How does it work if you don't have a water meter?
May 22, 2015 6:44 AM Subscribe
Article in the Washington Post today says that Sacramento is just now installing water meters for its homes and businesses. How is that possible? Without a meter, how would they know how much your bill should be?
This morning I read this:
"Meanwhile, the city of Sacramento, which for decades resisted a basic step to conserve water — putting meters on homes to measure use — is scrambling to finish a $390 million project to install them at every home and business."
Can someone in Sacramento explain to me how this works? If there is no meter, how does the city know how much to bill someone every month/quarter for water use?
This should have been explained in the article. AskMeFi is going to trump journalism...
This morning I read this:
"Meanwhile, the city of Sacramento, which for decades resisted a basic step to conserve water — putting meters on homes to measure use — is scrambling to finish a $390 million project to install them at every home and business."
Can someone in Sacramento explain to me how this works? If there is no meter, how does the city know how much to bill someone every month/quarter for water use?
This should have been explained in the article. AskMeFi is going to trump journalism...
To expand, the city charter was amended in 1920 to declare an inalienable right to unmetered water. The state's opinion differs on that matter.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:51 AM on May 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:51 AM on May 22, 2015 [5 favorites]
Some municipalities just charge a flat fee. According to an EPA document, one third of public water suppliers charged a flat fee a decade ago . That number has probably decreased since then.
posted by mareli at 6:59 AM on May 22, 2015
posted by mareli at 6:59 AM on May 22, 2015
I'm in the UK, we get water bills but most people don't have a meter. They just estimate based on how many bedrooms are in your house.
posted by cilantro at 7:14 AM on May 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by cilantro at 7:14 AM on May 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
In many places with a surplus of water you are billed a flat fee per month. In my city the bill has nothing to do with size of household or house, it is just X per month period the end.
posted by charmedimsure at 7:29 AM on May 22, 2015
posted by charmedimsure at 7:29 AM on May 22, 2015
It's a flat rate.
Single-family residence: 1-3 rooms = $32.32/month
posted by elsietheeel at 7:52 AM on May 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Single-family residence: 1-3 rooms = $32.32/month
posted by elsietheeel at 7:52 AM on May 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
the variable cost of water delivery & treatment is very low relative to the cost of maintaining the fixed delivery and treatment infrastructure, its basically the fixed costs that matter and those don't really vary with consumption. The only reason to meter (And its a good one really) is to encourage people to use less water.
posted by JPD at 8:03 AM on May 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by JPD at 8:03 AM on May 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
We don't have water meters in St. Louis and we are charged a flat rate based on number of toilets and bedrooms. It blew my mind when we moved here.
posted by teleri025 at 8:20 AM on May 22, 2015
posted by teleri025 at 8:20 AM on May 22, 2015
Also the city of Sacramento is maybe a tenth of the total metro area. We have multiple water districts with differing rates and fees, as well as needs and ways water is used.
This article about Sacramento water agencies goes into it a little bit, but water in California as a whole is an absurdly complicated issue.
I live in the water district with the second highest use listed in that article, but it's rural area with lots of agriculture. Every vacant lot is a strawberry patch. There are active orchards and farms with fruit and vegetable stands. I'd guess that accounts for a lot of that water use.
My water district installed meters about 5 years ago. I think they only started USING them three years ago. I live alone on a third of an acre. I let yellow mellow. I water my lawn one day a year (4th of July--I have idiot neighbors who don't understand that California outlawed bottle rockets for a reason). I only grow drought tolerant plants in the yard and my citrus trees are watered with my laundry rinse water. I am not growing a vegetable garden this year. And I chose not to plant trees this year even though I need to think about succession planning in re: trees.
So I've got my regular water use down to about 2,000 gallons a month. My water bill was $22 this month (higher because I was doing a lot of drywall and painting--lots of cleaning and laundry). My water bill was calculated thusly:
Single family customer on a 0.29 acre lot, 1-inch meter, using 5 units in one month.
Monthly Bill = Fixed Charge + Volumetric Charge + Assessment Charge
Monthly Bill = $12.62 + (5 units x $0.50=$2.50) + $7.00
Monthly Bill = $22.12
Notes: 1 Unit = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons
So you'll note that I get charged a flat rate for the size of my water meter, 50 cents per 100 cubic feet of water I use, and a $7 assessment charge for capital infrastructure improvements.
50 cents for 750 gallons of water seems mighty cheap, doesn't it? There's not much of a fiscal incentive to reduce water use where I live in Sacramento. But I note that most of my neighbors have brown lawns as well.
posted by elsietheeel at 8:24 AM on May 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
This article about Sacramento water agencies goes into it a little bit, but water in California as a whole is an absurdly complicated issue.
I live in the water district with the second highest use listed in that article, but it's rural area with lots of agriculture. Every vacant lot is a strawberry patch. There are active orchards and farms with fruit and vegetable stands. I'd guess that accounts for a lot of that water use.
My water district installed meters about 5 years ago. I think they only started USING them three years ago. I live alone on a third of an acre. I let yellow mellow. I water my lawn one day a year (4th of July--I have idiot neighbors who don't understand that California outlawed bottle rockets for a reason). I only grow drought tolerant plants in the yard and my citrus trees are watered with my laundry rinse water. I am not growing a vegetable garden this year. And I chose not to plant trees this year even though I need to think about succession planning in re: trees.
So I've got my regular water use down to about 2,000 gallons a month. My water bill was $22 this month (higher because I was doing a lot of drywall and painting--lots of cleaning and laundry). My water bill was calculated thusly:
Single family customer on a 0.29 acre lot, 1-inch meter, using 5 units in one month.
