A very wet bargain

Albuquerque's water rates are among cheapest in the state, yet the local water authority has no immediate plans to adjust the price.

By Joel Gay 08/04/2008 | 1 Comment

ALBUQUERQUE -- Albuquerque has a lot of water conservation to do in the next few years, and it's not just so city residents can feel better about themselves. Deadlines are looming that, if missed, could cost area residents and businesses millions of dollars.

Toilet rebates, educational campaigns and financial incentives have reduced water use, but the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority has shown little interest in another conservation method that has worked in Santa Fe, Alamogordo and other arid communities. Those cities' message to water customers is simple: The more you use, the more you pay.

"You hit 'em where it hurts — in the wallet," said Armando Ortega, customer service manager in Alamogordo, which has among the highest water rates in the state. Since adopting a conservation-oriented rate structure in 2003, Alamogordo's water use has dropped by 40 percent, he said.

But in Albuquerque, where water conservation has slowed to a crawl in recent years, there appears to be little interest in hiking water rates to discourage profligate use. Though the rate structure is up for review and approval Aug. 20, water authority spokesman David Morris said, "There are no plans at this point to revise it."

The numbers game

The water authority recently reviewed its water rates, and a more conservative rate structure was considered but rejected — even as examples of extreme consumption abound. The average city household uses about 100,000 gallons a year, but The Albuquerque Journal reported last week that six residential users in 2007 used around 1 million gallons each. The top user's bill: 1.4 million gallons, according to water authority officials.

Sixth on the list was water authority board member Tim Cummins. He ran through 950,000 gallons of water in his Northeast Heights home last year and never paid a penalty, the Journal reported. "Cummins said he knew he was having problems when at least one of his bills reached over $400 for a month. 'I just didn't realize the scope of the water usage,' " he told the paper.

Cummins said he fixed three separate leaks, but his water use continued to rise, water authority records show. In January alone he used almost 195,000 gallons — nearly twice as much as the average Albuquerque residence uses in a year. Records show he was billed $483.50. The water itself cost $304, at $1.64 per 1,000 gallons.

In Farmington, that much water would have cost $645. In Alamogordo, a whopping $1,600. In Santa Fe, that single month would have cost Cummins more than $2,750.

"If a person has water leak in Alamogordo," Ortega said, "they don't waste any time getting it fixed," just because the bills are so high.

The same is true in Farmington, said Ruben Salcido, the city's water operations and maintenance manager. "The more you use, the more your rate goes up," he said. "It's built-in conservation."

Both cities have what is known as an increasing block rate structure — which roughly means the more water you use, the higher the price per gallon. It's become popular throughout the Southwest, according to a 2006 report by Western Resource Advocates:

 

We found a close correlation between cities with dramatically increasing block rates and those with the lowest per capita consumption levels. Along with other conservation and efficiency programs, effective rate structures can help stretch existing water supplies farther and avoid much of the cost, delay, and controversy that result from large, new water development projects.



How things work

It works like this: All users in a given class pay the same amount for the first block of water every month. The utility can set the amount of water and the price as it wants. In Farmington, for example, the first block is 7,000 gallons and costs $1.54 per 1,000 gallons. Another city might offer more water or less, and adjust the cost to fit the community.

Farmington customers who use more than 7,000 gallons rise into the second tier, and pay slightly more — $1.93 — per 1,000 gallons up to 20,000 gallons. In the next block the charge rises to $2.41 per 1,000 gallons, and finally to $3.62 per 1,000 gallons for those who use more than 40,000 gallons a month, Salcido said.

It's a fair system, he said. "If they're willing to pay, they can have all the water they want," Salcido said. And those who conserve — like Salcido himself, he said — aren't subsidizing their neighbors' lawns or duck ponds. "I reduced my (lawn) sprinkler use so I stay out of that next tier," he said.

Some cities have a uniform rate structure, and charge the same rate for water regardless how much is used. That was Farmington's system until 2006. Roswell has two rates — $8.25 for the first 3,000 gallons and $1 for every 1,000 gallons afterward, according to the city's Web site.

Santa Fe also has two rates, but its conservation ethic puts even Alamogordo to shame. From September through April, the City Different charges $4.09 per 1,000 gallons for the first 7,000 gallons, and $14.64 per 1,000 gallons after that. In the summer, the cost per gallon is the same, but the second tier doesn't kick in until the customer uses 10,000 gallons.

