THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Low-flow fixtures costing water customers


image_pdfimage_print

By Katherine Shaver, Washington Post

Federally mandated low-flow toilets, shower heads and faucets are taking a financial toll on the nation’s water utilities, leaving customers to make up the shortfall with higher water rates and new fees that have left many paying more for less.

Utility officials say they understand that charging more for water because demand has dropped might seem to violate a basic premise of Economics 101. But utilities that generally charge by the number of gallons used are beginning to feel the financial pinch of 20 years of environmentally friendly fixtures and appliances, as older bathrooms and kitchens have been remodeled, utility experts say.

Federal laws aimed at conserving water limit toilets that once needed up to seven gallons per flush to 1.6 gallons. Shower heads that spewed up to eight gallons per minute are being replaced with sprays of about 2.5 gallons.

Read the whole story

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (12)
  1. copper says - Posted: August 6, 2014

    Gotta take care of the stockholders – in today’s America, they’re far more important than the customers. Who ever heard of a “customer” making a major campaign contribution?

  2. reloman says - Posted: August 6, 2014

    yes but the consumer do vote, large contributors only have one vote

  3. Dogula says - Posted: August 6, 2014

    STPUD: South Tahoe PUBLIC UTILITY District. Stockholders? I don’t think so. Yet they keep raising our rates, AND their own pay and benefits. Governing boards make the determination, and though they may not be elected, don’t kid yourself that it isn’t political.

  4. Buck says - Posted: August 6, 2014

    We get to vote on three board members in November. Lets get some that will not keep raising rates. It’s easy. Maybe even repeal rates? Get out and vote!!!!

  5. Moral Hazard says - Posted: August 6, 2014

    This article could have STPUD substituted in the article and it would read roughly the same. So in order to continue to have reduced demand and thus be eligible for grants for badly needed upgrades; STPUD had to shift costs to people who live here.

    Now, residents who use water by living here are subsidizing the fixed costs of delivering a pipe to a second homeowners house. The monthly base rate for a hookup does not cover the fixed costs of having the hookup. So second homeowners cost the STPUD. That money gets made up with high costs per gallon for the people actually using water everyday.

    That’s exactly what this article is about, the cause is just a little different.

  6. cosa pescado says - Posted: August 6, 2014

    Or you can all just pay for a system that can only deliver water to houses and be inadequate for fire protection and keep your rates low. The idea that there is some violation of Econ 101 is a moronical oversimplification. It is more complicated than that.
    On a related note, I am selling pitch forks and torches at a discount to rabid yokels in SLT. They come with a free ‘Calvin peeing on the logo of the (insert agency here)’ stickers.

  7. hmmm.... says - Posted: August 7, 2014

    @reloman…aside from being syntactically challenged, are you serious?

    @cosa-Now THERE’S the entrepreneurial spirit! I wonder of you could make stickers addressing some of the more ‘willfully ignorant’ teabagging libturdarian ‘agencies’…without getting sued.

    @moral-interesting point.

  8. Irish Wahini says - Posted: August 7, 2014

    Im not sure if STPUD publishes all salaries, but a worker-bee withut a college degree makes close to $40 per hours PLUS benefits.

  9. fireman says - Posted: August 7, 2014

    so it takes a college degree to have any sort of skill or to be allowed to make more than minimum wage. I personally think the skills of keeping our sewage flowing out of the basin and keeping safe drinking water in our faucets is worth something. I want skilled people that are paid a fair wage for their skill to do that. Maybe we could get some minimum wage workers there and see how it goes. Just because you didn’t go to college doesn’t mean you are not skilled.

  10. Reloman says - Posted: August 7, 2014

    Fireman 87k a year is far from min. wage.

  11. fireman says - Posted: August 7, 2014

    yes it is but do you know what skills these people have or what the job is about. The main thing I was trying to get across was the idea of no college education and you are just a worker bee and not entitled to a good job. Just think some research into what people do for a living before complaining about what they make is only fair. I don’t know what all those people do or what the skill set is so I wont complain about what they make. But I do know it is not a simple “worker bee” mindless job that many of those folks have.

  12. cosa pescado says - Posted: August 7, 2014

    Fireman, don’t forget the institutional knowledge there people have. The longer the workers stay the more they know, the better they are and the harder they are to replace. How many years experience do you need for $87k and what certifications do they have? Talking about salary out of context is pointless.

    Update on my new business. I was contacted by an agency and apparently handing out torches requires permits, training, and probably violates numerous laws. So now pitchforks are buy 2 get 1 free, and receive 1 dozen stickers of Calvin peeing on the logo of that agency.