Water charges revisited?

Tommy Kelly

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.


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 .

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

dense

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...

The 46m litres that was found leaking after the meters is a very small amount and less than 3% of whats produced. Fix it and the network is still blowing leaks.


That was all that was found after spending big money.


You can only imagine what it would cost to locate and fix the network leaks. Fix one and another blows half a mile away.

Actually according to this its found 89m litres of leaks


https://www.water.ie/for-home/first-fix/

charlie14

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

There have been a few ruling by the ECJ on the matter.
Well documented on the old threads but short version, the EU environmental commission got its nose well bloodied on the issue of attempting to dictate to any member state on water charges.

EUR-Lex - 6212CJ0525 - EN - EUR-Lex If you want to have a look.

Tommy Kelly

dense wrote: »

The 46m litres that was found leaking after the meters is a very small amount and less than 3% of whats produced. Fix it and the network is still blowing leaks.


That was all that was found after spending big money.


You can only imagine what it would cost to locate and fix the network leaks. Fix one and another blows half a mile away.

Could you imagine the employment it would create. Serious amount of people employed now for this first free fix scheme.

charlie14

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

Unless you had a minimum leakage on the domestic side of 53,000 liters Irish Water were not interested with their first fix scheme.
Irish Water`s own figures from their first fix scheme concluded that the leakage on the household side was 3.75%.
1 Billion Euro is a hell of a spend just to flag 3.75%, and a waste of time and effort when mains are leaking 50%.

Idbatterim

charlie14 wrote: »

Unless you had a minimum leakage on the domestic side of 53,000 liters Irish Water were not interested with their first fix scheme.
Irish Water`s own figures from their first fix scheme concluded that the leakage on the household side was 3.75%.
1 Billion Euro is a hell of a spend just to flag 3.75%, and a waste of time and effort when mains are leaking 50%.

yes for the one billion, without a charging regime in place, which would be a simple pay per litre, no certain amount free etc, then yes, the meters would appear to represent poor value...

Could you imagine the employment it would create. Serious amount of people employed now for this first free fix scheme.

exactly, its made out as if all this money, goes up in smoke! funny how money spent on this is seen as wasted, yet money spent on welfare etc is "great for the economy" ... Look I am not saying it makes economic sense v simply replacing the mains pipes. But much of that money goes back to government, one way or another...

charlie14

Idbatterim wrote: »

yes for the one billion, without a charging regime in place, which would be a simple pay per litre, no certain amount free etc, then yes, the meters would appear to represent poor value...

The whole disaster was a badly thought out disaster monetarily, and for FG and Labour politically. A complete and utter clusterf**k.


It feel apart with capped charges where there was no limit on the water you could use, a "conservation" grant that had nothing to do with conserving water, (or anything else other than an attempted bribe), and a first fix scheme where labour and yet more money was wasted messing around on minuscule leaks while half the water treated was pouring out of mains.

With all that another charging regime that would attempt to meter all households on a basis of no allowances with a charge for every liter is a very very leaky pipe-dream imo.

GreeBo

tom1ie wrote: »

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

They wouldnt be giving back dividends if they still needed the money for capital expenses. We are talking about a scenario thats 10 years away at least
i.e. when the leaks are down to industry norms.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

And just as before it can be opposed.

Again you have no problem telling us what you are opposed to....yet are too busy to tell us what you are in favour of?

K.Flyer wrote: »

Where did I say that??

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.

What % of all housing in the country is apartments that cant be metered?
You dont abandon the whole scheme because a tiny percentage can get individual metering.
Having a meter on the entire apartment is much more granular data than having a meter on the entire district. At a minimum it can tell you if one block is skewed compared to the rest of them, i.e. it might have a leak within it.

charlie14 wrote: »

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%

Not sure what thats got to do with anything?
The point of a meter is that you cant charge what you cant measure.
And you cant charge if you are not delivering 100% of what you are charging for.

charlie14 wrote: »

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.

