[Tom C]

No rant here, just a simple question.

Why does irrigation water cost more per than potable water?

We live in an area of The Villages where we have both household water and irrigation water. The lot is a bit larger than most with southern exposure, so overall it needs more water than most. I am fine with all that, we were informed buyers. But it does mean that I consume water into the upper range of the billing scale (scale from water bill shown below), but my question would apply to any range.

It just seems the pricing is unusual to me. It seems to me that “reclaimed water” would be less expensive than potable water. Potable water must be filtered, treated, chemicals added, tested, monitored and falls under regulations all that add to the cost of operation that all must be done by certified professionals.

Therefore my question, does anyone know why our irrigation water is more expensive than our (potable) processed drinking water?

From our Community Development District Bill:

Rates for drinking water:
0- 3,000 gal $2.09 / 1,000 gallons
Over 3,000 gal $4.17 / 1,000 gallons

Rates for Irrigation water:
0- 7,000 gal $2.24 / 1,000 gallons
7- 14,000 gal $3.75 / 1,000 gallons
Over 14,000 gal $5.19 / 1,000 gallons

[retiredguy123]

You are also paying an additional $5.00 per 1000 gallons for the sewer charge. This is based on the potable water use. Also, the base charge for potable water is slightly higher than for irrigation water. There is also a base charge for the sewer water. So, actually, the potable water is more expensive than the irrigation water.

[eyc234]

Your calculation is only half correct. You have to add in the sewage charge per 1,000 gallons and pretty sure that the potable is much higher than the non potable.

[Tom C]

Thank you!

Ah! Yes, now I see that they assume that all potable water becomes sewer water, so one must add $5 /1000 gallons to the potable water cost. That does push the potable water use costs above the irrigation water rates.

I had thought that the sewer charges were a fixed cost, but I have reviewed the CDD bill again and see that it is not what we had where we lived before.

[rjm1cc]

The simple answer is that it costs less to pump water out of the ground and add a few chemicals than it does to take the water from your toilet and make it drinkable (even though we do not drink it) for lawn use.

[karostay]

if it didn't no one would shut it off

[bhallam]

Originally Posted by rjm1cc

The simple answer is that it costs less to pump water out of the ground and add a few chemicals than it does to take the water from your toilet and make it drinkable (even though we do not drink it) for lawn use.

That is a good point. What really happens to our reclaimed water? I think it is pumped to holding ponds or tanks and leached to ground water through golf course and home owner irrigation but not sure.

[biker1]

Not quite correct. Treated waste water from the water treatment plants is not used for residential irrigation north of 44. It is south of 44, along with other sources.

Originally Posted by rjm1cc

The simple answer is that it costs less to pump water out of the ground and add a few chemicals than it does to take the water from your toilet and make it drinkable (even though we do not drink it) for lawn use.

[vintageogauge]

Originally Posted by biker1

Not quite correct. Treated waste water from the water treatment plants is not used for residential irrigation north of 44. It is south of 44, along with other sources.

Not quite correct either. The original village of Fenney phase one has irrigation water controlled by the Fenney Water Conservation Authority which uses well water and storm water, the other villages south of 44 are under the Southern District Water Authority and they do or will be using treated wastewater that is or will be bleached and only if the storm water is not available.