Water Meters - The last straw?

Cuttlefish

Read this in the Sunday Mail and thought I would share the thoughts of the author, Colm Rapple, and see what other think.

He is making sense in that the €500M touted as the price for installation could be better invested elsewhere in capital investment projects.

This has probably been discussed ad infinitum and I don't want response like --- "deal with it" or "we all must pay" etc etc

I also know that Colm Rapple has discussed this a while back.

In light of the property tax and the demand from the Troika that it water charges be implemented sooner rather than later...

Will water meters/ tax be the last straw that breaks to camels back???

opti0nal

Cuttlefish wrote: »

He is making sense in that the €500M touted as the price for installation could be better invested elsewhere in capital investment projects.

Once the infrastructure including metering is market ready, it can be sold off to a vulture capitalist in return for some money to pay off our debts.

PRAF

Is Colm Rapple an expert on water meters? What research has he done into their costs and benefits?

Our current water system is ok I guess but suffers from a number of problems

• we all pay the same, no matter how much we use
• lack of meters makes it harder to figure out where the leaks are
• no incentives to conserve a precious resource

Imo water meters could be a solution to these problems. I don't particularly want to pay for them but what exactly is the alternative?

Dob74

PRAF wrote: »

Is Colm Rapple an expert on water meters? What research has he done into their costs and benefits?

Our current water system is ok I guess but suffers from a number of problems

• we all pay the same, no matter how much we use
• lack of meters makes it harder to figure out where the leaks are
• no incentives to conserve a precious resource

Imo water meters could be a solution to these problems. I don't particularly want to pay for them but what exactly is the alternative?

Digging up every footpath in the country to install water meters is the problem. It will probably cost more money than charging a flat fee.

Chucky the tree

Dob74 wrote: »

Digging up every footpath in the country to install water meters is the problem. It will probably cost more money than charging a flat fee.

Charging a flat fee won't help with water waste though.

Cuttlefish

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Charging a flat fee won't help with water waste though.

And meters will help with waste water?

Phoebas

Cuttlefish wrote: »

And meters will help with waste water?

Yes.

For the consumer, who's going to leave that leaky tap unfixed or a broken ballcock spilling water out of the overflow when they have to pay for it?

For the water company, when they can see that the amount of water being used according to the metres being served by a main is much less than the amount of water flowing through a main, they will be able to identify a leaky main.

Cuttlefish

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes.

For the consumer, who's going to leave that leaky tap unfixed or a broken ballcock spilling water out of the overflow when they have to pay for it?

For the water company, when they can see that the amount of water being used according to the metres being served by a main is much less than the amount of water flowing through a main, they will be able to identify a leaky main.

So you think about lot of end users are wasting water with poorly maintained houses?

Did you read the attached article?

Money should be invested in the infrastructure before charges are levied. Do you seriously think this money will be ring fenced and within a couple of years we will see big improvements in water services?

Don't be surprised if the money generated is used to plug the banks again, what was the figure in the news this week - 16bn

Cuttlefish

PRAF wrote: »

Is Colm Rapple an expert on water meters? What research has he done into their costs and benefits?

Our current water system is ok I guess but suffers from a number of problems

• we all pay the same, no matter how much we use
• lack of meters makes it harder to figure out where the leaks are
• no incentives to conserve a precious resource

Imo water meters could be a solution to these problems. I don't particularly want to pay for them but what exactly is the alternative?

You are already paying through Central taxation

PRAF

Cuttlefish wrote: »

You are already paying through Central taxation

I think the timing of these water charges is atrocious to be honest. I'd have no problem with them if we had to pay for water but then we had to pay less tax. Unfortunately the country is still in deficit so there won't be a tax cut.

Cuttlefish

PRAF wrote: »

I think the timing of these water charges is atrocious to be honest. I'd have no problem with them if we had to pay for water but then we had to pay less tax. Unfortunately the country is still in deficit so there won't be a tax cut.

Agreed the timing is shocking, it is only a tax generating exercise, why not make capital investments that will improve the service and provide employment during installation and sustainable jobs once up and running.

Wait and see how the charges will be ramped up and even the possibility of the utility being privatised.

There will be no tax cut and even if there is an upturn in the economy
the USC charge will remain, slightly of fun topic I know!

shedweller

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes.

For the consumer, who's going to leave that leaky tap unfixed or a broken ballcock spilling water out of the overflow when they have to pay for it?

