Water charges for excessive usage

Benedict

It's not as if we're talking about the odd bungalow here or there without a meter - it's nearly 50% for goodness sake - and with the amount of new building going on, it's only a matter of time before the non-metered outnumber the metered.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

Tell me more about this payment and where I can claim it?

Again?

You spent the last five years comical Ali'ng the various Irish water mega threads, it isn't remotely conceivable that you might have missed that information.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Rural dwellers linked to a group scheme are benefitting from grants in place and other rural dwellers can avail of grants linked to Wells. So in effect he was correct you want specifics you should ask.
As an aside had the charges been universally accepted those on a group scheme would have enjoyed prehaps the cheapest charges in the state.

He said annual payments. I’m asking for his source of this magnificent news. Grants are NOT available yearly. Most are one offs.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He said annual payments. I’m asking for his source of this magnificent news. Grants are NOT available yearly. Most are one offs.

Group water schemes which rural dwellers benefit from receive a yearly payment from the state. Call the payment what you want to fit your pedantic nature. Again though payment to group water schemes shows he is generally correct.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Group water schemes which rural dwellers benefit from receive a yearly payment from the state. Call the payment what you want to fit your pedantic nature. Again though payment to group water schemes shows he is generally correct.

And I’m pointing out that not all rural dwellers have private wells or are part of group schemes, most of which have been taken over by the local authorities. We don’t receive annual subsistence payments. We pay our own way.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And I’m pointing out that not all rural dwellers have private wells or are part of group schemes, most of which have been taken over by the local authorities. We don’t receive annual subsistence payments. We pay our own way.

Well then you are on a mains scheme and your contribution to water is through your taxes. You have your own sceptic system and if you use it correctly it will last a life time if however the council fails it there is a grant available.
The poster was correct about rural dwellers he just didn't mention specific groups.

charlie14

is_that_so wrote: »

Just going to drop this in here. It has some pertinent information about IW and the general state of play with the network and LAs.
https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/richard-curran-water-debate-comes-to-the-boil-as-ageing-network-creaks-38668580.html

Call me a cynic but with that article being posted in the business section a few thoughts come to mind.

Under the original water metering plan it was debatable as to whether there was an equitable division between what households were expected to pay for usage and what business`s were paying.

If Irish Water was ultimately heading for privatisation, which the C.S.O. stated in it`s application to Eurostat, then based on the English experience of privatised water metering I can see why business would be in favour.
In England where metered usage has dropped for household their reward has been in increase in prices with these private water companies selling the "conserved" water to business`s at a lower rate.


One particular area of that article I found puzzling.


Irish Water has 880 staff of its own, (doing what I have no idea. Nor does anyone else far as I can tell), and we are told a surplus to requirements of former local authority employees. The boots on the ground who always did the work and I imagine still are.

Yet with all their own staff plus this surplus staff while Irish Water cut its local authority service bill by 7M.euro (from 220M. to 213M) its expense on "hired and contracted services and central and contractual and support service costs" increased by 12m.euro. (from 218M to 230M)
From being told that Irish Water would give us a cheaper better service than the local authorities were providing, from those figures it doesn`t appear so.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Well then you are on a mains scheme and your contribution to water is through your taxes. You have your own sceptic system and if you use it correctly it will last a life time if however the council fails it there is a grant available.
The poster was correct about rural dwellers he just didn't mention specific groups.

His post suggested that ALL rural dwellers are in receipt of an annual payment. This is not so. I’m simply pointing this out.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

His post suggested that ALL rural dwellers are in receipt of an annual payment. This is not so. I’m simply pointing this out.

It doesn't actually his post was a reply to another poster but you seized on one part and proceeded to twist to suit your own narrative.
Funny thing is I know many in the exact same situation as you yet totally disagreed and refused to engage with IW enough though they would only have been liable for 50 per cent of the charge. I said further back I believe many of the pro charge brigade were and are following party ideology.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Meter one..... meter all.

One pays....all pay

Level playing field.. no two tier system

Won’t be stiffed twice.

Just take a deep breath and think about it for a minute Brendan.


I can get why you are aggrieved that thie whole metering fiasco that you backed to the hilt in its heyday had feet of clay and fell apart.
But is that really a good enough reason to be championing throwing taxpayers money around like snuff at a wake ?


What you are calling for is another Billion euro to install more household meters, plus at least the same again, (if it is even possible), on metering apartments.

All that because you have now a problem over exceeding allowances.


For one it is economic madness and two no party is going to commit political hari kari by even dreaming of doing what would result in not just the same numbers of householders back on the streets protesting now at least doubled by apartment dwellers.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

Just take a deep breath and think about it for a minute Brendan.


