Water charges revisited?

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

eh hello?
The meters are the thing that give you more than the vaguest notion of how much water is leaked on the customer side.
They MEASURE water. Thats their job.


I havent been guessing, I've been reading the published information.


Well back in 2015 7% of the installed meters showed leaks on customer side with an estiamted 46Ml/day leaking on the customers side.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0330/690949-water-meters/

How often has it to be explained to you. Domestic water meters were not installed to detect leaks. Nor are they even a vaguely cost effective way of doing so.
They were installed to charge for water.


If you have been reading the published information then from the link you posted you should be able to calculate from that estimated 46Million liters, what the percentage of the 1,600Million liters that are produced daily is in household leakage.

2.25% unless my mathematics are completely askew.


Before you came back with all water treated daily does not go to domestic household, I will save you the trouble and me the time.
60% of water treated daily goes to domestic households, therefore that 2.25% now becomes 3.75% of water produced leaked on the household side of mains.


So.... what percentage of water is leaking from the mains, and do you still think a spend of 1 Billion euros is justifiable to detect 3.75% of leaked water .

blanch152

charlie14 wrote: »

If you are attempting to ignore the 213,000 liters per annum then at this stage you are ignoring reality with your figures I`m afraid.
As pro posters in the past were more than keen to tell us when backing the whole clusterf**k. "It is what it is. Learn to live with it."

The 213,000 liter per annum is just a figure. It can change up or down.

blanch152

Sleeper12 wrote: »

My business is shower repair. I am is 5 to 8 bathrooms per day. On average 2 bathrooms per day have leaking taps or toilet running. I specialize in showers & don't do tap washers & the like but the thing is most people don't ask about the tap or toilet. They want the shower fixed because they want to shower but they don't care about water wasted from their house because it's "free". They might know that water isn't free but they wont spend money to stop the waste of water.


In the run up to having to pay per litre people were fixing these small leaks. I had clients asking what shower uses the least amount of water. Now people want the showers that use the most. I do myself tbh but I should have to pay for the privilege. I still use my power shower during the drought but we are operating a yellow mellow/ brown flush it down policy in my home for the last 3 or 4 weeks. Longer than the hosepipe ban. Irish water left it late imo





I suggested 100 per person/adult not 100 per house




I'm not a FG supporter. I think the last government under Enda Kenny was one of the worst in the history of the state but I'm a firm believer in paying for water & property tax. When the worlds economy crashed due to the banking crisis in 2008 we suffered more then most countries. Obviously we were far too reliant on the building sector for tax generation but that wasn't all. Aur tax base wasn't spread out enough. We should have had property tax & water tax/charges to soften the blow. It would have been easier to bring in property tax & water charges during the boom. Each budget they gave us tax breaks, higher dole & pensions. It would have been easier then to say "look we're shifting the way you pay tax. Higher welfare payments & lower tax rates. It's the same only different"

Those conservation issues are the main reason I supported water charges and why I continue to argue in favour of water charges.

McMurphy

GreeBo wrote: »

Well back in 2015 7% of the installed meters showed leaks on customer side with an estiamted 46Ml/day leaking on the customers side.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0330/690949-water-meters/

Sorry, this isn't answering the question I asked, let's try again.

You said.

"Enough" is how much we should pay. Right now we are not paying "enough" and the system is in tatters.

So I was asking for concrete evidence that we're not paying enough already. In your own time please.

With the only down side being that they give that same fraction of information!
You have yet to explain how a meter on each end of a towns supply gives you ANY information on leaks within that town.

It's called a sample reading for a reason, think of district metering like an opinion poll, it will most definitely point towards problem areas/ districts.

All been covered already.

Yesh the mask, because Im the bogeyman who wants you to pay your way.
Unless you are paying for what you use, YOU ARE NOT paying for water.

But FGsexpert committee reached a conclusion that water services were best paid via current taxation. I am paying tax (quite a lot actually) so how's it being funded now so?

Apart from that, capped water charges also meant people weren't paying for what they used anyway (FG/Labour brainwave)

Square that circle.

