No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Policy Note: A Universal Equity–Efficiency Model for Pricing Water
Abstract
Drawing on theoretical, practical, and normative rationales, the analysis presented here calls for revisiting the prevailing water service paradigm, and the values and frames it reflects. As is increasingly apparent, current pricing policies may not be sufficiently responsive, pragmatic, or durable, particularly in reconciling competing objectives often cast as the equity–efficiency conundrum. Water is a social good that confers both private and public benefits. The proposed universal (all-inclusive) pricing model envisions five concurrent elements: recognize public functionality in cost allocation (scope economies), calibrate a minimum bill to property assessment (capacity value), provide an essential-use allowance for all households (public health), design cost-based rates for variable water usage (resource management), and prohibit disconnection and deploy service limiters instead (water security). The model advances meaningful structural progress toward social equity while comporting with generally accepted principles to fairly allocate costs and send economic price signals where they make sense.
... On the other hand, other cities with high charges present equally high consumption, while some cities with low charges also exhibit low water consumption. Demand for indoor water and wastewater services is also known to be relatively price-inelastic, and higher flat rates are not expected to impact basic consumption substantially (Beecher 2020). We have applied the log GDP per capita as another indicator to detect potential differentiation in the trends by coming up with similar findings. ...
... The determination of tariffs and water consumption regulation can be affected by various factors, including social, political, technical and climatic elements. These factors can interact in intricate ways, giving rise to complex causal-effect relationships (Zilberman 2015;Bromley and Anderson 2018;Beecher 2020). A more detailed household-level analysis could better reveal water users' behavioral attitudes toward different tariff levels. ...
... However, there are also cases of private and municipal (publicly owned) companies with small-or also large-scale systems and experienced personnel with equal or better operational status . The ownership status plays a considerable role in the utility's performance; however, effective management requires stakeholder buy-in and a well-rounded understanding of water as a public service, which may not always exist (Beecher 2020). ...
Urban water utilities attempt to achieve financial sustainability by increasing tariffs to cover the operational and maintenance costs and raise funds for infrastructural projects. Although the tariffs are relatively low compared to average household incomes in developed countries, concerns remain about the affordability in low-income groups. This study analyzes the urban water consumption and the effects of water tariffs on affordability in 266 upper-middle- and high-income cities from 44 countries for the period 2011–2021. The water consumption does not distinctively differentiate within the assessed period, and the water tariffs seem to have moderate effects on the consumption trends. The consumption is proportionally higher when fixed (flat) rates are applied and when the fixed rates are higher than the variable (usage) rates. There is high variation in the affordability rate in the sample cities; however, the cities of South Europe, Central and East Europe and South America seem to have the lowest affordability levels. The affordability appears to have improved for the majority of our sample cities from 2017 to 2021, while the higher water fees and increased consumption are associated with a decrease in affordability throughout the same period.
... Consequently, the socio-economic equity of the adaptation measure is mainly determined by the affordability of the tariff for different income groups. As Furlong (2020) points out, the downward flow of infrastructure debt to individuals and households without proper recognition of different financial capacities can devastate the less fortunate; their regressive nature makes utility fees a 'form of structural inequity' (Beecher, 2020). ...
... However, despite the multi-generational benefits of sanitation adaptation, long-term borrowing for expensive infrastructure projects also comes with the threat of unfairly mortgaging future generations. First (as established earlier), repayment of debt-financed investments through customers' bills is regressive and offers limited opportunities for a fair distribution of the financial burden of large investments from a socio-economic equity perspective (Beecher, 2020). With dwindling public funding for water and sanitation infrastructure (Netusil and Kousky, 2021), the policies of full-cost recovery currently push US municipalities towards a 'burgeoning crisis' of water unaffordability (Mack and Wrase, 2017). ...
... The 'full-cost recovery' paradigm, emerging from neoliberal discourse and the financialization of the sector, leads to debt financing by service providers, predominantly recouped through regressive customer tariffs (Beecher, 2020). In cities without universal access disadvantaged and unserved populations may end up subsidising the exclusionary system twice: indirectly through taxes that support the service providers' debt and directly through out-of-pocket expenses for selfprovided sanitation services, including pits and tanks and emptying services (Andres et al., 2019). ...
Adapting urban sanitation systems to changing climate conditions will require substantial investments. However, there is a gap in understanding the funding strategies for such adaptation measures, especially amid concerns that resilience measures might reinforce existing urban sanitation inequalities. Through cross-case document analysis and complementary key informant interviews, we examined the sanitation adaptation investments in eight cities, focusing on their funding arrangements and social and intergenerational equity implications. Debt financing of sanitation adaptation often relies on repayment through customer bills with only opaque considerations of the affordability for different socio-economic customer groups. The lack of appropriate accounting for the lifecycle costs of resilient infrastructure threatens to mortgage future generations. There is no convincing evidence that ‘greening’ of adaptation financing either shifts or redistributes the financial risk more equitably nor does it make the repayment of the investments substantially cheaper for customers. We conclude that a public sector funding approach is most appropriate to ensure social and intergenerational equity within climate-resilient sanitation systems.
... 3 More than a century later, some countries have ageing water and sewer infrastructure that is costly to operate, maintain, repair, and replace, 58 and investments have not kept pace as costs have increased sharply in real terms. 59 Water and sanitation infrastructure is mostly located underground; therefore, deficits are not easy to observe and are expensive to reach. As the frequency of large waterborne disease outbreaks has declined, and as endemic and sporadic diseases persist unnoticed-primarily because they disproportionately affect marginalised populations-the public health investment case for this infrastructure has become less prominent. ...
... 27 consumption-the pursuit of economic efficiency to achieve long-term sustainability-has been accompanied by a reduction in public subsidies for the construction, expansion, operation, maintenance, and management of infrastructure. 59 This trend has led to two primary effects that limit the realisation of the human rights to water and sanitation within HICs with marked economic inequalities. First, fees are tied to the financial cost of infrastructure services, irrespective of affordability or the broader societal benefits, including public health protection. ...
... First, fees are tied to the financial cost of infrastructure services, irrespective of affordability or the broader societal benefits, including public health protection. 59 The costs of service provision are rising relative to incomes, and increasing economic inequality drives persistent disparities in access to services 5 because poorer households are vulnerable to disconnection. 60 Second, unsubsidised full-cost financing models constrain the development and extension of infrastructure, effectively preventing expansion of existing services to reach historically unserved and underserved communities whose ability to pay might be insufficient to cover the full cost of service delivery. ...
