Any homeowner or business owner who pays a municipal water bill has grounds for questioning the “teeth” of the Altoona Water Authority’s new “penalty fee” for theft of hydrant water.

While the fee certainly is justifiable, people familiar with the current and rising costs of municipal water might feel tempted to offer suggestions for beefing up what the authority hopes to accomplish by implementing the fee.

First, AWA customers who never have attempted to steal water — and who never are late in paying their water bills — might feel that the authority erred in not scheduling broad public discussion of this particular idea before acting to implement it as part of an amendment to the Water and Wastewater Schedule of Fees that the authority approved.

The provisions of that amendment take effect Friday.

Beyond the issue of more public discussion, there is the issue of whether the new penalty fee — $2,500 — represents a mere slap on the wrist rather than real deterrence toward preventing hydrant water thefts.

The penalty fee for “ordinary” water thefts will remain at $500.

It really would not take very long for a hydrant water thief to accumulate $2,500 worth of water in a tank truck, not to mention the value of the water that would be wasted in the process of stealing the water.

Additionally, even if the $2,500 amount would be satisfactory as a base fee, there ought to be a tiered schedule of penalty fees based on an estimate of the value of the hydrant water stolen.

The authority ought to try to implement increased camera surveillance at sites believed to be the locations from which water is being stolen.

Whether or not the authority considers any of those ideas feasible, the fact remains that the $2,500 penalty fee that will be going into effect on Friday is deserving of second-guessing — in authority customers’ best interests.

Authority General Manager Mark Perry has made a good point — that unauthorized opening of hydrants can cause damage to the hydrants, and some hydrants are in locations that are considered remote, perhaps in places where a continuing loss of water would not be readily noticeable.

Police obviously do not have the time to patrol all fire hydrant locations on a regular schedule.

According to Perry and Water Operations Director Mike Bianconi, it is not clear how much water was stolen in three theft cases caught on camera last year. Likewise, the authority is uncertain about how many other instances of hydrant water theft have been occurring.

Nevertheless, the authority began to realize the scope of the problem because of tips that it received. The tips are what led the authority to install cameras.

Although the hydrant penalty fee is aimed more at deterring future thefts than raising additional revenue for the authority, there needs to be an incentive for everyone to purchase water by legal means rather than stealing it.

Likewise, the fee’s aim must be to help ensure that hydrant damage be prevented, or at least minimized, so no damage is encountered that will delay or prevent hydrant use for fighting a blaze, if one were to occur.

A bottom line? Yes.

The authority should pay particular attention to the hydrant penalty fee over the course of at least the next year to determine whether the size of the fee needs to be adjusted – given more teeth — in any way to make it more effective.