Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So for me and my wallet, I'm watching what is going on with the weather trends. If I get the sense PHX is getting the short end of the water long-term (OR we might get our unfair share of rain: who knows), I'm getting out before others do. Just as there are dumb (uneducated) people not knowing what you know about AZ water plans, others are convinced manmade climate change is 100% B.S. The truth is normally in between both camps. I digress..... But for now, we are fine. The 1st to get hammered if sh*t hits the fan will be the farmers.
Exactly what magic indicator(s) would trip your "bail out" meter? From my armchair today there appears to be lots and lots of water. I'm admittedly no expert, but good grief farmers here are still growing water-intensive crops like cotton and corn. Our water rates in Gilbert are incredibly low, starting at $1.20 per 1000 gal. The highest rate is $2.06, which applies only to monthly usage over 30,000 gal.
Just curious. I don't plan to stay here for the long term, as I don't like the summers and I don't want to own two homes.
I look at it this way: for too long, people have been pouring in here (no pun intended) because they want to get away from colder & wetter climates. Many of these same people give little or no thought about the water situation. So long as water magically arrives from the tap, there must not be an issue with supplies.
()
Thanks in part to an excess of the kind of weather they moved here for, we are now faced with cutbacks. As a result, somebody has to suffer. It's too bad the ones who face the first cutbacks can't be the ignorant heliophiles ... however, we can't pick & choose, so it rightfully has to be the ones who use the greatest percentage of the CAP supply, and that is the farmers. Since a large amount of the farming in Maricopa & Pinal Counties is unnecessary, antiquated, and doesn't benefit the majority, I'm convinced this must be largely done away with. At the same time, what I don't want to see happen is these fields left vacant. If they can be replaced with profitable modernized development, I'd be all for it.
Eventually, what this very well could lead to is higher rates for all of us. That's fine. I like my green grass & shade trees, and have no intentions of giving them up ... therefore, since I'm a user, I will pay the increase, even though it will mean a greater pinch to the budget for me & many others. If we're going to have millions of people living in a dry climate such as this where there has been rapid growth, and yet increasing concerns of water availability, the cost of water shouldn't be cheap.
Exactly what magic indicator(s) would trip your "bail out" meter? From my armchair today there appears to be lots and lots of water. I'm admittedly no expert, but good grief farmers here are still growing water-intensive crops like cotton and corn. Our water rates in Gilbert are incredibly low, starting at $1.20 per 1000 gal. The highest rate is $2.06, which applies only to monthly usage over 30,000 gal.
Just curious. I don't plan to stay here for the long term, as I don't like the summers and I don't want to own two homes.
Like you, PHX area isn't my long-term spot. Eventually, I too will get down to one home. Knowing my wife, I'll have no option but to get closer to at least one future grandchild. In fact, my wife wants to bail here in MN and buy a spot in Spokane on a lake (I like the WA state income tax too). I would love to have a home on Lake Coeur d'Alene. But it would cost me $5M to get something I love and I couldn't remotely afford that.
As for the "bail out" meter. It's going to be perception base. When I personally leave is related to being a resident. I kind of like my $350K in appreciation over the past single year and I'd like to keep all of it. So much so as my new official residence is PHX, not MN. Because you need to live in a state for at least 2 years or you WILL pay capital gains on an appreciating home. I had to pay gains on my large appreciation for the house I sold in Surprise. It's 20% federal capital gains tax for me plus the state income tax rate. Ouch! I digress.
So whenever enough people start to get skittish about long-term AZ climate change for the worse, that's when the perception is going to change. And I plan to be out before it impacts values. By no means will this automatically happen. As I said, we might get rain like mad. "Climate change" can mean all kinds of things. So the bail meter is 100% perception which will impact PHX area home values. My meter is based on reading the tea leaves which I'm pretty good at. My hope is that we are in good shape with perception for another decade. Time will tell. If I sell, I might rent a home until I am ready to leave. $350K pays for a lot of rent.
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 08-21-2021 at 05:57 AM..