Drinking water and sanitation services in high-income countries typically bring widespread health and other benefits to their populations. Yet gaps in this essential public health infrastructure persist, driven by structural inequalities, racism, poverty, housing instability, migration, climate change, insufficient continued investment, and poor planning. Although the burden of disease attributable to these gaps is mostly uncharacterised in high-income settings, case studies from marginalised communities and data from targeted studies of microbial and chemical contaminants underscore the need for continued investment to realise the human rights to water and sanitation. Delivering on these rights requires: applying a systems approach to the problems; accessible, disaggregated data; new approaches to service provision that centre communities and groups without consistent access; and actionable policies that recognise safe water and sanitation provision as an obligation of government, regardless of factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, ability to pay, citizenship status, disability, land tenure, or property rights.
... Water affordability challenges are increasing in the United States as the cost for providing water services is becoming more expensive for both water service providers (hereafter "utilities") and their customers (Beecher, 2020;Colton, 2020;Goddard et al., 2021;Payne, 2021;Teodoro & Saywitz, 2020). Affordability challenges existed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the pandemic accelerated and amplified the "Water Affordability Crisis" (Mack & Wrase, 2017) as many households lost employment and nonresidential customers decreased operations. ...
... Since the early 2000s, water utilities have increased rates faster than inflation to cover rising costs needed for infrastructure repair and replacement (i.e., the "infrastructure gap" [AWWA, 2001]), addressing negative externalities (e.g., climate change and emerging contaminants), and meeting regulatory requirements with the expansion of regulations to protect public health (Beecher, 2020;Greer, 2020). The costs of providing water services have increased by 5% annually in recent decades (4.7% from 1996 to 2016 [Bunch et al., 2017] and 5.1% from 2014 to 2018 [AWWA, 2019a]). ...
... However, the underlying raw data are not always made available. Adding to this challenge, there is large diversity in rate structures as each utility is trying to balance several goals, including cost recovery, revenue stability, conservation, regulatory compliance, equity across customer classes, and administrative simplicity (Beecher, 2020;Rothstein et al., 2021). Differences in priorities and state regulations have led to a plethora of rate structures. ...
The cost of providing water services is increasing, placing greater financial burdens on individual households and utilities. Five metrics were calculated at multiple volumes of water usage and were applied to 1791 utilities, estimating bills from 2020 rates data, to gauge financial burdens in four states. More than a fifth of the population in 77% of utilities was experiencing poverty, suggesting widespread poverty is a major contributor to utility financial capability challenges. The Income Dedicated to Water Service metric was developed to understand how many households share a similar financial burden, exploring both the depth and prevalence of affordability challenges. Depending on water use, a tenth to a third of households work more than a day each month to afford water bills. This approach and an interactive visualization tool bring greater transparency to understand the scale of affordability and financial capability challenges (https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/water-affordability/water-affordability-dashboard).
... A recent study undertaken in the United States of America (US) confirms the need to consider more than just water pricing in ensuring attainment of financial sustainability of water service provision (Beecher, 2020). The study which was undertaken through a performance and situation review of the US water services sector notes that it is irrational to expect market based pricing solutions while water is non-excludable with inelastic demand (Beecher, 2020). ...
... A recent study undertaken in the United States of America (US) confirms the need to consider more than just water pricing in ensuring attainment of financial sustainability of water service provision (Beecher, 2020). The study which was undertaken through a performance and situation review of the US water services sector notes that it is irrational to expect market based pricing solutions while water is non-excludable with inelastic demand (Beecher, 2020). The study stressed the need to enforce high levels of efficiency and public accountability (Beecher, 2020). ...
... The study which was undertaken through a performance and situation review of the US water services sector notes that it is irrational to expect market based pricing solutions while water is non-excludable with inelastic demand (Beecher, 2020). The study stressed the need to enforce high levels of efficiency and public accountability (Beecher, 2020). It also advocates for full cost recovery pricing and entrenchment of equitable subsidy systems and government grants. ...
... Rate design plays a key role in determining how utility costs impact water affordability for lowincome households [1], but local and state policy may limit utility options for rate design [10]. Water rate design at the utility level aims to optimize a variety of objectives including utility revenue stability, cost recovery, conservation, and customer water affordability [13]. For example, increasing block rates (IBRs), in which high-volume users pay more per unit of water than low-volume users, can both support conservation and make basic indoor domestic water use affordable [14]. ...
... Traditional water affordability analysis in rate design does not account for hydrological variability and the additional cost burden of drought surcharges [16]. Previous work has synthesized water rate design's impact on service affordability [13,17], examined the legal framework that defines water pricing [18], and developed a process-based model for evaluating the impact of drought response decisions on household affordability [19]. No work has examined affordability outcomes at the intersection of all three mechanisms: hydrological drought, economic rate design, and legal regulation. ...
Unaffordable water threatens water access in the United States, particularly for low-income households. In water-scarce cities, water shortages during drought necessitate either expensive infrastructure development or costly emergency measures to meet demand, which can in turn increase water rates. Rate design plays a key role in determining whether these costs threaten water affordability for low-income households, but water utilities are often constrained by local and state policy in their ability to set progressive rates. Therefore, new approaches to assess the impact of rates on water affordability within the local legal and hydrological context are needed in drought-prone regions. To address this gap, we design a socio-hydrological modeling framework that fuses legal analysis, behavioral economics, and water resource systems modeling to assess the impacts of rate design on household water affordability. We demonstrate this framework in an illustrative application in Santa Cruz, California, where droughts threaten water supplies and California Proposition 218 deters public water utilities in setting progressive rate design. Our results demonstrate that legal constraints reduce affordability during droughts by limiting drought surcharge rate structures. This framework can help utilities design rates to improve water affordability in their socio-hydrological context and illuminate the impacts of state policy on affordability outcomes.
... Poorest households are even more prone to face difficulties in basic service access. A study with 35 European countries identified that in 2018, people at risk of poverty experienced a higher level of arrears on utility bills than the overall population: 16.3% compared to 6.8% [3]. WWS providers have dealt with affordability issues and default rates, with various approaches according to the type of service, customer socioeconomic aspects, and national or local regulation and public policies. ...
... With moratoriums on water shutoffs placed by many cities during the COVID-19 pandemic, the search for alternatives less severe methods had increased. The flow restrictor is an example of a humane alternative to absolute disconnection, although it requires investment in technology and labor, as well as engagement with engineering professionals [16]. The equipment has been applied in a few places and has been tested in others to provide at least a vital water flow for debtors. ...
