Re:Hundreds lose water source in Colorado's poorest county w...
by khuey on Monday August 25, 2025 @12:15PM
(#45015475)
In this case it seems like it's the reverse. The article claims the "bulk water" customers are responsible for 15% of the system's revenue but consume less than 1% of the water delivered.
Re:Hundreds lose water source in Colorado's poorest county w...
by ajb on Monday August 25, 2025 @11:56AM
(#45015223)
These users were not in the piped network. They were driving to a station to collect water in tanks. If anything, that's cheaper to maintain.
Re:Hundreds lose water source in Colorado's poorest county w...
by potato3732842 on Monday August 25, 2025 @11:56AM
(#45015234)
Even if it's not "cheaper" it's not the utility's problem what the user's hauling equipment costs.
Re:Hundreds lose water source in Colorado's poorest county w...
by bombcar on Monday August 25, 2025 @12:04PM
(#45015340)
I’ve never seen “rural” properties on “city” water unless a pipe happened to be running down the road for an existing development anyway.
Otherwise it’s all wells, sometimes tremendously deep.
Re:Hundreds lose water source in Colorado's poorest county w...
by bluGill on Monday August 25, 2025 @01:05PM
(#45016073)
Depends on the area.
I live in iowa - nearly everyone is on rural water because wells don't produce much water. I'm on a well and I can't water my lawn - after an hour my well is empty. My well is about a meter in diameter so that should be a lot stored. it would be $20k to extend the city water pipe to my lot.
i used to live in MN, there I knew farmers on a 5cm well who had no problem watering lawns, and 50 cows from the well.
in colorado where this story is water is less available than iowa. (most farms have a year round creek that could be treated to become drinkable)
Of course, in my country we tolerate that - it's normal for food to flow into urban areas and money to flow out, water pricing is just an obscure element of that.