Its no different in so far as its a resource that you pay as you use, based on your usage.

You're all over the shop, when given a MASSIVE difference between gas/ electric and the free allowances with water, you come back saying "you pay for what you use" narrative.

You don't with allowances in water, and you certain weren't going to with capped charges either.

Honestly, this has already been done to death the first time FG tried to foist Irish Water on the people.

It's like watching a movie you've already seen and expecting a different ending.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

The 213,000 liter per annum is just a figure. It can change up or down.

If you want to talk in possibilities rather than the present reality, then there is the same possibility of whole domestic metering idea never being revisited.

GreeBo

charlie14 wrote: »

How often has it to be explained to you. Domestic water meters were not installed to detect leaks. Nor are they even a vaguely cost effective way of doing so.
They were installed to charge for water.

From the very link I posted.
"The metering programme is essential in helping us to fully understand our water demand requirements and where water is being lost."

charlie14 wrote: »

So.... what percentage of water is leaking from the mains, and do you still think a spend of 1 Billion euros is justifiable to detect 3.75% of leaked water .

A one off cost to allow us to track and charge for water usage?
Sure.
Obviously I'd like it to cost less, but I'd like everything to cost less. It was never going to be free.
Meters are an enabler for many things.

tom1ie wrote: »

Wow.

Ok have you looked to see if other semi state companies are paying massive dividends out of the “profits” they generate? Say for example esb? 1.5 billion over 10 years. Why would it be any different with iw?
Yes they’ll use the profits to put into infrastructure for the first while but then it’ll start going into dividends and ceo’s Pay packets etc etc.
I honestly cant believe you don’t realize that.
As I’ve said if this was not allowed I’d have no problem paying water charges.

So you are fine paying X for the water you use, as long as that X is used to fix the leaks.
As soon as a portion of that X is used for something else, you suddenly have a problem with it?
Even though you getting exactly the same (if not at least better pressure) service and the same supply/amount of water?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Sorry, this isn't answering the question I asked, let's try again.

You said.



So I was asking for concrete evidence that we're not paying enough already. In your own time please.

I've answered that many times, but I'll go one more.
If we were paying enough we wouldnt have a €5.5Bn shaped hole in the system.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It's called a sample reading for a reason, think of district metering like an opinion poll, it will most definitely point towards problem areas/ districts.

Sample readings? How are they going to help you actually find the leaks?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

But FGsexpert committee reached a conclusion that water services were best paid via current taxation. I am paying tax (quite a lot actually) so how's it being funded now so?

Again its not being adequately funded, hence the need for the 5.5B

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Apart from that, capped water charges also meant people weren't paying for what they used anyway (FG/Labour brainwave)

Square that circle.

I could care less about the political aspects of it.
The argument here is should we pay for the water we use.
You can get all Boyd-Barrett if you want but count me out of your fillibustering.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

You're all over the shop, when given a MASSIVE difference between gas/ electric and the free allowances with water, you come back saying "you pay for what you use" narrative.

You don't with allowances in water, and you certain weren't going to with capped charges either.

What massive difference? Grants/Allowances?
They have *zero* to do with whether or not you should be paying for the water you use.
Again, back to your political football rather than actually try to solve the problem.

Hitman3000

GreeBo wrote:

People who dont currently pay for it (those who dont pay tax) DO get water for free. It is free for them.

Everyone pays tax of one variety or another. All goes into the same pot that all the stuff we use is paid for.

Hitman3000

GreeBo wrote:

You need your head examined if you think that IW are going to cream millions in profits and not repair the infrastructure.

Have a look at the water system in the UK for an example. I find it laughable that we are expected to believe that water provision will not be privatised. The EU does not like state monopolies, it doesn't benefit the consumer..... so we are told.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Have a look at the water system in the UK for an example. I find it laughable that we are expected to believe that water provision will not be privatised. The EU does not like state monopolies, it doesn't benefit the consumer..... so we are told.

I find it laughable that people believe the agenda is privatisation. I also find it laughable that people believe it was all done to benefit Denis O'Brien. There is an awful lot laughable around here.