Hybrid, but not exactly a Prius

The Albuquerque water authority has yet another type of rate structure that's a mix. It has some conservation elements that "send a price signal" to customers as their water use rises, said Stan Allred, the authority's finance director. But it doesn't set rates so high that it slams consumers into conservation. As authority Conservation Officer Katherine Yuhas said, "This isn't as affluent a community as Santa Fe," and the water rates reflect that.

From November through March, the water authority charges $1.64 per 1,000 gallons, regardless how much water is used. From April through October, the price depends on how much is used during the previous winter. When the summer use is more than three times the winter use, there's a penalty, albeit slight: the cost per 1,000 gallons rises to $2.83. If use is four times higher, the customer pays $3.82 per 1,000 gallons. That's one of the "price signals" Allred referred to that aims to boost conservation.

But for customers like Cummins, whose winter use last year was well over 100,000 gallons a month, the penalty never kicks in because their summer use never rises to three times the winter use.

Another price signal to reduce water demand is the sewer charge. A customer's year-round sewer charge depends on how much water they use in the winter, Allred explained. A person who intentionally uses more water during the winter in order to avoid the summer surplus charges actually ends up paying slightly more all year, he said, because of higher sewer charges.

Yuhas, whose job aims to reduce water use even as the city keeps growing, said she supports raising the current rates to spur conservation, though not as high as those in Santa Fe. The current rate structure may have incentives to reduce use, but they should be more visible to the average rate payer, she said.

"We've reached a situation where we have to reach people who haven't gotten the message" to conserve, she said. "Having a rate structure that was more straightforward and clear in encouraging conservation would be helpful."

What about the future?

The water authority hired Red Oak Consulting to review the current water rate structure earlier this year. In a presentation to the authority's Citizen Advisory Committee in June, Red Oak recommended to maintain the current rate structure. Allred said the authority is scheduled to review the rates again in 2010.

In a statement through a spokesman, water authority Executive Director Mark Sanchez said late last week there were no plans to change the rate structure "at this point."

Several calls by the Independent to water authority board Chairwoman Deanna Archuleta late last week to ask about the water rate structure were not returned. But she suggested to the Journal last week that the board may be ready to revise rates. "There needs to be a severe penalty for those who consistently have high use," she told the paper.

The water authority suggested as much in its own long-range management plan, the Water Resources Management Strategy, which was approved last October. Among the recommendations:

 

 

The Authority should continue increasing water rates and implementing steeply increasing block rates to encourage water conservation, including a very low rate for low water use customers and increasing to very high rates for large water users. Surcharges for excess use could vary by customer class, targeting water classes that have not achieved water conservation goals.



Residential use accounts for about half the water used in Albuquerque. Residents have actually reduced their water use more than commercial, industrial and institutional users, Yuhas said.

But the authority's conservation effort still has a ways to go to meet its conservation targets, she said. The average residence today uses about 100,000 gallons a year, and homes with large, green yards use even more — 120,000 to 140,000 gallons, she said. By 2014, the water authority's goal is an average of 80,000 gallons per household.

The real deadline comes 10 years after that, in 2024, when the authority must be at about the 80,000-gallon average or else be in violation of its state permit to use San Juan-Chama Project water. It's not likely the state could actually turn off the tap. But if history is a gauge, such a violation could be costly. When New Mexico failed to meet its obligation to Texas for water from the Pecos River, the state ended up paying at least $75 million in penalties, wells and water rights.

print print Share share

Comments:

mjensen
Posted 08/04/2008 13:26 with

There are many hurdles to water conservation in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County region. Thanks to Joel Gay for bringing some of these to our attention. There are others.

John Stomp of the ABCWUA has stated – in the public Town Hall last year: “Our Sustainable Water Future” – that using rates to get conservation doesn’t work (!).

On several occasions at public meetings, Katherine Yuhas has said that the WUA has been meeting its current requirement of 165 gallons per day per person (gpd/capita) for the last year. But the WUA web site (under “Statistics” in the “Water Conservation” drop-down menu) says:

“Water usage to date in the Albuquerque area is 860 million gallons over the conservation goal, the Water Authority reported. Katherine Yuhas, conservation officer for the Water Authority, said 2008 usage to date was 15.63 billion gallons as of June 30, while the usage goal was just 14.77 billion. That goal was set based on our objective of reducing per-person usage to 165 gallons per day in 2008. It was 167 gallons per day in 2007.”