Water access is recognized as a human right by the United Nations since 2010. However, even when piped water is available, the economic crisis has limited poorer households to afford those services on a regular basis. Users become debtors as utilities face growing service costs and shrinking national public funds, pushing tariffs as the main source of revenue for cost recovery. The COVID-19 pandemic lit up affordability issues and health consequences of disconnection policies. Countries worldwide banned water shutoffs during the last year, ensuring water and wastewater service access for all citizens. Although disconnection is a way to reduce the number of debtors, it is, at the same time, considered a threat to human rights statements. This study gathered information on water subsidies, disconnection and vital flow policies applied among several medium- and high-income countries, in order to analyze how utilities have dealt with default rates and if there is any difference between the approaches between medium- and high-income countries. Through case studies, this paper also aims to inspire other practitioners facing the same issues. Based on the eleven case studies presented here, we concluded that high-income countries use assistance programs over water disconnection policies when compared to medium-income ones. Water shutoffs are explicitly forbidden in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France. Although a humane alternative, water flow restrictors have limited application, especially considering the technical issues involved.
... 1.3. Technical complexity of management (Beecher, 2020): ...
Introduction. Climate change, water depletion, environmental pollution, and rising economic activities in water use demand greener production. This emphasises the need for efficient methods and the assessment of economic greening in water use for sustainable development by advancing a sustainable blue economy. Aim and tasks. The study assesses the environmental efficiency of water use in Ukraine by analysing economic and environmental indicators. This study seeks to develop scientifically grounded methodological recommendations for improving enterprises' water use management. Results. This study conducted an economic and environmental analysis of water use across Ukraine’s economic sectors based on statistical data for 2022. The analysis utilised indicators such as water productivity by sector, economic productivity per unit of polluted wastewater, and share of capital investments in wastewater treatment within the total environmental protection investments. The results show that water, sewerage and waste management companies, which are natural monopolies, impact pollution, water abstraction and water resources. These enterprises were responsible for 72% of all the volume of polluted wastewater emitted and 35.28% of all water abstraction. The water productivity (USD 0.29/m³) and economic productivity (USD 1.85/m³) per unit of polluted wastewater were the lowest among all sectors. This indicates that the sector consumes a large volume of water relative to its economic contribution and exerts a significant adverse environmental impact owing to the high level of wastewater pollution. However, the sector’s share of capital investments in wastewater treatment within its total environmental protection investments was 59.76%. Conclusions. Based on the economic and environmental analysis of water use in the sectors of the Ukrainian economy, it is recommended that the level of influence of each enterprise in the sector on the state of water resources be assessed. Methodological recommendations for assessing the level of greening of economic activity in water use have been developed, consisting of four blocks: (i) assessment of water consumption efficiency; (ii) efficiency of wastewater management; (iii) compliance with regulatory requirements and social responsibility; (iv) assessment of innovations in the sphere of water use. Additionally, the calculation of an integrated indicator has been proposed, along with its interpretation according to an evaluation scale.
... This helps utilities acquire the funds needed to maintain operations while also allowing for conservation. While useful, financial decoupling has proven insufficient to address declining resources and infrastructure, and it can lead to inequitable pricing outcomes, requiring utilities to seek additional strategies to conserve and enhance sustainability (Beecher 2020;Fletcher and Rammelt 2017;Kenney 2014). Teodoro et al. (2020) extended the "decoupling" concept from financial to political costs to help explain why privately owned utilities may be better prepared than public providers to systematically address climate change through resource conservation and ultimately increase system sustainability. ...
Amidst 21st‐century climate‐related threats, municipal elected officials (EOs) may outsource public services to third parties to avoid the political costs of adopting “unpopular” sustainability policies—a strategy known as political decoupling. However, decoupling raises accountability concerns and may not improve sustainability, leading some municipalities to “recouple” services. To help understand the political impacts of these decisions, we assess how public scrutiny toward EOs in US municipalities changes after varying degrees of coupling in the water provision sector (i.e., how much service delivery shifts away from or toward municipal oversight). Analysis of local media coverage shows public attention toward EOs decreases after higher degrees of decoupling and recoupling, public opinion becomes polarized toward EOs after decouplings, and the public links sustainability‐related issues to EOs after high degrees of decoupling. The results highlight how reforming public services relates to political accountability‐related factors and raise critical questions about the political decoupling strategy.
... Scientific research and data-driven decision-making are the foundation of effective policies that support sustainable agriculture and water management (Linaza et al., 2021;Kalu et al., 2023). To achieve the best possible water allocation and resource management, policies should be based on reliable scientific data and modelling (Beecher 2020;Mishra et al., 2021). Including farmers, scientists, politicians, and communities in decision-making processes ensures that policies are in line with local needs and realities (Fallon et al., 2021;Cammarano et al., 2023). ...
In the era of climate change, the correlation between climate, food security, and water resources is profoundly influenced by microbial ecosystems. This review explores the important role of these often-overlooked microorganisms in maintaining the delicate balance required for sustainable agriculture and clean water availability. Microbes, though minuscule, orchestrate vital processes shaping nutrient cycling, soil health, and ecosystem functionality in both terrestrial and aquatic domains. As climate shifts occur, these adaptable microbes adjust, affecting ecosystem dynamics. Climate-smart agriculture harnesses microbial partnerships for soil carbon sequestration and stress mitigation, safeguarding the food supply. Microbes support crop productivity and resilience while also managing pests and diseases in changing climates. Additionally, they contribute to water purification and quality stabilization through water treatment and biofilms, ensuring clean water resources. Microbial diversity acts as a buffer against climate-induced disruptions, underlining their role in sustaining ecosystem stability. Integrating microbial approaches into policies and practices becomes crucial for climate adaptation, paving the way for sustainable agriculture and water management. Novel microbial technologies hold promise in addressing climate-food-water challenges, while collaborative research remains essential for innovative solutions at this critical interface of science and policy. Moreover, microbial ecosystems emerge as essential to food security and water resources in the face of climate change, charting a path towards a resilient and sustainable future.
... Finally, the discussion of water markets concerning water inequality also inevitably involves the impact of water demand. Water pricing as a tool for improving water equity is often subject to the effects of water demand [54]. Since water demand affects the price at which water is traded in the water market [55], excessive water demand can rapidly increase water market prices [56]. ...
Water inequality could exacerbate global water scarcity due to the finite nature of water resources. Water markets aimed at overcoming failures in public water distribution systems may offer potential solutions to water inequality. However, existing studies failed to explain how water markets and water inequality are related. This study constructs a water inequality-water market conceptual framework to fill this gap. It examines the influence of water markets on water inequality in the context of China's Water Rights Trading Pilot. This study argues that water markets based on economic rationality can mitigate water inequality compared to command-and-control water policies. In addition, the mitigating effect of water markets on water inequality relies on changing the industrial structure, promoting technological innovation in irrigation, and improving recycled water use. Finally, the influence of water markets on water inequality tends to be heterogeneous depending on differences in economic development, precipitation, and water demand.
