Facts and Commentary on high water rates and AWU policy

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.
Don Zimmerman
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:05 am

Facts and Commentary on high water rates and AWU policy

Post by Don Zimmerman »

CM Colleagues,
The reference file and comments below are based on consultation with District 6 constituents who have experience in irrigation and have been Austin water users for decades.

LINK to raw data:
http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 130522.xls

1. Surrounding communities have more reasonable water bills with less watering rules.
• The current tiered system in the City Of Austin (COA) is cheaper than the average of Round Rock, Buda, Cedar Park, and Pflugerville at 3,000 gallons/month or less. That pattern changes, however, above the 3,000 gallons/month threshold.
• According to the COA’s 2015-16 Proposed Budget (Volume 1, page 516), the FY2015-16 Budget assumes the average residential customer uses 5,700 gallons/month.
-- At this level of usage, the average of the above cities are 8.2% cheaper than the COA.
• At 7,000 gallons/month, the COA is almost 25% higher than the average of the above cities and the disparity continues to widen to about 50% higher at larger volumes.


2. Watering frequency does not equate to volume.
• Volume = rate x time
-- A plant requiring 1” of water per week that is watered ½” twice a week in Stage 1 must be watered 1” once a week in Stage 2 to maintain a heathy plant.
-- The same volume of water used in Stage 1 or Stage 2. Watering days and times can be contrary to conservation.
• An ideal city water distribution system minimizes flow rates in pipes to optimize pressure and reduce damage to pipes.
-- This is realized when the fewest number of people use the system at once.
-- The COA specific water days/hours do the opposite, requiring half the people to water at the same time merely to simplify enforcement of the COA watering policies.
• If homeowners chose the time to water, then considerable annual water savings, might be realized when rain forecasts and wind conditions are considered.
-- The COA one-size-fits-all policy fails to consider such savings or fairness due to a variety of differences in homeowner water pressure, lot size, meter size, and sprinkler system design that affect both volume and application rates.


3. Precipitation rates required for healthy plants are not a function of water cost.
• The much higher COA rates and conservation policies do not really affect the volume used unless it causes a homeowner (i.e. fixed income, senior citizen, etc.) to stop watering and let their plants die.


4. Need to establish new water supplies, other than the Colorado River
• The more the COA delays finding other water supplies the longer citizens will be subject to extreme water rates (without benefit) with increased probability of an inevitable pending disaster.
• How long will the COA push its water supply problems onto homeowners via high rates?
• COA rates far exceed cost and what is needed for conservation awareness.
• Is it used to provide more reasonable and dependable water service, reduce property taxes, or is it re-directed to fund other political goals?
• When will the COA eliminate the illusion that conservation policies alone are sufficient, by creating water supplies, which may encompass intra-state or an inter-state (i.e. pipelines, aqueducts, canals, etc.) solution?
• Round Rock reduced its dependency on Lake Georgetown with a 48” Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) 28 mile pipeline to Stillhouse Lake.
• There is available reservoir capacity (i.e. lakes), but where does the COA water come from when average rainfall and the current flow of the Colorado River are insufficient?
• Evidence indicates that the COA needs a real solution to water shortages, not just hope in a sole conservation savior.
Don Zimmerman
Council Member District 6 (northwest Austin)