Water Restrictions Continue Despite Excess Water
As the Falls Lake crested to 253.0 feet, many wondered why the City of Raleigh is still imposing Stage 1 Water Restrictions. Some claim that we need to store as much water as possible as the hottest summer months lie ahead. However, the Army Corps of Engineers this week carefully explained to Mayor Meeker that we can only store a certain amount before we lose our flood-buffering ability. Therefore, when the lake gets to a certain height, we have to spill more water into the Neuse River to maintain safety.
If we are essentially sitting above maximum capacity, then the choice is to allow people to use more water or spill it into the Neuse. It is a classic “use it or lose it” scenario, and the mayor is indefensibly opting for the latter.
There should not ever be a discussion about water restrictions. Rainfall is really not the issue. Rather, the amount of water reserved in the pool is what matters. Since we don’t have limitless storage, there should be simple, automatic, pre-understood water conservation measures that trigger at specific lake levels.
Given that “Normal Operating Level” is at 251.5′ and the bottom of the Conservation Pool is at 236.5′, a sample system could be:
- Above 251.5′ - no water restrictions
- 245.0′ - 251.4′ - Stage I restrictions
- 237.0′ - 244.9′ - Stage II restrictions
In the same manner that the City Council reevaluated the garbage disposal scenario, it is time to reevaluate reasonable water use guidelines, and to reevaluate the job performance of those behind both issues.
-->6 Comments
Make A CommentComments RSS Feed TrackBack URL
May 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Honestly, I am ok with this. I don’t really have any real data to back it up with, but it seems like Raleigh really needs to have a greater sense of conservation when it comes to water. Maybe they shouldn’t be called restrictions anymore, but just be considered to be the norm. This is all just my opinion though, it could be that we can avoid issues like last summer by simply putting restrictions in place as soon as levels begin dropping and try to enforce.
May 4th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Lake level is not a great measure by itself of the “health” of our water supply. You also need to figure in the water table and underground aquifers. My understanding is that the recent heavy rains have had less positive effect on the water table - thus the mayor’s hesitancy to lower the water alert. We could be right back where we were last fall in a few months. Then everyone will complain about city officials not looking ahead to the problem.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:12 am
The city is doing the right thing by continuing its water restriction policies. People seem to be confused by the ebbs and flows in lake levels which, when low, predict disaster, and when temporarily high, predict an end to all the water problems. The water restrictions are not, as I understand them, designed to ensure that there is enough water for people to use luxuriously and gratuitously as they endlessly fancy, but are instead a response to a much broader, long-term problem. Taking responsibility for a valuable resource - and our behaviour toward that resource - is commendable.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am
We would never need restrictions if water were priced like the scarce resource that it is. Why do we insist on using the least-effective method (unenforceable restrictions) to try to conserve water? A true supply-and-demand pricing system could solve all of our problems!
May 5th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Everyone needs water, including low-income families, so making the price of water even more expensive would put additional strain on them. The price of everyday commodities like food and gas are already skyrocketing, why add to that problem? All it takes is concerted effort on all citizens to be educated and aware of the current situation of our water levels.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Interesting, this is the second time recently someone suggested that allowing water to flow from Falls Lake into the Neuse River is spilling it. I had thought that rivers having water flowing in them is a good thing? Is that not what makes them a river? Don’t fish and other creatures live downstream? Don’t people also live downstream? It surprises me that people think water flowing in a river is wasteful….
Personally, I think given that when Raleigh had instituted the severest restrictions that use only went down I think about 4% or so - that we need to institute controls on its use. The control I favor most is pricing it higher. As for the low income folks, I think that above a certain reasonable amount the rates should increase dramatically.