(1) comment Back to story

Susan Fennewald

At least in this area, water is an issue where there are conflicting thoughts and incentives. There needs to be more of alignment between money and desired outcome. For example, the city of Galveston does not benefit from conservation by its residents. In fact, income from the sale of water needs to remain fairly steady. So if there's enforced conservation due to drought - the city loses money. (this applies to many, if not most, cities). So, it may overall be good to conserve water - but the city loses money.

For the homeowner, if you put your lawn watering on a separate meter - so that you don't have to pay sewer costs as well as water costs - then the cost of watering your lawn (which is a total waste of water) is cheaper per gallon than the necessary use of water to flush your toilet.

Financial arrangements could be made to bring the finances in line with the overall desire of conservation. The state could pay cities money to decrease their water usage, and the city could charge more for high end usage and watering lawns (especially if a drought is declared).

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.