Water charges revisited?

molloyjh · 17-07-2018 3:07pm

dense wrote: »

It's all up in the air, and I certainly couldn't lend my support to water charges with it being such a poorly thought out strategy that it has more holes in it than the network.

A fairly rational sentence which I can totally understand. Sadly undone by what came next....

dense wrote: »

There's an ulterior motive afoot and its got nothing to do with conserving water.

That's tinfoil hat stuff. Water charges make sense, both economically and environmentally. We just have a history in this country of being incapable of implementing large scale projects like this with anything remotely like top class efficiency. We piss away money with badly managed or badly set up infrastructure regularly. We don't need an ulterior motive to mess this stuff up.

aido79 · 17-07-2018 3:30pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Seeing as how they can't meter almost 33% of homes on the public supply

Why can't they meter them? If a house or apartment has an incoming main water supply then it is possible to meter it. It may require a different method to install the meter but it is possible. Maybe you can explain why you don't think this is the case?

FreudianSlippers · 17-07-2018 3:44pm

There's no reason really, the government could have just stipulated that either homeowners allow Irish Water to install a meter on their property or that they would be financially responsible for doing it themselves, otherwise pay a flat amount - they just didn't do that for whatever reason.

The problem is that some properties have multiple homes situate on one mains - i.e. mains goes onto the property and is then split on the property.

No reason this couldn't work in apartments as well, like electricity (of which I'm sure there must be legislation compelling you to have a meter or face a penalty).

It's just more people overjoyed that the well off are paying for all their freebies unfortunately.

Chips Lovell · 17-07-2018 3:47pm

To be honest, I think the well off benefit most from having no water charges. People in apartments or terraced houses are unlikely to have swimming pools or sprinkler systems watering their lawns.

James Brown · 17-07-2018 3:50pm

molloyjh wrote: »

A fairly rational sentence which I can totally understand. Sadly undone by what came next....

That's tinfoil hat stuff. Water charges make sense, both economically and environmentally. We just have a history in this country of being incapable of implementing large scale projects like this with anything remotely like top class efficiency. We piss away money with badly managed or badly set up infrastructure regularly. We don't need an ulterior motive to mess this stuff up.

What's 'tin foil hat' about an 'ulterior motive'? A siteserv/metering deal currently under investigation? 'Looking after our own'? Putting a driver on the board? And then we've the pissing money away on consultants and yoga which you seem to take as par for the course. None of this was accidental. So would you say the environment/upgrading the water infrastructure was a only/main goal and point of all this, or maybe there was an ulterior motive? We know the off the books element was a motive separate from the environment.

Chips Lovell · 17-07-2018 3:54pm

There is no inquiry underway into the award of water meter contracts.

There is an inquiry into the sale of Siteserv to Denis O'Brien by IBRC (and all other deals by IBRC which involved a write-off of more then €10 million).

The confusion may lie in the fact that Siteserv owns 50 per cent of one of the three companies awarded water meter installation contracts.

blanch152 · 17-07-2018 3:55pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, it isn't. I was mentioning how it wasn't a new problem only discovered in 2011. I also mentioned how it was bad housekeeping not to have tackled it decades ago, as it got worse and became a bigger problem. So it does indeed matter.
You carry on with more inaccuracies. We didn't need IW to oversee a combined multi LA overhaul of water infrastructure using contractors. We had/have the Dept. of the Environment and already LA's using contractors for water supply issues before the IW con was dreamt up.
On paying, I always did and continue to do so. Round and round we go...

So it was a bad idea not to fix it decades ago when the incompetent local authorities were in charge of water, but it is also a bad idea to take the responsibility off those incompetent local authorities and give it to a single national utility.

Impeccable logic.

James Brown · 17-07-2018 4:00pm

blanch152 wrote: »

So it was a bad idea not to fix it decades ago when the incompetent local authorities were in charge of water, but it is also a bad idea to take the responsibility off those incompetent local authorities and give it to a single national utility.

Impeccable logic.

We have the exact same system we always had except now there's more money, more attention and IW instead of the dept of the environment. IW stated that the LA's did a great job despite being underfunded for decades. Or are IW an untrust worthy source :rolleyes:
And we are using the LA's who are using contractors, as we were before IW.
Spend millions on a quango to look after our own. Fine Gael logic.

McMurphy · 17-07-2018 4:16pm

aido79 wrote: »

Why can't they meter them? If a house or apartment has an incoming main water supply then it is possible to meter it. It may require a different method to install the meter but it is possible. Maybe you can explain why you don't think this is the case?

All of the above has already been covered - multiple times - in all of the various mega threads, some of which you contributed to - quite a bit actually.

So I have zero interest in rehashing stuff you're already aware of.

James Brown · 17-07-2018 4:18pm

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There is no inquiry underway into the award of water meter contracts.

