Insane water use my landlord wants to force on me

[Radio Flyer]

Is hard-scape code for rocks?

I really hate that look.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Radio Flyer

Is hard-scape code for rocks?

I really hate that look.

Hardscape is basically anything that is not alive... rocks, pavers, aggregate, concrete, bark, etc...

I often find people have very definite opinions regarding landscape...

At one time I managed two single family homes on the same street... one had a front yard of junipers and rocks put in during one of the water shortages... the other identical home, right down to exterior paint had a lush lawn and landscaping... even had a strip of lawn running up the middle of the driveway.

The owner decided to sell both homes... the one that was landscaped received multiple offers the first week and sold a little of asking... the identical home across the street didn't... even though any new owner would not have the expense of landscape water and care...

I currently manage a home where the tenants asked to have hardscape removed... the owner is not interested because of the expense and on going maintenance...

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Water usage in the East Bay has a long history and not taking that into context is short sighted.

It was not too long ago the water districts had excess capacity and encouraged irrigated landscape to boost the districts bottom line...

Look no further to the fact that every district has pushed rate increases solely because water consumption is down... high water users are not getting something for nothing, in fact, they pay a premium that subsidizes those with modest consumption... if anything, the rate structure should be reversed and we would all benefit because revenue would increase.

Having worked for one of the largest districts there for 17 years I take exception. There are a few small private companies for which this is true, but a utility district, by state law, must charge what it has to in order to provide the water/sewer service. With little or no tax revenue they must increase rates when use is lower, but there is no "bottom line" because they are not for profit. Yes, their salaries are high, and they could cut some fat, but any excess revenue is used for deferred maintenance, water conservation programs, and to secure additional water sources to meet the future demand. It costs money to replace 100 year old pipes under busy streets. Inclining rate structures are designed to be revenue neutral, so the higher rates per CCF for bigger users means less increase for everyone else, and does not bring in more money to the district.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

Having worked for one of the largest districts there for 17 years I take exception. There are a few small private companies for which this is true, but a utility district, by state law, must charge what it has to in order to provide the water/sewer service. With little or no tax revenue they must increase rates when use is lower, but there is no "bottom line" because they are not for profit. Yes, their salaries are high, and they could cut some fat, but any excess revenue is used for deferred maintenance, water conservation programs, and to secure additional water sources to meet the future demand. It costs money to replace 100 year old pipes under busy streets. Inclining rate structures are designed to be revenue neutral, so the higher rates per CCF for bigger users means less increase for everyone else, and does not bring in more money to the district.

Increasing rates when use is lower is exactly my point... paying more for less.

I only know a single person on the PUC... he said it is a constant battle to establish "Equitable" rate structures... at one time, it was standard policy to grant large users lower rates because the actual cost of providing the service diminishes with scale... high volume users, even with a discount subsidized low volume users...

If I turn on the faucet for 10 minutes a day or 10 hours a day... the same infrastructure must be in place to deliver the water and since water used for landscaping has little impact on waste water side of things, it is easier to factor the cost.

During one of the last droughts... I reported a leaking underground valve to EBMUD... the leak bubbled out of the ground and sent a small but steady stream into the curb gutters... it had gone on so long, slime/algae had formed.

After repeated calls and calculating the water flow of about a 1000 gallons a day... down the drain, the water company bowed to public pressure and replaced the valve.

I spoke to the engineer and asked why it took so many months in the middle of the drought to keep 30,000 gallons a month from going down the drain... his reply is it would take decades for the company to recover the cost of the repair based on the cost of water wasted...

The only reason it did get fixed was it was bad Public Relations after the newspaper did a story on it...

PS... NBC channel 11 is currently doing a series of stories in Santa Clara alleging waste at the same time the district is requesting a rate increase...

[kettlepot]

I do understand the standard "economies of scale" argument about giving discounts to larger volume users. However, in the case of water, perhaps there is an alternative argument to make which is that large users should pay the incremental cost of the next added unit of capacity. For example, if capacity needed to be expanded, and that expansion had to come from a desalinization plant, or from a pipeline from the Columbia River basin over the length of Oregon into the Sacramento watershed, or some exotic solution such as that, then your 10,000 gallon a day users should pay full freight for the cost of expanding capacity. It could be argued that if your high volume residential users reduced their usage to 1000 gallons a day from 10,000, that capacity expansion wouldn't be necessary.

Every area has access to a limited amount of cheap water, somewhat more expensive regional water, and then highly expensive exotic water. After accounting for the system maintenance fees, perhaps everyone should have equal access to a limited amount of the cheap local water, and then as their usage rises, they tier up to pay for the more expensive regional or exotic water rather than averaging all of the water together. If you don't want to pay the higher rates, don't use 1k or 10k gallons of water a day.

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by dlyoung123

If the grasses used on lawns is native? Then why so much watering? Now the bay area may not be a true desert. But it is definitely on the arid end of the scale. Compared to say Iowa or most of the other Midwestern states. (Where there has been water restrictions mind you! Even in Iowa city Iowa. Which just happens to have a river and a couple creeks running through it.) What I was trying to get at. Is the fact somebody is being forced to be wasteful. Native grasses and other vegetation. Being adapted to the c limit. Shouldn't require much watering at all. Which is why I feel its such a good idea. To just get rid of the stereotypical lawn. Which I frankly find down right ugly! I much prefer the colors and textures of native grasses. Which also do not usually need as much mowing or upkeep once established. Another big plus. Esp with spare the air days and rising fuel cost.
You say the water districts *had* excess capacity? Interesting. Since don't you think it would be better if they *Have* excess capacity instead of *Had*? Esp during say fire season? And the idea behind water conservation isn't to make profit for the district. Its to insure your children and your children's children. Will have enough water. And when you turn on a fire hose. Something will actually come out the end of it.

You also have to take into consideraton that a large number of places have HOAs that REQUIRE water hogging lawns.

[steel7]

Having a green lawn during the dry months is nice but costly. I live in a mh park & my lawn is all rocks. My last water bill was $6.00.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

OP needs to read the fine print in the lease. I would be willing to bet that the lease does specify that the renter needs to cover landscaping water costs.