|
What is my IP
You are connecting to this site from: 38.103.63.61
|
Home  News Local CAN OUR WATER SYSTEM SURVIVE
|
CAN OUR WATER SYSTEM SURVIVE |
|
|
|
|
Submitted by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 03 March 2007 |
I JUST RECEIVED AN EXCELLENT ARTICLE FROM DANNY GOTTLIEB ON OUR WATER SYSTEMTo: Modesto City Council, and City Manager,
Sharing a newspaper article below; which in comparison to lack of challenge by Modesto government to CA State 'UNFUNDED MANDATE' for Water Meters shows real WEAKNESS in our local Council locally mandated to represent a 'Charter City' to protect our local Citizens from any and many California State 'Unfunded Mandates' especially pressed onto Single Family Homes. There is no evidence that Modesto government even asked or tried to avoid Water Meter installations on Modesto Water System; which covers not only Modesto, but several other 'now burdened' adjacent cities and towns.
Installing Water Meters, especially within the OLD Del Estes Water System is like violating a basic rules of Surgery 101 ... DON'T do multiple surgeries on a vessel system that will not heal, or survive the opening up and closings with added fitting for potential 'leakage'.
The Del Estes Water System has extremely old and brittle thin plastic piping running from street laterals to single family homes. Again, the street that I live on has had eleven water line breaks to 11 homes in 38 years, most in later years. See it for yourself, have the Public Works dept call you when there is a 'break causing LEAKAGE' and go to the site and inspect for yourself the thickness of an old Del Estes Water line.
THINK! ... how many tens of hundreds of potential leaks will we be causing with over 100,000 plus surgeries sites on the old, decrepit Del Estes Water system?
Read below what real Thinkers think about putting water meter on single family homes in Bellingham, WA:
Danny G.
P.s. And at "$1,000 per single family home for a water meter install" when it COSTS much less per home [+/- $400 ?] on average is like 'white collar theft', whether unintentional, or intentional! It takes earning $1,400 to $2,000 dollars just to have a $1,000 to reluctantly overpay for a $90 water meter and labor/materials/continuing upkeep to install and afterwords. Have you got an extra saved $1,000 laying around for a $90 meter?
A local CONSERVATION Program that Optimizes & Certifies each Single Family home landscape watering processes is a Better way to go! It's reported about 65% of water used by homes is for outdoor landscaping. Give each home ratepayers that invites on-site certification an incentive of $5 off water bill per month!
P.s. #2 - Consider Surgery 101 protocols/rules before even thinking about opening up the Del Estes Water System to install Water Meters on Single Family Homes!
"THE BELLINGHAM [WA] HERALD
"BELLINGHAM — Erika Malone volunteered to have a water meter installed on her home in order to conserve what she considers to be a precious resource.
She thinks more people should do the same, and said a new state rule that requires cities to put meters on any property that lacks one is a good idea. But city officials disagree, and believe the state’s decision could cost Bellingham taxpayers as much as $8 million.
City Council members and the mayor have agreed to partner with Everett officials to fight the state Department of Health’s rule that requires water meter installation on all properties within 10 years to promote water conservation.
The new rule went into effect Jan. 22.
Bellingham and Everett are the only cities in Washington in which meters aren’t on every property, city officials said.
“Ninety percent of all water we sell is metered,” said Public Works Director Dick McKinley, “but 90 percent of our customers aren’t.” Most water is used by industry, he said.
McKinley said the new rule would require the city to install about 15,000 meters and new pipes on older homes, disturbing lawns and driveways.
The city’s position is that it has adequate measures in place to conserve water, and that its “fact base is strong” for that claim, he said.
City statistics show that Bellingham has been effective in decreasing water consumption. From 1990 to 2005, the city population increased by about 43 percent, while average daily water consumption decreased by nearly 2 million gallons per day.
The statistics are telling, said Dave Brown, the city of Yakima’s water and irrigation supervisor, because his city — which has a similar sized population — had fairly consistent water usage during the same time, but it only has 65,000 users. Another company serves Yakima’s new growth areas, Brown said.
“So you can’t really compare them to us, because they’ve been growing,” Brown said. “It’s not a perfect comparison.”
“That’s a local decision to decide how we want to spend our money,” McKinley said. “If the state thinks we need to spend $8 million, good, write us a check.”
Malone, who volunteered to have a meter installed on her home, said she saves about $10 each month on her water bill, and will have paid off her $150 installation cost in 12 to 15 months.
That $150 installation, however, is heavily subsidized, McKinley said. If it costs more than that to do the installation — say like on Malone’s property where the meter is under a concrete slab — the customer still only pays the flat amount.
Malone said officials should “cut their losses” and install meters now instead of later, when it could cost even more.
Some council members expressed discontent with the state’s decision.
“I view this as an $8 million unfunded mandate,” said Councilwoman Louise Bjornson. “I highly object … I think that’s just wrong.”
Councilman John Watts, however, argued that the city should not spend money in a legal fight over the ruling.
“We’ll do it if we tell ourselves to do it,” Watts said.
Councilman Terry Bornemann said the city should not have to prove itself to the state. But if it must, the Department of Health should foot the bill.
“We have reduced water consumption and we’ve shown that over and over in this city,” he said. “Let them pay for part of putting this in place.”
Reach Sam Taylor at
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
or call 715-2263.
|
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 03 March 2007 )
|
|
|
