Water charges revisited?

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

Yes OK, it may have been one of those figures that was just floated at some stage.


The point I was making is that the €5.5bn investment to run from 14 to 21 was announced on the back of a charging regime and the lack of charges has not affected that.


Here is an engineer speaking in 2015 about the need for political will to ensure that investment would occur.





Sounds like it'll solve all our problems.



I hope he will now congratulate the politicians on their will to implement this amazing plan without charges.


https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/irish-water-we-need-political-consensus-to-implement-5-5bn-water-services-plan-1.2293666?mode=amp

Let's just point out that the crux of the issue is that Irish Water is unable to borrow off the State's books as a result of the massive roll-back.

Regardless of the level of investment provided, it's billions of Euro on the books that could have been spent elsewhere.

FreudianSlippers

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I do Straight off the roof into a tank.

It would also be a stupidly easy option to implement for hundreds of thousand of households tbh as another way to allow for usage. Roof collection, slimline 3-5k litre tanks and some filters.
Should be manditory on all new build to have some form of roof collection, storage and usage systems tbh.

Don't get me wrong, i fully support water charges and proper investment in infrastructure but in tandem with the above.

I totally agree with using rainwater for gardening, toilets, etc. and re-using greywater... but I've genuinely never heard of a rainwater system which can be filtered to an extent that it's safe to drink.

Cookie_Monster

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I totally agree with using rainwater for gardening, toilets, etc. and re-using greywater... but I've genuinely never heard of a rainwater system which can be filtered to an extent that it's safe to drink.

Really? Standard practice over here (NZ) outside of town supplies. Carbon media filter and a UV one too. Better standard than mains supply, no chlorine etc.
Is it not stardard off mains in Ireland? How else do you get water than without needing to drill a well?

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Let's just point out that the crux of the issue is that Irish Water is unable to borrow off the State's books as a result of the massive roll-back.

Populist parties do massive rollbacks!
They really didn't think the whole venture through.

Can't understand why they rolled over seeing as according to another poster just 3% of the electorate had water charges on their mind at the last election.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Regardless of the level of investment provided, it's billions of Euro on the books that could have been spent elsewhere.

Its not free money billions.

There is no golden goose.
No matter where it comes from someone will have to pay it.
It's not going to be paid by those on SW, OAPs for example because there will be soft clauses and allowances, or those in the public sector all of whom take from the exchequer which is funded not by public sector teachers and other workers, it's going to be predominantly paid by private sector PAYE workers.

So there is no great difference, in fact it should be cheap for the exchequer to borrow than a utility.

It made me laugh listening to those on SW saying their VAT was paying for water.

Their VAT from cash they were spending given to them to spend by those working.

Hitman3000

dense wrote:

Can't understand why they rolled over seeing as according to another poster just 3% of the electorate had water charges on their mind at the last election.

An exit poll found it was an issue for 10% at the last GE.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

An exit poll found it was an issue for 10% at the last GE.

In Paul Murphy’s constituency maybe, but nationwide 3%

Idbatterim

“It made me laugh listening to those on SW saying their VAT was paying for water.

Their VAT from cash they were spending given to them to spend by those working.” Yeah, sure kids can claim they are taxpayers too, with the free money they are given by their parents and then spend it on services or products subject to vat ...

Hitman3000

Well MA a poster called Fruedin Slippers claimed it was 10% and he never mentioned Murphy's local. Maybe if it's 3% you can provide a linky to the figure. Although I do remember IW stated over a third of households had not engaged by the time charges was suspended.

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

“It made me laugh listening to those on SW saying their VAT was paying for water.

Their VAT from cash they were spending given to them to spend by those working.” Yeah, sure kids can claim they are taxpayers too, with the free money they are given by their parents and then spend it on services or products subject to vat ...

Coming across this thread didn`t just make me laugh.
It reminded me of two bald men fighting over a comb seeing all the same pro water charges posters from the old mega threads even at this stage still clinging desperately to the same old hackneyed arguments.
Get over it folks and move on, water charges are gone.
None of you will see them re-introduced in your lifetimes.


If there are some of you that have nothing better to be doing with your lives than flogging a dead horse and reply to this post have at it.

As someone that has better for doing I will not be engaging.

James Brown

GreeBo wrote: »

Your argument makes no sense.
You are not paying twice.
If your dinner costs €50, paying €20 in cash and €20 by card still didn't cover the cost and you are still not paying twice.

Sorry, no. Not at all.

Your analogy is wrong. It would work if the waiter told you the bill for the meal was €20, gave you a receipt and then billed you an additional 30 for using knives and forks.

You are asked to pay tax for covering numerous things, including water supply. Any shortfall is the states bad house keeping, unless you dodge tax, you are paying for water.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

This 'paying twice' stuff is/was utter nonsense. This was an 'argument' from the early days before IW was formed. Each and every move then by IW/Govt was added to an ever growing list of 'reasons' (all spurious) as the months went by.


Your little example is specious.
How about this?
Landlord says to tenant you have lived rent free in my house for x years and now I want you to pay €500 per annum.
The house corresponding to the supply of water.


A better example might be

Bank provides me with an overdraft facility - free for many years.
And then introduces a charge of €x per 3 months.

Yet here you are alluding to the 'free water' nonsense.
See my post above.

Idbatterim

Say that iw was set as intended. All the usual exemptions for “the vulnerable” they could source the billions required off the balance sheet. Meaning our government would simply squander that amount of money on vote buyers and sh*te through our taxes. I totally agree with paying for what you use. But it would never be implemented properly here. The usual suspects will end up paying for it all! So in a roundabout way, I actually think this has financially planned out for the best as an income taxpayer ...

blackcard

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry, no. Not at all.

Your analogy is wrong. It would work if the waiter told you the bill for the meal was €20, gave you a receipt and then billed you an additional 30 for using knives and forks.

You are asked to pay tax for covering numerous things, including water supply. Any shortfall is the states bad house keeping, unless you dodge tax, you are paying for water.

I don't think that we should be paying vat, property tax ,PRSI etc. We were paying tax before any of these came along so obviously we are paying for things 3 or 4 times

James Brown

facehugger99 wrote: »

I think the 'non-working' man was always the more vociferous of the protest element.

Link, or anecdotal hearsay? You should note, the 'non-working man' was having it paid for him. Be odd if that demographic was the majority.

James Brown

blackcard wrote: »

I don't think that we should be paying vat, property tax ,PRSI etc. We were paying tax before any of these came along so obviously we are paying for things 3 or 4 times

Nope. Again, what if they start charging each house for street cleaning, and you paying LPT? Look if you can't understand that's fine. It's been spelled out. I suggest you re-read the numerous posts on it.

Seth Brundle

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nope. Again, what if they start charging each house for street cleaning, and you paying LPT? Look if you can't understand that's fine. It's been spelled out. I suggest you re-read the numerous posts on it.

Using your logic, how do we end up with a budget deficit each year?

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Using your logic, how do we end up with a budget deficit each year?

Not related to my point on water charges, but bad housekeeping on the part of government? We've money for the growing cost of emergency accommodation, cheap loans for developers, buying houses off the market, taking a hit on a sweet NAMA deal, 'looking after our own'.

thomas 123

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Using your logic, how do we end up with a budget deficit each year?

Using your logic how will we(the workers) - by paying more - contribute to a budget surplus.

dense

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Well MA a poster called Fruedin Slippers claimed it was 10% and he never mentioned Murphy's local. Maybe if it's 3% you can provide a linky to the figure. Although I do remember IW stated over a third of households had not engaged by the time charges was suspended.

By that stage I think it had dawned on most people that they could decide not to continue to "engage" with IW without any consequences.



Whichever trailblazer designed the whole concept really needs a good laughing at.

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

In Paul Murphy’s constituency maybe, but nationwide 3%

Can you provide a source for that figure ?

Rennaws

Rennaws wrote: »

Can you provide a source for that figure ?

No. They’d take too long to search for. I’m relying on my memory and simply speculated that the 10% was for one polling station only. Can you prove me wrong?

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

No. They’d take too long to search for.

According to google it took me .44 seconds.

Deleted User wrote: »

I’m relying on my memory and simply speculated that the 10% was for one polling station only.

Thought so..

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you prove me wrong?

Yes.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

No. They’d take too long to search for. I’m relying on my memory and simply speculated that the 10% was for one polling station only. Can you prove me wrong?

Speculated? In other words you guessed with nothing whatsoever to back it up with.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

No. They’d take too long to search for. I’m relying on my memory and simply speculated that the 10% was for one polling station only. Can you prove me wrong?

Come off it, relying on an obviously skewed memory, and not bothering to use Google when you can just speculate?

Your race is run Mary.

Rennaws

Rennaws wrote: »

According to google it took me .44 seconds.



Thought so..



Yes.

Care to share them?

The Bishop Basher

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Care to share them?

