water meters

Latest Articles

water meters
Page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment

Author

Message

hils

Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 568
Location: Nottingham

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 05 7:19 am Post subject:
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

Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 563
Location: Hampshire

Posted: Wed Jul 13, 05 8:28 am Post subject:

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

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 8:32 am Post subject:

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.

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

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 8:43 am Post subject:

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.

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

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 10744

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 8:50 am Post subject:

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

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 9:05 am Post subject:

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.

Last edited by Behemoth on Thu Jul 14, 05 9:22 am; edited 1 time in total

Blue Sky

Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 7658
Location: France

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 9:17 am Post subject:

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

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

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2260
Location: Portugal

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 9:55 am Post subject:

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

Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Posts: 89

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 4:34 pm Post subject:

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

Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 10460

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 4:44 pm Post subject:
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

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 10744

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 8:30 pm Post subject:

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)
https://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?p=67142&highlight=hose%2A#67142

Andrea

Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 2260
Location: Portugal

Posted: Thu Jul 14, 05 9:43 pm Post subject:

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)
https://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?p=67142&highlight=hose%2A#67142

The world's gone mad!

energybook

Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 10
Location: UK

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 05 7:28 am Post subject: 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.

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

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 05 7:58 am Post subject:

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.

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

Behemoth

Joined: 01 Dec 2004
Posts: 19023
Location: Leeds

Posted: Fri Jul 15, 05 10:52 am Post subject: 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

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

View Latest Posts