No refund for families who have paid water charges

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

Actually you said Irish Water as originally envisaged. And sure I have no problem saying the original allowances were borderline with the directive.

And funny how you are not willing to answer my question :-)

Irish Water as originally envisaged = the charging as originally envisaged. Same thing.

Borderline is a start, albeit fudging a bit. In breach is more accurate.

So - now that we largely agree that the expensive quango leaves us nowhere near being more definitely not in breach - I'd love to see the proponents of said quango admit it on TV to start an honest discussion.

I'm not honestly fully prepared for a discussion on your question as I didn't expect such straightforward honesty.

But I do genuinely accept that - if said discussion were allowed to happen - we might actually achieve something worthwhile.

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah I see what you mean now. Yes, I'd agree with that but theoretically the cap is also another subsidy so I'd presume that unless someone actually took a case against the country pursuant to the Directive, we'd get away with it for a good few years.

Why does that logic not similarly apply to the WFD if the quango is abolished ?

Godge

RealJohn wrote: »

I don't know where you got that impression. I was questioning their legality, yes. I don't know whether they were/are legal or not. I said they were unjust.

Does it outweighs the contribution from water charges actually collected or the amount charged? The latter is the important figure there.
Also, does it take into account the amount that went into Irish Water from motor tax?

Let us be clear.

Water charges were targetted to bring in €271m from what I recall, and that was based on something like 80% compliance. Therefore €640m of a reduction in taxes more than cancels out the increase in water charges.

FreudianSlippers

Jack Killian wrote: »

Why does that logic not similarly apply to the WFD if the quango is abolished ?

You can't be serious?

Because on one hand we're complying with the Directive technically and on the other we're not at all.

You surely see the difference?

Jack Killian

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You can't be serious?

Because on one hand we're complying with the Directive technically and on the other we're not at all.

No, we're not.

Original pricing model : 1 person per household getting water though general taxation; everyone else paying.

How is that "technically" complying with the "polluter pays" ?

Just because it suits your argument ?

RealJohn

Godge wrote: »

Let us be clear.

Water charges were targetted to bring in €271m from what I recall, and that was based on something like 80% compliance. Therefore €640m of a reduction in taxes more than cancels out the increase in water charges.

Only if you ignore the €400m or so contributed from motor tax, which you shouldn't be.

Jack Killian

RealJohn wrote: »

Only if you ignore the €400m or so contributed from motor tax, which you shouldn't be.

A pro poster on another thread linked to something that referenced €848 million given to IW, if memory serves me correctly; that didn't even include the "direct billed charges".

RealJohn

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So if your bills were €100 and you only had €80 your argument is that €20 doesn't matter because it's a "big picture" issue?

Some money goes to subsidisation of water, the remainder is paid for by the consumer. This feels like very basic economics.

No, what I'm saying, which is what I've been saying from the start, is that if they had wanted to continue to use general taxation to pay for water, they shouldn't have brought in water charges at all and just raised taxes. Because they brought in water charges, they needed to reduce taxes by enough to completely offset the charge. That would have been a stupid way to go by the way. They should have just raised taxes and left water charges out of the equation entirely but that was their choice and that's what's created this whole mess.

RealJohn

Jack Killian wrote: »

A pro poster on another thread linked to something that referenced €848 million given to IW, if memory serves me correctly; that didn't even include the "direct billed charges".

I just picked the €400m from the first article I found on the subject. It might not be entirely accurate. I believe though, based on that article, that the figure of €848m is likely to have come from two years worth, since the same article said that the previous year had been about €450m.
I'm the one approximating here by the way. The article was more precise in its figures.

Zubeneschamali

RealJohn wrote: »

They should have just raised taxes and left water charges out of the equation entirely but that was their choice and that's what's created this whole mess.

Your idea directly contravenes the EU directives quoted above.

We dodged these for a long time, but eventually the Commission loses patience and starts fining people. A move to a system with metering and charges is a move towards compliance, and would certainly delay commission action. Small allowances to prevent hardship would be OK with the spirit of the directive, I think, but large allowances covering all normal users are clearly not.

The other issue being introduced, how much the system is subsidized vs. funded through charges, is a separate issue - it speaks to whether IW counts as national debt or not, which is a different bit of EU law. I think we are hosed there anyhow fro the forseeable future - no-one is talking about the levels of charges which might see us in the green there, I think, for a long time to come.

