Forum and Classifieds

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

Water Rate Increases

(26 posts)

Started 1 year ago by gasjet2000
Latest reply from dsomers

gasjet2000

offline
Member

The top story on the Seattle Times website this morning details some proposals by SPU to raise the water rates in Seattle: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2016189719_water13m.html

Apparently we have some of the highest water rates in the country, yet the supply is bountiful and we, as a collective, environmentally-friendly city, use less and less water. In fact, one of the reasons SPU is proposing a rate increase is because residents are using less water (as we have been told to do) and revenue is falling. This, in effect, makes SPU a for-profit business instead of a publicly owned utility. The proposals go to the City Council for approval. How much is enough? Just wondering what some people's thoughts are on this and maybe what percentage of income residents pay for utilities? I read some responses to the article and there is one from a person who lives in the desert in California who pays less for water even though it has to be delivered to them. For those interested in where this money is going I would suggest looking at your water bill and estimating how much is actually going to maintenance and delivery and how much is going to bureaucratic utility nonsense (taxes, administration, "billing," etc.)

Posted 1 year ago #
great idea

offline
Member

I think quite a bit is going to maintenance and delivery. Lots of that old infrastructure is falling apart, let alone the new lids they feel the need to put on resevoirs thanks to the perceived terrorist threat.

the rate increases seem to be the same more or less from the past 10 years. other than the city tax that goes into the general fund, the rates aren't that different from other cities.

many people spend more on cable tv then the 30 or 40 bucks a month for water. $300 a year is only 1% of your income if you only made 30k. this is a pittance for most people, and given the fine quality of our water, well worth it.

Posted 1 year ago #
dsomers

offline
Member

To put some perspective on Seattle's water. We still have our house in Hawaii up on the summit of Kilauea on the Big Island. There is no water supply up there.

Rainfall is collected from your roof and then piped into large storage or catchment tanks. Because of the very nearby active volcano the water is highly acidic. You also need to be very careful about filtering and treating your water because dead animals (birds and mice particularly) and their faeces end up in your tanks, along with anything else that falls on your roof.

If you experience a drought you have to have water delivered in tanker trucks to fill your catchment tanks. They come from about 25 or so miles away so the expense of delivery is fairly high. And you have the potential for the tanks and whole plumbing system being compromised by an ashfall should the volcano erupt when the wind can carry the ash in your direction.

So while we have "free" water up there you have to account for the purchase cost of a tank that holds anywhere from 5-10,000 gallons, and a fair amount of expense maintaining the tank, filtration and treatment systems. Like someone running a well, you also have electric costs involved in pumping the water and maintaining adequate pipe pressure in the house. Hawaii has some of the highest electric rates in the nation and a water pump is a heavy consumer of electricity.

It is actually a very good way of dealing with water but it puts all the onus for the safety and quality of your water supply on you as a homeowner/renter, and it can involve more expense than you might think for "free" water.

Seattle's water is excellent. If homeowners are paying $30 to $40 per month for water of this quality that doesn't seem egregious to me. Especially given the water supply situation in many parts of the nation or around the world. But that is my opinion of course.

D

Posted 1 year ago #
RichY

offline
Member

Seattle Water increases is only about $3.00 / month the rest of the bill goes to the county (metro).

http://www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Billing/Rates_Summary/index.asp

Posted 1 year ago #
great idea

offline
Member

interesting link RichY.

the sewer rate increase is much greater than the water supply. the former is going up $9 while the latter is only going up $4 by 2014.

hard to believe considering the successful push to have Seattlites use the bathroom less. we've all been holding it in for nothing.

Posted 1 year ago #
RichY

offline
Member

If you dig into the sewer rates, again Metro, they are tied to water usage in the winter months - the assumption is in the winter all the water goes into the sewer, then the same rate (monthly) is applied during the summer - that way if water usage goes up the assumption is that it is for the garden. Maybe they need to put meters on the sewer, or audit Metro (King County)

Posted 1 year ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

The elephant in the room for the sewage rates is the almost-completed, massively-over-budget Brightwater sewage treatment plant. There was a lot of talk about "growth paying for growth", but existing connections (e.g. most of Seattle) still ends up paying for a chunk of it, even though we won't use it.

Interestingly, the massive boom in growth that was going to overwhelm current sewage treatment hasn't happened yet, so it looks like Brightwater is more of an investment for the next generation than for us. At least it made everyone aware of deep-bore tunneling technology!

I'm appreciative of the Seattle water supply and the forethought and investment that secured some excellent development-free watersheds for the system. However, I'm a bit worried about poorly-managed spending, such as the failed rain gardens, that happens because city-owned utilities are often seen as convenient slush funds for politically-driven projects at best tangentially related to the utility's core mission. There's not much incentive to keep costs down.

Posted 1 year ago #
Ballardguy

offline
Member

They are probably trying to cover some of the millions they lost for our "rain garden B.S. We have cut back so much on all of our utilities at home but yet the bills keep getting higher.
Just more B.S.

