Punished for conservation
On Nov. 27 city officials reported that since less water is being used, rates have to go up or the budget has to come down. Now wait a minute. If we install water-saving devices in our homes, take shorter showers, fix leaky faucets, resist sprinkling the lawn three times a week, shouldn’t we not only save water, but also save money? If we turn down the thermostat, we expect to use less heating oil and save money, right? If we trade in our SUVs for compacts, we expect to help the planet and our pocketbooks, right? The government certainly wouldn’t raise the per-gallon tax so that its take remains the same.
So how can the city of Rutland propose to raise the rate for water usage because we’ve been good citizens and conserved water? We should be rewarded, thereby encouraged to conserve water. If we conserve, our water bills should go down. The city water budget should not be an immovable object. It makes sense that it should go down if we use less water. What are they thinking?