"We Need a Water Efficient Economy"

Hate to see this (3.00 / 2)

I hate to see SOS's misrepresentations go this wide. The water rate figures have been roundly discredited - but more importantly, if you want people to conserve water, the best way to do it would be to raise water rates. So SOS's stated position isn't even internally consistent.

---

by: m1ek @ Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 14:24:38 PM UTC

thanks Mike (2.00 / 1)

anyone wanting to view SOS's responses to Mike's comment simply go view the conversation over at http://www.austinpost.org/cont...

thanks, Chris

---

by: Chris Searles @ Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 22:32:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No real answers (0.00 / 0)

The SOS replies don't address the questions raised, specifically:

1. What are they actually advocating in terms of the use of remaining money? They say that a bunch is left. Fine.  But do they want to use it for leaky pipes (in which case those "high rates" stay high), postpone WTP4 (still "high rates"), or not use the money at all (and just have dumped $150 million dollars, which might be fine, but they should be transparent about that).  This is pretty important - if WTP4 is postponed we should definitely use that debt to do something.  But all this high rate discourse potentially makes it difficult to immediately redeploy the money.  And on has to wonder if the rhetoric is just an instrument or an actual belief.

2. Do they still feel comfortable saying all 66% is WTP4? Here's a link with the breakdown of costs that the utility provided the council:

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/wat...

I'm not sure where they get 14%, but even at that amount, WTP4 is not a significant part of the increase and my concerns about the anti-tax, anti-government discourse still apply.  Moreover, there is no engagement with the idea that the Tea Party-ish undertones might be a long-term problem.

3. Should status quo rates stay the same or even be lowered? It's just really odd to have pro-environment advocates saying that in general, water is too expensive in Texas or America.  That's different from payment hardship issues, but there are many ways to address hardship that are distinct from the overall cost of providing water.

Maybe SOS/RWA is practicing some very nuanced coalition-building that I simply can't grasp and that will pave the way for all the water efficiency investments we want.  I don't know.  But I don't see it yet.

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 23:12:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks Julio, #2. My mistake (0.00 / 0)

Julio -- i'm not a spokesman for SOS so can't address all questions. You did however catch my mistake on question #2. I have corrected that above in the blog.

Here's my correction, "The coalition believes water rates will increase 66% over the next 5 years in part because of the WTP4 project."

My apologies for that! Thank you

---

by: Chris Searles @ Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 13:06:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rhetoric undermines goals (5.00 / 1)

I completely agree that Austin needs to promote water efficiency.  

But the present SOS/RWA discourse undermines the long-term viability of needed water efficiency investments.  Moreover, if you carefully examine their public statements around WTP4 vs leaky pipes, it's unclear if they want to shelve WTP4 permanently and definitely shift the money, or they are just pointing out the need for more leaky pipes investment but won't recommit the money.  Either you lose the money spent so far on WTP4 to shift it to leaky pipes, or you keep WTP4 on a slower schedule but do little about leaky pipes without additional resources. You can't have both.

I really fear that we are doing Austin water efficiency a disservice by conflating the 66% rate hike over five years AW has publicly laid out with WTP4.  The actual amount for WTP4 is more like 9% over five years or about $2 bucks a for a $100 monthly water bill. The average bill is around $26.  My concern is that people will associate future water infrastructure spending with "costly, stupid, boondoggle".

Personally, I wouldn't have voted for WTP4. And I would support a shift to leaky pipes if the data backs it up. But mobilizing Tea Party-lite themes and language is no way to build a citywide majority for the types of bond issues that will be necessary to be lead on water infrastructure, especially leaky pipes. Water efficiency advocates in the US think water is way too cheap for most users.

A progressive approach would:

1. Focus on making the block rates as progressive as possible so that the poorest are not hit and lush lawns and pools are not subsidized by those without those amenities (not to mention the commons). We have some of this; let's make it steeper.

2. Emphasize the importance of additional investment and how cheap it is: "We can replace ancient pipes with new ones that will last generations for a buck a month on the average water bill.  Let's create a Pecan Street for Water." And so on.  We shouldn't be feeding the anti-gov, anti-tax moment.

3. Educate the public that indeed, if we use less water, per unit rates must go up.  Conservation means higher rates because something like 80% of the utility expenses are fixed.  We should be helping the public understand that these rate increases are in no small part the result of successful conservation and needed non-WTP4 infrastructure investments.  We shouldn't be portraying a public utility as some greedy business out to "make money".

Again, I think it's fine if people want to continue opposing WTP4 or treatment. I myself was not a fan and am waiting to see the data on postponement.  The issue is how the organizing is being done and how it could undermine other investments like transmission replacement.  I made these points in the same language (which is hardly vituperative) on the Responsible Water/Austin facebook page and my comments were deleted.  And I am supportive of what they are trying to do!

