Water Proposals Are All Wet

The information about how much water we really use and ideas for cutting back (“Who’s Counting?” Jan. 31) was a real eye-opener.

But there are three reasons why current proposals for a 10% cutback or to limit future consumption to 300 gallons per household are inherently unfair.

First, any rationing must be allocated per person rather than by household. A household of two adults and three children can be very careful to conserve, yet still rightfully use much more water than a wasteful household of only one adult.

Second, as Bill Roley pointed out in the article, proposals to cut back by a fixed percentage from prior use unfairly punish those who conserved all along and reward past waste.

Third, and most significant, such proposals are inherently unfair (probably violating equal protection of the law) because they require the ridiculous situation in which low-income users, using minimum quantities of water for survival needs, subsidize middle-income and wealthy consumers with landscaping and pools.

The only equitable solution is to determine the target level of consumption, including the percentage reduction, for the entire population and divide it by the population to determine a fair level of consumption for each person (not household).

Those who use less would receive a substantial reduction in the cost of water. Those who use more would pay a much higher rate, with rapidly escalating penalties. Those who can afford pools and gardens, not the poor, should pay for the water to operate them.

Such a plan should appeal to conservatives who favor the operation of free-market systems and liberals who seek to protect low-income users. But it will never pass because the decision-makers--city councilmen, Department of Water and Power officials and newspaper editors--who are in the upper- and middle-income groups would be most likely to find themselves paying more for their fair share of water consumption.

DOUGLAS DUNN

Sherman Oaks