Whats madcap about expecting people to pay by usage like almost every other utility does?
Other than yourself, no one is saying that the meters are ONLY being used to detect leaks. They are used for measuring usage.
You can do whatever you want with that data.
Such as, identify leaks, charge per usage, get accurate figures for consumption per capita, etc, etc.
You cant do any of that without meters.

charlie14 wrote: »

Fair enough.
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.

Again, no one said that meters were ONLY to find leaks except you.

charlie14 wrote: »

The whole disaster was a badly thought out disaster monetarily, and for FG and Labour politically. A complete and utter clusterf**k.


It feel apart with capped charges where there was no limit on the water you could use, a "conservation" grant that had nothing to do with conserving water, (or anything else other than an attempted bribe), and a first fix scheme where labour and yet more money was wasted messing around on minuscule leaks while half the water treated was pouring out of mains.

I dont think anyone is arguing that the way IW was (mis) managed by the various governments was a good thing, but that doesnt mean usage based charging is a bad thing as you seem to imply.

charlie14 wrote: »

With all that another charging regime that would attempt to meter all households on a basis of no allowances with a charge for every liter is a very very leaky pipe-dream imo.

Why?
Why wouldnt people be happy paying based on what they use?
It could be as simple as
€1 for the first x M3
€1.50 for the next y M3 above that
etc etc

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

McMurphy

GreeBo wrote: »

It could be as simple as
€1 for the first x M3
€1.50 for the next y M3 above that
etc etc

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

And FGs expert commitee.

Hitman3000

GreeBo wrote:

Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

See this is where everything you say can be ignored.

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

Not sure what thats got to do with anything?
The point of a meter is that you cant charge what you cant measure.
And you cant charge if you are not delivering 100% of what you are charging for.

Going to simplify this for you one item at a time.
At least you have moved on to the realization that meters were ever only intended for charging purposes.
Irish Water were not charging for what you used. They were charging for what they produced where the householder was expected to pay for all household water produced while using less than 50%

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

Whats madcap about expecting people to pay by usage like almost every other utility does?
Other than yourself, no one is saying that the meters are ONLY being used to detect leaks. They are used for measuring usage.
You can do whatever you want with that data.
Such as, identify leaks, charge per usage, get accurate figures for consumption per capita, etc, etc.
You cant do any of that without meters.


Again, no one said that meters were ONLY to find leaks except you.

You were the one that actually came on here pushing the glory of meters for leak detection. Now when your own figures have show how ridiculous that is you are jumping all over the place attempting to sell them.
All that data collection did not require 880,000 meters at a cost for meters alone of 465 Million Euro.
A sample survey with 1% of 880,000 at 1% of the cost would have achieved the same.

charlie14

[QUOTE=GreeBo;107563861

I dont think anyone is arguing that the way IW was (mis) managed by the various governments was a good thing, but that doesnt mean usage based charging is a bad thing as you seem to imply.


Why?
Why wouldnt people be happy paying based on what they use?
It could be as simple as
€1 for the first x M3
€1.50 for the next y M3 above that
etc etc

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.[/QUOTE]


First two section I have address long ago on the mega threads so I have no interest in going down any further rabbit holes with you on it.


The last section is just despicable and undeserving of any comment.

blanch152

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

Thank you for bringing some reality and clarity to this debate. It is good to learn that the meters are helping to identify and fix leaks.

charlie14 wrote: »

Unless you had a minimum leakage on the domestic side of 53,000 liters Irish Water were not interested with their first fix scheme.
Irish Water`s own figures from their first fix scheme concluded that the leakage on the household side was 3.75%.
1 Billion Euro is a hell of a spend just to flag 3.75%, and a waste of time and effort when mains are leaking 50%.

You trust Irish Water now? That makes a change. I really don't understand this. I thought they were wrong about everything, except when it suits.

For me it is simple, those figures were then, Tommy Kelly's experience is now.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Thank you for bringing some reality and clarity to this debate. It is good to learn that the meters are helping to identify and fix leaks.





