water department, secondary meter for pool, etc? (massachusetts)

GW

I'm curious, are there some ins and outs with state law and water metering? My local water dept says they will not separate the sewer fees from the water fees (sewer is more $). Seems odd to me, thanks for any comments

Gary

Jamie Hall

I'm not sure about State law -- MA or elsewhere -- but a lot of water and sewer departments are set up that way (if they meter at all, but that's another matter). It's lazy. The idea is that water use is a useful surrogate for wastewater volume.

Not saying it's a good way to do things, but...

JeffM

Here in Manchester NH, you can get what's called a "deduct meter" from the water dept. and install it for your irrigation/pool piping. Our water and sewer bills are tied, but if you have a deduct meter they will subtract that amount of water when calculating your sewer charge (since that water is assumed to stay out of the sewer system). Our water rates here are low enough that it only makes sense if you have a lot of irrigation or a pool.

Brewbeer

Massachusetts has some areas in the state that during extended periods of hot dry weather, run low of water that is available for the public water supply system. In order to prevent those communities from running out of water, and to protect the long term viability of public water sources from over use, the state has set a conservation goal of 65 gallons per person per day for all public water supply users. Municipalities must either meet this target or show progress toward achieving it in order to stay in compliance with the conservation standards established under state rules implemented by the MassDEP.

Basically, it's a tool to encourage people to conserve water, it doesn't have anything to do with municipal water departments being lazy.

My town in western Mass that uses water from the Springfield system doesn't permit these point of use "deduct" meters, but they will allow you to install a well to irrigate your yard.

GW

thanks for the comments. just trying to fill a hockey rink, may $200 worth of water, not a huge matter. Just seems like a joke, paying for sewer when it's not going to the sewer. Being a plumber i could easily hook something up and be a good citizen. I'll just pay the freight

Gary

ChrisJ

Brewbeer said:

Massachusetts has some areas in the state that during extended periods of hot dry weather, run low of water that is available for the public water supply system. In order to prevent those communities from running out of water, and to protect the long term viability of public water sources from over use, the state has set a conservation goal of 65 gallons per person per day for all public water supply users. Municipalities must either meet this target or show progress toward achieving it in order to stay in compliance with the conservation standards established under state rules implemented by the MassDEP.

Basically, it's a tool to encourage people to conserve water, it doesn't have anything to do with municipal water departments being lazy.

My town in western Mass that uses water from the Springfield system doesn't permit these point of use "deduct" meters, but they will allow you to install a well to irrigate your yard.

Ok,
And what about all of the towns throughout the US that do it, that do not have water problems?

Seems like two separate subjects to me. I'm with Jamie, it's a lazy way to do it.


Our town does a separate sewer bill so our water bill doesn't effect it but many places in NJ combine the two.

Jamie Hall

The problem with separate sewer and water bills is that while the latter is easy enough to calculate (in principle), the former isn't.

The water bill should -- from an engineering standpoint -- be calculated on the basis of what the actual full cost of supplying the water is. Maintenance and acquisition of the land, reservoirs, wells, treatment facilities, pipes, cost of running them (salaries, supplies, etc.). Straightforward accounting. Which is not how it is usually done -- there is almost always a political agenda involved, either to restrict water use or provide free or cheap water for residences (or industries!) or whatever.

The result, no surprise, is an appalling hodgepodge of ways of charging for water, most of which bear no relation to the actual cost.

Sewerage is even worse. First place, it's remarkably hard to measure accurately. More important, the real cost of treating wastewater is related not only to volume, but the strength and character of the waste -- and how do you allot that to an individual customer?

I used the term "lazy" before, and probably shouldn't have. From a practical standpoint, there is much to be said for basing the charge on the volume used, which can be measured very easily.

In almost all communities of which I am aware, however, politics and convention trump reality, and the water supply and wastewater facilities are funded on the basis of who knows what special interests or conventions.

Mark Eatherton

In Denver, they sewage is treated by a separate entity from the water supply. If you can prove that water use does not make its way back into the sanitary sewer, they will allow a deduct meter, but it is a tough job. Cooling towers for example, sure there is evaporative loss, but there is also dilution to maintain a certain cycle of concentration on the circulating water, and all of that water ends up back in the sanitary sewer.Irrigation, no problem. Swimming pools, required to backwash into the sanitary sewer, a problem.

All utilities have an unaccountable loss factor (unseen underground leaks). I suspect the main reason they won't allow deducts is because their loss factor is high and out of their control, and instead of implementing an active leak detection/repair program, it is easier to bilk the system users to cover their system problems...

There ought to be a law, but sadly, other than dictating water quality and pipe standards (AWWA), there are none that establish standards of operation and leak detection programs.

The technology is sound, literally and physically. I have an associate who does leak detection for municipalities. He has a leak correlator that has two sensing/sending units and one correlator. He sets one sensor on a fire hydrant on one end of a block, and the other on another hydrant on the other end of the block, and then sits in a dark van, watching the screen and can tell the district to within 1 foot of where the leak is, and how big it is. He is busy year round and can't find enough help to keep up with the work. Denver has its own leak detection crew.

Good luck in your venture Gee Dub.

ME

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

The problem with separate sewer and water bills is that while the latter is easy enough to calculate (in principle), the former isn't.

The water bill should -- from an engineering standpoint -- be calculated on the basis of what the actual full cost of supplying the water is. Maintenance and acquisition of the land, reservoirs, wells, treatment facilities, pipes, cost of running them (salaries, supplies, etc.). Straightforward accounting. Which is not how it is usually done -- there is almost always a political agenda involved, either to restrict water use or provide free or cheap water for residences (or industries!) or whatever.

