Blooming Water Bill

:ranton: Ok so this will be about as interesting to others as watching water boil however after opening the water bill this afternoon really got my goat up and I need to vent.

I would like to think that our household tries to conserve water with water efficient fixtures and appliances, and despite having a fairly large garden we typically don't water it from the mains supply. What is getting my goat up about this latest bill is the cost structure used and how it seems to be skewed away from saving water.

This current bill totals around $425. Of that figure $137 is for water used leaving $288 for sewer and other charges. For some unknown reason the sewer charge is linked to property value so no matter how much I reduce my water usage I cannot reduce this charge - leading to a charge of $205 which will increase as my property increases. I am at a loss as to why my property value has anything to do with how much waste I put down the sewer or how much it costs to treat that waste. The cynic in me would think it a convenient way for SA Water to lock in a fixed income base for the year as it isn't connected at all with water use.

On top of the sewer charge there is a further $73 for supply charge and $9.50 save the Murray levy. The good news is the SA Government have given a backhanded saving of a once off $75 credit as they are about to put up the prices again and they think that not charging the increase just yet will make it all dandy. It is a real shame that more than half of the charges on the bill are not directly associated with the volume of water being consumed. As it stands the actual water component is quite a cheap component of the bill and considering I cannot do anything about the other 50% of the charges I may as well splash a little more water around the garden.

Its a shame that the billing structure cannot be modified to increase the cost of the water being used, and reduce the other associated costs with the aim of providing financial benefit for home owners to reduce their water usage. As it currently stands there is little reason to try and reduce water usage to help save the environment. :rantoff:

Absolutely agree. I'm dealing with the same in qld. We use very little water but get slogged with tremendous service fees. The difference between low and high water usage pales in comparison to the standard service fees.

Not really much incentive to cut water usage in a part of the country that has frequent water restrictions. What's the point when your bill is guaranteed to be about 300 each quarter? Sure it might vary by 10 or 20 with usage spikes but I'd still be up for a service fee of over 200.

While I have to pay for and maintain my own water collection, supply and sewerage systems (not on town water or sewerage) I do agree that a sewerage charge linked to property value is a bit ridiculous.

I reckon a more sensible approach would be to link it to water usage, as generally most of the water used (except for things like watering lawns/gardens or course) is going to end up in the sewerage system.

A bit of digging has uncovered this article in what is unfortunately the only paper in town:
Users hit out at 'unfair' water bills | adelaidenow

There is some spin and some good points in the article. It would seem logical that the sewer charge should be linked to the water usage, however as stated in the article the guy who uses only rainwater and doesn't import any water then wouldn't have to pay for sewer despite obviously using it, which I hadn't fully considered.

Linking the sewer charge to property value does negatively impact on asset rich cash poor. I know from speaking to neighbours who have been in my area for 30+ years their property is certainly worth more than they initially paid for it however they cannot benefit until they sell and are actually penalised for purchasing at a good time. I know one lady who had to sell and move out just prior to Christmas as she was no longer working and the bills kept increasing due to her property value increasing although her income was not increasing.

The article comments:
Although the sewer access charge has been likened to a wealth tax as it is based on house values, Prof Spoehr said a flat charge - where every household paid the same - would not be fair. "A flat system would be inequitable. We moved away from that long ago because it treats all properties the same when, obviously, some have a greater capacity to pay than others," he said. mmmmm ..... some have a greater capacity to pay than others sounds very much like a wealth tax. I would have thought treating all properties the same would be much closer to being equitable than based on house values.

It would appear that the only fair system is to meter the outgoing sewer in the same manner as the incoming water - not likely to happen.

Other than that there perhaps should be a flat rate based on estimated occupants (ie 1 bedroom flat - 60L sewer / day average, 3 bedroom house 180L sewer / day). Whilst this doesn't help produce any additional savings if you reduce your water usage at least it is more closely linked to the cost of providing the service than the unconnected property value. Basing the sewer charge on the house value just seems like a convenient way to increase the cost annually without any direct connection to the cost of the service being provided.

I have never understood the "logic" of basing water/sewer rates on property values:no:

Electricty and gas charges are based on usage and they depend on infrastructure just as much as water/sewer.

The current system actually encourages people to waste water as the base charge entitles people to a certain amount of water usage before excess charges kick in.

When I lived in Wattle Park in Adelaide most people didn't pay excess water charges despite using heaps of water on their gardens/lawns and thier philosphy was "well pay for it, might as well use it".

Imagine the outcry when people would be charged for their electricity and gas usage on the value of their property!:doh:

Sir Stinky

That is all a bit disturbing. Expensive and not conducive to water conservation. I might have to check our bill to see what we pay!

Regards
Paul

Sir Stinkalot

Quote:

---

t would appear that the only fair system is to meter the outgoing sewer in the same manner as the incoming water - not likely to happen.

---

Don't have to do that. They could easily equate the water in = the sewerage out, then asign a cost based on that per litre. Sure it would be a bit different for some households - but it is mostly fair.

