🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Feb12.025047.8915@kronos.arc.nasa.gov> chucko@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Chuck Fry) writes:
>Need I point out that, even now, most of Sacramento has *no* water
>meters?

Need I point out that Sacramento is on a river sufficient to supply
far more water than it uses?  Given that, anything other than "broad
class" charging, with flat rates for most users, is silly.  For most
users in Sacramento, most of their bill goes to billing costs and very
little depends on volume used.  The non-billing costs are dominated by
the "peak demand" local facilities, otherwise known as the pipe to the
neighborhood and within the neighborhood.  Those costs aren't reduced
by not using water, only by not having users.  Only envy justifies
increasing that by instituting the per-drop charge schemes appropriate
for areas without adequate local supplies.

Note that much of Sacramento Valley Agribiz doesn't use subsidized
water for much the same reason.  Guess why some areas had significant
population before the water projects kicked in and others didn't.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu