 
Diehard
Member
Username: Diehard
Post Number: 221
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 4:50 pm: |    |
LOL. That about sums it up there, Jt1. |
Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 2011
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:08 pm: | |
Jt1 -- I basically agree, but would you also agree that the DWSD using much of the increase to subsidize a sewer line extension to Grand Blanc is a disaster? |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10984
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:09 pm: | |
quote:Jt1 -- I basically agree, but would you also agree that the DWSD using much of the increase to subsidize a sewer line extension to Grand Blanc is a disaster?
I think extending the system any further is a disaster. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10985
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:10 pm: | |
Side note - When DTE or ITCC decides to extend electrical service to new areas it is payed for by all rate payers. Same situation but less grumbling against DTE or ITCC.
We need a moratorium on new infrastructure for about 10 years to allow our f'ed up real estate market in the city and suburbs to stabilize. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 4140
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:21 pm: | |
Agreed. There's plenty of land to develop or redevelop south of 32 mile road to serve the current population. And since I don't see any population increases going on, I see no need for more infrastructure to support the nonexistant population increase. |
Missmich
Member
Username: Missmich
Post Number: 18
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:26 pm: | |
ah, its good to have a well |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10987
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:27 pm: | |
quote:ah, its good to have a well
I agree. It is good to have you in a place where there are wells. |
Detroitrise
Member
Username: Detroitrise
Post Number: 1071
Registered: 09-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 5:45 pm: | |
lol Jt1 |
Broken_main
Member
Username: Broken_main
Post Number: 1354
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 6:14 pm: | |
Jt1..thanks.
You have explained a lot. I would have explained it exactly like you did. |
Sirrealone
Member
Username: Sirrealone
Post Number: 53
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 8:16 pm: | |
If people further away from the water source should have to pay more, then shouldn't people who live further away from power plants pay a higher rate for electricity than those who live right down the road from one? I'm not disagreeing that infrastructure costs are higher to support those further away, but don't most utilities act from a more regional perspective when it comes to allocating these types of costs?
I think a lot of the issue comes from the fact that, at least perception-wise, these increases and charges are set by a Detroit-led (as opposed to region-led) board. And there's, at least from the perspective of the 'average citizen', very little rhyme or reason to how the costs are allocated. So, when a resident of one city sees their rates go up 15% in a year and know that they're paying 30% more for water than someone a mile away with a different city, there's an element of distrust, and that ties back to who has the control. |
Granmontrules
Member
Username: Granmontrules
Post Number: 269
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 8:22 pm: | |
Charge then! Bah humbug on urban sprawl! |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2382
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 8:36 pm: | |
Um....dumb question, maybe, but how many gallons in 1000 cubic feet? |
Yaktown
Member
Username: Yaktown
Post Number: 274
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 9:20 pm: | |
Ray, no such things as dumb questions. Maybe stupid questions...;-) Anyway, to answer your question 1000 cubic feet is equal to 7480.52 gallons. http://www.sciencemadesimple.n et/volume.php |
Broken_main
Member
Username: Broken_main
Post Number: 1356
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 9:22 pm: | |
7480 gallons |
Broken_main
Member
Username: Broken_main
Post Number: 1357
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 9:24 pm: | |
I know people who spend $2.39 per bottle of bottle water. |
Fareastsider
Member
Username: Fareastsider
Post Number: 712
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 9:57 pm: | |
DWSD ran a new line from 26 and Gratiot to a new Meijer a few miles down the road built at 26 Mile and I94 which is a very rural area. They even had to tunnel under the freeway to connect the line to the development. It seems to me that rural lenox Twp with a low population is paying for that new waterline! |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2384
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:20 pm: | |
Thanks, Yaktown and Main. I was trying to relate it to the pool I had in my former house. Large pool, 15,000 gallons, or roughly 2000 cubic feet based on what you tell me. Cost me about twenty-five bucks to fill 'er up. So Vegas water is in the ballpark with Detroit water, despite the lack of comparative abundance.
(No pool in the new house, and desert landscaping. I'm now proud to be a water miser.) |
Mama_jackson
Member
Username: Mama_jackson
Post Number: 253
Registered: 06-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:37 pm: | |
Well, the Detroit water system may have just priced itself out of usefulness. Genesee County has been checking into building their own system. The latest hike has made it feasible.
I pay $60 a month for water here in the City of Flint. It's too expensive now, let alone another price hike. |
Newportnic
Member
Username: Newportnic
Post Number: 5
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:19 am: | |
quote:
ah, its good to have a well
Yes it's great when the pump dies, when the well guy tells you the casing is shot, when your softener rusts thru "again", or all of your piping is shot after five years from the sulfur. I gladly send my water payment though I could have drilled a well. |
Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr
Post Number: 846
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:30 am: | |
quote:Jt1 -- I basically agree, but would you also agree that the DWSD using much of the increase to subsidize a sewer line extension to Grand Blanc is a disaster?