Why don’t you see if you can beat .44 seconds..

Rennaws

Rennaws wrote: »

Why don’t you see if you can beat .44 seconds..

Interesting. It’s 8% overall and not 10% who said water charges influenced their first preference. 3% of FG supporters said so.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry, no. Not at all.

You are asked to pay tax for covering numerous things, including water supply. Any shortfall is the states bad house keeping, unless you dodge tax, you are paying for water.

So the State's "bad housekeeping" leaves them short, so they decide to bring in a water charge to make up the shortfall, but you shouldn't pay them because of their "bad housekeeping". As an example in circular logic, you have produced a great one.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Come off it, relying on an obviously skewed memory, and not bothering to use Google when you can just speculate?

Your race is run Mary.

I don't think the race is run on water charges yet. We are facing into a potential serious water shortage this autumn, but there are posters on here who claimed we didn't need demand control through water charges because we had no supply issue. Where are they now?

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are asked to pay tax for covering numerous things, including water supply. Any shortfall is the states bad house keeping, unless you dodge tax, you are paying for water.

That's insane. You are the state - that's like saying to your landlord that your salary covers numerous things, including rent, but because of your mismanagement of the money you can't pay the full rent. Well, you'd better hit the street corner then, because you have to get that money from somewhere.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't think the race is run on water charges yet. We are facing into a potential serious water shortage this autumn, but there are posters on here who claimed we didn't need demand control through water charges because we had no supply issue.

Present some figures to demonstrate what difference "demand control" via charges would deliver?


Whilst doing that remember that as has been said elsewhere, if households used NO water, there would still be .7 billion litres leaking away daily.


Thats a supply problem, not a demand problem.

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

Whilst doing that remember that as has been said elsewhere, if households used NO water, there would still be .7 billion litres leaking away daily.

Irish Water disagrees with that statement. They have been clear, when discussing potential restrictions, that the idea behind such restrictions is to reduce leaks - i.e. less/no water going to homes = less leaks.

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

Present some figures to demonstrate what difference "demand control" via charges would deliver?

Analysis of the early validation of domestic metering data has also indicated that 5 – 6% of households exhibit water consumption in excess of twice the average daily household consumption, which suggests potential significant customer side leakage on these properties.

International evidence indicates that domestic consumption generally reduces by around 5 – 15% following the introduction of meters and water charges and similar reductions were also noticed in CSL. Detailed studies by Wessex Water (http://www.wessexwater.co.uk/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=9027) showed CSL reducing by up to 21 l/prop/day following meter installation

In England & Wales water companies distinguish between metered and un-metered households when reporting PCC figures to Ofwat [...]

[Regional Water & Sewerage Companies (l/hd/d and range)
Un-metered Households 151 (141 – 163)
Metered Households 131 (115 – 142)

Water – only Companies (l/hd/d and range)
Un-metered Households 165 (128 – 176)
Metered Households 141 (111 – 153)

(source:Ofwat, 2008)

http://www.watersupplyproject.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Vol-4_Water-Demand-Review.pdf

The Bishop Basher

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irish Water disagrees with that statement. They have been clear, when discussing potential restrictions, that the idea behind such restrictions is to reduce leaks - i.e. less/no water going to homes = less leaks.

I think you missed the point of Dense’s post..

That aside..how incredibly Irish..

Let’s fix the leaks by turning off the water..

If only Enda could have thought of that..

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

I think you missed the point of Dense’s post..

Dense had the opportunity to make their point in writing - if they failed to do so, that's hardly my problem?

That aside..how incredibly Irish..

Let’s fix the leaks by turning off the water..

If only Enda could have thought of that..

That's also absolutely not what is being suggested. Absolutely nobody has said that.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Dense had the opportunity to make their point in writing - if they failed to do so, that's hardly my problem?

No, as I see it you're quoting figures here with no context, so they are meaningless.



Irish Water says it produces c1.6bn litres of water per day of which .761bn litres is lost in the supply network.


So that leaves around half of what they produce in the pipes.


How much of what is left is consumed solely by households, recognising that farms, restaurants, factories etc are also connected to the public supply?



That is why I asked the other poster to produce some figures to demonstrate what their "demand control" idea to be imposed upon households via water charges translates to in terms of actual savings of water.


As you know, a 100% reduction in ALL water use will still leave almost 50% leaking, so come back and show what say a 30% drop in household house would deliver in absolute terms.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

No, as I see it you're quoting figures here with no context, so they are meaningless.



