jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (30 posts)

Would you be willing to pay 30 - 50 percent more for your tap water for infrastr

  1. Express10 profile image88
    Express10posted 4 years ago

    Would you be willing to pay 30 - 50 percent more for your tap water for infrastructure improvements?

    Why or why not?

  2. dianetrotter profile image71
    dianetrotterposted 4 years ago

    I don't drink tap water at home so I don't want to pay any more than I have to pay.  NO!

    1. LauraGT profile image93
      LauraGTposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      But, it would be pretty hard for you to take a shower if you didn't have any water in your house. What about washing your hands? cooking your food? The issue is broader than just your drinking water!

    2. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I also don't drink tap water but there are areas that have major problems with their water. Things such as tree roots growing through lines, broken lines, bacteria/sewage in the water, etc. so the infrastructure does need (costly) attention.

  3. Ericdierker profile image55
    Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago

    I take a shower, and my eyes become red. I take a coffee cup and fill it with tap water and all residue is dissolved. I spray it on my roses and all aphids die. I spray my car with it and all drops leave a white residue. My water heater lasts half as it should. My windows have a crust after washing. I smell chlorine every where. And you ask to do what?
    I think your question is in jest.

    1. dianetrotter profile image71
      dianetrotterposted 4 years agoin reply to this


    2. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No sir, I am referring to infrastructure improvements or overhauls in cities where they are needed. But I see your pain and think a whole house water filtration and softening system would make your life easier.

    3. Author Cheryl profile image88
      Author Cherylposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed.  Whats the point in having a dishwasher when you have to wash the dishes from calcium residue after taking them out

  4. bridalletter profile image79
    bridalletterposted 4 years ago

    Not sure how or why those would be connected for producing the money for it, but 10 % - yes.
    30-50 is way too much. Too much of a squeeze on income while everything else is going up and costing more lately to afford a higher percentage without any guarantee that is what the money would actually go towards.

  5. cat on a soapbox profile image95
    cat on a soapboxposted 4 years ago

    No. Utility bills in our city are already outrageous, and many are already having trouble making ends meet. Aren't we trying to encourage water conservation anyway? It doesn't make sense to turn water usage into a cash cow!    I'd rather see lower risk prison inmates put to work on infrastructure to offset the high cost of incarceration.

  6. ChitrangadaSharan profile image54
    ChitrangadaSharanposted 4 years ago

    But, what is the guarantee that such money will be used for infrastructure improvements! So much money is already taken from the general public, as taxes, in the name of development and is used to fill the pockets of, you know whom. They should first deliver, then ask for charges.

  7. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    Sure.  Of course I'm on a private well - my tap water costs a minute amount of electricity to run the pump.

  8. Missing Link profile image80
    Missing Linkposted 4 years ago

    no.  because we are already being taxed into oblivion.  why should I have to pay more for our government's ineptitudes when it comes to handling money, managing in general, etc.

    I bet someday we will be held hostage in this regard---either pay or go thirsty.

  9. cebutouristspot profile image76
    cebutouristspotposted 4 years ago

    I am also using a private well smile My water bill is minimum smile But in any increase there should be a clear timeline smile If it is for a month or 2 then yes. If it is to infinity then no. 

    What's next 30% more cause we need to fill the river smile Just kidding

  10. vrdm profile image81
    vrdmposted 4 years ago

    It would depend in whose ownership the water utility resides.  If it resides with a private sector corporation, the shareholders should be investing.  If it's a public utility and the case for and against was spelled out cogently (and it was clear that none of the increase was ear marked for executive bonuses) I would be supportive.  Water is going to be the most traded (and therefore inflated) commodity in a very short time.  If it continues to be abused and mismanaged now, we will all be suffering shortages and paying vastly higher prices in the not too distant future.

    1. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. What's being done in Las Vegas is working and they aren't only conserving water but attempting to address infrastructure on a more ongoing basis than in other cities so it doesn't get so costly to repair/overhaul.

  11. The Frog Prince profile image77
    The Frog Princeposted 4 years ago

    No because the cost of the improvement outwieghs the benefit.  That's the problem with many things..  No one bothers, especially the government, to conduct a cost-to-benefit analysis.


  12. LauraGT profile image93
    LauraGTposted 4 years ago

    I think the question needs clarification.  What would the infrastructure improvements be for?  Would the water be cleaner somehow? Would water production become more efficient, leading to decreased future costs? What would be the average increase for a typical citizen?  I think I'd need more information before coming to a decision on this one!

    1. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      To improve deteriorating infrastructure that gets water to and from your home (not from the curb to your home - that's private) but the city infrastructures where applicable which are in need of repair or replacement in some areas.