If we're going to have millions of people living in a dry climate such as this where there has been rapid growth, and yet increasing concerns of water availability, the cost of water shouldn't be cheap.
Agreed. Raise the rates and watch people conserve. A related observation.... Here in Northern, MN nearly every person is driving a truck or a nonefficient SUV (myself included). I remember 2008 when gas hit $4 a gallon. I would fill up at Costco and quickly noticed trucks were hard to find at the pump?! If you remember that era, there was a HUGE line to buy a Toyota Prius while truck sales got HAMMERED. Used truck and large SUV values dropped like a rock. I sold my Chevy Avalanche in 2008 and used my car. I'm heavily motivated by my wallet.
Then, gas prices tanked a few years later and you could not give a Prius away. Toyota dealers were losing $$ on each transaction to get rid of them. So from charging over retail to losing $$ inside of a few years. And truck and large SUV sales soared once again. Yea, I realize that my gas-guzzling SUV and my 1.5 miles per gallon boat (which is TYPICAL boat milage) are part of the problem. But until you nail my pocketbook, I'm going to behave selfishly.
I would love for water to be hiked in price. Then use those revenues to reduce my taxes. Just as I would love to see gas prices raised by at least $1 a gallon (and reduce my taxes). So the net out of pocket would be equal and water (and gas) would be conserved. But politicians won't do it. They often wait for a massive crisis to happen. So we are where we are.
Agreed. Raise the rates and watch people conserve. A related observation.... Here in Northern, MN nearly every person is driving a truck or a nonefficient SUV (myself included). I remember 2008 when gas hit $4 a gallon. I would fill up at Costco and quickly noticed trucks were hard to find at the pump?! If you remember that era, there was a HUGE line to buy a Toyota Prius while truck sales got HAMMERED. Used truck and large SUV values dropped like a rock. I sold my Chevy Avalanche in 2008 and used my car. I'm heavily motivated by my wallet.
Then, gas prices tanked a few years later and you could not give a Prius away. Toyota dealers were losing $$ on each transaction to get rid of them. So from charging over retail to losing $$ inside of a few years. And truck and large SUV sales soared once again. Yea, I realize that my gas-guzzling SUV and my 1.5 miles per gallon boat (which is TYPICAL boat milage) are part of the problem. But until you nail my pocketbook, I'm going to behave selfishly.
I would love for water to be hiked in price. Then use those revenues to reduce my taxes. Just as I would love to see gas prices raised by at least $1 a gallon (and reduce my taxes). So the net out of pocket would be equal and water (and gas) would be conserved. But politicians won't do it. They often wait for a massive crisis to happen. So we are where we are.
Hmm. Sounds like a plan to make the lower and middle income water users pay for tax cuts for the wealthier people.
Anyway, raising rates would presumably reduce use and so revenue yield from lower usage would fall concomitantly (like the gas taxes). If it did increase revenue, however, it would be better spent on developing things like lining or converting irrigation laterals, tertiary treatment and recharge facilities, recycle systems, providing low water use fixtures to residents, incentives for conversion of turf, etc.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,660,819 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valley Native
I look at it this way: for too long, people have been pouring in here (no pun intended) because they want to get away from colder & wetter climates. Many of these same people give little or no thought about the water situation. So long as water magically arrives from the tap, there must not be an issue with supplies.
()
Thanks in part to an excess of the kind of weather they moved here for, we are now faced with cutbacks. As a result, somebody has to suffer. It's too bad the ones who face the first cutbacks can't be the ignorant heliophiles ... however, we can't pick & choose, so it rightfully has to be the ones who use the greatest percentage of the CAP supply, and that is the farmers. Since a large amount of the farming in Maricopa & Pinal Counties is unnecessary, antiquated, and doesn't benefit the majority, I'm convinced this must be largely done away with. At the same time, what I don't want to see happen is these fields left vacant. If they can be replaced with profitable modernized development, I'd be all for it.
