Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.
The Texas Tribune is pleased to provide the opportunity for you to share
your observations about this story. We encourage lively debate on the issues
of the day, but we ask that you refrain from using profanity or other
offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting
advertising, or wandering away from the topic at hand. To comment, you must
be a registered user of the Tribune, and your real name will be displayed.
Thanks for taking time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Sign-Up
This is fascinating. Wish Austin stats could have been included. I guess as long as our water is so cheap, our consumption will remain fairly high. I hope Lake Travis can hold out.
Richard S. Moore
via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Good coverage. It would be interesting to contrast portions of rate structures covering infrastructure vs. the actual water. Actual water costs are set to really "take off"!
I'm a little curious about the data, as I've seen other data points saying that LA uses the least water of a major city: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/2012/05/08/6018/las-water-conservation-slows-creeps-upward-ladwp-o/
Those prices do not include sewer rates, which in Houston costs an additional ~$40.9.FP
We need the major infrastructure project to bring sea water across Texas NM and Arizona. A $1 per gallon tax could fund it while effecting rates little. The tax could be applied only to the usage over 1,000 gallons per month. An additional $1 per 1,000 gallon surcharge should be applied to all new construction since the cheep water is all gone and all new construction will be supplied by the more costly infrastructure.The Reverse River and Inland Seas should be planned now and built in the next decade. Please join me in this effort.