... As an important resource used in production, water is indispensable for socioeconomic development (Beecher, 2020), due to its direct and indirect contributions to economic activity across sectors (Distefanoa, Kellyb, 2017). Playing a fundamental role in the world economy, agriculture is one of the most vulnerable sectors to water scarcity (Musolino et al., 2018), with most freshwater generally used for agricultural purposes, followed by industry and households (Wu et al. 2019). ...
Water scarcity is a growing concern across the globe due to climate change and demands for increased economic development. This paper analyses the relationship between economic development and freshwater abstraction in order to investigate its European impact. The analysis focuses on a total of 19 European countries, including 18 EU member states and one candidate, from 2007 to 2018. Using a panel dataset, the impact of a diverse selection of indicators of economic development (per capita GDP, the Human Development Index - HDI, water productivity and volume of international trade) on freshwater abstraction, our analysis finds that all explanatory variables are significant for cross-country variations except for international trade. To maintain scope, the analysis is limited to economicdevelopment indicators themselves, excluding the effects of climate change and the availability of water resources.
... The problem is there is often a mismatch between the costs of water supply and revenues generated through water charges, with costs typically exceeding revenues (Andrés et al., 2021). Recent reviews of water tariffs and infrastructure financing can be found in Fuente (2019), Beecher (2020), and Greer (2020), among others, while Choi et al. (2017) observe that water utility charges across South Korea only cover about 80% of water production costs. ...
This review examines key economic concepts in relation to the price and value of water for the supply and demand of household water. It responds to a series of questions about water and how it is used. These include (1) Why water is (or is not) priced and valued (or not)?; (2) What are the key economic concepts for pricing water?; (3) How is water priced and how are water supply assets valued for full cost recovery?; (4) Who bears the costs and enjoys the benefits of water use?; and (5) When is the price of water expected to change? Examples are provided to demonstrate the universality of the economic concepts while highlighting how their application must be bespoke and account for different socio-economic contexts and bio-physical conditions where water is supplied and demanded.
... On the other hand, recently rehabilitated utility systems and waterscarce cities rely on variable costs by introducing financial instruments to avert high water consumption. A thorough and case-specific analysis of abundant, scarce, recently developed and aged water utility systems could further enlighten the combination of the cost components and the tariff policies implemented by the utilities (Beecher, 2020). ...
... The finding also develops the pricing mechanism of water. For example, Beecher (2020) proposed an allinclusive pricing model that attributes design cost-based rates for different use of water (resource management), acknowledges public functionality in cost allocation (scope economics), limits the service rather than disconnection (water security), provides a basic use allowance for entire households (public health), and determines a minimum bill to property evaluation (capacity value). ...
This study examines key factors influencing the economic benefit of rainwater harvesting on the household at the Mongla Upazila in the Bagerhat district of coastal Bangladesh. The household survey questionnaire was used to collect primary data from 1040 households. The Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression analysis was applied to understand the relationship between economic benefit and factors that can affect economic benefit in the household. The empirical result shows that income (1.103**), storage capacity (0.574***), water price (32708.9***), age of rainwater harvesting (100.083***), and total cost (1.627***) positively impact economic benefit while the number of children (35.531**) has a negative relationship. The finding confirms the validity of statistical hypotheses. In addition, heterogeneity analysis was employed to test the model's strength and robustness check to validate the structural function and efficiency of the regression model. The finding concludes with policy recommendations, especially for rain-intensive countries that focus on (i) formulating and implementing rainwater harvesting policy; (ii) integrating rainwater harvesting as a tool for poverty reduction and achieving sustainable development goals; (iii) minimizing mismanagement of (rain) water that causes floods; (iv) initiate programme and take necessary steps for providing financial and non-financial incentive for rainwater harvesting in commercial, and non-commercial building.
... Addressing equity requires a multi-scalar, relational approach that considers different social relations, temporal scales, and spatial scales. It involves asking, "Equity of what and between whom?" (Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020;Leach et al., 2018), where the "what" of equity takes on forms across the three equity dimensions, including economic (e.g., Bakker, 2001;Beecher, 2020), political (e.g., Ige, 2013), spatial (e.g., Bowen et al., 1995;Carolini & Raman, 2021), knowledge-based (Jaffe, 2017), and environmental equity (Leach et al., 2018). The question "Equity between whom?" brings attention to how recognitional, procedural, and distributional inequities exist among individuals and groups from local to global levels and across past, current, and future generations (Langemeyer & Connolly, 2020;Leach et al., 2018). ...
Advancing social equity has been implicitly and explicitly central to water resources policy for decades. Yet, equity remains largely outside of standard water resources planning and management practices. Inclusion of equity within water resources infrastructure is inhibited by barriers including an incomplete conceptual understanding of equity, a perceived lack of quantitative and qualitative equity metrics, unclear connections between equity and standard project planning frameworks, and the absence of concrete examples. To facilitate greater practical inclusion of social equity in water resources practices, we describe equity relative to dimensions of distribution, procedure, and recognition and identify metrics associated with each. We then map these dimensions of equity onto different stages of a water resources project life cycle. We discuss how inequities are often perpetuated by current approaches and highlight case studies that promote one or more of the facets of equity. Rather than providing a prescriptive solution to “achieve” equity within water resources practices, we emphasize the need for contextualized approaches that include pragmatic steps toward more equitable practices and outcomes.
... Utilities' need to reliably deliver service--and regulators' fears that if they cannot, they will need to be subsidized by taxpayers-make it difficult for utilities to provide generous assistance. In some places, including California, utilities are barred by law, or by their negotiated requirements, from offering lower prices to lower income consumers (Beecher 2020;Pierce et al., 2021;Brown et al 2020). Over time, moreover, other demands on utility revenue have steadily accumulated. ...
We examine the fairness of congestion pricing from two perspectives. First, using data from California’s six largest urban areas, we empirically estimate the share of the population that is both economically vulnerable and likely to be impacted by freeway congestion charges. Our estimates suggest that 13 % of households would fall into this category. Second, we consider ways to mitigate burdens for this group. In particular, we compare freeway use to use of other metered network infrastructure, like electricity grids and water systems. We suggest that assistance programs from these utilities provide useful lessons for protecting low-income drivers from road prices, and argue that policymakers would be less constrained in progressively redistributing congestion toll revenue than they would be in redistributing utility revenue.
