I recently spent $37,000 putting in a tank to reduce my water useage but when I looked at my bill I realised I wouldn't be saving much money because most of my bill is made up of fixed charges totally unrelated to water useage. This will be my whole bill soon! If we want people to save water how about actually charging for the water they use? My last bill totals $157.70 but only $57.31 ($30.08 water + $27.23 sewerage) is related to water use. If the actual usage charges were doubled (or tripled) and the fixed charges reduced by the same amount, most people wouldn't see the difference and those people concerned about saving water would actually be able to save money by doing so. At the moment there isn't any financial incentive to save water.
Financial incentive to reduce water useage
(28 posts) (18 voices)-
petercut
MemberIt's a 30,000 litre concrete in-ground tank. I knew that I wouldn't save much when I put it in but I'm raising the issue now so that something can be done to try and make some financial incentive for others to do the same. Yes the bills are quarterly and I probably won't live 183 more years to make it pay for itself.
Posted Thursday 18 Mar 2010 @ 12:38:36 am from IP # -
LanceTurner
Key MasterThis has become a problem for more than just water utilities, many utility companies are shifting their billing to have higher fixed charges as revenues have been dropping as more people become water and energy savvy. The only way to fix this is lobbying and complaining to governments, they can ultimately set the rules as to how billing is done. So start writing!
Posted Thursday 18 Mar 2010 @ 2:02:39 am from IP # -
Benny
MemberYou could try not paying your water bills and let them cut you off - sounds like you have enough water capacity to be self sufficient. Although I know in some places they charge you whether you use the water or not - just for providing the pipes up to your property. Also there's the sewage charge component - unless your going for a composting toilet too ?
That tank full of cool water would be a good thermal storage resource too if you wanted to look at heat pumps for space heating/cooling - again pretty expensive though.Posted Thursday 18 Mar 2010 @ 3:17:04 am from IP # -
gully
MemberYep i'm annoyed at this too - until our government mandates more of a 'pay for what you use' strategy people won't be as keen to cut back if the litre/KWh cost is minimal.
I admire your commitment to investing in a green solution. Myself? I would invest my money in PV panels.
Posted Thursday 18 Mar 2010 @ 11:36:39 am from IP # -
KarenS
MemberYes, in Victoria, there certainly isn't much incentive for water saving - recently I saw that Stuart McQuire, who has written one of the "Bible" books on wise water use etc, and who lives in an inner suburb of Melbourne, noted that his annual water bills totalled around $400, and of that, the charge for the actual water was $4.00!!!!!! If you're not a serious Greenie, why would you bother? Specially as our esteemed Premier has now relaxed water restrictions in Melbourne, even tho our storages are still only about 34% full. Rumour has it that it is something to do with a desal plant in Gippsland .......
I would like to get 2 new toilets to replace those I had installed in 1991. They have dual-flush cisterns, which are either 13/7 or 11/6 litre flushes; so long ago I can't remember any more. I have a water-saver bag in each, which reduces the capacity of the cistern by one litre. If I put 2 bags in each, the design of the pan is such that it doesn't completely empty. There are now plenty of toilets available which have a 4.5/3 litre flush, but I can't get any sort of discount, subsidy or anything else, as I already have dual-flush cisterns!!!! So I'm stuck with what I have, when I could get, with a bit of help, cisterns which have a large flush smaller than my small flush!!
Crazy!
Posted Friday 19 Mar 2010 @ 3:45:03 pm from IP # -
petercut
MemberI agree that it's a total pain Karen. I suppose all we can do is, as Lance suggests, lobby Governments to correct the double standards. On the one hand they SAY they want us to save water and reduce energy but on the other they don't give us any financial reason to do so. Go figure!
Posted Saturday 20 Mar 2010 @ 12:22:32 pm from IP # -
Governments are too afraid of the negative headlines associated with anyone's costs going up. Remember that while they could rebalance you bill such that at your original consumption your bill was still the same under the new scheme but everybody else's bill would have changed.
I strongly support you view that fixed charges should be reduced to stimulate demand reduction but it seems that our current politicians are too weak to actually take this path.
Posted Monday 22 Mar 2010 @ 7:14:41 am from IP # -
As a Home Assessor as well its pretty amazing on what people use. The lowest usually comes from those who own, renters are much higher than what they could be...
Karen my mate who is also an assessor has this little plastic gadget that goes in the loo which enables the loo to flush only as much as you hold the button down so if you think you need less than the loo thinks you do, you can. You could also lie a 600ml coke bottle on its side in the loo which would displace 600ml but hold 600ml.
You could also bend the float thing at the top so it doesn't come up as high when it refills. Very high tech terminology there...
