No refund for families who have paid water charges

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I give up. I haven't the faintest idea what you think the question I asked you four times means, but clearly we're speaking different dialects of English.

Do you say that bills will be that much because you think (a) that's what it costs to provide water to the average family, or (b) it costs less than that, but the bills will be artificially inflated?

If (a), why do you think the average family shouldn't have to pay what it costs to provide them with water?

If (b), why?

I hope you're better at providing actual answers to simple questions than the other chap.

Pathetic. A supposed acknowledgement that you're incapable of understanding my posts, and then you come out with that snide remark.

ancapailldorcha

Jack Killian wrote: »

Pathetic. A supposed acknowledgement that you're incapable of understanding my posts, and then you come out with that snide remark.

You've used language in recent posts which is unacceptable in this forum. I ask that you try to be more civil and constructive in your posting.

Niemoj

I wonder will Uisce Éireann be brought up at all tomorrow - the first day of the 32nd Dáil.

Zubeneschamali

Niemoj wrote: »

I wonder will Uisce Éireann be brought up at all tomorrow - the first day of the 32nd Dáil.

Water protests outside the Dail today.

There was a sense of worry out there there for a while about what all the anti-water-charge candidates we elected might do, but talks have made it clear that they have no intention of doing anything other than sitting on their holes collecting their TD salary and giving out from the opposition benches.

We'll get a FG-FF coalition, IW will continue as Continuity Irish Water, and most important:

All that on-the-ground organization will not be wasted! Water protests will continue for another 5 years! What a relief.

Jack Killian

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've used language in recent posts which is unacceptable in this forum. I ask that you try to be more civil and constructive in your posting.

Apologies - switched between here and the Café and didn't realise, with the tone of what I was replying to adding to the illusion that it wasn't the serious discussion forum.

Sorry again.

Going Forward

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) I believe it was always anticipated savings (or more accurately reinvestment) would occur down the line;

You may have believed that, but the public was led to believe that substantial savings were going to be achieved within a matter of months:

"This year alone, there will be a saving of €300 million in the provision of water to Irish homes. Last year, it cost €1.2 billion to provide water to every household in Ireland. This year, under Irish Water, it will cost €899 million. That is a saving of €300 million."


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2014112000054

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

2) I don't believe anyone anticipated the extreme abreaction to the billing which has increased costs for collection.

Have the collection costs increased?

I know there were no collection costs for domestic billing prior to IW being created, but you're saying that they have increased from something to something else.

Can you fill in the blanks, as in, what was the envisaged cost, and what has this been increased to, as a result of "abreaction to the billing process"?

FreudianSlippers

Going Forward wrote: »

You may have believed that, but the public was led to believe that substantial savings were going to be achieved within a matter of months:

"This year alone, there will be a saving of €300 million in the provision of water to Irish homes. Last year, it cost €1.2 billion to provide water to every household in Ireland. This year, under Irish Water, it will cost €899 million. That is a saving of €300 million."


http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2014112000054

What was the total cost to the taxpayer of Irish Water in its first year?

Have the collection costs increased?

I know there were no collection costs for domestic billing prior to IW being created, but you're saying that they have increased from something to something else.

Can you fill in the blanks, as in, what was the envisaged cost, and what has this been increased to, as a result of "abreaction to the billing process"?

This is a fallacious argument; there were no collection costs for a bill that didn't exist obviously.

Going Forward

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What was the total cost to the taxpayer of Irish Water in its first year?


This is a fallacious argument; there were no collection costs for a bill that didn't exist obviously.

Are you suggesting that the public was not fed lines that substantial savings would be made in a matter of months, and that these claims were not made as part of an effort to create public confidence in the utility?

Or are you simply suggesting that time has proven that the Fine Gael TD was correct when he made the claim?

And have you anything to show which could back up your belief that collection costs have increased as a result of "abreaction to the billing process".

Collection costs may increase of course, as "more and more people engage" with the utility, but I've read nothing published by Irish Water referring to collection costs having increasing due to "abreaction to the billing process".
Perhaps you have, and you could share it?

As for your questions, the taxpayer bears all of Irish Water's costs, however you define "costs" or "taxpayer".

For example, John Tierney didn't spend €180million of his funds setting it up, nor did he or anyone else spend €550million of their own funds installing meters to alleviate any burden on the taxpayer.

Going Forward

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think you're more than slightly confused by this whole thing. So let me break it down:

Say provision of water costs €3bn p.a.

The government needs to (pursuant to the WFD) implement some level of consumption charges, but they don't want to bill individual households for the full amount (i.e. we have either "allowances" or "capped rates").

