Householders to be charged for each flush of toilet

Published on February 17th, 2009

Toilet of the future.

Householders to be charged for each flush of toilet | PerthNow — We will eventually be taxed for breathing.

HOUSEHOLDERS would be charged for each flush under a radical new toilet tax designed to help beat the drought [in Perth]

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.

36 users responded in " Householders to be charged for each flush of toilet "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 stopher said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:10 am

Usage based system seems fair to me. The people you’re subsidizing might not be too happy though.

# 2 Mr. Fusion said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:12 am

That makes sense to me. Determining sewer charges on the amount of water used will help reduce the amount of water used. Especially during a drought.

# 3 bill said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:20 am

What? you are suppose to flush?

# 4 laxdude said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:20 am

Sorry, but this is CRAP (pun intended). They want to charge your for SEWAGE because of a drought conditions?

If the problem is water usage, then CHARGE for WATER use not for the un-meterable disposal of water and waste.

This is just a case of ‘think of the children’ or ‘kiddie porn’ slight of hand regulation that is used to screw people over.

# 5 Travis said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am

This makes sense to me considering a large chunk of water is flushed down the toilet.

http://drinktap.org/consumerdnn/Default.aspx?tabid=85

If it’s brown, flush it down. If it’s yellow, let it mellow.

# 6 Kanjy said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:34 am

#5, unless you just had asparagus, in which case there there’s nothing to discuss.

# 7 markj1069 said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:39 am

The onerous tax will result in fewer flushes and more suspicious bags in the ditch by the side of the road.

# 8 pedro said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:51 am

#4 Thanks for explaining why #2 is gamed to this proposition

# 9 stopher said, on February 17th, 2009 at 10:01 am

#4 sold me. Seems like applying the charge to water usage would be most accurate which I would think they’re doing already.

# 10 Jimbo said, on February 17th, 2009 at 10:16 am

you mean people don’t pay for the water they use AND the sewage they produce? I thought everybody did that.

If toilet usage (rather than, say, showers, clothes washing and the like) is your big ticket item water-wise, you’re pretty darned frugal already.

# 11 chuck said, on February 17th, 2009 at 10:20 am

I’ll just keep using the sink. I’ll save a fortune.

# 12 US said, on February 17th, 2009 at 10:22 am

I have always paid a sewage bill that is based on the amount of water I use. It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Most water usage will end up going out through the sewer. For the rest (watering grass/garden, washing cars, etc), the sewage company also maintains the storm drains and water ways which are critical to preventing a mess during heavy rain. So I think its a fair trade.

# 13 lakelady said, on February 17th, 2009 at 10:31 am

I don’t know about other areas of the US but I know I am charged for water usage by how much I use. There’s a base rate and then a higher rate for anything above that.

And btw, I recently listened to a public radio program dealing with California’s water issues. Seems that recently they’ve been consulting with Aussies who no longer consider that they’re in a “drought” after ten years but rather that they have a permanently dry climate. Makes a huge difference in policy decisions.

# 14 litlmiss said, on February 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am

Pay per use makes sense to me, but to argue from the equality perspective: it seems that those living in the more affordable homes (who were previously paying less) usually have more people per household. Is it a fair burden to put a pay per use policy that would probably demand more from lower income large households than higher income households that usually have fewer members?

# 15 John Paradox said, on February 17th, 2009 at 11:38 am

PPP

Pay Per Poo

J/P=?

# 16 Steve S said, on February 17th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

Shhh… Don’t let the California State Legislators hear about this!
It has everything they love: new taxes (sorry, my mistake. Taxes are called “Revenue Enhancements” in California-speak), more regulations, potential for non-compliance penalties, etc.
They would make them required in every house in a heartbeat.
In fact, are we sure this wasn’t invented by a California state commission? Its perfect!

# 17 Raff said, on February 17th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

I’ll bet its illegal to have a septic tank and a drain field there isn’t it.

Probably also illegal to go outside.

# 18 chris said, on February 17th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

In the U.S. there is an amazing variation in water rates, residents in Arizona and New Mexico pay up to 10x for water what people in the mid-Atlantic pay.

This sucks, but in LDCs a lack of water means Cholera and Dysentery. It could be worse.

# 19 LDA said, on February 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

The “lack of water” did not seem to hinder the mining boom which uses massive amounts of water or the Sydney Harbour sized dam on a Queensland cotton mine (which sucks water out before it can get down stream) and the 6000 km’s of illegal drainage ditches /canals dug in the last 15-20 years.

