Householders to be charged for each flush of toilet

Another “green” article. Cannot wait for the comments on this one :shrug:

Householders to be charged for each flush of toilet

HOUSEHOLDERS would be charged for each flush under a radical new toilet tax designed to help beat the drought.

The scheme would replace the current system, which sees sewage charges based on a home’s value - not its waste water output.

CSIRO Policy and Economic Research Unit member Jim McColl and Adelaide University Water Management Professor Mike Young plan to promote the move to state and federal politicians and experts across the country.

"It would encourage people to reduce their sewage output by taking shorter showers,recycling washing machine water or connecting rainwater tanks to internal plumbing to reduce their charges,’'Professor Young said.

BTW: I think it is a good idea (unless I am having one of those day :blush: )

How the heck would they enforce the law? It’s a violation of privacy, really.

Stop flushing and disease will spread and costs will rise. It is stupid.

This is simply a water charge on water going “out” as well as in.We’ve had it for years and we live on the shore of a great lake.The meter reads it.The headline homeowners to be charged for each toilet flush is an exaggeration and merely designed to sensationalise and inflame.

Well, those who have collitis, crohns and diabetes will be paying out of the … :blush:

Well, you know what I mean.

I was thinking the same thing!!

This is a double-charge. The water going out equals the water coming in – conservation of matter.

It’s the conservation of what sort of matter that seems to be troubling. :wink:

I was thinking the same thing!!

Expensive to be ill, isnt it?

This is not really an extra charge. It is proposed to replace the current city sewerage rates (taxes) which are based, not on usage, but on the value of the property. A $600K house will pay much more in sewerage rates than a $200K apartment.

The water coming in is provided by the Water Corporation (in Western Australia). It is charged out at a sliding scale. The unit cost increases with increased usage. The more you use, the more you pay.

What this proposal would do is base the city sewerage rates on what you actually use. If, instead of pulling the plug on the tub, you scooped out the water and used it on your garden, you would not have to pay sewerage rates on it. It is no longer just going down the drain. Using the water twice when you are experiencing severe water shortages is a good idea. Most toilets here have a dual flush system anyway as a water conservation method - full flush and half flush. I don’t think you’d have to compromise your health and not flush when you need to. The article just said that some people may go so far as to not flush as often to save money.

We already have a hose installed that allows us to dump the washing machine water out onto the lawn. There are other ‘grey water’ systems the plumber can install to reclaim the reusable ‘grey water’ so the only water going into the sewerage system is from the toilets. This is an expensive intial outlay so there is little incentive to do it. If you could save considerably on your sewerage rates, there might be more of these grey water systems installed.

Before I came to Australia, I was told by some Australians I knew that, when it was very dry, they would use one tub of water for the whole family to bathe in, one after another, and then would tip it out on the veggie patch.

A few years ago, we had a water crisis in my town. Our water is supplied by a 600 kilometre pipeline from Mundaring. There had been a problem and it wasn’t coming into our storage dams. They allowed us to get to 2 days supply left before telling us. :eek: We were asked not to use water as much as possible with no water usage outside at all. We were asked not to shower or bathe, not to use our washing machines or dishwashers and to reuse what water we could. This lasted for 7 days, till they were able to solve the problem and refill the dams. Obviously, no one was looking into our showers to see if we were bathing. They were counting on everyone pulling together to overcome the problem.

Years ago, when I first started working in courthouses, I was puzzled by the fact that if you got there first thing in the morning, the restrooms were full of old men who seemed to have no business going on in the courthouse. They would all clear out around 9:30, unless it was a nice day, in which event they would all go loaf on the courthouse benches.

Eventually, I figured it out. They were men who had gone through the depression and who, though they now had flush toilets and all, didn’t want to spend their own money on the little bit of cost there would be to using a toilet full of water. Well, there was the expense of toilet paper too.

So, on a daily basis they would go to the courthouse to, uh, do their business, where they could do it for free.

I trust Australian courthouses have lots of stalls.

Watering lawns uses more water than flushing toilets.
Put the water charge on usage, not sewage.

People are already charged for incoming and outgoing water on city water and sewer systems.

The system proposed is actually more fair because people like me who don’t have the maximum number of occupants in my size home flushing and showering and laundering their clothes won’t have to subsidize larger families by paying a sewage rate based on the size or value of my home.

I would LOVE to only pay for the number of flushes, showers and washer loads that my household actually uses. I was brought up to be frugal with water and electricity long before the “green” issues became popular…

Just so I don’t have to get one of those low-flush toilet tanks. Because that would cause me to double the number of flushes.

Can anyone say public restrooms?!:wink:

This actually could stimulate the economy, so many more people out shopping, eating and …

Well, assuming water isn’t already charged for by actual use (I don’t know if it is, or if it is everywhere in Australia or America) I have no objections at all.

After all, we pay for our electricity and gas in the home, not to mention the petrol in our cars, that way, a lot of us pay all or part of our phone bill or internet that way too. :shrug:

I’d go to the furthest corner of my backyard, dig a slit trench, and never flush the friggin’ thing again.

We’ve always been charged that way here. We pay the water people for the clean water coming in, and the sewage treatment people for the dirty water going out.

I had somehow associated the outgoing water with just the toilet, but it’s everything — fix that leaky faucet, or your bill will go up!

Last summer, my male cat (the one who is ill) had devloped a taste for drinking water directly from the kitchen sink. Because he is sick, and dehydrated, I would open the tap (very small, gentle flow), and let him drink from it. That made my bill go up. :bigyikes: He’s stopped doing that, thankfully (I think the water is too cold at this time of the year – he’s gone back to drinking from the water bowl).

Humanure

[quote=Wiki] A humanure system is easy to install, can be inexpensive, contains no more and possibly less danger of illness then a normal sewage system, does not require water or electricity, and when properly managed does not smell.
Humanure provides many benifits to the enviorment when properly treated. By disposing of feces and urine through composting, the vast amount of nutirents contained in them are returned to the soil. This aids in preventing soil degradation. Human fecal matter and urine has high percentages of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, carbon, and calcium. It is equal or superiour to many fertilizers and manures purchased in garden stores. Furthermore, humanure aids in the conservation of fresh water by avoiding the use of drinking water wich is required for the typical use of a flush toilet. It further prevents the pollution of water by causing the fecal matter to decay into soil before entering a water source. When proplerly managed, there should also be no ground contamination from leachate.
[/quote]

weblife.org/humanure/

And urine can possibly used in small scale aquaculture…

Interesting…

Could all of this be actually more environmentally friendly than a mere flush?

God Bless.

Chris.

hmmm:hmmm: could we be going back to the outhouse!!

Thats sort of how ours is done. They use a water in/water out formula. So, when my elderly parents sprinkler system sprung a leak. They were treated with an $800.00 water bill 1/2 water, 1/2 sewage. never mind that the leak never entered the sewage system.

This sounds like a positive change to me.

The only question I have is who will have to service the meter.:eek:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.