... The ratio method has several limitations, however, and researchers are developing improved measures for affordability in several OECD countries, including the US (García-Valiñas et al., 2010a, 2010bGawel et al., 2013;Martins et al., 2019;Teodoro, 2019). Current research in the US emphasizes financial costs for low-income households (Teodoro, 2019), critical evaluations of rate structures and equity (Beecher, 2020), and pragmatic policy interventions (Pierce et al., 2021). This research defines affordability beyond the cost-recovery paradigm and advocates for an equity focus on individuals and households. ...
The human right to water (HRTW) and sustainable development goals (SDG) emphasize that human well‐being depends not just on the quality and physical accessibility of drinking water, but also on its economic accessibility. Despite this recognition, governments and academics alike have been hard‐pressed to define and measure water affordability. In the US, affordability is no longer solely focused on utility cost‐recovery models but equitable water access for individuals and households. How should water affordability be measured to represent this new focus? This question motivates the critical review presented here. We propose that household‐centered affordability measures reflect the normative aims of internationally established frameworks such as the HRTW and the SDGs. Linking measurement to aims is essential to improve transparency and comparability across studies, and ultimately, to align measures with water access objectives. First, we characterize normative positions outlined in the HRTW and SDGs and identify defining features of water affordability. Second, we identify dominant definitions and measures of affordability, including novel approaches. Bringing the defining features of affordability to bear on existing measures enables us to identify several emergent debates in the literature where affordability measures could better incorporate the aspirations of the HRTW and SDGs. We conclude with recommendations on how to improve water affordability measurements, while recognizing the trade‐offs between ideal measures and practical implementation.
This article is categorized under:
Water and Life > Stresses and Pressures on Ecosystems
Human Water > Value of Water
Human Water > Rights of Water
... Unaffordable water bills compound and perpetuate water quality problems, leading to a "joint burden" on households [15]. Disparities in drinking water access persist in part because of inequities in infrastructure [16], high tap water and bottled water costs paired with low ability-to-pay [17,18], low technical, managerial and financial capacity [15], and rate-design that inadequately addresses households' ability-to-pay [19]. ...
Water affordability is central to water access but remains a challenge to measure. California enshrined the human right to safe and affordable water in 2012 but the question remains: how should water affordability be measured across the state? This paper contributes to this question in three steps. First, we identify key dimensions of water affordability measures (including scale, volume of water needed to meet ‘basic’ needs, and affordability criteria) and a cross-cutting theme (social equity). Second, using these dimensions, we develop three affordability ratios measured at the water system scale for households with median, poverty level, and deep poverty (i.e., half the poverty level) incomes and estimate the corresponding percentage of households at these income levels. Using multiple measures conveys a fuller picture of affordability given the known limitations of specific affordability measures. Third, we analyze our results disaggregated by a key characteristic of water system vulnerability–water system size. We find that water is relatively affordable for median income households. However, we identify high unaffordability for households in poverty in a large fraction of water systems. We identify several scenarios with different policy implications for the human right to water, such as very small systems with high water bills and low-income households within large water systems. We also characterize how data gaps complicate theoretical ideals and present barriers in human right to water monitoring efforts. This paper presents a systematic approach to measuring affordability and represents the first statewide assessment of water affordability within California’s community water systems.
... If U.S. states and cities were to keep moratoriums in place when the pandemic is over, this would help move the United States toward policies found elsewhere around the world. A recognition by states and localities of the critical role of water access to public health, may help shift U.S. water policy away from its commodity focus (Beecher, 2020). This requires building political will to recognize the human right to water and to identify the best approaches to address affordability access over the long term. ...
Many U.S. states and cities have imposed water disconnection moratoriums during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using logistic and Cox Proportional-Hazards models, we assess factors that differentiate which governments imposed moratoriums. States, which have economic regulation of private water utilities, were more likely to impose moratoriums, and those with higher COVID-19 case rates imposed moratoriums earlier. States with unified Republican Control and cities with more 2016 Trump voters were less likely to impose moratoriums on water disconnection. Cities in states without statewide moratoriums, were more likely to impose moratoriums if they had higher income, more minority residents, and more income inequality.
Municipal water utilities across the United States establish their own rate structures to cover operations, maintenance, depreciation, and outstanding debt repayment. Yet, little is known about how rates are determined to ensure equity and/or affordability. To identify sources of variation in residential drinking water rates, we examine municipalities in northeastern Illinois, 2015–2019. Controlling for water utility characteristics, billing structures, financial management, service quality, and demographic/socioeconomic factors, we find no statistically significant correlations between water rates and median household income or race when nonrevenue water from leaking infrastructure is considered, revealing relative racial equity in water pricing within these communities. A larger water distribution network, more water included in the base charge, and a greater number of months in the billing cycle are all associated with lower rates. Purchasing water through an individual or cooperative agreement, a greater proportion of nonrevenue water from leaking infrastructure, a higher minimum monthly base charge, and more revenue debt outstanding (while controlling for nonrevenue water) are all associated with higher rates. We also find a positive correlation between municipal sewer rates and drinking water rates that supports findings from prior research. Overall, our research aids in the development of public policy that ensures all households have access to affordable and safe drinking water to promote water equity and public health.
Throughout the past decades, water resource allocation literature has increasingly addressed equity and justice. Despite this, there is a divergence between what different actors in all arenas mean by 'justice and equity'. Meanwhile, the extent to which allocation research has worked to empirically assess and operationalize concepts of equity and justice in practice remains unclear. This study examines how justice and equity are defined and understood within water resources allocation research. It also examines how extensively they are assessed in the allocation literature. We discuss equity/justice from diverse perspectives. We focus on the diversity of societal values related to water resource equitability and the typology of equity factors in water resource allocation. Our argument is that water allocations should be multi-processed to ensure water equitability by analyzing feedback and co-evolving processes and scenarios among economic justice, distributional justice, environmental justice, and institutional justice. We find that the literature has paid more attention to certain aspects of justice (e.g., distributive and procedural justice concerns) on certain topics, such as water resources management and allocation. In order to address this research gap, we call for a multi-scale and holistic approach to justice/equity issues.
Key Takeaways
The prevalence of low incomes in the United States is the primary driver for unaffordable water services.
Minor rate increases or higher volumes of water usage can have a substantial impact on the pervasiveness of unaffordability.
With the cost of water likely to continue increasing, utilities can play a role in protecting customers at all income levels through their rate structures.
Affordability elasticity—the relationship of water bills to income distribution—is an important factor to consider in rate design.
