# water bills.



## ashby corner (Jun 15, 2009)

have a not-so-funny story. HERe's the short version.

I had a toilet (or as Archie Bunker pronounced it "terlet") that's been running for close to 2 years. Tried fixing it, it was much quieter, but, never called a plumber.

I got a call from the water commission "dude, you're getting a huge bill, you might want to look into it". I knew I was wasting a bit per month, but not what it ended up at.

long story short, bill was for ~1400. Ignoring the terlet literally made me flush more than a grand.

Ouch.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

What was the cause? How could you not know about this?

Easy solution to save terlet water: put a brick, rock or bag of marbles in the tank. It will displace some of the water without affecting any of the other performance.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Also there should be a valve behind the toilet, closer to the floor. Turn the water valve off until you can get the toilet fixed.

I doubt a plumber would have charged you $1400 to fix it.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

ashby corner said:


> ...
> I had a toilet (or as Archie Bunker pronounced it "terlet") that's been running for close to 2 years. Tried fixing it, it was much quieter, but, never called a plumber.
> 
> I got a call from the water commission "dude, you're getting a huge bill, you might want to look into it". I knew I was wasting a bit per month, but not what it ended up at.
> ...


This is also a problem with the Water Commission not regularly measuring and billing for actual use, instead of using inaccurate "guesstimates". They should not have allowed a 2-year backlog of payments to build up. (We have the same problem in our city with the Hydro commission - 6 years after municipal integration they still haven't figured out a way to do annual reconciliations for customers who are on a constant-billing plan.) Write to your City Councillor and customer relations at the utilty and see if you can get a break on the bill. We need a consumer protection bill that tells utilities that if they don't reconcile their billing at least (annually? semiannualy? quarterly? as apprpriate) they are out of luck.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> This is also a problem with the Water Commission not regularly measuring and billing for actual use, instead of using inaccurate "guesstimates". They should not have allowed a 2-year backlog of payments to build up. (We have the same problem in our city with the Hydro commission - 6 years after municipal integration they still haven't figured out a way to do annual reconciliations for customers who are on a constant-billing plan.) Write to your City Councillor and customer relations at the utilty and see if you can get a break on the bill. We need a consumer protection bill that tells utilities that if they don't reconcile their billing at least (annually? semiannualy? quarterly? as apprpriate) they are out of luck.


Weird ... both cities I've paid water (or Hydro for that matter) bills read the meter every second month. If the "guesstimates" on the other months were bad or annoying, the homeowner could read it and phone the reading in for the other months.

The one time I ran into similar was when the meter itself was broken. I and the water commission followed up the same week. The bill ended up being for six month but since the meter read zero usage, I didn't mind the deferred bill.


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

A new toilet with installation would have cost less than half of that. Ouch!

New low-flow toilets use less than 4 L per flush. I think displacing a litre or so of that might actually have some impact on its performance. Pick a dual-flush toilet if you want to save water.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

I new toilet would have cost 150 dollars, and installation is a breeze. It's too bad, but that's an insane bill! There should be something you can do about that.


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2011)

ashby corner said:


> I got a call from the water commission "dude, you're getting a huge bill, you might want to look into it". I knew I was wasting a bit per month, but not what it ended up at. long story short, bill was for ~1400. Ignoring the terlet literally made me flush more than a grand.


Here's an idea ... if you're near a water supply, simply rent a high pressure pump, and pump the equivalent that you used back into the system and send the city a bill ... geez, if the wind/solar people can do it, why not the water people


----------



## Kim (Jan 10, 2011)

It might be worth it to do some investigating and make sure that there is not another reason for the super high usage. You would be upset if you were to replace the toilet and then find out there is a leak in the pipes somewhere else.


----------



## LondonHomes (Dec 29, 2010)

rikk said:


> here's an idea ... If you're near a water supply, simply rent a high pressure pump, and pump the equivalent that you used back into the system and send the city a bill ... Geez, if the wind/solar people can do it, why not the water people :d


lol!


----------



## Dana (Nov 17, 2009)

This past summer we received a water bill for $500 for one of our rental properties. Water is billed quarterly and this particular bill is usually $120-$130. I phoned the utility and they talked me through how to do a diagnostic on the meter to make sure it is working and it was. 

When I mentioned this to my husband he told me that when the previous tenants vacated (June) he went in to fix it up and fixed a leaky toilet. Sure enough, we have not had an outrageous bill since. Toilets can be expensive.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

andrewf said:


> A new toilet with installation would have cost less than half of that. Ouch!
> 
> New low-flow toilets use less than 4 L per flush.