Say commercial rates bring in €1bn p.a. and, as a result of subsidy via "allowances" or "capped rates", domestic charges bring in €1bn p.a.; that leaves €1bn to be paid to cover the subsidy... someone has to pay for that! That someone is the government through taxation.

They need to get to €3bn somehow - subsidisation costs money - and that money has to come from somewhere.

You're adding to the confusion.

The "somewhere" you talk of, from where money will come, will be domestic customers, and not "the government".

Instead of hypotheticals, let's look at facts:

The FG/Lab Government, pursuant to a PWC report it commissioned, (and not the WFD,) introduced domestic charges.

"While the EU Water Directive 2000 did not require Ireland to charge for domestic water services, nor did it prohibit Ireland from doing so.

The Irish Government introduced national legislation in 2013 (Water Services Act No. 2) obliging Irish Water to introduce charging for the supply of domestic water services.

http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/does-ireland-have-an-exem/


"Why has Irish Water been set up?

After an examination of the Water Services in Ireland in 2011, the Government concluded that a new national water utility offered the best opportunity to:
Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of water services delivery
Provide access to new funding sources
Improve strategic planning and accountability."

http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/why-has-irish-water-been-set-up/

Secondly, it was the FG/Lab government's intention that IW will be self funding:

http://www.google.ie/url?url=http://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/46.-Irish-Water-Costs.pdf&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjH68XD27nLAhXCYA4KHZFlDV8QFggTMAA&usg=AFQjCNHLK29hkfHiqhh6TtIep7ZxQ39VeA

http://www.cer.ie/docs/000832/CER14146%20Irish%20Water%20Response%20to%20CER13246.pdf

By a remarkable coincidence, last week saw a range of media outlets republishing, in unison, as if they had been paid by Irish Water to do so, a "news" item that they originally published last October, that informs us that IW intends spending €1.1bn of public money each year:

https://goo.gl/HRWngc

As current domestic charges will yield just €271m, if 100% compliance is achieved, minus the costs of collecting them, it is not only safe, but imperative to assume that the current domestic charges are purely perfunctory, an introductory cut price offer strategy as opposed to attempting to implement a self funding model for a "self funded" utility overnight.

The FG/Lab government's stated intention, as we have just read, was to bridge the gap between €271m and €829m via substantially increasing domestic water charges, bearing in mind that commercial charges, which account for an additional source of funding in the region of €200m, have not been changed.

Godge

Going Forward wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the public was not fed lines that substantial savings would be made in a matter of months, and that these claims were not made as part of an effort to create public confidence in the utility?

.

If that is true, then you will have a link to that specific quotation.

BoatMad

The FG/Lab government's stated intention, as we have just read, was to bridge the gap between €271m and €829m via substantially increasing domestic water charges, bearing in mind that commercial charges, which account for an additional source of funding in the region of €200m, have not been changed.

actually FF supported a charge of around 500 euros

The FG/Lab government's stated intention, as we have just read, was to bridge the gap between €271m and €829m via substantially increasing domestic water charges,

that intention changed of course, over the course of three years to a situation where FG has realised that it is not possible to charge households that type of money , especially on top of an increasing LPT

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

The FG/Lab government's stated intention, as we have just read, was to bridge the gap between €271m and €829m via substantially increasing domestic water charges...

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

Charles Babbage

oscarBravo wrote: »

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

People shouldn't have to pay for their own stuff, except for things like Sky Sports.

BoatMad

oscarBravo wrote: »

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

no it should not, no more then the average household did not pay to establish electricity or gas infrastructure .

the principle of charging is to establish a principle of "the polluter pays ", rather then a crude economic cost recovery , which isn't practical anyway, unless you can a consumption based charge there is no inventive to conserve water , but the charge doesnt not have to be " ecomonic "

this is irrespective of whatever mess IW is or isn't

weldoninhio

oscarBravo wrote: »

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

What is the actual economic cost of water minus consultants, meters which were offered for free, setup costs, a brand new software package while other countries use an off the shelf version, golden handshakes, massive pension packages???

BoatMad

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the actual economic cost of water minus consultants, meters which were offered for free, setup costs, a brand new software package while other countries use an off the shelf version, golden handshakes, massive pension packages???

whats the point, in either case, the water consumer is clearly not paying the economic cost of supplying water with or without IW or even part of ints infrastructure . you are engaging in debating point tactics

oscarBravo

BoatMad wrote: »

no it should not, no more then the average household did not pay to establish electricity or gas infrastructure .

the principle of charging is to establish a principle of "the polluter pays ", rather then a crude economic cost recovery , which isn't practical anyway, unless you can a consumption based charge there is no inventive to conserve water , but the charge doesnt not have to be " ecomonic "

this is irrespective of whatever mess IW is or isn't

That argument boils down to "I should only have to pay for part of my water, and someone else should pay for the rest".

