1120 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

We don't have a supply problem, if anything we have a consumption problem.

People in western society are very wasteful when comes to water. If anything we should be putting more restrictions on water use to lower consumption even more.

I don't tell you not to eat too many potato chips. Potatoes are a renewable resource, so is water. Why should you or the government tell me how much to consume? PRICE will regulate supply, that's how 99.99% of consumer products work. I see no reason it should be different with water.

[Bernard]

Actually, you're wrong there. Our facilities in Keating have sewer meters and we pay about $750 every 4 months per building for this, it varies based on the number of people working in each building.

My sewage is not metered at my house and they are planning on paying for the treatment plant through taxing home owners.

[Bernard]

Where I lived in France the water was privatized and the water company were awful. Unresponsive, surly and certainly not cheap. Monopoly behaviour with no one to complain to.

Yes, there are examples of bad private provision of water, but if you mean the Lyon area, then it was worse pre private operation.

[davek]

We don't have a supply problem, if anything we have a consumption problem.

People in western society are very wasteful when comes to water. If anything we should be putting more restrictions on water use to lower consumption even more.

There are many who would like to dictate the lifestyles of others, but most of us recognize that that has adverse consequences on the individual's pursuit of happiness. So long as someone pays for what they consume, it should be of no concern to anyone else. Let competition reign, and water consumption will naturally shift to sustainable levels.

Where I lived in France the water was privatized and the water company were awful. Unresponsive, surly and certainly not cheap. Monopoly behaviour with no one to complain to.

Without any further detail, I would bet that you were dealing with a company that enjoyed government protection from competition. How could they get away with such behaviour, if they faced the prospect of losing customers to someone who offered cheerful and responsive customer relations, or cheaper prices?

[jklymak]

^ So you think there should be multiple water providers?

[davek]

^ Yes, I think you need multiple providers to create competition.

[yodsaker]

A lot of theory here. What we need is more concrete information than is provided by Econ 101 textbooks.

[Nparker]

Both Shaw and TELUS supply internet services. Both are over-priced and both suck at customer service. God forbid either one or both of them get into the water business.

[jklymak]

I don't think you'll ever see two water providers given the duplication of very expensive infrastructure.

[VicHockeyFan]

Both Shaw and TELUS supply internet services. Both are over-priced and both suck at customer service. God forbid either one or both of them get into the water business.

Remember when there was only one long-distance phone call provider (prior to 1992), and how much long-distance charges were? And I mean before internet-phone providers. When they allowed competitors in, prices dropped way down.

Cell phone service and cable/satellite television services still cost lots more here than in the US, Europe and Asia, because our government doesn't allow majority-foreign ownership, for Lord knows what reason.

[davek]

A lot of theory here. What we need is more concrete information than is provided by Econ 101 textbooks.

If you have a specific question, please ask. Perhaps I can find the answer in one of my other textbooks...

Both Shaw and TELUS supply internet services. Both are over-priced and both suck at customer service. God forbid either one or both of them get into the water business.

I can't speak about Telus, but my family has found Shaw to be good value. Especially their tech help.

I don't think you'll ever see two water providers given the duplication of very expensive infrastructure.

Perhaps providers could bid on the rights to use existing infrastructure for a fixed period?

[G-Man]

There are many who would like to dictate the lifestyles of others, but most of us recognize that that has adverse consequences on the individual's pursuit of happiness. So long as someone pays for what they consume, it should be of no concern to anyone else. Let competition reign, and water consumption will naturally shift to sustainable levels.

I don't see any adverse consequences to maintaining a requirement of life for the public good. Just as wouldn't want a market on oxygen.

Of course we are not ever going to agree on this point. I think that Western society neds to be told to behave in many ways. We need to be told to drive less, use less water, use less electricity and stop polluting. All of these things should be controled through government regulation. No one in our society has the right to destroy our grandchildren's right to pursue happiness which is exactly what we do when we only think of ourselves as an individual and over consume.

[LJ]

In Arizona and California (and perhaps other states) water is indeed privately provided.

