Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Mrs Fiddlesticks

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

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

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

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

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

I'm stirring my wooden spoon here Wink

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

Behemoth wrote:
I'm stirring my wooden spoon here Wink

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

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.... Very Happy
Mrs Fiddlesticks

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

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

Behemoth wrote:
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.


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

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. Laughing
Behemoth

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

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

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. Twisted Evil
hils

I think having a meter does encourage you to use less. Although I don't have one on my house - my parents do. When we were growing up we shared baths (dirtiest in last!) and god help you if you got caught running the tap waiting for the hot water to come through and not saving the cold bit!
I think they're a good thing.
tawny owl

Generally, a good thing. We have a water meter, but honestly I can't say that it's made all that much difference; we use the water we need and we try not to waste it anyway, but I can imagine it might make people who have been a bit careless in the past think a bit more.

So that's the stick, what about the carrot? I do feel that water butts should be given away free with the meters, or at least be a heck of a lot cheaper than they are. How can councils charge 30 quid for a butt but only a fiver for a compost bin, when there really isn't that much difference in what they are (plastic tub with door or plastic tub with tap - 25 quid difference)?? They should also be actively encouraging people to use grey water on their gardens so there's less going into the sewage system, and it makes people more aware of the link between the two bills! Would probably make them reduce the amount of detergent used as well.

I sympathise with Portwayfarm - it seems a very inflexible system, particularly when the government should be encouraging farming.
Behemoth

portwayfarm wrote:
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. Twisted Evil


Not sure what you mean about this bit. If you are connected to the sewer for foul drainage, i.e. toilets and sinks, the stuff that needs to be treated and cleaned before being returned to the environment you will have to pay full sewage treatment charges. However, if only your surface water run off is going to the sewer and being drained away from your property for you by the water company, ie. only rain water draining from the roof and yard you can claim a reduced rate.

If the system is confused and it's physically practical to do so you can install a septic tank/cess pit and disconnect fronm the sewerage system entirely.

Regarding the livery stables - again I'm not quite sure what the situation is but if other people are using you water supply you can charge them for it, based on a written agreement or you can even fit a submeter and charge them for the actual amount used.

Bottom line is that it is a cost for all households and businesses. Animal feed comes by the kilo, water by the cubic metre.
Behemoth

On a general point I was talking with a coplleague about the latest situation in the inducstry and it seems that metering alone (as CAB and others would agree) is not the panacea to curbing water use as the 10% reduction in consumption is not enough in the scheme of things. Also there is a tendency amopng the more affluent to use just as much or more than before "because they've paid for it and can afford to use it so why should I cut back". The initial view is that tariff structures need to be amended to some sort of rising block system, i.e first amount of water used is relatively chepa, once you go over a threshold the next quantity costs more and rising again when going over another threshold. However this is a bit crude as to get really clever and reduce the need for further resources, investment, strain on systems, spending, env impact etc it really needs to be based not on the amount of water you use but when you use it. Systems are strained and at peak capcity in summer when everyone sprinkles their lawn and some water their veg direct from the mains. Rather than pay (in cost and envirnmental terms) for the engineering to meet this demand, leaving lots of unneccesary slack in the system for 2/3rds of the year, the clever thing woulf be to make peak use more expensive and couple that with more water buts, grey water use. However meter technology, or more relevantly poor reliability and cost preclude this at this time. Also retro fit of grey water systems is prohibitively more expensive but should be the norm on new builds. Don't expect anyting to happen for 10 years. Sad

And that company in the South East missing its leakage targets can now be revelaed as Thames Water. However as the regulator pointed out this morning siome of the comanies in the South East have very good leakage records but still need hosepipe bans, simply down to the fact that we had a dry winter.
Bugs

What does a grey water system involve? Is it treatments or just pumping and storing the water that's the problem?

I often think that there's a lot of water goes down the kitchen sink that could go straight out in to a water butt without any treatment or anything distasteful about it - rinsing hands and vegetables for example - and I'm sure there must be some relatively simple adaptation you could make to keep this and use it (even if it involves manually moving a flexible pipe from a drain to a container when you've finished washing up and back again).

