Water-savers get no relief from water bills
Posted on May 12th, 2008 – 11:49 AMBy James Shiffer
From our online reporter, Tim Harlow
Over three months, Adam Stang never uses 10,000 gallons of water in his house. But that’s what he pays for, because the city of Lonsdale, a community in Rice County, charges a minimum fee based on 10,000 gallons of water use. That strikes Stang as bad public policy, because he thinks people should be rewarded for conserving water with lower bills.
It turns out that Lonsdale isn’t unique. In many municipalities, residents are charged for using a minimum amount of water, although the figure varies. Naturally they get charged more if they go above that number, but they don’t get a discount if they actually use less.
“Maybe 10,000 gallons for a family isn’t much, but I’m single and live in a condo,” Stang said. “It doesn’t make sense to bill me for more than the standard 1,000 gallon billing rate especially when fresh water is getting harder to come by. I could probably use less if I conserved water, but I have no incentive to do so.”
Lonsdale City Administrator Joel Erickson said that each of the city’s 1,300 households gets charged $32 for the first 10,000 gallons of water that are used during a three-month billing cycle. Any thing above that gets billed at $3.85 per thousand gallons used.
Erickson said the average customer in Lonsdale uses about 16,000 gallons every three months.
But in the case of Stang, he actually used 7,000, 6,000 and 9,000 gallons respectively - but was charged $32 as if he used 10,000 gallons. That’s certainly not an incentive to turn off the spigot.
“We do encourage conservation,” Erickson said. “But we have a minimum fee because we do have to make our payments.”
That would include maintaining the water lines and paying employees’ salaries.
In Eden Prairie, where the average customer uses 24,000 gallons every three months based on wintertime usage rates, the minimum bill a customer will receive is for using 4,000 gallons during the quarter, said Gene Dietz director of Public Works.
Few people get that low, Dietz said.
The rate of $1.65 per thousand gallons stays in effect until a customer reaches 150 percent of wintertime usage, or 36,000 gallons. That’s when they bump up to a higher price of $2.65 per thousand gallons.
Unlike electricity, which you pay for the amount you use, water bills are calculated on a minimum usage. Local governments want you to water your lawn sparingly and take shorter showers, but that doesn’t mean you’ll always pay less for doing so.
40 Responses to "Water-savers get no relief from water bills"
I live in Brooklyn Park, and I have the same issue. I pay the “minimum” fee during the winter, but then I pay for overages during the summer months due to watering of the lawn. It would benefit me if we paid on an annual basis and average it out (like a budget payment plan that the gas companies use). I know it wouldn’t happen because the city wouldn’t give up the extra revenue.
I sympathize with Mr. Stang, but is it really worth getting worked up over less than $3/mo? Like it was noted in the article, these cities have to make payments to repay the cost of building the infastructure, maintenance, etc… Does there have to be a monetary inventive for anyone to do anything these days? I don’t get anything for taking my pop cans to the recycling bin at work, but I do that religiously, heck, I even grab cans and bottles I see other people taking to the trash and put them in the recycling.
Yes, the system could be better, but lets use our time and energy on something a little more worthwhile.
Hold on. Did I read that correctly? The avergae home in Lonsdale uses 16,000 gallons every three months, while the average home in Eden Prairie uses 24,000 gallons over the same span? 50% more water usage in EP? I know the cakeaters are all about conspicuous consumption? But do they really wash their clothes 50% more often? Take 50% more or longer showers? Although all those behemoth SUVs do need to be washed and the sprawling estates with non-native vegetation must be watered. Oh, and lest we forget the pools and hot tubs.
Sounds like just another way for these cities to make money. Everyone is bumping up prices for everything. I don’t even know what taxes go for any more…Every bill has extra hidden fees. It is getting out of control!!
I agree with the Stang. Actually, electricity is the same way.
After all the fees and taxes my monthly 220 kwh cost me double what the electricity alone costs on a cents per kilowatt hour basis. Same with cable tv and cellphones I guess too……. 
He should check his sewer bill as he’s probably being charged based on water use … and being overbilled there, too.
I dont see the big issue. I think water is pretty cheap, relativly speaking and a minimum charge for having instant access seems reasonable to me.
We too live in Brooklyn Park and pay for a minimum of 40,000 gallons per quarter regardless of use. It was 50,000 gallons until 2008.
Wouldn’t it be smarter to cover the fixed cost of the water system through the fixed service charge and increase the usage charge to truly encourage conservation? Interestingly we pay 50% more sewer services than for fresh water.
Our last five quarterly usage bill have been 17,000, 13,000, 18,000, 16,000, and 15,000.