For the water company, when they can see that the amount of water being used according to the metres being served by a main is much less than the amount of water flowing through a main, they will be able to identify a leaky main.

I won't hold my breath. I guarantee you there will be a lot of complaints not listened to on this point.

flutered

quite a large part of the country has water meters and charges, they also have pretty good water, also a good supply, the old pipes need replaceing, all this is for to make a sale down the line, remember there is a lot of money to be made by vested interests, the new water board, these guys are pretty well remumerated,the chair has a track record in wasting public funds, did not dennis o brien buy a company, a few weeks later with a name change it became irish water, there has been articles on this on boards and politics.ie. from what i can geather it did not have to tender for it either, was this mentioned in rapples article.

hfallada

Ireland needs to spend money on water infastructure. A few days of cold weather and a ****load of pipes in dublin are broken.

I have no problem paying for water if the pipes are upgraded. Good quality water is a massive attraction to foreign national companies for investment.

But at the moment the water flows into my house in lead pipes. so until DCC replace the toxic pipes they can **** off with their water meter

Phoebas

I see there is some leakage on this charge.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0408/380247-gilmore-says-water-charges-will-be-delayed/

I wonder has Gilmore cleared this change with the troika or with his government partners.

ednwireland

Phoebas wrote: »

I wonder has Gilmore cleared this change with the troika or with his government partners.

looks like a solo run to me !

genuine leather

Another bill(tax,Charge, levy..:((......) we ll all have to pay eventually(even homes with their own wells,cost me a few grand to sink one)I can see rainwater harvesting becoming even more popular in ppls daily routines( cant be bad thing as its prob healthier than some of councils treated water), certainly no shortage in this wee country,
yeah, fix the leaks and frozen pipes first, ah, they need the water charge to do that.... or is that the leaky holes in german investors pockets.......oh it never rains but it pours........

antoobrien

Phoebas wrote: »

For the water company, when they can see that the amount of water being used according to the metres being served by a main is much less than the amount of water flowing through a main, they will be able to identify a leaky main.

This has been proved recently in Galway, where the city council put meters on the supplies to private households in very high usage areas. The 18 properties with the worst leaks used an average of 19,000l of water a day - the average usage is approx 450l/day.

Call me Al

ednwireland wrote: »

looks like a solo run to me !

Call me cynical but I would imagine he is suddenly wakening up to the fact, after their appalling performance in the recent by-election, that Labour need to look a little less like lapdogs to their FG overlords in coalition.

creedp

Call me Al wrote: »

Call me cynical but I would imagine he is suddenly wakening up to the fact, after their appalling performance in the recent by-election, that Labour need to look a little less like lapdogs to their FG overlords in coalition.

I wouldn't call you cynical at all!!

PRAF

Call me Al wrote: »

Call me cynical but I would imagine he is suddenly wakening up to the fact, after their appalling performance in the recent by-election, that Labour need to look a little less like lapdogs to their FG overlords in coalition.

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of these charges, I don't think they should even think about charging until at least 95% of households have fully functioning meters in place. Otherwise this is just an unjust poll tax

Labours difficulty might be the Irish publics gain on this issue.

creedp

PRAF wrote: »

Whatever about the rights and wrongs of these charges, I don't think they should even think about charging until at least 95% of households have fully functioning meters in place. Otherwise this is just an unjust poll tax

Labours difficulty might be the Irish publics gain on this issue.

They suceeded in introducing a property tax without a register of property values ... so why not introduce a water charge - starting off with a flat charge and moving to a metered charge in the future when meters are actually installed?

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

They suceeded in introducing a property tax without a register of property values ... so why not introduce a water charge - starting off with a flat charge and moving to a metered charge in the future when meters are actually installed?

It was reported last week that it's not just water supply systems but all water systems. That means waste water removal will be covered by these charges, so we don't need meters to start, just a list of connections to public mains, sewers & group water schemes.

PRAF

creedp wrote: »

They suceeded in introducing a property tax without a register of property values ... so why not introduce a water charge - starting off with a flat charge and moving to a metered charge in the future when meters are actually installed?

IMO it would be unfair to do so. I have no problem with the concept of water metering, ensuring the person who uses the most water pays the most etc. However, a flat charge just defeats the entire purpose of the charge and amounts to a poll tax which unjustly hits the poor. Labour would be right if they decided to take a stand on this issue

antoobrien

Noonan has just said that he expects it to be later in 2014 or possibly 2015 before water charges will be brought in.