We are already charged for water use and sewerage is paid for in council rates.

My 1960’s dictionary defines drought as “a prolonged period without rain”, my current dictionary defines drought as “less than average rain” (which is how it has been defined from the 80’s on). I am sure all reasonable people will see these are drastically different situations.

# 20 LDA said, on February 17th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

#18

Should be Queensland cotton farm (not mine).

# 21 OvenMaster said, on February 17th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

“We will eventually be taxed for breathing.”

1. Or fined for polluting the atmosphere. Don’t forget that the CO2 we exhale is now classed as a pollutant.

2. Heinlein mentioned “air licenses” aboard populated space stations. In at least one of his SF novels (”The Cat Who Walked Through Walls”), if you didn’t pay up, you were sent “dirtside”.

# 22 East Coast A-hole said, on February 17th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

California should follow lead and charge a tax for every fart.

Cali’s going down…

(Seriously, John, how bad is the economy over there?)

# 23 Robart said, on February 17th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

Everyone drink the Kool-Aid and repeat after me: Greater good…. Greater good…. Greater good…. Greater good…….

# 24 Li said, on February 17th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Taxing people based upon their household value is a stupid policy; it does nothing to encourage conservation. As much as I would prefer to see basic per-gallon water charges raised rather than some sort of taxing scheme, this is bound to be more effective and more fair than the previous policy.

# 25 RSweeney said, on February 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

In my area, we have always paid a sewage fee based on water use.

If you want to sprinkle your lawn, you get a separate meter.

# 26 unixchick said, on February 17th, 2009 at 4:56 pm

Reminds me of a monty python skit… guess they will want to tax “thingy” next.

# 27 Glenn E. said, on February 17th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Neat idea. So the single guy, living in a costly mansion and pees in the backyard, because he “eccentric” and is saving on his water bill, NOW gets charged less, than the large poor family living in the trailer park, with eight kids. Yeah, these reassessed tax plans always seem to benefit the rich. And penalize the poor. And who do want to bet lobbied for this? Certainly NOT the poor. Meanwhile the water hogging Country Clubs don’t get penalized for keeping their courses green, during Perth’s drought.

# 28 deowll said, on February 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

Um, I guess just charging them for the amount of water they use would be to simple.

# 29 George said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:05 pm

Pay for usage is SO last century! Make people who don’t use the sewer pay! My county government through corruption and incompetence racked up $3.2 billion in bond debt on a $1 billion sewer project.

One solution? People that aren’t hooked up to the sewer but could be may pay a $30/mo “non-user” fee. People that can’t be hooked up may pay a $20/mo “clean water” fee.

We will pay for -NOT- using the system.
Interested? Look up Jefferson County, Alabama in Wikipedia.

# 30 dcphill said, on February 17th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

That’s a load of crap.
But if we all stopped breathing, think of all
of the CO2 that will be eliminated. That tax is
self defeating.

# 31 pedro said, on February 18th, 2009 at 6:13 am

#30 Breathing in is OK, is the exhaling that should be banned.

# 32 brendal said, on February 18th, 2009 at 10:04 am

I am betting vegetarians have to flush more.

# 33 John C Dvorak said, on February 18th, 2009 at 10:17 am

#4 #8 EXACTLY people should be charged (and they ARE) for water usage, not what the water is used FOR. I cannot understand people finding this acceptable.

# 34 bobbo said, on February 18th, 2009 at 10:28 am

A toilet flush is a burden on the public utility.

A watering of the front lawn is not.

There is a logical and practical additional burden regarding toilets not present in other water use activities.

You can still disagree about a discrete charge, as reasonable people will.

# 35 OvenMaster said, on February 18th, 2009 at 2:58 pm

#34: “A toilet flush is a burden on the public utility.

A watering of the front lawn is not.”

Guess again. My town is looking into fees for runoff from properties, such as soap from washing you car, pet waste, insecticide use, and lawn fertilizer. All go into the storm drain system and allegedly cause environmental harm because they don’t get treated by the sanitary sewer system.

# 36 bobbo said, on February 18th, 2009 at 3:04 pm

#35–oven==watering the front lawn is again different from OVERWATERING the front lawn causing runoff, a type of toilet usage if you will.

Again==there is definitely and factually a difference between the simply receipt of water and what you do with it thereafter==all justifying additional charges as the authority may decide.

Simple economics really.

Amusing how many people can’t think rationally if two sentences contain the same word, there must be a equivalency thereafter no matter what else is being discussed?

Water, water everywhere. Not a drop to drink.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!