Comment
Headed to the top
Prince Edward County waterworks customers are stumbling toward a rather ignominious achievement. We have, by some measures, the unenviable distinction of the most expensive municipal waterworks in Canada.
Currently, the nation’s costliest municipal water system per capita is in Grise Fiord, Nunavut at $1,570 annually per person. There are many reasons for its high cost—mostly related to the fact that this high Arctic island community is remote and isolated.
Peat’s Point is not nearly as remote, nor as isolated, yet it costs more than $8,000 annually per household for the County to provide municipal water to these residents. At 2.4 persons per household, that puts the Peat’s Point at roughly $3,400—more than double the costliest water system in Canada.
Ameliasburgh isn’t far behind—its municipal water system costs $4,100 per household to operate each year. On a per capita basis, the annual cost of this water system is about $1,700— edging comfortably past the residents of Grise Fiord for expensive water.
The only thing barring Peat’s Point and Ameliasburgh from claiming their trophy is that other waterworks users, mostly in Picton and Wellington, subsidize these consumers through uniform billing— that is, County water consumers pay the same rate regardless which system they draw water from.
It means that water consumers in Picton and Wellington, whose system costs about $250 per person per year, are helping, in a big way, to pay the water bill of folks whose system costs 13 times more to operate each year.
Is it fair?
Is it reasonable?
Let’s look at the other end of the system. When you flush a toilet in Wellington, do you know you are helping to pay for Picton’s wastewater treatment system?
Wellington came to the marriage of amalgamation in 1998 with a modern, new, reliable and expandable water and wastewater system. Picton came with a broken-down jalopy. The town had failed to invest in its waterworks and underground infrastructure for six decades—preferring to offer its residents an artificially low fixed rate. Immediately after the marriage was consummated, Picton’s waste treatment had to be replaced. That was $30 million.
When you add the cost to service this debt (pay it down) each year to Picton’s wastewater operating expenses, the cost per connection is about $2,100. In Wellington, it costs half that amount to run its wastewater system.
Yet Wellington and Picton’s households share the cost of the waterworks equally.
Why is that? What is the principle behind this arrangement? Is it reasonable that one partner uses the bulk of the resources but pays half the bill? Is it appropriate that the folks in Wellington and Picton subsidize the water service in Peat’s Point or Ameliasburgh?
If the principle is to distribute costs—to lower the impact of an expensive water system, why stop at waterworks consumers? If we are all in this together—shouldn’t all County taxpayers help out the 19 households in Peat’s Point and 57 in Ameliasburgh? In Consecon, Carrying Place, Rossmore and Fenwood Gardens?
The County’s waterworks system is built on a twisted, hodge-podge of half-baked principles and ill-considered arrangements cobbled together twine and duct tape. For example, the County still pays Belleville, our dear neighbour, nearly three times the bulk water rate a stranger with a tanker truck would pay—for the water the County pipes across the bridge to serve Rossmore and Fenwood Gardens.
But despite their words, it is hard to believe council will take a serious and meaningful examination of our waterworks system. It’s a big subject with a great many moving parts—few of them compatible with the other. It is likely too big a task for this council
But more worrying was the response to a modest proposal by Councillor Lenny Epstein last week. As he and his colleagues stared at a screen listing $5.4 million of new capital projects for the County’s waterworks system—including new water meters for a system that is moving rapidly to a fixed-rate billing structure—Epstein suggested trimming the list by five per cent. After all, every dime of the $5.4 million would have to be borrowed and paid back. It was a mostly symbolic nod to water consumers buckling under the pressure of escalating water bills.
But Epstein’s colleagues around the council table wanted none of it. They didn’t want the waterworks department to work to find savings. Besides, some said, these project costs would simply be added to next year’s budget. Epstein’s gesture failed miserably. But in doing so, it exposed the fact that this council isn’t serious about fixing a broken system—a system they barely understand.
By why would they? Only four of the 16 council members are consumers of municipal water and wastewater.
Rather than fritter away weeks and months examining a business they have little invested in, council would be wiser to step back and consider establishing a full-time utility commission, populated by staff, members of council and actual consumers, to examine the business on an ongoing basis.
There are no easy fixes. We aren’t going to cut Peat’s Point loose. Nor Picton. But we must do more to understand and address the plight of consumers of this utility. They can’t continue to absorb whopping increases to their water bills each year—particularly when they use less.
We can’t afford to be number one.
Comments (0)