The average household does pay to establish electricity and gas infrastructure. When you pay your electricity bill, a portion of it goes to ESB Networks, no matter who the retail provider is. Similarly Gas Networks Ireland.

What's not practical about cost recovery? It's going to have to be paid for anyway, so why shouldn't it be paid for by the consumer?

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the actual economic cost of water minus consultants, meters which were offered for free, setup costs, a brand new software package while other countries use an off the shelf version, golden handshakes, massive pension packages???

Buzzwords. Yay.

I love this idea that it's possible to set up an entire national utility from scratch for free. I particularly love the idea that Siemens is some sort of charity.

Once again, I shouldn't have to do this, but to pre-empt the inevitable monochromatic you're-either-for-us-or-agin-us argument that prevails lately: I'm not claiming that Irish Water is an exemplar of how a utility should be set up. But if you believe that Siemens wanted to install water meters just for the warm fuzzies, I have a nice selection of bridges that may interest you.

BoatMad

That argument boils down to "I should only have to pay for part of my water, and someone else should pay for the rest".

The average household does pay to establish electricity and gas infrastructure. When you pay your electricity bill, a portion of it goes to ESB Networks, no matter who the retail provider is. Similarly Gas Networks Ireland.

What's not practical about cost recovery? It's going to have to be paid for anyway, so why shouldn't it be paid for by the consumer?

both the Gas and electricity infrastructure of this state was developed using tax payers money and in many cases it still is, today its merely the incremental costs that are passed to the consumer.

since we are in effect back in 1925 with the equivalent of the Shannon scheme , we should take the same approach , the state will subvent from the general tax take to establish and run the water service , but just like the shannon electrification scheme, the end consumer will not get anything for "free", a charge is levied to encourage efficiency of use and deter wastage. in that regard its similar to the public library "fine" system for late books, its entirely uneconomic thats not its purpose

In time the large capital costs will diminish as the network is brought to standard


but it should be really remembered this isn't why IW and why charges are here. The primary purpose was the state , i.e. the Gov felt that it could move a considerable debt from the county councils to the semi-state sector , removing the borrowings to support the LAs and water services from the states books,, thereby giving the state more fiscal space to raise money and spend it elsewhere . it wa a fiscal ' sleight of hand". in doing so, Eurostat rules required that the company had to be seen as " commercial " and this required a certain amount of customer charging .

In the end political pressure , persuaded the Giv to abandon the level of charges needed to convince Eurostat, which then rendered the purpose of IW irrelevant since its essentially a state supported enterprise

Going Forward

Godge wrote: »

If that is true, then you will have a link to that specific quotation.

I've already done do.

Very recently. In the last page or two.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

Can we first clear up the confusion you caused by implying/querying that they weren't going to be asked to do so?

That seemed quite important to you earlier.

Do you now accept that they will?

Unless charges are further watered down or scrapped.

Going Forward

BoatMad wrote: »

actually FF supported a charge of around 500 euros



that intention changed of course, over the course of three years to a situation where FG has realised that it is not possible to charge households that type of money , especially on top of an increasing LPT

Presumably you're quoting my post whilst removing my user name for some unknown reason?

Anyway.

Please provide an official link that says that FG/Lab have said they have dropped the idea that it is to be a "self funded" utility.

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I love this idea that it's possible to set up an entire national utility from scratch for free.

Once again, I shouldn't have to do this, but to pre-empt the inevitable monochromatic you're-either-for-us-or-agin-us argument that prevails lately......

Where did anyone suggest that it should be "for free" ?

All I saw were objections to the crazy level of mé féin culture / sure someone will pick up the tab shown.

Just a thought, but maybe your tendency to twist certain things like that is the reason why you experience said monochromatic replies ?

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

Can we first clear up the confusion you caused by implying/querying that they weren't going to be asked to do so?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Jack Killian wrote: »

Where did anyone suggest that it should be "for free" ?

...

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the actual economic cost of water minus consultants, meters which were offered for free, setup costs, a brand new software package while other countries use an off the shelf version, golden handshakes, massive pension packages???

The implication being that it's possible to set up a national utility without hiring consultants; that a commercial company would offer water meters for free (it absolutely boggles my mind that any sane person could believe that); that you can set something up without setup costs; that an "off the shelf" billing system for millions of customers has no cost...

Just a thought, but maybe your tendency to twist certain things like that is the reason why you experience said monochromatic replies ?

I'm not twisting anything. If someone is bitching incessantly about the fact that there were setup costs for a water utility, then that person clearly believes that it's possible to establish a water utility without setup costs.