Residential “Nonpayment risk” for water utilities — the risk of revenue loss from residential customers not paying water bills — is a financial risk for water service providers that remains poorly understood. Current rate setting strategies do not explicitly consider nonpayment risk and are generally informed by past payment histories. We develop a new heuristic model to categorize and evaluate water utility pricing (rate setting) strategies that are responsive to the effects of nonpayment (i.e., delinquency) on water utility revenues. The model is the first attempt, to our knowledge, to theorize the impact of residential nonpayment on utility revenues. The method draws on the theory behind the Kelly Criterion, a strategy developed in the mid-20th century now used by investors in portfolio management. The results of our thought exercise show that even excessive nonpayment levels (50% each year) do not negate the effectiveness of rate increases for revenue generation, but that nonpayment management can provide revenue benefits. Without political motives, utilities with high nonpayment may be inclined to continue raising water rates, unless higher water rates result in higher nonpayment levels. As such, we highlight the need to understand “nonpayment elasticity”: the change in nonpayment due to changes in water rates. We illustrate how increased nonpayment elasticity can decrease the percent of potential revenue collected, particularly when water rates are increased substantially. The simple model provides a method to evaluate the financial sustainability of elevated nonpayment rates in water utility management and financial risk analysis.
Ensuring the security of food, energy and water plays an important role in developing circular economy and building resilient cities. Based on system dynamics, this study establishes a household food-energy-water nexus model, taking Melbourne as a case. Three regulation measures, including appliance, behavior and price intervention, are analyzed to predict the dynamic consumption of food, energy, and water from 2010 to 2050. The water, energy and carbon saving effects are evaluated under 4 scenarios and 37 sub-scenarios. Results show that residents' behavior adjustments are the most significant in reducing resource consumption, and the effects of replacing appliances and resource price adjustments are weak. Compared with the BAU scenario, reducing the use frequency of the dishwasher to 3.5 times per week brings the best water saving effect, equal to 20680 L per household per year, followed by using the 4-star shower heads. Extending residents' water-saving and energy-saving behaviors retention to four years will bring the best energy-saving effects. In addition, adjusting the proportion of meat and dairy in residents' diets can only reduce carbon emissions in the short term. The insights achieved in this work may support policy makers in guiding households transition to sustainable behaviors and to pay attention to carbon emissions in the food sector. This method is also applicable to food-energy-water cross-sectoral decision-making in other cities.
In the longstanding debate over efficiency and effectiveness in drinking water provision between public versus privately governed systems, one of the main contention points is the reasons for different bill levels imposed by city-run as compared to privately owned water systems. In this study, we examine one potential explanation for disparities in bills: whether cities use their general funds to subsidize their drinking water fund operations or vice versa. Either practice goes against “user pays” principles, as pointed out by critics of municipal operation. However, the claims have not been tested empirically at scale. We extract and analyze city water enterprise fund financial data from the California State Controller Cities Raw Data of Financial Transaction Reports to empirically assess the extent to which and reasons why interfund transfers occur in California's 267 municipally owned water utilities. We find very little evidence that substantial interfund transfers, in either direction, occur between water enterprise funds and general funds within California cities, indicating that enterprise fund control measures are generally successful. These findings suggest that with proper regulation, the municipal fund subsidy debate is essentially a distraction from the real reasons why municipal and other water provider rates differ substantially.
Many water utilities across the United States have recently launched efforts to replace household water meters with advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), or “smart meters,” to track and bill water use. In this exploratory research article, we use interviews and water utility data, and we review scholarly and grey literature to present five equity implications of AMI transitions: affordability, job loss, access and use of the technology, trust between households and utilities, and communications are ways residents can experience harm. These implications illustrate that AMI can disproportionately burden residents and highlight water utilities’ critical role as community institutions.
Climate variability is reflected in water affluence that directly impacts the availability and level of water in reservoirs. Economic instruments, such as tariffs, are increasingly being used to promote the rational use of water. This study offers a floating rate model for charging raw water as a function of the reservoir level. The model was designed in the Jaguaribe–Metropolitan System, a place characterized by water-use conflicts during water scarcity. The model was developed as a function of the unit payment capacity (UPC) and drought states of the hydrographic regions. We applied the free software R and PSO optimization package to define the optimal UPC fraction and evaluated the model sensitivity using a synthetic series generated with the Markov chain method. Consequently, we observed that comfortable, alert, and critical situation levels predominated in the sensitivity analysis, and the average collections paid for administration, operation, and maintenance (AO&M) costs. In some cases, a collection surplus that can be managed through a financial fund to finance the system in periods of critical shortage is generated.
After several decades, the political and academic debate on water governance is still dominated by arguments about whether private sector involvement increases both efficiency and the level of investment within the industry. These arguments could appear reductive, especially in a context like Italy, which is dominated by public and mixed-ownership water utilities. The aim of this paper is to analyze how the socio-economic context and stakeholders' interests can influence the relationship between ownership structure and water utilities' sustainability performances. Analyzing six case studies, this research shows that the institutional context may influence both the water governance and utilities’ performance. The theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
Rapidly‐growing concern among scholars and policy makers over residential drinking water affordability in the United States highlights the need to identify and assess the efficacy of potential solutions to address this problem. Accordingly, in this advanced review of the literature, we examine the state of scholarly evidence over the last 30 years on the prevalence and effectiveness of strategies to address household drinking water affordability in the United States. We classify interventions into four categories: rate structure designs, water efficiency programs, recurring bill assistance, and crisis relief. Our findings are twofold. First, the conceptual literature on affordability interventions is fairly robust, but demonstrates both tradeoffs and complementarities across the four approaches. Second, despite employing a PRISMA approach, we identify few empirical studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of affordability interventions in practice, especially the targeted approaches of recurring bill assistance and crisis relief. The literature on affordability interventions thus appears to lag considerably behind scholarship identifying and defining the problem of affordability. Accordingly, we suggest key questions throughout our review that need to be answered, thereby providing an agenda for future research on drinking water affordability solutions.
This article is categorized under:
• Human Water
Abstract
Intervention pathways improving household water affordability.
The efficiency of Mexican water utilities was studied by applying double bootstrap data envelopment analysis (DEA). Efficiency scores were calculated and regressed against a set of explanatory variables to analyze the effect of type of management and reform policies on efficiency. Results indicate that the few privately managed utilities in the sample, which are subject to local regulation, may be more efficient than publicly managed utilities operating at different governmental levels. The creation of decentralized autonomous water utilities did not appear to increase efficiency, as was expected from the reform. The policy of cutting water service to non-paying customers, indicating a business orientation, was found to be positively correlated with efficiency.
