George,

Do others out there agree that all of the City Council has been asleep at the wheel on this one?

We have, supposedly, an 80-100 day supply of water (and at 57.1%, with .7% used in one day this week, it looks a lot more like 80 than 100). The level of inaction involved in not imposing strict rules some time ago is akin to City Council members sitting in the middle of Market Street, seeing a slow moving steamroller coming down the street towards them for, say, an hour, and then scrambling to try to avoid it when it is 6 feet away.

None of the local governing bodies enacted water restrictions in a timely manner. Restrictions imposed earlier could have been less severe. Some businesses could have endured and we could have managed our supply in such a way as to have made it last longer. If there is $150,000.00 to be raised by surcharges and fines, and were that amount, as has been suggested, to be paid to carwash employees, each of the approximately 150 car wash employees in our area would get about $1000.00. That would be a meaningful sum for a short time, but probably comes to less than 1 month's salary.

Vision and leadership on this issue 10-15 percentage points ago in the reservoir was needed. It was not provided.

It is clear that very serious measures are necessary, but Roberta and I ought not to be allowed to use the same amount of water as our next door neighbors who have 2 small children. A family of four ought not to be able to use as much water as a family of eight. A per person allowance would be better. There would be significant, but not insurmountable, enforcement problems with a per capita limit, but such a limit would be fairer. The inequitable effect of the per-household limit will be exaggerated in less modern, less affluent housing where washing machines, toilets, and other plumbing fixtures may be less efficient. (The 3 day leak repair, by the way, ought to be a permanently enforced rule. Unrepaired leaks have contributed to the current state of affairs.).

The 50% surcharge, while on paper a good sounding deterrent to excess water consumption, also favors the affluent. Some people possess, and have articulated, the wrong-headed view that as long as they pay their bills the government must supply then with water. Death may be the great equalizer, but the need for water is right up there, too. The word "community" is used a great deal: we all need to act for the benefit of the community to decrease water comsumption. Everything that each of us does affects the well-being of everyone else. This is a fine community, and we need to come through for each other.

Having put tough rules in place, the City should both enforce them and refine them. The crisis grows as the water supply shrinks. City council, and other local governments, need to respond and to lead.

Bruce Williamson (electronic mail, September 18, 2002)