There is an inquiry into the sale of Siteserv to Denis O'Brien by IBRC (and all other deals by IBRC which involved a write-off of more then €10 million).

The confusion may lie in the fact that Siteserv owns 50 per cent of one of the three companies awarded water meter installation contracts.

Any confusion lies in the fact that the sale coincided with the awarding of the metering contract and Fine Gael/O'Brien have previous.

dense · 17-07-2018 4:37pm

molloyjh wrote: »

A fairly rational sentence which I can totally understand. Sadly undone by what came next....

That's tinfoil hat stuff. Water charges make sense, both economically and environmentally. We just have a history in this country of being incapable of implementing large scale projects like this with anything remotely like top class efficiency. We piss away money with badly managed or badly set up infrastructure regularly. We don't need an ulterior motive to mess this stuff up.

Here's the real tinfoil hat stuff.

The European Commission listing the advantages of liberalisation, advantages that we are currently being denied as long as Irish Water remains a monopoly utility, funded substantially by government:

What are the advantages of liberalisation?

Consumers can choose from among different service providers and products. For example, in the railway, electricity and gas industries, network operators are now required to give competitors fair access to their networks. In these industries, monitoring fair network access by all suppliers is essential, so that:

consumers can choose the supplier offering the best conditions;
consumers benefit from lower prices and new services which are usually more efficient and consumer-friendly than before;
national economies become more competitive.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/gene...sation_en.html

It is essential that the next election be fought on a platform of scrapping IW completely, because if allowed to continue to exist after a very clever referendum idea ostensibly about keeping it in public ownership but which is really about cementing the future of Irish Water and water charges, we will ultimately have signed the warrant for Europe to come call saying, hey guys, you've got a single water utility and the good citizens of Ireland really deserve better than that.

Particularly if it ever passes the Eurostat test.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-water-independence-given-cautious-cross-party-backing-1.3567110?mode=amp

That is why I said earlier that I'm confident its only a matter of time before the EC (working closely with their partners in Ireland) will find a remedy to enable us to enjoy the fruits of privatisation and the advantages it offers.

Conservation is a long way down the list, and if we look to our closest neighbours, we find that quite inexplicably, what with their history of embracing water charges, they also now have a hosepipe ban and leaky pipes, proving that charges make not one bit of difference.

The temporary use ban being imposed by United Utilities from 5 August has led to calls for water firms to do more to tackle leakage on their networks.

United Utilities is second only to Thames Water for the amount of water lost en route to households, at 133 litres per property per day, well above the sector’s average of 121 litres.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/17/united-utilities-hosepipe-ban-firm-loses-133-litres-of-water-a-day-per-household-heatwave-weather

Chips Lovell · 17-07-2018 4:37pm

I think that's fairly unlikely. You'd essentially need to corruptly influence two separate processes that are not under the direct control of a minister. If that's what did happen, there's been zero leaking to that effect, which is unusual. But lets see what the inquiry throws up.

dense · 17-07-2018 4:42pm

aido79 wrote: »

Why can't they meter them? If a house or apartment has an incoming main water supply then it is possible to meter it. It may require a different method to install the meter but it is possible. Maybe you can explain why you don't think this is the case?

It is possible to meter them, but it's probably just not worth the hassle.

On top of that, if there are any leaks between apartments they're probably going to be noticed and fixed quickly.

Also, per unit I don't think apartments are going to be heavy users, they're normally low occupancy.

The Bishop Basher · 17-07-2018 7:41pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

There's no reason really, the government could have just stipulated that either homeowners allow Irish Water to install a meter on their property or that they would be financially responsible for doing it themselves, otherwise pay a flat amount - they just didn't do that for whatever reason.

If they want to meter me, they'd have to dig up my driveway and put it back the way they found it which means resurfacing a very large area with tarmac.

I'm one of many hundreds of thousands of homes that aren't worth the cost or the hassle.

aido79 · 17-07-2018 9:20pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

All of the above has already been covered - multiple times - in all of the various mega threads, some of which you contributed to - quite a bit actually.

So I have zero interest in rehashing stuff you're already aware of.

You contributed quite a bit too yourself.

Maybe you can enlighten other people who aren't as knowledgeable as you think I am. There is no reason why every home in the country can't be metered but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

aido79 · 17-07-2018 9:33pm

dense wrote: »

It is possible to meter them, but it's probably just not worth the hassle.

On top of that, if there are any leaks between apartments they're probably going to be noticed and fixed quickly.

Also, per unit I don't think apartments are going to be heavy users, they're normally low occupancy.

I was just making the point that they can be metered. The other poster made it sound like it was an impossibility.
You're right about apartment occupants being on the lower end of the scale when it comes to water usage but if there was a cost effective way of metering them then there's no reason why it couldn't be done.

McMurphy · 17-07-2018 9:40pm

aido79 wrote: »

You contributed quite a bit too yourself.

I did indeed, but it would appear some of us retained more information from them than others.

