Water Conservation

[Tim Rankin]

Mortimer, your post is living proof of your accounting credentials. My head is still spinning, having tried to keep up with your numbers and calculations.

Yes, I did suspect that Zoidberg was toying with us. He's like the college philosophy professor who challenges the class to prove there's not a pink elephant in the room, and then defeats them in the ensuing debate.

As far as my pool comment is concerned; of course I was poking fun at him. And I do remember the thread about pools vs. lawns. The idea of a water-guzzling, Kentucky bluegrass lawn in ABQ is just insane. However, I still maintain, as I did in that same thread, that there are lawns that trump pools. A properly planted & developed lawn consisting of grama, galleta & buffalo can exist with no add'l water. A properly maintained buffalo-only lawn will need add'l water, but nothing remotely near a bluegrass or other high-water-usage grass lawn. Btw I like the idea of a backyard consisting of pine trees, with a deep layer of weed-suppressing pine needles [provided none of one's neighbors are pyromaniacs].

highdesertmutz - Your comment about drinking pee made me think of Frank Herbert's Dune...specifically the Freemen of Arakis, wearing their water-recycling stillsuits. Awesome book, if you've never read it...

[songinthewind7]

Anybody on here use one of those buckets to catch rain?
I haven't done that yet but it's sprinkling rain some today and it came to mind.

[dpgtfc]

Originally Posted by hopeful transplant

Song - I'm the only one that uses my 'loo', so I conserve on the number of flushes in a day.... works for me. Probably way TMI, aye?

I do this when I'm at home. If I just pee, I don't flush it every time.

Now in public places I have been known to do the friendly "courtesy flush" to limit smell, but usually only once.

[Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Zoidberg is one of the most skillful "pot-stirrers" and "string-pullers" I've
ever seen. He may be serious, but OF COURSE he's jacking with you/us/me.

I'm humbled. Thanks for the kind words.

He's on record as saying "arguing is fun ..."

Was that tape recorder on? Seriously, officer, she said she was 18.

Zoidberg has taken trolling to an art form. You almost can't even tell
that he's doing it. The Master. < bowing up-and-down with arms out>

I hope you don't mean trolling in terms of attacking others or causing disruption. Just to check, I consulted urban dictionary on what trolling means, and I was surprised how many different definitions it had.

As has been earlier discussed, pools don't really use much when you are
comparing them to lawns. (Unless, of course, you are Zoidberg and your
pool is a leaky old relic.)

Will find out in the spring just how leaky and old it is. Luckily, I haven't been filling it all winter.

Do I feel guilty about owning a pool? Sometimes, but only on account of the time expense (cleaning) and money expense (chemicals, gas heat, and upkeep). The water use doesn't factor in at all.

Z> It wouldn't be right to make it completely free. ...

Yes it would. If the goal is to get people to conserve water
then having it cost a whopping $3 to double my use from 1,000
to 2,000 gallons or $6 to double it from 2,000 to 4,000 gallons
doesn't make sense.

If I use 2,000 gallons it costs me $57, but if I use 4,000
my bill shoots up to $63. What's my incentive to conserve?
If, instead, those fixed costs are allocated to those who
regularly use 100,000+ gallons a month, there would be
good reason for most people to cut back.

Using that logic, the fixed up-front/infrastructure costs should be reduced (subsidized) by increasing per-use costs.

This would probably come out in the wash (heavy users would subsidize light users) until demand drops, meaning the infrastructure costs would be underfunded. In fact, we're noticing this is already the case. Our fixed costs have gone way up.

The system needs people to use it at its designed capacity, or the per-use model fails. By artificially increasing heavy users' incentive to conserve, their conservation creates a revenue shortfall with this model.

In fact, the situation you seek may already be present, causing this problem.

That was my take and I am in agreement. However, here we
have to argue about the definition of "worry." (Remember that
it is "fun to argue" so Zoidberg should be happy.)

Oh, I'm thrilled.

I can afford to pay $10, if necessary, for water to drink. You can
extract water from the air we breath for that much money.

You can visit here for one tech company. For the doubters out there, this stuff works even in the Atacama desert, the driest spot on Earth, where rain has never been recorded.

[mortimer]

Zoidberg wondered:

> I hope you don't mean trolling in terms of attacking others or causing disruption.

Well, yes, but only in a good way. Like I said, it's almost indetectable unlike the "I hate this ..." or "You all s u c k ... " types of posts. When you do it, it's OK. It's art.

Do you know how when you get your blood tested - sometimes, the technician hurts your arm and others that stick you are so skilled that you don't even know you're pricked unless you look.

You could preface your posts with "this won't hurt a bit," but that would be giving it away.

> Do I feel guilty about owning a pool? Sometimes, ... the time expense ...

Gee. I would think that you would feel stupid at that moment rather than guilty.

> Using that logic, the fixed up-front/infrastructure costs should be
> reduced (subsidized) by increasing per-use costs.

Right. That's what I'm saying.

> The system needs people to use it at its designed capacity,
> or the per-use model fails.

With expanding population, I don't see the capacity of the system going down any time soon.

> By artificially increasing heavy users' incentive to conserve,
> their conservation creates a revenue shortfall with this model.

It doesn't have to. The fixed fee portions are pretty much raised at will, so the cost-per-gallon fees can also be raised.

> In fact, the situation you seek may already be present, causing this problem.

If it is, it's because the fixed fees haven't kept up with the increased capacity.

All I'm saying is that if you want people to cut back on water use, then there should be a more direct correlation between your monthly bill and your monthly use.

I conserve as sort of a game. I like having an average consumption only 30% of the average. The money isn't a big deal. Someday it might be.