Should water be free?

[dead0man]

and if not, what should be done with people that don't pay the bill?  Detroit is shutting off water to thousands of it's citizens for not paying.  50% of the customers in Detroit are delinquent with a combined past due amount of $175mil.  The city owned water company is $5billion in the red.

sympathetic to the poor link

Of course the problems in Detroit are several:dying auto industry because they were horribly managed for decades, horrible local politicians because it was a one party system and stupidly corrupt, an ever shrinking tax base coupled with an ever expanding tax eating base


As for water, I can understand why a person would think it's a "basic human right" and should be free for everybody, paid for with taxes from the non-poor.  I can understand doing it the way we do it now too, ie, everybody pays a smallish flat fee for access and then pays a tiny amount per gallon used.  The problem with the free because it's a human right side is what about arid places?  Should there be limits on how much water a single household can use in a month?  The first 800 gallons are free, after that you pay?  Do you turn off the water to those that don't pay even with this deal?

[Meursault]

The actual answer to your question has less to do with water itself and more with the urgent need to force Americans to move out of the desert by any means necessary. Nevada, Arizona, etc. should be ghost states.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It would be technically possible to design a water meter than allows only a set amount of water before shutting down.  Say one that added 25 gallons to the free quota daily.

[bedstuy]

No.  I think paying for any resource encourages efficient use.  If you don't pay for electricity, you leave the lights on.  If you don't pay for water, you take long showers.  Seems like common sense.  Water is a scarce resource and we need to conserve it, especially in the arid parts of the country.

If people can't afford water, the problem is not the way we price water.  The problem in Detroit is probably that they were super corrupt and they didn't have the money to keep up their infrastructure, coupled with the poverty that means people can't pay their bills. 

[TNF]

Yes (not terrible)

[ingemann]

I'm not sure what arid places has to do with Detroit, it lies beside the biggest fresh water lakes in the world, it have a cold and humid climate. Even if you do not take water directly from the lake, it should still be dirt cheap to extract.

When that's said, no water should not be free.

[AggregateDemand]

The government has public health motivation to provide free water in public places. However, water delivered to the home should be priced and restricted to encourage efficient usage.

However, I think most governments price water and utilities incorrectly. Usage of water, electricity, or natural gas under a certain threshold should be exempt from any charges, subsidized by governments who have an interest in making sure people have access to basic necessities. After the threshold is surpassed, rates should be quite expensive to encourage responsible usage.

Texas uses this pricing model for property taxes (homestead exemption; 2%+ rates above exemption value) to encourage efficient use of real estate. It has a track record of success.

[ingemann]

The government has public health motivation to provide free water in public places. However, water delivered to the home should be priced and restricted to encourage efficient usage.

However, I think most governments price water and utilities incorrectly. Usage of water, electricity, or natural gas under a certain threshold should be exempt from any charges, subsidized by governments who have an interest in making sure people have access to basic necessities. After the threshold is surpassed, rates should be quite expensive to encourage responsible usage.

Texas uses this pricing model for property taxes (homestead exemption; 2%+ rates above exemption value) to encourage efficient use of real estate. It has a track record of success.

Hm...

Not only are this not a bad idea, it's in fact a great idea. It give a incentive to lower ones consumption, while at the same time giving the poor access to basic utilities.

[SWE]

Yes (not terrible)

[ingemann]

Yes (not terrible)

I must admit I prefer not to destroy the environment, that may be terrible, but I think leaving a better world to our children are one of the most important objective for every generation.

[TNF]

I tend to think that if people need water, they should have access to it.

If we are seriously going to ration water (and that may ultimately be necessary), those who need it most should have the most access to it, and distribution should be handled by democratically-accountable water boards. Bottled water distribution for profit (and ultimately all water distribution for profit) should be abolished in favor of distribution on the basis of need.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I tend to think that if people need water, they should have access to it.

If we are seriously going to ration water (and that may ultimately be necessary), those who need it most should have the most access to it, and distribution should be handled by democratically-accountable water boards. Bottled water distribution for profit (and ultimately all water distribution for profit) should be abolished in favor of distribution on the basis of need.

How does one determine who needs the most water?