Going Forward

Bob24 wrote: »

Here is the directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060&from=EN

How do what you posted satisfy the condition "where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive" quoted in article 9.4?

Especially since article 9.1 specifies the following objective: "Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle".

Being advised to "take account of" a principle is not the same as being directed to implement a principle.

The "polluter" was "paying" collectively under the previous system where costs were recovered via central taxation.

The "polluter" collectively paid for €11bn worth of water supply and treatment infrastructure which was "vested" in Irish Water if you'd like any evidence of it.

The EC has clarified that individual payment is not required.

Are you suggesting that the "polluter pays" principle is new or was not "taken account of" in terms of household water usage?

The EC has certainly never claimed it, or uttered anything about Ireland's cost recovery mechanisms for domestic water.

No one is making a believable case to back up suggestions that the abolition of water charges, or the introduction of them, affects Ireland's stance regarding the correct implementation of the "polluter pays principle" in terms of our domestic water use.

In relation to the PDF you linked to, it contains the following paragraph:

"The WFD does not allow governments to profit from water charges, but the directive
recommends two policies which will push water charges upward. First, governments are
directed to price water at a sufficiently high level so as that users will be motivated to
reduce their water usage. (Higher water charges, together with more water-efficient
technologies, have been an important factor in falling domestic water usage in many
European countries.)"

I find this interesting because on the one hand the domestic sector is being told to "conserve" whilst on the other hand we are trying to attract potentially polluting "water intensive industry" "like pharma-chem, ICT and agri-food just as other countries increasingly struggle with water deficits."

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/local-news/195388/Reforming-Ireland-s-water--.html

Going Forward

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If you ignore the ‘established principles’ part of the WFD, this may be true. But there is no way of knowing because the ‘established principles’ rule is in the WFD.

So that people know you're not making this up, please show where in the Directive it defines what the phrase 'established practices' is to be interpreted as, and, once you've defined that, whether they are immutable or not.

In other words, can an 'established practice' be something that's established in the next 10 minutes, or 20 years ago, and if such an 'established practice' can be altered or not.

I'll accept "don't know" as an answer to save time.

Redbishop

Going Forward wrote: »

So that people know you're not making this up, please show where in the Directive it defines what the phrase 'established practices' is to be interpreted as, and, once you've defined that, whether they are immutable or not.

In other words, can an 'established practice' be something that's established in the next 10 minutes, or 20 years ago, and if such an 'established practice' can be altered or not.

I'll accept "don't know" as an answer to save time.

established/ɪˈstablɪʃt/


adjective
1.having existed or done something for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted.
2.(of a Church or religion) recognized by the state as the national Church or religion.

Banjoxed

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

FF are a shower of perfidious f*ckers who exist purely to get into power and spread the spoils for their mates.

Going Forward

Going Forward wrote: »

..
In other words, can an 'established practice' be something that's established in the next 10 minutes, or 20 years ago, and if such an 'established practice' can be altered or not...

No.

Redbishop wrote: »

established/ɪˈstablɪʃt/
adjective
1.having existed or done something for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted.
2.(of a Church or religion) recognized by the state as the national Church or religion.

.

Bob24

Going Forward wrote: »

Being advised to "take account of" a principle is not the same as being directed to implement a principle.

The "polluter" was "paying" collectively under the previous system where costs were recovered via central taxation.

The "polluter" collectively paid for €11bn worth of water supply and treatment infrastructure which was "vested" in Irish Water if you'd like any evidence of it.

The EC has clarified that individual payment is not required.

Are you suggesting that the "polluter pays" principle is new or was not "taken account of" in terms of household water usage?

The EC has certainly never claimed it, or uttered anything about Ireland's cost recovery mechanisms for domestic water.

No one is making a believable case to back up suggestions that the abolition of water charges, or the introduction of them, affects Ireland's stance regarding the correct implementation of the "polluter pays principle" in terms of our domestic water use.

In relation to the PDF you linked to, it contains the following paragraph:

"The WFD does not allow governments to profit from water charges, but the directive
recommends two policies which will push water charges upward. First, governments are
directed to price water at a sufficiently high level so as that users will be motivated to
reduce their water usage. (Higher water charges, together with more water-efficient
technologies, have been an important factor in falling domestic water usage in many
European countries.)"