Irish Water says it produces c1.6bn litres of water per day of which .761bn litres is lost in the supply network.


So that leaves around half of what they produce in the pipes.


How much of what is left is consumed solely by households, recognising that farms, restaurants, factories etc are also connected to the public supply?



That is why I asked the other poster to produce some figures to demonstrate what their "demand control" idea to be imposed upon households via water charges translates to in terms of actual savings of water.


As you know, a 100% reduction in ALL water use will still leave almost 50% leaking, so come back and show what say a 30% drop in household house would deliver in absolute terms.

Your question has been more than adequately answered in this post - meters produce a saving of 5 - 15%. This would be on top of the consumer-side leaks that would be fixed.

Exactly what is needed to deal with this crisis. End.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

http://www.watersupplyproject.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Vol-4_Water-Demand-Review.pdf

FreudianSlippers

dense wrote: »

No, as I see it you're quoting figures here with no context, so they are meaningless.



Irish Water says it produces c1.6bn litres of water per day of which .761bn litres is lost in the supply network.


So that leaves around half of what they produce in the pipes.


How much of what is left is consumed solely by households, recognising that farms, restaurants, factories etc are also connected to the public supply?



That is why I asked the other poster to produce some figures to demonstrate what their "demand control" idea to be imposed upon households via water charges translates to in terms of actual savings of water.

You seem to be confused as you're mixing two posts here.

You made a claim: "if households used NO water, there would still be .7 billion litres leaking away daily" that claim is incorrect according to Irish Water, as they wouldn't be supplying water to households if they were consuming no water. I provided no figures in relation to this claim, so I fail to see how anything could be "meaningless". Perhaps you were just loose with your wording?

You made a request: "Present some figures to demonstrate what difference "demand control" via charges would deliver?" and I provided figures that show multiple differences which demand control could deliver:

1) 5-6% of households either use or lose over double the national average amount - demand control would reduce this immediately;
2) "International evidence indicates that domestic consumption generally reduces by around 5 – 15% following the introduction of meters and water charges" - self explanatory as in, if you can read I shouldn't have to explain this to you;
3) In the UK, it's a fact that metered households consume less water per day.

As you know, a 100% reduction in ALL water use will still leave almost 50% leaking, so come back and show what say a 30% drop in household house would deliver in absolute terms.

No - if there was no water usage, there would be no water in the pipes; therefore no leaking. Your example is so hyperbolic that it defeats itself.

I think what you're attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to say is that the actual reduction of consumer use would have no impact on the actual leaking. It's also a disingenuous statement (at best) because as you're aware, reduction in use would allow for reduction in supply which would result in less leaking.

dense

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No - if there was no water usage, there would be no water in the pipes; therefore no leaking.

Ok, I get that you're either not really interested in hard figures or just don't want to give them, or, maybe you just want to play with words!


You could always use the figures you think are correct if the one's I have used are wrong.


But, I don't really think you want to.


Surely someone can give me the number of litres that would be saved by household consumers reducing their consumption by 30% enforced by "demand control" via pricing by metered charges?


Anyone???

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Ok, I get that you're either not really interested in hard figures or just don't want to give them, or, maybe you just want to play with words!


You could always use the figures you think are correct if the one's I have used are wrong.


But, I don't really think you want to.


Surely someone can give me the number of litres that would be saved by consumers reducing their consumption by 30% enforced by "demand control" via pricing by metered charges?


Anyone???

First of all, as Freudian has clearly demonstrated, metering reduces demand, based on empirical evidence from across the world. Thankfully you no longer seem to be challenging this notion.

Now you have moved on to looking for hard figures in an Irish situation. Why do you expect posters to have this information. Go ask Irish Water if you really want to know.

The three-fold purpose of water charges was

(1) to reduce demand in the short-term through addressing the overuse by some,
(2) to use the revenue raised to address the supply issues through investment
(3) to create a sustainable funding model for Irish Water that would enable it to borrow for further investment off-book and avoid the chronic underfunding of the previous decades.

We wouldn't be having this issue this summer if water charges had been introduced three years ago.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Your question has been more than adequately answered in this post - meters produce a saving of 5 - 15%. This would be on top of the consumer-side leaks that would be fixed.

Exactly what is needed to deal with this crisis. End.

Again, households only use a proportion of the water that is produced, a 5% - 10% saving of household water used is estimated by you to be how much in actual litres please?