Failing that what is available by way of simple pumps/syphons to use bathwater etc without slopping watering cans all over the house?
Behemoth

The main problem is gravity, filtering and space. All water drains to the lowest point so you could have above ground butts for rain water bath and shower water. For the ground floor your butts would have to be quite low to collect the water. Collecting enough water to make any economic difference would require a large tank. A cubic metre of water costs 1 so a large tank 3m x 3m x 3m only holds 27 'worth' of water). A large tank takes up garden space usually outside the back door. Burying the tank is an option, and best done with new builds, but then you need pumps to get it out again. All systems need an overflow to the sewer. then you need to filter the particulate debris out so as not to clog pumps and pipes, and this needs to be maintained. On top of that most people put all sort of chemicals in thier baths, sinks, washing machines that are not always beenficial to the environment. It's not impossible but in current resource terms it's an expensive option. However if peak time water use above a certain 'domestic' volume could be charged at a higher rate such systems may become economic.
Blue Sky

I am in favour of water meters in domestic properties. I can't speak for such as "Portwayfarm" as running a business is a different ballgame. We have a meter in the house and to a certain extent we are concious about the amount of water we use. We share baths, don't flush loo in the night etc. (daytime it's the compost heap - fluids only of course).

We have a well with a constant supply of clean water (so I am told) but I have not yet used it Embarassed It is a case of would it cost us more in electricity (and initial capital) to pump the water out of the well than the mains water is costing us? I am still on the lookout for a hand pump but even then the effort expended might not be worth the money saved. All the water for our animals comes from water butts in the garden. So far these have not all become empty although I here tell of a heatwave on it's way

Should we turn this topic into a vote?
Andrea

I've requested a water meter on my house & find myself reducing our water use already, even before it's installed.

I don't normally water the garden other than the veg but as soon as I can find a suitable piece of hose I'll start draining the bath onto the front lawn before it turns brown completely.

Wish there was an easy way of diverting the water from the washing machine onto the back garden. Actually diverting the waste pipe is easy enough, but it is finding an easy way of storing it for long enough to cool down that's proving problematic.

Agree with previous posters though. I'm only requesting a water meter & thinking about more careful use of water because it will make me a cost saving. Where's the incentive for someone who won't necessarily make a saving? My parent's next door neighbour seems to have the garden sprinkler running virtually constantly. They're originally from part of the world where water is a scarcer resource than here so it always suprises me that they're so willing to waste it, but their attitude is that they've paid for it so they're entitled.
portwayfarm

Our soakaway is not connected to the house system, it was the yard area which subsequently was where the stables went. So all yard water (washing horses etc went down into the soakaway not the drains), but due to the proximity of our neighbours and the road the water board would not allow a discount as they were adament that we could not prove 100% that none of the yard water went down a drain some where. Lots of shouting etc went on and in the end they gave us a form to fill in which they granted us discount over the year of around 20. Apparently had a known company put in the soakaway then they would have given us a lot more as then we would have plans that should beyond doubt that no run off went into the drains.

Told them they could stick their charity.

We closed the stables down almost 3 yrs ago so do not have an issue any more about the water meter. And yes you can charge liveries for water and electricity which we did but when they leave your taps running and go riding as they forgot and you come home from shopping to discover the great flood that is happening from the taps, how can you charge them extra for that. Livery yards are not cheap here we charged 18 per wk for DIY which covered all our insurance costs, water, elec, stables, field, fencing, maintanace. They had to buy bedding and hay, but they did not have to buy it from us. That is alot of money and we held prices for 4 yrs, when we had to put prices up as public liability went through the roof as horse riding is no longer seen at own responsibilty we found the liveries boycotted and walked out. We let them go. But it proved that there is a line that people can not afford to cross. So to them it was not their water, they were already paying for it any way so who cares.

I'm all for water meters if we get a service, but here we are always having water failures and when you ask the board to bring in over 100 gals so all livestock have water they get funny!!!!
Mrs Fiddlesticks

Am I right in thinking that a hose-pipe ban would mean that it is illegal to use a hose-pipe to syphon the bath water out, or is that an urban myth.
Bugs

Fiddlesticks Julie wrote:
Am I right in thinking that a hose-pipe ban would mean that it is illegal to use a hose-pipe to syphon the bath water out, or is that an urban myth.