Idbatterim

But FGsexpert committee reached a conclusion that water services were best paid via current taxation. I am paying tax (quite a lot actually) so how's it being funded now so?

I think you are correct, but they did say, that it was only because of this "unique" Irish situation...

Look how many pages has this thread run to? There is no "fair" many people are paying a fortune into the system and getting f*ck all out of it and others are paying in a pittance at the expense of the others... (generally those that tend to shout the loudest) ...

on the privatization front, the lot of them are snakes, FG, FF etc, BUT I dont think they would have privatized it and certainly not after the war that resulted from IW...

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

I find it laughable that people believe the agenda is privatisation. I also find it laughable that people believe it was all done to benefit Denis O'Brien. There is an awful lot laughable around here.

Yet a junior FG minister made exactly that claim in the Dail that privatisation was the agenda. As for D O'B perhaps his benefiting from the contracts that just seemed to be awarded to a previously insolvent company he bought at a knock down was coincidence and nothing more....... It's not like he had close ties to one of the government parties for years and previously benefited from those close ties. All coincidence....now that is truly laughable.

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

From the very link I posted.
"The metering programme is essential in helping us to fully understand our water demand requirements and where water is being lost."


A one off cost to allow us to track and charge for water usage?
Sure.
Obviously I'd like it to cost less, but I'd like everything to cost less. It was never going to be free.
Meters are an enabler for many things.

We know where the water is being lost. We always knew. We didn`t need 1 Billion Euro wasted on domestic meters to tell us the overwhelming loss was from leaking mains.


I couldn`t be bothered checking, but if you are one of those that has mentioned magic money trees, but from advocating spending 1 Billion Euro to detect 3.75% leakage it sounds as if you found one.
Complete insanity.


If you were a first responder and came across someone with a scratch plus a major bleed, on you logic you would attempt to treat the scratch while the victim bleed out.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

Possibly, but an independent utility funded in that way, would be able to borrow off-books for such major infrastructure.

Yes but all of that carries with it the responsibility of retaining a good credit rating in order to be assessed as a suitable candidate to give billions to, so it's going to have to show how it intends to be able to repay the billions it's intending to borrow.


It's going to have to able to demonstrate that it's a viable business venture with proper revenue and profit rather than just breaking even.

GreeBo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Have a look at the water system in the UK for an example. I find it laughable that we are expected to believe that water provision will not be privatised. The EU does not like state monopolies, it doesn't benefit the consumer..... so we are told.

So you don't want it to be privatised but you also don't want a state monopoly?

Could you share what it is that you do want? (Other than free water)

GreeBo

charlie14 wrote: »

We know where the water is being lost. We always knew. We didn`t need 1 Billion Euro wasted on domestic meters to tell us the overwhelming loss was from leaking mains.


I couldn`t be bothered checking, but if you are one of those that has mentioned magic money trees, but from advocating spending 1 Billion Euro to detect 3.75% leakage it sounds as if you found one.
Complete insanity.


If you were a first responder and came across someone with a scratch plus a major bleed, on you logic you would attempt to treat the scratch while the victim bleed out.

You still need meters at consumption point otherwise your district metres dont tell you squat.
The *ONLY* way a district meter would tell you something is if everyone within the district didnt use any water for a day and then you could determine water loss within that district.

Without knowing the actual REAL consumption within a district your top and tail meters are useless.

It would be like trying to determine how many people die on the M50 by subtracting the number of people who get off at the M1 from the number who join in Wicklow, all the while ignoring the fact that people leave the motorway are the multitude of exits inbetween.

Hitman3000

GreeBo wrote:

So you don't want it to be privatised but you also don't want a state monopoly?

You claimed that millions would not be siphoned off in profits, I suggested our neighbours as a counter argument to what you contend. Where did I say I don't want a state monopoly? Any chance you can read what is wrote instead of making stuff up? It's getting tiresome now at this stage.