PRAF wrote: »

IMO it would be unfair to do so. I have no problem with the concept of water metering, ensuring the person who uses the most water pays the most etc.

It looks like the government have the same idea regarding not using flat fees:

"It depends on the attitude of the Troika but also depends on the rate of the roll-out of them metering by an Bord Uisce."

Saying no to the Troika is easier now because this is the last year we are due to draw down loans.

creedp

PRAF wrote: »

IMO it would be unfair to do so. I have no problem with the concept of water metering, ensuring the person who uses the most water pays the most etc. However, a flat charge just defeats the entire purpose of the charge and amounts to a poll tax which unjustly hits the poor. Labour would be right if they decided to take a stand on this issue

Unfair yea .. but what's fair about a lot of what happenning these days. We will spend hundreds of millions digging up footapaths and installing meters ostensibly to raise revenue. How long will it take to recover that initial cost and actually start generating revenue to invest in upgrading our primeval water infrastructure, particulary if people are of the view that the poor will be exempt (define poor?) and unless you waste water you won't be charged.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

Unfair yea .. but what's fair about a lot of what happenning these days. We will spend hundreds of millions digging up footapaths and installing meters ostensibly to raise revenue. How long will it take to recover that initial cost and actually start generating revenue to invest in upgrading our primeval water infrastructure, particulary if people are of the view that the poor will be exempt (define poor?) and unless you waste water you won't be charged.

It currently costs 1.2bn to provide water for the country, with "water unaccounted for" ranging from between 20% and 59% in 2010. Some of that will go to unmetered premises, but the fact that the councils can't say how large amounts of water are being used is worrying.

If we take 20% as an an average (actual, rather than just unaccounted for) losses figure, then a 50% reduction in water losses (i.e. down to 10%) will pay for the cost of metering works over 4/5 years.

antoobrien

hfallada wrote: »

But at the moment the water flows into my house in lead pipes. so until DCC replace the toxic pipes they can **** off with their water meter

You might be surprised by this but there's nothing wrong with supplying water in lead pipes - as long as the water is treated accordingly.

The lead contamination in parts of Galway in 2008 was due to changes in how the water was treated after the contamination problems faced in 2007 and earlier, which caused the lead to be stripped from the pipes and enter the water system. If the water is treated appropriately, this doesn't happen and the lead pipe stays inert.

PRAF

antoobrien wrote: »

It currently costs 1.2bn to provide water for the country, with "water unaccounted for" ranging from between 20% and 59% in 2010. Some of that will go to unmetered premises, but the fact that the councils can't say how large amounts of water are being used is worrying.

If we take 20% as an an average (actual, rather than just unaccounted for) losses figure, then a 50% reduction in water losses (i.e. down to 10%) will pay for the cost of metering works over 4/5 years.

I'm agreeing with you in one thread Anto and disagreeing in another. The joys of Boards!

Actually because a lot of the costs of producing water are fixed, I'd imagine the savings from fixing the leaks may not be that big (perhaps tens of millions rather than hundreds). However, what it does mean is that we no longer have the same capacity issues in the greater Dublin area. That means we can accomodate bigger investment projects from multinational companies who currently won't locate here because of concerns around a lack of treated water. This means more jobs, more tax revenues, etc.

antoobrien

PRAF wrote: »

I'm agreeing with you in one thread Anto and disagreeing in another. The joys of Boards!

Stop doing that it takes the fun out of giving out about pet hates

PRAF wrote: »

Actually because a lot of the costs of producing water are fixed, I'd imagine the savings from fixing the leaks may not be that big (perhaps tens of millions rather than hundreds).

It depends on how widespread and severe the leaks are. The average usage in Galway City is approx 500l/day but DCC estimates that most households usage should be about half that. Galway City Council recently identified 18 householders that had "usage" of on average 19,000l/day. Removing those 18 houses reduces the average usage to about 440/day (using 2011 census figures for occupied dwellings to calculate the total private water consumption). What effect would a 10% decrease in chemicals used have on the costs?

PRAF wrote: »

However, what it does mean is that we no longer have the same capacity issues in the greater Dublin area. That means we can accomodate bigger investment projects from multinational companies who currently won't locate here because of concerns around a lack of treated water. This means more jobs, more tax revenues, etc.

Just how much extra capacity there will be in Dublin depends on just how much of the network has been fixed and how much private wastage there is. I have to wonder though at the long term sustainability of concentrating more jobs on Dublin as bringing those jobs to Dublin would keep costs high, if not increase them more.