However there is no competition, when you build a subdivision you select who will be providing the water, but it is usually a choice of one. No company is going to put up the millions in infrastructure required if they were not guaranteed to be the supplier.

The service is no better or worse than what we have here. There is no motivation to provide better quality water or cheaper water as they have a captive audience.

I was involved in a study group regarding the water supply, costs, delivery systems, etc., locally last fall. The CRD water services are pretty darned good, and their website and payment options are top of the line.

In Arizona the water supplier (Arizona American Water), does not even have the ability to pay online. Your only payment option is to send in a cheque monthly or have them direct debit your bank account. They also do not have e-bills, they have to send you a paper statement each month.

I would say that we are pretty well served now. Sooke reservoir is the only game in town if you want piped water to your house, you could privatise the deliverer but I don't think that would improve anything.

[davek]

We need to be told to drive less, use less water, use less electricity and stop polluting. All of these things should be controled through government regulation.

Many people argue that government regulation of roads has led to decentralization and increased driving. Government regulated and subsidized water causes certain sectors to consume more than they otherwise would. Government regulated properties suffer more pollution than those held in the private sector. Whatever hopes you have for a more conservation-minded society, government regulation has already worked against them.

[VicHockeyFan]

I don't see any adverse consequences to maintaining a requirement of life for the public good.

OK, then why not have the government provide our food? They could buy in bulk to save money, have a large central distribution system to allow for economies of scale much greater than all the independant and small and large chains now that run seperate operations etc.

[Nparker]

You might be onto something there VHF.

[Caramia]

The problem with privatization of water supply in my opinion is that I am extremely opposed to the sale of publicly owned watershed land. Why? Well, take a look at what happened with the Western Forest Reserve land. Once you sell someone land you lose control over what use they choose to put it to, and who they, in turn, choose to sell it to. As soon as profit is higher with another use, or a sale looks profitable, there's nothing to stop them turning around and developing.

Can you show me a model where a private entity provides water but control of the land is strictly governed by public interest?

[pseudotsuga]

Meanwhile, in Lake Cowichan they don't have water meters yet...

“There are things in this community that are far more important,” said McCallum. “Instead of paying someone to go around and read meters, why not have them check for people who over water and charge them extra?”

http://www.bclocalne...s/46471577.html

[VicHockeyFan]

Meanwhile, in Lake Cowichan they don't have water meters yet...



http://www.bclocalne...s/46471577.html

Ya, there we go. As much water as you want, "we won't see how much you had, use as much as you want". I wish I could even find an all-you-can-eat buffet.

[rayne_k]

Some interesting facts about water use:

http://www.environme...ators/6wate.htm

Note that those indicators are from *before* the oil sands took off.

Sure Victoria sees plenty of rain in the winter, but how many of us actually store enough of it to use year-round? Nope..most of us rely on what falls in that reservoir. Unlike some cities in Canada, Victoria has no snow pack to to rely on for water. Following the reservoir expansion we can survive one dry winter (a la 2000/2001), but 2 dry winters would be catastrophic. So, while Canada does have a large reserve of the world's fresh water, it is not located where residents are,or in some cases is too polluted to use, and nor are we equipped to store what does fall for our own use (unlike parts of Australia).

We have dirt-cheap water here, and we should be grateful - but instead we take it for granted and plant lush gardens that would never grow or be sustained if not for the treated tap water we pour on them. I'd rather see government manage our water, meter it, even raise prices on an exponential curve, and have the money go back into other public works than have some private entity pocket any profits or price increases. There is simply no way that there can be competition in water supply (not unless CRD & municipalities raise prices so high tap water is equal in price to bottled water -aka tap water someone else filters puts in a PLASTIC bottle and then gets you to pay a million times more for). How long did Shaw reign supreme for TV delivery?

If the cost of gas increases (regardless of who pockets the money), it encourages the consumer to be more efficient. Well like fuel, I'd rather the increase come from a tax or higher rate than a "market change" that suddenly shifts more money into private pockets.

Who knows, might just be what it takes for me to get that multi-rain-barrel system set up and finish installing low-flow toilets.

Some other stuff http://atlas.nrcan.g....gif/image_view