Maybe you can enlighten other people who aren't as knowledgeable as you think I am. There is no reason why every home in the country can't be metered but feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Maybe I'll let Irish Waters then spokesperson explain why.... they're the experts with 80m euro worth of consultant expertise behind them after all.

Elizabeth Arnett wrote:

We have done a study on metering apartments. It depends on the plumbing configuration of the building. If there’s a separate supply pipe, one pipe into a single apartment, then it is possible to meter and as we develop the metering programme and move onto phase two, we will look at addressing that,” she said.

“But some of the older apartment blocks could have four separate supply pipes in, and you wouldn’t put four meters on one apartment.

“So there will always be technical, plumbing reasons why some properties can’t get metered. We are going to try and get as close to universal metering as we can. You wouldn’t replumb an entire apartment block in that instance, Ms Arnett said

Or

Please tell me she was wrong, and that Irish Water were talking through their hoop Aido....

Because if they were wrong and spoofing about that, what else were they wrong and spoofing about?

charlie14 · 17-07-2018 10:00pm

aido79 wrote: »

I was just making the point that they can be metered. The other poster made it sound like it was an impossibility.
You're right about apartment occupants being on the lower end of the scale when it comes to water usage but if there was a cost effective way of metering them then there's no reason why it couldn't be done.

Cost effective and metering is enough of an oxymoron. It doesn`t need apartments added.

aido79 · 17-07-2018 10:12pm

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I did indeed, but it would appear some of us retained more information from them than others.

Maybe I'll let Irish Waters then spokesperson explain why.... they're the experts with 80m euro worth of consultant expertise behind them after all.

Or

Please tell me she was wrong, and that Irish Water were talking through their hoop Aido....

Because if they were wrong and spoofing about that, what else were they wrong and spoofing about?

As you're the one who quoted her you must believe than there are apartments in Ireland with four supplies going into each apartment. I don't believe this. Even if there are four supplies to the building there will only be one supply into each apartment.

Is Elizabeth Arnett going to be the representative of Irish Water forever in your view? As far as I'm aware she doesn't even work for them anymore.

charlie14 · 17-07-2018 10:52pm

aido79 wrote: »

As you're the one who quoted her you must believe than there are apartments in Ireland with four supplies going into each apartment. I don't believe this. Even if there are four supplies to the building there will only be one supply into each apartment.

Is Elizabeth Arnett going to be the representative of Irish Water forever in your view? As far as I'm aware she doesn't even work for them anymore.

You reckon she just made it up so.

You may be correct. Makes you wonder what else she may have made up. Or even why Irish Water didn`t issue a correction.
Something not right about that whole Irish Water set-up from the start if you ask me.

McMurphy · 17-07-2018 11:00pm

aido79 wrote: »

As you're the one who quoted her you must believe than there are apartments in Ireland with four supplies going into each apartment. I don't believe this. Even if there are four supplies to the building there will only be one supply into each apartment.

So.what you're saying now, is that even with 80m euro worth of propaganda and marketing behind them, Irish Water were still incompetent/dishonest enough to wheel out someone who didn't have a scaldy notion what they were on about

But to answer your question, what I do believe is that it's.possible one supply is entering certain apartment buildings, but getting the meter into individual apartments (and certain private properties) is where meter installers have no legal basis to enter/and it would not make economical sense to do so.

However, the fact you are saying you don't believe/Are saying they're spoofing after all the money and hours that was ploughed into their spin machine now looks like you understand why the public had them as the least trusted entity among Irish people a number of times.

Is Elizabeth Arnett going to be the representative of Irish Water forever in your view? As far as I'm aware she doesn't even work for them anymore.

Oh dear.... you might want to read that post that you actually quoted again.....

Maybe I'll let Irish Waters then spokesperson explain why

aido79 · 18-07-2018 1:30am

charlie14 wrote: »

You reckon she just made it up so.

You may be correct. Makes you wonder what else she may have made up. Or even why Irish Water didn`t issue a correction.
Something not right about that whole Irish Water set-up from the start if you ask me.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

So.what you're saying now, is that even with 80m euro worth of propaganda and marketing behind them, Irish Water were still incompetent/dishonest enough to wheel out someone who didn't have a scaldy notion what they were on about

But to answer your question, what I do believe is that it's.possible one supply is entering certain apartment buildings, but getting the meter into individual apartments (and certain private properties) is where meter installers have no legal basis to enter/and it would not make economical sense to do so.

However, the fact you are saying you don't believe/Are saying they're spoofing after all the money and hours that was ploughed into their spin machine now looks like you understand why the public had them as the least trusted entity among Irish people a number of times.

Oh dear.... you might want to read that post that you actually quoted again.....