Posted Monday 22 Mar 2010 @ 2:27:07 pm from IP # -
David robinson
MemberActually they do charge for water use and the charge has gone up recently and will go up further over the next couple of years the government has promised that will be so and I expect they will keep that promise. I doubt they will ever reduce the service charge, just keep putting the water use charge up hopefully at a greater rate than the increase in service charges so as to provide more incentive to save water. The reason why Stuart McGuire only had $4 water use out of $400 is because he uses so little mains water not because they don't charge for use.
With regards to the 30000 litre tank and the $37000 cost I think that is somewhat excessive in a situation where you have mains water available. For city dwellers a much smaller tank is all you need. For example we are a household of three and have a 9000 litre tank with 150 metre square of roof area. Our mains water use has dropped from 225 Kl/year to 50 Kl/year. This is a reduction in our mains water use of about 80% and is saving us about $450 a year in water use and sewerage costs. Part of the water saving has come about because we changed to a front loading washing machine which saves about 50 Kl/year. All up the water tank system and front loader cost about $4500 which I guess equates to a pay back period of 10 years which will reduce as water use charges further increase.
We do have to use mains water from time to time but I think it is plain that with a relatively small tank and investment we have been able to make a huge difference to our water use. To get 100% security of supply ie be independent of the mains would require much more storage (probably 50 Kl minimum which is what a fairly typical country residence would have)and much more cost and I don't think is justified when you have a perfectly good water main out the front.
Posted Tuesday 23 Mar 2010 @ 2:35:14 am from IP # -
ghostgum
MemberWas the reduction from 225kl to 75kl mainly due to tanks or the front loading machine?
Our use of rain water tanks has reduced our usage from 150kl to 75kl per year. That's only $190 per year, so our tanks will take a long time to recover their cost. By that stage, the pump will need replacing and the cost recovery date will extend even further.
Posted Tuesday 23 Mar 2010 @ 3:03:05 am from IP # -
David robinson
MemberHello Ghostgum
The tank contributes about 70-90 Kl/year, the front loader saves about 50 Kl/year the rest comes from low flow shower heads and shower timers, grey water put on to garden and much less garden use. We used to have sprinkler systems they are still there but never used, all watering done by hand and more efficient garden use generally plus brown lawns in summer.
Posted Tuesday 23 Mar 2010 @ 3:16:09 am from IP # -
Hi David,
I guess the point being made re fixed vs usage charges is that the rate for usage is so low as to be in-effective as a mechanism to reduce demand. There is no disagreement from me that there is a variable cost component.For comparison to the other figures listed above, water consumption is one area where I feel our house does well. Prior to putting in tanks we were averaging 200L/day (73kL/yr) for a family of three. The tanks haven't been in long enough to get any data on how they will affect our mains usage. Perhaps we can halve or cut a third off our mains consumption? We now have toilet + laundry + outdoor rainwater taps.
Posted Tuesday 23 Mar 2010 @ 5:45:07 am from IP # -
David robinson
MemberHello Munter
Well done with your frugal water use, we avearge 250 L/day when not watering our veggies. I wonder about the 155 L/person/day how do people manage to use so much. Anyhow your water tank should make a big difference to your mains water usage percentage wise, although because you don't use a lot the actual amount saved dollar wise won't be that large. The factors affecting this are water tank size, roof area feeding into the tank and rainfall of course, if we were to actually get our long term average rainfall for a year we could potentially capture about 120 KL/year. From messing around with spreadsheets and the data I have collected I can say that a tank size of 5-10 KL should be fine it does not have to huge to make a difference (2KL is a bit small). You are using water in the house which is great as you will then derive the most benefit and greatest possible reduction in mains use. Lets see how it goes!
Posted Wednesday 24 Mar 2010 @ 1:31:08 am from IP # -
I think the misleading thing is what you have discovered, as too many studies focus solely on usage, not unlike popular "water-bill-calculators" like this one: http://acc-calculator.golden.communityaccess.org/. Forget the tea-party, where is the WATER-Party, pushing legislation to incentivize curtailed usage?? These fixed charges are ridiculous...
Posted Tuesday 9 Nov 2010 @ 1:16:51 am from IP # -
swanning_it
MemberOur water supply is migrating from council to private enterprise at the moment.
I'd love to hear from some legal eagle if an infrastructure (fixed) charge is legal? Like the OP, we too are annoyed at how little our usage is compared to the overall water bill. In the past, you could not just refuse to pay the bill, like previously suggested, as the water component was/is part of the rates bill (council can sell you up to recover outstanding rates), but with this shift to private enterprise, I'm wondering if they can continue to charge for infrastructure whilst making a profit on that infrastructure? If so, wouldn't each ratepayer own a share of the infrastructure and hence deserve a share of the profit? I think a similar argument is currently going about the infrastructure upgrade of power lines......and something was mentioned that they can't charge for it as well as make a profit from it as they wouldn't own it.
