I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

On 10/9/2016 5:17 AM, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

In California where the politicians refuse to spend any money on added
water capacity and the environuts seem to think we can save water by
decreasing our consumption to zero, water bills often have tiered rates.
If you use a thimble of water per day the rate is reasonable, if you
use a cup a day you get knocked to a higher rate. There are often
several tiers.

When this sort of thing has happened as a one time occurrence, the water
companies will review your request for a bill reduction and bill you for
all your water use in the lowest tier. You are still ;paying for all
your water, but not at the higher tier rates.

On 10/09/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:
When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.


Was there a maximum water usage clause in the rental agreement?

On 10/9/2016 7:51 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On

snip
In California where the politicians refuse to spend any money on added
water capacity and the environuts seem to think we can save water by
decreasing our consumption to zero, water bills often have tiered rates.
If you use a thimble of water per day the rate is reasonable, if you
use a cup a day you get knocked to a higher rate. There are often
several tiers.

When this sort of thing has happened as a one time occurrence, the water
companies will review your request for a bill reduction and bill you for
all your water use in the lowest tier. You are still ;paying for all
your water, but not at the higher tier rates.







I doubt things here in Wisconsin are the same but I told them to talk to
a supervisor at the water utility

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500
philo wrote:

I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe
$25 a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last
bill was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a
leaking toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the
$1600 bill seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty
fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the
security deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

If they kicked out the tenant for that..they will loose big.
Decision on where you chose to live has consequences

On 10/9/2016 7:54 AM, HeyBob wrote:
On 10/09/2016 12:17 PM, philo wrote:
When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the
security deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.


Was there a maximum water usage clause in the rental agreement?


No, but I bet there will be for the next tenant!

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 8:17:53 AM UTC-4, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

The water bill for this "toilet leak" incident was probably insignificant compared to rest of the cost:

A young couple bought the house across the street from mine. They stayed in their apartment
while they did some renovations. On the Thursday before Labor Day the bathroom contractor
installed a new toilet in the upstairs bathroom. They locked up the house and left town for the
long weekend.

Nobody knows exactly when the fill hose popped off the bottom of the toilet, but when they
stopped by the house on Monday afternoon, the water was running out the back door. Parts
of the hardwood floors on the first and second floors had to be replaced, all the kitchen
cabinets (less than 4 years old) had to be replaced, drywall and insulation R&R, the list
goes on and on. Pumps for the water in the basement, dehumidifier rentals, etc.

To add insult to injury, the lease was up on their apartment so they had to move. They ended
up in Mom's basement...not the ideal situation for a young couple but much cheaper than a
month-to-month rental.

On 10/9/2016 8:17 AM, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

Had a similar situation at work. Twice. We have about 22 toilets around
the plant and one was running. I found it out by monthly meter
readings. It was in a little used bathroom and not making any noise.

My guess is the landlord is SOL.

On 10/9/2016 6:30 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/9/2016 8:17 AM, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

Had a similar situation at work. Twice. We have about 22 toilets around
the plant and one was running. I found it out by monthly meter
readings. It was in a little used bathroom and not making any noise.

My guess is the landlord is SOL.

depends on what the lease says.

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:58:30 -0500, philo wrote:

Was there a maximum water usage clause in the rental agreement?


No, but I bet there will be for the next tenant!

My formal tenant rental agreements required the tenants to pay all
utility bills. Also required to them to report anything broken in the
home, I would fix it and had a emergency fund to do that. Utilities
were transferred into the renter's name on the billing.

....just sayin'

On 10/09/2016 12:09 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:58:30 -0500, philo wrote:

Was there a maximum water usage clause in the rental agreement?


No, but I bet there will be for the next tenant!

My formal tenant rental agreements required the tenants to pay all
utility bills. Also required to them to report anything broken in the
home, I would fix it and had a emergency fund to do that. Utilities
were transferred into the renter's name on the billing.

...just sayin'




Damn good idea!

On 10/09/2016 08:27 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 8:17:53 AM UTC-4, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

The water bill for this "toilet leak" incident was probably insignificant compared to rest of the cost:

A young couple bought the house across the street from mine. They stayed in their apartment
while they did some renovations. On the Thursday before Labor Day the bathroom contractor
installed a new toilet in the upstairs bathroom. They locked up the house and left town for the
long weekend.

