water meters

Latest Articles

water meters
Page 1, 2, 3 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

Mrs Fiddlesticks

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 10460

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 9:15 am Post subject: water meters

What is your opinion of water meters?

Do you have one? Does it make you think or act in anyway different in your attitude to water consumption.

Would you have any objections to one being put in to your property if you don't have one at the moment.

Is your water sourced from a completely different system ( a well?) so that you are very conscious of every drop and if so what measures have you taken to conserve water?

Bernie66

Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 13967
Location: Eastoft

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 9:23 am Post subject:
I would not be concerned from the price implication myself, but having heard other mothers saying to their kids about not leaving the tap running, not flushing the loo etc to save water i would always have hygiene concerns in certain quarters.

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 9:51 am Post subject:
But how do you encourage conservation of a limited resource if you can't rely on voluntary measures?

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 10:37 am Post subject:

The rateable value of our property would mean that we'd undoubtedly be payng more. I'd resent that, as we're already pretty good at water conservation. We could be (and are getting) better, but it's awfully hard to get a lot of help from the water company beyond a basic starting point.

I remember an offer they had for a cheap water butt. I rang them, explained that I'd love one, but that I've got a square drainpipe that I'd need to fit it to. They couldn't advise whether their adaptor would work, nor could they give me guidance on what the adaptor looked like so that I could work out how to jury rig it. So we ended up paying more for a water butt from elsewhere, hardly an incentive from the water company!

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 10:38 am Post subject:

Behemoth wrote:

But how do you encourage conservation of a limited resource if you can't rely on voluntary measures?

By paying more than lip service to helping customers conserve and effectively use water.

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 10:53 am Post subject:

I'm stirring my wooden spoon here

You can spend 10's of 1000's of � encouraging people to conserve water but it has very little effect as most people don't think they use a lot and why should they bother because no-one else does.

Where people pay for what they use they have an incentive beyond their good will to save money and save water, invest in efficient appliances and think twice before power washing the patio every weekend.

I'm in the same position as yourself - the tax assesment on my property that is used as a basis for charging is ridiculously low (water companies are the only private organisations that can tax you) so In have no incentive to install a meter by choice.

Also in terms of income for every person who is paying too little relative to their actuial use there is a person who is paying too much. Moving a way from the present system would be fairer. Over all income to a water company would not change as at the moment it is balanced between measured and unmeasured charges and then balanced within unmeasured charges. Nearly 1/3 of properties in the country are now metered.

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 11:13 am Post subject:

Behemoth wrote:

I'm stirring my wooden spoon here

You can spend 10's of 1000's of � encouraging people to conserve water but it has very little effect as most people don't think they use a lot and why should they bother because no-one else does.

Or you could pay the same amount on real measures to help people save water. I phoned our water company and asked what I can do with bathwater, how should I save it, can they help with plumbinc costs to link it to a water butt, and of course they didn't know about saving it or how to re-use it, and wouldn't help to plumb things in to save it. They're spending money on appearances rather than on really helping people save water.

Quote:

Where people pay for what they use they have an incentive beyond their good will to save money and save water, invest in efficient appliances and think twice before power washing the patio every weekend.

I'm in favour of using sticks, but there should also be a carrot. Till the carrot is there, the stick should be kept locked away!

Quote:

I'm in the same position as yourself - the tax assesment on my property that is used as a basis for charging is ridiculously low (water companies are the only private organisations that can tax you) so In have no incentive to install a meter by choice.

Also in terms of income for every person who is paying too little relative to their actuial use there is a person who is paying too much. Moving a way from the present system would be fairer. Over all income to a water company would not change as at the moment it is balanced between measured and unmeasured charges and then balanced within unmeasured charges. Nearly 1/3 of properties in the country are now metered.

While that's all true, the problem is that the water companies, in my experience, really aren't helping us to save water. They're welcome to monitor my water useage more closely, if they'll demonstrably help me reduce it.

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 1:08 pm Post subject:

Point 1 - yes spending money on promotions and even fixing leaks on customers' own pipes is the most expensive and inefficient way of saving water. It is all cosmetic flannel to make it look like water companies and government are doing something. The money could be spent better elsewhere but then companies would be accused of not ......

1000litres of water cost about 90p. Retrofitting old plumbing and drainaige costs a lot more than that (how much is a plumber's hourly rate?). And as there's no such thing as as a standard arrangement (ask Jema!). Installing a meter costs about about �200.

Yes water companies could do more to provide advice or point customers to sources of information about grey water recycling. They could also do more on promoting more imaginative approaches in new builds. Unfortunately Govt is a bit lax and builders putting up 'deisrable executive homes' say people aren't interested and they're not going to spend the money. Head bangs against brick wall. the southern companies especially should reallly be going to town on this.

Point 2: there is a carrot - a lot of people will save money. hard cash in their first year. After that efficient appliance becomes pure self interest not altruistic tree hugging. Unfortuately the former drives more people than the latter

Point 3 The best way to monitor your usage is to install a meter.

The estimated per capita consumption per day of a metered household in Cambridge is 15 litres per day less than an unmetered one. That's 10% less.

Fitting meters in every property is initaially expensive but it's a one off hit (well a hit every 15 to 30 years as they need to be replaced to measure accurately though old meters slow down in the customers' favour).

Installing meters on customers pipes exposes leaks that currently cost them nothing and they have no incentive to get repaired. People only complain when the pressure of the supply is affected. The customers' supply pipe leakage in Cambridge is estimated at about 40L per property per day on unmetered houses and 18L per prop per day on metered

As more properties are metered and customers pay for what they use those on Low RV properties will have to start paying more and more as the cross subsidies will be eroded and eventually it will be in our interests to have a meter.

