It is wrong that Bellingham has gone so long without water meters.
Given the increasing scarcity of water and the need for conservation, and given the increasing costs to build and repair infrastructure and treat water for drinking, the only fair system would be one where all citizens pay for the water they use.
Unfortunately, today the city has a system where the neighbor who is conscientious about conservation and does all the right things to help preserve the resource pays exactly the same as the neighbors next door who take 30-minute showers, brush their teeth with the water running and water their lawns daily during the hottest time of the day. That has to change.
And it doesn’t have to change just because we say so. The state of Washington agrees and has given the city a Jan. 22, 2017, deadline to install 15,833 meters in the city limits.
City Council members now must figure out how to pay the projected $8.5 million it will cost to do that.
Among the possibilities the council is considering:
Charge all city water customers between $2 and $3 monthly to collect the money.
Have only non-metered, flat-rate customers pay a $5 monthly charge on their bills. Purchase revenue bonds to pay the costs.
An “aggressive approach” for metering, where newly constructed homes would be charged for the meters as part of closing costs, continuing the existing voluntary metering program and replacing meters as water mains are replaced.
A couple council members balked at adding fees to people’s water bills, especially considering the tight economic times. In the long run, though, that would be the best decision.
City officials should add a fee to water bills for people who live in homes that are not metered today.
They should then set that money aside in an account to pay for installation of meters over time. Once the meters are purchased and installed citywide, the fee should be rescinded.
Yes, economic times are tight. And yes, water bills are already chock full of fees. But there is no alternative.
The city shouldn’t charge people who live in newer homes or businesses that already have meters to pay for those who don’t. The city shouldn’t purchase general bonds and create a new property tax for all citizens, including those who already have meters, to pay for those who don’t.
Paying for a complete meter system is going to be expensive, and some folks won’t like paying an extra $10 when their bills come every two months.
But that solution is the fairest, and it’s the one that gets the job done.
If the city begins collecting the fee and then installing meters, it will be ahead of the curve and can beat the state-mandated deadline. If it waits for a better economy and then floats bonds, it will push up against that deadline.
Smarter minds years ago would have saved city residents this cost now by having a metered city from the beginning. But they didn’t.
Now the city must do what is necessary to get the meters installed and start bringing fairness and clarity into water billing and conservation efforts in Bellingham.