Laserfiche WebLink
california Water Today 99 <br />Table 2.4 <br />Household water and wastewater costs in the mid-2000s (2008 $) <br />Region <br />Average <br />yearly <br />gross water <br />use (af) <br />Average <br />water price <br />($/af) <br />Average <br />monthly <br />water <br />bill ($) <br />Average <br />monthly <br />wastewater <br />bill ($) <br />Water and <br />wastewater <br />bills as a <br />share of <br />median <br />income (%) <br />San Francisco Bay Area 0.37 1,190 36 31 1.07 <br />Central Coast 0.38 1,857 59 28 1.68 <br />South Coast 0.58 985 48 23 1.46 <br />Inland Empire 0.59 748 36 18 1.28 <br />Sacramento Metro Area 0.49 789 32 26 1.23 <br />San Joaquin Valley 0.63 545 29 19 1.26 <br />Rest of state 0.47 886 35 25 1.78 <br />California 0.52 959 42 24 1.36 <br />sOURcEs: Authors’ calculations using data from black and Veatch (2004, 2006) for water and wastewater rates and the U.s. census <br />for household incomes. <br />NOTEs: The table reports charges for single-family households. Water rates are for 2006; wastewater rates are for 2004; both are <br />converted to 2008 dollars using the consumer price index. The sample includes 443 water service areas and 560 wastewater <br />service areas. The considerable regional variation in water prices reflects differences in local infrastructure and water supply <br />costs. The regional breakdowns here are based on counties and differ slightly from the hydrologic regions in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. <br />communities in the inland Empire (Riverside and san bernardino) are located in the south coast, the south Lahontan, and the <br />colorado River regions. san Joaquin Valley includes the san Joaquin River and Tulare basin regions. “Rest of state” includes rural <br />counties in the sacramento River region, the North coast, and the North Lahontan regions. <br />Environmental water: an undervalued resource <br />Environmental flows, healthy watersheds, and the services they provide—often <br />known as ecosystem services—add economic value to California (Box 2.3). <br />However, these benefits are often not readily apparent because the market does <br />not generally put a price on them (National Research Council 2005; Brauman <br />et al. 2007; Daily et al. 2009). As a result, the value of ecosystem benefits is <br />overlooked in many cost-benefit analyses used to evaluate water investments. <br />The failure to consider environmental values has contributed significantly to <br />the degradation of aquatic ecosystems (Introduction, Chapter 5). <br />Although new tools are emerging to estimate the economic values of <br />ecosystem services, such valuation is not without challenges (Boyd and <br />Banzhaf 2006). The difficulties stem, in part, from the different methods <br />of valuation that must be used to compare services (Freeman 2003). Some <br />commodities produced by freshwater ecosystems, such as produce and fish, <br />have easily identified market values. For instance, in 2007, fisheries and