Nobody knows exactly when the fill hose popped off the bottom of the toilet, but when they
stopped by the house on Monday afternoon, the water was running out the back door. Parts
of the hardwood floors on the first and second floors had to be replaced, all the kitchen
cabinets (less than 4 years old) had to be replaced, drywall and insulation R&R, the list
goes on and on. Pumps for the water in the basement, dehumidifier rentals, etc.

To add insult to injury, the lease was up on their apartment so they had to move. They ended
up in Mom's basement...not the ideal situation for a young couple but much cheaper than a
month-to-month rental.




Oh my!!!

On 10/09/2016 08:30 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/9/2016 8:17 AM, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

Had a similar situation at work. Twice. We have about 22 toilets around
the plant and one was running. I found it out by monthly meter
readings. It was in a little used bathroom and not making any noise.

My guess is the landlord is SOL.



You are probably right, guess they have learned a lesson.

On 10/09/2016 08:47 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 10/9/2016 6:30 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/9/2016 8:17 AM, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

Had a similar situation at work. Twice. We have about 22 toilets around
the plant and one was running. I found it out by monthly meter
readings. It was in a little used bathroom and not making any noise.

My guess is the landlord is SOL.

depends on what the lease says.



I am quite sure the lease did not cover this situation.

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:

I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

That toilet must have been running full force around the clock. Even
then that seems like an excessive bill. That meter should be checked for
accuracy.

That tenant must be a total idiot to leave a toilet running that much.
Almost a total moron should be able to replace a $2 toilet flapper.

Do they still have lead pipes around there? I thought those were all
gone by the end of the 20th century, if not a lot sooner.....

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 4:17:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:

I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

That toilet must have been running full force around the clock. Even
then that seems like an excessive bill. That meter should be checked for
accuracy.

That tenant must be a total idiot to leave a toilet running that much.
Almost a total moron should be able to replace a $2 toilet flapper.

Renter's don't typically repair the landlord's plumbing. I've seen leases where it was
stated that the tenants were not allowed to "make any changes, including repairs".

Should they have told the landlord? Sure...but if they aren't paying for water, maybe they
just didn't care or even realize the cost. If they've always been renters, and water has always
been included, they could be ignorant of the cost. That doesn't make them ignorant.


Do they still have lead pipes around there? I thought those were all
gone by the end of the 20th century, if not a lot sooner.....

I guess you never heard of Flint.

On 10/9/2016 11:44 AM, philo wrote:
On 10/09/2016 08:47 AM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 10/9/2016 6:30 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/9/2016 8:17 AM, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe
$25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but
...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the
security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

Had a similar situation at work. Twice. We have about 22 toilets around
the plant and one was running. I found it out by monthly meter
readings. It was in a little used bathroom and not making any noise.

My guess is the landlord is SOL.

depends on what the lease says.



I am quite sure the lease did not cover this situation.


What makes you say that?

On 10/09/2016 04:33 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 10

depends on what the lease says.



I am quite sure the lease did not cover this situation.


What makes you say that?



Because the owner stated she was going to have to pay the bill

On 10/09/2016 02:14 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:


snip
My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

That toilet must have been running full force around the clock. Even
then that seems like an excessive bill. That meter should be checked for
accuracy.

That tenant must be a total idiot to leave a toilet running that much.
Almost a total moron should be able to replace a $2 toilet flapper.

Do they still have lead pipes around there? I thought those were all
gone by the end of the 20th century, if not a lot sooner.....





Hopefully the owner will kick the tenant out, not refund the security
deposit and make the tenant is responsible for all utilities.


Yes. Milwaukee still has lead pipes.

After the situation in Flint...the city rapidly started replacing lead
"mains" but still there are thousands of "main to house" lead pipes.


Since I have lead pipes here I had the water tested 35 years ago when I
moved in. First they had me use no water at all for 12 hours. Once they
had a sample they had me "run 'til cold" and test again.

They found a small trace of lead in the standing water but none in the
"run to cold" test.

Since for my job I worked with lead-acid batteries the company had my
blood tested twice a year. The lead content was essentially zero.

As a precaution though I have a filter on the kitchen sink.

On 10/09/2016 04:19 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 4:17:57 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:

I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

That toilet must have been running full force around the clock. Even
then that seems like an excessive bill. That meter should be checked for
accuracy.

That tenant must be a total idiot to leave a toilet running that much.
Almost a total moron should be able to replace a $2 toilet flapper.