Hitman3000

GreeBo wrote:

Could you share what it is that you do want? (Other than free water)

Already done, but again that would require you to actually read responses. Btw water was never free and never will be, again the tiresome noonsense.

nthclare

It's very simple really, the engineer's in local authority in every part of Ireland fell asleep at the wheel while managing water.

The most advance water system is probably in Shannon Town, as it's a new town and Shannon Development got the right people to build all the infrastructure.

It's pumped from Castle lake treated a few times along the way and the waste water is also treated before it pumps out into the estuary.

If anybody wants to see how water is managed go to Shannon Town, it's like an American style design.

There's culverts made of concrete all over the town, Cris crossing underground.
Wide enough to row a canoe comfortably, high enough to walk through without ducking.....

Hitman3000

nthclare wrote:

It's very simple really, the engineer's in local authority in every part of Ireland fell asleep at the wheel while managing water.

Actually it's not simple at all. Local government received funding by central government to fund services. No one sees bright shiny nameplates on pipes under the ground.

GreeBo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You claimed that millions would not be siphoned off in profits, I suggested our neighbours as a counter argument to what you contend. Where did I say I don't want a state monopoly? Any chance you can read what is wrote instead of making stuff up? It's getting tiresome now at this stage.

Actually what I said was
"if you think that IW are going to cream millions in profits and not repair the infrastructure."

Perhaps you could do with actually reading posts yourself?

So you do want a state monopoly a.k.a Irish Water?

McMurphy

GreeBo wrote: »

I've answered that many times, but I'll go one more.
If we were paying enough we wouldnt have a €5.5Bn shaped hole in the system.

In what system? Has 120B not been earmarked for the 2040 infrastructure plan?

Didn't I hear Leo wanting to lower rates of taxation a while back as he reckoned we were paying too much?

If we're paying too much in tax, and water is funded from the same tax, how have you specifically narrowed it down to water being the thing that's not being covered adequately?

Could it be possible that the tax is being mismanaged/misspemt in other places?

Someone presumably has figured out that water isn't being covered fully by general taxation though.

Link?

Sample readings? How are they going to help you actually find the leaks?

Why must this well trodded path be revisited? This has been done to death already.

Even the expert commission (although saying it was outside their remit) that any future readings should be done by way of district meters.. but sure what would they know?

Again its not being adequately funded, hence the need for the 5.5B

That's less than 5% of the 120B planned spend on the Govts 2040 grand plan.

Where's their water priority now?

I could care less about the political aspects of it.
The argument here is should we pay for the water we use.
You can get all Boyd-Barrett if you want but count me out of your fillibustering.

What has RBB got to do with any of my posts? Your argument is we should pay for what we use.

My argument is that grants/allowances/capped meters contradict this.

Unbelievably there was even a few people here boasting about how they were paying for their own water, and were sick of payingfor others.

A few of them have disappeared like the snow in March when they were reminded about their annual subsistence grant from the govt. Funny that.

What massive difference? Grants/Allowances?
They have *zero* to do with whether or not you should be paying for the water you use.
Again, back to your political football rather than actually try to solve the problem.

Not much point replying to this as I've already covered the gist of it up above, however, I will also point out that I put forward a suggestion about mandatory revenue collected water payments.

There goes your political football.

nthclare

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Actually it's not simple at all. Local government received funding by central government to fund services. No one sees bright shiny nameplates on pipes under the ground.

Where did the funding go so ?

GreeBo

nthclare wrote: »

It's very simple really, the engineer's in local authority in every part of Ireland fell asleep at the wheel while managing water

I think there might have been a lack of budget issues too?

Hitman3000

GreeBo wrote:

So you do want a state monopoly a.k.a Irish Water?

Your question was answered further back not rehashing it for you as was the first part of your reply.
This is all just a complete retrashing of the pervious threads with the same straw grasping on evidence. Enjoy yourself I have more important things to do today.
As already said though it will be a brave party that tries the same crap again......we don't have brave parties just sole traders under one banner seeking re-election every 5 years.

Hitman3000

nthclare wrote:

Where did the funding go so ?