First, it's not a sewer line. It's a water line.
Second, it's not an extension. Flint already gets water from DWSD, and Grand Blanc Township buys it from Flint. This is not a new development, it's been this way for years. So instead of being an 'extension', this new line would ensure uninterrupted service to EXISTING customers of DWSD.
As Mama Jackson pointed out, Genesee County is already considering building their own system. Should they do so, DWSD will have less customers to pay for maintenaince to mostly the same infrastructure, therefore, Metro Detroit residents' water prices would go up even MORE.
Personally, I think it's about damn time GC got moving on our own damn line. Thank you DWSD, this just might be the kick in the ass the board of commissioners needs. |
Missmich
Member
Username: Missmich
Post Number: 20
Registered: 11-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 8:04 am: | |
We dont need a softener, you must have had bad experiences with bad water. Too bad. |
Broken_main
Member
Username: Broken_main
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 10:15 am: | |
When Genesee County started doing the research on this, they were initially told that it would be better to join another County to absorb the cost of the system. Building a new water system will cost at least 3 Billion for Genesee. That is just to build. They would have to tap into Lake Huron due to the restrictions placed on the surface water in the Genesee and Saginaw water sources. |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 414
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:32 am: | |
Broken_main,
which is exactly why the suburbs should quit bitching about water rates. What they seem to forget is that they are CUSTOMERS. If they don't like the prices they are paying from Detroit then they are more than welcome to find a cheaper alternative. |
Sirrealone
Member
Username: Sirrealone
Post Number: 54
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:57 am: | |
That sounds an awful lot like the mentality of the Big Three back in the 70's and 80's: "We can put any piece of crap out there and the CUSTOMERS will buy it, so why put out anything quality?"
How'd that work out for them again?
Also, what you're saying sounds an awful lot like a monopoly. And there's a history of monopolies being broken up when they become harmful to the consumer. |
Johnlodge
Member
Username: Johnlodge
Post Number: 4148
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:59 am: | |
Except that the product they are selling is actually high quality. |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 415
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 1:11 pm: | |
Johnlodge's statement = bingo
Sirrealone,
It's not that the customers are getting crap. Detroit Water is providing a HIGH quality product to its customers. Unfortunately, this costs money. In order for Detroit Water to continue providing this high quality product, they need the funding to replace aging infrastructure. It's just the facts. |
Ray1936
Member
Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 2386
Registered: 01-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 1:26 pm: | |
I would gladly pay top dollar to get Detroit's water. The quality of the water in Las Vegas is really quite bad; calcium that gets through the purification process gives it horrible taste and corrodes plumbing like you wouldn't believe.
Last June when I drove to Detroit and back I brought back two one-gallon jugs of Detroit tap water and stored them in the fridge. Each cup of water I drank from them was a joy. Of course, in a week it was all gone.....sob...... |
Ja1mz
Member
Username: Ja1mz
Post Number: 72
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 1:33 pm: | |
Detroit can't get money from the residents who don't pay their water bills at all, and can't be shut off, how about trying to get some of that money by shutting the water off like they do in other cities...and force them to pay.....but I guess that wouldn't be PC |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 416
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 1:34 pm: | |
Ray1936,
Fear not! In 10 years when the Southwest has grown enough that they can steal water from the great lakes you will once again be able to enjoy the sweet flavor of Detroit water from the comfort of your Las Vegas home!  |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10996
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 1:53 pm: | |
Ja1mz - The non-payers in Detroit proper effect the rates of Detroiters, not all water consumers.
This thread is hysterical and perfectly illustrates the problem with this region. Whenever an explanation is given someone else comes in with a new 'but'. I don't think anything can be more typical SE Michigan. |
Sirrealone
Member
Username: Sirrealone
Post Number: 55
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 2:11 pm: | |
I agree that it's a high quality product. My point wasn't in regards to the quality, it was in regards to the 'we'll do whatever we want because the customer has no choice' mentality that had been expressed in the previous post.
Here's what it boils down to me. I don't agree that there should be seperate pricing for all communities. If I drive to every municipality listed and find a tap serviced by Detroit water, guess what I'm going to get? The same water. So why is the 'price' of that water so variable?
People closer to power plants don't pay less than those who live further away, so the 'additional infrastructure costs' doesn't fly with me.