You trust Irish Water now? That makes a change. I really don't understand this. I thought they were wrong about everything, except when it suits.

For me it is simple, those figures were then, Tommy Kelly's experience is now.

Interesting that you would just take Tommys figures here at face value and without question....

Let's do the maths.

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

Tommy reckons out of the 10 houses he worked on today, 7 were losing 10liters per minute due to leaks.

10L x 60mins = 600liters per hour.

24hrs x 600 litres = 14,400 litres per day.

14,400 litres x 365 days = 5,265,000 litres per year.

That's five million, two hundred and sixty five thousand litres for anyone not good with figures.

And there was 7 of them so that makes the total water being leaked at 37million litres per year.
Lol tbh.

I reckon Tommy might be exaggerating a wee bit. Either that or these houses were house boats:D

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

You trust Irish Water now? That makes a change. I really don't understand this. I thought they were wrong about everything, except when it suits.

For me it is simple, those figures were then, Tommy Kelly's experience is now.

Like many others I have never trusted Irish Water for numerous stated reasons.
And I doubt we would ever have seen those figures if someone in Irish Water had not thought it a whiz idea for getting media headlines by telling us how many swimming pools household leaks could fill daily not realising that the percentage of leaks attributable to households easily calculated from that.
As much as I would distrust Irish Water, I would at least hope their data wasn`t based on one plumber guessing how much was leaking which now seems to be your fall back position on household leaks

Hitman3000

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Interesting that you would just take Tommys figures here at face value and without question....

Plays to the agenda.

aido79

charlie14 wrote: »

You were long enough around the old threads to know that the figure for average household occupancy is not "a stab in the dark". It is the figure from the Central Statistics Office. You were also around long enough to know that the average usage of water per occupant was determine by Irish Water. Although I seem to recall you didn`t agree with that figure but had no explanation when asked as to why.
A determination that was arrived at after massive cost when a sample survey would have achieved the same for a fraction of the cost.


AS to the highlighted above, try and read posts rather than make things up.
I never said that.

I was using it as an example to explain to another poster how in practice district metering works.
Terrible standard of posting from someone who is a moderator imho



LOL. You provide a link to an article that says Irish Water think Domestic meters are necessary to identify leaks.
It didn`t cross your mind that after burying 900,000 of them at gigantic expense that they were scrambling to come up with any reason to justify it.
It is a quite simple fact that area metering can be used in the detection of leaks for a fraction of the cost of metering every household. But you already know that from the older threads.

I didn't agree with it because it was less than the amount an average person would use to shower, brush their teeth, go to the toilet and have a cup of tea in the morning. You must have missed that part.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. You seem to have a false understanding of how area metering works. If an area meter is responsible for 1000 to 1500 homes and you have no idea whether the water passing through it is leaking into the ground or actually being used in a house how do you even know there is a leak in the system?

aido79

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

For the slow learners in the class this amounts to around 5.2 million litres of water leaked per house in a year. In one day the poster saved in the region of 40 million litres of water per year and the only reason these leaks were picked up was because of the domestic meters installed on the properties.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And FGs expert commitee.

You're very gullible Johnny.


You excoriate FG and have this overwhelming reverence for 'their' committee.


Supposedly! Because you never needed any committee to convince you anyway, did you?


You pretend 'this committee' had carte blanche to come up with any recommendation they desired - but you know very well the cards were stacked.


Did this so-called FG committee have Paul Murphy and Eoin O Broin as members?

Checkmate19

Avg price that uk pay is 400. I think we where looking at 900. Its like anything in this country. Total bollix setup and if its setptup gravy boat.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

For the slow learners in the class this amounts to around 5.2 million litres of water leaked per house in a year. In one day the poster saved in the region of 40 million litres of water per year and the only reason these leaks were picked up was because of the domestic meters installed on the properties.