This thread is about water charges not Irish Water. I'm not going to be dragged into a discussion on the problems with the set up of Irish Water as alot of the mistakes made are indefensible.

charlie14 · 18-07-2018 1:13pm

aido79 wrote: »

This thread is about water charges not Irish Water. I'm not going to be dragged into a discussion on the problems with the set up of Irish Water as alot of the mistakes made are indefensible.

What a truly bizarre post.

There are poster on here mentioning laws to back up Irish Water collecting charges for using water over an allocation, yet you want to talk about just water charges.
If we were having a discussion about elephant dung, do you in all honesty believe it would be anyway credible to just talk about the steaming heap in the middle of the floor while ignoring the fact there is an elephant standing in the corner?

James Brown · 18-07-2018 2:25pm

aido79 wrote: »

This thread is about water charges not Irish Water. I'm not going to be dragged into a discussion on the problems with the set up of Irish Water as alot of the mistakes made are indefensible.

It's pondering whether they would ever be reintroduced and if so, in what form. There were no mistakes made. There were things they would have done differently due to being found out and the public backlash, but nobody rushed the creation of IW. In fact everyone bar FG/Lab wanted to discuss it further. These were not mistakes.
In short the personalities of FF/FG have never changed, nor would I expect them to. Therefore you will have much the same kind of people at the helm should the idea ever be raised again. It's important that these people know the public, (most of it any way) will not stand for the same again.
Yes the infrastructure needs repair and overhauling. It's just unfortunate that it seems government is only interested 'if there's a shilling in it', (to paraphrase P. Flynn quoting Haughey).

GreeBo · 18-07-2018 2:51pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Domestic water meters were not designed to measure water. They were designed to charge for water. Area metering will measure water usage at a fraction of the cost.

Have you actually even read anything on the percentage of mains leakage compared domestic household side leakage ?
If not then please do so before asking such a silly question again.
It is all well documented here in a previous thread.

I have contributed, as has ever citizen, to the provision of water and waste water services through general taxation, and still do Same as all other State services.
What is it you do not get about that?

Water metres measure the washer that passes through them. Charging is another thing altogether. Three better isn't charging you anything, it simply reports usage.

Again, going by your own figures that of the leaks, 50% are mains, then why would you ignore the consumer side? It's half!

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, it isn't. I was mentioning how it wasn't a new problem only discovered in 2011. I also mentioned how it was bad housekeeping not to have tackled it decades ago, as it got worse and became a bigger problem. So it does indeed matter.
You carry on with more inaccuracies. We didn't need IW to oversee a combined multi LA overhaul of water infrastructure using contractors. We had/have the Dept. of the Environment and already LA's using contractors for water supply issues before the IW con was dreamt up.
On paying, I always did and continue to do so. Round and round we go...

Bad housekeeping?
Are you serous? You don't think it was anything to do with there just not being enough money? Perhaps due to things like education, health, roads?
You need a single entity to oversee billion dollar systems, that's why every large business works this way.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Half the job actually. The other half was to bring in cash.

Oh please... they're Irish waters figures...... is this even still up for debate at this point?

source

See this bit in particular from the article

Isn't this contradicting yourself?

A meter is required to charge for usage, you don't need to charge for usage just because you have a meter. There is still value in tracking usage.

What am I contradicting, I'm not following you?

charlie14 · 18-07-2018 3:10pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Water metres measure the washer that passes through them. Charging is another thing altogether. Three better isn't charging you anything, it simply reports usage.

Again, going by your own figures that of the leaks, 50% are mains, then why would you ignore the consumer side? It's half!

Domestic water meters, as I have told you but you have chosen to ignore, were not installed simply to measure water passing through them, they were install to charge for water passing through them.
Have you actually heard of district water meters?
Install one on a mains going into a district and one on the mains coming out and wallah you know how much water is being used in that district during any time period at a fraction of the cost of domestic metering.

Just have a little think about it.
If 50% (half) of water flowing through a main is lost through mains leakage, and a further 50% (half) is lost on the household side through leaks, how much water will come out of your tap when you turn it on!

crossman47 · 18-07-2018 3:47pm

Would all of those who oppose water charges please answer the following question. If water infrastructure is to be built/repaired from general taxation and if tax rates are not increased for that purpose, what item from education, health or social welfare (the three big spends) can the government cut to fund the expenditure on water? I know Paul Murphy would be up in arms if any of them were cut.

Hitman3000 · 18-07-2018 3:56pm

crossman47 wrote:

Would all of those who oppose water charges please answer the following question. If water infrastructure is to be built/repaired from general taxation and if tax rates are not increased for that purpose, what item from education, health or social welfare (the three big spends) can the government cut to fund the expenditure on water? I know Paul Murphy would be up in arms if any of them were cut.

Loaded questions as always by those in favour of charges. Your particular questions have been asked ad nauseam on the mega threads. There is a regular 'thanker' of posts here who on a regular basis posed the exact same questions. Yet repeatedly ignored any reply. How about you answer your own question?

crossman47 · 18-07-2018 3:58pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Loaded questions as always by those in favour of charges. Your particular questions have been asked ad nauseam on the mega threads. There is a regular 'thanker' of posts here who on a regular basis posed the exact same questions. Yet repeatedly ignored any reply. How about you answer your own question?