I'm mostly a lurker here but one thing I see on a lot of threads is talk about how we need to be more regional, and less 'Detroit vs. suburbs' or 'County X vs. County Y'. Wouldn't a single cost model encourage regionalism? Doesn't setting different price standards perpetuate the 'us vs. them' problem, regardless if you're 'us' or 'them'? |
El_jimbo
Member
Username: El_jimbo
Post Number: 422
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 2:21 pm: | |
You are right, power companies don't charge rates based upon distance. However, they DO charge higher rates if more energy is used during peak hours. As was stated before, much of the rate difference actaully has to do with how much or how little water each community uses during peak times. I believe the example was that Pontiac used to fill its tanks at the same time a lot of people were taking showers. Since this was a peak time, they were charged a premium for that. the water department worked with them to reschedule their tank filling time and the next year, their water costs went way down because they greatly reduced their peak time water usage. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 10998
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 2:47 pm: | |
quote:Here's what it boils down to me. I don't agree that there should be seperate pricing for all communities. If I drive to every municipality listed and find a tap serviced by Detroit water, guess what I'm going to get? The same water. So why is the 'price' of that water so variable?
You are struggling to understand the infrastructure needed to move water further out.
If we only deliver water to Detroit we can cut the vast majority of the infratsructure, sewage lines, pumping stations, etc.
Using your logic water should cost the same everywhere if it comes from the same point of origin. That is horribly flawed logic.
The analogy to electrical companies isn't the same because the burden and infrastructure to move water is much harder than to move electricity.
You are comparing apples and oranges. It is like saying that you should pay the same for gas per mile no matter how you drive or what you drive. |
Sirrealone
Member
Username: Sirrealone
Post Number: 56
Registered: 01-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 2:55 pm: | |
Jimbo, you're right that peak usage matters, and I wouldn't have a problem with that if the charges were based on my usage during peak times. That's how it is for electricity. I can choose whether or not to raise or lower my consumption. And if I were charged like that for water consumption, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But, the analogy is flawed because with the current system, I'm charged more even if I'm responsible simply because others that share the same zip code aren't aware or don't care about the peak usage rules. So, by that logic, the only way I can win there is to move to a community that has a better off-peak to peak usage ratio.
Jt1 - You're right. The cost of moving water is more than moving electricity. You've got me on that one. But if I look at the rates, I would then expect to see lower costs for inner ring suburbs, and a progressive increase based on how far away. I don't see it when I look at the rate tables. I know it's not going to be perfect, but in a pretty big portion, it's not even close to fitting under this 'guideline'. |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 11000
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 3:07 pm: | |
As stated before there are multiple variable such as distance from pumping source, altitude and a major factor usage at peak time.
When communities enforce things like watering lawns on alternative days they are effectively working to reduce their potential exposure to high usage during peak times. Some of it is poor planning on the cities not informing residents and some much just be bad luck which is why DWSD will isten to communities that contest rates and work with them to lower the rates.
It is an inexact science to be sure but the peak usage is needed so that DWSD knows what kind of infrastructure they need and can plan for usage accordingly. If usage across each community was consistent throughout the year there would be less fluctations in pricing. It is a system that is commonly used to set water pricing, not an maniacal plan to screw certain communities. |
Homer
Member
Username: Homer
Post Number: 250
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 10:17 am: | |
Is it true that there are still hollowed out logs being used for water pipes in the CBD? Heard this a while ago from a water dept. employee. |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 262
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 12:46 pm: | |
Lansing could regionalize the DWSD and that would solve the whole issue....yeah right! |
Jt1
Member
Username: Jt1
Post Number: 11021
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 12:56 pm: | |
quote:Lansing could regionalize the DWSD and that would solve the whole issue....yeah right!
Sarcastic or not? |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 315
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2007 - 1:21 pm: | |
"Lansing could regionalize the DWSD and that would solve the whole issue....yeah right!"
No they couldn't. Detroit's ownership is protected in the state constitution. |
Ferntruth
Member
Username: Ferntruth
Post Number: 263
Registered: 11-2006
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 4:56 pm: | |
"Sarcastic or not?"
Of course, sarcasm at play.
"No they couldn't. Detroit's ownership is protected in the state constitution."
Of course they couldn't nor was I seriously suggesting they even attempt it. I was being sarcastic about this silly thread.
If this area got its water from the WARREN water and sewerage department, half of the whining on this thread would disappear immediately.
It's only because it's the DETROIT water department that every rate increase, and drop of water has to be scrutinized.
Boy, people on this site need to lighten up..... |
Fury13
Member
Username: Fury13
Post Number: 3388
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 14, 2007 - 5:36 pm: | |
"Is it true that there are still hollowed out logs being used for water pipes in the CBD?"
No longer the case, I believe, although that may have been true a generation ago. There are, however, still some mains/pipes more than 100 years old in some places. Some of the old infrastructure was really well engineered and constructed. |
Dougw
Member
Username: Dougw
Post Number: 2018
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - 5:37 pm: | |
quote:First, it's not a sewer line. It's a water line.