A growing body of research shows that economic, demographic, and institutional factors affect public pension funding. Most of these findings are based on the analysis of complete retirement systems, which are often funded by multiple plan sponsors. This article offers one of the first empirical analyses of the determinants of pension funding at the level of a city government that acts as a plan sponsor, often for more than one plan. Models predicting unfunded liabilities for a large national sample of cities over 2003–2012 suggest that city fiscal autonomy and reliance property taxes are additional pieces of the pension underfunding puzzle.
Informed by the design of a program in California, we make a three-part argument for why state-level governments might consider implementing direct bill-assistance programs for drinking water service to address growing affordability concerns for low-income households. State-level operation of bill-assistance programs represents a departure from the global trend of allowing water utilities to operate bill-assistance programs at their own discretion. We first explain the motivation for enhanced public sector support to help households pay for drinking water service. In state-level contexts such as California, we find that the basic household affordability equation has worsened due to an increase in the numerator of residential retail bills and a stagnation in the denominator of household incomes. We next demonstrate why direct bill assistance to households is necessary even with the presence of other system-level financial support or retail rate structure policies. Finally, we make the case that direct bill-assistance programs are best situated at the state level, due to substantial variation in systems’ capacity and demonstrated willingness to run their own robust affordability programs for vulnerable customers.
In Portugal, social tariffs have been used since 2009 to promote universal access and affordability of water services, reducing the burden of vulnerable consumers' water charges.
The adoption of social tariffs by the Portuguese water services providers and the recent regulatory changes to the social tariff regime are analyzed. The main conclusion is that the existing differences in terms of affordability across municipalities might persist and this may also jeopardize social sustainability and territorial cohesion.
We highlight a worrisome situation in American cities—rising water bills that growing numbers of residents cannot afford to pay, leading to water shutoffs. A study of each state’s two largest water utilities suggested fifteen million Americans experienced water shutoffs in 2016. We describe how utility responses to financial challenges facing older cities have caused shutoffs that disproportionally hurt low-income customers. We present new data from public records requests illustrating the scale and distribution of shutoffs in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Detroit, and discuss the potential of income-based pricing to solve the water affordability challenge.
Access to water and sanitation are recognized as human rights by the United Nations, reflecting their vital importance to every person's life. At a fundamental level - delivering minimum standards of water services to meet basic human needs - it is a simple equation. People are rights-holders and States are responsible under international law to provide those services. Rights-holders can claim their rights and duty-bearers must guarantee the rights to water and sanitation equally and without discrimination. This paper explores the relationship between the human rights to water and sanitation, the Sustainable Development Goals, water services and the role of water service tariffs in helping or hindering delivery of a broad range of societal objectives, including human rights and sustainability. Two key questions emerge: (i) What are the rights that apply in these circumstances and who is responsible for addressing those rights? (ii) How can the viability of the water service system be maintained without imposing dramatic price increase, and without compromising the social and human right to water in good quality and affordable conditions? In this paper we argue that human rights to water and sanitation, and the tariffs that are applied to them, should not be addressed as technical problems but rather as social and political issues of justice. We conclude that the re-politicisation of water, and of the setting of water tariffs, would help ensure that the responsibilities upon Governments for delivering human rights to water and sanitation are clear.
Access to water and sanitation are recognized as human rights by the United Nations, reflecting their vital importance to every person's life. At a fundamental level - delivering minimum standards of water services to meet basic human needs - it is a simple equation. People are rights-holders and States are responsible under international law to provide those services. Rights-holders can claim their rights and duty-bearers must guarantee the rights to water and sanitation equally and without discrimination. This paper explores the relationship between the human rights to water and sanitation, the Sustainable Development Goals, water services and the role of water service tariffs in helping or hindering delivery of a broad range of societal objectives, including human rights and sustainability. Two key questions emerge: (i) What are the rights that apply in these circumstances and who is responsible for addressing those rights? (ii) How can the viability of the water service system be maintained without imposing dramatic price increase, and without compromising the social and human right to water in good quality and affordable conditions? In this paper we argue that human rights to water and sanitation, and the tariffs that are applied to them, should not be addressed as technical problems but rather as social and political issues of justice. We conclude that the re-politicisation of water, and of the setting of water tariffs, would help ensure that the responsibilities upon Governments for delivering human rights to water and sanitation are clear.
Wastewater pricing by centralized utility systems enjoys little attention. Ongoing concern about water resource adequacy has prompted interest in deploying wastewater pricing to encourage water conservation. We emphasize that rate policy should be informed by an understanding of how essential water and wastewater services differ. Specifically, we ask whether a change in volumetric wastewater rates will induce a usage response like that anticipated for a comparable change in water rates. We observe that water is a resource input and wastewater is a byproduct of indoor water use that is largely nondiscretionary and unlikely to be very price-responsive.
To reconcile the need to adequately fund infrastructure while not overburdening those who cannot afford rate increases, water utilities are implementing customer assistance programs.
Many U.S. states have regulations that prevent natural gas utility companies from turning off service to non-paying consumers. The goal of these policies, termed “no shut-off” (NSO) regulations, is to provide a guaranteed minimum level of residential comfort by reducing the marginal cost of consumption to zero for a period of time. This paper employs a difference-in-difference approach applied to residential U.S. Energy Information Administration data to evaluate whether NSO policies generate higher levels of gas usage. Our preferred specifications suggest that activation of a NSO policy increases natural gas consumption by between 4.7–4.8%, resulting in a total increase of between 66–67 billion cubic feet of natural gas consumed per winter season in covered states, at a value of as much as $950–970 million annually.
Economics provides policymakers guidance when they must depart from efficient pricing (equal to societal marginal cost) to cover an electric utility profit shortfall. Options include raising volumetric retail prices, tiered pricing, fixed charges, minimum bills, and demand charges. There is no ideal policy, but balancing efficiency and equity suggests using a combination of fixed charges and increased volumetric prices. Economics does not support the use of demand charges or minimum bills.
The efficiency properties of price and nonprice instruments for conservation in environmental policy are well understood. However, there is little evidence comparing the effectiveness of these instruments, especially when considering water resource management. We exploit a rich panel of residential water consumption data to examine heterogeneous responses to both price and nonprice conservation policies during times of drought while controlling for unobservable household characteristics. Our empirical models suggest that among owners of detached, single-family homes in six North Carolina municipalities, relatively low-income households are more sensitive to price and relatively high-consumption households are less sensitive to price. However, prescriptive policies such as restrictions on outdoor water use result in uniform responses across income levels, while simultaneously targeting reductions from households with irrigation systems and historically high consumption.
