i

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

Water and 

Wastewater 

Pricing An Informational Overv ew 

Office of Wastewater Management 

EPA 832-F-03-027 
Water and Wastewater Pricing 

Holly Stallworth, Ph.D. 

Economist, Office of Wastewater Management 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPA 832-F-03-027 

This document is provided for informational purposes only and does 

not suggest any EPA regulatory authority or action. 

I. Introduction: The Role of Prices............................................................................................. 1

II. The Water Sector .................................................................................................................... 2

Public Ownership – Heavily Subsidized..................................................................................... 2

Laws, Regulations, and Local Politics........................................................................................ 3

III. Rate Structures and Practices in the Water Sector.............................................................. 4

Current Pricing Practices in the Water Sector ............................................................................ 4

Conservation Rate Structures...................................................................................................... 5

IV. Key Issues for Utilities, Communities, and Water Planners............................................... 5

Affordability ............................................................................................................................... 6

Revenue Stability........................................................................................................................ 6

Effectiveness............................................................................................................................... 7

V. Assessment Tools and Information Sources........................................................................... 7

Show-Me Ratemaker .................................................................................................................. 7

IWR-MAIN Water Demand Analysis Software ......................................................................... 7

EPA Reports................................................................................................................................ 7

AWWA Manuals ........................................................................................................................ 8

VI. References to Books, Reports, and Web Sites.................................................................... 9

i
I. Introduction: The Role of Prices 

This paper discusses the role of the price 

mechanism in water and wastewater 

conservation. It is designed to stimulate 

conversation about water pricing strategies 

among local water and wastewater utilities, 

government planners, industry professionals, 

and advocates of watershed protection. 

Pricing strategies can also raise revenue to 

meet clean water needs, but this purpose is 

addressed in other EPA publications. 

Most of us learned in elementary school that 

water is indestructible and is recycled 

through the hydrologic cycle. However, 

recent experience has determined that water 

cannot be treated as a perfectly renewable 

resource. Withdrawals from our watersheds 

for drinking, sanitation, agriculture, and 

industrial use, and subsequent wastewater 

treatment, are processes that, at today’s 

scale, have large “unpriced” external effects, 

including land use consequences, biological 

degradation, and water quantity depletion. In 

view of these encroaching resource limits, it 

is important to consider how to translate 

these causal relationships through the price 

mechanism to reflect the underlying costs to 

society. As local utilities propose expansions 

in water and wastewater capacity, significant 

environmental issues are raised in most 

major metropolitan areas. Clearly, the need 

for conservation and planning is greater than 

ever. Although there are many ways to 

promote conservation, the focus of this 

paper will be on pricing. 

The most frequent response of economists to 

the imperatives of environmental protection 

and resource conservation is to use the price 

mechanism more strategically. For 

economists, “full costs” refers to the 

complete societal costs (environmental, 

social, and actual) that stem from the 

production and consumption of a good or 

service. Economics shows us that social 

welfare is maximized when all costs are 

reflected in prices. This is sometimes 

referred to as “full-cost pricing” or the 

“polluter-pays principle.” Only when 

production and consumption decisions take 

into account all costs to society can they 

result in the most appropriate balance of 

supply and demand. When prices are 

artificially low, we tend to consume too 

much. When prices are artificially high, we 

consume too little. 

From an environmental economics 

perspective, pricing can be an extremely 

valuable tool for signaling the value of 

water. Since water is basic to life, and 

certainly to the quality of life, the pricing of

water can be a powerful means of signaling 

its scarcity to consumers, most of whom see 

very little connection between their water 

usage and their total bill. As water demands 

are increasing and water supplies are 

diminishing, economic tools are among the 

most powerful ways to communicate the 

true value of fresh water. 

The polluter-pays principle is popular 

among economists, but it is important to 

emphasize that it usually suggests only a 

theoretical optimum. It is rare to see an 

“externality” fully priced and charged. This 

would mean identifying all the environmental effects of the product at each stage in 

the economic cycle from production to 

waste, assigning those effects a monetary 

value, and using the tax system or other 

authorities to add this total monetized value 

to the price. 

American laws and social norms have not 

yet embraced the approach of price 

correction to achieve environmental goals. 