Eventually, what this very well could lead to is higher rates for all of us. That's fine. I like my green grass & shade trees, and have no intentions of giving them up ... therefore, since I'm a user, I will pay the increase, even though it will mean a greater pinch to the budget for me & many others. If we're going to have millions of people living in a dry climate such as this where there has been rapid growth, and yet increasing concerns of water availability, the cost of water shouldn't be cheap.
Funny that you prioritize green grass and shade trees more than non-wealthy kids getting an education that won't bankrupt their parents
Funny that you prioritize green grass and shade trees more than non-wealthy kids getting an education that won't bankrupt their parents
What happened if he said he likes his specialty coffee and eating out and will raise his budget accordingly? Are you going to tie that into "non-wealthy kids getting an education that won't bankrupt their parents" too?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,660,819 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
What happened if he said he likes his specialty coffee and eating out and will raise his budget accordingly? Are you going to tie that into "non-wealthy kids getting an education that won't bankrupt their parents" too?
Said poster doesn't like paying property taxes, and thinks public schools should be abolished (and still thinks primary education should be compulsory, but with parents paying tuition, even if they can't afford it)
Still think it's stupid he's willing to pay for a green lawn, but not to help educate local children. Priorities that are out of whack if I ever heard them
Hmm. Sounds like a plan to make the lower and middle income water users pay for tax cuts for the wealthier people.
Anyway, raising rates would presumably reduce use and so revenue yield from lower usage would fall concomitantly (like the gas taxes). If it did increase revenue, however, it would be better spent on developing things like lining or converting irrigation laterals, tertiary treatment and recharge facilities, recycle systems, providing low water use fixtures to residents, incentives for conversion of turf, etc.
Excellent comment it won’t let me vote for you again. Raising rates did significantly alter water use in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Santa Fe is interesting in that it is mostly a wealthy town, similar to Sedona meaning they have the means to pay for more intensive unnative landscaping, and applied a progressive structure to their rates. Rates were increased by a very healthy percentage after certain thresholds in gallons. What we now see is a town that averages around 65-70 GPCD, despite the town being mostly wealthy and with single family homes to boot. One thing you’ll see if you go to Santa Fe is their community embraces the cold desert landscape, unlike a significant portion of Phoenicians some of which have proved this in this thread alone, but also one can spend maybe five minutes driving through any part of town and see this point made too.
Whether Santa Fe legitimately raised their revenue from this I’m unsure, but they did succeed in sustainability which means they will need less wells, treatment plants, to supply the city, and therefore effectively reduced future costs in infrastructure and labor. As I’ve quoted above for wells to meet SDWA and engineering requirements it often costs utilities millions of dollars and that’s assuming no treatment. The goal should be reducing water use even if there is no drought, to keep water rates in check, which all customers bought from.
If a water system here implemented Santa Fe’s progressive rate structure and earned additional profit, they are not obligated to return that money. While most water utilities are ran by municipalities, it is not money earned from taxes but by permits and bills. They have a much more free budget but as a result they are tied to using that money for themselves. Municipal water utilities cannot use their money to fund something like say, schools, and likewise cities often cannot use taxpayer money to fund water infrastructure projects, due to the fact that the water utility is expected to run in the green. Taxpayers can vote on bonds to support costly water infrastructure projects (like say surface water plant revisions) but they are just that, bonds and loans. Private water utilities are bound by the Arizona Corporation Commission to maintain a healthy reserve for these projects, municipalities have their own ways of requirements on maintaining these reserves.
I personally would like to see more programs to encourage low water use appliances for domestic water users.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
So much so as my new official residence is PHX, not MN. Because you need to live in a state for at least 2 years or you WILL pay capital gains on an appreciating home. I had to pay gains on my large appreciation for the house I sold in Surprise. 
It's 20% federal capital gains tax for me plus the state income tax rate. Ouch! I digress. 
If you remember that era, there was a HUGE line to buy a Toyota Prius while truck sales got HAMMERED. Used truck and large SUV values dropped like a rock. I sold my Chevy Avalanche in 2008 and used my car. I'm heavily motivated by my wallet.