Good question... since I don't work either for the state or local government I'm not in a position to answer you other than to repeat no one sees name plates on buried pipes.

K.Flyer

GreeBo wrote: »

"The metering programme is essential in helping us to fully understand our water demand requirements and where water is being used ."

But there is one huge problem with that, which has been pointed out before.
Irish Water have No Plans to install water meters in apartment buildings.
How can they work out losses or above normal consumption, or fair billing systems, with that great big hole in their infrastructure.
There are vast areas in Dublin which are predominantly apartment buildings, they have no hope of quantifying losses against usage in these areas without meters.

blanch152

Getting back to the title of the thread, why are water charges being revisited?

Because those who opposed water charges said there was no water supply issue and those who supported water charges said that there would be shortage issues within a few years but that water charges could postpone the shortage.

Well, here we are with the water shortages predicted.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Actually it's not simple at all. Local government received funding by central government to fund services. No one sees bright shiny nameplates on pipes under the ground.

Local government in Ireland is completely incompetent.

They have had responsibility for roads, driver licences, water, vocational education, motor tax, etc. taken away from them because of that incompetence. We still wouldn't have a motorway system if we had left it to the local authorities.

Ever since the founding of the state they have been a complete waste.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Getting back to the title of the thread, why are water charges being revisited?

Because those who opposed water charges said there was no water supply issue and those who supported water charges said that there would be shortage issues within a few years but that water charges could postpone the shortage.

Well, here we are with the water shortages predicted.

I'm sure the residents of the UK are mighty thankful to the water charges they have in place for saving them from water shortages.


Straw clutching at best.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm sure the residents of the UK are mighty thankful to the water charges they have in place for saving them from water shortages.


Straw clutching at best.

It was predicted, it came to pass.

The UK are only now introducing a hosepipe ban, a month behind Ireland, and they probably won't reach the problems we will be having later this year.

tom1ie

blanch152 wrote: »

I find it laughable that people believe the agenda is privatisation. I also find it laughable that people believe it was all done to benefit Denis O'Brien. There is an awful lot laughable around here.

Explain to me why you find this laughable? Do you also find it laughable that an existing semi state company pays 1.5 billion over 10 years in dividends to the government from their profits? Yeah I’m in hysterics alright.

blanch152

tom1ie wrote: »

Explain to me why you find this laughable? Do you also find it laughable that an existing semi state company pays 1.5 billion over 10 years in dividends to the government from their profits? Yeah I’m in hysterics alright.

If I had found that laughable I would say so. However, a company (ESB) returning dividends to the owner (the State) that invested in it is completely normal.

Setting up a water utility for the private benefit of Denis O'Brien, now that is laughable.

GreeBo

tom1ie wrote: »

Explain to me why you find this laughable? Do you also find it laughable that an existing semi state company pays 1.5 billion over 10 years in dividends to the government from their profits? Yeah I’m in hysterics alright.

What exactly is the problem with giving money back to the government?
What do you think they are going to spend it on exactly?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

It was predicted, it came to pass.

The UK are only now introducing a hosepipe ban, a month behind Ireland, and they probably won't reach the problems we will be having later this year.

And a few years back they had water shortages/ severe drought when we had none....

They were charged, and we weren't?


I predicted that the charging system would be thrown under a bus, that came to pass too.

GreeBo

K.Flyer wrote: »

But there is one huge problem with that, which has been pointed out before.
Irish Water have No Plans to install water meters in apartment buildings.
How can they work out losses or above normal consumption, or fair billing systems, with that great big hole in their infrastructure.
There are vast areas in Dublin which are predominantly apartment buildings, they have no hope of quantifying losses against usage in these areas without meters.

So because we cant meter every property, meter none?

A single meter at the apartment block would at least tell you something useful about consumption within the apartment block.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Your question was answered further back not rehashing it for you as was the first part of your reply.
This is all just a complete retrashing of the pervious threads with the same straw grasping on evidence. Enjoy yourself I have more important things to do today.

