We are told that conserving water is worthwhile.
And, our City Council is telling us that we need water meters to conserve water. But, do water meters conserve water? Or, is it people who conserve water?
Are water meters just an expensive way to encourage people to conserve water?
How much would water meters actually cost us? It takes over one million dollars to install them, and then there are maintenance costs. Water meters need to be tested regularly. Also, some water meters are expected to last twenty years, so there are future replacement costs.
Is it possible that we could conserve water voluntarily - and save over a million dollars by doing so?
But, how can we create a fair system that promotes conservation without the use of water meters? What kind of an approach might motivate people to conserve, whether they are rich or poor?
Perhaps the people could be motivated to save over a million dollars and show that they can conserve without water meters!
Here are some ideas for consideration:
- a challenge to see how much we can conserve, measuring four times per year and letting the public know the results each time
- city website page featuring best practices
- newspapers with articles of inspiring stories of techniques residents use to conserve water
- section in public library dedicated to sharing water conservation resources
- sharing best practices with neighbours and friends
- have a discount on our water bill if we get a local business to check our home for leaks and we repair them
- receiving rebates from the city for purchasing drip hoses, rainwater collection barrels, low flush toilets, front load washing machines,...
- competition to create gftv conservation how to videos or mountain fm water conservation jingles and/or songs
Installing water meters means pay per use. The poor would be able to afford less water, and the rich would be able to afford more. Can we not continue to pay for water the way we have been, and keep it affordable for all?