Penalized for conservation?

Don't leave the faucet running while brushing your teeth.
Don't water the sidewalk, actually, I think that may have been my father's rule. The point was, we have to use the water that we have wisely, there is only so much to go around.

I found a in little snippet in The Seattle Times. The title was was "Council approves water-rate increase". Now this title piqued my curiousty, since, I find it interesting to observe the government work and the reasoning behind it. Also, I had just moved into the area, and was wondering how much the water rates may rise. (15% over three years) So I read the article through. The three main reasons given to the paper by the Seattle Public Utilities (commission?): "Pay for system improvements, a settlement with the Muckleshoot Tribe (local native american tribe) for water rights to the Cedar River". Now directly after this are three reasons that get very little print space: "Inflation, tax increases, and declining water use".

That there my friends, is the kicker.

I've lived thirteen years in Southern Cali. up until 1993, then moved to Texas and lived there till about, oh a month ago. When I attended school in L.A. it was drilled into my head, conserve, recycle , & reuse. Which made sense, because L.A. was in the middle of a eight or ten year drought. The current illegal alien population boom, was just starting to kick into high gear. Ready to add it's own strain to the system.

So, having stated all that, I would have to think that logically speaking that declining usage would be the next step of a successful conservation program. That means that more of the population has installed in they're houses: water conserving toilets, shower heads, etc. That got me thinking... Why would a government penalize it's citizen's, for listening and practicing what it has been telling them to do. Now I understand I am talking about Seattle and not Los Angeles, but shouldn't everyone be trying to conserve in this day and age? Hasn't the majority of the population agreed on the fact that our natural resources are limited and to a strong degree diminishing? It's starting to become harder and harder in certain parts of the country to come across reliable sources of water. Most of the Southern U.S. is in a water crisis of one sort or another. Whether it be a drought or shortage (AKA - on the verge of becoming a drought). Including one of wettest states Florida.

Now that more and more people are starting to understand or acknowledge that global warming is happening, and the consequences can't be controlled, like some scandal in politics. You can't spin the data, no matter how hard you try. You would have to think that rates would go down, with demand. Isn't that how the basic economics in our system work? Isn't that how this gasoline "shortage" has been compounded into what it is today? Aren't economists saying that we should eliminate all excess driving, so that demand will go down, so that in turn some surplus can be had, which in turn will drive down prices at the pump? So logically speaking, according to the rules in play today, the same ones that we learned in high school economics, this should apply to all commodities. Energy and Water. Right?

Once again this is all logically thinking. And we all know that the world does not work on logic, because if it did, the world bank would cease to exsist. You can't logically spend money if you don't have it, at least that's what my bank tells me. Right Uncle Sam?