(06-29-2014 04:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 02:28 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I agree with you regarding TV's w/ cable, Jordans, T-Shirts and sh*t people really don't need in day to day life. Subsidizing that crap via Welfare makes very little sense to me, and I've argued against Welfare many times about how it keeps poor people poor. Water, on the other hand, should be for free and for all.

How would you get that free water produced and delivered to consumers?

I think this is the crux of the argument. Who pays for this stuff? Why is it a right? Personally, I think you should have the right to collect a jug of water from a lake or even put a tank outside your home to collect rain water. But, if you want someone to purify water (instead of doing it yourself) and provide a means of delivery to your home, then you should have to pay for that.

(06-29-2014 05:07 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 04:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 02:28 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I agree with you regarding TV's w/ cable, Jordans, T-Shirts and sh*t people really don't need in day to day life. Subsidizing that crap via Welfare makes very little sense to me, and I've argued against Welfare many times about how it keeps poor people poor. Water, on the other hand, should be for free and for all.

How would you get that free water produced and delivered to consumers?

I think this is the crux of the argument. Who pays for this stuff? Why is it a right? Personally, I think you should have the right to collect a jug of water from a lake or even put a tank outside your home to collect rain water. But, if you want someone to purify water (instead of doing it yourself) and provide a means of delivery to your home, then you should have to pay for that.

Agreed. Water falling from the sky? Put out a big bucket and collect all that you want for free. Water from a pond creek or lake on your property? Take a bucket and collect all that you want for free.
Want processed, purified, treated water? Somebody has to pay for that. It doesn't happen for free so you aren't entitled to get it for free.

In Fairfax, my last water bill was $15. However, my sewer was $55. I still have yet to understand why I have to pay 350% more to dispose of the water I use. I would be more understanding if it was switched around. I always ask people around here including realtors and neighbors and everyone just gives me a blank stare. So if I decided not to pay for 6 months, I would only owe $90, but the bill would be $420. just food for thought I guess

(06-29-2014 05:41 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  In Fairfax, my last water bill was $15. However, my sewer was $55. I still have yet to understand why I have to pay 350% more to dispose of the water I use. I would be more understanding if it was switched around. I always ask people around here including realtors and neighbors and everyone just gives me a blank stare. So if I decided not to pay for 6 months, I would only owe $90, but the bill would be $420. just food for thought I guess

Because it costs a lot more to treat sewage to EPA disposal standards than it does to produce and treat water. That depends a little bit on what your source of water supply is. In some places, water is getting as expensive as sewer.

One thing that's interesting is that sewer pretty much has to be tied for water. The reason is that you can't cut off sewer for non-payment by law, so your only chance of collecting is to shut off water.

(06-29-2014 05:41 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  In Fairfax, my last water bill was $15. However, my sewer was $55. I still have yet to understand why I have to pay 350% more to dispose of the water I use. I would be more understanding if it was switched around. I always ask people around here including realtors and neighbors and everyone just gives me a blank stare. So if I decided not to pay for 6 months, I would only owe $90, but the bill would be $420. just food for thought I guess

You have to understand how the government sees it. There is base understanding (true or untrue) that water is naturally potable. Only because of human usage does water become "dirty". So, in order to put the water back into the environment in the same way you received it, you are charged to clean it. Like Owl says, that cleaning is much more expensive than it costs to make relatively clean water potable.

Well that makes sense. It was tough getting used to it after growing up in the desert. And it made more sense after I just read this from the county web site regarding an increase.

"New environmental rules to protect the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay are one reason for the increase.

(06-29-2014 10:09 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  "It's frightening, because you think this is something that only happens somewhere like Africa," said Hill, a single mother who is studying homeland security at a local college. "But now I know what they're going through — when I get somewhere there's a water faucet, I drink until my stomach hurts."

Future TSA manager. Jesus H. Christ.

(06-29-2014 05:41 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  In Fairfax, my last water bill was $15. However, my sewer was $55. I still have yet to understand why I have to pay 350% more to dispose of the water I use. I would be more understanding if it was switched around. I always ask people around here including realtors and neighbors and everyone just gives me a blank stare. So if I decided not to pay for 6 months, I would only owe $90, but the bill would be $420. just food for thought I guess

Federal mandates, in particular storm water runoff mandates.

Detroit: http://gizmodo.com/tracking-detroits-dec...1586631393

(06-29-2014 08:33 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Detroit: http://gizmodo.com/tracking-detroits-dec...1586631393

Detroit needs a skilled arsonist and a lot of gasoline.

(06-29-2014 02:28 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I agree with you regarding TV's w/ cable, Jordans, T-Shirts and sh*t people really don't need in day to day life. Subsidizing that crap via Welfare makes very little sense to me, and I've argued against Welfare many times about how it keeps poor people poor. Water, on the other hand, should be for free and for all.

And again what does it cost to get that water to your house, if you live in the city?

It takes piping, maintenance, electricity, etc.

Honestly, who believes they're paying for the _water_? They're paying for the maintenance on the system so that the water can get to your house with the turn of the tap. You don't pay for your part of that maintenance, then they turn off your pipes, so that you don't use the system.