European countries are farther along 

inimplementing these kinds of price 

changes, alternately called “ecological tax 

reform” or “green fees.” Approximately 

one-third of U.S. electric utilities, however, 

1
practice a form of demand management via 

peak-hour pricing of electricity. By pricing 

electricity high enough to encourage 

consumers to modify their electricity 

consumption, these participating electric 

utilities were able to take off 4 percent of the 

total peak load in the United States (Energy 

Information Administration, 1996). 

Another example of price correction in the 

United States is in the area of municipal 

solid waste. More than 4,000 communities 

have established what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) terms 

“pay-as-you-throw” programs (also known 

as unit pricing or variable-rate pricing), in 

which residents are charged for trash 

collection based on the amount thrown 

away. This creates a direct economic 

incentive to recycle more and to generate 

less waste. More information can be found 

at the EPA Web page “Pay As You Throw”

at http://www.epa.gov/payt/. 

As with many other resources, it is unlikely 

that water and wastewater prices will ever 

fully reflect the “full cost” approach favored 

by environmental economics, but there are 

some “directionally correct” pricing 

structures designed to encourage 

conservation. Section III describes these rate 

structures in more detail. 

While beyond the scope of this paper, an 

equally important reason to consider 

conservation-based rate structures is to raise 

revenue for utilities faced with economic 

and population growth, aging plants and 

pipes, and tighter environmental regulations. 

In a recent report issued by EPA’s Office of 

Water, the capital needs for water and 

wastewater systems were estimated for the 

next two decades. In present value terms, 

funds needed for both water and wastewater 

systems over the next 20 years approach a 

half trillion dollars (EPA, The Clean Water 

and Drinking Water Gap Analysis, 2002). 

To meet these needs, water and wastewater 

providers will need to increase their 

investments by at least 3 percent in real 

terms over this time period. 

Rising capital needs are attributed to: 

• Many sewage treatment plants and 

underground pipe systems needing 

replacement (with their useful lives 

expiring); 

• More stringent drinking water and 

wastewater standards; and 

• Increasing expense and controversy 

associated with developing new sources 

of water. 

To summarize, strategic pricing of water and 

wastewater can play a greater role in 

meeting the investment needs of our nation’s 

water and wastewater utilities. Pricing 

strategies can manage demand for water and 

wastewater services (or slow the growth rate 

of demand) and raise revenues to support 

critical capital investments. In the water 

sector, these imperatives are greater than 

ever. 

II. The Water Sector 

Public Ownership – Heavily Subsidized 

Over the past 200 years, water management 

in the United States has been dominated by 

government decisions concerning 

agriculture, water rights, transportation, 

hydroelectric power, manufacturing, and 

drinking needs. The U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers focused on large-scale 

development of water resources during a 

time in history when water was believed to 

be abundant and easily renewed. Dams, 

canals, aqueducts, and reservoirs were built 

to move water from where it was abundant 

to where it was needed, or to store it for use 

during dry seasons. The federal government 

2
financed much of that work, with the 

Department of the Interior's Bureau of 

Reclamation playing a key role. As its name

suggests, the goal of that agency was to 

“reclaim” arid lands. 

States generally govern water within their 

boundaries. State laws and regulations 

define the allocation of the rights of private 

parties and government entities to use such 

water. State water laws usually allocate 

water according to a “grandfathered” system

of “first in time, first in right” (appropriative 

rights) or according to proximity of land 

ownership (riparian rights). While water 

uses must be beneficial, allowable 

withdrawals are generally unpriced (free). 

Today, the water allocation problem is more 

difficult than ever due to a number of forces: 

increased population, periodic drought, 

depletion of groundwater, degradation of 

water quality, land use concerns, and 

competition among water users (agriculture, 

recreation, urban drinking water, and 

industrial use). In the arid West where 

conflict over water rights has a long history, 

some institutional reform of water policy is 

under way to better manage the agricultural 

use of water. Fueling the situation is the 

historical underpricing of water. During the 

1970s and 1980s, EPA’s wastewater 

treatment Construction Grants Program was 

a major source of federal funds, providing 

more than $60 billion for the construction of 

public wastewater treatment projects. In the 

1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act, 

Congress set 1990 as the last year that grants 

would be appropriated. As the grants 

program was phased out, it was replaced by 

the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, in 

which federal funds are used as seed money 

to capitalize revolving loan funds that 

provide low-interest loans for wastewater 

treatment. 