Water budget rates are gaining attention in the water sector. Although clearly well-intended, the water budget approach to rates raises serious theoretical and practical issues familiar to applied regulatory economics. In essence, water budget rates exemplify "social rate-making," that is, a system of pricing that departs from traditional economic standards in the interest of serving social goals-in this case water conservation. The inherent problem with this particular rate structure, however, is not its good intentions but its disconcerting implications. The troubling irony of water budget rates appears to be lost in the deliberation.
This paper formulates models of residential water demand and estimates the relevant parameters from cross-sectional data. For the first time, it has been possible to differentiate not only between domestic (inside) and sprinkling uses but also among metered, flat-rate, septic tank, and apartment areas. The major findings are: (1) domestic demands are relatively inelastic with respect to price; (2) sprinkling demands are elastic with respect to price, but less so in the west than in the east; (3) maximum day sprinkling demands, so important to system design, are inelastic in the west but relatively elastic in the east. The findings indicate that the elasticity of total demand, which this and other studies have found to be about −0.4, is a weighted average of the domestic and sprinkling elasticities. Longer term adjustments to price are empirically investigated, and the role of demand functions in pricing and system design is discussed.
Higher energy prices and the growing concern about global warming have led to a number of policy goals and targets designed to curb global warming and/or the development of alternative sources of energy. However, the Tinbergen Rule states that for each and every policy target there must be at least one policy tool. If there are fewer tools than targets, then some policy goals will not be achieved. Further complicating the public policy environment are the facts that some policy tools affect more than one target, some tools help achieve more than one target, and others, while meeting one target, make meeting other targets more difficult. Also, some targets are more efficient than others. If policy makers are going to be able to effectively meet their environmental and energy goals, a series of policy tools need to be developed.
Suppliers of water and energy are frequently natural monopolies, with their pricing regulated by governmental agencies. Pricing schemes are evaluated by the efficiency of the resource allocation they lead to, the capacity of the utilities to capture their costs and the distributional effects of the policies, in particular, impacts on the poor. One pricing approach has been average cost pricing, which guarantees cost recovery and allows utilities to provide their product at relatively low prices. However, average cost pricing leads to economically inefficient consumption levels, when sources of water and energy are limited and increasing the supply is costly. An alternative approach is increasing block rates (hereafter, IBR or tiered pricing), where individuals pay a low rate for an initial consumption block and a higher rate as they increase use beyond that block. An example of IBR is shown in Figure 1 (on next page), which shows a rate structure for residential water use. With the rates in Figure 1, a household would be charged 0.71 per hundred gallons for consumption below and above 21,000 gallons per month, respectively.
Over the past three decades, the business of water supply in England and Wales has been gradually transforming from the supply of a service to citizens, to the sale of a commodity to customers. The paper provides a genealogy of concepts of efficiency and equity in water regulation over the past thirty years, prior to evaluating the implications for water consumers of one aspect of this process – the shift away from policies prioritizing inter- and intra-regional equalization (implying a principle of social equity) towards policies prioritizing economic efficiency (implying a principle of economic equity) in water charging. In closing, alternatives to the current arrangements for domestic consumers are proposed.
Public fire service water charges -on the water bill or on the tax roll? Environmental Finance Center
- S Ancel
Ancel, S (2012). Public fire service water charges -on the water bill or on the tax roll?
Environmental Finance Center, University of North Carolina. Available at efc.web.
unc.edu.
M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges. American Water Works Association
AWWA (2017). M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges. American Water Works
Association. Denver, CO.
The COVID-water disconnect: How statewide moratoriums are leaving people behind. A Report by the center for water security and cooperation
- Campbell-Ferrari
- Wilson
Campbell-Ferrari, A and L Wilson (2020). The COVID-water disconnect: How statewide
moratoriums are leaving people behind. A Report by the center for water security
and cooperation.
Building Better Water Rates for an Uncertain World. Alliance for Water Efficiency and
- T Chesnutt
Chesnutt, T et al. (2014). Building Better Water Rates for an Uncertain World. Alliance for
Water Efficiency and.
Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2. Water Research Foundation
- W Deoreo
- B Mayer
- J Dziegielewski
- Kiefer
DeOreo, W, P Mayer, B Dziegielewski and J Kiefer (2016). Residential End Uses of Water,
Version 2. Water Research Foundation.
Policy Nook
2071001-21
Estimated use of Water in the United States in 2015
- C A Dieter
Dieter, CA et al. (2017). Estimated use of Water in the United States in 2015. U.S.
Geological Survey. Available at www.usgs.gov.
Value of the Service as a Factor in Rate Making
- H W Edgerton
Edgerton, HW (1919). Value of the Service as a Factor in Rate Making. Harvard Law
Review, 32(5), 516.
Less common base charge structures
- S Eskaf
Eskaf, S (2014). Less common base charge structures. Environmental Finance Center,
University of North Carolina. Available at efc.web.unc.edu.
Four trends in government spending on water and wastewater utilities since 1956. Environmental Finance Center
- S Eskaf
Eskaf, S (2015). Four trends in government spending on water and wastewater utilities
since 1956. Environmental Finance Center, University of North Carolina. Available
at efc.web.unc.edu.
Methodological Guide on Tariffs, Taxes and Transfers in the European Water Sector
- Eureau
EurEau (2011). Methodological Guide on Tariffs, Taxes and Transfers in the European
Water Sector. Brussels.
Access to Water and Measures in Case of Nonpayment
- Eureau
EurEau (2016). Access to Water and Measures in Case of Nonpayment. Brussels.
Fitch Ratings (2018). U.S. Water and Sewer Rating Criteria -Effective November 29,
2018 to April 3, 2020. Available at www.fitchratings.com.
Income and wealth are not highly correlated
- L Keister
Keister, L (2018). Income and wealth are not highly correlated. Work in Progress, available
at wipsociology.org.
The fairest tax during a recession may be the least popular
- J Marlowe
Marlowe, J (2019). The fairest tax during a recession may be the least popular. Governing
(governing.com).
Developing a new framework for household affordability and financial capability assessment in the water sector
- R Raucher
- E Rothstein
- J Mastracchio
Raucher, R, E Rothstein and J Mastracchio (2019). Developing a new framework for
household affordability and financial capability assessment in the water sector.
Available at awwa.org.
Affordable for Now: Water and Sewer Rates at U.S. Municipal Utilities
S&P Global Ratings (2018). Affordable for Now: Water and Sewer Rates at U.S.
Municipal Utilities. Available at www.spglobal.com.