But, unfortunately, there are no easy solutions in Government. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

I have never understood the "logic" of basing water/sewer rates on property values:no:

Electricty and gas charges are based on usage and they depend on infrastructure just as much as water/sewer.

The current system actually encourages people to waste water as the base charge entitles people to a certain amount of water usage before excess charges kick in.

When I lived in Wattle Park in Adelaide most people didn't pay excess water charges despite using heaps of water on their gardens/lawns and thier philosphy was "well pay for it, might as well use it".

---

I am not sure if there is still a minimum base charge. The latest bill seemed to be tiered and we paid slightly less for the first xKL over the next yKL which is a good system.
The only fair way is to put a meter on the sewer as well as the water supply. Just because their methods of recording usage are not up to scratch everybody gets penalised by having the sewer based on property value.

Basing rates on property value is equally as antiquated. It costs the same to collect the 3 bins from a $1m property as it does from a $200k property, roads cost the same, all other services cost the same. I understand the Councils who have the higher rate payers often have better quality community facilities, libraries and the like, but basing the rates off the value of the home still seems wrong. The only exception that I can think of is that if my house has a 50m frontage then my single value rate pays for less of that road than perhaps the rates of 5 properties each with a 10m frontage. Perhaps rates need to be based off land area not house value???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Expensive and not conducive to water conservation.

---

You are not wrong about not being conducive to water conservation. If I cut my water use by 1/3rd (which is fairly considerable reduction) I will save all of $45, however it will only result in a 11% overall saving on my overall bill :((. Why bother? I can put an additional 1/3rd of my usage on the garden for bugger all additional dollars and enjoy a healthy garden, and perhaps more fruit off my fruit trees (reducing the grocery bill :U).

The water companies were all very productive on encouraging water saving when there was no rain and most people got on board and did their bit, it isn't until you really look at the billing structure that you wonder if you were actually saving anything yourself or just helping out the water company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enelef

Don't have to do that. They could easily equate the water in = the sewerage out, then asign a cost based on that per litre. Sure it would be a bit different for some households - but it is mostly fair.

---

I would have thought that as well until I read the article about the guy who invested in huge rainwater tanks and as such does not draw any water from the system. As he is not drawing any water then he wouldn't be paying for the sewer despite the fact that he would still be using it. Perhaps it is his bonus for not requiring any external water and he should get the free sewer for doing the right thing by the environment. After all he still has to pay the service charge and the levies.

I would agree however that in the typical situation it seems more logical than basing on property values.

Bring back the pedestal tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Duke

Bring back the pedestal tax.

---

UQ colleges fight toilet tax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Duke

Bring back the pedestal tax.

---

Its a bit like the window tax and on the surface it looks valid ...... although a house with 10 people and 1 toilet is going to produce more waste than a house with 2 people and 2 toilets.

If we are going to be fair then there needs to be technology built into the flush buttons. Each flush will be automatically recorded via WI-FI directly to the water board. At the end of the billing period they simply add up the flushes and assign a cost, half cost for half flush. I am sure we will see more if its yellow let it mellow :toiletjump:.

Then the issue becomes how to stop the people getting around the flush button technology who simply tip a bucket of water into the pan :oo:.

Perhaps it would be easier to base the sewer charge on house values :D

We are in the situation that whilst our house is not on sewage we still have to pay as the sewage pipe runs past our place. We can't afford to get it put on as it requires remodeling the bathroom and toilet etc plus just getting to the pug in point is going to cost heaps because of the depth and danger nof collapse as our neighbour found to his regreat ....almost lost some of our yard in the hole :oo:
The reason the costs are set up like this with more increases in the wind is akin to fines increasing ...this state gov is broke and need to get more without taxes as they are heading to an election year. As always things like rego, water, smokes, fuel etc are targeted and then there are 'levies' a tax under a different name that appears to let them of the hook. The problem is it will never change and we will always lose more money every year.:((
ok my rant is over too
Pete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Stinkalot

Each flush will be automatically recorded via WI-FI directly to the water board. At the end of the billing period they simply add up the flushes and assign a cost, half cost for half flush.

---

I would hate to do the data mining on that:no:, especially if someone wanted to drill down in to the original data. :shakehead:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fxst

We are in the situation that whilst our house is not on sewage we still have to pay as the sewage pipe runs past our place.

---

Fxst - perhaps you drive past the head office, then send them bill for a consultation. I mean, you were available to be used. Its not your fault they didn't connect is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fxst

We are in the situation that whilst our house is not on sewage we still have to pay as the sewage pipe runs past our place.

---

Same situation in southern Tasmania but it applies to water as well - if it's accessible from the property, you pay whether you connect it or not.
At least the money has been spent on a new pipeline, water quality has certainly improved since it was made operational.
This means I will no longer get those letters telling me it's now OK to stop boiling your tap water - I never did get one that told me to boil it in the first place. :((

As I'm a renter, I don;t know the cost of connection/consumption for the local authority. I do my bit to help by using the tank water for most of the gardening.