SRF loans offer municipalities a substantial 

discount compared to market rate financing; 

however, this discount does not approach 

the level of subsidy under the Construction 

Grants Program. The 20-year era of the 

Construction Grants Program (1972–1992) 

produced a significant decline in the 

pollutant loads discharged by sewage 

treatment plants. These and other 

government efforts to develop water 

supplies and improve water treatment 

produced many important environmental 

benefits. However, an unintended and 

unforeseen result was the weakening of a 

price mechanism that might have guided the 

supply and demand for water more 

prudently. 

All told, the institutional character of the 

water sector and the influence of 

governments has imbued the water sector 

with deep political roots and economic 

norms—not unlike other parts of our public 

infrastructure such as roads, airports, and 

energy. 

Laws, Regulations, and Local Politics 

Rate setting can be constrained by the 

varying legal and regulatory codes of states 

and local jurisdictions. Most states have a 

water code or law that outlines the rights of

public water and wastewater utilities as well 

as the state’s authority over investor-owned 

utilities. Federal law, including the Clean 

Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

does not mandate water pricing policy. 

Publicly owned systems are subject to the 

oversight and competing interests of county, 

city, or regional governing boards, water 

authorities, or commissions. For publicly 

owned utilities, elected officials are often 

influenced by competing fiscal pressures. 

And because long-term capital planning and 

conservation measures are not required, 

local decisions might not include the need to 

create depreciation reserves or other 

3
financial mechanisms to finance inevitable 

system replacements. In addition, both 

citizens and elected officials might wish to 

keep water and wastewater prices low to 

attract economic development. 

In recognition of the competing interests that 

affect rate structures, EPA’s 1989 

publication Building Support for Increased 

User Fees (EPA 1989) was introduced to 

provide guidance on how to conduct an 

effective public education program that 

emphasizes the connection between higher 

fees and the financial and operating integrity 

of a water or wastewater utility. In public 

education programs for new rate structures, 

acceptance is improved when the public 

understands: 

• The need for capital improvement 

programs such as expansion and 

upgrades; 

• The benefits associated with water 

conservation: pollution prevention 

through reduced water withdrawals and 

wastewater flows, habitat protection, and 

energy conservation; and 

• The increased revenues that allow a 

utility to pay for conservation measures 

such as metering, improved water 

accounting, leak detection, water-use 

audits, retrofits, reuse and recycling, and 

landscape improvements. 

Clearly, information plays a role in how 

water users respond to price. To the extent 

that the public can be assured of the 

appropriate use of revenues derived from

higher prices, improved rate structures stand 

a far better chance of succeeding. 

III. Rate Structures and Practices in 

the Water Sector 

Current Pricing Practices in the Water 

Sector 

The importance of water to our survival 

renders it, literally, priceless. But this 

intrinsic value of water is frequently left out 

of traditional pricing. Traditional pricing 

quantifies the costs of capture, treatment, 

and conveyance. Consequently, this method 

often obscures the larger, but less 

quantifiable, societal interests in preserving 

our water resources. 

Supplementing traditional pricing with 

incentives for consumers to manage demand 

is a combination that serves both financial 

and environmental goals. This is also known 

as demand management pricing. 

Water and wastewater demand can be 

manipulated by price to some degree. Water 

for necessities (sanitation, cleaning, and 

cooking) is far less responsive to price than 

water for more discretionary uses (lawn 

watering, car washing, and swimming 

pools). Water policy analyst Janice Beecher 

reviewed over 100 studies of the price 

elasticity of demand with the following 

conclusions (Beecher 1994): 

• The most likely range for elasticity of 

residential water demand is -0.20 to -

0.40, meaning a 10 percent increase in 

price lowers demand by 2 to 4 percent; 

and 

• The most likely range for elasticity of 

industrial demand is -0.50 to -0.80, 

meaning a 10 percent increase in price 

lowers demand by 5 to 8 percent. 

Clearly, water is “inelastic,” meaning that 

when the price increases, consumption 

decreases but at a lower rate than the 

increase in price. To foster conservation, 

4
utility managers will need to consider how 

consumers will react and may need to adopt 

other conservation strategies as well. 

