Source: North Texas Municipal Water District.
On August 28, 2025, the Richardson City Council reviewed the proposed 2025-2026 budget. One subject frequently came up: our ever-rising water bills.
Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider asked the right question: "I look at this water and sewer fund, they increased 9.18%. I mean, nowhere else in this world right now are services, you can look at anything, getting 9.18%...Is there anything that we [can do to] push back on North Texas Municipal Water District on these increases? Because this is, it's, at some point, it's just not sustainable."
Unfortunately, whereas Hutchenrider is good at asking the right question, he's not as good at offering solutions or suggesting actionable tactics to get to solutions.
Councilmember Jennifer Justice was better at that: "I don't remember whose idea it was during the budget retreat, but I just sort of want to reiterate, looking at maybe a tiered water usage rate. I don't know whoever's idea that was. I thought it was a really good one."
Mayor Amir Omar was a man of action: "As I said during the discussion when [NTMWD] were here, what they're considering water conservation is a pittance to what any other water district would ever consider water conservation. And so, I do think that perhaps pushing on that, especially the point that our city manager made related to that water conservation goes a lot further to helping us with future rates than just about anything else. And so, you know, my hope is to sharpen that conversation with them quite a bit more as we get into it, because to the point that a few people made, that rate hike was just, you know, it's just untenable, and it keeps compounding, which makes it even worse."
I'm not an expert on what drives water rates. But City Manager Don Magner's explanation sounded about right to me. He said, "The driving cost in the district's budget is capital...I personally, I don't have the math yet to prove it, but I personally believe there is a cheaper path forward than building the next water distribution center or pump center or pump station." Magner pointed to incentivizing conservation as the way out of spiraling cost increases.
So I thought I'd ask ChatGPT for its ideas. ChatGPT didn't disappoint. Maybe NTMWD and Richardson are already working on these. If so, the deliberation Monday night didn't sound like it. Many of these are ideas that Richardson could implement unilaterally, but would be most effective if all of the cities in the North Texas Municipal Water District implemented them. If people are already working on that, again, I didn't get that impression Monday night. That's where Richardson's representative on the NTMWD could come in. It's also where Mayor Amir Omar comes in. Both have public platforms to enlist joint action with other cities. We need to turn up the pressure.
What am I talking about?
Question to ChatGPT: What are the most effective ways to control the growth in demand for water consumption being tried by water districts across America?"
ChatGPT's answer:
📊 Ranking of Water Demand-Reduction Strategies
1. Turf/Landscape Conversion 🌱
Impact: Up to 30–50% reduction in residential outdoor use.
Why: Outdoor irrigation is usually the biggest discretionary use, especially in arid regions. Removing turf gives permanent savings.
Example: Southern Nevada Water Authority’s “Cash for Grass” program has saved billions of gallons annually.
Bang for buck: Very high.
2. Tiered / Budget-Based Pricing 💵
Impact: Studies show 5–15% demand reduction sustained long-term.
Why: Sends strong economic signals; heaviest users reduce the most.
Example: Irvine Ranch Water District (CA) pioneered “water budgets” for households, cutting per-capita demand while keeping equity.
Bang for buck: High, since revenue-neutral and scalable.
3. Smart Metering & Data-Driven Feedback 📲
Impact: 5–10% reduction on average, more in high-use households.
Why: Leak alerts + neighbor comparisons + real-time data change behavior.
Example: East Bay MUD’s Home Water Reports cut use by 6% with behavioral nudges.
Bang for buck: Moderate upfront cost, but quick payback.
4. Appliance/Fixture Retrofits 🚿
Impact: 15–30% indoor reduction when replacing old toilets, washers, and showerheads.
Why: Indoors is smaller than outdoors in arid regions, but retrofits give durable savings.
Example: San Antonio Water System gave away low-flow toilets and retrofits, cutting per capita use to among the lowest in the U.S.
Bang for buck: Very high in older housing stock, lower in new builds (already efficient).
5. Water Reuse & Recycling 🔄
Impact: 10–30% of supply offset depending on scale.
Why: Shifts entire sectors (parks, golf courses, industry, potable supply) off fresh water.
Example: Orange County’s Groundwater Replenishment System adds 100 million gallons/day.
Bang for buck: Expensive upfront, huge long-term impact.
6. Smart Irrigation Controllers & Rebates 💧
Impact: 20–40% less outdoor irrigation for households adopting controllers.
Why: Automated weather-based watering is effective, but adoption rates lag without incentives.
Example: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California funded tens of thousands of controllers, saving ~40,000 AF/year.
Bang for buck: Moderate; needs ongoing outreach.
7. Building Codes & Water-Neutral Growth 🏘️
Impact: Avoids future increases; ensures per-capita demand stays flat even with population growth.
Why: Prevents locking in inefficient development.
Example: Santa Fe requires new development to offset demand by funding retrofits elsewhere.
Bang for buck: High long-term, low short-term gallons saved.
8. Behavioral & Cultural Shifts 👥
Impact: Typically 3–5% reductions, more when paired with pricing or rebates.
Why: Alone they’re modest, but layered with financial or technological measures, they amplify effectiveness.
Example: Peer comparison + rebates = stronger results than either alone.
Bang for buck: Low by itself, but multiplier effect when combined.
9. Agricultural Partnerships 🚜
Impact: Potentially the largest lever nationally (agriculture = ~80% of freshwater use).
Why ranked lower: Not always within urban districts’ jurisdiction, politically sensitive, and harder to administer.
Example: Metropolitan Water District (CA) funds rotational fallowing in Imperial Valley.
Bang for buck: Enormous savings, but requires complex agreements.
Source: ChatGPT.
"Conservation first,
not ever more reservoirs,
Sprinklers take a rest."
— h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment