Slave Lake town council has recognized for some time that the current method of charging for water does not exactly encourage conservation. Customers have to pay for 18 cubic metres a month whether they use it or not. Why use less if you have to pay for more?
At its Dec. 2 meeting, councillors heard a report on how the system might be tweaked to give consumers incentive to use less.
Council’s interest in water conservation is not just on ‘environmental’ principles. Councillors have the bottom line in mind.
“My goal is to not have to spend eight-and-a-half million dollars on a new reservoir,” councillor Valerie Tradewell told her colleagues at the meeting.
The town’s project manager, Brian Vance, presented three alternative water fee scenarios aimed at stimulating the urge to conserve among consumers. One proposed no base fee, just a per-cubic metre charge – called the ‘100 per cent variable’ option. Another proposed a $15 base charge, down from the current $37.93, plus a slightly higher per-unit consumption fee. A third example lowered the base amount from 18 m3 to 12 m3.
This option would have a $25.28 charge for the base amount, plus a $1.76 per unit fee above the base amount.
In all scenarios, Vance said the total collected by the town would be the same. But the amount paid by each category of consumer would not. In one, the high-end users would pay much more; in all three, the low-end users would benefit.
Councillors were not expecting to make any decision at the meeting, and they didn’t. But they did jaw about it at some length. It soon became clear that they’d need much more time to discuss it.
“We need a special meeting,” said councillor Rob Irwin.
Irwin also pushed for an alternative incentive program that might include rebates for the installation of low-flush toilets or low-flow shower heads.
Council heard that 11.5 per cent of the town’s water customers use 50 per cent of the water. The large majority pay less than $30 per month for water, but 77 customers pay over $100 per month. They also heard that something like 30 per cent of residential water goes down the toilet.
Judging by councillors’ comments, there is a range of opinion about what might be the best scenario for promoting water conservation. Although all seem to support the idea of water conservation, some would be more willing than others to make the heavy users carry much more of the burden than they currently do.
“Our object is to conserve water, right?” said councillor Ed Procyshyn, who said he preferred the 100 per cent variable rate, which would hit bigger users hardest.
“Our object is not to drive everybody out of town,” countered councillor Elaine Carmichael.
“The little guy shouldn’t be paying for the big guy,” said councillor Rob Chalmers. “The big guy should be paying for it.” Councillors ended the meeting by agreeing to discuss the issue at greater length. They also asked Vance to bring more numbers, more scenarios to the table for their consideration.

Copyright © 2000 The Lakeside Leader. All Rights Reserved.
No part may be reproduced without written permission.

View our Privacy Statement.
Send website suggestions to the Webmaster