Now that being said, the last one in the story listed.. sound fishy. How do you not realize you're not 5Grand behind in your bills? You get a monthly bill... What do you do, just throw those mails away without looking at them?

It seems strange that Detroit is cracking down on $150 in past due bills though... It seems like that's just one month in bills (the way I read the story).

If water was free it would be wasted more than it is now.

Charlotte had an incentive to the water meter people where they got part of the reconnection fee
if they turned off people's water. It could be a couple of days over 30 days and bam. They finally
changed that.

You do not have to throw away water bills if your meter messes up and you get a $1200.00
water bill in one month.

(06-29-2014 06:24 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 05:41 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  In Fairfax, my last water bill was $15. However, my sewer was $55. I still have yet to understand why I have to pay 350% more to dispose of the water I use. I would be more understanding if it was switched around. I always ask people around here including realtors and neighbors and everyone just gives me a blank stare. So if I decided not to pay for 6 months, I would only owe $90, but the bill would be $420. just food for thought I guess

You have to understand how the government sees it. There is base understanding (true or untrue) that water is naturally potable. Only because of human usage does water become "dirty". So, in order to put the water back into the environment in the same way you received it, you are charged to clean it. Like Owl says, that cleaning is much more expensive than it costs to make relatively clean water potable.

Quite correct. Water is in fact free. What people are paying for is the transport, the pressurization, the removal and purification of black-water. The reason why the water bills exceed the price of inflation is because for several decades, major urban areas differed the true cost of the system by keeping the prices artificially low. Thus many cities are operating a 100 year old water transport system that has been neglected and overstressed. One would think though that the city would at least establish a payment plan for folks would had really large balances.

U.N. to intervene in Detroit water shutoffs

Quote:UNITED NATIONS – Watch out, Detroit. Here comes the United Nations.

WND has learned that after issuing a statement last week condemning Detroit’s decision to send water shut-off notices to tens of thousands of customers behind in their payments, the U.N now plans to conduct confidential policy discussions with the Obama administration to be followed by a formal public report to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

On Monday, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s office in Geneva confirmed to WND that the U.N. plans to intervene directly in the Detroit water crisis, determined to apply international law to judge the U.S. in violation of human rights to safe water.

Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, DWSD, announced in March it would send shut-off notices to customers with balances more than $150 overdue or who are more than two months behind in their payments. The department, which said nearly half of the 324,000 water and sewerage accounts are overdue, has put out 46,000 notices since March. About 4,500 accounts have had their water shut off.

In response to a WND inquiry, Madoka Saji, a human rights officer in the Special Procedures Branch of the office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland, explained in an email Monday that the U.N. plans to intervene directly in the Detroit crisis, because the Human Rights Council has received formal allegations the Detroit water shut-off threatens to violate U.N.-established human rights to safe drinking water and sanitation mandates.

Saji explained that the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights special rapporteur on safe water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque, must intervene directly with the U.S. government, first in a confidential manner and then in a public manner.

The Associated Press noted in a report June 25 that de Albuquerque can make recommendations and lend “moral weight,” but she has no enforcement power.

The U.N. in Geneva further pointed out that de Albuquerque encountered similar water disconnection cases in her first official “country mission” to the United States from Feb. 22 to March 4, 2011. Her final report, Aug. 2, 2011, recommended the U.S. adopt a federal minimum standard on affordability for water and sanitation in conformity with the U.N.’s International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Although the United States signed the U.N.’s International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights on Oct. 5, 1977, during the administration of President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty.

Saji explained to WND that de Albuquerque has a mandate to communicate with any nation violating the U.N. covenant, whether or not the nation has ratified the document as a treaty obligation.

In a U.N. news release June 25, de Albuquerque stated water shut-offs due to non-payment are only justified “if it can be shown that the resident is able to pay but not paying,” further alleging that “when there is genuine inability to pay, human rights simply forbids disconnections.”

In the same press release, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Leilana Farha, expressed concern that children are being removed from their families and homes because, without access to water, their housing is no longer considered adequate.

“If these water disconnections disproportionately affect African Americans they may be discriminatory, in violation of treaties the United States has ratified,” Farha added, strongly suggesting standards established by the U.N.’s International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights may not be the only international law the U.N. seeks to apply to the water shut-off crisis in Detroit.

DWSD serves approximately 700,000 Detroit residents and an additional 4 million people in southeastern Michigan, while selling water service to suburban communities that in turn bill their residents.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/u-n-to-interv...-shutoffs/

Lol, just like usual, the UN is all talk and no action. Not like the US would listen to the UN anyway, at least to a US matter.

One day water will be scarce. My guess is it won't be free then either.

$5,000 bills? Detroit was lenient waiting that long. Try paying your bills, you leeches.

Shut 'em down.

As has been suggested, set jars and jugs out to collect rainwater. Use public facilities to drink. Buy jugs of water for cooking. Go rid bodily waste outdoors; help fertilize the area.

Inconvenient? Yes. But it can be done.

My water is free

Detroit needs to figure out which customers can pay and just don't pay and which customers can't pay at all. Not sure how to go about that, but that's what Detroit needs to do.

I just got my water bill the other day and noticed that my water cost more than my sewage by almost double. i found it strange since most on here say that sewer costs more.