How convenient.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

As already said though it will be a brave party that tries the same crap again......we don't have brave parties just sole traders under one banner seeking re-election every 5 years.

Give an alternative to the "crap" so?

Hitman3000

GreeBo wrote:

Give an alternative to the "crap" so?

Already did, several times. Is this a new tactic of water charge proponents? Constantly asking for the same answers ad nauesum?

tom1ie

GreeBo wrote: »

What exactly is the problem with giving money back to the government?
What do you think they are going to spend it on exactly?

The money should be ring fenced for water network upgrades. Oh I don’t know maybe they’ll spend it on storing e voting machines?, maybe it’ll go towards minister expenses etc etc

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

We know where the water is being lost. We always knew. We didn`t need 1 Billion Euro wasted on domestic meters to tell us the overwhelming loss was from leaking mains.


I couldn`t be bothered checking, but if you are one of those that has mentioned magic money trees, but from advocating spending 1 Billion Euro to detect 3.75% leakage it sounds as if you found one.
Complete insanity.


If you were a first responder and came across someone with a scratch plus a major bleed, on you logic you would attempt to treat the scratch while the victim bleed out.

where in gods name is 1 billion from meters coming from?! (also any money spent on metering, a decent amount of it, ends back up in government coffers) I just googled the below... IF they had put a nominal charge and charged per liter, not only would the leaks on private property have been repaired, the psychology of paying for something, even if it was very little per litre, would have resulted in less water usage. It would have been a quick fix, a hell of a lot quicker than replacing thousands of kilometres of pipe...

Mark O’Regan

June 4 2017 1:05 PM


More than €110,000 a day has been spent installing water meters following the suspension of controversial charges last year, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

New financial records reveal that over a nine-month period 51,700 metres were installed — costing the taxpayer €29.7m.

As part of an agreement reached between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael during government formation talks, water charges were suspended for nine months.

The suspension came into effect on July 1, and the charges were officially in place until March 31 this year.

As of January this year, the total administrative costs — including items such as stamps, envelopes and paper — arising from billing households totalled €13m.

A further €10m was spent on Irish Water’s customer ‘contact centre’ to deal with a range of issues, including customer complaints.

Between August 2013 and January this year, Irish Water installed almost 900,000 domestic meters. Latest data shows six out of 10 households now have meters installed.

ok so just did the maths quickly and yeah it would have been in or around a billion, fair enough. I still wont change my stance though, that billion is something that could have cut use and leaks by 10-15% I would guess. To save that amount by replacing mains, would be a hell of a lot more costly...

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And a few years back they had water shortages/ severe drought when we had none....

They were charged, and we weren't?


I predicted that the charging system would be thrown under a bus, that came to pass too.

The charging system is still enshrined in legislation, can be introduced overnight by a future government.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

The charging system is still enshrined in legislation, can be introduced overnight by a future government.

And just as before it can be opposed.

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

And just as before it can be opposed.

Why are you obsessed with people being able to use excessive amounts of water?

Hitman3000

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Why are you obsessed with people being able to use excessive amounts of water?

Unworthy of a reasoned reply.

dense

blanch152 wrote: »

It was predicted, it came to pass.

That is true. It was predicted last November that a ban would be needed in the UK this summer.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5102177/Hosepipe-ban-warning-2018-lack-rainfall.html

blanch152 wrote: »

The UK are only now introducing a hosepipe ban, a month behind Ireland, and they probably won't reach the problems we will be having later this year.

But the UK through mismanagement of its water services had to impose hosepipe bans in 2012. We didn't.

Published research actually shows that hosepipe bans save very little water any.

Hosepipe bans do little to preserve water as the vast majority of people do not use them in their gardens anyway, according to the latest research.

With scorching temperatures predicted this summer, the bookies have already slashed odds on hosepipe bans being introduced.

But a study by three universities, conducted among almost 2,000 homes across southern England, suggested such restrictions have little impact on water shortages.

Research carried out jointly by the universities of Manchester, Edinburgh, Southampton and Lancaster found that 56 per cent of householders never watered their gardens whatever the weather.

