"No. 46!"

"Hi -- one pound of the cheddar, please, and a half-pound of the Swiss."

"Yes, sir … anything else?"

"No, that's it. What do I owe you?"

"One moment; I need to check and see how much you bought last year."

"Why?"

"So I know how much to charge you for today's purchase."

Sound a touch crazy? More than a touch?

And yet, that's exactly the way many water agencies price the water you and I use.

You pay a base rate for a predetermined amount of water -- and, depending where you live, that base allocation isn't the same for everyone. In many districts, it's based on how much water was used at that address the year before.

The less that was used the previous year, the smaller the amount you get to pay at the lower base rate. Once you surpass that base rate allocation, you have to pay a higher rate for any subsequent water used.

Which is unfair -- and, sez me, possibly illegal -- on at least two fronts.

First, and most egregious in this time of drought, such a pricing policy punishes those who conserved the most the year before. It rewards water hogs by giving them a higher base allocation, while those who cut back on their usage find themselves paying more per gallon.

Not only is that unfair, but it's likely to be counterproductive. Why cut back if you're only going to be punished for it?

Second, by allocating water to the location rather than to the person, such a pricing policy charges you more for water based on your living situation. Six people in a house could have roughly the same water allocation as the couple living next door.

Last time I checked, citizens of this country are guaranteed their rights as individuals. The 14th Amendment has an equal protection clause, which says every person must be treated the same by the government as everyone else.

But if members of a large family have to pay significantly more for water than someone living alone, it's hard to see how that jibes with the above protections -- and water districts are government agencies.

Water rates should be set on a per-person allocation: Every resident of a district should pay the same rate for residential use. Just because someone rents a condo doesn't mean they should have to pay more than someone with a large yard. Want the big yard (and I do)? Find a way to make do with less water in other areas.

Business and agricultural pricing also need to show more common sense. For instance, proposed rate hikes in Escondido will treat a Laundromat the same as, say, an insurance office. But as the owner of a Laundromat pointed out at a recent public meeting, he's renting his machines to other residents to wash their clothes -- let them use some of their water allocation rather than his.

The reality is that the vast majority of those of us who call Southern California home live in a desert or semidesert. We all need to accept the fact that we're going to need to use less water in years to come.

But if those who manage our water districts really want to encourage mass conservation, the best way to engender a sense of a common cause is to enact pricing policies that inflict common pain.

Contact staff writer Jim Trageser at jtrageser@nctimes.com or (760) 740-5408.