Think about it, if you don't want electricity you don't pay for it (regardless of whether distribution lines go past your property).
If you don't want a fixed land line for telecommunications, you don't pay for it (regardless of whether or not the cables are out on the footpath).
What's the case with distributed gas?
I guess the argument would be the sewage would still be needed, so pay up!
I'd love some answers as we have enough water storage for self sufficiency but the fixed charges don't give us an incentive (although we do still save on water usage charges). The current rates are apparently the last rates that will include the water charges (usage, sewage and infrastructure charge). It'll be interesting to see if we can "opt out" of town water supply (the infrastructure charge savings would very quickly pay back an enviro-cycle)
Posted Tuesday 9 Nov 2010 @ 4:03:09 am from IP # -
The imbalance between high service and low usage charges makes a mockery of most government's stated commitment to water conservation and why is the opposition so quiet? Don't they want votes?
The observation by swanning_it is interesting. I for one hate having to pay for the 'cost blow out' Victorian desal plant given that my water usage over the last 5 quarters has averaged 82 litres per day and will tumble once I connect filtered rainwater to the HWS. Once I do that, the service charges will really peeve me off!
Posted Tuesday 9 Nov 2010 @ 6:09:32 am from IP # -
Geno
MemberAs an observation on water charges the one thing we seem to suffer from is reduced consumption may not have a lot to do with the costs of the water providers. They are still providing and maintaining the dams, pipes and waste water systems and continue to recover those costs from the general public. Those who are unable to reduce their usage pay for those that can, and we all pay for collective frugality.
For those of us in Victoria we will pay heavily for the pipe that has not run for some months and a desal plant that may not be required in the near future so those with water bills will pay heavily for Government knee jerk reactions.
I don't know what the answer is but we seem to be charged a lot in increased water charges despite what I assume is a drop in overall consumption so why does it cost so much more to run a system that is possibly delivering less in many cases.
The whole billing process seems to be flawed, water usage seems too cheap and the cost of providing the basic infrastructure out of proportion to usage. We work out of a commercial property on three titles with a couple of toilets and a tap and use very little water but incur a provision rate x 3 plus about $30 all up of water every four months which seems a tad unfair. We are also in a region of the state that has the highest fixed charges and you have to wonder if it is gross inefficiency or simply that higher standards have caused higher costs.
It is a failure of Government that these ballooning service charges are neither discussed nor explained and to date no genuine effort seems to have been made to look at the operating efficiency of the water operators.
Pricing should be linked to usage with service only a minor part of the bill similar to Electricity and Gas tariffs.
Posted Wednesday 10 Nov 2010 @ 12:50:14 am from IP # -
Johnnojack
MemberSimilar story here in Adelaide, wether you use the water or not you pay the tax. I pay $220/ quarter when my mains water use is nil. People at Aldinga are being forced to have a new sewage scheme which locks them into the wealth tax regime even though many have installed perfectly good aerobic systems which cost them 6 - 10 grand. To add to the pain they are being told they have to pay $6000 towards the new scheme. Most of the necessities of life are user pays. That theory is not one adhered to by SA Water. They have a taxing system set up in the early part of last century and they are not going to give it up.
As for gas and electricity the service charges keep rising, gas was only $30/quarter only 5 years ago. It is now $45 and the largest part of our summer time gas bill. Little incentive for small users to have both gas and electricity for energy efficiency.
Posted Thursday 18 Nov 2010 @ 12:29:45 pm from IP # -
One week out from the Victorian state election, the opposition leader Ted Baillieu will today launch the Coalition's new water policy; "Living Melbourne, Living Victoria".
The policy provides an interesting mix of recycling, storm water treatment and water conservation with most initiatives being practical, achievable and cost effective.
Of particular interest is the plan to recalculate the water billing method so that at least 60% of the total bill would be for consumption.
Posted Saturday 20 Nov 2010 @ 12:31:46 am from IP # -
thatmosis
MemberPeople laughed at us when we moved to the bush and lived on rain water and septic tanks for our sewerage but whose laughing now. After initial set up costs there is noting to pay for at least 10 years when we will have the septic pumped. Add to this our Solar power and water and the bush rules.
Posted Saturday 20 Nov 2010 @ 1:30:15 am from IP # -
Buzzman
MemberI covered similar issues with electricity fixed charges in this thread:
http://www.ata.org.au/forums/topic/say-no-to-inequitable-access-fees
Excuse the hijack!
But I don't see fixed charges here in regional NSW, other than those locked in Council rates.
