Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink?

charlemont

kneemos wrote: »

Neglect of the infrastructure until a crisis persists for several years is the way we do things.

The Irish way..:pac:

charlemont

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Or put another way, instead of flying ministers to GAA matches and church fetes by air corp helicopter and paying for the wife of senior civil servants to have their hair done, the cash should have been spent on things like ensuring there is an efficient supply of potable water for the citizens of the country.

Very true but sure we just love to squander the money, It makes us feel better, ... Anyway I'd reckon a fair bit of our water systems are actually left over from when your lads ran the show here..

Capt'n Midnight

How much less water is there than normal ?

How much of that was people cutting back ?


Does it show that water meters are a total waste of time to everyone except the water meter supplies / installers / politicians who will extract a small % of the overall cost as a stealth tax

Ruudi_Mentari

I remember coming home, I was so parched, so drunk man and I made it to a garage, and crawled across the forecourt and put my lips to the hose and it was just air.

High pressure air, and that's the only time I had my stomach pumped

Pete_Cavan

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How much less water is there than normal ?

How much of that was people cutting back ?


Does it show that water meters are a total waste of time to everyone except the water meter supplies / installers / politicians who will extract a small % of the overall cost as a stealth tax

Charging for water will mean people will reduce their usage in order to save money. Less demand means less costs associated with supplying drinking water. If the water charge was lumped in with the property tax there would be no incentive for people to cut down on usage because you would pay the same for using 1l as you would for using 1,000l. Even if it only extract a small % of the overall cost, reducing demand would save a fortune in providing new infrastructure which would otherwise be needed.

riclad

At least 25 per cent of water is lost thru leaks in pipes,
WHEN we had the boom ,the only thing we did was build roads , new council offices and ,bridges.
SO the country cant afford to fix the pipe s, water system ,
ITS more important to pay politicians 3 pensions,
and give bonus,es to bankers,
And pay our college lecturers, more than any other european country.

WE have a 19th century water system.

When water freezes , it expands ,pipes crack, causes leaks,
especially pipes that are 80 years old.

IF WE had just 7 county councils it would be easier to run the water supply system.
OTHER countrys have regulations, all large buildings,have some type of
water collection system , which collects rainwater .
its not rocket science.

This country is 20 years behind germany in terms of solar power,
and effecient use of water supply.

Capt'n Midnight

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Charging for water will mean people will reduce their usage in order to save money. Less demand means less costs associated with supplying drinking water. If the water charge was lumped in with the property tax there would be no incentive for people to cut down on usage because you would pay the same for using 1l as you would for using 1,000l. Even if it only extract a small % of the overall cost, reducing demand would save a fortune in providing new infrastructure which would otherwise be needed.

That's the spiel were are supposed to swallow. But the reduction is only 1/4 of what leaks out the pipes at the moment.

So again does anyone know how much water demand was reduced by when people were asked ?



Unaccounted-for water – the difference between the water produced and consumed – is running at more than 40 per cent nationally


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12161393

Installing water meters in every home in Northern Ireland would cost £106m, an assembly member has been told.
..
"Meters typically reduce water consumption by 10%."

738,800 households in NI that makes their meters £143 each. (€169)

probably less than the VAT on ours :mad:

the cost of water meters is likely to be funded by way of a 20-year standing charge levied on all customers which would lead to a total outlay on the installation of €780

UCDVet

Quick - let's get some water meters! That'll end this crisis!

Triangla

So we need to:

1) Fix the pipes

2) Build a bigger reservoir

At least when we get billed for water we'll have someone answerable for the above.

Bullseye1

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Everybody has the means to collect water as is they just choose not to . The big roof on the house is a means to harvest water. People don't do it because there is no cost benefit. When water charges come in people will do it thus proving that by bringing in the tax will reduce and reuse. Water buts are not expensive.

That water is fine for washing the car and watering the plants but its not suitable for drinking or showering. But a agree everyone should invest in them. I guess you could use they for filling WCs too. Planning authorities could have conditioned developers to provide such water harvesting services.

riclad

All New buildings over a certain size should be required to have a water harvesting system on the roof to get planning permission.
Maybe there could be a tax credit ,for homeowners to get 1 installed,
like there is for solar panels.
I think schools would find it worthwhile to get one,since they,ll have to pay for water ,like everyone else.

IT seems the irish way, as posted below,
wait till he have a crisis ,before we do anything ,
AT least in government matters.
WE need governments that think in terms of 10 years.
ITS like a program i heard on rte 1.
A school manager says we spend 1000,s renting out portacabin classrooms every year.
IF the dept of education gave us x amount,
WE could hire a builder to build 5 classrooms ,
and save a fortune on rent.

AND we ,d have a better environment to teach our students.