Jack Killian

oscarBravo wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

... The implication being that it's possible to set up a national utility without hiring consultants; that a commercial company would offer water meters for free (it absolutely boggles my mind that any sane person could believe that); that you can set something up without setup costs; that an "off the shelf" billing system for millions of customers has no cost... I'm not twisting anything. If someone is bitching incessantly about the fact that there were setup costs for a water utility, then that person clearly believes that it's possible to establish a water utility without setup costs.

No-one is doing that, so you are arguing a point that hasn't been made.

The issue is the scale of those costs, and given the bonus culture and the nature of Tierney's previous waste, along with the "forget about planning & cost/benefit, get it done" mentality, there is zero reassurance that value for money was a factor.

In addition, bear in mind that Ervia were explicitly awarded the contract due to their existing billing expertise - Noonan had supposedly explicitly ruled out us footing the bill for any consultants and yet paid it.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

My apologies, I thought there was some confusion about whether it was intended that Irish Water will be a self funded utility.

oscarBravo wrote: »

... The implication being that it's possible to set up a national utility without hiring consultants; that a commercial company would offer water meters for free (it absolutely boggles my mind that any sane person could believe that); that you can set something up without setup costs; that an "off the shelf" billing system for millions of customers has no cost... I'm not twisting anything.

If someone is bitching incessantly about the fact that there were setup costs for a water utility, then that person clearly believes that it's possible to establish a water utility without setup costs.

Not if that "someone" rejected the necessity of setting up such a thing up in the first place.

It would be akin to asking someone who abhors Sinn Fein to pick out their favourite SF politician and upon their refusal, saying "Come on, you must like one of them."

So no, not everyone who criticises the costs automatically accepts that any of them were inevitable.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

My apologies, I thought there was some confusion about whether it was intended that Irish Water will be a self funded utility.

No bother.

Not if that "someone" rejected the necessity of setting up such a thing up in the first place.

It would be akin to asking someone who abhors Sinn Fein to pick out their favourite SF politician and upon their refusal, saying "Come on, you must like one of them."

So no, not everyone who criticises the costs automatically accepts that any of them were inevitable.

Sure: if your position is that the local authorities were doing a bang-up job of providing water, and that everyone should be allowed to use as much water as they want without regard for the cost of providing it, then it makes perfect sense to carp about the cost of setting up a utility.

No matter how much they dance around it, the fundamental issue is that some people want to have water provided to them without being billed for the cost of doing so. I'd actually have a lot more respect for people who came out and said so, but very few of them will.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

No bother.

You're welcome.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure: if your position is that the local authorities were doing a bang-up job of providing water, and that everyone should be allowed to use as much water as they want without regard for the cost of providing it, then it makes perfect sense to carp about the cost of setting up a utility.

I'm glad you prefaced all of that with IF.

oscarBravo wrote: »

No matter how much they dance around it, the fundamental issue is that some people want to have water provided to them without being billed for the cost of doing so. I'd actually have a lot more respect for people who came out and said so, but very few of them will.

That's an issue you'll have to deal with yourself.

I mean that in the sense that I am entitled to make corrections or clarifications to anyone's claims without having to justify my position no more than I'd ask you to justify yours.

As a matter of interest, prior to any charging regime being in place, IW found that far from wasting water, we as a nation cherish and value it so much that we already had one of the lowest personal consumption rates in the OECD.

So that contradicts the theory that people here will waste as much water as they like as long as theyre not being charged for it.

We didn't.

And nor has IW published anything since then showing a further reduction in usage which would validate the oft repeated claim that charging for water would deliver reduced consumption figures.

It hasn't.

Which is odd, because meters were "all about conservation" at one time.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

And nor has IW published anything since then showing a further reduction in usage which would validate the oft repeated claim that charging for water would deliver reduced consumption figures.

Oh, come on. Of course charging for water won't deliver reduced consumption figures if there's no connection between the level of consumption and the level of the charges. That's a ridiculous argument.

Water John

It might be of interest that the Government grant aided Private Group Water Schemes to buy and install water meters. This was done to the tune of 85%.
So if they got a contractor to install them for €350. The cost to the GWS which is a private coop was, just over €50 per installation.
In order to cover the issue. It was not named as a grant for water meters but a conservation measure.
This compares with the total cost of IW, which wishes to pass the full cost onto each consumer, including interest, of €800.

Going Forward

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. Of course charging for water won't deliver reduced consumption figures if there's no connection between the level of consumption and the level of the charges. That's a ridiculous argument.

Irish Water and the CER would disagree with you there.

Do you know how the new national consumption rate was arrived at?

It's just 111 litres per person by the way.

It was determined just by telling a group of householders who agreed to take part in a survey for IW that their usage of water was being analysed, before charges were ever decided upon.

Their usage rate was then taken as being the new average personal consumption rate.