Three rate surveys give us some insight into 

existing industry practices regarding 

conservation pricing. The Raftelis 

Environmental Consulting Group’s 2000 

Water and Wastewater Rate Survey depicts 

29 percent of surveyed communities using 

increasing block rates (where cost per 

thousand gallons increases at various 

increments of usage). The American Water 

Works Association’s 1998 survey of the 

residential rate structures of 827 utilities 

shows approximately 22 percent employing 

increasing block rates and 2 percent 

employing seasonal rates. The largest 

sample set (over 1,200 systems) comes from

EPA’s Community Water System Survey 

2000 found at 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/cwssvr.html. 

This survey shows only 9.2 percent of 

systems employing increasing block rates. 

To be precise, all these surveys pertain to 

water rates and not wastewater rates. 

However, most residential wastewater is not 

metered but is instead billed in proportion to 

water coming into residences (drinking 

water) or by some other formula. 

Conservation Rate Structures 

Prices can be used to help modify customer 

behavior to use less water at the tap and to 

prevent leakage and waste, consequently 

generating less wastewater for treatment. To 

achieve significant conservation gains that 

might enable water system managers to 

postpone the need for new capital outlays, 

utilities will need to expand their toolkit to 

include the widest array of conservationoriented initiatives, including measures like 

universal metering, water accounting and 

use audits, retrofitting, and public education. 

The Office of Water’s Water Conservation 

Plan Guidelines, issued in 1998, provides 

guidelines for utilities on conservation 

planning and the conservation measures 

listed above, including conservation pricing. 

See http://www.epa.gov/owm/waterefficiency/webguid.html. 

The general types of conservation pricing 

options are: 

• Repeal of volume discounts; 

• Increasing block rates; and 

• Seasonal rates. 

Eliminating volume discounts removes any 

existing disincentive for conservation. 

Charging a higher unit price as consumption 

rises is the most popular form of 

conservation pricing. Seasonal rates, where 

prices rise and fall according to water 

supplies and weather conditions (with higher 

prices usually occurring between April and 

October), are used less often. With all these 

options, consumers have an incentive to 

conserve. 

IV. Key Issues for Utilities, 

Communities, and Water 

Planners 

To effectively manage demand, a utility 

must be able to determine future water 

needs. New water-demand forecasting 

models take into account the socioeconomic 

characteristics of a service area and project 

water use patterns accordingly. Utilities can 

see how seasonal changes, weather changes, 

and socioeconomic changes will affect water 

demand. Most important, for the purposes of 

conservation pricing, estimates of customer 

response to changes in user charges can be 

derived. 

For effective pricing, utilities, communities, 

and water planners will need to consider at 

least three issues: the service population’s 

ability to afford higher rates, the effects of

conservation rates on a utility’s revenues, 

5
and their actual effectiveness in reducing 

water demand. These are discussed below. 

Affordability 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 

estimates that combined water and sewer 

bills currently average one-half (0.5) of 1 

percent of household income in this country 

(Congressional Budget Office, Future 

Investment in Drinking Water and 

Wastewater Infrastructure, 2002). When 

compared to other developed countries, 

consumers in the United States are paying 

the lowest percentage of income for water 

and wastewater services. 

In this same report, CBO provided an 

estimate of the percentage of household 

income that would be needed in the year 

2019 to pay for future infrastructure 

investments. Under a low future costs 

scenario, water and wastewater bills can be 

expected to consume 0.6 percent of 

household income. Under a high future costs 

scenario, CBO estimates that water and 

wastewater bills will consume 0.9 percent of 

household income. Under either scenario, 

combined average water and wastewater 

bills for Americans are expected to remain 

under 1 percent of household income, 

extremely low compared to other countries. 

Because these statistics are national 

averages and do not reflect regional 

differences or effects on low-income groups, 

the issue of affordability must be addressed. 

The best rate design involves taking into 

account the characteristics of particular 

customer classes. When considering 

conservation pricing, a utility, waterplanning body, or local government might 

consider the service area population’s ability 

to pay higher rates. Appropriately designed 

programs can mitigate the hardship of rate 

increases on low-income families. Not only 

does this have humanitarian benefits, but 

well-designed affordability programs can 

also benefit the utilities by avoiding costs 

associated with late payments, disconnection 

notices, and service terminations. 