Renter's don't typically repair the landlord's plumbing. I've seen leases where it was
stated that the tenants were not allowed to "make any changes, including repairs".

Should they have told the landlord? Sure...but if they aren't paying for water, maybe they
just didn't care or even realize the cost. If they've always been renters, and water has always
been included, they could be ignorant of the cost. That doesn't make them ignorant.




snip


Back in my day when My friends and I rented it never occurred to us to
ask the land lord as we knew it would probably never get done...or if so
it would probably raise the rent...so we did our own repairs.
Though we were a bunch of drunken low-lifes we would have fixed a
leaking toilet


In those days we were pretty wild and left the apartments in bad shape
....so we never bothered to ask for our security deposit either.

On 10/9/2016 7:17 AM, philo wrote:
I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe
$25 a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last
bill was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

You mentioned one of the reasons in the second paragraph. It's not
just billed for water usage. Sewer billing is tied to water usage, so
when the amount of water used goes up, the amount charged for sewer
goes up, too.

My elderly mom lives with me. One day this past summer she turned on
the water tap in the basement laundry tubs and then walked away and
forgot all about it. It ran all day until I got home and turned it
off. The faucet didn't run full force, but still, that single-day
usage increased my quarterly bill (water + sewer) by 25%.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:26:44 -0500, philo wrote:


Back in my day when My friends and I rented it never occurred to us to
ask the land lord as we knew it would probably never get done...or if so
it would probably raise the rent...so we did our own repairs.
Though we were a bunch of drunken low-lifes we would have fixed a
leaking toilet


In those days we were pretty wild and left the apartments in bad shape
...so we never bothered to ask for our security deposit either.

Shame on you ! LOL

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:

I know a couple who recently got a $1600 water bill for one of the
properties they own. Here in Milwaukee the water is cheap enough that
land lords often just include it in the rent.

Due to sewage and lead pipe replacement charges it's gone from maybe $25
a month (many years ago) to $60 and is billed quarterly. My last bill
was $175.


When one of the owners investigated it seemed the tenant had a leaking
toilet and never bother to inform the land lord! Still the $1600 bill
seemed very high. I guess the toilet was running pretty fast but ...wow.

Hopefully they kicked the tenant out and and did not refund the security
deposit...but is there any recourse for them?

My guess is "no" but had the utility billed once a month like all
companies do...the problem would have been caught a lot sooner.

I'd like to try to figure out how much water was actually used to cost
$1600.

How much water (by gallon) did you get, for your $175 bill?

Once I know this, I'll divide the amount of water by 175. That will tell
how much water you get for ONE DOLLAR. Then I'll multiply that amount by
1600 to determine the amount of gallons of water that were actually
used.

From there, it's a matter of figuring out how much water can a fully
running toilet (24/7) actually consume in about 90 days. (I'm not
exactly sure how to figure this out).

Either way, it would be fun to figure out how much water this tenant
actually used to cost $1600.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:23:35 -0500, philo wrote:


Hopefully the owner will kick the tenant out, not refund the security
deposit and make the tenant is responsible for all utilities.


Yes. Milwaukee still has lead pipes.

After the situation in Flint...the city rapidly started replacing lead
"mains" but still there are thousands of "main to house" lead pipes.


Since I have lead pipes here I had the water tested 35 years ago when I
moved in. First they had me use no water at all for 12 hours. Once they
had a sample they had me "run 'til cold" and test again.

They found a small trace of lead in the standing water but none in the
"run to cold" test.

Since for my job I worked with lead-acid batteries the company had my
blood tested twice a year. The lead content was essentially zero.

As a precaution though I have a filter on the kitchen sink.

I am no fanatic when it comes to a lot of these things that are said to
be dangerous, but I think I'd get those lead pipes replaced. At the same
time, I know it can be costly if they have to dig up from the house to
the water main, and replace the pipes.

By the way, does anyone know what kind of pipe they use these days to go
from the water main to a house? Back in the 60's I know they were using
copper, but that could be real costly these days. I assume they are
using some sort of poly (plastic) these days.

I'm curious, what year was your house built to have lead pipes? I know
they have not used lead pipes for a real long time.

On 10/10/2016 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:23:35 -0500, philo wrote:


Hopefully the owner will kick the tenant out, not refund the security
deposit and make the tenant is responsible for all utilities.


Yes. Milwaukee still has lead pipes.

After the situation in Flint...the city rapidly started replacing lead
"mains" but still there are thousands of "main to house" lead pipes.