I find this interesting because on the one hand the domestic sector is being told to "conserve" whilst on the other hand we are trying to attract potentially polluting "water intensive industry" "like pharma-chem, ICT and agri-food just as other countries increasingly struggle with water deficits."

http://www.leinsterexpress.ie/news/local-news/195388/Reforming-Ireland-s-water--.html

When taking about polluter pays principle, a polluter is an individual/household or a organisation (a company for example). Clearly it is not a whole country as it completely defeats the purpose.

Going Forward

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.


.

Yes.

"I shall establish new practices, beginning later today."

/

By tomorrow, I shall have established practices in place.

Going Forward

Going Forward wrote: »

Yes.

"I shall establish new practices, beginning later today."
/
By tomorrow, I shall have established practices in place.

If you consider a day 'a long time', perhaps.

Redbishop wrote: »

established/ɪˈstablɪʃt/
adjective
1.having existed or done something for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted.
2.(of a Church or religion) recognized by the state as the national Church or religion.

However in the context of governance, laws, life in general, nobody would agree with you.

This isn't pedantry, it's pretty simple.

Going Forward

Bob24 wrote: »

When taking about polluter pays principle, a polluter is an individual/household or a organisation (a company for example). Clearly it is not a whole country as it completely defeats the purpose.

That's possible to claim if you don't understand the principle and it's origins.

It's explained well here:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/2%20Polluter%20Pays%20Principle_revised.pdf

Going Forward

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you consider a day 'a long time', perhaps.

They do say that "a week is a long time in politics"...

They also ask how long is a piece of string.
In fact, how long is a piece of string Red?

Zubeneschamali

Going Forward wrote: »

"I shall establish new practices, beginning later today."

/

By tomorrow, I shall have established practices in place.

This is not how judges actually read the language written in laws.

Or perhaps I am wrong, and the AAA will produce an actual legal opinion to this effect Real Soon Now.

Meanwhile, look at this laughable stuff from FF:

The party’s public expenditure spokesman Sean Fleming said Fianna Fail’s position had not changed.
He said: “We absolutely contest the legal advice being put forward by Irish Water.
“It is important to recognise that this legal advice was commissioned by Irish Water, and it should be examined with caution in light of this.
“It’s extraordinary to see Irish Water quoting EU rules as sacrosanct considering they failed to meet the key Eurostat market test last year.”

What the hell is that last sentence even supposed to mean? IW missed the Eurostat market test, therefore we cannot ever follow EU law in future? It's a complete non-sequitur. And he does not address the actual legal opinion, he just says FF don't care about that sort of thing, and can do what ever they like. Pathetic.

Bob24

Going Forward wrote: »

That's possible to claim if you don't understand the principle and it's origins.

It's explained well here:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/pdf/principles/2%20Polluter%20Pays%20Principle_revised.pdf

Any quote from this ppt explaining why I am wrong in saying the water service user is a polluter? Can't find one.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What the hell is that last sentence even supposed to mean? IW missed the Eurostat market test, therefore we cannot ever follow EU law in future? It's a complete non-sequitur. And he does not address the actual legal opinion, he just says FF don't care about that sort of thing, and can do what ever they like. Pathetic.

It's to score a 'Poli-Point', the most frustratingly normal thing that all Politicians seem to do instead of doing what they're supposed to be doing. Nobody seems immune from this side-game of trying to run the country, which is what they're actually supposed to be doing.

Someone somewhere must keep score of the 'Poli-Points'.

Jack Killian

Redbishop wrote: »

established/ɪˈstablɪʃt/


adjective
1.having existed or done something for a long time and therefore recognized and generally accepted.
2.(of a Church or religion) recognized by the state as the national Church or religion.

Not exactly debunking th'aul "wide open to interpretation" there Red......

johnnyskeleton

Jack Killian wrote: »

Not exactly debunking th'aul "wide open to interpretation" there Red......

Mod note:

I've reviewed your posts over the last few days and you seem to be constantly hectoring other posters, accusing them of being dishonest, etc. Please have respect for other people and their views if you wish to continue posting in this forum.

Zubeneschamali

Jack Killian wrote: »

Not exactly debunking th'aul "wide open to interpretation" there Red......

Laws are written in English, and we all know that you can pull the least known definition from the least known dictionary, stretch those definitions to their limit and and make a sentence technically include some weird meaning.

