488
reflection of its sustainability, estimates of the water or energy footprint of a city
must take the hidden life cycle costs of its food supply into account, including transportation mechanisms within the city for people to access their food, how and when
the food is grown, and the energy used for its preparation. Indeed, this is part of the
reason that the food footprint of cities is so heavy.
Although the most impactful drivers in the private sector have been large scale,
smaller-scale social actors like households, food hubs, urban farmers, local entrepreneurs, and farming cooperatives also play a role. Household gardening and urban
farming may be part of a social empowerment movement or may instead be a matter
of economic necessity that may have implications for social equity and stigma. Small
scale private sector actors at the FEW nexus include, for example, local entrepreneurs
implementing new technologies of vertical farming and high production greenhouses
utilizing water-saving green infrastructure and renewables such as solar energy.
18.2.1.2 Water Systems
In many capitalist societies, there has been some trend toward water and wastewater
service privatization, especially in the global South. Critics of water privatization
claim that the profit motive will lead to quality meeting only minimum legal standards and pricing that excludes a significant portion of the population (the affordability criterion). Proponents of water privatization claim that the profit motive
drives efficiencies and reduction of water and energy losses. These claims of critics
and proponents apply both to drinking water supply and wastewater services.
From the perspective of the private sector, part of the challenge faced in determining water pricing is the great differentials in quantities of water use among customers.
The household in a small apartment consumes relatively little water, the majority of
which may enter the wastewater treatment system; the suburban home with a large
yard consumes a moderate amount of water, some of which is lost to evaporation and
evapotranspiration from the lawn and some of which may run off into storm drains
requiring wastewater treatment; and the urban factory may consume a large amount of
water, with varying degrees of reprocessing, recapture, and reuse.
A private water supply utility, like any for-profit company, wants to maximize its
accumulation of wealth, so it seeks to sell as much water as possible at profitable
rates. To sell to the farm or factory, the water must have a relatively low unit price,
slightly above marginal cost. This means that the small residential user may be
required to pay a higher unit price to cover the total cost of supply not satisfied by
the prices paid by larger users. In some states, such as Michigan, the state
Constitution and case law require user fees to be proportionate to the cost of
providing the service, subjecting water utilities to additional scrutiny when calculating costs and setting rates (the policy criterion).
1
1 See Michigan Supreme Court Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152 (1998) for a distinction
between user fees and taxes requiring voter approval under the Headlee Amendment to the
Michigan Constitution (Mich Const 1963, art 9, sections 25 and 31).
C. Harris et al.
reflection of its sustainability, estimates of the water or energy footprint of a city
must take the hidden life cycle costs of its food supply into account, including transportation mechanisms within the city for people to access their food, how and when
the food is grown, and the energy used for its preparation. Indeed, this is part of the
reason that the food footprint of cities is so heavy.
Although the most impactful drivers in the private sector have been large scale,
smaller-scale social actors like households, food hubs, urban farmers, local entrepreneurs, and farming cooperatives also play a role. Household gardening and urban
farming may be part of a social empowerment movement or may instead be a matter
of economic necessity that may have implications for social equity and stigma. Small
scale private sector actors at the FEW nexus include, for example, local entrepreneurs
implementing new technologies of vertical farming and high production greenhouses
utilizing water-saving green infrastructure and renewables such as solar energy.
18.2.1.2 Water Systems
In many capitalist societies, there has been some trend toward water and wastewater
service privatization, especially in the global South. Critics of water privatization
claim that the profit motive will lead to quality meeting only minimum legal standards and pricing that excludes a significant portion of the population (the affordability criterion). Proponents of water privatization claim that the profit motive
drives efficiencies and reduction of water and energy losses. These claims of critics
and proponents apply both to drinking water supply and wastewater services.
From the perspective of the private sector, part of the challenge faced in determining water pricing is the great differentials in quantities of water use among customers.
The household in a small apartment consumes relatively little water, the majority of
which may enter the wastewater treatment system; the suburban home with a large
yard consumes a moderate amount of water, some of which is lost to evaporation and
evapotranspiration from the lawn and some of which may run off into storm drains
requiring wastewater treatment; and the urban factory may consume a large amount of
water, with varying degrees of reprocessing, recapture, and reuse.
A private water supply utility, like any for-profit company, wants to maximize its
accumulation of wealth, so it seeks to sell as much water as possible at profitable
rates. To sell to the farm or factory, the water must have a relatively low unit price,
slightly above marginal cost. This means that the small residential user may be
required to pay a higher unit price to cover the total cost of supply not satisfied by
the prices paid by larger users. In some states, such as Michigan, the state
Constitution and case law require user fees to be proportionate to the cost of
providing the service, subjecting water utilities to additional scrutiny when calculating costs and setting rates (the policy criterion).
1
1 See Michigan Supreme Court Bolt v. City of Lansing, 459 Mich. 152 (1998) for a distinction
between user fees and taxes requiring voter approval under the Headlee Amendment to the
Michigan Constitution (Mich Const 1963, art 9, sections 25 and 31).
C. Harris et al.