Here's the interesting bit, the analysis was undertaken to determine allowances.

So there IS clear evidence that metering alone does deliver considerably reduced consumption rates, in this case a drop of 26% from the previously published 150 litres a day to 111 litres a day.

I genuinely don't foresee, having already reduced our consumption by 26%, any further significant usage drop if charging per use does ever kick in, do you?

Water John

I think your figures on that are right, Going Forward. The usage in Ireland is high, especially compared with Germany and Denmark, I think.
What is important also is that the truth is often disguised by averages.
The spread in usage was dramatic in that survey.
So some were using, very little, others much more.

df_h

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes it is the answer. Efficient, cost effective in the long run and clean reliable water. Protesters are not interested in the benefits, they just do not want to pay or be accountable,IMO.

What benefits?

How many millions were actually spent on Irish water salaries, expenses, billing vs you know actually fixing the water/waste network?

Everyone is missing the point in this long thread, Irish Water was set up to make State debt and future expenditure appear smaller by shifting the water/waste infrastructure onto a private company, except the EU ended up rightly pointing out that its all smoke and mirrors. Thankfully the debt situation has since improved and the economy is doing well.

So the question should be asked now, Why continue with this farce?


aside: I paid my water bills up to now, despite getting undrinkable/hard water and having to spent money on own filtration, cleaning, softening for dirty water coming in and running own waste treatment plant.

If Irish Water actually showed that there was an improvement in the water/waste situation around the country, I doubt there would have been such a backlash about what amounts to be a quango with billing facilities existing somewhere between private and public ownership.

Going Forward

Water John wrote: »

I think your figures on that are right, Going Forward.

The usage in Ireland is high, especially compared with Germany and Denmark, I think

It isn't.
Both countries use substantially more water per person:

http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg757_500_350.jpg

Irish Water has determined that Ireland's usage is somewhere between India and China....

Water John wrote: »

What is important also is that the truth is often disguised by averages.
The spread in usage was dramatic in that survey.
So some were using, very little, others much more.

The 111 per person per day figure was arrived at by excluding outliers (extremely high users).

Water John

The term 'outliers' in IW survey refers to households that almost certainly had leaks and were thus excluded from the calculations, rather than high users per se.
From memory, I think about 50 + out of a sample of about 1,200.

Neither were these outliers included in calculating cost of usage per house, which in some few cases hit 1,000 euro.

Going Forward

Water John wrote: »

The term 'outliers' in IW survey refers to households that almost certainly had leaks and were thus excluded from the calculations, rather than high users per se.
From memory, I think about 50 + out of a sample of about 1,200.

Neither were these outliers included in calculating cost of usage per house, which in some few cases hit 1,000 euro.

Nor should they have been•.

The survey was undertaken to establish average usage, that's why off the scale usage figures were disregarded, plus, having been identified it is safe to assume that they have been repaired and should not be included

There was nothing in relation to cost of usage per household in the survey because it was undertaken prior to any charges being set for supplying water.

Any €1000 bills or costs to households would only have come to light after prices and allowances were announced.


•There were a number of stories which claimed that metering was identifying millions of litres leaking under households.

Those stories were true, but the figures must be read in some context.

The context is that there is 1.7bn litres of water produced per day.

Figures supplied by Irish Water confirm that at a point where over 50% of meters had been installed, just 1% of water being produced daily was leaking on private property, post meter.

So much for claims that domestic meters are vital to detect leaks.

But then, IW never claimed they'd be useful for detecting leaks anywhere other than under private property, politicians were the ones who started talking about domestic meters as if they'd pinpoint mains leaks.

They don't nor do Irish Water claim that they do.

weldoninhio

oscarBravo wrote: »

... The implication being that it's possible to set up a national utility without hiring consultants; that a commercial company would offer water meters for free (it absolutely boggles my mind that any sane person could believe that); that you can set something up without setup costs; that an "off the shelf" billing system for millions of customers has no cost... I'm not twisting anything. If someone is bitching incessantly about the fact that there were setup costs for a water utility,

There was no implication that was free, and yes, you are twisting things. My quote that you used was a reply to someone who said that Irish water was upgrading the water system, when in fact there is zero money left after the setup.

MileyReilly

bmay529 wrote: »

As someone who has paid their water charges I read this morning that FF say there will be No refund for families who have paid water charges. If true, as someone who felt they were meeting their civic duty, even though I did not like the charge, it would really **** me off if those who did not pay got off scot-free while those who did will face the hit. For sure I will remember it a) when deciding who to elect next time and b) I will remember this whenever any future charges our Government dream up are levied. SO FF find a way to recognise those who paid and don't pawn it off by saying someone else decided on the charge. Also am I right in saying every other country in Europe has water charges and that their removal will effect the country's balance sheet with many other negative implications

That's what you get for paying water bills

ads20101

It doesn't really matter what happens in the future.