A quarter of those with gardens said they never used hosepipes or sprinklers anyway, preferring to use watering cans and jugs even when there was no such ban in place.

Dr. Alison Browne from Manchester's Sustainable Consumption Institute, said: “Our findings provide food for thought for those implementing hosepipe bans and non-essential use bans.

“Although these bans do raise awareness of the importance of using less water, we think it would be good to think about different approaches to tackling behaviour leading up to drought.

“We also urge the water industry to think differently how they might intervene.”

Like building more reservoirs Dr.?



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10823473/Hosepipe-bans-are-pointless-study-concludes.html

K.Flyer

GreeBo wrote: »

So because we cant meter every property, meter none?

Where did I say that??

A single meter at the apartment block would at least tell you something useful about consumption within the apartment block.

If the put a meter on the main feed into every apartment complex, all it would tell them is whether there is a discrepancy between their water plant output and block usage. It will tell them nothing of individual dwelling consumption whether someone is wasting water or being conservative.
This makes a mockery of them considering introducing excessive water charges against those who are metered and none against those who are not.

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

You still need meters at consumption point otherwise your district metres dont tell you squat.
The *ONLY* way a district meter would tell you something is if everyone within the district didnt use any water for a day and then you could determine water loss within that district.

Without knowing the actual REAL consumption within a district your top and tail meters are useless.

It would be like trying to determine how many people die on the M50 by subtracting the number of people who get off at the M1 from the number who join in Wicklow, all the while ignoring the fact that people leave the motorway are the multitude of exits inbetween.

You really do not have a clue do you on water leakage or what is an acceptable level of leakage in a water system ?
I`ll give you a hint shall I ?
It is a quite a few multiple of 3.75%


You are in favour of water metering. Fair enough, your prerogative. Just don`t come on using any madcap idea that comes into your head on the percentage of leaks that are domestic, (Even your on posted statistics have shown how ridiculous that was), or trying to justify a spend of 1 Billion euro for that minuscule percentage reason and expect to be taken seriously that your concerns are anything to do with leaks.


I for one certainly do not.

oceanman

blanch152 wrote: »

The charging system is still enshrined in legislation, can be introduced overnight by a future government.

no government that plans to stay in power would ever try it now..

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

where in gods name is 1 billion from meters coming from?! (also any money spent on metering, a decent amount of it, ends back up in government coffers) I just googled the below... IF they had put a nominal charge and charged per liter, not only would the leaks on private property have been repaired, the psychology of paying for something, even if it was very little per litre, would have resulted in less water usage. It would have been a quick fix, a hell of a lot quicker than replacing thousands of kilometres of pipe...


ok so just did the maths quickly and yeah it would have been in or around a billion, fair enough. I still wont change my stance though, that billion is something that could have cut use and leaks by 10-15% I would guess. To save that amount by replacing mains, would be a hell of a lot more costly...

Fair enough.
880,000 meters cost 465 Million so to install the rest would be as close to 1 Billion as would make no difference.



As one of the lowest per capita users of water in Europe my guess would be that your 10-15% is way off.
The poster I was replying too was not on the scale of spending 1 Billion to cut leakage by 10-15%. It was to cut 3.75% leakage.
Economic madness imho.

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

The charging system is still enshrined in legislation, can be introduced overnight by a future government.

We could have an army coup as well, but I cannot see either happening within the next few generation at the very least.

Sleeper12

oceanman wrote:

no government that plans to stay in power would ever try it now..

Don't forget that the EU hasn't passed our current plans. I believe that they will hold off well past Brexit but in two years time we might be paying millions in fines. I do believe we'll be paying water charges in 10 years or less. I believe we'll hear to EU then the Irish government talking about them within 2 to 3 years. Just because Enda Kenny made a bags of it doesn't mean we won't have water charges.

charlie14

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Already did, several times. Is this a new tactic of water charge proponents? Constantly asking for the same answers ad nauesum?

Not really.

Once pro posters back in the day on the mega thread saw the way the wind was blowing on metering charges, it became practically the norm.