The American Water Works Association 

Research Foundation (AWWARF) issued 

the most comprehensive report available on 

rate structures designed to meet the needs of 

low-income customers. (This Web site is 

given in the references section; see 

AWWARF 1998). Entitled Water 

Affordability Programs, this report describes 

five rate structures that can be considered as 

model affordability programs. “Lifeline” 

rate structures can mitigate undue hardships 

for qualifying low-income customers by 

charging a lower rate for the portion of their 

monthly water supply that is considered 

nondiscretionary (the basic amount needed 

for sanitation, cooking, and cleaning). 

Beyond this lifeline amount, higher rates are 

charged. Alternatively, a discount can be 

applied to the fixed portion of the bill, (e.g., 

the meter charge, service charge, or other 

fixed amount). This method also maintains 

incentives to conserve. 

Utilities can also offer budget billing 

programs, elderly discounts, and 

conservation assistance to low-income

families. Section V covers a number of

assessment tools and information sources 

that might be helpful in considering 

conservation-oriented rate structures. 

Revenue Stability 

In the small body of literature on water 

pricing, revenue instability is the most 

frequently cited problem with various forms 

of conservation rates (Beecher 1994). This is 

because conservation rates can shift cost 

recovery from fixed charges to variable 

charges (rates based on use). Utilities also 

worry that price increases might reduce their 

sales in an unpredictable manner, leading to 

less certain revenue streams. If consumers 

respond with a higher-than-expected 

6
reduction in water use, conservation can 

cause utilities to experience reduced 

revenues and an unstable cash flow. 

One way to mitigate this concern is to gather 

reliable data on the local service area’s 

“elasticity of demand.” Computer models 

are available to estimate price elasticities for 

different customer classes, and hence, the 

revenue effects of conservation rate 

structures. Forecasting demand will help 

design rates that maintain financial stability 

for the utility. Existing demand studies can 

be used to approximate usage responses in a 

general benchmarking approach, or 

computer models can be used (in 

conjunction with detailed customer records) 

to specify consumer responses to price with 

greater accuracy. Section V describes some

of the tools available for making these 

estimates. 

A second way to mitigate concern about 

revenue instability is to create a revenue 

stabilization fund that can be used to even 

out the collection of revenue, particularly 

during droughts. In this case, the utility must 

be able to collect revenues in excess of 

annual expenditures in some years so that it 

can draw on the fund during revenue 

shortfalls that result from lower-thanexpected consumption. In addition, legal 

safeguards are needed to protect these 

reserves for their intended use. Surpluses 

can be used to fund conservation programs 

or build a reserve for future capacity 

expansions or upgrades. 

Effectiveness 

The literature on conservation pricing for 

water is small but growing. University of 

Georgia Professor Jeffrey L. Jordan provides 

some insight in a 1994 article in the Water 

Resources Bulletin. In 1991 Spalding 

County, Georgia (part of the Atlanta metro 

area), transitioned from a decreasing rate 

structure to an increasing rate structure. 

Without implementing any other 

conservation measures, average yearly water 

use per customer fell by 5 percent (Jordan 

1994). More recently, Jordan has written in 

the Journal of the American Water Works 

Association to report on results of a survey 

sent to those utilities identified as using 

some type of conservation rate structure 

(Jordan and Albani, 1999). For those 12 

systems where the authors had adequate 

data, Jordan and Albani demonstrated that 

yearly average consumption dipped 8 

percent and peak-demand-month usage 

declined 7 percent as a result of 

conservation pricing. 

V. Assessment Tools and 

Information Sources 

Show-Me Ratemaker 

The state of Missouri’s Department of 

Natural Resources offers free software that 

can be downloaded from its Web site at 

http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/oac/lgov.htm#rat

e%20studies%20for%20water%20and%20s

ewer. Show-Me Ratemaker can be run on 

Microsoft Excel, providing users with 5-year 

financial projections and analyses of 

different rates. 

IWR-MAIN Water Demand Analysis 

Software 

Developed under sponsorship of the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, the Institute for 

Water Resources, Municipal and Industrial 

Needs for Water Resources (IWR-MAIN) 

software has been updated and continually 

modified since its inception in 1982. The 

most recent versions can be used on a 

personal computer. More about this software 

can be found at http://www.iwrmain.com/. 

EPA Reports 

EPA’s Office of Water has issued two 

reports aimed specifically at the water and 

wastewater pricing issue. The first report, 

7
Building Support for Increasing User Fees, 

is a helpful guide on the public education 

needed to price clean water at rates 

commensurate with its value (EPA 1989). 