But that is not how judges read laws. If you say to a judge "This is an established practice", and he asks "Since when?" and you say "Yesterday." he will conclude that you are a spoofer. It will not do you any good to say that "a long time" is wide open to interpretation, since in context, we all know it does not mean "24 hours".

Jack Killian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Laws are written in English, and we all know that you can pull the least known definition from the least known dictionary, bestretch those definitions to their limit and and make a sentence technically cover some mean some weird meaning.

But that is not how judges read laws. If you say to a judge "This is an established practice", and he asks "Since when?" and you say "Yesterday." he will conclude that you are a spoofer. It will not do you any good to say that "a long time" is wide open to interpretation, since in context, we all know it does not mean "24 hours".

That was my point. While 24hrs is - in anyone's language - not "a long time" (unless maybe waiting for a bus) it would be wide open to debate as to whether 1 year of charges was "a long time".

Going Forward

Bob24 wrote: »

Any quote from this ppt explaining why I am wrong in saying the water service user is a polluter? Can't find one.

If the individual water service user was a polluter in the sense that you are claiming they are, they would be potentially liable for breaching environmental law each time they flushed.

Do you accept that that stance does not make any sense?

Bob24

Going Forward wrote: »

If the individual water service user was a polluter in the sense that you are claiming they are, they would be potentially liable for breaching environmental law each time they flushed.

Do you accept that that stance does not make any sense?

I don't think anyone said that. What was said is that they are a polluter as far as the water they use is concerned and therefore should be a payer. Doesn't mean they need to cash in each time they flush, but rather that they need to pay for the service they use (could be a yearly payment - which yes will cover all the times they flushed that year).

Again, any quote from your PPT explaining why they are not the polluter as you mentioned it clearly explains this?

Going Forward

Bob24 wrote: »

I don't think anyone said that.

You said that an individual is a polluter.
A polluter presumably breaches or is potentially breaching environmental regulations.

Now you're saying they're not breaching them, and they're not a polluter..

Bob24 wrote: »

What was said is that they are a polluter as far as the water they use is concerned and therefore should be a payer. Doesn't mean they need to cash in each time they flush, but rather that they need to pay for the service they use (could be a yearly payment - which yes will cover all the times they flushed that year).

Again, any quote from your PPT explaining why they are not the polluter as you mentioned it clearly explains this?

So they are not really a "polluter" in the sense of the PPP as the PDF explains it.

I said it clearly explains the PPP, which it does.
It contains no definition of individuals being attributed some vague "polluter" status which was your original contention.


This all arises because you took issue with what I'd explained earlier, and I don't wish to spend days on it, because it's all correct:

"The "polluter" was "paying" collectively under the previous system where costs were recovered via central taxation.

The "polluter" collectively paid for €11bn worth of water supply and treatment infrastructure which was "vested" in Irish Water if you'd like any evidence of it.

The EC has clarified that individual payment is not required."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-may-face-fines-if-water-charges-are-scrapped-expert-says-1.2591971

Loopholes
Prof Barrett said there were no loopholes in the EU directives and the “established practices defence” did not apply.
“Unfortunately for Ireland we got rid of our no water charges policy in 2013 when Irish Water was set up. Legislation was introduced on water charges and there was widescale installation of water meters,” he said.
“That defence is gone and we now have an obligation and it applies to us the same as to all other EU member states.
“The obligation is there and we must apply it, that is the end of the matter.”

Another legal opinion (independently this time) reiterates what we already know but some (including Willie O'Dea!) refuse to accept.

He also points out that the current capped charges are also out of line and suggests that the cap will need to be lifted.

Yet another similar opinion here, though also offers some insight into the FF attempt to read the directive

Bob24

Going Forward wrote: »

So they are not really a "polluter" in the sense of the PPP as the PDF explains it.

I said it clearly explains the PPP, which it does.
It contains no definition of individuals being attributed some vague "polluter" status which was your original contention.

You're still not quoting what in the PPT is explaining it ... just saying "the PPT explains it", which seems a bit vague.

The document I have posted clearly states the PPP applies to domestic users and I have been able to quote the specific sentence.

Chips Lovell

UCD law professor Gavin Barrett is the latest to weigh in on the topic:

Prof Barrett said there were no loopholes in the EU directives and the “established practices defence” did not apply.

