12-04-2015, 12:38 PM
The this article today headlined "Kitchener's water, sewer rates rising faster than inflation" and saying that all three cities in the Region will have above-inflation increases in water and sewer rates in the next decade, highest in Kitchener where they might rise as much as 7.6 percent annually over the next ten years.
I'm ambivalent about this when I read it. Water is pretty cheap here, and I'm not disbelieving if those who manage the system say that rates have not been enough in the past to keep up with maintenance. A lot of Kitchenerites had sticker shock I think at the increase last year (10%), but from talking to people I think there's understanding that this is not capricious.
I wonder why we continue to have flat water rates in the Region. Hamilton has two tiers of rates (above ten cubic meters of consumption a month the rate doubles). In London, there are a number of different tiers of rates, and below seven cubic meters of monthly consumption there is no consumption charge.
This is a great way of handling things as it reduces the cost burden to low-use (who are perhaps more likely to be low-means) users, and clean water is after all a human right. It also incentivizes usage reduction more than a flat rate might: on the whole, high-consumers presumably have a greater ability to cut usage and under tiered rates would also have greater financial incentivize. The Region has stated usage reduction as a goal.
I'm surprised we haven't taken this approach here yet, as I generally find we're pretty progressive about such things. I've read about our stormwater credit system in books about good public policy.
I wonder if we'll explore changing the way we price water, or perhaps even charging varying fixed costs related to things like lot size (not a bad proxy for the amount of infrastructure needed to serve a given user). It seems that allowing costs to escalate across the board continually would put undue pressure on vulnerable users, and wouldn't be the best way to meet our goals (like reduction in consumption).
I'm ambivalent about this when I read it. Water is pretty cheap here, and I'm not disbelieving if those who manage the system say that rates have not been enough in the past to keep up with maintenance. A lot of Kitchenerites had sticker shock I think at the increase last year (10%), but from talking to people I think there's understanding that this is not capricious.
I wonder why we continue to have flat water rates in the Region. Hamilton has two tiers of rates (above ten cubic meters of consumption a month the rate doubles). In London, there are a number of different tiers of rates, and below seven cubic meters of monthly consumption there is no consumption charge.
This is a great way of handling things as it reduces the cost burden to low-use (who are perhaps more likely to be low-means) users, and clean water is after all a human right. It also incentivizes usage reduction more than a flat rate might: on the whole, high-consumers presumably have a greater ability to cut usage and under tiered rates would also have greater financial incentivize. The Region has stated usage reduction as a goal.
I'm surprised we haven't taken this approach here yet, as I generally find we're pretty progressive about such things. I've read about our stormwater credit system in books about good public policy.
I wonder if we'll explore changing the way we price water, or perhaps even charging varying fixed costs related to things like lot size (not a bad proxy for the amount of infrastructure needed to serve a given user). It seems that allowing costs to escalate across the board continually would put undue pressure on vulnerable users, and wouldn't be the best way to meet our goals (like reduction in consumption).