Now, of course, it's unconstitutional because its "legally vague" since your water does not necessarily equal your sewage use (e.g- watering lawns). The only accurate way to measure would be to put a meter in your sewage line- which I understand some states do.
To all you Red-staters---welcome to my world. -:)
This reminds me of the farmer that sprayed down a court house or city council building with chicken crap. I tried to find the video but couldn’t so if anyone knows a link please post it.
Guess I start using the public rest rooms at city hall now.....aka the steps !
If you water your lawn a lot it might make sense to get a water only meter, but then you have to pay for the meter and the quarterly connection fee of about $15. Woe to the person who connects the water only line into the house's water/sewer system.
Hey, I'm for it! Only if I get to shove their heads in the bowl while I do it.
“The scheme would replace the current system,
which sees sewage charges based on a home’s value...”
- - -
WHAT THE HEY?
I have never had a water bill based on my home value.
My water (and sewage) bill is based on consumption.
The real problem where I live, is the antiquated system
of charging less per gallon for the more you use.
What I mean by this is that
the first 10,000 gallons is charged at one rate; while the
next and the next 10,000 gallons are charged at a reduced rate.
This is an old system that benefited business and industry at the
cost of residential users.
Seems to me septic tanks are going to be the wave of the future again eh?!
Seriously, as an Australian, I don’t have any real problem with this.
We’re the driest continent on earth (absent technical arguments about Antartica). Water is a scarce resource. We already have to pay for it - all these changes would do is help break down further what people are paying for and that allows for fairer charging.
I live in Melbourne - we are on what are referred to as Level 3 water restrictions and have been for some time. We’ve been told that we’ll always be on some degree of restriction [We’d love climate change to be real as most predictions say Melbourne, in the long run, would get more water.] Doing what they can to ensure people don’t waste water is a great idea. It might not be needed in other places. But for us, it is essential.
Toilets are one of the easiest things to make more efficient. The main reason most people haven’t done so here is because of the cost. This might provide an incentive to people to think about what they are doing.
The intent is strictly speaking to stop people flushing when they need to - but to generate less water.
I limit myself to three minute showers, and have water efficient toilets installed. My washing machine isn’t water efficient, but it’s on the way out and when I buy a new one that one will be. I’d rather not continue to subsidise those who simply waste water.
This isn’t an insane overreaction by environmentalists. It’s reflection of living in a dry place. The largest dam supplying Melbourne is 20% full. It was last full in 1996.
Just use a bucket and throw it out the window.
You don’t have to pay a tax then.
I keep telling you all.
More people mean less freedom.
Had we ended LEGAL immigration in the 1960s, we’d have half as many people today, and twice as much water to go around.