aka The Law of Unintended Consequences.
Driving home last night, I tuned in to CFRB, to hear the host railing about how residents of St. Catharine’s Ontario had really taken to heart the municipalities pleas to reduce their water consumption. The proud folks did just that, and ended up reducing their water consumption by 10%. That is a fine achievement, to be sure, and one that a great many lessons can be learned from.
What came next was a real gob-smack! Those same fine residents, as a reward for heeding the call and helping the municipality are to be hit with an increase in their property taxes &/or water rates that is equivalent to the dollar-amount saved on their water bill! Yes, you read that right – they did as asked, and are being heavily penalized for doing so.
According to the municipality, the plants that process water need to be kept running, and the workers there need to keep their jobs, etc., so to preserve things, the revenue lost due to reduced water consumption has to come from somewhere. Hmmmmm.
Talk about a dis-incentive to conserve!
What do you think? If Milton asked you to reduce your water use, then nailed you with new taxes, would you sit quietly by? Would you fight them on it? Please comment.
Below is an article from the St. Catharines newspaper . .
Residents deserve reward, not penalty
pointof view
Posted By KALVIN REID KREID@STCATHARINESSTANDARD.CA
Posted 1 day ago
This is not how conservation is supposed to work.
If you make sacrifices, scrimp, save and cut back, the idea is there should be some sort of reward for the effort.
St. Catharines residents, under pressure from municipal governments to be smarter with water — perhaps the natural resource we take most for granted — put in an exemplary effort.
In the past decade, water use in the city has dropped by 34 per cent. Between 2007 and 2008 alone, use dropped 10 per cent.
That is an excellent example of conservation at work.
The reward?
It will likely come in the shock of a significant increase in their water and sewer bills.
The city is proposing a 16 per cent jump in the average St. Catharines water bill, to $778 per year.
It’s not exactly what residents had in mind when they fell in step with requests from these very same municipal governments to conserve — use rain barrels, scale back how often you water your lawn, shorten your showers, put off washing your cars and so on.
The rationale behind the proposed water bill hike is easy to understand; because St. Catharines residents are using less water, the money flowing into the city’s (and Region’s) water budget has similarly dropped — you use less, you pay less.
But that means a financial shortfall in a department that isn’t cheap to operate and requires ongoing costly upgrades. Thus, it has forced the city into a situation where it will be asking residents to pay more for using less.
It’s an absurd premise that quite obviously shows this system of municipal water distribution is broken.
Finding a better alternative, however, is no easy task.
Municipalities are charged with the responsibility of providing residents with clean drinking water, and must follow strict standards imposed by the provincial government in the wake of the Walkerton tainted water tragedy.
Maintaining that system is expensive.
It’s easy, and maybe a little cliche, to suggest that provincial grants should be offered to offset the cost of conservation. After all, what is happening in St. Catharines is a horrible incentive to conserve water.
But the province isn’t exactly swimming in money these days.
This situation should also spark a renewed look at the two-tier water and wastewater system in Niagara, and whether it is the most efficient.
Something has to be done. Residents should be lauded for helping preserve one of our more precious resources, not penalized.