Welcome to the world of utility management. The people who manage our power, water and gas have fixed expenses they must cover and this is how they do it. It would be better if the water utility just had a handshake fee like Xcel. I get a kick out of the people who think they are going to sell electricity back to Xcel when the spend big money on their own power generators like wind and solar. It will never happen and thats fine with me.
How would you like to live in Delano. We are charged an automatic fee for water of $8 then on top of that we have to pay for the winter rates of $5.62 per 1000 gallons and an add’l $3.93 per 1000 gallons. Basically, if you use 5000 gallons of water per month you have a bill of $55.75 per month.
How is this really relevant? In a town of 2800 people, cost structures will be different than in a town like Eden Prairie, which is why they have a lower minimum. They already have a small enough budget, and if everybody cut back in a town of that size, there would be little money to support and upgrade the infrastructure. Why not just pay the extra $25 and be glad you have clean water?
water bills are cheap. The fee on the first part of the story is .003 cents per gallon. How much was your BOTTLED water this morning?
Shut off the city connection and shower in your bottled water, then colmplain!
and you should still conserve all you can.
Basically, if you use 5000 gallons of water per month, your quarterly bill amount is $167.25 - Ouch. I can hardly afford to pay this. It is outrageous.
The City of Ramsey has a Minimum ”
Base Charge” of $29.40, which is equal to 15k gallons per quarter. 15k-25k GAL is $1.98 per 1k GAL. This seems a bit ridiculous. I like shortygirlk2’s idea of paying on an annual basis, or at least averaging out based on what you use over the course of a 12 month span. The “Base Charge” for city of Ramsey (Water, Sewer, Storm & Recycle) is $120.82 per Quarter, seems a little bit out of line.
You think Losdale is overpriced… move 10 miles west to Montgomery and pay double that! Poor city management by a previous administartor and council is the taxpayers problem now.
I have to agree with Stang. When I saw that Oakdale was charging me for using less, I said to heck with it. I’m paying for it, I’m using it. There was absolutely no personal savings for conserving. And yes, people that use less or conserve should be rewarded! I too am a single person and I’m paying the same as if there were 3 or 4 people in my home.
Like Mr. Stang, I used to live in Lonsdale & went round and round with the city about this. I was regularly billed 15,000+ gallons every quarter & argued there was NO WAY I was using that much water! And yes…the sewer bill is directly affected by this. I got an average combined water/sewer bill of $220+ every three months.
Since leaving Lonsdale, I have never been billed for more than 3,000-4,000 gallons/month (or 9k-12k quarterly) and my bills quarterly have not exceeded $120. I don’t about most folks but $100/month is a lot to save.
And don’t even get me started on Lonsdale’s garbage service…
Here’s another one that will get you. I have a rental property in Brooklyn Park. I have to pay a yearly fee for my rental license, which also includes an annual inspection. Should I sell my house within 3 months of passing my rental inspection, I won’t have to do a “Point of Sale” inspection, but I will still have to pay the fee. The city doesn’t want to miss out on that added revenue either.
In response to CJ, the big issue is giving incentive, to people who should know better,to save the most important resource on this planet!
In response to Bucko, wow! Ouch is right!
In response to Kevin, there are major issues with the cleanliness of Lonsdale’s water. Btw, there is also a Safe Water fee tacked onto our bills.
I own two houses in Lonsdale. One I live in, the other sits empty. The water bill is exactly the same for both houses. Go figure!
I’d like an answer to this question: Why do people need to have an incentive to do the right thing?
If you are truly interested in doing the right thing because it is the ‘right’ thing to do … the reward comes from knowing that you’ve done the ‘right’ thing.
People who want to be rewarded for doing the right thing aren’t fully interested in doing what is right for its own sake.
St. Cloud charges residents $10/month recycle fee whether you put anything on the curb or not.
I’d like to believe that people do the right things for the sake of being good, moral people. But some greedy folks want green grass and clean SUV’s despite all. I believe the point of the article is that if you’re being overcharged for something, why conserve? Because we should!
Geez..some of you people have no idea how companies need to price their services. Even if you use “one drop” of water per quarter there is still going to be a cost to the city involved to manage and adminster your account. So of course the city is going to charge you some type of minimum, no matter how much you water you use or don’t use. You can argue about the amount of the minimum, but there still has to be some minimum for the mere fact that you have water available. And the pricing of water has a lot of variables beside just the size of the town. Water is soooo cheap. And if you don’t like it then cut off your water service and dig a well.