There are social consequences in that some people will pay more and if they are on low incomes this could be difficult. However this, as with fuel and rent costs can be covvered throguh the social security system.

THe RV system is an anchronism base on the day wehn each town council ran it's own water board and collected the costs through local taxation. It is no longer used for local taxation purposes by local authorities. Metering is used by 1/3 of the properties to pay their bills. People use less water if they are metered.

However all this is relatively academic because there's plenty of water aorund just not enough in the right places. All the meters in the world will not on there own resolve the problems that will arise in the southe east in the next twenty to thirty years where consumption needs to be deuced and new resources identified. But it is one tool in the kit.

I'm starting to ramble....

Mrs Fiddlesticks

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 10460

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 1:38 pm Post subject:
some good arguments though! Would you support the media's claim that the water companies need to do more to mend their own infrastructure of leaky old pipes which would save considerably more water than persuading consumers to watch what they use.

jema
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 28239
Location: escaped from Swindon

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 1:42 pm Post subject:
I can see two sides of the water meter issue, but at the end of the day I see having potable water free at the point of use, as more than a little like an NHS. I think it should be regarded as a fundermental right.

cab

Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 32429

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 1:53 pm Post subject:

Behemoth wrote:

All true, yet it still hits the consiencious ones who aren't over-using water needlessly hard; all I'm asking in return for accepting that maybe we should have meters is that a small proportion of what is spent by water compsnies is spent wisely. Doesn't seem much to ask.

Most of the rest of those points I agree with, but at present, and until it is demonstrably true that water meters are going to be an aid to me and people like me, then I'll oppose them; it isn't that I want water wasted, it's just that I think that the incentive to have a water meter will be more compelling when I can see that the water companies really are going to help me save water.

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 1:53 pm Post subject:

SOME companies could do more!

Like a lot of things it comes down to economics. In dealing with leakage there comes a point where fixing the leaks costs more than the water is 'worth' in financial terms of costs of collection, treatment and distribution. How this is calculated is quite complicated and I don't hope to understand all of it but basically In the Northumbrian region where they've got Keilder reservoir and a surplus of water it's not worth their while spending enourmous amounts of money on leakage as they've got loads left (however it is in there interest to a certain extent as they can reduce their treatment costs by treating less). Companies in the south east where resources are limited and demand high will find it is more in their interests to find and fix leaks as this is cheaper to do than build a new reservoir.

There's a big report about this coming out on Thursday where it will be revealed that only a couple of companies have failed to meet their leakage target. Unfortunatley one of those companies serves a large city in the south east where lots of journalists live. Hence all water companies are in the dog house.

I've said before that water companies are full of engineers who would love nothing better to be let loose with millions of your pounds carrying out fantastic schemes to reduce leakage to zero. However whether this would be a good use of money and the traffic disruption would be tolerated is another matter.

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 2:02 pm Post subject:

jema wrote:

I can see two sides of the water meter issue, but at the end of the day I see having potable water free at the point of use, as more than a little like an NHS.
I think it should be regarded as a fundermental right.

Now you're getting political - in principle I agree but other parallels with the NHS could be drawn. If it's free it's not valued and as a resource is wasted - the comparison being people taking up casualty time with broken fingernails and the like.

It is a tricky one. While the current privatised structure is the most financially efficient way of financing the massive investment programme that has taken place in the last ten years and is going on for at least another ten if europe keeps tightening standads, I would like to see the industry retruned to public ownership.

jema
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 28239
Location: escaped from Swindon

Posted: Tue Jul 12, 05 2:06 pm Post subject:
It is all about the uneasy mix of carrots, sticks and plain old education. People have been slowly convinced over the years that "drink driving" is not a normal and socially acceptable activity, and people need to be educated into waking up to all sorts of other things.

portwayfarm

Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 89

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 05 6:12 am Post subject:

We totally resent the fact that we legally have to be on a water meter. As law all reg farms, livery yards and riding schools have to have one. Which we believe is absured as our animals have to drink water in stables and fields!!! We do not waste water, never did even pre living here, at night we do not flush if its a wee (if its brown flush it down if its yellow let it mellow), crude but our son loves it and it makes him think. We share baths with our son when poss, etc etc etc. When the livery yard was running we would go mental at the liveries for wasting water as it was our bill they were running up, not the fact they were wasting water.

They would place bucket under tap let it fill up while mucking up and wonder why the yard was getting flooded 2 hrs later and I was screaming at them while running out of the house. Having a water meter did not make them think and why should it it was not there water bill. Out of 15 liveries 8 let the buckets over fill every day.

I make the animals come first and my vegies so we use as much water as I feel right, they will never go without. But it only takes one horrible cheap farmer type to limit the amount of water to their animals due to costs of water meter.

And no we cannot seperate house from yard we asked it still meant both being on a water meter as the yard will always have to have a meter due to the amount of water consumption livestock requires and the house is a proper farmhouse and has always been used as a farmhouse since tudor times so its legal staus as a dwelling is farm not domestic - hence it would need a meter. So as it would cost me extra to have 2 meters installed might as well have it all off same meter. As our soakaway was not legally installed by the water agency but was done in the tudor times we cannot claim for drainage costs as the water board say at least some of the properts water will still be going down the drains so we still have to pay run off costs.

All these companys are a bunch of thieves.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment	All times are GMT Page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

View Latest Posts