At the time, the law was the law (whether people agree with it or not) and any non payers will have to pay. If they refuse then I expect that it will be a condition of property resell just like the property tax.

But this won't affect those in council accommodation. I have no idea how they can be made to pay (ever).

Godge

Going Forward wrote: »

Irish Water and the CER would disagree with you there.

Do you know how the new national consumption rate was arrived at?

It's just 111 litres per person by the way.

It was determined just by telling a group of householders who agreed to take part in a survey for IW that their usage of water was being analysed, before charges were ever decided upon.

Their usage rate was then taken as being the new average personal consumption rate.

Here's the interesting bit, the analysis was undertaken to determine allowances.

So there IS clear evidence that metering alone does deliver considerably reduced consumption rates, in this case a drop of 26% from the previously published 150 litres a day to 111 litres a day.

I genuinely don't foresee, having already reduced our consumption by 26%, any further significant usage drop if charging per use does ever kick in, do you?

What that demonstrates is that when people are told that their water consumption is being monitored and measured, they take steps to conserve water and their consumption is reduced from 150 litres to 111 litres per person per day.

The key question then is, how do you roll out this behaviour into the wider community? The answer is simple - metering with a charge based on usage.

A free allowance should be set at a level - below 100 litres per person per day - that will incentivise conservation but still leave enough for a frugal person to live on.

Going Forward

Going Forward wrote: »

Irish Water and the CER would disagree with you there.

Do you know how the new national consumption rate was arrived at?

It's just 111 litres per person by the way.

It was determined just by telling a group of householders who agreed to take part in a survey for IW that their usage of water was being analysed, before charges were ever decided upon.

Their usage rate was then taken as being the new average personal consumption rate.

Here's the interesting bit, the analysis was undertaken to determine allowances.

So there IS clear evidence that metering alone does deliver considerably reduced consumption rates, in this case a drop of 26% from the previously published 150 litres a day to 111 litres a day.

I genuinely don't foresee, having already reduced our consumption by 26%, any further significant usage drop if charging per use does ever kick in, do you?

It is fascinating that you reference this so often without ever seemingly having read the report, looked at the data, or understood what it shows.

The raw figures do not show an average use of 111l per day. The report when outliers are excluded shows this.

I have been through this more than once with you, and you appear to refuse to accept this, even though I've gone to the trouble of linking you to the raw data, displaying graphically that raw data in order to demonstrate the difference, and discuss it with you further. In fact, I've made this point more than once haven't I, yet you still persist in posting absolutely falsified figures.

You referenced the Hawthorne effect once in discussion, recall that, which suggests that the simple effect of measuring a sample from a population can cause them to perform differently than when they are not. When I asked you to give us the logical conclusion of what that might tell us about the study, you baulked away, perhaps realising that what it suggests is that the figures reported in the study are considered a 'local minimum', and that the true population mean is almost certainly higher than what is shown in the study (sample mean).

You have repeatedly taken issue with the study, yet avoid discussing the raw figures, the inferences available, the methodology aspects and the conclusions drawn apart from simply throwing mud.

Going Forward

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is fascinating that you reference this so often without ever seemingly having read the report, looked at the data, or understood what it shows.

The raw figures do not show an average use of 111l per day. The report when outliers are excluded shows this.

I have been through this more than once with you, and you appear to refuse to accept this, even though I've gone to the trouble of linking you to the raw data, displaying graphically that raw data in order to demonstrate the difference, and discuss it with you further. In fact, I've made this point more than once haven't I, yet you still persist in posting absolutely falsified figures.

You referenced the Hawthorne effect once in discussion, recall that, which suggests that the simple effect of measuring a sample from a population can cause them to perform differently than when they are not. When I asked you to give us the logical conclusion of what that might tell us about the study, you baulked away, perhaps realising that what it suggests is that the figures reported in the study are considered a 'local minimum', and that the true population mean is almost certainly higher than what is shown in the study (sample mean).

You have repeatedly taken issue with the study, yet avoid discussing the raw figures, the inferences available, the methodology aspects and the conclusions drawn apart from simply throwing mud.

I have already explained why outliers should not be included.

You already know that had they been included, they actual end figure is still much lower than previously estimated.

Please don't lie in this thread as you did in the IW one when yourself and an "accountant" friend tried to infer that contrary to facts, IW had, in a matter of months, managed to do as they'd predicted, and saved €300m of costs providing water to households.

So now you're contradicting the survey results and claiming that the true usage is almost certainly higher.

Odd that you can see this, but IW can't.
And that Professor Morgenroth of the ESRI hinted at it too.