My answer would be to apply water charges or, failing that, introduce a higher rate of income tax on salaries over, say, 100k.

Hitman3000 · 18-07-2018 4:02pm

crossman47 wrote:

My answer would be to apply water charges or, failing that, introduce a higher rate of income tax on salaries over, say, 100k.

Mine would be to actually apply the set cooperation tax rates. I see your 100k is to play towards a certain inciteful narrative, it's old... Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds springs to mind.

McMurphy · 18-07-2018 4:59pm

aido79 wrote: »

This thread is about water charges not Irish Water. I'm not going to be dragged into a discussion on the problems with the set up of Irish Water as alot of the mistakes made are indefensible.

Just checked there, and you've made 10 posts in this thread, 2 x of which touched on increasing taxes to fund water.

1 x was a theoretical tale of buying stuff in a supermarket.

1 x was in relation to conspiracy theories and buying a bankrupt company.

1 x was talking about property tax.

4 x were about metering, and demanding an answer as to how certain properties couldn't be metered.

When called out, your last post was how you wanted to discuss charges, not metering or the mistakes made establishing Irish Water.

The irony of the last post hasn't been lost on me.

dense · 18-07-2018 5:06pm

crossman47 wrote: »

Would all of those who oppose water charges please answer the following question. If water infrastructure is to be built/repaired from general taxation and if tax rates are not increased for that purpose, what item from education, health or social welfare (the three big spends) can the government cut to fund the expenditure on water? I know Paul Murphy would be up in arms if any of them were cut.

It is being built and repaired for the last few years through general taxation without any tax increases.

Funding it through charges, how much would you set the annual charge at for an average household using the average amount of water?

I don't know what we're currently spending on water as it's as you say not one of the headline spends, someone else might know?

Whatever it is it doesn't seem to be sufficient so add 50% or just double it and divide it by the number of households.

Lets say thats 4 billion a year, the average bill would be around €2600 a year for the water bill for each household.

Is that the sort of figure you had in mind to expedite the job?

Or do we just keep trundling on with half the water leaking and everyone kicking the can down the road.

GreeBo · 18-07-2018 5:31pm

charlie14 wrote: »

Domestic water meters, as I have told you but you have chosen to ignore, were not installed simply to measure water passing through them, they were install to charge for water passing through them.

They facilitate charging for usage, thats not their sole purpose.
They are designed to measure water flowing through them.
This figure is then used to charge people.
The statement was made on here that they were rotting in the ground.
This is quite clearly false, they are measuring water, irrespective of charging or not. They have no idea if water is being charged or not.

charlie14 wrote: »

Have you actually heard of district water meters?
Install one on a mains going into a district and one on the mains coming out and wallah you know how much water is being used in that district during any time period at a fraction of the cost of domestic metering.

No it doesn't tell you how much is actually being *used* it just tells you how much you have for the next district.
If 100L are measured on the way in and 0L are measured on the way out, how does that help you determine if you have a leak or not?

charlie14 wrote: »

Just have a little think about it.
If 50% (half) of water flowing through a main is lost through mains leakage, and a further 50% (half) is lost on the household side through leaks, how much water will come out of your tap when you turn it on!

I think you are incorrect there.
The total losses are 50%, its not 50% + 25% = 75%
Its 50% of all treated water that is lost. (UFW)

GreeBo · 18-07-2018 5:33pm

dense wrote: »

It is being built and repaired for the last few years through general taxation without any tax increases.

Funding it through charges, how much would you set the annual charge at for an average household using the average amount of water?

I don't know what we're currently spending on water as it's as you say not one of the headline spends, someone else might know?

Whatever it is it doesn't seem to be sufficient so add 50% or just double it and divide it by the number of households.

Lets say thats 4 billion a year, the average bill would be around €2600 a year for the water bill for each household.

Is that the sort of figure you had in mind to expedite the job?

Or do we just keep trundling on with half the water leaking and everyone kicking the can down the road.

Its not being funded through charges.
Charges (ultimately) allow IW to borrow off the governments balance sheet.

Hitman3000 · 18-07-2018 5:36pm

GreeBo wrote:

Its not being funded through charges. Charges (ultimately) allow IW to borrow off the governments balance sheet.

Thought Eurostat claimed the opposite. Due to allowances ,subvention etc IW failed the market test and had to stay on the books.

GreeBo · 18-07-2018 5:42pm

crossman47 wrote: »

My answer would be to apply water charges or, failing that, introduce a higher rate of income tax on salaries over, say, 100k.

Do people over 100K have different water usage?

dense · 18-07-2018 5:47pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Its not being funded through charges.
Charges (ultimately) allow IW to borrow off the governments balance sheet.