'Slow learners' from you 'Scroungers' from another poster. Are people capable of making a point without the necessity of insult and derogatory name calling. This behaviour seems to only emanate from one camp. Does anyone know why?

Checkmate19

Id say if we gave any money to irish water the way this clown country do it it would make no difference.

Checkmate19

They would make any difference. Property tax. Around my area there is more dumping no cleaner etc.

Checkmate19

If you want to do something about water give a private contractor outside ireland

aido79

Hitman3000 wrote: »

'Slow learners' from you 'Scroungers' from another poster. Are people capable of making a point without the necessity of insult and derogatory name calling. This behaviour seems to only emanate from one camp. Does anyone know why?

Some people seem very slow to learn that domestic meters are useful in detecting leaks...some even to the point of insinuating that the person responsible for fixing the leak due to the meter detecting the leak is lying.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

Some people seem very slow to learn that domestic meters are useful in detecting leaks...some even to the point of insinuating that the person responsible for fixing the leak due to the meter detecting the leak is lying.

The figures supplied were questioned, the honesty of the poster in my opinion was not. The word exaggeration was used. My point still stands why do those in favour charges feel they have a right/ moral authority to insult and resort to name calling of those whom do not share their opinion. Even you yourself engaged in trying to suggest a poster is a re reg. I thought the rules were if you have an issue such as that the idea was to report and not to do so on thread.

aido79

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The figures supplied were questioned, the honesty of the poster in my opinion was not. The word exaggeration was used. My point still stands why do those in favour charges feel they have a right/ moral authority to insult and resort to name calling of those whom do not share their opinion. Even you yourself engaged in trying to suggest a poster is a re reg. I thought the rules were if you have an issue such as that the idea was to report and not to do so on thread.

The figures supplied were the equivalent of a tap being left on halfway. It's not absurd to think a leak like this could go unnoticed so I don't really why the figures would be questioned.
If you wish to discuss the other points feel free to PM me as I do not wish to drag the thread off topic. That was what caused alot of issues/infractions/petty arguments in the old water threads.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

The figures supplied were the equivalent of a tap being left on halfway. It's not absurd to think a leak like this could go unnoticed so I don't really why the figures would be questioned. If you wish to discuss the other points feel free to PM me as I do not wish to drag the thread off topic. That was what caused alot of issues/infractions/petty arguments in the old water threads.

You don't know why the figures would be questioned? You're joking right? Do you seriously believe only figures offered by one group or opinion should be subject to question or examination.
No interest in discussing the other topics . I have made my point.

aido79

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You don't know why the figures would be questioned? You're joking right? Do you seriously believe only figures offered by one group or opinion should be subject to question or examination.
No interest in discussing the other topics . I have made my point.

Unless you can give me a reason not to believe Tommy Kelly's figures then I see no reason to question them. In my view unless he is lying then they are from a source on the frontline and more believable than taking a random sample of figures and calling the average of the sample the average usage for the entire population.
Lots of anti water charges posters have quoted figures by Irish Water which they seem to believe without any question because it suits their agenda. However I am reluctant to believe them because they defy common sense.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

Unless you can give me a reason not to believe Tommy Kelly's figures then I see no reason to question them. In my view unless he is lying then they are from a source on the frontline and more believable than taking a random sample of figures and calling the average of the sample the average usage for the entire population. Lots of anti water charges posters have quoted figures by Irish Water which they seem to believe without any question because it suits their agenda. However I am reluctant to believe them because they defy common sense.

So the figures from IW and the CSO that have been quoted are questionable? but the anecdotal figures from a random poster on the internet without back up are acceptable due to his backing up your position generally. Bias in evidence. Not engaging with this nonsense any further today.

aido79

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So the figures from IW and the CSO that have been quoted are questionable? but the anecdotal figures from a random poster on the internet without back up are acceptable due to his backing up your position generally. Bias in evidence. Not engaging with this nonsense any further today.

