Am I missing some aspect of Water Corps’ billing?

[doulos7]

Hi, first time poster here. Just looking for some feedback / a sounding board. Or maybe I’m just here to whinge.

My partner and I are raising a family of five in WA, on a single salary. It probably goes without saying, but we’re pretty budget conscious. The kids are pretty young, so expecting at least a couple more years of this until everyone is in primary school.

That’s just a bit of context. I just want to whinge water corp. Two years ago we made the decision to move to one of the regional mining towns so that I could be home every night with the family (previously fifo mining). Despite being supplied by the mundaring weir/the same water supply base as Perth, this counts as a “class 5” town, meaning the cost per kL is significantly higher. If we’re profligate with our usage (say tier 2 or higher), it will cost us 4-5x more per kL than someone in Perth.

The problem (as I see it) is that the tier system is based on the residence as a whole as opposed to the number of individuals living at the residence. We try our hardest to be frugal (installed a rain tank right after buying the place to try to maintain a garden, kids take baths/showers together, actually try to avoid the evaporative system in summer)… but there’s only so much you can do with growing kids if you don’t want mold to start growing behind their ears.

So what gives? This system seems disproportionately in favour of singles or couples living in an apartment “residence”, while large (or multigenerational) families end up paying a premium and floating the smaller household. This is despite these families using the same or LESS water on a per person basis. As you can imagine, living in a class 5 town where, invariably we move into tier 2 and above… it’s frustrating knowing we’re then paying 2-5x more than a similar family in Perth.

Why is the billing approach based around a per residency rather than per resident metric? With the rising cost of living, it just feels like a remarkably unfair extra squeeze on our family. Are there any tricks around this? Am I missing something obvious about this billing approach, or is it as unfair as it feels? For the decade or so that I was a single fifo miner living in an apartment, I would have been more than happy to pay my ‘fair share’ to ensure some working family didn’t have to pay DOUBLE to wash nappies.

Sorry if that tipped over the edge into rant territory. Any advice is appreciated (or hell, tell me why I’m wrong and don’t understand the way things are set up )

 

[milandulovic]

@doulos7 So you want singles , who would use a fraction of what your family uses, to prop the system up so they can pay more to subsidise your families usage ?

 

[doulos7]

@milandulovic Not at all. I want usage tiers calculated on a per person basis rather than per residence. This would continue to discourage overconsumption while also ensuring that when a family adds another child… or grandma and grandpa move in, you’re not suddenly being billed 3x more for THEIR consumption simply because you’re all stuck on this residence tier system and you tip into a higher tier as the household shifts to a higher than average number of consumers at the address.

I’m saying people in smaller than average households are already being undercharged for their usage (not to mention being trained to think that their usage is normal) while statistically above average households are being charged twice as much for the same litre (once you get into the consumption of that 4th or 5th person) despite everyone at the house using less on a per capita basis. Effectively, larger households are already paying more than their fair share on a per person basis which is underwriting the smaller household costs.

 

[7ebenezer7]

@doulos7 While you are technically correct you are paying 2-3x more for USAGE isn’t usage still a fraction of the bill and you are still being charged the same for sewerage, service fees and drainage?

I know when I get my bill in Perth only about $20 of it is actual usage with 3 people

 

[doulos7]

@7ebenezer7 Wow, how much water are you using? Our water service fee is 40-50 per bill, and usage is in the hundreds. We try to keep consumption to 500l per day and often struggle with that (2 loads of dishes and 1-2 loads of laundry already puts us around 300-400l before even taking a shower or flushing a toilet for example).

 

[theprayerpeople]

@doulos7 See your point but How to regulate, monitor or enforce how many people in the home? It has to be enforceable. Self declaration? Everybody says there’s 10 at home.

 

[milandulovic]

@theprayerpeople Exactly. You have 3 options
1. Have less kids
2. Have your missus get a job
3. Use less water

 

[thewayofholiness]

@doulos7 The answer is that Perth has a limited supply of water and they want to penalise ppl who use more. And once you go rural, you are also “penalised” because they lose economies of scale and the distance also increases costs.