I can get why you are aggrieved that thie whole metering fiasco that you backed to the hilt in its heyday had feet of clay and fell apart.
But is that really a good enough reason to be championing throwing taxpayers money around like snuff at a wake ?


What you are calling for is another Billion euro to install more household meters, plus at least the same again, (if it is even possible), on metering apartments.

All that because you have now a problem over exceeding allowances.


For one it is economic madness and two no party is going to commit political hari kari by even dreaming of doing what would result in not just the same numbers of householders back on the streets protesting now at least doubled by apartment dwellers.

I’m afraid you are not getting the nuance of my point of view Charles.

I couldn’t give a flying fuuuhrke how water usage is measured only that it’s measured in the same way for all domestic users.

Surely that’s not too difficult a concept to comprehend C.

I mean, do people have different electricity meters for domestic use ?

I mean they can hitch up a dray horse to my inlet pipe and charge me the cubic meterage of his piss over a standard time x the literage of liquid intake once they hook a dray to all comparable domestic dwellings.

It’s that simple dude.

Topgear on Dave

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It's been like this for years for rural people.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Probably why they're entitled to an annual subsistence payment from the state.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It doesn't actually his post was a reply to another poster but you seized on one part and proceeded to twist to suit your own narrative.
Funny thing is I know many in the exact same situation as you yet totally disagreed and refused to engage with IW enough though they would only have been liable for 50 per cent of the charge. I said further back I believe many of the pro charge brigade were and are following party ideology.

Just to refresh your memory.

Plumbthedepths

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just to refresh your memory.

Nothing wrong with my memory at all. How's yours? You claimed that taxes would go up if charges were abolished .

Benedict

charlie14 wrote: »

Just take a deep breath and think about it for a minute Brendan.


I can get why you are aggrieved that thie whole metering fiasco that you backed to the hilt in its heyday had feet of clay and fell apart.
But is that really a good enough reason to be championing throwing taxpayers money around like snuff at a wake ?


What you are calling for is another Billion euro to install more household meters, plus at least the same again, (if it is even possible), on metering apartments.

All that because you have now a problem over exceeding allowances.


For one it is economic madness and two no party is going to commit political hari kari by even dreaming of doing what would result in not just the same numbers of householders back on the streets protesting now at least doubled by apartment dwellers.

And are you saying that you would willingly accept a quota being imposed on you while every other house in the area can use what they want?


That would be like a 19th Century Alabama slave accepting his lot because political reform would be too expensive.

McMurphy

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t think any grants were available at the time they drilled their wells, some 50odd years plus ago.
Grants are available for new systems, but only if your house is over a certain age. So, if you’re building a new house, you aren’t eligible.
There were no grants available when I had a septic tank installed 40 years ago.
The poster seemed to be inferring that rural dwellers get annual grants. We don’t.

This

Group water schemes and rural water issues

This

Approximately 6% of the population get their drinking water from group water schemes (community-run schemes). Of these, about 70% get their water from private group schemes, which have a privately-sourced water supply. The remaining schemes get their water from an Irish Water connection. Members of group schemes pay water charges but have some of their water services costs subsidised by the government. A very small number of households receive sewerage services through group sewerage schemes, which are also community-run and receive government subsidies.

Deleted User wrote: »

He said annual payments. I’m asking for his source of this magnificent news. Grants are NOT available yearly. Most are one offs.

And this from the same page.

Rural Water Programme

Under the department's Rural Water Programme, the Exchequer funds improvements to group water scheme and group sewerage scheme infrastructure so schemes can provide a water supply that meets water quality requirements. Some of the day-to-day costs of group water schemes are also subsidised. Administered by local authorities, the programme also helps to provide new group sewerage schemes and improve private individual water supplies where no alternative supply is available.

An annual subsidy per house is available to group schemes for the operational cost of providing domestic water:

• up to 70 euro for each house supplied from a public (Irish Water) source

• up to 140 euro for each house supplied from a private source (well, lake, borehole etc.)

• up to 220 euro for each house where water disinfection and/or treatment is provided under a Design Build Operate (DBO) contract

To improve the quality of drinking water in group water schemes and to support longer term planning, the department introduced a new, multi-annual capital funding framework in January 2016. The new structures will provide greater funding certainty for priority investment needs, which will support proper planning and sustainable development in rural areas. It will also help Ireland meet its Water Framework Directive commitments.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/water/water-services/rural-water-programme/group-water-schemes-and-rural-water-issues

pablo128

As I suspected. It looks some rural dwellers have the hump because they have to pay for water and dubs don't, in their eyes. Pure jealousy. They are not complaining about their 1 acre back gardens and cheaper house prices. Also conveniently forgetting that the money for 'the new bypass' or other local amenities mostly comes from Dublin.

