"Many years ago there lived an emperor who loved beautiful new clothes so much that he spent all his money on being finely dressed. His only interest was in going to the theater or in riding about in his carriage where he could show off his new clothes. He had a different costume for every hour of the day. Indeed, where it was said of other kings that they were at court, it could only be said of him that he was in his dressing room!
One day two swindlers came to the emperor's city. They said that they were weavers, claiming that they knew how to make the finest cloth imaginable. Not only were the colors and the patterns extraordinarily beautiful, but in addition, this material had the amazing property that it was to be invisible to anyone who was incompetent or stupid. (click for more)"
The saga of the Master Water Plan reminds me of this fable. We have been doling out more and more gold and the results are invisible to the naked eye and only our pockets see the difference. Perhaps I am one of the stupid ones who are unable to visualize the virtual clothes of the Emperor.
To summarize the situation: we had a problem of trying to deliver domestic water to domestic customers through irrigation pipes at the same time we were delivering irrigation water to irrigation customers. The result was that we provided cheap irrigation water to domestic users.
After spending $180 million we reversed the process and we are delivering large quantities of expensive domestic water to irrigation customers while we are providing some of the same to domestic customers at a much greater price. Fair trade, I guess.
When it comes to water rates I had options proposed.
Proposal 1: Use property taxation for the infrastructure financing and use true user fees for water consumption. My argument was that this was no different than having the sports field or the fire hall financing method. The house infrastructure (water lines, toilets etc) are connected to this infrastructure and, in fact, they are an important component of one’s home. Once the loan is paid, no more payment.
No way! I was told. It would be a major burden on business and could drive them away.
Proposal 2: If we insist on paying all the bills, including infrastructure costs using water rates, then we should use true user pay. Divide the budget requirement by the volume of water we intend to sell and use the result as the unit cost of water. To ensure everyone pays a fair share to the budget the minimum amount of water we must pay for is, say, 20 cubic meters per quarter or 80 cu. m per year at the previously determined unit rate. The city of Vernon uses this system for sewage payments.
Again, No way! Why not? We would increase business costs tremendously if they had to pay the same unit cost as domestic customers are paying (current rate is $1.50 per cubic meter for non-domestic users). Well, are they not using the same water as we, beleaguered domestic customers are using? Well, yes but we do not want to drive businesses away. Interesting. Do we not pay for the water costs of businesses indirectly when we use their services or buy their products? I guess I am wrong. Taxpayers should subsidize businesses anyway they can. I must be one of the “incompetent stupid ones” who cannot see the wonderful new garment the emperor is wearing. How could I pull the wool over the eyes of my electors who thought I might be worthy of being elected? I wonder!
All jokes aside we have created a monster of a MWP that is way over designed and a money waster. However, we must pay the bills. I am still trying to have the plan reviewed by a competent, independent review group and see if at least we could eliminate treating water for crops.
To summarize the situation: we had a problem of trying to deliver domestic water to domestic customers through irrigation pipes at the same time we were delivering irrigation water to irrigation customers. The result was that we provided cheap irrigation water to domestic users.
After spending $180 million we reversed the process and we are delivering large quantities of expensive domestic water to irrigation customers while we are providing some of the same to domestic customers at a much greater price. Fair trade, I guess.
When it comes to water rates I had options proposed.
Proposal 1: Use property taxation for the infrastructure financing and use true user fees for water consumption. My argument was that this was no different than having the sports field or the fire hall financing method. The house infrastructure (water lines, toilets etc) are connected to this infrastructure and, in fact, they are an important component of one’s home. Once the loan is paid, no more payment.
No way! I was told. It would be a major burden on business and could drive them away.
Proposal 2: If we insist on paying all the bills, including infrastructure costs using water rates, then we should use true user pay. Divide the budget requirement by the volume of water we intend to sell and use the result as the unit cost of water. To ensure everyone pays a fair share to the budget the minimum amount of water we must pay for is, say, 20 cubic meters per quarter or 80 cu. m per year at the previously determined unit rate. The city of Vernon uses this system for sewage payments.
Again, No way! Why not? We would increase business costs tremendously if they had to pay the same unit cost as domestic customers are paying (current rate is $1.50 per cubic meter for non-domestic users). Well, are they not using the same water as we, beleaguered domestic customers are using? Well, yes but we do not want to drive businesses away. Interesting. Do we not pay for the water costs of businesses indirectly when we use their services or buy their products? I guess I am wrong. Taxpayers should subsidize businesses anyway they can. I must be one of the “incompetent stupid ones” who cannot see the wonderful new garment the emperor is wearing. How could I pull the wool over the eyes of my electors who thought I might be worthy of being elected? I wonder!
All jokes aside we have created a monster of a MWP that is way over designed and a money waster. However, we must pay the bills. I am still trying to have the plan reviewed by a competent, independent review group and see if at least we could eliminate treating water for crops.
In the meantime paying for the cost of water and infrastructure should be done in a fair and equitable way. There were some people on staff who believed that high water users subsidized low users because they contribute more money to the budget. They neglected the fact that high users are the ones who drive the high maximum daily demand and water facilities must be built to a size that would meet those demands. If the system would be sized for the low users demand it would be a very small system.
The principle is: pay for what you use. If a kilogram of bread cost $5 then 5 kilogram should cost $25, it’s that easy.
***************************************************************************************************
3 comments:
Makes me feel sick to the stomach. How can this stupidity continue?
I see the almalgo's are getting some boosterism on Vernonblog.
The amalgos' spirit animal is Machiavelli: master of the end justifying the means.
Well, we peons are not so easily fooled, or silenced. The amalgos may thrust their Trojan horse under our noses ad naueam, but the smell of that beast will never be sweet.
Why not come out of the amalgo gates with shiny candidates and full disclosure of who is fuelling this adventure?
btw This Trojan horse puts me in mind of a dude-ranch horse who stubbornly kept trying to take me back to his stable: a one-trick pony.
I see that concerned Vernon resident-peons have been muted with respect to a valid neighbourhood issue.
Not in my wildest imaginings would I expect our council to silence our Coldstream neighbours who wished to voice their reasonable concerns.
Amalgamation? Phooey!
Post a Comment