I recently got a Toto Eco Promenade toilet for our downstairs bathroom that uses 4.8 liters per flush; it's amazing, the best toilet I've ever had. Powerful flush, virtually uncloggable. It was expensive but worth it.

The new generation of water-efficient toilets is totally different from the anemic low-flow toilets of a decade or so ago that you had to flush twice because they were so ineffective. One easy way to find a good brand is to search U.S. EPA's WaterSense site; most of the same models are available in Canada even though we don't have the WaterSense label up here:

http://www.epa.gov/WaterSense/product_search.html


----------



## Brian Weatherdon CFP (Jan 18, 2011)

Hi Ashby and thanks all for adding some smiles & laughter. Royal, the brick won't work because it's the flow-through that's costing $; brick or other displacement won't effect that. For $1400 there's a Japanese model with enough fixings to appease the tush....  I agree about reaching city councilor -- a good word there could ease the itch and pain.


----------



## ashby corner (Jun 15, 2009)

I was able to isolate the problem to a single terlet. I knew which one it was.

It had been 'running' for a long time.

The bit of comedy was several months ago, I called them to say "why are your estimates always so LOW? the do an actual every second month.

Usage would look like this (rough numbers, not remembering the unit of measure):

actual: 120
estimated: 40
Actual: 110
Estimate: 30

"when I USE 120, why would the next estimate be 40" the response:

"I don't know".

I am going to pay the bill. The terlet is now turned off except when being used. Trying to find a plumber.

But it ain't over. I am going to make the water commission feel some sort of shame over this, as it is a bit ridiculous.

I'm a big boy, nobody was killed, nobody is sick. It's just a disappointment more than anything. And a VERY expensive lesson.

Do y'all realize the new TV I could have had for 1374???


----------



## Brian Weatherdon CFP (Jan 18, 2011)

ashby corner said:


> .......new TV I could have had for 1374???


Hah, then you're talking electricity costs! That's even less humourous!


----------



## Sustainable PF (Nov 5, 2010)

ashby corner said:


> I was able to isolate the problem to a single terlet. I knew which one it was.
> 
> It had been 'running' for a long time.


If you are billed for water and your toilet has been running this long I don't see why you are surprised. Yes, the utility company should have been on top of this but the amount of water you've wasted is a shame and you really should think about the places in the world that can't get any clean water while you allowed water to just run into waste systems for months on end. You wouldn't turn your shower on (cold) and leave it running - why on earth didn't you get this fixed?

Leave your oven on, pay the bill. Leave the heat running during the day, pay the bill. Nothing different here. Neglect isn't an excuse.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Sustainable PF said:


> If you are billed for water and your toilet has been running this long I don't see why you are surprised. Yes, the utility company should have been on top of this but the amount of water you've wasted is a shame and you really should think about the places in the world that can't get any clean water while you allowed water to just run into waste systems for months on end. You wouldn't turn your shower on (cold) and leave it running - why on earth didn't you get this fixed?
> 
> Leave your oven on, pay the bill. Leave the heat running during the day, pay the bill. Nothing different here. Neglect isn't an excuse.


Oh - take a Valium. This was a rental property, so OP wasn't on the premises to notice that the toilet was running all the time. Who actually pays attention to the "Consumption" figure on the water bill? If the amount invoiced stays the same, you have no reason to notice that it does not reflect your consumption. And they didn't do a reconciliation for 2 years. So I still say the water commission's billing practice is partially at fault here.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

IMHO, the whole "equal billing" schemes from the utility companies is insanity.
It doesn't help the consumer at all.
It's all for the benefit of the utility company.
It ensures that they can set up pre-authorized direct debit from your bank accounts and keep milking you for a pre-set amount each month, regardless of your consumption.
And it's not like you are actual paying fixed bills...once a year or twice a year, they "adjust" everything and send you one giant bill for all the differences.

There was a news story a few months ago about a Toronto man who got an $1,800 bill for electricity from Toronto Hydro.

It doesn't matter if the property is owned or rented out or whatever.
The owner should never have agreed for equal billing.
If the tenant is supposed to pay the utilities, they should pay the actuals every month.
This problem would have been noticed a long time ago.

Even worse is equal billing by cell phone companies.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> It ensures that they can set up pre-authorized direct debit from your bank accounts and keep milking you for a pre-set amount each month...


I completely agree. I stay well away from ANY company that demands this type of access to my bank account. I think it is very presumptuous of them and has nothing to do with making things better for me. It is more convenient sure..._for them_.