McMurphy

pablo128 wrote: »

As I suspected. It looks some rural dwellers have the hump because they have to pay for water and dubs don't, in their eyes. Pure jealousy. They are not complaining about their 1 acre back gardens and cheaper house prices. Also conveniently forgetting that the money for 'the new bypass' or other local amenities mostly comes from Dublin.

Some have the hump because despite beating their chests and loudly proclaiming that water charges were here to stay, those who didn't pay would have services turned off, and have the sheriff remove goods from premises, have taxes increased etc etc were proven to be chicken littles talking about the sky falling in when the FG brain fart was put out of its misery.

Benedict

According to IW, some users (presumably users with meters) might already have warning letters landing on their doormats.

(Anyone notice pigs flying recently?)

Benedict

Benedict wrote: »

According to IW, some users (presumably users with meters) might already have warning letters landing on their doormats.

(Anyone notice pigs flying recently?)

Really? Shur, that’s deferred for a year?

charlie14

Benedict wrote: »

And are you saying that you would willingly accept a quota being imposed on you while every other house in the area can use what they want?


That would be like a 19th Century Alabama slave accepting his lot because political reform would be too expensive.

Not saying that at all.

Nor do I believe that 19th Century Alabama slaves were ever going to make their lives any better by campaigning for everyone else to join them in slavery.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I’m afraid you are not getting the nuance of my point of view Charles.

I couldn’t give a flying fuuuhrke how water usage is measured only that it’s measured in the same way for all domestic users.

Surely that’s not too difficult a concept to comprehend C.

I mean, do people have different electricity meters for domestic use ?

I mean they can hitch up a dray horse to my inlet pipe and charge me the cubic meterage of his piss over a standard time x the literage of liquid intake once they hook a dray to all comparable domestic dwellings.

It’s that simple dude.

There are so many nuances in your posts from Middle Ireland, bullhorn brigades, reds under beds, metering, exceeding limits etc it is difficult to know what you are on about a lot of the time.


But seeing this thread is about water charges for excessive use perhaps we could attempt to get you out of the twilight world and into the real world on that one.


In the twilight world it may make sense to spend 2 Billion euro on top of the 1 Billion already wasted to charge a small number who are actually exceeding their allocation through usage rather than by leaks.
In the real world from the potential monetary returns it is both economic and political insanity.

Brendan Bendar

charlie14 wrote: »

There are so many nuances in your posts from Middle Ireland, bullhorn brigades, reds under beds, metering, exceeding limits etc it is difficult to know what you are on about a lot of the time.


But seeing this thread is about water charges for excessive use perhaps we could attempt to get you out of the twilight world and into the real world on that one.


In the twilight world it may make sense to spend 2 Billion euro on top of the 1 Billion already wasted to charge a small number who are actually exceeding their allocation through usage rather than by leaks.
In the real world from the potential monetary returns it is both economic and political insanity.

Bottom line dude,is that potable water costs money to produce, the system is in flitters, hasn’t been updated for decades, everybody needs to contribute if we are to avoid these boil water episodes.

There was an almighty bollox made of this from day one, the bullhorn brigade saw the chance and saw that their support base suddenly felt the slates being lifted.

Everybody needs to contribute dude, this tax the rich crap won’t wash.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Bottom line dude,is that potable water costs money to produce, the system is in flitters, hasn’t been updated for decades, everybody needs to contribute if we are to avoid these boil water episodes.

There was an almighty bollox made of this from day one, the bullhorn brigade saw the chance and saw that their support base suddenly felt the slates being lifted.

Everybody needs to contribute dude, this tax the rich crap won’t wash.

People already do through a myriad of taxes, a fact which you ignore. You were sold a 'pup' and were happy to buy it ( personally I believe it was who was doing the selling that made you so enthusiastic) your problem is you can't understand why others were unwilling to buy the same 'pup' you did.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

People already do through a myriad of taxes, a fact which you ignore. You were sold a 'pup' and were happy to buy it ( personally I believe it was who was doing the selling that made you so enthusiastic) your problem is you can't understand why others were unwilling to buy the same 'pup' you did.

My ‘problem’ is, my friend that this ‘myriad of taxes’ were suddenly brought into sharp relief when the unit was outside ‘our door’ and the sound of slates being lifted permeated the area.

‘Our door‘, does this mean we actually have to pay..... JAysus...:eek:


Fhuuurke that ........

