The article title is a little disingenuous. The article itself already notes that this is practiced in the U.S. In the Austin area, the city bases wastewater usage for the entire year upon an audited water usage for 3 months of the year.
What is strange is Australia's method of tying wastewater volume to the perceived value of the home. These are at best remotely related. Moreover, for most homes irrigation is one of the largest uses of water (40%-70%). So the water is consumed in greater quantities by landscaping rather than by the inhabitants of the home. Landscaping irrigation also reflects water that will not be fed back into the wastewater system and thus it will go unnoticed. Perhaps a better measure would be the actual water consumption or maybe the difference between the actual water consumption and what is being returned via the wastewater return system.
1 comment:
The article title is a little disingenuous. The article itself already notes that this is practiced in the U.S. In the Austin area, the city bases wastewater usage for the entire year upon an audited water usage for 3 months of the year.
What is strange is Australia's method of tying wastewater volume to the perceived value of the home. These are at best remotely related. Moreover, for most homes irrigation is one of the largest uses of water (40%-70%). So the water is consumed in greater quantities by landscaping rather than by the inhabitants of the home. Landscaping irrigation also reflects water that will not be fed back into the wastewater system and thus it will go unnoticed. Perhaps a better measure would be the actual water consumption or maybe the difference between the actual water consumption and what is being returned via the wastewater return system.
Post a Comment