I certainly want a progressive movement for water efficiency in Austin. The Tea Party-style discourse coming from RWA makes me uneasy.

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 18:16:58 PM UTC

great comments, Julio (2.00 / 1)

A quick response --
1) i think your directional ideas should be broadly shared, good stuff.

2)  it's my mistake, "conflating the 66%" will post more about that in a moment.

3) thanks for the new word, "vituperative."

4) agree that angry discourse causes chaos, not clarity.

Thanks, Chris

---

by: Chris Searles @ Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 22:31:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Comments for Julio from SOS & Austin Sierra (2.00 / 1)

I am the messenger here. Roy Waley of the Austin Sierra Club says (Roy sent me an email),

"The cost of postponement report has not been released yet."

"Current rate structure is extremely unbalanced, putting the greatest burden on those that use the least, thus discouraging conservation."

###

Bill Bunch, exec director of SOS, also sent an email with a crucial correction (MY MISTAKE):

"We are not and never did say that WTP4 is causing all of the proposed rate hikes.  It's the largest component of increased costs to the water side of the water utility, and thus to the Utility's calculation of the need to increase revenues.  But there are other significant new costs -- some deferred debt payments for other projects kick in over the next few years and the city sunk a huge amount of money building water service lines and pump stations to facilitate growth in the southeast, east of I-35.  

"The city tries to blame conservation, or reduced sales, on the need for rate hikes.  That is one way to view it, but "lost revenues" that you never actually collected is not part of your cost structure.  It's more like a serious error on the part of the Utility to vastly overestimate future water sales, an error that has been repeated year in and year out. 

"Please do clarify that SOS is not saying that all of the rate hikes is due to WTP4.  That the rate hikes are more than double what we were told last year makes clear that AWU consistently provides unreliable information on issues that are the most important to the community."

---

by: Chris Searles @ Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 23:03:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Avoiding contradictions (0.00 / 0)

I'm not surprised they got you confused, Chris.  That's my point, isn't it?

1. It seems we agree that an even more progressive block rate would make sense. So perhaps we change the discourse from anti-rate to anti-REGRESSIVE rate.  Right now it's the former and places like the RWA website are tuned to anti-tax themes not progressive investment themes. As someone that respects both organizations, that's what I was trying to convey before they deleted my comments from their page.

2. I'm not defending the City. I thought their external consultant's demand projections were problematic; it's why I didn't like the project and I wrote about it extensively over in at the blog.  I am arguing that environmentalists shouldn't be pushing too hard on lower rates since it's contradictory to our long-term goals and using rhetoric that thrashes investment. Reading these responses, I still don't know if these organizations are for lower overall rates or not.

3. I am not sure what the implication is that the city is bad at demand projection (which I agree with!) in terms of my arguments. It's tangential. The water utility has substantial fixed costs; since it's not all variable costs, if we use less water (which I believe we all want) then each unit will need to have a higher price to meet the fixed costs. I'm not against conservation. I am for pricing water at its true cost, and I am against the free-lunchism that decimates the commons/public goods, including water provision. This anti-rate discourse is just going to sap the will for needed infrastructure and further conservation.

4. There's no clarity on the proposed shift of money if WTP4 is postponed.

I'm glad there's a postponement review. I really want to support Sierra Club/SOS/RWA and respect their leaders.  My request is for a different discourse and a coherent progressive vision on water policy. This isn't it.

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Tue Aug 23, 2011 at 23:45:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Talk to Roy or Bill? (0.00 / 0)

Julio, have you had a chance to meet with Bill Bunch or Roy Waley (Austin Sierra) to discuss your questions?

These guys would certainly appreciate your input. Perhaps I can help connect you.

There needs to be a proper discussion btwn you and other leaders on the subject.

I'm not an expert. This blog was intended to report, not persuade.

Contact for me is: chris at goodcommonsense dot net.  

---

by: Chris Searles @ Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 13:16:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Out in the open (0.00 / 0)

Chris: I'll definitely reach out to you.

Someone on their team deleted several of my comments from one of their social media tools. I took that as a sign of their interest in engaging my viewpoint.

I'll re-engage directly with both of them once the postponement data is out.

However, as you can imagine, I am more interested in the discourse coming from the organizing effort's public statements and discourse. I have no doubt that Mr. Waley and Mr. Bunch will be nuanced in person; I already respect them as community leaders.

The issue is their public discourse, so, I'm more interested in the statements and clarifications they are willing to make out in the open.

www.keepaustinwonky.wordpress.com + www.twitter.com/juliogatx

---

by: Julio Gonzalez Altamirano @ Wed Aug 24, 2011 at 14:02:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]