I just said it's being funded through genera taxation.

If it was being funded by charges what would the average charge be expected to be?

Or, how much would you like your water bill to be per year.

Hitman3000 · 18-07-2018 5:49pm

GreeBo wrote:

Do people over 100K have different water usage?

Swimming pools? We were told why should everyone else pay for all those that have swimming pools. The country is awash with private swimming pools or so we were led to believe. There's about 20 in the area where I live but we call them 'baths.

GreeBo · 18-07-2018 5:55pm

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Swimming pools? We were told why should everyone else pay for all those that have swimming pools. The country is awash with private swimming pools or so we were led to believe. There's about 20 in the area where I live but we call them 'baths.

What has earning €100K got to do with swimming pools?

If you want people with swimming pools to pay more for water, then charge them for having pools.
Or increase everyones tax to cover whats needed.
Better yet, charge people for the amount of water they use!
But done pick an arbitrary number that has nothing to do with water and tax people based on it.

Hitman3000 · 18-07-2018 5:57pm

GreeBo wrote:

What has earning â‚¬100K got to do with swimming pools?

No idea, but considering some of the nonsense being posted here it's in an ironic way valid.

tom1ie · 18-07-2018 5:57pm

crossman47 wrote: »

Would all of those who oppose water charges please answer the following question. If water infrastructure is to be built/repaired from general taxation and if tax rates are not increased for that purpose, what item from education, health or social welfare (the three big spends) can the government cut to fund the expenditure on water? I know Paul Murphy would be up in arms if any of them were cut.

I’ve no problem paying for water, as long as the following criteria is met:

a fair amount is allocated for washing, drinking etc with no charge
Irish water can not increase the price of a unit of water by more than inflation and not two years in a row.
Irish water cannot be privatized.
All money generated by Irish water goes back into the water infrastructure, not to be paid out in the form of dividends to its shareholders. (Shareholder being the government) a la esb.
The original charging price will be set the same as the lowest price in Europe. (I’d be willing to move a little on this)

If these criteria was met then I’d have no problem.

James Brown · 18-07-2018 5:57pm

GreeBo wrote: »

...

Again, going by your own figures that of the leaks, 50% are mains, then why would you ignore the consumer side? It's half!

Bad housekeeping?
Are you serous? You don't think it was anything to do with there just not being enough money? Perhaps due to things like education, health, roads?
You need a single entity to oversee billion dollar systems, that's why every large business works this way.

A meter is required to charge for usage, you don't need to charge for usage just because you have a meter. There is still value in tracking usage.

What am I contradicting, I'm not following you?

Half of the water is lost through the mains leaks. Not half of the leaks are in the mains.

Bad house keeping, as pointed out, refers to allocation of monies and attention paid to areas, or lack thereof. It's about managing priorities and funding areas. As regards water infrastructure, it was under funded and neglected...to the point, where generations later it needs a complete overhaul. That's bad housekeeping. Water infrastructure upkeep was underfunded for decades. As mentioned, it's not a new problem discovered in 2011.
A single government body, like say the Dept. of Environment, (who oversee IW) to oversee all the LA's upgrading, replacing pipe is a great idea. Why we would create IW is another idea.

dense · 18-07-2018 6:06pm

Is there any possibility that wanting to pay water charges is just a symbolic thing, some people will say they want to pay them, and others ahould too, but in truth don't really want to.

Would anyone like to put forward in figures what they (the average household user) think they should be be paying in water charges per year?

To enable IW be independent funded and all the off the books loans stuff etc.

Hitman3000 · 18-07-2018 6:12pm

dense wrote:

Is there any possibility that wanting to pay water charges is just a symbolic thing, some people will say they want to pay them, and others ahould too, but in truth don't really want to.

In my opinion there are two groups who wish to pay water charges. Those who believe in a politicial ideology and those for environmental reasons. The latter I can understand.

GreeBo · 18-07-2018 6:24pm

tom1ie wrote: »

I’ve no problem paying for water, as long as the following criteria is met:

a fair amount is allocated for washing, drinking etc with no charge
Irish water can not increase the price of a unit of water by more than inflation and not two years in a row.
Irish water cannot be privatized.
All money generated by Irish water goes back into the water infrastructure, not to be paid out in the form of dividends to its shareholders. (Shareholder being the government) a la esb.
The original charging price will be set the same as the lowest price in Europe. (I’d be willing to move a little on this)

If these criteria was met then I’d have no problem.

Why should any of the water you use be free?
Why do you think we should only pay the lowest European price? I think there is a cost of living and average income difference between us and other European countries...

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Half of the water is lost through the mains leaks. Not half of the leaks are in the mains.

Half of the water thats lost is lost through the mains.
The other half is lost on the consumer side.