The result, no surprise, is an appalling hodgepodge of ways of charging for water, most of which bear no relation to the actual cost.

Sewerage is even worse. First place, it's remarkably hard to measure accurately. More important, the real cost of treating wastewater is related not only to volume, but the strength and character of the waste -- and how do you allot that to an individual customer?

I used the term "lazy" before, and probably shouldn't have. From a practical standpoint, there is much to be said for basing the charge on the volume used, which can be measured very easily.

In almost all communities of which I am aware, however, politics and convention trump reality, and the water supply and wastewater facilities are funded on the basis of who knows what special interests or conventions.

Ours is $52 a month.
Is it worth paying them $52 a month to get rid of that waste? Absolutely!

I don't want to deal with the waste, and this method is much better than having my own septic system which is far from free.

I can also fill a pool, water a lawn etc without it changing.

FranklinD

Here in NW WI, if you call the city (they do our sewage billing using meter data from the local utility), they will deduct from the charge...but they have to come see and measure whatever is being filled. Lots of hockey rinks up here ;-)

Brewbeer

@GW, you should contact the folks you know in the city and ask about getting a permit to fill your rink from a fire hydrant, it might be less costly to do it that way.

pecmsg

GW said:

thanks for the comments. just trying to fill a hockey rink, may $200 worth of water, not a huge matter. Just seems like a joke, paying for sewer when it's not going to the sewer. Being a plumber i could easily hook something up and be a good citizen. I'll just pay the freight

Gary

So where does the water go when you melt it?

ChrisJ

pecmsg said:

GW said:

thanks for the comments. just trying to fill a hockey rink, may $200 worth of water, not a huge matter. Just seems like a joke, paying for sewer when it's not going to the sewer. Being a plumber i could easily hook something up and be a good citizen. I'll just pay the freight

Gary

So where does the water go when you melt it?

I'd assume the ground and or storm drains.

Brewbeer

ChrisJ said:

And what about all of the towns throughout the US that do it, that do not have water problems?

The 65 gallons per person per day conservation goal only applies to persons in Massachusetts served by public water systems. Other communities throughout the US may not have the same public water supply challenges that Massachusetts has, so they have flexibility to do things differently.

Brewbeer

Mark Eatherton said:

All utilities have an unaccountable loss factor (unseen underground leaks). I suspect the main reason they won't allow deducts is because their loss factor is high and out of their control, and instead of implementing an active leak detection/repair program, it is easier to bilk the system users to cover their system problems...

There ought to be a law, but sadly, other than dictating water quality and pipe standards (AWWA), there are none that establish standards of operation and leak detection programs.
ME

Massachusetts has a very comprehensive set of requirements regarding leaks and leak monitoring programs for all public water supply systems. It's an especially large problem for many communities since some public water supply systems contain components that are literally hundreds of years old.

GW

pecmsg said:

GW said:

thanks for the comments. just trying to fill a hockey rink, may $200 worth of water, not a huge matter. Just seems like a joke, paying for sewer when it's not going to the sewer. Being a plumber i could easily hook something up and be a good citizen. I'll just pay the freight

Gary

So where does the water go when you melt it?

it melts, and doesn't go to the sewer.

edit- I'm 300 feet from the road

ChrisJ

Brewbeer said:

ChrisJ said:

And what about all of the towns throughout the US that do it, that do not have water problems?

The 65 gallons per person per day conservation goal only applies to persons in Massachusetts served by public water systems. Other communities throughout the US may not have the same public water supply challenges that Massachusetts has, so they have flexibility to do things differently.

And yet, they are doing it the same way and have been for a long time.

That was my point.

Jamie Hall

Accounting for leaks in a water supply system is a big deal, and most larger operations have a pretty good idea how much they are losing -- and even a pretty decent idea as to where. Getting the money to fix them, now... not so much. It's hard to get the suits who dole out the cash to fix anything short of a flat out geyser. Been there, done that.

Same thing for infiltration into sewers.

BobC

In the last decade they have inspected all the sewers using cameras to find illegal hookups and cross connections to stormwater drains of the sewers in my area. This was to reduce the volume the wastewater treatment plant has to handle and to prevent any sewage from getting into the stormwater outfalls that feed into the bay.

The water around here ain't cheap but the quality is very good, worth the money IMHO.

Bob

Gordy

GW said:

I'm curious, are there some ins and outs with state law and water metering? My local water dept says they will not separate the sewer fees from the water fees (sewer is more $). Seems odd to me, thanks for any comments

Gary

They won't seperate here in Illinois. At least in my town. They use to if you called, and told them you were filling a pool.

Actually they now have remote monitoring. I'll get a call when I top my pool off in the spring. That day or the next.

Charlie from wmass

Sewerage leaving a structure is not just the water used but also everything that is added to that water. Urine, soap, feces, etc. I prefer the indirect method of measuring it instead of the issues of maintaining sewage meters.

Paul48

Don't you know any firemen? They have to flush the hydrants anyway, and maybe their kids would like to skate too. Three hundred feet is nothing.

GW

I don't know any unfortunately, the chief says hello to me at the coffee shop, that's all I have!

Paul48

Introduce yourself......You're not as far from getting that rink filled as you might think. Ask him his name, tell him yours, and what you do. Give him a card. I'm sure he has a heating system in his home. Tell him your situation, if it doesn't happen...you're no worse off than you are now.

Charlie from wmass

Closed mouth doesn't get fed.

Paul48

Just a handshake away from knowing a fireman. A chief, at that.

GW

good points, it's rare that i bump into him. I didn't know what i didn't know, now I know. Thanks, Gary