“Unfortunately for Ireland we got rid of our no water charges policy in 2013 when Irish Water was set up. Legislation was introduced on water charges and there was widescale installation of water meters,” he said.

EDIT: Emmett got there before me.

Bob24

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-may-face-fines-if-water-charges-are-scrapped-expert-says-1.2591971



Another legal opinion (independently this time) reiterates what we already know but some (including Willie O'Dea!) refuse to accept.

He also points out that the current capped charges are also out of line and suggests that the cap will need to be lifted.

Yet another similar opinion here, though also offers some insight into the FF attempt to read the directive

The way I see things coming along: FF & co. will keep claiming the charges can be lifted for as long as the can, and if they happen to get in government the plan is initiate the process of scrapping them and wait until the EU comes in to stop that plan so they can say "we did try to scrap them". The EU is always a great scapegoat for unrealistic campaign promises, all over Europe (and sadly it works ...).

Zubeneschamali

Going Forward wrote: »

You said that an individual is a polluter.
A polluter presumably breaches or is potentially breaching environmental regulations.

Who pays for treatment of waste water from households? The principle is that the person who polluted it pays to treat it. Who polluted the waste water coming from my house?

I did.

Zubeneschamali

Bob24 wrote: »

The way I see things coming along: FF & co. will keep claiming the charges can be lifted for as long as they can

Part of this will be carefully avoiding commissioning legal opinions to counter Irish Waters legal advice, so that they can pretend they could if they wanted to.

When in government, or propping up FG in govt, they will be shocked, shocked when the AG says "sorry lads, The EU says No".

Suryavarman

Going Forward wrote: »

You said that an individual is a polluter.
A polluter presumably breaches or is potentially breaching environmental regulations.

Now you're saying they're not breaching them, and they're not a polluter..



So they are not really a "polluter" in the sense of the PPP as the PDF explains it.

I said it clearly explains the PPP, which it does.
It contains no definition of individuals being attributed some vague "polluter" status which was your original contention.


This all arises because you took issue with what I'd explained earlier, and I don't wish to spend days on it, because it's all correct:

"The "polluter" was "paying" collectively under the previous system where costs were recovered via central taxation.

The "polluter" collectively paid for €11bn worth of water supply and treatment infrastructure which was "vested" in Irish Water if you'd like any evidence of it.

The EC has clarified that individual payment is not required."

You might want to have a read over that document that you linked. According to that document the PPP clearly covers the provision of domestic water and treating of waste water.

From page 4, Functions of PPP:

As a main function of the principle the OECD recommendations specify the
allocation “of costs of pollution prevention and control measures to encourage
rational use of scarce environmental resources and to avoid distortions in
international trade and investment.” The polluter should bear the expense of
carrying out the measures “decided by public authorities to ensure that the
environment is in an acceptable state”

Water is a scarce resource. Water charges encourage rational use of it. If we just pumped water full of fecal matter and dishwasher waste into the river then the environment would scarcely be in an acceptable state. Therefore the water needs to be treated. This costs money so obviously the polluter should pay for treatment. Who is the polluter? The householder. How do we make them pay? Water charges.

Page 5, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development:

National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.

Applying this to water this means that if you engage in activities that create waste water then you should pay the price for doing so. The cost shouldn't be borne by a wide group of people who didn't contribute to the pollution i.e. the costs shouldn't be borne by the taxpayer.

Page 9, what is pollution?:

Pollution is defined independently from administrative thresholds -> environmental impact of the emission or harmful activity.

Once again this clearly covers waste water from homes.

Page 10, who is the polluter?:

The term “polluter” refers to a polluting, harmful activity

This clearly covers somebody creating waste water.

Page 11, how much has to be paid?:

• Cost for preventative and precautionary measures
• administrative procedures
• costs for reinstatement

Once again this would seem to suggest that the person creating waste water should pay the cost of treating water so that it doesn't damage the environment.

The document you linked strongly implies that in the case of water the user of water should pay to use that water. Unless you think that rivers full of fecal matter and other household waste have no environmental impact.

I believe the term "hoisted by one's own petard" is applicable here.

Going Forward

Bob24 wrote: »

You're still not quoting what in the PPT is explaining it ... just saying "the PPT explains it", which seems a bit vague.

The document I have posted clearly states the PPP applies to domestic users and I have been able to quote the specific sentence.

