INC NEWS - incrementalism versus transformational

[RW Pickle]

I was reading an interesting article today about these two methods of
implementing practices and policies by institutions, industry and
governmental bodies. The comparison was between these two methods of
implementing new ways of doing things; ie: change at the core.

What came to mind as I was reading the article was how we deal with water
in our community. We have these "stage" thingys that get implemented at
various targets and really only amount to suggestions. They really cause
no great change because they have no consequences. These changes are done
via the incremental method and small steps toward some goal; here it is
water conservation and use. But it really boils down to what we as
individuals are willing to do since the consequences are not there for not
doing as is suggested by the "stage" planner.

What we need is a transformational method by which everyone is forced (I
suggest via a monetary factor) to not just deal with stages, but to deal
with a whole new plan on conservation of water. One that transforms our
ways of dealing with water to a new method of dealing with it. That way,
when instituted, it will cause everyone to act in the same manner. Whereas
now, these "stage" suggestions are only that, suggestions.

Sure we read about the stages and to some degree, we comply. I think I
read water use was down by 30% (and revenue must be down by more % than
that because water use is tied to sewer fee revenue as well; so it amounts
to saving water to spend money to make up the revenue loss...). But there
are no consequences in this incremental approach except running out of
water. It doesn't matter what stage we're in when it happens. It'll occur
without consequence except for those of us who use it. We won't have any!
And then any "stage" is a joke.

With a transformational plan, we can shape the revenues we need to the
water we use and this alone will lead to greater conservation. It's
important now that we're short on the wet stuff, but it becomes even more
important when we have plenty of it. If we can transition to a new system
while in a crisis, it'll work just fine when we have plenty. It's like
turning the light off when you leave the room, turning your thermostat
down a couple of degrees; no one makes you do that. But you become
inclined to make it a habit as you watch your bills for electricity and
gas/oil go up. It becomes habit because you know what the consequences
are; higher utility bills. And water should be the same way. You waste it,
it hurts you in the pocket book. Then, as a community, we are able to
transform our habits of wasting it into habits of conserving it. And by
planning the model whereby it all has a price that meets our revenue
goals, the whole system works in the wonderful way we know it can.

Pat mentioned she thought the software wouldn't allow a conservation model
to be put into place. I say hooey. Perhaps the first transformational
thing we need to do is to get new software (or a programmer to add the
needed code). That seems like such poor excuse for not implementing a
conservation model immediately. Software... It's hard to bathe in or
drink... What seems more important? Transforming what we currently have or
implementing incremental changes that really have no consequence (except
we run out eventually). It seems like a no-brainer to me.

We already pay for water in three ways. Just think about our lakes when
you read this. Every time it rains, water runs off our property downstream
to the lake. Here we are charged a storm water run-off tax because of the
non-pervious surface we have on our property. this is ass backwards. If it
doesn't run-off, the lake doesn't get full..

then we pump the water from the lake to our treatment plant where we treat
it and it is umped into pies from which we get our potable water at our
homes/businesses. Here we are charged again for the water that ran off our
property.

then as we use our water, flushing our toilets, doing our dishes, taking
baths, it goes down the drain, back to another treatment plant that
eventually releases it back into a stream that ends up in the lake again.
And we are charge for our sewer relative to the amount of water we use. So
this is three times we're paying for the rain water as it comes down from
the sky. All the time, recycling it through our systems and back to the
lake.

It seems like we should be rewarded for having more run-off (because it
adds to our water supply; in the first lake or downstream from it as it
overflows) and rewarded for using less water (as we are supplied it and as
we use it). We'd need to treat less water (which would be cheaper since
the more we treat it the more it costs in current dollars and future
expansions when we use more of it) on both ends (to make potable water and
to treat our waste water). So we'd be saving money everywhere. If we can
just get the revenue model changed so as to make all of this even out,
then we're in business. Now is the time to do it when our general usage is
down because of the season. When good weather rolls back around, if we
haven't changed anything to move us toward conservation, I'm afraid we'll
be back in the same boat (maybe worse) again.

Upside is boat prices should tumble if there are no lakes to use them
in... Happy boating!

RWP
27 Beverly