[Deepsycher]

For me over the years meters did not seem to have much of a chance. I knew that it can happen in some places due to the reasons of demand, profit and as a way to encourage people to use less water. Encouraging people to cut down in water is important for preserving that resource but is rationing by wallet the only way?

To consider in situations:

(1) Those that are financially poor but need excess water.

(2) A single person who is financially rich and has a large swimming pool to fill.

(3) Companies who bottle so much of water for commercial purposes such as bottled drinks and cans.

(4) Water companies who are making a profit behind metered customer's backs.

Where is the fairness in that?


I think for someone to meter themselves is good for cutting down but as people's views have changed over the years I think there should be some fairness in ways to pay:

(1) How much you use. For couples who don't use much.

(2) Averaged Water Pricing. For families or someone who needs a lot of water.

Some people think that these are Capitalist and Socialist approach but I think the balance should stand here.


Okay I feel like I have been contributing all along in my recent threads. For this issue now I leave it for people to add their views.


Interested to hear what people think of water metering.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 17 June 2006 - 06:05 PM

[Deepsycher]

Either no one is interested or has anybody ever heard of water metering?

[Cobnat]

Aye, nobody cares about this worthy cause Dee, although it IS worthy, so lets debate:

Lets start with our ideas on fixing the problem. We could always charge people more for the water they get the more they get it, so if they spend 20 litres of water a day they need to pay something like 1$ a littre and if they spend 40 litres a day the need to spend 2$ a littre.

[Deepsycher]

In a capitalist envornment, yes. Pay this amount for this quantity of water. The fees can change due to the amount of water left in the reservoir. One advantage is that it can be cheaper by using smaller quantities which does not suit everybody especially those who needs it.

In a socialist environment for someone like me I think that the responsibility is partially on the people's usage, consideration for the amount of remaining water left and rationing by people or whoever physically needs more water above the equal ration. Not by price or the ability to pay.

Some advantages are that everybody pays an average price and they get unlimited water but restricted to certain uses that are less wasteful. The advantage is that people who cannot afford to pay but work intensively and needs it has that benefit.

The disadvantages are that people may pay more and leaves an opportunity open for people who don't deserve it to exploit it in large quantities. The problems in some countries are that profit and taxes contributes to the cost, there is more pollution to clean and expensive filters are needed to filter out that pollution.

Some time ago it was a set price in certain places and still is, for the time being. They raise the price for profits to begin with and make everybody believe that a sum of that money they are paying for is "equivalent" to the water they use on a meter. Just to what I see. Okay it can be cheaper for certain people depending on the usage but not for all such as families and disabled people who need it most.

In 2003 someone came up to my door with a water saving campaign package. He said to me that "A meter WILL save you money" in a realistic style voice. More of an assumption, I mean how would he know how much water I use in a day and also other people's usage to make a claim like that?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 18 June 2006 - 07:10 PM

[Cobnat]

I see, so everyone is given the same amount of water? Or they are given the amount of water compared to how big the household is?

[Deepsycher]

I think it would be fair to say to ration the water to the amount of people living in the household.

It don't think it can be efficient to give a big house with one person living inside a large ration and a small house with four people living inside a smaller ration. For droughts I think that rationing can be effective considering the needs to whom they are rationing.

Somehow exploitation can still exist. People can be kept in the house for that purpose even though it seems like a petty idea.

Do you think that companies who use large amounts of water for commercial purposes such as bottling should be metered? I mean metered for making a profit from using local water.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 18 June 2006 - 07:39 PM

[barend]

people who use more should pay more... until we establish a cashless star trek society where everything is available to everyone...

the whole problem with society is that alot of poor people are paying for luxuries of the rich... why should a motorcyclist be paying the same toll or road taxes as someone in a giant road wearing, poluting, childkilling 4WD tank?

same goes for water

[Cobnat]

I think it would be fair to say to ration the water to the amount of people living in the household.
It don't think it can be efficient to give a big house with one person living inside a large ration and a small house with four people living inside a smaller ration. For droughts I think that rationing can be effective considering the needs to whom they are rationing.
Somehow exploitation can still exist. People can be kept in the house for that purpose even though it seems like a petty idea.
Do you think that companies who use large amounts of water for commercial purposes such as bottling should be metered? I mean metered for making a profit from using local water.

I take a long hot one hour shower everyday, you cant have me ration my water, no, my idea is better.

Actualy we can combine our idea like households with more peopl e get discounts or something.

[Deepsycher]

Okay, but then I could go, fetch the water and filter it myself.
I mean limited to households and monitored.

