WATER METERS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 133, 2 December 1929, Page 12

WATER METERS

A DISCUSSION COMING

DO WE USE TOO MUCH?

THE HEALTH ASPECT

It is probable that the subject of the compulsory installation of water meters in all homes will shortly become a lively topic of discussion, for there are indications that certain members of the City Council are impressed with the advisability of seeking some alternative to the greater water supply which would be made available by tapping the Hutt Iliver, high up in the valley. liven were all the bodies represented upon the City and Suburban Water Board to remain parties to tho scheme the I cost to the city would be high, prob-j ably 80 per cent, or thereabouts of the half-million pounds which would be involved in tho development, and should the Hutt Valley Boroughs, Lower Hutt and Petone, stand out, or join in in part only, the city's share of the cost would presumably be still greater, though probably in that event there would be a substantial amendment of I the scheme. At the present time the whole scheme is very much in the air, but upon tho iigures presented to the Water Boaru and the City Council by [ the City Engineer, Wellington must have more water in the next five or six years if the present rate of consumption is to continue. It is at this point that the argument in favour of the metering of water is put forward by those who doubt whether the city and district can afford to embark upon a half-million scheme, but there is much to be said on both sides of this question of selling water, as gas or electricity is sold, by measure. Another factor in bringing the metering question under notice is tho change in the incidence of rating, for under

the unimproved value system strange anomalies have come about in the charging for water. Of tivo adjoining sections ono carries an eight-roomed house and a family that believes in baths, pays no particular attention to running taps, and keeps the lawn and garden green (bylaw or no bylaw). The other is vacant land, no house, no family, no taps; but the water rates are the same. Under the former system of rating, ttater rates were adjusted more in accord with the use which was made of the properties, and therefore more or less in accord with the actual use of water, though not at all exactly, and naturally those ratepayers who have been caught by the change of system of rating are sore about it.

RATES AND METER CHARGES NOW.

There is also the complaint that the property owner in tho city area where valuations are high—very high—pays, through the rates, for much more water than he can possibly use in the course of a year, whereas the suburban man, with a comparatively low valuation, has perhaps one-third the- water rate to pay and usea twice as much water. Suppose, to take a round figure, the city man pays £10 in water rates; at Is per thousand gallons that will entitle his household, say, four of them, to use 200,000 gallons per year. They simply can't do it, unless they bath morning, noon, and night, and wash clothes and dishes in any spare time left over from bathing, for. they have each tho best.part of 150 gallons per day to get through. The suburban man perhaps pays S3 per year in water rates, which entitles himself, his wife, and three youngsters to 60,000 gallons in' the year, 30 odd gallons each per day; they can do it easily, with the help of the hose on tho back lawn-and the cabbage patch. ' If the city man feels really sore about it and does not know enough about rates and meters he may decide to buy his water through a meter. The council will oblige; he can either purchase a meter straight out, at a cost of £3 10s, plus 12s 6cl installation cost, or he can rent a meter at Is per month, and may then sit back and feel quite pleased about it. At the end of six months tho meter is read, and, behold, of the 200,000 gallons he is entitled to use in that half-year only 5000 have passed through the meter. Does he get a refund of £5 5s for the 105,000 gallons for which he has paid but has pot used? He definitely does not. Meter readings cut one way only. If the meter shows that a household has used more water than the rate payment entitled it to, then an account is rendered, but of refunds there are none whatever. EIGHTY GALLONS PER HEAD. Wellington do use water freely. "There is an enormous diversity in the volume consumed in modern civilised communities," said the City Engineer in his report to the Water Board. "This ranges from 20 gallons per head per day in parts of Europe to over 200 per head per day in American cities. In Great Britain a consumption of 40 gallons per head per day is regarded as an ample reasonable average for all purposes. Wellington has been somewhat prodigal in the past in water consumption, the average daily consumption extending over the past 14 years having amounted to between 60 and 70 gallons per head of population per day. Periodically this rate of consumption has increased to 80 gallons, and for short periods to possibly 90 gallons of water per head per day." The average consumption of water in the Lower Hutt -borough tho engineer stated at 80 gallons per head per day, and in Petone it is 60 gallons per day.

It has for many years been argued that Wellington's requirements should be worked out on a basis of 70 to 75 gallons per head per day, the late Mr. Morton's basis being 74 gallons, and the present engineer, to be on the safe side, recommended that 80 gallons per head per day should be taken as the figure, but that basis, presumably, was for a supply given as at present, not through meters on every property. Eecently one of the suburban boroughs of Auckland determined to restrict the use of water by the installation of a general metering system, with the result that the consumption, per head dropped smartly from something like 70 to about 40 gallons per day and no doubt this example will be' largely quoted when the metering question comes to be seriously discussed in Wellington.

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST,

In favour of the metering system it may be said that such a system is absolutely fair; you pay for what you use. that it immediately puts a check upon waste of water, either by allowing taps to run needlessly, or by allowing faulty taps to continue leaking, whereby an enormous amount of i.-ater is lost each day; and, in the long run, that it is to the financial benefit of tho whole community in that great expansions in water supply systems are not necessary, and interest and other charges on the capital expenditure so avoided have not to be met.

On the other side, the. outstanding argument is that water is the ono commodity which people should not be , discouraged from using, an argument ; which has so great weight in the Old Country that the metering of domestic supplies is generally ruled out. This argument is countered by the meter advocates with an assurance that New Zcalanders and Wellington people in particular, have ingrained so firmly

into them the love of cleanliness that a trifle like a shilling or more per thousand gallons of water per year would do no harm to the health of the general community. It is a point for much arguing, but it is very probable that before a decision is reached upon the greater water supply from the Hutt River, or possibly by the more effective use of the present supplies, this metering question will be thrashed out.

Another thing is certain: Wellington, never a garden city, would fall further back in the front flower bed and the back kitchen patch were water motors made compulsory. Where & s. d., in large quantities, are involved a city council or other local body is,apt to place the front flower bed far in the background, and to sogard the back garden as not so very important, but a certain amount of garden patch is good, not only for the Keserves Department, on behalf of the city as a whole, but is very good for plain John Citizen. It is a recognition, and an encouragement, of this which no doubt leads to such great daily water consumption figures as tho 200 gallons per head per day of certain of the more modern American cities, garden cities, in fact, as well as in publicity booklets.

At the present time, it should be mentioned, the council has no power to insist upon the installation of a meter for measuring water for domestic supplies, though it does require that water for industrial or other "extraordinary" purposes shall be motored. Hosing comes under the | heading of "extraordinary" supply, and therefore may bo prohibited unless the water is motored.

A compulsory metering system would do away with such cases of anything but equitable charging for tho'water service, for presumably the water rate would go altogether, but the rate per thousand gallons which would havo to be charged under' an all-round metering system would hardly remain at its present Is per thousand. From an administrative point <ff view there are a good many difficulties in the way of such a system: installation would itself be a big business, and would run into perhaps £100,000; reading of meters would likewise involve a considerable yearly amount; and meters do not run on for ever, necessitating a repair department, which of all repair . departments would assuredly "get it in the neck" when water accounts were presented, for few housewives would give their husbands peace until they had argued that "all that (Water could not possibly have been used."