Monthly Bill = Fixed Charge + Volumetric Charge + Assessment Charge
Monthly Bill = $12.62 + (5 units x $0.50=$2.50) + $7.00
Monthly Bill = $22.12
Notes: 1 Unit = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons
So you'll note that I get charged a flat rate for the size of my water meter, 50 cents per 100 cubic feet of water I use, and a $7 assessment charge for capital infrastructure improvements.
50 cents for 750 gallons of water seems mighty cheap, doesn't it? There's not much of a fiscal incentive to reduce water use where I live in Sacramento. But I note that most of my neighbors have brown lawns as well.
posted by elsietheeel at 8:24 AM on May 22, 2015 [3 favorites]
Water is a really strange commodity under California law and the Sacramento area shows it: I have a friend who owns acreage upslope from there. She has the right to the flow from a pipe owned by the county (I think) to her collection pipe which is of a specified diameter. That flow - whether she uses it or not - is completely un-metered. She pays a flat rate for it, IIRC about $150 a year. Since it's a 1.5" diameter pipe, she could get several hundred acre-feet per year through it if she tried. Her (treated) municipal water is different; that is metered.
The basis of the Californian system of water allocation is described in this white paper. It was not meant to allocate water among millions of homeowners, it was meant to ensure water was used for beneficial activities. Since conditions have shifted somewhat, from a frontier requiring development to a heavily-settled land with a lot of agriculture and limited amounts of available water, the California Doctrine is showing its age. Tinkering with it is political dynamite, because the value of water rights is priced into land.
posted by jet_silver at 9:17 AM on May 22, 2015
The basis of the Californian system of water allocation is described in this white paper. It was not meant to allocate water among millions of homeowners, it was meant to ensure water was used for beneficial activities. Since conditions have shifted somewhat, from a frontier requiring development to a heavily-settled land with a lot of agriculture and limited amounts of available water, the California Doctrine is showing its age. Tinkering with it is political dynamite, because the value of water rights is priced into land.
posted by jet_silver at 9:17 AM on May 22, 2015
I'm in the suburbs of Chicago. Our apartment complex charges us a flat rate. ($37/month covers water, gas/heat, and trash) It's based on number of bedrooms/bathrooms. This is a LOT less than we paid for water alone when we rented our house, which did have a meter. (and was much smaller than our apartment - go figure!)
posted by SisterHavana at 9:20 AM on May 22, 2015
posted by SisterHavana at 9:20 AM on May 22, 2015
As an aside, many places also charge separately for sewer based on what the water meter reads. Not a terrible assumption to make in most cases, but if you irrigate your yard, you end up paying for wastewater treatment for water that never went into the sewer.
posted by pappy at 9:31 AM on May 22, 2015
posted by pappy at 9:31 AM on May 22, 2015
My wife's family live in Fresno. When they all told me they pay no water bill in that godforsaken desert, I almost lost my shit.
posted by humboldt32 at 9:53 AM on May 22, 2015
posted by humboldt32 at 9:53 AM on May 22, 2015
Ah yes, the latest iterations of the California water wars....
How well I remember paying a flat fee of $8 per month for water when we lived in LA - this was in 1980-1985. When we moved to our current location, on the mid-northern California coast, I will never forget the Larry the water man telling me that water was like liquid gold here in our new tiny town. I thought, how quaint! How cute!
That sentiment lasted until we got our first water bill. $150/month. The only communities with higher rates than ours were in Lucerne and on the Channel Islands. Then, I understood the meaning of "liquid gold." Sheesh!
posted by Lynsey at 10:41 AM on May 22, 2015
How well I remember paying a flat fee of $8 per month for water when we lived in LA - this was in 1980-1985. When we moved to our current location, on the mid-northern California coast, I will never forget the Larry the water man telling me that water was like liquid gold here in our new tiny town. I thought, how quaint! How cute!
That sentiment lasted until we got our first water bill. $150/month. The only communities with higher rates than ours were in Lucerne and on the Channel Islands. Then, I understood the meaning of "liquid gold." Sheesh!
posted by Lynsey at 10:41 AM on May 22, 2015
Response by poster: This is all incredibly interesting and educational ... and also batsh*t crazy! Thank you all for the explanations.
posted by mccxxiii at 12:50 PM on May 22, 2015
posted by mccxxiii at 12:50 PM on May 22, 2015
I'm reading a new book about William Mulholland and LA water. One thing it discusses in great detail is Mulholland's addition of water meters to LA water service back around 1900. They added it explicitly to encourage conservation and the immediate result was water usage was cut roughly in half.
Also worth noting that Sacramento has a lot of fresh water, it's nothing like LA or the Central Valley, water-wise. It's much more a Delta environment.
posted by Nelson at 3:28 PM on May 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also worth noting that Sacramento has a lot of fresh water, it's nothing like LA or the Central Valley, water-wise. It's much more a Delta environment.
posted by Nelson at 3:28 PM on May 22, 2015 [1 favorite]
One of the other interesting things that's happened - at least here - is that rate increases for water have been imposed because by consumers conserving water they're SELLING LESS WATER which means revenue is down and they don't have the previously budgeted for revenues. The "ready to serve" component, which is what you pay for just to have the service exist, doesn't bring in enough money on it's own to maintain infrastrucure, etc. But of course they want to have you use less water so while your consumption charges might go down the overall rate is up.
posted by marylynn at 8:15 PM on May 24, 2015
posted by marylynn at 8:15 PM on May 24, 2015
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 6:46 AM on May 22, 2015 [1 favorite]