Sadly, apparently not, according to our resident chap in the know (hope this link works)
http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?p=67142&highlight=hose%2A#67142
Andrea

Bugs wrote:
Fiddlesticks Julie wrote:
Am I right in thinking that a hose-pipe ban would mean that it is illegal to use a hose-pipe to syphon the bath water out, or is that an urban myth.


Sadly, apparently not, according to our resident chap in the know (hope this link works)
http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?p=67142&highlight=hose%2A#67142



The world's gone mad!
energybook

water is a commodity

Having worked in the utility industry for many years I view the water industry with some anger. In terms of pipe replacement technology the water industry has always been behind the gas industry - why? Because gas is very dangerous and gas leaks kill people and gas costs money. It is not economical at the moment to replace leaking pipes - its is cheaper to build more reservoirs.

The technology is there to replace old cast iron pipes but the water industries have flitted here money away on providing what they call customer service - they need to get the basics right. How often do we need to call the water companies - not veru ofetn yet they spend millions in that area.

Did you know that they do not know how much it cost to supply a customer. With gas and electricity the companies have good asset management systems that let them know where they should spend there money and how much it cost to supply individual customers (within reason).

I am also fed up with hearing that the rainful is less than normal - well normal is an average so it has to be less or more most of the time! It is the water companies' job to forecast supply and demand and build an infrastructure to cope - that is their job!

As for water conservation - well it's a funny thing. We would leave a light on but not a tap running.... I think water meters deter the stupid people who think it's ok to leave a hose pipe running . What about those stupid hose flower things that you can buy that spray water round your garden for fun? How is that a good use of water?

Remember also that leaking water cost energy too through wasted pumping costs.

Evil or Very Mad

So I am mad - it's about time water companies took on their responsibilities. I have listened to Thames and other companies on the radio this week along with a guy I know from WaterUK - all excuses. get out there and get the water meters in, replace the leaking pipes and work with people to conserve water. Like so many utilities - the more you use the less you pay per unit - lets change that now.

I started up a water trading business a few years back

www.waterexchangeuk.com

We couldn't get it off the ground because the water companies and others don't like to think of water as a very valuable commodity - like oil, gas and coffee.

It we belive that it has value then we will bring in efficient ways to transport and use it.

It is a fundamental right but some one has to pay for it so lets charge the people that waste it.

And whilst we are on it - lets put up the price of petrol too!! If its expensive people might think twice about buying gas guzzling 4x4s.

Get rid of road tax and put the tax on the user and waster!

Sorry - I wrote more than I thought I was going to - but I feel better now......
Behemoth

portwayfarm wrote:
they were adament that we could not prove 100% that none of the yard water went down a drain some where.

we are always having water failures and when you ask the board to bring in over 100 gals so all livestock have water they get funny!!!!


You are right - you are paying for a service and you should get that service. What you have described above is poor service and should be resolved. As you can't prove the matter about drainage neither can they! And you shouldn't be losing supply regulalrly for whatever reason.

If you feel strongly about it complain to the independent watchdog for your area. You should be able to find which one form the link below.

http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/Content/navigation-watervoice-homepage
Behemoth

Re: water is a commodity

Hi Energybook I broadly agree with your views but not on a few issues

Re: It is not economical at the moment to replace leaking pipes - its is cheaper to build more reservoirs.

I don't think a reservoir has been built in over 30 years. They are very expensive and not an instant fix as the time from first plans to copetion is estimated at 20 to 25 year, planning issues being the main time constraint. I don't know anywhere in the country that would want a new reservoir.

Re: The technology is there to replace old cast iron pipes....

Relaying or relining pipes is not rocket science and new techniques have been adopted which speed the process up, particilalry new liings which cure in a day instead of three.