Our local Water authority charges usage only on a per/kL basis. Although how they measure the kL for sewage I'm not sure - guess that's probably a fixed cost.
I assessed a local home last week that had water usage of 174kL over a quarter. The previous quarter was 94kL. They almost had kittens when I explained that this was 94,000 litres!!
But based on six people in the house, showering twice daily, for 10mins, even with a 3-star 9L/min shower head, that still works out to around 97kL.
They. Just. Simply. Use. Too. Much. Water.
When I probed for more usage I discoverd they have a stock trough for 15 head, which probably accounts for much of it, but the lady of the house told me she washes 5 loads per DAY!!!
They each use a different towel for each shower each day, so she has to wash two loads of just towels. Every day.
When I suggested this might be a bit excessive I was looked at like I was from Mars!
Some people have NO idea. LOL.
Posted Sunday 21 Nov 2010 @ 7:08:17 am from IP # -
I think that is somewhat excessive in a situation where you have mains water available. For city dwellers a much smaller tank is all you need. For example we are a household of three and have a 9000 litre tank with 150 metre square of roof area. Our mains water use has dropped from 225 Kl/year to 50 Kl/year. This is a reduction in our mains water use of about 80% and is saving us about $450 a year in water use and sewerage costs. Part of the water saving has come about because we changed to a front loading washing machine which saves about 50 Kl/year. All up the water tank system and front loader cost about $4500 which I guess equates to a pay back period of 10 years which will reduce as water use charges further increase. HIV Rash HIV In Children
Posted Sunday 17 Jul 2011 @ 5:21:49 am from IP # -
Gucci Mens Bootsnevertheless consists of the customer remedyGucci Womens Bootscard with its minimal of 3 languagesGucci Leather Shoesfrequently it starts with Italian taken byGucci Walletsconsists of two eastern languagesCheap Gucci Walletsand a single of them could possiblyGucci Men T Shirtsnation in which they may be created likGucci Women T Shirts helpful details is Gucci handbags could possiblyGucci Beltswhich could suit your wardrobe of a range of seasonsCheap Gucci Bagsshould also actually have option good extra suppliessuchGucci Bags On Salefor an announcement of seasonal salesGucci Handbags OutletIf you are the type who is not season consciousCheap Gucci Handbagsbecause you travel a lot or your home country has only two seasonsGucci Handbags On Saleit is good to take advantage of season sales viaCheap Gucci ShoesIt is when the winter season closes to give wayDiscount Gucci Shoesthere is a market place where they sell original timelessGucci Shoes On Saleare last pieces of stocks which it inchedGucci Hobo Bagsday affair by fashion shows and fashion designersGucci Tote Bagsquite primary on the net dealer people probability acrossGucci Shoulder BagsAll you have to do is know exactly when it hitsGucci Boston Bagscan also check on the designs and check on the latestGucci Travel Bagsso when they are on sale you can grab the bestGucci Messenger Bagsfor your children and all members in the familyGucci Evening Bagsspace where the feelingful tides may go tallGucci Luggage Bagsconnected with utilitarian shoes being appreciated by hip fashion trainersGucci Wristlet Bagsit may provide you an extremely simpleGucci Backpack Bagswell as make the shell out well worth the feeGucci Top Handles Bagsbe a wearer of Carhartt garmenting is a subscribeGucci Mens Shoesto moms along with twins or higher newborns colossalMens Gucci Shoesthese hand bags possess mammoth oversized diamondGucci Womens Shoesappeared to be encouraged with all the tattoos behaviourWomens Gucci Shoesgo to ensure that you should no lose money or perhaps.
Posted Friday 19 Aug 2011 @ 8:28:43 am from IP # -
Spyder Men Glovesof the healthiest jackets to wear during the winterSpyder Women Glovesis a reason for the ever rising salesSpyder Jacketsit comes to outfit variety in the marketSpyder Men Jacketsyour children and all members in the familySpyder Women Jacketsjackets are available for almost all people whether children, women or meArcteryx Alpha Jacketsduring winter without worrying about their durabilityColumbia Jacketsgrasp this good opportunity to hunt for whateverColumbia Ski Jacketsto listen and move from a location of faith and gratitudeCheap Columbia Jacketsjust for brown leafy in addition to tan since the main itemsColumbia Jackets On Salesplendid for present girls to think about this bagColumbia Winter Jacketshave many papers in addition to office supplies onlineColumbia Men Jacketsresistant hence you are going feel them scratching againstMens Columbia Jacketswill find various strategies according with designsColumbia Women Jacketsis that Natalia makes decisive the quality of each singleWomens Columbia Jackets a good deal figures are usually agogSpyder Glovesbuy handbags at wholesale prices style.
Posted Friday 19 Aug 2011 @ 8:36:54 am from IP #