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

My ‘problem’ is, my friend that this ‘myriad of taxes’ were suddenly brought into sharp relief when the unit was outside ‘our door’ and the sound of slates being lifted permeated the area.

‘Our door‘, does this mean we actually have to pay..... JAysus...:eek:


Fhuuurke that ........

Over 600,000 'refused' to engage with the attempted cash grab by FG and their cheerleaders . Dress it up anyway you want dude but a significant amount of Middle Ireland whom you like to speak for are part of that 600k. Myself, many of my extended family. All gainfully employed privately and for the state.
The divide and conquer bs has been seen through years ago B amusing that you still cling to it.

Brendan Bendar

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Over 600,000 'refused' to engage with the attempted cash grab by FG and their cheerleaders . Dress it up anyway you want dude but a significant amount of Middle Ireland whom you like to speak for are part of that 600k. Myself, many of my extended family. All gainfully employed privately and for the state.
The divide and conquer bs has been seen through years ago B amusing that you still cling to it.

You keep trying to put words in people’s mouths, my friend.

I’m clinging to nothing, I can see that there will be huge problems in water production and distribution due to historic neglect over decades.

Huge money will be needed to sort it out, I am prepared to pay my bit but it seems that the bullhorn brigade want to hide in the general taxation cave.

That way they ensure that they won’t have their slates lifted and can let others foot the bill, whilst ignoring what is going on around them.

That’s the issue, my friend, horsing out conspiracy theories and ignoring reality won’t butter any parsnips.

James Brown

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You keep trying to put words in people’s mouths, my friend.

I’m clinging to nothing, I can see that there will be huge problems in water production and distribution due to historic neglect over decades.

Huge money will be needed to sort it out, I am prepared to pay my bit but it seems that the bullhorn brigade want to hide in the general taxation cave.

That way they ensure that they won’t have their slates lifted and can let others foot the bill, whilst ignoring what is going on around them.

That’s the issue, my friend, horsing out conspiracy theories and ignoring reality won’t butter any parsnips.

The general public are no 'bullhorn brigade'. They are middle Ireland. They spoke. Seems you are no more as savvy to the wants of middle Ireland as Fine Gael.

Just for my own sake, are you a piece of software that throws out random sayings intermittently? You rarely make a coherent comment.
We all pay tax. We all pay for water supply. The vast majority told them were to stick their meters.

Brendan Bendar

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The general public are no 'bullhorn brigade'. They are middle Ireland. They spoke. Seems you are no more as savvy to the wants of middle Ireland as Fine Gael.

Just for my own sake, are you a piece of software that throws out random sayings intermittently? You rarely make a coherent comment.

Well, dude, if you close your mind to reality, that’s a reasonable reaction.

charlie14

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Bottom line dude,is that potable water costs money to produce, the system is in flitters, hasn’t been updated for decades, everybody needs to contribute if we are to avoid these boil water episodes.

There was an almighty bollox made of this from day one, the bullhorn brigade saw the chance and saw that their support base suddenly felt the slates being lifted.

Everybody needs to contribute dude, this tax the rich crap won’t wash.

I`m getting this nuance you mentioned now.

Your rantings have nothing to do with this thread on exceeding an allowance of 213,000 liters per household

Your still living back in the old Irish Water mega threads where the allowance was 30,000 per household.

Still holding out hopes for the continuation of the reckless financial shamble by not just doubling down but tripling down in same vague hope of a different result.



That day is long gone my friend and will not be attempted again politically for at least a generation by which time those expensive buried meters will have long exceeded their lifespan.

Plumbthedepths

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You keep trying to put words in people’s mouths, my friend.

I’m clinging to nothing, I can see that there will be huge problems in water production and distribution due to historic neglect over decades.

Huge money will be needed to sort it out, I am prepared to pay my bit but it seems that the bullhorn brigade want to hide in the general taxation cave.

That way they ensure that they won’t have their slates lifted and can let others foot the bill, whilst ignoring what is going on around them.

That’s the issue, my friend, horsing out conspiracy theories and ignoring reality won’t butter any parsnips.

I didn't put words in your mouth at all, you claimed further back to speak on behalf of middle Ireland I challenged you on it. You don't speak for me or the 600k households that didnt engage with IW. It's amusing and pathetic you wish to dismiss such a large number of people as part of the 'bullhorn brigade'.
As for conspiracy theories address your contempt towards former FG junior minister Fergus O' Dowd.
Your solution to the problem is 100's of millions of euros spent on meters, crazy.
I offered a suggestion further back, yet it is something FG has no interest in doing as they also have no interest in giving the public a referendum on ownership of the resource and network.