The document and line you quoted isn't at variance with anything I've said.

"almost every human use of water pollutes it. Domestic washing, cleaning, toilet
and sewer systems, all add dirt, waste and chemicals to the water we use. And so the polluter pays principle applies to domestic water usage too. Under the WFD, domestic users will pay for the water they use and also for the post-use treatment of that water"

But it does not say that individuals are polluters, which is what you have said.

It says the principle applies to domestic usage.

It does not preclude the cost recovery coming collectively from central funds nor does it state that it is to be collected individually from each.

oscarBravo

Going Forward wrote: »

"almost every human use of water pollutes it. Domestic washing, cleaning, toilet
and sewer systems, all add dirt, waste and chemicals to the water we use. And so the polluter pays principle applies to domestic water usage too. Under the WFD, domestic users will pay for the water they use and also for the post-use treatment of that water"

But it does not say that individuals are polluters, which is what you have said.

That's some seriously Jesuitical reasoning you're piecing together there. Who's it supposed to convince?

Humans using water pollutes it. Therefore, individuals who use water are polluters. It's terribly straightforward logic, if you're not busy desperately trying to forge a meaning of "polluter" that specifically excludes people who use water.

Going Forward

Suryavarman wrote: »

You might want to have a read over that document that you linked. According to that document the PPP clearly covers the provision of domestic water and treating of waste water.

From page 4, Functions of PPP:



Water is a scarce resource. Water charges encourage rational use of it. If we just pumped water full of fecal matter and dishwasher waste into the river then the environment would scarcely be in an acceptable state. Therefore the water needs to be treated. This costs money so obviously the polluter should pay for treatment. Who is the polluter? The householder. How do we make them pay? Water charges.

Page 5, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development:



Applying this to water this means that if you engage in activities that create waste water then you should pay the price for doing so. The cost shouldn't be borne by a wide group of people who didn't contribute to the pollution i.e. the costs shouldn't be borne by the taxpayer.

Page 9, what is pollution?:



Once again this clearly covers waste water from homes.

Page 10, who is the polluter?:



This clearly covers somebody creating waste water.

Page 11, how much has to be paid?:



Once again this would seem to suggest that the person creating waste water should pay the cost of treating water so that it doesn't damage the environment.

The document you linked strongly implies that in the case of water the user of water should pay to use that water. Unless you think that rivers full of fecal matter and other household waste have no environmental impact.

I believe the term "hoisted by one's own petard" is applicable here.

You might have missed the part where I explained that we already have the PPP in action?


The "polluter" was "paying" collectively under the previous system where costs were recovered via central taxation.

The "polluter" collectively paid for €11bn worth of water supply and treatment infrastructure which was "vested" in Irish Water if you'd like any evidence of it.

The EC has clarified that individual payment is not required.

Are you suggesting that the "polluter pays" principle is new or was not "taken account of" in terms of household water usage?

Suryavarman

Going Forward wrote: »

You might have missed the part where I explained that we already have the PPP in action?


The "polluter" was "paying" collectively under the previous system where costs were recovered via central taxation.

The "polluter" collectively paid for €11bn worth of water supply and treatment infrastructure which was "vested" in Irish Water if you'd like any evidence of it.

The EC has clarified that individual payment is not required.

Are you suggesting that the "polluter pays" principle is new or was not "taken account of" in terms of household water usage?

The Rio Declaration states that costs should be internalised so funding things through general taxation isn't good enough.

Zubeneschamali

Going Forward wrote: »

The EC has clarified that individual payment is not required.

That's not how I read this:

"Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle".

If someone other than me is polluting my waste water, I'd like to know about it.

Are you suggesting that the "polluter pays" principle is new or was not "taken account of" in terms of household water usage?

Bertie put a dodge in place in 2000 to avoid it, but it's history now.

Going Forward

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Who pays for treatment of waste water from households? The principle is that the person who polluted it pays to treat it. Who polluted the waste water coming from my house?

I did.

The waste water is intended to be wastewater.

But the collectively funded treatment facilities prevented your wastewater causing pollution.

Therefore you did not pollute, as you would have, had you directed your waste onto the street.

Bob24

Going Forward wrote: »

The waste water is intended to be wastewater.

But the collectively funded treatment facilities prevented your wastewater causing pollution.

Therefore you did not pollute, as you would have, had you directed your waste onto the street.