The only way to get the lazy, unfair, incompetent billing departments of these various communities to bill accordingly is of you (and enough of your neighbors) start using 10,000 gallons a month. Start watering your driveway (like I do) as it is not fair to be charged more than you use.
Here’s the thing. The issue here isn’t the cost of it… yeah, they over charge you, but as most of you said, is a couple of $$ really worth getting worked up about? But the bigger issue is why, in a world that overconsumes, are we not rewarded for conserving? Sadly, telling people that they need to conserve so their grandkids have don’t have to live in a bubble isn’t enough. We have to hit the pocket book, and cities need to start seeing this. I think it’s a horrible policy and some smart city planner should start making a difference here…
One day, water will be so scarce that it will be priced like gasoline. The idea of 3.00 for 1000 gallons of clean drinkable water is incredible. We waste incredible amounts of this resource. People should only be billed for what they use, with the cost per 1000 gallons being high enough not only to encourage conservation, but to make those who waste pay for maintenance and upkeep of the system through their higher payments. A system that charges everyone for a minimum of 10000 gallons simply penalizes conservation and encourages waste.
24,000 gallons/quarter……WOWSER!!!
I live in Alaska, and although we have bountiful water sources, most water in our area is too rusty, etc to use. Most people that live out of city limits have water hauled in by truck as needed. I pay 5.55 cents per gallon of water, plus delivery, plus fuel surcharge. By the numbers you all share…the most you pay for water is about 2 cents/gallon.
When I lived in MN and it was definitely a luxury to take a 10 minute shower. Being here teaches you to be conservative due to the cost of brushing your teeth and flushing the toilet. I go through about 1400 gal/month and pay about $82/mo. I am glad I have learned how to responsibly use water. Before you know it, there will be water pipelines across the U.S., I can pretty much promise you that. Conserve water 
Brandon; “I go through about 1400 gal/month and pay about $82/mo”….isn’t that what you pay for a loaf of bread? Too bad you can’t move to Twin Lakes and live on Hope Creek.
I grew up in Edina, and we were the cakeaters then. Now that I live in Eden Prairie that derogatory name is now being used for EP. Prejudice doesn’t become anybody……. Now that said, I’m looking at my current utility bill. The total is $45.70. Of that $16.00 is for sewer, $4.00 is for storm drainage, $12.50 is for Repair/Expansion. Only $13.20 is for water. I only used 8000 gallons in three months! So based on that bill, I’m already paying separately for sewer and any repairs.
My wife and I really recycle so much we only need to put out the trash once a month if that. But of course, we still pay to have the cart emptied weekly. Don’t know what the solution is, because the trucks still have to drive by regardless of whether we have trash, because others have enough trash for a weekly pickup.
Here’s a suggestion: start a bottling plant and sell it off at .98 a gallon. Most of that bottled stuff is tapwater anyways. Use 8000 but get charged for 10000? $2000 profit waiting.
I was charged $6 every three months for storm water sewer fee. The kicker is that I live on a dirt road, have a well and private septic and the nearest stormwater system is 140 yards away and it is at a higher elevation.
I am paying a fee so they can cover the costs of my runoff yet our runoff does not enter the system.
People say it is only $6 yet there are thousands of residents that probably pay these fees.
How many more are there?
What do cities do with all the money?
Would you want to pay a fee for septic systems if you are on city sewer?
I think the point is not HOW much we are paying, but paying for something we aren’t using. We used 17k gallons of water in the last 3 months, yet I paid for 40k gallons. In the summer, I’ll use more than 40k gallons and pay about $100 more per quarter. Didn’t I alreay pay for that extra water during the winter? If my water conservation didn’t save them any money during the off-peak months, then my extra consumption over the peak months shouldn’t be costing them any more either.
I agree shortygirl, nobody should be paying for something they are not getting. People also need to check their bills, my bill indicates I’m paying separate fees for sewer and repairs so I’m willing to bet others also have those charges on their bills.
Honeydog, I have to agree. EP “cake-eaters” are a bunch of posers. Cupcake eaters, maybe. EHS ‘97 here, north Minneapolis now.
I see this question differently. How much you all are paying for water is beside the point. The fixed costs that the local government unit need to recover should be covered in either the property tax base or, more ideally, from a local government aid payment from the state government out of the general fund.
Individual user fees charged to users of public goods is a bad, bad precedent. If there were a scarcity of water, we really want the rich to be able to buy it on the basis that they have more property? NO!! We want a fair arbitrating authority who can ration it — it is necessary for all life, people.
This plays well into the question of the budget problem. Everyone reading, please, please call the governor and ask him to compromise on his particular property tax plan - capping property tax increases.