    2. LauraGT profile image93
      LauraGTposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, I think it's important to make sure we have a clean and safe water supply. We take this for granted (many throughout the world do NOT have safe water), but it takes resources.  So, yes, I would be willing to pay more to ensure this for all.

  13. Author Cheryl profile image88
    Author Cherylposted 4 years ago

    No.  Our water is not even drinkable in Florida.  If you dont have a water filtration system in your home then you are screwed.  You either buy water or buy a water softener.  When ice cubes come out orange then inprovements in the water need to be made.

    1. BobMonger profile image61
      BobMongerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I used to live in Lakeland, Florida and know exactly what you're talking about. I've never been anywhere that had water that bad. At best it was the color of lemonade, at worst  funky iced tea that smelled very bad. I doubt there is any remedy for it

  14. My Esoteric profile image91
    My Esotericposted 4 years ago

    Currently I have well water, but I am an unwillingly transplanted suburban dweller.  While pumping water out of the ground is ultimately cheaper, it is not maintenance free nor inexpensive in occasional one-time costs or the expensive water conditioning system to get the sulpher smell and minerals out.  Oh yeah, then when the electricity goes out, so does the pump (in certain parts of FL and all around Washington D.C., VA or MD, it has been my experience the electricity goes out at the first prediction of a storm ... in FL it takes a little longer ... so a back-up generator is a necessity if you want water from a well).  What I am trying to say is that well water, assuming there isn't a cement plant upstream contaminating it with cancer-causing chemicals that leach into the ground water, is not all roses.

    Having said that, I think @LauraGT hit it on the head with her response below ... it depends.  Has the public system's maintenance been postponed so long that a major overhaul is now required, which requires such a large increase?  Or, as others have suggested, is it a way to gouge?  One would have to check it out.

    1. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry I wasn't more clear but yes, would you pay more in cases where the public system must have a major overhaul?

    2. cat on a soapbox profile image95
      cat on a soapboxposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Water systems, instead of receiving timely updates, had been ignored until they started to fail. Now the problem is staring us all in the face when we no longer have the funds to fix them. Why should we have to bear the burden of civic mismanagement?

  15. BobMonger profile image61
    BobMongerposted 4 years ago

    30% to 50% is a bit much. Our water/sewer rates seem to go up about 5% each year anyway so probably not.

  16. d.william profile image76
    d.williamposted 4 years ago

    No. absolutely not. The cost of everything is rising so fast and the incomes are being eaten up with taxes, and in many instances being reduced to give the corporations a greater net profit.  Any increase in the cost of anything these days will only result in someone getting bigger bonuses.
    The only people who should be made to pay for anything are those who do all the polluting - you know the culprits -  the large corporations who don't pay any taxes, have giant loopholes to avoid paying them, and give out huge bonuses and retirement benefits to their top executives, and are allowed by government to continue polluting our air, water and ground soil.
    And people still have the audacity to cite the general public for taking "free stuff" from the government.  We have become a society that blames, and punishes,  the victims of crimes and not the perpetrators.

  17. cydro profile image89
    cydroposted 4 years ago

    Assuming you mean improvements to the water infrastructure, no.
    I believe the quality of U.S . tap water (that's the only country I can speak for) is completely underrated.  Except for isolated incidents our water has an incredible track record on a national scale. Honestly, it could be argued that the U.S. water infrastructure is already one of our best achievements.

    We waste $15 billion (according to the first result on google) on bottled water each year.  We might as well be buying bottled air.

    Plus, I enjoy long showers.

  18. djashburnal profile image81
    djashburnalposted 4 years ago

    I would but i feel that an electricity tax would better fund infrastructure, this would eliminate the loss of revenue due to wells, would be more equal across the board, people who own more electronics, larger homes, etc. would pay more, whereas water is generally limited in use and there isn't a major difference between poverty and rich.

    There is one problem with electric or water taxes, it hurts rural areas. Urban areas do have massive amounts of infrastructure to keep up with, but receive the taxes from other means.

    Rural areas are often ignored. I know back home the I35 bridge collapsed in the Twin Cities, they started inspections on every bridge in the state after that. I can almost guarantee the inspectors almost had a heart attack when they got to a little one lane, wooden car bridge near my home town. There wasn't another way across the Minnesota river for 10 miles in either direction and the bridge had wooden 4x4s for the deck and probably 75 year old rusted frame. This is a shame since the Twin Cities in Minnesota reap the majority of money for road construction but only make up about half the states population and only a fraction of its roads.

    1. Express10 profile image88
      Express10posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You are so right. I saw a PBS documentary that showed a small town that had problems with sewage running into the streets and showed problems with sewage in Atlanta until people got fed up. But many people only want to pay for things they can see.