My smallish water supplier, Golden State Water Co, just sent a letter inviting comment on their proposed water rationing scheme. On its face, it appears to be an irrational rationing scheme since they propose across the board allocation cuts on all users based on historical (2004-2006) usage patterns, but without imposing a floor on the minimum allocation.
The impact is that someone who has been living within their water means will have to cut much harder than someone who has been wasteful in the past.
There's two billing tiers for my region
First 1,200 cu. ft., per 100 cu. ft $2.692
Over 1,300 cu. ft., per 100 cu. ft $3.096
There's usage-based fee assessments that get added to these base rates plus there's the fixed costs (such as the monthly fee to have a meter) that typically don't change. These start at $15.15 for the smallest meter and size to $~1700 for the largest.
Previously, I wrote about implementation of the tiered system and how it had to be revenue neutral for the water company. This led to understanding that they expected the typical household to use 18 hcf (hundred cubic feet) per month.
Maybe mandatory cuts ought to be scaled against this 18 hcf figure - those using less than 18 hcf don't have to cut as much. The more you use over 18 hcf the more you must cut. Don't like 18 hcf? Then pick a new target and incentivize people to drive average usage toward your favorite number.