If you don't know, that's fine, just say it, that way I needn't think you do and just don't want to share the figure.

crossman47

People keep going on about leaks but surely, if IW had adequate funding (which it doesn't) these would be addressed.

blanch152

dense wrote: »

Again, households only use a proportion of the water that is produced, a 5% - 10% saving of household water used is estimated by you to be how much in actual litres please?


If you don't know, that's fine, just say it, that way I needn't think you do and just don't want to share the figure.

I could look up published Irish Water statistics and extrapolate, you could do the same, but they are out of date and therefore inaccurate. Unless you have real-time current data, anything you or I would post would only be a guesstimate.

The Bishop Basher

blanch152 wrote: »

First of all, as Freudian has clearly demonstrated, metering reduces demand, based on empirical evidence from across the world.

Let's not forget that while this may have some impact, it's largely negated by the fact that a third of households can't be metered and therefore will aparrently have no incentive to conserve water.

blanch152 wrote: »

The three-fold purpose of water charges was

(1) to reduce demand in the short-term through addressing the overuse by some,
(2) to use the revenue raised to address the supply issues through investment
(3) to create a sustainable funding model for Irish Water that would enable it to borrow for further investment off-book and avoid the chronic underfunding of the previous decades.

We wouldn't be having this issue this summer if water charges had been introduced three years ago.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-water-waste-and-environment-your-drinking-water-managing-our-water-supplies/how

And yet in Dublin alone we managed to reduce water leakage from 43% down to 29% through investment in the infrastructure from 97 to 09.

I don't know about the rest of the country but we also have significant investment going into our own supply despite not paying charges.

I thought none of this was possible without Dinny's meters and a bloated quango for Enda's cronies..

blanch152

crossman47 wrote: »

People keep going on about leaks but surely, if IW had adequate funding (which it doesn't) these would be addressed.

Exactly. It is chicken and egg. There are some posters who have been taking the following nonsense position: we will pay the water charges once they fix the leaks.

However, Irish Water can't fix the leaks because they don't have the revenue and financial independence to borrow without water charges, so the issue goes round in a circle until we hit a crisis like now and people begin to realise how stupid it was to reject water charges.

The Bishop Basher

blanch152 wrote: »

However, Irish Water can't fix the leaks because they don't have the revenue and financial independence to borrow without water charges, so the issue goes round in a circle until we hit a crisis like now and people begin to realise how stupid it was to reject water charges.

Except they have been fixing the leaks..

It just suited FG at the time to tell us all the the sky was falling down but it wasn't, it hasn't and it won't.

At least not on this issue anyway.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

I could look up published Irish Water statistics and extrapolate, you could do the same, but they are out of date and therefore inaccurate. Unless you have real-time current data, anything you or I would post would only be a guesstimate.

So effectively you don't know and neither do I.


Therefore any talk about spending x amount on meters etc to deliver a saving of 5% to 10% of a further unkown percentage to deliver another unkown figure and how it would somehow have prevented from us being in the position we are now in is completely illogical.


Do you accept that?
It's nonsense without hard figures.
It is pure fantasy.





If someone has got the figures I'd like to see them.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

First of all, as Freudian has clearly demonstrated, metering reduces demand, based on empirical evidence from across the world. Thankfully you no longer seem to be challenging this notion.

.

Irish waters own data directly contradicts this.

Average Irish person uses half the water previously estimated, says Irish Water

IRC, that placed Irish water usage as being amongst the lowest in the EC.

this was despite previously not being metered at all, so no incentive to conserve.

Then meter usage being capped, so no incentive to conserve.

We aren't wasteful with water.

Fact.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Irish waters own data directly contradicts this.

Average Irish person uses half the water previously estimated, says Irish Water

IRC, that placed Irish water usage as being amongst the lowest in the EC.

this was despite previously not being metered at all, so no incentive to conserve.

Then meter usage being capped, so no incentive to conserve.

We aren't wasteful with water.

Fact.

The figures I provided were from Irish Water.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The figures I provided were from Irish Water.

Where do you think mine were from

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Irish waters own data directly contradicts this.

Average Irish person uses half the water previously estimated, says Irish Water

IRC, that placed Irish water usage as being amongst the lowest in the EC.

this was despite previously not being metered at all, so no incentive to conserve.

Then meter usage being capped, so no incentive to conserve.

We aren't wasteful with water.

Fact.

Nope. Newstalk website isn't a source of facts about water.

Will take the other link direct from Irish Water instead. Anyway, even if we are not wasteful, the fact that metering reduces demand further by 5-15% is exactly what we need in the short term to address the water shortage issues. If we become the least wasteful in the world as a result, that is even better.