Mission now says it will pay for the installation of 100 meters each year in older homes. 📷 Xylem/EB Adventure Photography

This story first appeared in the January 24, 2025, edition of the Fraser Valley Current newsletter. Subscribe for free to get Fraser Valley news in your email every weekday morning.

Mission’s quest to get a water meter at every home in town looks like it will continue for decades, even after its council greenlit changes this week meant to expedite the process.

The city will begin providing and installing meters for free in 100 homes each year in an attempt to reduce water consumption and get more homes on the devices. The free-meter program follows a previous failed attempt that failed to generate interest from residents. The prior initiative promised to partially subsidize the costly installation of the device but left owners on the hook for thousands of dollars in up-front costs.

Conserving water, slowly

The city has long required water meters to be installed on new homes. The meters allow the city to charge residents for water based on their usage levels, rather than a flat fee. That incentivizes homeowners to use less water and has been instrumental in reducing per capita water usage in Mission. Meters can also mean lower bills for residents who use comparatively little water.

Mission first mandated water meters in new homes 15 years ago, when Abbotsford and Mission—which share a joint water system—thought they would run out of water capacity. After voters rejected a $300 million plan to tap Stave Lake, both communities focused on water conservation, a strategy that has largely worked and reduced the urgency to tap a new source. (The two communities are currently developing a cheaper water source plan that involves digging new wells in Abbotsford but the system still has plenty of capacity.)

Although there are about 2,800 meters on houses today, there are still 8,000 homes that predate the meter mandate and still don’t have the devices. In 2023, the city adopted a plan that would help subsidize homeowners who wish to install a water meter at their home. To do so, the city budgeted $300,000 for subsidies each year. The money would pay $600 towards the installation cost of each meter.

But a year later, few homeowners have taken the city up on their offer. (The precise number is unclear; a consultants’ report described the number of installations as “very few.”)

The city believed that uptake would be higher not just because homeowners who use little water would end up paying lower utility bills each year.

The problem is that buying and installing meters is expensive—between $3,000 and $5,000 each—and the $600 promised by the city hasn’t been enough to incentivize their installation, according to a new report to Mission’s council by a consulting firm.

Those consultants told the city that for Mission’s water meter subsidy scheme to work, participants must believe their investment will be repaid within three years. Mission’s program was failing because homeowners would have to wait much longer than that for the money they spent to be repaid.

The city is now shifting course and will take the $300,000 that had been set aside for subsidies and use it to directly pay to install up to 100 metres every year. Residents will be able to apply for a meter online.

That will increase the pace of installations, but still won’t leave the city on pace to have every home metered before the end of the century.

Coun. Danny Plecas said he was concerned about the length of time it will take for all homes to be connected to a meter, but added: “We’re getting started and this is important.”

The city’s consultants had suggested that if the city wished to expedite installations, it could increase the amount it is spending each year. But that would cost millions.

To achieve universal metering in 23 years, the city would need to spend $1 million each of those years, the consultants estimated.

Mission expects lower water consumption rates to eventually save the municipality millions of dollars on infrastructure and other costs. Getting more meters installed quicker would inevitably increase the long-term savings from reduced consumption. But installing meters in every home in a single year would cost more than $20 million, and just like its residents, the municipality is also hesitant to immediately spend large sums of money that won’t be recouped within a few years. So far, council hasn’t committed more than the $300,000 yearly budget it pledged last year.

The meters will be distributed to single-family homes and sites without complications—like fancy driveways or large retaining walls—that could dramatically increase the cost of installation. Townhome complexes are also particularly expensive to provide meters for because of the number and sizes of meters, council was told at its meeting earlier this week.

The city has also pledged to create a simpler “hassle-free” process to apply for a smart meter, and will be spending $30,000 on a public awareness campaign to alert residents of the revised program.

Finally, the city will also allow property owners whose meters lead to the discovery of ongoing leaks to apply for a one-time billing adjustment if the leak is fixed. That’s intended to avoid any poor publicity that could arise from a new water meter user being hit by a huge bill—an occurrence that could deter others from applying for a meter.

Reply

Avatar

or to participate

Avatar

Sheila Humphrey1 year ago

So just how are unmetered homes billed for water use? Is it cheaper than the average of metered homes? And how would all that get calculated? Cannot compare the merits of getting a meter or remaining unmetered without a cost comparison.

Avatar

Rocky Blondin1 year ago

You pay for what you use, rather than the average of all use. That way, if you are using less, you pay less. If you choose to use more than average, you'll pay for it.

As it stands, people that use lots (regular lawn watering, swimming pools, etc) pay the same as us who have ripped out our lawn for local wildflowers, and installed low-flow toilets. I'd like to have my conservation efforts rewarded, but I'm not willing to pay $3-5-10 thousand dollars to save $400 on my bill.

If you are a conservative user, you'll save money. If you are a liberal user of water, you'll pay more.

Avatar

Aird Flavelle 1 year ago

Mission homeowners use, on average, twice as much water as their Abbotsford counterparts, who are more likely to be on water meters. https://www.missioncityrecord.com/news/missions-bill-for-new-water-project-rises-abbotsfords-drops-2137534

Avatar

Tyler OlsenAuthor1 year ago

That was five years ago. Mission still uses more per capita, but the disparity has been shrinking for some time. In 2019, Abbotsford consumed 14,887 ML and Mission consumed 5,024 ML. Last year Abbotsford consumed 16,637 ML (up 17%) and Mission consumed 4,689 ML (down 7%). So per capita consumption way down in Mission, when you consider its population has been significantly increasing.

I may do a follow up on this (and to answer questions like Sheila's above)

Avatar

Gord Currie1 year ago

To put water Meters in is not going to save the City anything! Every meter is added cost and maintenance. WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RESTRICT WASHING YOUR HANDS AND YOUR FACE AND YOUR BODY IN A SHOWER? Washing makes for a Healthier Population it also helps to keep Sewer lines and Septic fields from Plugging allowing for more disbursement of solids. That means less Sewer Line flushing needed. My own experience of 72 years Front load water restricting Washing Machines are the worst thing ever, compared to Top loading washing Machines. Dirt needs water because Water can only absorb so much dirt to carry it away. I have owned and used Top loader WASHING Machines for most of my life and for the last 5 years have used a Front loader. The front loader takes two hours to wash on the heavy duty with a pre-wash cycle versus the Top loaders I used would be under 30 Minutes. The clothes from the old Top Loader were cleaner than the new Front loader ever gets them no matter what detergent I use.

Avatar

Robin Woolmer1 year ago

A lot of water consumption goes to people who water their lawns.

Avatar

Rocky Blondin1 year ago

This is another example of City of Mission's ineffective management strategies (the budget being the another). Their goal is worthy: conservation. It's in the public's best interest, and the taxpayer's. You have aligned incentives, so all that needs to happen is a program that works for all. And they can't even come up with that. BC Hydro does this non-stop with their "Powersmart" efforts. They will pay great sums to help conserve. Saving electricity is far cheaper than building new capacity.

For Mission's (and Abby's) water, the plan should be simple: charge more for going unmetered every year. Without the evidence that a customer isn't leaking water, then the City needs to assume you are. Make that behavior (remaining without a meter) the more expensive option. And then, if you want to go the meter route - it's free! Put this meter in, we know how much you are using, and here are some tips on how to save water. I don't know why they make the most simple things so hard..