I think it might be better for the country (competitively) to attract those companies to other areas of the country. Pharma is a good example of this, Cork & Galway have many companies that rely on the water supply, one wonders if they could be as competitive in Dublin as they are in the other cities.

murphaph

To be honest I believe meters are an integral part of modern water delivery networks. It is infrastructure. Our building here in Berlin has a single meter for 12 apartments. We owners are currently paying approximately 600 each to install individual meters in each unit. I know my water bills will fall when complete as I and everyone else will be much more careful about water usage.

Pete_Cavan

Cuttlefish wrote: »

He is making sense in that the €500M touted as the price for installation could be better invested elsewhere in capital investment projects.

According to the Irish Water: Phase 1 Report by PwC, the average annual Exchequer spend on water infrastructure for the last decade is in the order of €550 million. If the current rate of capital expenditure is resulting in leakage rates of c.40%, a once off spend equivalent to the current annual rate of capital expenditure will make very little difference. €500m is a drop in the ocean (excuse the pun) compared to the scale of the problem. With each passing year more and more pipes deteriorate to an unacceptable level resulting in leaks, infrastructure upgrade is, and always will be, an ongoing process, therefore there needs to be a continuing source of income to fund these upgrades i.e. water charges.

AutumnDays

I'm for one big tax and not tax by a thousand cuts.

goose2005

AutumnDays wrote: »

I'm for one big tax and not tax by a thousand cuts.

But a variety of taxes allows for it to be more equitable, rather than a blunt fraction. And it's hard to avoid all of them.

Tea drinker

opti0nal wrote: »

Once the infrastructure including metering is market ready, it can be sold off to a vulture capitalist in return for some money to pay off our debts.

bang on! It will then be ran into the ground with minimal maintenance whilst the rates are raised higher and higher to cope with the massive investment needed to fix the problems.
Finally it will be insourced back to gov and we will then have to inject huge sums to fix the issues.

creedp

Tea drinker wrote: »

bang on! It will then be ran into the ground with minimal maintenance whilst the rates are raised higher and higher to cope with the massive investment needed to fix the problems.
Finally it will be insourced back to gov and we will then have to inject huge sums to fix the issues.

Surely you would be a strong advocate of privitisation? Are you saying that the private sector might screw its customers for profit?

murphaph

The infrastructure should remain in our hands but the physical work should almost all be contracted out.

Tea drinker

creedp wrote: »

Surely you would be a strong advocate of privitisation? Are you saying that the private sector might screw its customers for profit?

Why would I be an advocate of privatisation? I am 100% expecting that we would get screwed. It's quite the wake up call that Thatcher passed this week, look how privatisation worked out for them, and in fairness we would botch it even worse

Pete_Cavan

The water network will not be sold, saying that it will be is just misinformed speculation and there is no evidence to support it.

There are a number of reasons why it wont happen;

1. Any parties who sanctioned such a move would be signing their own death warrant with the electorate
2. The situation in the UK is the exception rather than the rule, and it has proven to be a bad system
3. The government will soon have a new, fixed, long term source of income, they wont want to lose that
4. Our network is not really worth much anyway, it is unnecessarily large due to our dispersed population and so is more expensive to run and maintain, plus it requires large investment, there is not much value to be gained from buying it or selling it
5. Much of the non-pipeline infrastructure (treatment plants, reservoirs, pumping stations) built in recent years were done so under DBO contracts lasting typically 20 years, apart from potential legal issues with these agreements being transfered to a new owner, the new owner would have limited control over much of their network for the first 20 years

Basically, no government will want to sell it and no one will want to buy it so its not going to happen.

Solair

The plan's pretty obvious i.e mimic Thatcher's sell-off of British water resources in the 1980s/90s.

They'll create Irish Water which is a subsidiary of Bord Gais. Then once that's rolled out the metering infrastructure and started to make a viable business out of the water 'industry', both Bord Gais and Irish Water will then be privatised and the proceeds will be used to pay down debts that were run up through a combination of bank speculation and economic mismanagement.

This is very much a case of selling off the family silver.

The only other significant state asset you could sell off and make a substantial profit on is ESB, but that's probably much more likely to put up a serious fight as it's an older, more heavily unionised company than Bord Gais or a new entity like Irish Water.

It's almost a perfect acquisition for the likes of Suez - a massive international gas and water company...