My bad, I meant water line (water main).
quote:Second, it's not an extension. Flint already gets water from DWSD, and Grand Blanc Township buys it from Flint. This is not a new development, it's been this way for years. So instead of being an 'extension', this new line would ensure uninterrupted service to EXISTING customers of DWSD.
Well, in some ways it's not an extension, but mostly it is. It's not in the sense that it completes a loop which already goes along M53 and I69 (roughly) to Flint. But the new line is more than half of the entire loop, so it's a huge addition, and it covers entirely new territory along I-75 and other rural areas. People who currently use wells could pay to hook up to the line, and subdivisions can be built along the route.
See the line expansion map here:
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070919/METRO /709190397
http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps /pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date= 20070919&Category=METRO&ArtNo= 709190397&Ref=V2
quote:As Mama Jackson pointed out, Genesee County is already considering building their own system. Should they do so, DWSD will have less customers to pay for maintenaince to mostly the same infrastructure, therefore, Metro Detroit residents' water prices would go up even MORE.
That's just false. If they build the extension, DWSD will gain some new customers but the increase in customers would probably not be as high as the increase in costs. At best, it might be a wash.
But the real killer is that everyone in the current system will subsidizing the extension. It would be one thing if our region was rapidly growing in population and needed the new capacity. But as it is, we will be basically paying people to abandon our neighborhoods through our higher water bills. |
Japes
Member
Username: Japes
Post Number: 36
Registered: 02-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 - 10:12 pm: | |
Your water bill also may not contain just your water costs, and it all may not go to DWSD. Some cities put everything from pension funding to street lighting to garbage pickup on water bills. It is up to you city water department if they want to pass that cost increase on to you. Your Local Water Department is who you get your water from, and they can mark it up as they see fit. Some automatically pass it on, some wait a few years; someone has to pay for those city retirees with their $70,000 per year. pensions. The water rate is usually discussed during the City Budget discussions.
Sewage is also another cost, many cities don't even deal with DWSD for that they have their own organizations that handle sewage treatment.
Also on top of it all -- people use less water then they used to. So DWSD is pumping less water than they did 5 years ago. If people consume less and your fixed costs are the same you have to charge more to maintain your income level, along with your system is getting older by the day. |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 316
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 1:35 am: | |
"Some cities put everything from pension funding to street lighting to garbage pickup on water bills."
Can you document that? I don't think that's legal. Cities can only bill you for the costs related to water service. That may include the pension for the staff in the water department. But it sure wouldn't extend to garbage pickup or street lighting. |
Scottr
Member
Username: Scottr
Post Number: 847
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, December 20, 2007 - 1:47 am: | |
quote:That's just false. If they build the extension, DWSD will gain some new customers but the increase in customers would probably not be as high as the increase in costs. At best, it might be a wash.
Let's try again. There are four possibilities:
*DON'T build it, Genesee County leaves: DWSD is left holding the bag for the existing infrastructure, with an entire county of customers less to pay for it with. Also, GC can then market their own system to communities that could have been fed by the DWSD extension. OC development continues, and DWSD loses, along with their remaining customers, who have to pick up the tab.
*DO build it, GC leaves: DWSD is still left holding the bag, but can now market it to a larger population than they can now, and it's a more reliable product. Development continues, and DWSD and remaining customers probably at least come close to breaking even, as even you stated.
*DON'T build it, GC stays: That's just unlikely. DWSD wins, but only by refusing to supply a reliable service. Development continues anyways, by building wells or even their own systems as they do now.
*DO build it, GC stays: not only do they maintain the customers they have, but are able to market it to more customers, who are clearly building there anyways. DWSD wins, customers win.
Somewhere along the line, I guess you missed the point that ensuring that your existing customers are served well is a good business practice. As it is, some of the EXISTING customers are served by a single line. Until recently, if anything had happened to that line, those customers were basically screwed. Spend a little time in business, and you'll realize that unless you're a prostitute, screwing your customers is a good way to drive them elsewhere, just as Genesee County is threatening to do. And you can be certain that when GC goes, other communities will too, leaving DWSD with the same infrastructure but significantly fewer customers. Sounds a little like some notable Detroit companies' problems.
Thankfully, for the first time in 40 years, the Flint Water Plant began serving water today to Flint residents while the DWSD pipeline is being serviced (thanks to $45 million in renovations ordered by the emergency financial manager a few years back). It's no long-term solution, since it's not running at full capacity, nor is it supplying the Flint suburbs (who are using reserves), and many are still uncertain of drinking water from the Flint River. However, it is a relief that we no longer have to depend completely on a single entity outside of our control to supply our water, especially when there is so much opposition to a plan that would ensure we have a reliable supply of something as vital as water from a source that we ALREADY receive it from. This only makes me more certain of my support of our own pipeline. |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.