This report stresses that rate adjustments are 

most effective when used in conjunction 

with a public education program. This report 

can be viewed and downloaded 

electronically from EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/clariton/clhtml/pubtitle.

html. 

A follow-up to this report came in 1993 with 

Evaluating Municipal Wastewater User 

Charge Systems, which provides the 

information needed to comply with EPA’s 

construction grant user charge system

regulations (EPA 1993). This report can be 

ordered free of charge from the National 

Service Center for Environmental 

Publications at 

http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/. 

AWWA Manuals 

The American Water Works Association 

(AWWA) and the AWWA Research 

Foundation have multiple publications of 

interest. AWWA has periodically published 

a definitive manual on pricing; the most 

recent is Principles of Water Rates, Fees, 

and Charges (AWWA 2000). Additional 

documents relevant to rate design can be 

found at http://www.awwa.org/ and 

http://www.awwarf.com/. 

8
VI. References to Books, Reports, and Web Sites 

American Water Works Association. 2000. Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, 5th ed. 

http://www.awwa.org/bookstore/product.cfm?id=30001

American Water Works Association. 1999. Water Rate Structures and Pricing, 2nd ed. Denver, 

CO. http://www.awwa.org/bookstore/product.cfm?id=30001

American Water Works Foundation. 1998. Water Affordability Programs. Denver, CO. 

http://www.awwarf.org/searchscripts/hse/homepagesearchengine.exe?url=http://www.awwarf.or

g/research/TopicsAndProjects/execSum/184.aspx;geturl=d+highlightmatches+gotofirstmatch;ter

ms=water+affordability+programs;lang=en#firstmatch

Beecher, J.A., et al. 1994. Revenue Effects of Water Conservation and Conservation Pricing: 

Issues and Practices. National Regulatory Research Institute, Columbus, OH. 

Chesnutt, T. W., and J. A Becher. 1998. Conservation rates in the real world. Journal AWWA, 

90:2. 

Congressional Budget Office. 2002. Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater 

Infrastructure. Washington, DC. 

http://www.cbo.gov/execsum.cfm?index=3983&from=1&file=ExecSum.htm

Energy Information Administration. 1996. U.S. Electric Utility Demand-Side Management 

1996. DOE/EIA-0589(96). U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 2003. 2000 Clean Watersheds Needs 

Survey Report to Congress. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/cwns/2000rtc/toc.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 2002. The Clean Water and Drinking 

Water Gap Analysis. EPA-816-R-02-020. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owm/gapreport.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 2002. Community Water System Survey 

2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/cwssvr.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1998. Water Conservation Plan 

Guidelines. EPA-832-D-98-001, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/owm/water-efficiency/webguid.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1993. Evaluating Municipal 

Wastewater User Charge Systems: What You Need to Know. EPA-832-R-93-010. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington DC. Ordering information is 

given at http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/

9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1990. National Wastewater User Fee 

Study of the Construction Grants Program. EPA 430/09-90-011. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1989. Building Support For Increasing 

User Fees. EPA 430/09-89-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Washington DC. http://www.epa.gov/clariton/clhtml/pubtitle.html 

Government Finance Research Center. 1987. Proceedings of Financing for the Next Generation: 

A National Conference on Innovations in Financing Wastewater Treatment. Government 

Finance Officers Association, Washington, DC. 

Jordon, J. L. and R. Albani. 1999. Using Conservation Rate Structures. Journal AWWA, 91:8. 

Jordan, J. L. 1995. Incorporating Externalities in Conservation Programs. Journal AWWA, 86:6. 

Jordan, J. L. 1994. The Effectiveness of Pricing as a Stand-Alone Water Conservation Program. 

Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources Association, 30:5. 

Mitchell, D.M. and W.M. Hanemann. 1994. Setting Urban Water Rates for Efficiency and 

Conservation. Report to California Urban Water Conservation Council, Sacramento, CA. 

Raftelis Environmental Consulting Group, Inc. 2000. Raftelis Environmental Consulting Group 

2000 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. Raftelis Environmental Consulting Group, Inc., 

Charlotte, NC. http://www.raftelis.com/

Raftelis, G. A. 1989. Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing, 2nd ed. Lewis Publishers, 

Boca Raton, FL. 

This document is provided for informational purposes only and does 

not suggest any EPA regulatory authority or action. 

10