Since I have lead pipes here I had the water tested 35 years ago when I
moved in. First they had me use no water at all for 12 hours. Once they
had a sample they had me "run 'til cold" and test again.

They found a small trace of lead in the standing water but none in the
"run to cold" test.

Since for my job I worked with lead-acid batteries the company had my
blood tested twice a year. The lead content was essentially zero.

As a precaution though I have a filter on the kitchen sink.

I am no fanatic when it comes to a lot of these things that are said to
be dangerous, but I think I'd get those lead pipes replaced. At the same
time, I know it can be costly if they have to dig up from the house to
the water main, and replace the pipes.

By the way, does anyone know what kind of pipe they use these days to go
from the water main to a house? Back in the 60's I know they were using
copper, but that could be real costly these days. I assume they are
using some sort of poly (plastic) these days.

I'm curious, what year was your house built to have lead pipes? I know
they have not used lead pipes for a real long time.



In some areas some unions had such political clout they continued using
lead pipes far longer than everywhere else, by code.

On 10/10/2016 1:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:



I'd like to try to figure out how much water was actually used to cost
$1600.

How much water (by gallon) did you get, for your $175 bill?

We pay about .04 per gallon. $1600 is about 40,000 gallons

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 3:18:03 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 10/10/2016 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:23:35 -0500, philo wrote:


Hopefully the owner will kick the tenant out, not refund the security
deposit and make the tenant is responsible for all utilities.


Yes. Milwaukee still has lead pipes.

After the situation in Flint...the city rapidly started replacing lead
"mains" but still there are thousands of "main to house" lead pipes.


Since I have lead pipes here I had the water tested 35 years ago when I
moved in. First they had me use no water at all for 12 hours. Once they
had a sample they had me "run 'til cold" and test again.

They found a small trace of lead in the standing water but none in the
"run to cold" test.

Since for my job I worked with lead-acid batteries the company had my
blood tested twice a year. The lead content was essentially zero.

As a precaution though I have a filter on the kitchen sink.

I am no fanatic when it comes to a lot of these things that are said to
be dangerous, but I think I'd get those lead pipes replaced. At the same
time, I know it can be costly if they have to dig up from the house to
the water main, and replace the pipes.

By the way, does anyone know what kind of pipe they use these days to go
from the water main to a house? Back in the 60's I know they were using
copper, but that could be real costly these days. I assume they are
using some sort of poly (plastic) these days.

I'm curious, what year was your house built to have lead pipes? I know
they have not used lead pipes for a real long time.



In some areas some unions had such political clout they continued using
lead pipes far longer than everywhere else, by code.

I was listening to a show the other day about lead service lines.

I don't know enough about this to call BS, but this is basically what
they said:

They were explaining that the issue with the pipes in Flint was not that
the pipes were lead, but that the city government changed the composition
of the water, by changing the water source, and that is what made the pipes unsafe.

According to the "expert", lead pipes are perfectly safe as long as the
buildup of minerals inside the pipes isolates the water from the pipes.
That's why no one was getting sick in Flint prior to the change. Once they
switched to a new water source, the composition of the water dissolved the
minerals and left them "clean" enough that the water was now being
contaminated by the lead.

While this seems to make sense, had I been face to face with the expert
I would have asked "Does that mean that people were getting sick when the
pipes were first installed (before the buildup of the mineral layer) or
is it dependent on time before the pipes corrode enough to be dangerous,
by which time the mineral layer has built up?"

I'm sure someone in this fine group knows the answer. ;-)

On 10/10/2016 1:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 3:18:03 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 10/10/2016 10:58 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:23:35 -0500, philo wrote:


Hopefully the owner will kick the tenant out, not refund the security
deposit and make the tenant is responsible for all utilities.


Yes. Milwaukee still has lead pipes.

After the situation in Flint...the city rapidly started replacing lead
"mains" but still there are thousands of "main to house" lead pipes.


Since I have lead pipes here I had the water tested 35 years ago when I
moved in. First they had me use no water at all for 12 hours. Once they
had a sample they had me "run 'til cold" and test again.

They found a small trace of lead in the standing water but none in the
"run to cold" test.

Since for my job I worked with lead-acid batteries the company had my
blood tested twice a year. The lead content was essentially zero.

As a precaution though I have a filter on the kitchen sink.