The reason they do it by household instead of by person is that it’s simple. Sorry you are having issues, I wouldn’t mind if households under a certain income got a discount or assistance.

 

[doulos7]

@thewayofholiness I appreciate the response. I suppose my purpose in writing this (other than venting a bit) was on the off chance there were some alternative I wasn’t aware of. I only just became aware of synergy’s mid-day saver plan a year ago for example (a plan where they charge about half for supply from 9am-3pm, but then double it when the average person gets home from work)… we’ve been saving about 30% on our power bill since switching over and changing our habits slightly. Thanks!

 

[cedd660]

@doulos7 I mean - water saving shower heads etc. You've mentioned a rain tank so I'm sure you're on top of that. I do a bucket in the shower to water rhe gardens. A grey water system may be worth it?

I've never heard of a time of day or other discount for water. Possibly you could get a rebate for more energy/ water efficient appliances?

If you get any family centrelink benefits you may be eligible for a concession water (and energy) rate?

 

[doulos7]

@cedd660 Appreciate the ideas, thank you. I might actually start with that bucket thing

 

[polygon]

@doulos7 sorry dont understand your post

you mean, you pay a fixed amount per house, regardless of usage?

 

[doulos7]

@polygon I thought this was the same in every state. The water supplier increases the cost of water based on usage in an effort to reduce overall consumption (if you use 150kL in a year, it costs X per kL, if you go over that, it costs 30% more, if you go over the next consumption tier, more again). I just don’t understand why it’s on a per household basis rather than per person living in the household. A household of 1-3 will OBVIOUSLY use less water than 3+, so the larger households are paying 2-5 times more for the same amount of water per person. Basically seems like a hidden tax on large families or multigenerational households

 

[lone]

@doulos7 In Victoria, there may be a more than 1 step, but as a family of five with a garden, we never get to the next step.

As for 'why' because it's trivial to count house connections. It's not trivial to confirm how many people dwell somewhere.

 

[congtycautruc]

@doulos7 Fairness aside I'm not sure of the practicality of your system, would I be able to claim extra people live there and use lots of water? Do children count as a whole person or half, or more if washing nappies? If it's an honour system it would get rorted pretty quickly

 

[doulos7]

@congtycautruc Fair point. I imagine it would be nice if they had alternate “plans” for larger households, wherein the household can provide evidence of dependents or people living in the house using official ID / proof of address, and then the tier levels are recalculated to represent something which is fairer on a per-person basis.

While your point re: diapers and “half person” would have made sense to me before children, it’s actually the opposite. The vast majority of household water usage doesn’t go to drinking or occasional short showers. Keeping little people alive and clean is far more resource intensive than I had ever imagined. We mop the floors about five times more than we did before children. I used to run the washing machine once or twice per week for my clothing; now we have multiple loads per day to deal with messy eaters or playing in the dirt or throw up or night time accidents, etc. don’t even get me started on the washable vs disposable diaper debate . Likewise, a child’s plate takes up, if anything more space in a dishwasher, forcing more runs. Kids are a black hole of water consumption if you wish to maintain normal societal standards of cleanliness and hygiene. I would pretty stridently argue against a child under 10 being counted as a “half person” under such a context. Sorry, probably diving a bit too deep in that subject, but it took me by surprise after our first!

 

[cedd660]

@doulos7 Just add it to the kids bill, itemise it to reduce the inheritance

 

[doulos7]

@cedd660 this is the answer, thank you!

 

[extazyti]

@doulos7 Not gonna lie, this sounds like first world problems. Woe is me having to pay a high bill for the increased expenditure it is to have fresh water supply where water isn't usually abundant.

 

[doulos7]

@extazyti The complaint was that the system is set up in such a way that an average household has, say, 3 people, and is using the water of 3 people, and is asked to pay for the consumption of 3. Larger households can have 5, use the water of 5, and be asked to pay the equivalent usage for 10. That seems like a punishment tax for large households, and has nothing to do with “first world problems” as you put it. Frankly seems a bit of an off comment considering the original catchment and infrastructure were designed and put in place about a hundred years ago by blokes with horses and steam engines to support a population twice the size of today’s.