That is a point, why should I pay for the next door neighbour's plants to grow, why should I pay the same rate as a family. Some plants and trees are vital for converting the air and I get food from them. One day if I have a family the benefit will be there. If I don't that is too bad because in some places it is expensive due to privatisation. Raising the price seems to have raised these kinds questions. "I cannot afford this but sadly I have to think to what I can afford."

How can I compare water to gas to electricity. Okay they are services:

Gas has to be collected from certain parts, refined and transported.

Electricity has to be generated perhaps mostly from oil and gas in a power station. Until free or less consuming alternatives take over.

Water can be collected, filtered, cleaned and piped. Years ago someone said to me in their time, water was very cheap to afford, charged by the value of the house, all in a single price cleaning, piping, and seweage. Now they highered the price so high for profits when services were privatised in certain parts and now it seems that they make people believe an imaginery value that a certain amount of water is equivalent to this price.

Simply:
In certain parts, people paid for it to be cleaned, filtered, piped and maybe sewer bills.
Now they are proposing not to charge for the service of providing it as above, but charging it as a man made product. Charged as in quantity. "Because it is a service like electricity and gas in appearance, lets make it appear the same to charge people the same method."

People can be more cautious by using meters to cut down their usage but companies can still make profits behind people's backs except this time it affects their ability to pay. They could use excuses such as droughts to higher the price on the demand and not do anything about it whilst other companies can be selling it locally cheaper in drink bottles.

Yes maybe they could average the amount of water used up between everybody as the ration or a rationable amount to each person then charge more for excess. I asked about that years ago and they said it is unlikely to happen. Now some places are bringing out trickle supplies for people who refuse to pay.

Shoudn't water be free and respected at the same time?

Can you see my point of view?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 18 June 2006 - 08:29 PM

[Cobnat]

How about making a system in which everyone has thier own well?

[Deepsycher]

Excellent. That is what I was expecting someone to say but about each person getting their own water supply. I mean for finding water.

People could then start realise a real value of water by collecting and filtering it themselves. Then they can realise on why they have to cut down. Not by other influences such as "I have more money therefore I should have more water!" "Sorry there isn't enough left. I'll have to start searching and use less next time until I find a larger source."

Wells could be good for collecting the rainfall then it can be cleaned and filtered. Central filtering could use up less filters and produce less waste from the cleaning material. Contribution or co operation to make this work sounds like a good solution but everyone must understand on why they can't waste the water. In droughts shouldn't everyone that depends on a supply of water refill it back up? I will read the rest tomorrow.

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 18 June 2006 - 09:18 PM

[Cobnat]

Excellent. That is what I was expecting someone to say but about each person getting their own water supply. I mean for finding water.

People could then start realise a real value of water by collecting and filtering it themselves. Then they can realise on why they have to cut down. Not by other influences such as "I have more money therefore I should have more water!" "Sorry there isn't enough left. I'll have to start searching and use less next time until I find a larger source."

Wells could be good for collecting the rainfall then it can be cleaned and filtered. Central filtering could use up less filters and produce less waste from the cleaning material. Contribution or co operation to make this work sounds like a good solution but everyone must understand on why they can't waste the water. In droughts shouldn't everyone that depends on a supply of water refill it back up? I will read the rest tomorrow.

Dee, dont take this the wrong way but Im to tired right now to debate about which is the best way h20 can be filtered. Ill debate with you about this tommorow, or next week.

[Slade]

The only reason we need to filter it is because people have polluted it with industrial waste. Though wells can get full of bacteria and one needs to boil water. Water is one of the most abundant compounds on earth. It's silly to pay for it at all, though paying for filtering and pipe maintainance is fair.

Overall, I don't think it should be pricey, as working plumbing is crucial to maintaining a decent standard of living in any developed country. Taking that away and making it another commodity is denying some the right to live at a proper quality of life.

[Deepsycher]

Shoudn't the industries pay for the filters that are needed to clean up their mess?

For wells: If the water can be collected from the wells and cleaned at a plant run by everybody that uses it, isn't that a good idea?

[Deepsycher]

Okay I found an interesting article on pre paid metering.

http://www.citizen.o...manright/meter/

Also speaks for the people in Africa when the government privatised the water services and signed a contract with an English company to pre pay meter everybody. I thought it was banned in 1998 but I read that they brought it back in certain parts.

A possibility is that people can pay the same prices as they do now but the meter will only allow a certain amount of water dictated to how much they paid before in advance. This could be done by measuring and statistically averaging the water usage of the "mass majority figure."

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 28 June 2006 - 06:40 PM