I am no fanatic when it comes to a lot of these things that are said to
be dangerous, but I think I'd get those lead pipes replaced. At the same
time, I know it can be costly if they have to dig up from the house to
the water main, and replace the pipes.

By the way, does anyone know what kind of pipe they use these days to go
from the water main to a house? Back in the 60's I know they were using
copper, but that could be real costly these days. I assume they are
using some sort of poly (plastic) these days.

I'm curious, what year was your house built to have lead pipes? I know
they have not used lead pipes for a real long time.



In some areas some unions had such political clout they continued using
lead pipes far longer than everywhere else, by code.

I was listening to a show the other day about lead service lines.

I don't know enough about this to call BS, but this is basically what
they said:

They were explaining that the issue with the pipes in Flint was not that
the pipes were lead, but that the city government changed the composition
of the water, by changing the water source, and that is what made the pipes unsafe.

According to the "expert", lead pipes are perfectly safe as long as the
buildup of minerals inside the pipes isolates the water from the pipes.
That's why no one was getting sick in Flint prior to the change. Once they
switched to a new water source, the composition of the water dissolved the
minerals and left them "clean" enough that the water was now being
contaminated by the lead.

While this seems to make sense, had I been face to face with the expert
I would have asked "Does that mean that people were getting sick when the
pipes were first installed (before the buildup of the mineral layer) or
is it dependent on time before the pipes corrode enough to be dangerous,
by which time the mineral layer has built up?"

I'm sure someone in this fine group knows the answer. ;-)



it does make sense, as proven by archaeologists studying the ancient Romans.

On 10/10/2016 4:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


I was listening to a show the other day about lead service lines.

I don't know enough about this to call BS, but this is basically what
they said:

They were explaining that the issue with the pipes in Flint was not that
the pipes were lead, but that the city government changed the composition
of the water, by changing the water source, and that is what made the pipes unsafe.

According to the "expert", lead pipes are perfectly safe as long as the
buildup of minerals inside the pipes isolates the water from the pipes.
That's why no one was getting sick in Flint prior to the change. Once they
switched to a new water source, the composition of the water dissolved the
minerals and left them "clean" enough that the water was now being
contaminated by the lead.

While this seems to make sense, had I been face to face with the expert
I would have asked "Does that mean that people were getting sick when the
pipes were first installed (before the buildup of the mineral layer) or
is it dependent on time before the pipes corrode enough to be dangerous,
by which time the mineral layer has built up?"

I'm sure someone in this fine group knows the answer. ;-)


My first house had a lead service line. It was built in 1948 but we
bought it in 1966. It was never a problem in the neighborhood as
hundreds of houses were built that way.

Flint may have other pipes along the way that are lead and that would be
problematic. The service line only golds a small amount of water and it
takes time to accumulate. One flush of a toilet would clear it out.

Millions of houses have lead soldered pipes and it was not a problem
either until someone decided it should be.

On 10/10/2016 3:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/10/2016 1:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:



I'd like to try to figure out how much water was actually used to cost
$1600.

How much water (by gallon) did you get, for your $175 bill?

We pay about .04 per gallon. $1600 is about 40,000 gallons


In this case, the bill is sewer and water combined (and possibly
charges for some other municipal services as well), and often/usually
the sewer charge is based on the amount of water used. So you can't
determine the amount of water used just by dividing the full amount of
the bill by the per-unit water cost. Simplest to just ask the guy how
many units of water used was noted on this quarterly bill, and how
that compared to a typical quarter's usage.

On 10/10/2016 2:09 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/10/2016 4:29 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:


I was listening to a show the other day about lead service lines.

I don't know enough about this to call BS, but this is basically what
they said:

They were explaining that the issue with the pipes in Flint was not that
the pipes were lead, but that the city government changed the composition
of the water, by changing the water source, and that is what made the
pipes unsafe.

According to the "expert", lead pipes are perfectly safe as long as the
buildup of minerals inside the pipes isolates the water from the pipes.
That's why no one was getting sick in Flint prior to the change. Once
they
switched to a new water source, the composition of the water dissolved
the
minerals and left them "clean" enough that the water was now being
contaminated by the lead.

While this seems to make sense, had I been face to face with the expert
I would have asked "Does that mean that people were getting sick when the
pipes were first installed (before the buildup of the mineral layer) or
is it dependent on time before the pipes corrode enough to be dangerous,
by which time the mineral layer has built up?"

