Editor:
Although opponents of water metering have my sympathy, I believe meters are essential for managing our water supply. “You can’t manage what you can’t measure” and “people don’t value what comes for free” are the principles I base this on.
The SCRD can win support for metering by changing the rate structure to reflect the actual cost of storage and distribution. They should eliminate the flat rate structure and replace it with two charges: one for storage and one for distribution.
The storage part of the fee comes from water meter readings during periods when storage is being drawn upon. There would be minimal charge for water consumption when reservoirs are overflowing during the winter. Charging for water while storage is being drawn down would encourage conservation when it is needed. It would also reward residents who build their own storage (rain barrels, ponds). If all “storage fees” are earmarked for construction and maintenance of storage facilities, it would create more storage and build public support for metering.
The distribution fee would be an annual charge based on the road frontage length of the property line. This would reflect the actual costs of building and maintaining the distribution system, which is higher for low-density housing. The fees would be earmarked solely for maintaining the distribution system, with leaks located using water meter information.
With this “dual fee” system, all residents would be assured they are being charged fairly for the cost of the water they use. Note that both parts of this fee system are dependent on information from water meters.
Water meters are essential for managing our water supply. But the SCRD needs to demonstrate they are capable of using the data to price water fairly if they wish residents to support metering.
Bruce Woodburn, Sechelt
