426 Report S.A.A. Advancement of Science, 



Meter Rent. 



The chief argument against metering all service pipes is the high 

 cost which the system involves. Table V. gives the annual charges 

 on a positive meter for domestic use, and shows that the customer 

 will have to pay about 3/- per month for knowing how much water 

 he uses compared with his neighbour. If the correct rent for an 

 inferential meter, in place of a positive one is worked out, it will be 

 found to be not much less. The first cost will be lower, but 

 the maintenance and depreciation will be higher. These figures 

 may appear high, but the Rand Water Board's charges are much 

 higher in proportion, amounting annually to over 60 per cent, of the 

 meter cost. The question is, could not the Engineer devise a more 

 economical method for distributing the water? 



In some towns the customer is charged this meter rent, and as it 

 is constant for a large consumer or a small, it falls heavier on the 

 latter. Some towns, such as Johannesburg, put it into maintenance, 

 and the customers are only charged for the water they use. This is 

 more just to the consumer, since the " life " of a meter depends 

 rather on the amount of work it does than on the number of years 

 it is at work. 



It is true that there are few commodities which are not sold by 

 the quantity. Though statistics of cost, in the case of water, are 

 generally worked out per 1000 gallons, it is manifest that the quantity 

 is not the only item that controls the cost. With the exception of 

 water-rights and filtration, almost all the expenses in w\aterworks are 

 for transport. The customer pays not so much for the water as for 

 the convenience of having it brought to his house. The cost of the 

 water at the intake is generally a small percentage of its cost at 

 the consumer's tap. The reservoirs, the pipes, the valves, the pumps- 

 are all to regulate the transport of the water just as much as the 

 sidings, the lines, the stations, and the locomotives are in the case 

 of a railway. On a railway one pays for goods per ton per mile, 

 and would it be unreasonable to pay for water per 1000 gallons 

 per mile? Some consumers draw their supply much nearer the 

 intake than others, and so make use of a correspondingly less 

 extent of piping, but they receive no consideration for this. It is a 

 matter of policy to make no difference in charge for the distonce 

 the water is brought, and so the Rand Water Board has a uniform 

 rate over its district, though more profit is made off some consumers 

 than others. The Metropolitan Water Board has not yet brought 

 in a uniform tariff for the whole district, and the old company's rates 

 still hold. 



In a gravitation scheme one can see that the expenses will not 

 necessarily increase in the same ratio as the quantity drawn. But 

 figures show, that even where every drop is pumped, sometimes 

 pumped twice, the increased cost of pumping by itself is by no means 

 in proportion to the increased quantity lifted. Even tlie coal bill 

 does not increase at the same rate as the quantity of water pumped 