If you believe that 50% of the water is lost in the mains you are saying that ZERO water is lost on the customer side, which completely against what IW and local authorities say.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Bad house keeping, as pointed out, refers to allocation of monies and attention paid to areas, or lack thereof. It's about managing priorities and funding areas. As regards water infrastructure, it was under funded and neglected...to the point, where generations later it needs a complete overhaul. That's bad housekeeping. Water infrastructure upkeep was underfunded for decades. As mentioned, it's not a new problem discovered in 2011.
A single government body, like say the Dept. of Environment, (who oversee IW) to oversee all the LA's upgrading, replacing pipe is a great idea. Why we would create IW is another idea.

Do you not think that the money that didnt go to IW went to other areas that needed it? Health for example?

So why do we have ESB, Bord Gais etc etc if we can just leave everything to the local authorities?
DoE is far too broad reaching to also have to control the water system which in turn is controlled by each LA.

Your argument contains the large contradiction that you (rightly) say the water system was neglected for years by the LAs. Your solution to this is to continue to let the LA individually manage their own systems?

dense wrote: »

Is there any possibility that wanting to pay water charges is just a symbolic thing, some people will say they want to pay them, and others ahould too, but in truth don't really want to.

Would anyone like to put forward in figures what they (the average household user) think they should be be paying in water charges per year?

To enable IW be independent funded and all the off the books loans stuff etc.

Maybe, now bear with me, some people believe they should just pay for what they use?

Do you pay your ESB and gas bill out of symbolic reasons?

James Brown · 18-07-2018 6:36pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Why should any of the water you use be free?
Why do you think we should only pay the lowest European price? I think there is a cost of living and average income difference between us and other European countries...

Half of the water thats lost is lost through the mains.
The other half is lost on the consumer side.

If you believe that 50% of the water is lost in the mains you are saying that ZERO water is lost on the customer side, which completely against what IW and local authorities say.

Do you not think that the money that didnt go to IW went to other areas that needed it? Health for example?

So why do we have ESB, Bord Gais etc etc if we can just leave everything to the local authorities?
DoE is far too broad reaching to also have to control the water system which in turn is controlled by each LA.

Your argument contains the large contradiction that you (rightly) say the water system was neglected for years by the LAs. Your solution to this is to continue to let the LA individually manage their own systems?

Maybe, now bear with me, some people believe they should just pay for what they use?

Do you pay your ESB and gas bill out of symbolic reasons?

That's false. 50% of our water is lost due to mains leaks.
No, I'm saying 50% of our water is lost due to mains leaks. Of the remaining 50%, people use that, there is likely a portion lost in household leaks.

Of course the money was allocated elsewhere. That's the point. Now it's suddenly an emergency for government, sorry it was until we said no to the con.

Because the LA's were set up to look after streets, housing and water supply. The others have there own areas to look after.
If the LA's were properly funded re water, we wouldn't have a problem.

No, I did nae. I said the LA's were under funded for decades. They still did a great job considering, so Irish water thinks anyway.

How many yards of new pipes would:

100m (the loss to the state on selling Siteserv so D.O'B could 'tender' for metering)
70m on consultants
25m P.A. on processing billing
130m on the water concervation grant if everyone claimed it

http://www.thejournal.ie/actavo-denis-obrien-funded-2-3804021-Jan2018/
http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-consultants-3183868-Jan2017/
http://www.moneyguideireland.com/water-conservation-grant.html

have gotten us?
325 million needlessly wasted, not including staffing, set up costs, legal fees, accountants etc. etc. in the millions.
That's my issue with IW. It wasn't needed, but how else would one go about 'looking after our own'?

charlie14 · 18-07-2018 6:52pm

GreeBo wrote: »

They facilitate charging for usage, thats not their sole purpose.
They are designed to measure water flowing through them.
This figure is then used to charge people.
The statement was made on here that they were rotting in the ground.
This is quite clearly false, they are measuring water, irrespective of charging or not. They have no idea if water is being charged or not.

No it doesn't tell you how much is actually being *used* it just tells you how much you have for the next district.
If 100L are measured on the way in and 0L are measured on the way out, how does that help you determine if you have a leak or not?

I think you are incorrect there.
The total losses are 50%, its not 50% + 25% = 75%
Its 50% of all treated water that is lost. (UFW)

Actually that is domestic meters only purpose. The one they were designed to do. Charge domestic households for water.
What else to you appear to believe they are capable off. Detecting mains leaks ?
If you do, then go read the mega thread. That whole baloney was exposed there for what it was.

Please go and read at least something on area metering and how it works.
Quick synopsis. Area meter A going into a housing estate. Area meter B coming out of a housing estate. Subtract A from B and that is the total used or leaked in that estate. Take the number of houses in that estate multiply by the average household water use, subtract from your first total and that will give you the quantity leaked.
If the difference is over, say 20% (a general acceptable level for leakage) then depending on the percentage above that, you have a level of leakage going from minor to major.