Fundamentally, as consumers we should be paying for the things we consume. The companies we buy from should not expect to simply _take_ the money.

Say NO to pre-authorized debits.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Speaking of water bills....attachment with the latest water bill is that the rates are going up by 4.3%
I'm sure this is an province wide change, so many of you folks must've got the note too?

Ours is averaging about $50 a month, so that'd mean an extra $2.25 a month, including the HST top-up.
I think the rate increase has been averaging 4+ % for the last several years.


----------



## I'm Howard (Oct 13, 2010)

Florida , in this area, will give yo up to a $100 Cash, if you replace your toilet with a low flow.

Years ago, in Australia, I saw a toilet that had two flushes, one for liquid only, the other, which used more water, when solids were involved.

I do not understand why Municipalities don't insist that all new construction have these toilets, the water savings would be tremendous.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I hope these things don't suck as badly as water saver shower heads. I hate those things. Not enough water comes out. I want lots of pressure and water to come out when I'm taking a shower. A slower flow just means I stand there for longer anyway. I think more information is needed from someone who actually has one of these toilets. I want to hear the whole story, not just the greenie rhetoric from those promoting these.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I actually work in a building that has all of these toilets, and the new ones are awesome! There are some better than others, so don't go for the cheapest one, as it does save water, but then you have to flush twice, which defeats the purpose.

If you don't want to buy the new toilet and have it installed, there is actually a really cheap device (about $30) that you can attach to your toilet, that allows for the 2 types of flush. I found that it was still better than the regular one. I did still find it annoying as it didn't always seem to work. Could have been the installation though.

In terms of the dual flush toilet, the new ones out there are pretty good. The cheapest ones (about $150) still work, but I find they don't have the power. We're planning on replacing our toilets. There's rebates in most cities that I know. Ours is $50/ toilet. 

The savings are supposed to work out to about $7/month/toilet based on going from an older toilder (13+ gallons or whatever the measure) to the new ones. That's based on average use in my city.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> I hope these things don't suck as badly as water saver shower heads. I hate those things. Not enough water comes out. I want lots of pressure and water to come out when I'm taking a shower. A slower flow just means I stand there for longer anyway. I think more information is needed from someone who actually has one of these toilets. I want to hear the whole story, not just the greenie rhetoric from those promoting these.


One alternative is to have a regular-flow shower, but have an instant push-button on/off switch. Some call this a 'sailor shower' because it's been used to conserve water on ships. Essentially you turn the shower on to get wet, turn it off and lather up/shampoo, then turn water back on to rinse. Probably about half the time you're in the shower you probably don't need the water to be running.

It's an idea that doesn't involve a lot of compromise or expensive hardware.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I have a dual flush toilet, which I installed myself last year. 

My original toilet often had to be flushed several times to flush. It was about 20 years old. I snaked it quite a few times and nothing was stuck. When I removed it I discovered that the reason it didn't work was that over the years calcified material had deposited along the neck and drain of the toilet restricting the flow. 

Now for the new toilet I quite like it, except for one problem. The part of the toilet that holds water is extremely small so the drop zone is very small about 5 inches by 4 inches. The water is not powerful enough to scrape away any solids so you the toilet owner get to "wipe" the bowl after you're finished. 

Obviously the bowl of the toilet is a normal size but you don't get to observe this problem until there is water in the bowl. The level of the water is low in the bowl. 

Not sure anyone else has noticed this problem or if it is limited to my particular model


----------



## Dana (Nov 17, 2009)

We are very happy with our dual flush toilets. We have three that we installed within the last 2 years as part of the energy-retrofit-scheme where you get money back for installing them (I think we got $50 per toilet). I know in Ontario; York, Peel, Halton regions were offering a rebate if you install a dual flush toilet. I don't know if these rebates are still available. 

These newer toilets are not the low flush horrors from 15 years ago, they are effective and have good water pressure.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

the-royal-mail said:


> I hope these things don't suck as badly as water saver shower heads. I hate those things. Not enough water comes out. I want lots of pressure and water to come out when I'm taking a shower.


You must not have tried the same low-flow shower heads I use -- I have an ultra-low-flow shower head that I bought about 15 years ago, rated to California standards, and it provides the strongest shower I've ever experienced -- plenty of pressure, if anything it can be too much! I do hear that women with long hair find it takes longer to wash out shampoo with a low-flow showerhead, but otherwise I've never heard any complaints about the amount of water coming out.


----------