I'm entitled to my opinion or to believe whatever I want.It really doesn't bother me if you engage or not.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

There have been a few ruling by the ECJ on the matter.
Well documented on the old threads but short version, the EU environmental commission got its nose well bloodied on the issue of attempting to dictate to any member state on water charges.

EUR-Lex - 6212CJ0525 - EN - EUR-Lex If you want to have a look.

Just inventing things now?

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Unworthy of a reasoned reply.

Why else would you oppose charges in excess of that amount? Unless you want to protect the ability of people to do that - so I ask again unless you are just talking the usual nonsense why you would be so obsessed with allowing people to freely use excessive amounts of water?

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

You're very gullible Johnny.

Welcome back G.L I thought you'd taken the huff after I had to school you on the annual subsistence grants those on private wells/GWS were entitled to each year.

Here you are posting again about a subject you seem to know so little about.

You excoriate FG and have this overwhelming reverence for 'their' committee.

"Excoriate"..... peculiar choice of words.

It was their comiitte. What's the problem with calling it what it is

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr Simon Coveney, T.D. has today (29 June 2016) announced the establishment of the Expert Commission on the funding of domestic public water services in Ireland

.

Supposedly! Because you never needed any committee to convince you anyway, did you?

This is true, I (and the vast majority of the public) wasn't hoodwinked. It took their own committee to bring FG to their senses, even then they went kicking and screaming, their supporters are still clutching the dream.

You pretend 'this committee' had carte blanche to come up with any recommendation they desired - but you know very well the cards were stacked.

In what way were they stacked? The only controversy I recall around the E.C was that time it had a less than impartial chairman, handpicked by FG that had to step down due to his less than impartial comments.

Did this so-called FG committee have Paul Murphy and Eoin O Broin as members?

Didn't see either of their names on the panel.

The terms of reference of the Commission are outlined below.

The Expert Commission will have 8 independent members and an independent secretariat will be provided by the Institute of Public Administration. The Commission will be chaired by former Senator, Mr Joe O’Toole, and the other members are as follows:

• Dr Xavier Leflaive of the Environmental Directorate of the OECD;
• Mr Peter Peacock, Chair of the Customer Forum for Water Scotland and former Scottish Minister;
• Mr Bill Emery, Chair of the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator;
• Mr Brendan O’Mahony, Chair of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes;
• Ms Sarah Hendry, academic lawyer specialising in water and environmental law, University of Dundee, Scotland;
• Dr. Andrew Kelly, founder and executive Director of EnvEcon; and
• Ms Gritta Nottelman, strategy consultant for Waternet, the only water company in the Netherlands that is dedicated to the entire water cycle.

These individuals (their biographies are attached) bring with them a wealth of experience and skills which will be essential in addressing this complex issue. "I have chosen people who I consider to have the necessary professional expertise in environmental matters, law, economics, the customer perspective, the water sector and the regulatory system, and I have included a mix of both national and international experts," said the Minister.

Glad to help.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Interesting that you would just take Tommys figures here at face value and without question....

Let's do the maths.



Tommy reckons out of the 10 houses he worked on today, 7 were losing 10liters per minute due to leaks.

10L x 60mins = 600liters per hour.

24hrs x 600 litres = 14,400 litres per day.

14,400 litres x 365 days = 5,265,000 litres per year.

That's five million, two hundred and sixty five thousand litres for anyone not good with figures.

And there was 7 of them so that makes the total water being leaked at 37million litres per year.
Lol tbh.

I reckon Tommy might be exaggerating a wee bit. Either that or these houses were house boats:D

I agree with your maths here, but the interesting thing I noticed about his post was that it seems to be referring to leaks on the property? That's what I would take "between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house" to mean.

Irish Water "has saved over 89 million litres of water every day (enough for the daily supply of the City and County of Galway) from the repair of almost 63,000 leaks ["between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house"]".

89,000,000l / 63,000 = 1,412.70lpd per house;

1,412.70l / 24h = 58.56lph;

58.56l / 60m = 0.98lpm

1 litre per minute is a hell of a lot less than 10 litres, but it's still a fairly shocking amount of water leakage per minute.