I'm sure someone in this fine group knows the answer. ;-)


My first house had a lead service line. It was built in 1948 but we
bought it in 1966. It was never a problem in the neighborhood as
hundreds of houses were built that way.

Flint may have other pipes along the way that are lead and that would be
problematic. The service line only golds a small amount of water and it
takes time to accumulate. One flush of a toilet would clear it out.

Millions of houses have lead soldered pipes and it was not a problem
either until someone decided it should be.


Yeah, really cracked me up when someone decided the new 1% lead plumbing
items were not good enough, so we needed 0.5% lead max, which then were
deemed no good, so we needed 0.1% lead max, which was then deemed no
good, so we need 0.0% lead max.

Soon we will find out people are starting to have lead deficiencies.

On 10/10/2016 5:23 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
On 10/10/2016 3:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/10/2016 1:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:



I'd like to try to figure out how much water was actually used to cost
$1600.

How much water (by gallon) did you get, for your $175 bill?

We pay about .04 per gallon. $1600 is about 40,000 gallons


In this case, the bill is sewer and water combined (and possibly charges
for some other municipal services as well), and often/usually the sewer
charge is based on the amount of water used. So you can't determine the
amount of water used just by dividing the full amount of the bill by the
per-unit water cost. Simplest to just ask the guy how many units of
water used was noted on this quarterly bill, and how that compared to a
typical quarter's usage.


I forgot to mention that my rate included sewer. Of course, rates will
vary considerably around the country so it could easily be plus or minus
10,000 gallons.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 16:29:39 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 10/10/2016 1:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:



I'd like to try to figure out how much water was actually used to cost
$1600.

How much water (by gallon) did you get, for your $175 bill?

We pay about .04 per gallon. $1600 is about 40,000 gallons



40,000 gallons is a small lake....

Divide that by 90 days, and thats about 444 gallons per day, or 18.5
gallons per hour. I can see a running toilet wasting 18.5 gallons per
hour. With this broken down into smaller units, it makes sense that a
water bill could get that high.

On 10/10/2016 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:23:35 -0500, philo wrote:


Hopefully the owner will kick the tenant out, not refund the security
deposit and make the tenant is responsible for all utilities.


Yes. Milwaukee still has lead pipes.

After the situation in Flint...the city rapidly started replacing lead
"mains" but still there are thousands of "main to house" lead pipes.


Since I have lead pipes here I had the water tested 35 years ago when I
moved in. First they had me use no water at all for 12 hours. Once they
had a sample they had me "run 'til cold" and test again.

They found a small trace of lead in the standing water but none in the
"run to cold" test.

Since for my job I worked with lead-acid batteries the company had my
blood tested twice a year. The lead content was essentially zero.

As a precaution though I have a filter on the kitchen sink.

I am no fanatic when it comes to a lot of these things that are said to
be dangerous, but I think I'd get those lead pipes replaced. At the same
time, I know it can be costly if they have to dig up from the house to
the water main, and replace the pipes.

By the way, does anyone know what kind of pipe they use these days to go
from the water main to a house? Back in the 60's I know they were using
copper, but that could be real costly these days. I assume they are
using some sort of poly (plastic) these days.

I'm curious, what year was your house built to have lead pipes? I know
they have not used lead pipes for a real long time.




My house was built in 1898 and they were using lead pipes into the 60's

The pipes they use now are not copper ...they use something like PVC but
don't know exactly

On 10/10/2016 03:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/10/2016 1:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:



I'd like to try to figure out how much water was actually used to cost
$1600.

How much water (by gallon) did you get, for your $175 bill?

We pay about .04 per gallon. $1600 is about 40,000 gallons





Here they bill by the cubic foot. there are various additional charges
such as sewage


BTW: Some may not know that the root word for the word "plumber" comes
from the Latin "plumbum"

The chemical symbol for lead is Pb

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:12:36 -0500, philo wrote:

On 10/10/2016 03:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 10/10/2016 1:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:17:48 -0500, philo wrote:



I'd like to try to figure out how much water was actually used to cost
$1600.

How much water (by gallon) did you get, for your $175 bill?

We pay about .04 per gallon. $1600 is about 40,000 gallons





Here they bill by the cubic foot. there are various additional charges
such as sewage


BTW: Some may not know that the root word for the word "plumber" comes
from the Latin "plumbum"

The chemical symbol for lead is Pb

That's a bizarre way to measure water. I wonder how many gallons a cubic
foot of water is?