Why do you think they'd (IW) like the lowest figure possible, in the context of allowances?

Have you contacted Irish Water with your concerns about the accuracy of this figure that they want to use in determining "free allowances"?

Why don't you, and come back here and tell us what IW say?

Actually don't bother, it's what they say, and not what you say about it that matters.

111 litres per day.

But what you have done here is to remind people that this figure, like most others from IW, cannot be taken at face value.

Don't dare to accuse me of falsifying the figures.

Going Forward

Going Forward wrote: »

I have already explained why outliers should not be included.

They should not be included when assessing the impact of metered charges on a population, they absolutely must be included when discussing the current usage of that population.

Going Forward wrote: »

You already know that had they been included, they actual end figure is still much lower than previously estimated.

Dealt with many times. Innacurate estimate replaced with an actual study that provided better estimate. Nothing strange here whatsoever. Actual reading is better than guessing. No surprise.

Going Forward wrote: »

Please don't lie in this thread as you did in the IW one when yourself and an "accountant" friend tried to infer that contrary to facts, IW had, in a matter of months, managed to do as they'd predicted, and saved €300m of costs providing water to households.

I'll ask you to point out a lie in any of my posts on this thread or retract this. I'd invite you to find that actual post and quote it in the relevant thread if it does indeed exist.

Going Forward wrote: »

So now you're contradicting the survey results and claiming that the true usage is almost certainly higher.

No. Not contradicting the results in the slightest. The results are clear and available to be collated from the data that that study that you refused to analyze yourself. What we can infer from those results is a very different matter.

Going Forward wrote: »

Odd that you can see this, but IW can't.
And that Professor Morgenroth of the ESRI hinted at it too.

Why do you think they'd (IW) like the lowest figure possible, in the context of allowances?

Good question, however what has it got to do with the study posted? Or anything that I've posted on the matter in this thread?

There are raw figures there, I have analyzed them independently of IW and come to similar conclusions after finding the same results. Would you like to repeat the process and explain how your work with the raw figures gives us different answers?

Going Forward wrote: »

Have you contacted Irish Water with your concerns about the accuracy of this figure that they want to use in determining "free allowances"?

No.

Going Forward wrote: »

Why don't you, and come back here and tell us what IW say?

Because I was interested in the water survey, and independently analyzed the raw figures from it. I noticed that you repeatedly and often quoted that survey with some aplomb even though I had shown you how badly you are reading it. I am asking you to correct that by either improving your understanding of it, or else just simply desisting. It's really annoying seeing things posted repeatedly that you've taken time to dissect and find fault in. But I will do it, if you require it.

Going Forward wrote: »

Actually don't bother, it's what they say, and not what you say about it that matters.

111 litres per day.

Is the average figure that a "Normal Household" (a household with no leaks) is expected to use. As found in the study.

The study also discovers the existence of quite a few examples of "Non-Normal Households" (households with leaks or bafflingly high usage). These households usage is so high that it manages to push the entire sample mean up over 10%, an enormous figure! You cannot simply exclude these figures from your conclusions about what Ireland's overall usage is.

Going Forward wrote: »

But what you have done here is to remind people that this figure, like most others from IW, cannot be taken at face value.

No. I actually took the study that they got the figures from, and independently analyzed them. You know that this is true given that I went to the effort to graph the distributions and explain it.

I am not a sheep, I am sceptical and so went to the effort to understand the raw figures myself. Have you?

Going Forward wrote: »

Don't dare to accuse me of falsifying the figures.

I have falsified the figures (Proved them to be false) many times, yet you insist on posting them unabated. The figure of 111lpd is not a 'false figure' it is a figure that gives us a completely different metric from the one that you present it as. Either use it correctly, or not at all.

As always, I offer you once again the opportunity to point out flaws with the study, issues with the figures, miscalculations that might have happened etc. If you take issue with the water survey, explain why. If you take issue with the inferences, you'll need to reference the survey to explain why too.

gladrags

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They should not be included when assessing the impact of metered charges on a population, they absolutely must be included when discussing the current usage of that population.

Dealt with many times. Innacurate estimate replaced with an actual study that provided better estimate. Nothing strange here whatsoever. Actual reading is better than guessing. No surprise.

I'll ask you to point out a lie in any of my posts on this thread or retract this. I'd invite you to find that actual post and quote it in the relevant thread if it does indeed exist.

No. Not contradicting the results in the slightest. The results are clear and available to be collated from the data that that study that you refused to analyze yourself. What we can infer from those results is a very different matter.

Good question, however what has it got to do with the study posted? Or anything that I've posted on the matter in this thread?

There are raw figures there, I have analyzed them independently of IW and come to similar conclusions after finding the same results. Would you like to repeat the process and explain how your work with the raw figures gives us different answers?