McMurphy

aido79 wrote: »

Unless you can give me a reason not to believe Tommy Kelly's figures then I see no reason to question them. In my view unless he is lying then they are from a source on the frontline and more believable than taking a random sample of figures and calling the average of the sample the average usage for the entire population.
Lots of anti water charges posters have quoted figures by Irish Water which they seem to believe without any question because it suits their agenda. However I am reluctant to believe them because they defy common sense.

Aido, I find it difficult to believe that a house could be leaking 10liters per minute (I've already done the maths) which amounts to more than 2. 5 million litres per year, and no one noticed it/wouldn't have been noticed without meters.

I find it difficult to believe that a house was leaking the equivalent of more than 2 x full sized olympic swimming pools worth of water, and no one noticed. Where did water go? Was the house on stilts, or out at sea?

But the MOST DIFFICULT thing for me to believe, is that Tommy just happened to come across, not 1, but 7 of these 2.5million litres a year leaks out of the 10 houses he visited yesterday. What a missed propaganda photo oppurtunity for FG or Irish Waters Paul Melia. :pac:

Must have been some chat with the wife all the same...

How'd you get on in work today Tommy?

Ah 70% of the houses we called with today were leaking 600liters p/h, or more than 5million litres a year and no one even noticed til we rocked up love.

I don't believe it myself. I think Tommy might have confused his minutes with hours or forgot a decimal point.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I agree with your maths here, but the interesting thing I noticed about his post was that it seems to be referring to leaks on the property? That's what I would take "between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house" to mean.

Irish Water "has saved over 89 million litres of water every day (enough for the daily supply of the City and County of Galway) from the repair of almost 63,000 leaks ["between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house"]".

89,000,000l / 63,000 = 1,412.70lpd per house;

1,412.70l / 24h = 58.56lph;

58.56l / 60m = 0.98lpm

1 litre per minute is a hell of a lot less than 10 litres, but it's still a fairly shocking amount of water leakage per minute.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but its one thing to exaggerate 10 litres per min, but the hot air leaves the balloon when the exaggeration gets stretched to 7/10 houses in the one day.

Any one else that believes the story is most welcome to pm me, as I have a box of magic beans they might be interested in.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but its one thing to exaggerate 10 litres per min, but the hot air leaves the balloon when the exaggeration gets stretched to 7/10 houses in the one day.

Any one else that believes the story is most welcome to pm me, as I have a box of magic beans they might be interested in.

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that I "believe the story" - I'm backing up your post in fact.

I'm also not making a call on whether Tommy's post was exaggeration or a typo or whatever.

I don't think that's super relevant... in fact I think it's a distraction from the issue that we agree on: 1lpm loss between the meter and the house at that level is extraordinary.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that I "believe the story" - I'm backing up your post in fact.

I'm also not making a call on whether Tommy's post was exaggeration or a typo or whatever.

I don't think that's super relevant... in fact I think it's a distraction from the issue that we agree on: 1lpm loss between the meter and the house at that level is extraordinary.

Yeah, sorry I understand you were backing my post , it's not a believable figure tbh, but I'm not suggesting Tommy is lying.

I think he might come back and clarify later that he mixed up minute with hour, or even that there was a rogue zero in there, and it should have been 0.1 a minute.

The irony for me is that people will just thank and believe a post without doing the sums because it would suit a narrative, yet they'll call people out on things that are in the public domain because it doesn't.

Hopefully Tommy will reappear and clear everything up.

tom1ie

GreeBo wrote: »

They wouldnt be giving back dividends if they still needed the money for capital expenses. We are talking about a scenario thats 10 years away at least
i.e. when the leaks are down to industry norms.


Again you have no problem telling us what you are opposed to....yet are too busy to tell us what you are in favour of?