Yea, I know a lot or most cities charge a sewer fee. I know a guy who
lived in a city, had a well, and he was a gardner. Most of his yard was
a garden. They got city water and FORCED everyone to switch to the city
water, and to fill their well with concrete (or they would be fined
every year). As soon as all the wells were gone, the city added a large
sewer use fee to the water bills. Even though none of the water this guy
used in his garden was going down the sewer, he had to pay the sewer
fee. The following Spring, he tore out his garden, and planted grass
seed. He was old, and he died a few years later. His wife said that once
the garden was gone, he lost his will for life.

Yea, I know about the word "plumber" and it's origin.
Those guys really had to work hard, and were very skilled too. When I
was young, I got to see a plumber connect some lead pipes. The process
involved melting lead into a ball around the joints of the pipes, and it
was all done by hand. It really took skill to do it.
Today, almost anyone can screw iron pipes together, glue PVC, or crimp
PEX. Even sweating copper pipe is simple compared to working with that
old lead pipe.

On 10/11/2016 11:35 AM, wrote:

Yea, I know a lot or most cities charge a sewer fee. I know a guy who
lived in a city, had a well, and he was a gardner. Most of his yard was
a garden. They got city water and FORCED everyone to switch to the city
water, and to fill their well with concrete (or they would be fined
every year).

When the city I live in decided to hook up to the adjoining city's
water and sewer, we were glad, because we live by a lake and too many
crappy neighbors were in the habit of pumping out their septic tanks
into the lake. Things got considerable less nasty once we were all
hooked up to the sewer system.

As for our wells, we were told we could keep them, but for outdoor
faucets only. My family was the only one in the neighborhood who
decided to keep it. That was a half-century ago, and the well is still
going strong. I did replace the pump a few years ago, since my dad had
installed it in 1969, and I figured it was on borrowed time.

But there's a reason for requiring the sealing of wells: open wells
are access points to the groundwater, meaning potential sources for
polluting the drinking water of everyone using that aquifer. It is
much more prudent to seal the wells than to assume that nothing is
going to get put down any of them, deliberately or otherwise.

I had a neighbor talk to me about re-opening his well, or having a new
one drilled. I told him the costs would make the payback period way
too long to be practical.

On 10/11/2016 12:35 PM, wrote:

That's a bizarre way to measure water. I wonder how many gallons a cubic
foot of water is?

7.4805. Common metering for water.


Yea, I know a lot or most cities charge a sewer fee. I know a guy who
lived in a city, had a well, and he was a gardner. Most of his yard was
a garden. They got city water and FORCED everyone to switch to the city
water, and to fill their well with concrete (or they would be fined
every year). As soon as all the wells were gone, the city added a large
sewer use fee to the water bills. Even though none of the water this guy
used in his garden was going down the sewer, he had to pay the sewer
fee. The following Spring, he tore out his garden, and planted grass
seed. He was old, and he died a few years later. His wife said that once
the garden was gone, he lost his will for life.

Many towns will allow a second meter for water with non-sewer use. Some
will even allow wells for irrigation. He may never have known to ask.

"philo" wrote in message ...

On 10/09/2016 12:09 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:58:30 -0500, philo wrote:

Was there a maximum water usage clause in the rental agreement?


No, but I bet there will be for the next tenant!

My formal tenant rental agreements required the tenants to pay all
utility bills. Also required to them to report anything broken in the
home, I would fix it and had a emergency fund to do that. Utilities
were transferred into the renter's name on the billing.

...just sayin'

Damn good idea!

Have you stated on Original rental agreement/leas that utility will be
transfer on to Tenant with "0" balance due, if not you better negotiate
with 30 days notice, if they wish to move out.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:28:03 -0700, "Tony944" wrote:



"philo" wrote in message ...

On 10/09/2016 12:09 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 07:58:30 -0500, philo wrote:

Was there a maximum water usage clause in the rental agreement?


No, but I bet there will be for the next tenant!

My formal tenant rental agreements required the tenants to pay all
utility bills. Also required to them to report anything broken in the
home, I would fix it and had a emergency fund to do that. Utilities
were transferred into the renter's name on the billing.

...just sayin'

Damn good idea!

Have you stated on Original rental agreement/leas that utility will be
transfer on to Tenant with "0" balance due, if not you better negotiate
with 30 days notice, if they wish to move out.

Just pay the bill on the due date. Utility services start the bill for
the tenant on the next cycle.