I could almost guarantee that once this is set up our 'international lenders' will twist the Government's arm to sell it.

There's actually very little other obvious 'silverware' to sell as many of the semi-states apart from ESB aren't really in very profitable shape or likely to attract buyers RTE, CIE etc..

I'd also have concerns they might attempt to sell off the motorway network and come up with some setup like in France where a trip to Cork from Dublin would probably set you back at least €30 in tolls.

You can be sure there's huge pressure coming on to bring in cash to reduce the Troika's exposure to Irish debt.
All they will care is that they're seeing a good few billion being shaved off the size of the loans.

Bear in mind too that this water charge is unlikely be insignificant if it's brought up to EU average levels regardless of whether it's being paid to a semi-state or a private entity.

Take a look a these figures for example to get an idea of how much things might end up costing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_France#Financial_aspects

I would actually prefer to see BGE, ESB and CIE etc sold off, as we already pay these companies for services. Selling water or road networks creates a situation where we dream up new business models from services that we don't already pay for!

Just remember when you're voting that every extra cent that's being squeezed out of you is to pay down speculative debt run up by the last few governments' mismanagement of everything!

K.Flyer

Our water system needs upgrading and serious repairs in places, that part is a fact.
Regardless of what some people may think or believe, but water charges are going to happen, not today or tomorrow but soon enough.
Metering is the only fair way of charging for water, there will most likely be a minimum charge which will cover a certain water volume allowance, then charges will apply after the allowance.
The amount of leaks and water wastage that I come across in my line of work is crazy, you would not believe how much water is wasted through homes and business every single day. This puts a huge strain on the infrastruture and if money is not collected and spent on it, one day it is going to collapse and we will all have something to moan about then.
I am not saying this in support of our present or past governments, I am saying it because I hate seeing water being wasted and I value what we have coming through our taps every day.
What makes me laugh out loud is people moaning about paying a nominal price for their domestic water consumption for showers, baths, flushing toilets, washing their cars / dogs / driveways etc etc but are quite happy to pay up to TWO EURO or more for a one litre of RiverRock water, thats dearer than petrol FFS.

Solair

The one thing that I haven't seen in this plan is a proposal to fund a resolution to the utterly ridiculous situation of water shortages occurring in the Dublin region.

Dublin's population isn't all that big by any standards, and the rainfall in Ireland's enormous. Surely the entire problem is lack of water storage infrastructure as very little has been built in decades, despite all the housing development that occurred in the region.

Again, I don't understand how this happened other than local authorities failed to invest despite vast income streams via development levies and other direct taxation on development activity.

Also, privatisation of those systems in the UK hasn't achieved much either where they're still relying on victorian reservoirs and hose pipe bans to keep a creaking system functioning.

All I see is a plan being foisted upon us during a financial crisis that seems to be all about revenue generation and is so far showing very little else in terms of what capital development it's going to do to improve the water network.

KyussBishop

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The water network will not be sold, saying that it will be is just misinformed speculation and there is no evidence to support it.

There are a number of reasons why it wont happen;

1. Any parties who sanctioned such a move would be signing their own death warrant with the electorate
2. The situation in the UK is the exception rather than the rule, and it has proven to be a bad system
3. The government will soon have a new, fixed, long term source of income, they wont want to lose that
4. Our network is not really worth much anyway, it is unnecessarily large due to our dispersed population and so is more expensive to run and maintain, plus it requires large investment, there is not much value to be gained from buying it or selling it
5. Much of the non-pipeline infrastructure (treatment plants, reservoirs, pumping stations) built in recent years were done so under DBO contracts lasting typically 20 years, apart from potential legal issues with these agreements being transfered to a new owner, the new owner would have limited control over much of their network for the first 20 years

Basically, no government will want to sell it and no one will want to buy it so its not going to happen.

On the contrary, our water network is worth an enormous amount in private hands, because they can permanently extract rents off of every homeowner utilizing the water supply, forever into the future; doesn't matter that it would cost a lot to upgrade/maintain, it would pay itself off many times over as time goes by, at the expense of society and benefit of the investors.

I could easily see government selling it off sometime in the future, saying that the dent put in our debt would be worth it; the politician that orchestrates that, could get himself a massive payback on his way through the revolving door, out of government and onto the board of directors, of a company/institute connected to the investors that buy up the water infrastructure.

Solair

They have the ultimate excuse: 'the Troika made me do it!'