What % of all housing in the country is apartments that cant be metered?
You dont abandon the whole scheme because a tiny percentage can get individual metering.
Having a meter on the entire apartment is much more granular data than having a meter on the entire district. At a minimum it can tell you if one block is skewed compared to the rest of them, i.e. it might have a leak within it.


Not sure what thats got to do with anything?
The point of a meter is that you cant charge what you cant measure.
And you cant charge if you are not delivering 100% of what you are charging for.


Whats madcap about expecting people to pay by usage like almost every other utility does?
Other than yourself, no one is saying that the meters are ONLY being used to detect leaks. They are used for measuring usage.
You can do whatever you want with that data.
Such as, identify leaks, charge per usage, get accurate figures for consumption per capita, etc, etc.
You cant do any of that without meters.


Again, no one said that meters were ONLY to find leaks except you.


I dont think anyone is arguing that the way IW was (mis) managed by the various governments was a good thing, but that doesnt mean usage based charging is a bad thing as you seem to imply.


Why?
Why wouldnt people be happy paying based on what they use?
It could be as simple as
€1 for the first x M3
€1.50 for the next y M3 above that
etc etc

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

And has this or was it ever addresses? Answer is no. I’m not going to allow a cash cow for the government be set up that myself and my kids are going to be paying for in 10 years time, all the while it pays dividends to its shareholders/government to squander on whatever is in fashion.

charlie14

aido79 wrote: »

I didn't agree with it because it was less than the amount an average person would use to shower, brush their teeth, go to the toilet and have a cup of tea in the morning. You must have missed that part.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. You seem to have a false understanding of how area metering works. If an area meter is responsible for 1000 to 1500 homes and you have no idea whether the water passing through it is leaking into the ground or actually being used in a house how do you even know there is a leak in the system?

You didn`t agree on the old thread either, but when asked never came back with any data to counter what is there. So I didn`t miss anything other than I did see any point in again replying to quesswork.


I have been through all this before with you on the previous thread.
Area meters will tell you if there is a potential major loss of water from a section of the main much faster and much cheaper than installing domestic meters in every household in that section, reading them and then adding up all the readings.
Even afer doing all that reading and addition etc. it would be pointless. Without area meters you would not know what volume of water entered and exited that section.

charlie14

aido79 wrote: »

Unless you can give me a reason not to believe Tommy Kelly's figures then I see no reason to question them. In my view unless he is lying then they are from a source on the frontline and more believable than taking a random sample of figures and calling the average of the sample the average usage for the entire population.
Lots of anti water charges posters have quoted figures by Irish Water which they seem to believe without any question because it suits their agenda. However I am reluctant to believe them because they defy common sense.

You may have missed a few facts here and there.
It was not just "a random sample" it was according to Irish Water data gleaned from reading 880,000 meters. Half the households in the country.
Would you seriously expect any difference if another 465 Million was spent as you are calling for.


Funny when you recall how at one time Irish Water`s figures were being waved around here as the new bible by pro posters.
Now when the fiasco they supported has been shown up for what they were/are,, chancers, by their own data, pro posters don`t believe them based of nothing other than guesswork yet still expect to be taken seriously.

aido79

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Aido, I find it difficult to believe that a house could be leaking 10liters per minute (I've already done the maths) which amounts to more than 5 million litres per year, and no one noticed it/wouldn't have been noticed without meters.

I find it difficult to believe that a house was leaking the equivalent of more than 2 x full sized olympic swimming pools worth of water, and no one noticed. Where did water go? Was the house on stilts, or out at sea?

But the MOST DIFFICULT thing for me to believe, is that Tommy just happened to come across, not 1, but 7 of these 5million litres a year leaks out of the 10 houses he visited yesterday. What a missed propaganda photo oppurtunity for FG or Irish Waters Paul Melia. :pac:

Must have been some chat with the wife all the same...

How'd you get on in work today Tommy?

Ah 70% of the houses we called with today were leaking 600liters p/h, or more than 5million litres a year and no one even noticed til we rocked up love.