When that is done, water bills and other user fees are going to drastically increase, and those funds are going to be used to make up shortfalls caused by the Governor’s horrible policy choice.
Government services, public goods (the appropriate scope of which is open to debate) should be paid for based on the ability to pay, not on the basis of how much a citizen uses them…
Then, if we were funding water use through income tax or property tax revenues, we could create a conservation income tax credit. If citizens use less than a certain amount of public water annually, they get an income tax credit.
Look, just because none of you are Marxists doesn’t mean that we should flip his ideas around to get the right answer. “From each according to his need” is not how government is supposed to be funded, even if you think “to each according to his need” is government overreaching.
Adam Smith, a more established capitalist (thanks Mr. Marsh) said “the cost of government ought to be distributed among individuals as nearly as possible in proportion to the revenue they enjoy under the protection from the state.” Not too far from Marx “from each according to ability”.
I think Water should be included in our conception of public goods and funding for it should follow the model that Adam Smith, JS Mill, Karl Marx, JM Keynes and all real economic thinkers agree upon, and they should abandon the Ventura-Pawlenty fee-for-service model which is driving our state in the wrong direction. Call TPaw and insist.
Thanks!
Eric says he doesn’t have a stormwater system near his property on a dirt road.
Only you use your septic. It is private. The stormwater system is public and controls water runoff throughout your community which you use everyday. If it wasn’t for the infrstructure heavy rains would flood the streets you drive on, the parks you use, the sidewalks you walk on, etc. It is not used specifically for only that fronting your property. Also many on dirt roads have culverts that wash out. Those are also a part of the system and need maintenance.
When I moved into my first house in White Bear Township, I was told the water/sewer charge was a set rate for everyone whether you use one drop or a million gallons. No matter how little I used as a single person, someone with 10 kids would be paying the same. I have no problem paying a minimum but people using more should be charged more. The minimum amount should be reasonable so people who are conserving aren’t subsidizing people who aren’t.
Take a hose and shoot the extra 2000 gallons out your window each month and call the press, to put pressure on the city.
Eh, I wish the city would just jack up a minimum connection/service fee, and then charge you based on actual consumption. Same difference, and maybe people would stop complaining and stop making ridiculous suggestions like watering the driveway to prove a point.
Please, get over it. There is never going to be a way to exactly equalize taxes/fees paid with services received for every person, because every person uses different services and the government is somehow supposed to accomodate everyone. Maybe *you* don’t use 35W, so *you* shouldn’t have to pay for replacing the bridge, right? No, wrong. I suppose now, I should just go fill up my gas tank and then let my car idle until I run out of gas since I’m having to pay for a bridge I never drive on.
Nick,
My runoff does not run through the stormwater system, therefore I should not have to pay the fee. Just because I have a private septic does not mean it does not affect the other residents. Do you know what non-compliant and improperly maintained septic systems do to a water supply? Last time I checked cities use wells to get water to a homes on city water. Where do you think the city pumps the water from?
If I am required to pay a stormwater fee, I think residents that are on city sewer should pay a septic fee. They are affected just as much from a non-compliant septic system as I am from their runoff.
Also if cities and developers would not cover our landscape with concrete the run off would be reduced.
For example Hanson Blvd in Coon Rapids and Andover was expanded. Instead of installing rain gardens or other suitable systems do you know what they did? The covered the entire median with concrete, thus contributing more water to the system.
I use roads and bridges everyday therefore I should pay. However none of the stormwater runoff from my property enters the stormwater system. Why should residents pay for poor design? Maybe if cities and counties were not rewarded(higher fees, more fees) they might think twice before covering every inch of the landscape with concrete.
If the infrastructure did not include millions of tons of concrete and properly designed catch basins were used there would be less stormwater runoff.
Please leave a comment
Your destination for righting wrongs, uncovering injustices big and small and holding people, companies and government accountable.
A comprehensive resource for finding out about your community.
Special Reports
Continuing coverage
Why did the I-35W bridge collapse? How do the victims and Minnesota move forward? Stay on top of the latest.
Subscribe to Whistleblower
Learn more about RSS
Complain here!
Other bloggers and columnists who can help
The Star Tribune investigates
Categories
- Aging infrastructure (2)
- Businesses in hot water (8)
- Buyer beware (7)
- Complaint sagas (15)
- Corruption (1)
- Dangerous products (4)
- Government spends your money (13)
- Home improvement (3)
- How to blow the whistle (7)
- Neighborhood nuisances (6)
- Problems on the job (2)
- Property problems (10)
- Public records (19)
- Scams (1)
- The rich get richer (1)
- Whistleblowers (2)