Now for a major leak, considering the size of the mains pipe and the pressure compared to the size and pressure of the domestic side pipe where would you imagine that major leak is. Mains or a domestic side pipe ?

If you do not believe me on mains leaks then stop the nonsense of "I think you are incorrect there" and come back with your percentage for mains leaks and household side leaks.

dense · 18-07-2018 6:59pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Maybe, now bear with me, some people believe they should just pay for what they use?

You use c250 litres a day in the average household.

How much should you pay a year?

And if you do offer a figure, will you explain how you arrived at it?

GreeBo · 19-07-2018 1:12am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's false. 50% of our water is lost due to mains leaks.
No, I'm saying 50% of our water is lost due to mains leaks. Of the remaining 50%, people use that, there is likely a portion lost in household leaks.

Do you have numbers to back that up?
According to IW in 2017 we had 47% leaks, they have since fixed some.
Why are you ignoring the leaks that are on the customers side when IW says they are a significant % of leaks?
You have decided that the "50%" number that is bandied about is all in the mains, this is incorrect and wrong.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Of course the money was allocated elsewhere. That's the point. Now it's suddenly an emergency for government, sorry it was until we said no to the con.

Why do you think it went elsewhere?
The water system, while in desperate need of repair, was still satisfying demand unlike, say the health system.
"The con"? Please. :rolleyes:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because the LA's were set up to look after streets, housing and water supply. The others have there own areas to look after.
If the LA's were properly funded re water, we wouldn't have a problem.

Again using the magical money that comes from where exactly?
We wouldnt have any problem if we had the money.
IW is the vehicle setup to get this money.
Which part of the above dont you understand?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, I did nae. I said the LA's were under funded for decades. They still did a great job considering, so Irish water thinks anyway.

Oh so when it suits your "argument" you agree with IW? Useful that.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How many yards of new pipes would:

have gotten us?
325 million needlessly wasted, not including staffing, set up costs, legal fees, accountants etc. etc. in the millions.
That's my issue with IW. It wasn't needed, but how else would one go about 'looking after our own'?

Well lets see, current estimate is €5.5bn and you are, as usual, ignoring the fact that setting up any entity has a one off cost, but in any case, €325M isn't much out of a budget of €5.5BN tbh.

charlie14 wrote: »

Actually that is domestic meters only purpose. The one they were designed to do. Charge domestic households for water.
What else to you appear to believe they are capable off. Detecting mains leaks ?

No, they can detect leaks at the household side, as they have done many times since they were installed.
Its simple stuff, but I'll go over it again.
Water leaves treatment plant, via a meter.
It enters a water district, via a meter.
It enters customer property, via a meter
It leaves district, via a meter.
Can you not see that without meters on the customer side you have no idea if water is actually being used or not. How do you differentiate between people using water and water pissing into the ground on customers property without a meter at the customer?
Area/District/Whatever metering thats only on the mains will only tell you whats flowing between to meters. Thats fine if there are no consumers between the two meters.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you do, then go read the mega thread. That whole baloney was exposed there for what it was.

You call it baloney, the rest of us will call it data.
As a scientist I prefer when people make decisions based on data, you observe and you measure. Thats what meters do.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Please go and read at least something on area metering and how it works.
Quick synopsis. Area meter A going into a housing estate. Area meter B coming out of a housing estate. Subtract A from B and that is the total used or leaked in that estate. Take the number of houses in that estate multiply by the average household water use, subtract from your first total and that will give you the quantity leaked.

Erm, how do you determine the average household use if the only numbers you have for usage include leaks that you have no figures for?!
Tarot cards?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If the difference is over, say 20% (a general acceptable level for leakage) then depending on the percentage above that, you have a level of leakage going from minor to major.

Now for a major leak, considering the size of the mains pipe and the pressure compared to the size and pressure of the domestic side pipe where would you imagine that major leak is. Mains or a domestic side pipe ?

It could be on the 1 mains or on many of the tens of thousands of domestic outlets.
1 high pressure leak = thousands of low pressure leaks.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you do not believe me on mains leaks then stop the nonsense of "I think you are incorrect there" and come back with your percentage for mains leaks and household side leaks.

I cant do that because some idiots stopped the meters that would give us these figures from being installed!

dense wrote: »

You use c250 litres a day in the average household.

How much should you pay a year?

And if you do offer a figure, will you explain how you arrived at it?

I should pay a figure that reasonably covers the cost of producing that water minus any government subsidy.

How much do you think you should pay for your electricity or gas?
I keep asking this and you keep ignoring it.
Why is water so different from gas and electricity?

Good loser · 19-07-2018 1:15am

dense wrote: »

You use c250 litres a day in the average household.

How much should you pay a year?

And if you do offer a figure, will you explain how you arrived at it?

Like every other country in the world people should pay in accordance with their usage. The charges should cover the costs of the utility - capital and current. It's called commonsense.

Water charges revisited?

Comments