Pete_Cavan

KyussBishop wrote: »

On the contrary, our water network is worth an enormous amount in private hands, because they can permanently extract rents off of every homeowner utilizing the water supply, forever into the future; doesn't matter that it would cost a lot to upgrade/maintain, it would pay itself off many times over as time goes by, at the expense of society and benefit of the investors.

I could easily see government selling it off sometime in the future, saying that the dent put in our debt would be worth it; the politician that orchestrates that, could get himself a massive payback on his way through the revolving door, out of government and onto the board of directors, of a company/institute connected to the investors that buy up the water infrastructure.

On the contrary, our water network would be an enormous liability in private hand. According to the Irish Water: Phase 1 Report by PwC, annual operating costs for the system are in the region of €700m and annual capital investment is in the order of €550 million. The introduction of metered water charging is expected to raise about €500 million in 2015 and income from non-domestic charges currently comes to €221 million. This could just about cover the operating costs, but leave nothing for capital investments. Without capital investments the operating costs would constantly increase so the network does not, and will not, "pay itself off many times over as time goes by". And a private company cannot "permanently extract rents off of every homeowner", they collect water charges based on usage, without major investment to increase drinking water availability (particularly in the Dublin region) and reduce leaks, usage will need to be restricted limiting income for the operator.

It is laughable that people here will claim that the sale of the water network is "prett obvious" yet have absolutely nothing to back it up.

creedp

Tea drinker wrote: »

Why would I be an advocate of privatisation? I am 100% expecting that we would get screwed. It's quite the wake up call that Thatcher passed this week, look how privatisation worked out for them, and in fairness we would botch it even worse

I was responding on the basis that you hold the view that the PS cost too much and must be reduced (see below) - presumably the slack being picked up by the private sector yet I see you're not in favour of privitisation becasue the entrepreneurs will screw you - that's a defn of being between a rock and a hard place!

There needs to be more cuts to PS and welfare as there is only a little more $$$ to be extracted from Joe Public. Gov footprint needs to get smaller and leaner so Joe can pay his debts. If some stimulus can come from capital projects - great, but don't forget PS were in favour of austerity when it meant capital projects got cut rather than their wages.
yeah yeah sure yeah on the capital projects.

KyussBishop

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

On the contrary, our water network would be an enormous liability in private hand. According to the Irish Water: Phase 1 Report by PwC, annual operating costs for the system are in the region of €700m and annual capital investment is in the order of €550 million. The introduction of metered water charging is expected to raise about €500 million in 2015 and income from non-domestic charges currently comes to €221 million. This could just about cover the operating costs, but leave nothing for capital investments. Without capital investments the operating costs would constantly increase so the network does not, and will not, "pay itself off many times over as time goes by". And a private company cannot "permanently extract rents off of every homeowner", they collect water charges based on usage, without major investment to increase drinking water availability (particularly in the Dublin region) and reduce leaks, usage will need to be restricted limiting income for the operator.

It is laughable that people here will claim that the sale of the water network is "prett obvious" yet have absolutely nothing to back it up.

That €700m includes massive maintenance costs (almost in the range of €500m), where not all are an ongoing cost, but an initial investment on fixing problems with the infrastructure; privatization does not necessarily mean spinning off all of the infrastructure either, for example wastewater treatment isn't likely to be picked up by private interests, as that is a pure loss and would likely stay in public hands (greatly reducing a huge chunk of the cost, around €280m).

When you consider that the cost of the upcoming charge is likely to be in the area of €300, if you put that in private hands instead, that's already roughly (all figures divided by 3 to get households) €100 million for Dublin, €170 million for the Greater Dublin Area, and assuming at least 4 million of the total population would be using newly privatized water supplies, €350-400 million overall.

That leaves some decent room to manoeuvre there, for seeking out profits.

Chips Lovell

The government is on record as saying Irish Water won't be privatised. Indeed, according to Fergus O'Dowd, "existing legislation protected the State and local authority water assets from privatisation".

KyussBishop

That is good, for sure, but their word can't really be relied upon, because there's nothing stopping them changing their mind, particularly if more economic trouble comes our way (such as further bank solvency issues).

Chips Lovell

Yep, and unless they do change their minds it's just pointless scaremongering to say water charges = imminent privatisation. You pay for public water in loads of countries.

Grudaire

I doubt that any party would consider privitisation in the near future purely from a political perspective. It will be a hard enough sell to get people paying for water charges.

Then again the Troika may be pulling the strings...