Water meters- why not?

[Dave]

Bout the only thing that the country is good for :-)

Dave

[Sarah Larkin]

Probably be true, but you need to know the scale per L of water. Just because electricity is the next biggest bill doesn't mean its a lot per litre.

Matt

[Rod]

Those who don't waste shouldn't be metered. Only meter those who are profligate.

[Dave Liquorice]

Nor here either, until the water company spent lots of dosh running a

6" main from a reservoir 15 miles away our water came out of the side of the fell about 1/2 a mile away. Nice clean fresh water but a bit hard. The reservior water is more or less as good and loevely and soft.

I reckon we can dump as much waste water down the paddock as we want. The amount compared to rain fall is minimal.

If they ever insist on fitting a meter to our suplly I'll want it inside. The stop tap is 20 yards down the road so the service pipe runs alongside the road and not that deep. Could be vulnerable to heavies...

[Dave Liquorice]

summer

It would, if you get serious about insulation getting rid of the waste heat inside is a problem. This is a solid stone building so leaks heat badly. One day the unisulated drylining may get ripped out and 2" cellotex insulation put in. I bet that will make a dramatic difference to the amount of energy required to keep the place warm.

[Steve Walker]

I'm not too far from you, being in Lancashire and not only do we have plentiful water, but the majority of it comes from Cumbria and needs no power at all to get it here - being gravity fed.

Various cleaning methods are used, most of which use little or no power. Chlorination , etc. also uses little. There are small, very low powered systems dosing the water with phosphates - as the water is so soft that it otherwise dissolves too much lead into it in any houses that still have any lead pipes.

More will be used disposing of the waste water, but the size of motors on the pumps, scraper bridges, rotary filter beds, etc. are pretty small beer in the scheme of things.

The majority of the costs associated with water are in maintaining the infrastructure, much of which will be unaffected by a relatively small reduction in consumption. Only where the infrastructure is marginal or areas where water is scarce is consumption of great importance.

It's also a problem for families. When people have kids, costs rise dramatically and incomes fall. Metering water will typically hit families with larger bills when they can least afford it. People may argue that they should pay their fair share, but on the other hand, those very people will be relying upon those children to pay their pensions in the future - and the burden is expected to be much higher than has ever been the case so far.

SteveW

[robgraham]

I've been profligate (isn't that a great word !) I'm afraid, but in Scotland water is not a problem, though equally because I've a septic tank, a meter would actually save me money.

It wouldn't have on Saturday however - the concrete floored bicycle shed had a visitation from the shit fairy coming up through a drain access I'd had to cast into the floor - the front and back drains meet just below the shed before going to the septic tank, and a block occurred below the junction - everything backed up into the cycle shed, and it was a lot of 'everything'.

A *lot* of water was required to wash down the contents and clean the shed floor. I'm having to run a dehumidifier to dry the shed out.

Rob

[Owain]

what, with their plumbing? (S*n*f*o ...)

owain

[Frank Erskine]

When I asked Northumbrian Water

for a meter several years ago, they subcontracted the work to 'Kemac', a subsidiary company of theirs, who surveyed my property and immediately proposed an internal meter. I had no objection to this - it saved any disturbance to the front lawn; the internal stoptap was seized anyway, so that issue was bypassed; and it meant that at least the cost of any loss of water from the supply pipe

becomes the responsibility of the water company. An internal meter can clearly present a problem with the actual reading of the meter, but NWL provided (a while later, again at my request) an outreader fitted to the wall of the house in the back garden so that as long as I don't lock the side gate their reader person can do his stuff ad libitum. It's rather a pity that NWL didn't immediately tell their readerpeople (I think sub-contractors at the time) about the outreader, and for a while kept getting cards through the door requesting readings, estimated bills and so on - this seems to be now resolved with in-house meterpeople. The whole operation was 'free' to me and I'm pretty sure that my bills are quite reasonable even though I fairly regularly use a garden sprinkler (in summertime at least!), top up the pond and (occasionally) wash the car with a hosepipe. - Oh, and washing, showering and flushing the lavatory :-)

[Frank Erskine]

Unless you meter everyone, how do you know who are 'profligate'? What's the changeover point for profligacy?

It seems totally fair to me to pay for the quantity of water you actually use.

Isn't this exactly the same as what you do with gas, electricity, drinks in the pub, vehicle fuel and telephone calls?

Please explain your logic....

[Bob Martin]

Ever been?

[Rod]

My logic was taking the piss out of the current situation in which only the non-profligate are going for meters.

Telephone calls is an oddity though. Seem to remember that when a serious analysis tried to find the incremental cost (to the provider) of a single call, the only unarguable cost was the toner to print the details on an itemised bill. So in that case something like a flat rate for provision and free calls might be entirely reasonable.

[Chris J Dixon]

That's a bit sophisticated. I recall finding to my cost, whilst caravanning there, that too much fresh fruit can make your knees hurt.

Chris

[dennis]

Put it on the outside and render it, far better. You could glaze the outside and get your heating that way.

[Mark]

I estimated my water bills would rise, even with very careful use, if we had a meter so I would resist any attempt to force one on me.

Interestingly a switch to water meters is likely to increase water bills of the poor and decrease the bills for the rich.

[Dave Liquorice]

Never get it reliably water proof. Ever stood in front of a fire hose? That's the weather we can have for hours at a time. The slightest imperfection would have gallons of water driven into it. The of course there are the -10C frosts each winter to freeze this driven in water...

[D.M.Chapman]

As I mentioned, we had one installed a few weeks back and it was made clear we didn't have an option to opt out. Saying that, they turned up on the day they said they would, fitted the meter outside and repaired the pavement nicely (including the holes that were nothing to do with them). We were out at the time - all sorted by the time I got home from work.

Obviously, not had a bill yet...

Darren

[chris French]

In message , Steve Walker writes

Or maybe not.

Actually our bills didn't rise dramatically that I can remember. Even with the kids, it was still lower on the meter than it would have been on the rates based bills we had before.

Having kids costs you more in many ways. don't really see why water is especially any different from other things

[tim....]

I doubt very much that anyone with the industry asked for this analysis.

It is given that the incremental cost of a telephone call is (usually) zero, that's why it is so hard to develop "fair" competition in the market.

tim

[Steve Walker]

Except that most of the water bill is not really for the water that you use, but the maintenance of the infrastructure and how much you individually use will have a negligible effect on that cost.

SteveW