|
Drink
up, city, but meter
will be running
Chicago Tribune
- 4/9
The
thousands of Chicagoans who sprinkle their lawns without giving
it a second thought, take long, leisurely showers and run dishwashers
to clean just a few pots and pans got the equivalent of a cold
splash in the face on Tuesday: news that the days of dirt-cheap
water are numbered.
Under
a plan unveiled by Mayor Richard Daley, the 350,000 single family
homes and small apartment buildings whose owners for years have
enjoyed the luxury of an unlimited supply of water for a flat
fee will get meters. And Chicago will join virtually all other
big cities nationwide, and virtually all Chicago suburbs, where
people pay for exactly what they use.
Officials
in states around the Great Lakes as well as Canada have long complained
about Chicago's letting many of its residents go meterless, contending
that it encouraged waste and needlessly diverted water that should
be available for all residents of the region.
Daley
didn't directly acknowledge those concerns but said his initiative
is part of a multipronged strategy to protect Lake Michigan and
improve conservation.
"Like
the air we breathe, water is a vital natural resource and an important
part of our quality of life in Chicago," the mayor declared.
"This water agenda is an effort to make us all more aware
of the importance of water in our daily lives. We must protect
it now, so that it never becomes an endangered resource."
Daley
and top aides were murky about when meter installation might begin
and how long it would take, suggesting they were just at the beginning
of a plan that must be studied and could take years to implement.
But
Daley's announcement signaled an official shift in policy and
a willingness to end what many consider a perk of city living
they take for granted.
"The
mayor is looking for money, that's all," said an unhappy
Juan Gonzalez, who has lived blissfully unmetered for 35 years
in a comfortable bungalow on West Augusta Boulevard. "He
shouldn't be stingy."
Stone
sees resistance
"Obviously
there will be some heat," said Ald. Bernard Stone (50th).
"People who water their lawns for hours on end are not going
to be able to do that anymore. ... They will be unhappy."
Stone
said meters represent "a more equitable way. It has always
been unfair that some people have been metered and other people
weren't."
Under
a 1978 agreement between the state and the city, meters have been
required in Chicago on all newly built or substantially rehabilitated
homes. (The devices also are required in all commercial and industrial
buildings.) But older residential properties that have not been
rehabbed continue to be billed based on a formula that takes into
account such things as the size of the building, the width of
the lot and the number of outside hose spigots.
The
average American home uses 127,400 gallons of water a year, according
to the American Water Works Association, an organization devoted
to safe drinking water. The owner of a home in Naperville who
used that much water would owe $344 annually at the rates charged
by that city, while in Evanston the comparable charge would be
about $254.
In
Chicago, where water rates tend to be lower than elsewhere in
the metropolitan area, a homeowner with a meter consuming the
same amount of water would owe $156 a year.
That
is almost precisely what owners of unmetered homes pay on average
in Chicago, according to city officials. But many Chicago residents
whose homes lack meters have a tendency to splurge because they
have no reason to do otherwise, though it is impossible to say
how much water they use because their consumption is not measured.
A
similar average annual bill for metered residences was not immediately
available, although city officials insisted that some families
who pay flat fees now actually could get lower bills with meters
if their usage is modest.
Long
court battles
Chicago's
use of Lake Michigan water was an issue of international controversy
for decades and the subject of court cases dating to the 1920s
that stretched into the 1990s. At the heart of the flap was the
city's historic flow reversal of the Chicago River, which robbed
Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes of untold billions of gallons.
The
state is responsible for compliance with a judicial decree that
limits the amount of water drawn from the lake by Chicago and
other Illinois communities at 3,200 cubic feet per second, or
2.1 billion gallons a day, including the amount that results from
the river's reversed flow.
Reg
Gilbert, senior coordinator for Great Lakes United, a water conservation
group based in Buffalo, N.Y., said that Chicago and Illinois had
become good stewards on the water front after losing their long-running
battles in the courts, and he applauded Daley's Tuesday announcement.
"It
is wonderful news the city is taking this step, very responsible,"
he said. "Water meters are seen as a baseline conservation
measure. They are the least coercive measure you can have. You
give people the incentive to decide not to waste by making them
pay per gallon or in classes of gallons rather than a flat fee."
"In
order to conserve water, you need to know how much you are using,"
said Cameron Davis, executive director of the Lake Michigan Federation,
another conservation organization. "Metering is a first step.
... The fact Chicago hasn't done it by now I think has led to
a culture of waste."
Daley's
conservation efforts now can serve as a model for other Great
Lakes mayors, Davis said.
In
the past, city officials insisted they had no problem, philosophically,
with the idea of billing everyone based on water consumption.
But they cited steep costs as the reason for their lack of action.
A
1994 study estimated the citywide price of meter installation
at up to $347 million.
Then
there is the cost of repairs when devices break down, the expense
of reading the meters and the headache of dealing with unscrupulous
owners who would seek to circumvent them, as with gas and electric
meters.
Daley
and Richard Rice, commissioner of the city's Department of Water
Management, said they have not yet figured out how to finance
the initiative.
Meanwhile,
to those who look out on the vastness of Lake Michigan and wonder
why conservation is necessary, Gilbert said the Great Lakes are
at potential peril on two fronts. One is the possibility of climate
change.
"The
amount of water that could evaporate could be huge," he said.
The
second is the threat of diversion to arid parts of the country,
where exploding growth threatens existing supplies.
"The
Great Lakes represent 95 percent of [U.S.] surface water, and
the only reason we are not supplying water [elsewhere] is because
it is heavy and expensive to ship," Gilbert said. "If
the price goes up, it could be affordable to ship."
A
federal law that gives veto power over diversions to governors
of Great Lakes states could be rescinded by Congress as easily
as it was passed if population--and thus, representation in the
U.S. House--continues to shift to thirsty states, he said.
Out
in one Near Northwest Side neighborhood, reaction to Daley's proposal
was mixed along predictable lines.
Frank
Rios said he is happy with the flat rate he pays for his two-flat
near Central Park Avenue and Augusta Boulevard and worries about
escalating costs that might come with a meter.
"We
don't make much money as it is," he said.
But
Candido Lebron, who lives nearby on West Thomas Street, believes
that if he and some other property owners have meters, everyone
should.
"It's
unfair because I have to pay more," he said, leaning out
of the second-floor window of his four-story walk-up. Others "use
whatever water they want and only pay a flat fee. Everyone should
have a meter."
NOTICE: In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without
permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of
criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair
use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials
may not be distributed further, except for "fair use,"
without permission of the copyright owner.
|