No.

Because I was interested in the water survey, and independently analyzed the raw figures from it. I noticed that you repeatedly and often quoted that survey with some aplomb even though I had shown you how badly you are reading it. I am asking you to correct that by either improving your understanding of it, or else just simply desisting. It's really annoying seeing things posted repeatedly that you've taken time to dissect and find fault in. But I will do it, if you require it.

Is the average figure that a "Normal Household" (a household with no leaks) is expected to use. As found in the study.

The study also discovers the existence of quite a few examples of "Non-Normal Households" (households with leaks or bafflingly high usage). These households usage is so high that it manages to push the entire sample mean up over 10%, an enormous figure! You cannot simply exclude these figures from your conclusions about what Ireland's overall usage is.

No. I actually took the study that they got the figures from, and independently analyzed them. You know that this is true given that I went to the effort to graph the distributions and explain it.

I am not a sheep, I am sceptical and so went to the effort to understand the raw figures myself. Have you?

I have falsified the figures (Proved them to be false) many times, yet you insist on posting them unabated. The figure of 111lpd is not a 'false figure' it is a figure that gives us a completely different metric from the one that you present it as. Either use it correctly, or not at all.

As always, I offer you once again the opportunity to point out flaws with the study, issues with the figures, miscalculations that might have happened etc. If you take issue with the water survey, explain why. If you take issue with the inferences, you'll need to reference the survey to explain why too.

Talk about over the top and out of touch spiel,and here we have it.

In the cold light of simple logic,your post is totally removed from any relevant discussion,of the whole water charge issue.

Socially,morally and factually,you fail.

Instead you come up with a pedantic and out of touch narrow self serving narrative.

gladrags

gladrags wrote: »

Talk about over the top and out of touch spiel,and here we have it.

In the cold light of simple logic,your post is totally removed from any relevant discussion,of the whole water charge issue.

Socially,morally and factually,you fail.

Instead you come up with a pedantic and out of touch narrow self serving narrative.

Is this an attempt at a Haiku?

Any thoughts yourself on the Water Survey that myself and Going Forward were discussing?

gladrags

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is this an attempt at a Haiku?

Any thoughts yourself on the Water Survey that myself and Going Forward were discussing?

Been there,done that.

I like to think I have an understading of water conservation,and the simple envoirenmental reasons why.

But your droning spiel is just that.

Its out of touch,and irrelevant.

Godge

Going Forward wrote: »

I have already explained why outliers should not be included.

You already know that had they been included, they actual end figure is still much lower than previously estimated.

Please don't lie in this thread as you did in the IW one when yourself and an "accountant" friend tried to infer that contrary to facts, IW had, in a matter of months, managed to do as they'd predicted, and saved €300m of costs providing water to households.

So now you're contradicting the survey results and claiming that the true usage is almost certainly higher.

Odd that you can see this, but IW can't.
And that Professor Morgenroth of the ESRI hinted at it too.

Why do you think they'd (IW) like the lowest figure possible, in the context of allowances?

Have you contacted Irish Water with your concerns about the accuracy of this figure that they want to use in determining "free allowances"?

Why don't you, and come back here and tell us what IW say?

Actually don't bother, it's what they say, and not what you say about it that matters.

111 litres per day.

But what you have done here is to remind people that this figure, like most others from IW, cannot be taken at face value.

Don't dare to accuse me of falsifying the figures.

What is your point?

You have been here over many threads and it seems you have never made a coherent point. There is certainly nothing in that post.

Mexcanelo

To be fair. Nobody should have paid the water charge in the first place. Not a single person has ever been brought into a court room for not paying the water charge. Because it doesn't stand up. It's a completely unlawful.

Jack Killian

Mexcanelo wrote: »

To be fair. Nobody should have paid the water charge in the first place. Not a single person has ever been brought into a court room for not paying the water charge. Because it doesn't stand up. It's a completely unlawful.

I'm going to buck the stereotype here and point out that very few have been brought to court for banking scams and political corruption either. Just because something doesn't make it to court doesn't make it right.

That said, IW is an unfit-for-purpose scam - no doubt in my head. A very decent idea bastardised for a political agenda and made worse by incompetence, cronyism and spin.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Going Forward and Godge, please raise the standard. Accusing each other of lying or being incoherent does not advance the debate.

Mexcanelo

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'm going to buck the stereotype here and point out that very few have been brought to court for banking scams and political corruption either. Just because something doesn't make it to court doesn't make it right.

That said, IW is an unfit-for-purpose scam - no doubt in my head. A very decent idea bastardised for a political agenda and made worse by incompetence, cronyism and spin.

Hey, If people were stupid enough to pay it. If you as me, they don't deserve their money back.