Perhaps there is some accounting method that can square these two messages, but telling the public that we are meeting goals, when the statistics reveal overuse is not conducive to the kind of public education the WUA says is needed. (Disclosure: Amigos Bravos, for whom I work, is suing the WUA and the State Engineer over the permit for use of native Rio Grande water – as “conveyance water” – in an amount up to that included in Albuquerque’s portion of the SJ-C project: 47,000 acre feet year)

Katherine Yuhas’ concern (noted in the article) for low-income water users is commendable. Setting usage targets based on an average household size seems to be skewed against low-income households, which often have extended families sharing the household. On the other hand, lower income households often use less water per capita and it is quite possible to provide low-income offsets through the billing system. There really is no excuse for not establishing a system that goes after wasteful residential and commercial (and public) users.

Setting “conservation” water rates based on winter water usage – for which there is no penalty – is ludicrous on its face, as Joel Gay points out. Customers are smart. I’m sure Tim Cummins is well aware that he can game the system by pumping up his winter use so his summer use will never be penalized.

The WUA does not seem to be considering the impacts of climate change on its conservation deadlines. A number of recent reports, from the International Panel on Climate Chgange to a joint NMSU/UNM study have predicted substantially lower flows in the Rio Grande and across the Southwest, including the tributaires to the San Juan that supply San Juan-Chama water. less SJ-C water, less Rio Grande “conveyance” water, and higher rates of evaporation and transpiration (those outdoor “uses”) should be encouraging the WUA to fast-track water conservation, especially conservation of outdoor use.

Finally – readers and writers at the Independent need to focus their attention on the water conservation “non-debate” now taking place.

Michael Cadigan proposed a good water conservation ordinance aimed primarily at reducing outdoor water usage for residential, commercial, and public users. Tim Cummins was an opponent of those measures, as was NAIOP (the organization representing industrial and office property owners). NAIOP (and APS and Parks & Recreation) have repeatedly been allowed to comment extensively on drafts of amended versions of Cadigan’s proposed conservation ordinance. They are also represented on the Customer Advisory Committee (CAC).

Without advising Cadigan, the CAC, at its July 10 meeting, proposed an alternative to Cadigan’s ordinance, based on research done by Katherine Yuhas of potential water “savings” from the alternative. This alternative is based on a point system that new single-family residential construction has to meet (the CAC said it would address multi-family residential later; and commerical use even later, apparently). 40 points have to be accrued, with a minimum of 20 from using indoor water measures and 10 points from outdoor measures. The points earned are based on the presumed water savings from that particular measure, such as installing low-flow showerheads.

As noted at the meeting, the 40 points can almost certainly be met by current practices of residential home builders. Therefore, it is difficult to see where water conservation will result from implementing this system, since it apparently is already in use.

I pointed out at the July CAC meeting that essentially all “consumptive” water use (that is, water lost to the system, mostly through evaporation; indoor water is captured and either reclaimed/reused or discharged to the river … other topics for another time) comes from outdoor watering. Therefore, I noted, the point system doesn’t seem designed to target the primary source of potential water conservation (as Cadigan’s proposed ordinance did, since most of its provisions dealt with outdoor usage). Instead, the point system is skewed towards rewarding indoor water conservation … which – as Joel’s article notes – has plateaued as the toilet and low-flow rebate programs have reached saturation among residential owners and builders.

In fact, this alternative water conservation system seems to be a conservation analog of the issue of “paper” versus “wet” water that developers have to provide. The new system is providing “paper” conservation for the development community, not ‘wet” conservation.

The CAC also decided at the July meeting that they needed to do some outreach to the building community to get their feedback. Oh, yeah, and let Cadigan know. And, oh yeah, maybe let “some of those anti-development groups like 1000 Friends of New Mexico know” (Gabe Nims, Executive Director of 1000 Friends, who is on the CAC, had a scheduling conflict and couldn’t be there that meeting). Just so we all know which “customers” the CAC represents (remember, as Joel notes, that residential users – customers – have been more responsible about conservation than commercial users).

The CAC meets on the first Thursday of each month in the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Government Center, Room 5038, from 4-6pm. The next meeting is on August 7th and the CAC will further discuss the new alternative conservation plan and possibly set up dates for public outreach meetings on the plan (tentatively set for September some time at the July meeting).

CAC meetings have no public attendance. In May there was an effort to coordinate public comment in support of Cadigan’s proposed ordinance. The CAC didn’t know what to do about accomodating public comment, despite being notified ahead of time, and ended up giving each of us 90 seconds to comment. A NAIOP representative (not sitting on the CAC) was, of course, present that day and also spoke. There is no evidence that the CAC took these public comments – all but NAIOP’s in favor of Cadigan’s proposed ordinance – under advisement.

Regards,

Michael

CATEGORIES IN THIS STORY:

Recent Articles by Joel Gay

Most Popular