement.   

Buried near the end of the Koers report that formed part of the Draft Water Efficiency Plan June 2009 with appendix states

The installation of meters will not, in and of themselves, reduce demand. To be a successful demand-side management tool, metering must be accompanied by an appropriate rate structure that rewards water conservation and attaches to excessive users the appropriate cost associated with developing the water infrastructure to meet their demand.

The quote above says that to reduce consumption of water there must be penalties for overuse of water.  In particular that means that Volunteer Water Metering will have little or no impact on the amount of water used. 

The Koers document didn't even say that 20-25% was expected, just that it was a possible target. 

A demand reduction of 20 to 25% does not appear to be an unrealistic target for the

Comox Valley based on a review of the information available and similar

municipalities, such as the cities of Port Alberni and Vernon, and the Town of

Ladysmith where an annual reduction of at  least 25% was achieved; as noted in the

Comox Valley Water System Univeral  Metering Study Update, 2007 (page 22).

Since we are not running out of water as many other places are it is hard to justify massive increases in water rates for the residents.  Without such increases then going to a metered rate only means a reduction in charges for those who get metered (why else would they volunteer?) which forces higher costs on the rest. 

The Comox Valley Water Local Service Area is the one that stands out as using more water per capita that others in our valley.  There are many farms and ranches in this area and that may be why the use more water than other places.  Using water helps the local growers and that supports sustainability. 

Comox has a wide variety of properties - from apartments to acreages with different water demand needs. 

Water use is not necessarily wasteful or evil. 

Taken by itself the statement that Water Meters will reduce consumption by 20-25% is not true.  To get those results would take a substantial increase in water rates. 

In conclusion, I urge you to consider what you are trying to accomplish before running out and buying water meters for all or some of your residents.  If you do decide that meters are a good idea then develop a price structure that supports your strategy. 

With Courtenay rates I am sure that many volunteers would end up paying more for their water.  With LSA rates being so low, the loss of revenue will be a concern. 

Buying a home gym won't make you fit either.  Buying a bathroom scale won't make you lighter. 

Richard

----------

From:  Edwin Grieve

Cc: WaterCommittee

Date: 23 March 2010 18:57


 Richard:
Thanks for your e-mail.
Consider electricity.
Here you are sitting in your home...you have your heat and lights turned off in the rooms your not using and turned low in the rooms you are.
Your neighbour has every light in the place on and the thermostat cranked to 110 degrees. He's never used a clothsline.
Should he be paying the same hydro bill as you?
Water is our most valuable resource and will become even more so.
With government's impending 4 3 2 1 water treatment directives the
Comox valley faces serious upgrades.
Do you not think "user pay" is the only fair way to address the future?
Edwin Grieve

----------

From: Richard Hallett <richard.hallett@gmail.com>

Date: 29 March 2010 11:29
To: Edwin Grieve

Cc: WaterCommittee

Edwin

Thanks for your reply.

I do believe in user pay much of the time.  I'm glad I don't have to pay for each email I send! 

As you may, or perhaps may not, know I got involved in these water matters since I was the treasurer of a Courtenay strata and found that we were paying 50% more per unit than the standard price even though we were using 40% less water.  We bought another house but still own the strata so I don't belong to either camp.

I am a retired Math prof and senior administrator of a college and have both time and intellectual interest that I have turned to water matters.

Frankly I was really annoyed when I found out last week that Courtenay was thinking of offering volunteer water metering so others could pay more for their water even if they use less.  Read that carefully to catch my meaning.  I just went back to bold some words to make my point.

If you read what I say carefully you will find that I am not speaking against metering.  It is a way to allocate the costs of providing a service in proportion the the value received.  I am fully in favour to metering all new homes and setting an appropriate rate structure.  I do question the wisdom of paying about $1000 per home to meter the rest.  The benefits may not warrant the costs.  The city of Vancouver has felt that way for years but their current Mayor would like to see changes.

The main reason that I am so involved in this water issue is that I think that the public and our elected representatives are being mislead, and that includes you.  

Last year I kept hearing that the Comox Valley was using twice the Canadian average use of water. We were told that we used more water than other places that were metered so that proved that if we got metered then we would use less.  That didn't sound correct so I wrote a paper (attached).  I did send my report to the RD but I am not sure that it went to the correct person.   Others also challenged this statement. 

I also challenge the we need to cut use by 27% since it was based on an exaggerated water consumption scenario and an restriction that doesn't exist.  The Ministry would increase our water license but the Regional District delayed providing the information they reequested until after the Regional Water Study is completed.  That being the case, why not hold off on metering until then.

The reason I lobby you is not to convince you to do something but to think for yourselves.  I have yet to see once where you do not do exactly what the Staff Recommendation suggests.  You should realize that the Staff have their own interests that may be different than yours.   They want to keep jobs for those who have been funded by contract or RD split funding.

Each Area should have its own interests.  You may think that water metering is good, but is that the best way to spend the gas tax infrastructure funds.  The Comox Lake water system is the best in the valley.  Shouldn't those funds go where the need is greater.

The Areas as a group will have some common interests, but don't lose sight of your own.

So think for yourselves and for the people you represent, those that live in your own Area.  If you want advice take it from your citizens rather than from the CAO. 

The water committee meetings are too short for you to have a meaningful discussion of the issues, some of which are big. 

There is a Water Advisory Committee, established by Letters Patent, to make sure that the Water Committee gets good advice from the city and town administration as well as the regional district.  It is that committee whose advice you should consider, yet it doesn't even have a chair and all minutes are taken by regional district staff.  There is no one in common at the meetings of these two groups except for the large number of RD staffers. 

If there was $15,000,000 available to spend on water where would it best be spent - water meters, deep water intake, higher dam, improved piping, more reservoirs, leak detection, toilet rebates, rain barrels, advertising, demonstration gardens, school programs, etc.

 I hope I have given you something to think about. 

Richard