Posted 1 year ago #
Norse

offline
Member

I live alone and have been watching my SPU bill for the last two years. A friend of mine is from Des Moines, IA and has a pet peeve about the meter reading. In Des Moines if the property owner (renter) goes out and reads the meter they save the meter reading cost or base service charge. We aren't given that option and at certain times of the year (winter to summer to winter, etc.) we are charged twice in one two-month period for both the winter base service charge and summer base service charge. And why the two charges? I only have one meter, one reading on one day. In keeping tabs on my bill, I notice that in any given two month period I can go from a usage of 3 CCF to 7 CCF without any noticeable change in what goes on in my house -- no broken water pipes, no guests visiting, no lawn watering, my usual three loads of laundry, using the dishwasher once a week, etc. So obviously my meter is not being read every two months, they are estimating, yet I am billed a service charge for something that does not occur and this service charge can be as high as $28 for two months. Over the last 2 years this has probably cost me $250. Is this something that should be overlooked?
As far as I am concerned Seattle should have the least expensive water in the country along with the least expensive electrical rates -- after all it rains all the time here, we have had an extensive snow pack this year.

Posted 1 year ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

Part of the reason rates go up as usage goes down is that there is a fixed amount of infrastructure to maintain. Just because I'm using less water doesn't mean the pipe in front of my house is in any better condition. Meters on sewer are possible for larger pipes, but difficult and prone to clogging on individual home side sewers.

Posted 1 year ago #
Cougar Bob

offline
Member

Norse - "after all it rains all the time here, we have had an extensive snow pack this year."

Seattle - 37" annual rainfall. The southeast gets way more rain than we do.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762183.html

Posted 1 year ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

Norse, that's an interesting observation. You should try calling up SPU and ask just what the base charge is for in detail, and ask for the actual numeric readings and dates of readings for recent months. I would think they should at least prorate the charge on bills that include both summer and winter rates.

Posted 1 year ago #
RichY

offline
Member

Cougar bob - wow, why would anyone live in Mt. Washington, N.H.

Posted 1 year ago #
Cougar Bob

offline
Member

Isn't Mt Washington the one true serious peak in the Appalachians?

Posted 1 year ago #
dsomers

offline
Member

Cougar B,

Mt Washington is in the White Mountains in NH rather than the Applachians. It gets some completely serious weather.

D

Posted 1 year ago #
Mondoman

offline
Member

Just "some"? :) Isn't that the home of 100mph+ winds, ridiculous amounts of snow, etc?

Posted 1 year ago #
PizzaGuy

offline
Member

Mondoman - It is indeed the home to 100+mph winds and loads of snow. Great place to test gear!

Posted 1 year ago #
stopgo

offline
Member

i ran my shower for three days straight

Posted 1 year ago #
PizzaGuy

offline
Member

stopgo - were you in it or did you just run it?

Posted 1 year ago #
stopgo

offline
Member

Little bit of both pie guy.

Posted 1 year ago #
PizzaGuy

offline
Member

As long as you were in it that isn't considered wasting the resource.

Posted 1 year ago #
The Plumber

offline
Member

Fact check -

The average Seattle homeowner pays about $32 per month for water and about $54 for sewer per month. The proposed rate increase is about $2.50 a month.

Posted 1 year ago #
great idea

offline
Member

doesn't it seem odd that we pay more to get rid of water (sewer) than to obtain fresh, clean water?

I know they base your usage on winter months to take into consideration irrigation of plants. But what if I'm using all that water year-round and none of it's going down the drain?
what if I'm just really thirsty all the time? what about grey-water systems? people collecting water from rooftop runoff then flushing toilets with it. free sewer service I imagine since there's no account of this water being delivered? that would be incentive alone to install such a system.

Posted 1 year ago #
RichY

offline
Member

If you drink a lot - it will eventually go down the sewer, but the run-off water to the toilets is not a bad idea, great idea.

History does repeat itself, first with the point of use, and on demand hot water systems, now holding tanks for toilets, next the steam powered and electric cars!

Posted 1 year ago #
boatgeek

offline
Member

doesn't it seem odd that we pay more to get rid of water (sewer) than to obtain fresh, clean water?

Sewage is a lot harder to treat than relatively clean river water. Drinking water is pretty much just pulled from the river, screened for big chunks (raccoons, tires, etc.), sterilized, chlorinated and fluoridated, and sent on its way. Sewage has the screen, but then it has several settling and digestion tanks where the solids are reduced to a manageable level, then it's sterilize and discharged into the Sound. The settling and digestion takes a lot of space and maintenance. This is grossly oversimplified, but you get the general idea.

Sewage also flows only downhill, so if it gets to the bottom of the hill, it has to be pumped up again. I don't know if this is the case in Seattle, but Bellevue's water (from the same source) is nearly all gravity fed from the high-pressure lines from the Cedar/Tolt treatment plants. Also factoring in is that sewage pipes are much larger than water supply pipes (your house probably has 3/4" water in and 4" sewage out), so maintenance and replacement costs are correspondingly higher.

From a recovering civil engineer. :)

Posted 1 year ago #
dsomers

offline
Member

Boatgeek. You mentioned that sewage flows downhill?

When I worked at Crater Lake National Park they had their own sewage treatment plant there. There was a device on our sewer lines that was installed by our engineers at the time. The device was called a Rustrak Ranger. Rustrak was the company name. Ranger was the product.

Its purpose? To measure the volume "effluent" as it flowed downhill. They were concerned that it flow smoothly so I guess you could say they were measuring the efficacy of the effluent?

The OTHER Rangers in the park were not amused by this device's name. It was pretty amusing to the rest of us though!!!!

(rangers get picked on by their co-workers all the time in a national park)

From a recovering ranger. :)

D

Posted 1 year ago #