I don't believe it myself. I think Tommy might have confused his minutes with hours or forgot a decimal point.

I think we should wait for Tommy to come back and defend his figures before continuing this.

charlie14

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just inventing things now?

Nope, and I have no interest in going down rabbit holes with you or anyone else on that ECJ ruling.

Already done to death on the old threads.
Posted that for anyone that is not aware of it and up to themselves if they want to peruse it and make up their own minds.

aido79

charlie14 wrote: »

You may have missed a few facts here and there.
It was not just "a random sample" it was according to Irish Water data gleaned from reading 880,000 meters. Half the households in the country.
Would you seriously expect any difference if another 465 Million was spent as you are calling for.


Funny when you recall how at one time Irish Water`s figures were being waved around here as the new bible by pro posters.
Now when the fiasco they supported has been shown up for what they were/are,, chancers, by their own data, pro posters don`t believe them based of nothing other than guesswork yet still expect to be taken seriously.

I don't think you should paint us all with the same brush. I don't believe them. It doesn't mean other pro posters don't believe them.
It may be guesswork but I like to think of it as educated guesswork.
Do you have a water meter? If so what is your average daily usage?
Mine is somewhere between 250 and 500 litres a day depending on time of year which is well above Irish Water's average figures. That's for 2 adults and one child with no swimming pool or anything like that. I'm also 100% sure I have no leaks also.

McMurphy

aido79 wrote: »

I think we should wait for Tommy to come back and defend his figures before continuing this.

Fair enough, but I don't think people grasped the magnitude of the leak Tommy was telling us he found in not 1, but 7 homes in the one day.

10liters per minute.

That's the equivalent of 5 x 2ltr empty bottles of coke being filled each minute, or 1 every 12 seconds.

Anyone that thinks a 2.5millon liter leak wouldn't have been noticed but for a meter isn't living in the real world.

2 x Olympic sized swimming pools worth of water has to go somewhere, and meters aside, I think needing a kayak to visit the next door neighbour might have indicated something was wrong..

charlie14

aido79 wrote: »

I don't think you should paint us all with the same brush. I don't believe them. It doesn't mean other pro posters don't believe them.
It may be guesswork but I like to think of it as educated guesswork.
Do you have a water meter? If so what is your average daily usage?
Mine is somewhere between 250 and 500 litres a day depending on time of year which is well above Irish Water's average figures. That's for 2 adults and one child with no swimming pool or anything like that. I'm also 100% sure I have no leaks also.

Funnily enough there are quite a few pro posters on here that at one stage on the old threads waved around Irish Water figures as if they had found the Holy Grail, yet now when actual data from the same source contradicts their agenda they have become non believers.
Educated or not, guesswork is still just guesswork and not something that would convince me (or anyone else I imagine) that it is a basis for flushing another 465 Million down the tubes to join the 465 Million already flushed there. Which is what you have been proposing.



I really do not see what me reading a meter will do for your arguement unless you are going to contact ever household that has one to do the same.
Come to think off it, hasn`t that been already done and the figures published!

dense

Recent US research published suggests that using less and less water will mean bigger, not smaller bills for customers:

Steady, reliable decreases in consumption due to better water conservation measures or other factors also pose problems for water utilities. As costs remain largely the same, water utilities may choose to raise their water prices to bring in necessary revenue.

However, consumers may view increased prices as a “punishment” for their reduced consumption. Higher prices could also usher in more conservation, leaving the utility facing the same revenue shortfall it sought to avoid.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.03237.x



Seems to make sense so I don't see how it will be any different here.

McMurphy

dense wrote: »

Recent US research published suggests that using less and less water will mean bigger, not smaller bills for customers:





https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.03237.x



Seems to make sense so I don't see how it will be any different here.

Wasn't one of the first cock ups made by iw, was to give away the underlying agenda and how we were to be fleeced if we conserved water.


It was designed to be a cash generator for the govt from the ground up.