Companies plan their investment in five year blocks. The driver for this investment is European and UK regulations, political issues and regulatory targets. In the early 90's the drivers were improving drinking water quality through new treatment works, improving discharges from sewage works and customer service. The regulator was keen for companies to measure and improve their customer service. Customer service has improved and is now cheaper to provide in realterms than in 1990. On average a customer contact their water company once every 15 years. Leakage did not become an issue until the Labout party latched onto it as a political stick with which to hit the tories in 1996/97. As discussed above and as you'll be aware there's a balance between chasing leaks and the costs of other measures. there will always be leaks.

Re Did you know.....

Yes - this is the problem of basing charges on an outdated tax. Companies know how much it costs to produce the water. This is then divied up among customers based on the Rateable Value so there is no such thing as unit cost. Metered customers pay the unit rate.

Re I am also fed up with hearing that the rainful is less than normal - well normal is an average so it has to be less or more most of the time! It is the water companies' job to forecast supply and demand and build an infrastructure to cope - that is their job!

Water companies do forecast supply and demand. What they can't guarentee is the raw materieal is actually delivered, even this power is beyond them. Of course reservoirs could be built to hold more on a just incase basis but that's an expensive an inefficient solution. Customers can have all the infrastructure including new reservoirs they want if they pay for it. Research quite clearly shows they are not.

Remember also that leaking water cost energy too through wasted pumping costs.

Yes - and this is in the companies interest because they get to keep the money saved.


So I am mad....

Yes but the investment must be done wisely and not just to appear to be doing something or fixing leaks for the sake of it.

Re: water companies and others don't like to think of water as a very valuable commodity

Water companies do - it's their job. However the drivers by Government and the Regulator are to produce it as cheaply as possible. However rather than invest in pipes and reservoirs to provide the necessary peak resources tariffs can be used to increase the 'value' of water at peak times. Which is actually cheaper to customers all round.

Re: It we belive....

Fully agree

I work for a northern water company that has bitter experience of drought and resource issues that has spent millions strenghtening the network and distribution system to ensure continuity of supply.

Cheers Very Happy
Rikki

Given the minisule cost of a litre of "company" water I can't see reasonable people depriving animals of water. What amazes me is that people are willing to pay for bottled water.
kevsterjw

only just caught this thread. We had a water meter already installed when we moved in and i'm a bit cinfused by it. We are under the power of Thames Water and get charged a set amount each month. Confused I thought the whole point of water meters was that you get charged for what you use not what they estimate you use Question

incidentally i don't think it has changed the way we use water we have a half flush toilet and a water butt etc and don't really waste water anyway so we'll just carry on as we were. But i do think that they are a good idea for the majority of teh britsh public who could do better do save wtaer.
Andrea

My water meter was fitted on Friday, & I have just phoned South East Water to find out what my new bill will show. Astonishingly, the girl on the phone didn't know!!!! Evil or Very Mad

Apparantly my sewerage is dealt with by Thames Water, although South East Water will bill me for it. Her solution was for me to phone Thames Water & ask them directly.

Anyway, end result is that I have what I think are the correct charges. In the absence of any sense from South East Water, could anyone who has a water meter installed tell me if these sound approximately right?

Water - standing charge - 15 p/yr
Water usage - 0.6946 p/cubic meter

Sewerage - standing charge - 41 p/yr
Sewerage usage - 0.4385 p/cubic meter

It took me 14 minutes to get that information. Rolling Eyes
portwayfarm

Given up with ours, they still estimate. We just pay by DD and in the end it all sorts itself out. As for animals, apparently here in the west midlands they are not a neccessity and are viewed the same way as garden plants Evil or Very Mad They have to be without water for 24hrs before they will bring drums up, humans come first!!!!!!!We have always had terrible service from our companys, severn trent do one thing and the sewerage is done by someone else, or is it the other way round.....

Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
kevsterjw

we have one as i sadi but we just pay 17 per month whatever happens?!?!?! Confused
judith

kevsterjw wrote:
we have one as i sadi but we just pay 17 per month whatever happens?!?!?! Confused


It is probably the same principle that applies if you pay your electricity bill by direct debit. When you move to a new house, the electricity company bills you a set amount per month that is based on what the previous occupants used. If your usage is lower than that then, after one year, you can either have your monthly payment reduced to reflect your actual usage and the overpayment or you can ask them to return the overpayment.
I don't know for certain, but I imagine it is the same with your water bill.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home