He did pollute, and a public infrastructure did treat the pollution he produced. Polluter pays means as the polluter he needs to take part in financing the infrastructure as proportionally as possible to the amount of pollution he produced. General taxation clearly doesn't deliver that last bit as some household can pay high taxes while not using the public water drainage infrastructure (own sceptic tank) and others might use it a lot but not pay any tax.

Also note there is no zero pollution either: the waster water treatment plant might clear up the water but does generate its own pollution.

Zubeneschamali

Going Forward wrote: »

The waste water is intended to be wastewater.

But the collectively funded treatment facilities prevented your wastewater causing pollution.

Therefore you did not pollute, as you would have, had you directed your waste onto the street.

Hey, if I do dump it in the street and the council cleans up, I didn't pollute either!

If I dump it in your garden, as long as you clean up, I didn't pollute!

I only pollute if no-one cleans up! Hooray!

Suryavarman

Going Forward wrote: »

The waste water is intended to be wastewater.

But the collectively funded treatment facilities prevented your wastewater causing pollution.

Therefore you did not pollute, as you would have, had you directed your waste onto the street.

That doesn't internalise costs.

Jack Killian

[Deleted User] wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/ireland-may-face-fines-if-water-charges-are-scrapped-expert-says-1.2591971



Another legal opinion (independently this time) reiterates what we already know but some (including Willie O'Dea!) refuse to accept.

He also points out that the current capped charges are also out of line and suggests that the cap will need to be lifted.

Yet another similar opinion here, though also offers some insight into the FF attempt to read the directive

Interesting. You casually claim that Willie "refuses to accept" something, masking the fact that what Willie (a barrister) actually stated was that they have legal advice to the contrary.

You also conveniently forgot to highlight that the phrase used by your preferred expert was could, not would.

Willie O'Dea wrote:

wish I could see a copy of that legal opinion, because our legal advice is exactly to the contrary," he said.

Bob24

If he wants to see the detailed legal advice obtained by IW it is easy - he just has to ask for it (IW is subject to FOI requests and will have to give it to him). So lets wait and see if he makes that request and we will soon know if he really wishes he could see it or if it is pure rhetoric. We are also waiting for him to publish his.

Godge

Going Forward wrote: »

The EC has clarified that individual payment is not required.

Eh, no it hasn't, unless you subscribe to the Nessa Childers school of nonsense.

http://nessachilders.ie/2014/12/09/childers-welcomes-clarification-from-european-commission-that-ireland-does-not-need-to-apply-domestic-water-charges-under-eu-law/


I have clarified this before across several threads.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99216387&postcount=613

Here it is again for you:

"the Nessa Childers link. It is absolutely hilarious. Does she think people are stupid? Somehow she is claiming that the EU have said that member states, including Ireland, do not have to apply individualised domestic water charges to comply with the Water Framework Directive.

The full quote from the Commission reads:

"There is no specific requirement in Art 9 of the WFD for cost recovery to rely on individual consumption. However, for the Commission, an adequate implementation of the principle of incentive water pricing included in the provisions of Art 9, as well as of the more general polluter-pays principle embedded in the Treaties, requires a clear link between water tariffs and actual individual water consumption. In this context, water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD."

Essentially what the EU are saying is that there is no specific mention in Article 9 of a requirement for individual metering of consumption. That is true, and nobody has said anything different. Childers thinks this answers the question fully. She must be lacking a few brain cells or she didn't read on.

The next bit is telling. The Commission basically says that they see no way other than individualised water metering to ensure compliance with the WFD and the polluter pays principle. Childers seems not to have read this or completely misunderstood it. How much clearer can you get than "water metering seems to be a basic precondition for proper implementation of the WFD"!!?!?!! SF economic policy is mad at the best of times, but if they are interpreting EU pronouncements in this way, they are taking it to a new level.

The full quote from the Commission is completely in line with the legal opinion published this morning in the Irish Times. I am astonished that the antis believe that the Commission response backs up their view of the world."

Going Forward

Suryavarman wrote: »

That doesn't internalise costs.

Possibly, in theory, but not in practice.

In practice the funding is the same and coming from essentially the same sources, households and businesses.

An interesting point made on the other thread is that if you want to really use the PPP as you define it, the new system only asks 1.5m people to pay for the cleanup costs of 4.5m people.

Or was that part of the paying twice argument.....