Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Water charges

124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    emo72 wrote: »
    hhmmmm...you are right, there is no facts yet. we dont know what the pricing is going to be. however its not unusual for things to be leaked to see how the public react, to soften us up, to get us prepared. a bit of kite flying so to speak.

    there is a precedent with the pricing. the toll roads have a deal that if they dont get the projected business, the taxpayer takes up the shortfall. it would not surprise me one bit if a similar deal is arranged for irish water.

    i could be wrong. thats my best educated guess about how the pricing will be set. i base that on whats gone before. unless you can see a major shift in our public servants to look after our best interests. i doubt that.
    My best guess would be a standing charge element - common in other utilities that have big fixed costs.
    That's just my own speculation 'though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,172 ✭✭✭emo72


    Phoebas wrote: »
    My best guess would be a standing charge element - common in other utilities that have big fixed costs.
    That's just my own speculation 'though.


    yeah, biggish standing charge. that wouldnt be a surprise.

    edit....on reflection , of course theres gonna be a standing charge. also gonna be expensive enough for what you use. and if we dont use enough to pay for the overheads, they will go to the regulator and increase the charges. whats to guess?


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,462 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Really? Like filtration or sedimentation? :rolleyes:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_purification
    no, like chlroine and flouride, like the power require to run pumping stations etc
    Umm.. you know, here's a thought:

    It is predominantly human waste treatment that you are talking about here, and the compounds used to treat such waste. How on earth does using less water reduce the amount of human waste produced? Volume, sure; but more diluted does not equal more waste.

    You may have a point in relation to fertiliser run-off in agricultural use; but that's a slightly different topic.
    It is not predominantly human waste - I assume you just mean urine/fecal matter when you say this. It's dishwater, machine machines,dishwashers, showers and all the filth associated with those uses both disolved and physical waste as well as toilets all from households.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    no, like chlorine and fluoride, like the power require to run pumping stations etc

    Oh, it's not free (naturally). But is there anything fundamentally unsustainable about any of that? Other disinfection methods include things such as UV radiation - this is hardly something that is a limited supply. Of course, the removal of disinfection by-products could be an environmental concern - but I have never heard it mentioned as one.
    It is not predominantly human waste - I assume you just mean urine/faecal matter when you say this. It's dishwater, machine machines,dishwashers, showers and all the filth associated with those uses both dissolved and physical waste as well as toilets all from households.

    Well, all human waste really that doesn't fall into the category of grey water. But using more or less water will not increase or decrease the amount of solid waste that must be processed.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't think there are no negatives to using more water; I just don't think that they are many.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,467 ✭✭✭creedp


    Don't get me wrong, I don't think there are no negatives to using more water; I just don't think that they are many.


    The question then is why are we spending so much money installing water meters and setting up a fantastically complex and expensive IW to measure and bill for water consumption? Would we have been better off investing this money in improving the current water infrastructure?

    Having said that it probably makes those who don't want to pay for the waste of water by others feel better about themselves. I was talking to a friend lately who lives in a city centre appartment who was hell bent on forcing DCC to retrospectively install individual meters for each appartment becasue she was single and didn't want to pay for the water used by the family down the corridor. Says a lot really!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    creedp wrote: »
    The question then is why are we spending so much money installing water meters and setting up a fantastically complex and expensive IW to measure and bill for water consumption? Would we have been better off investing this money in improving the current water infrastructure?

    It would, I suppose. It's ironic how there was virtually nothing spent on the infrastructure during the boom (in fact major industrial areas like SFIE had notorious problems with the water infrastructure).

    This is just a money-spinner - and I don't even mind that entirely. But so much of the money that could be channelled into the central government is just being pissed away. It's that that makes all the BS so annoying.
    creedp wrote: »
    Having said that it probably makes those who don't want to pay for the waste of water by others feel better about themselves. I was talking to a friend lately who lives in a city centre appartment who was hell bent on forcing DCC to retrospectively install individual meters for each appartment becasue she was single and didn't want to pay for the water used by the family down the corridor. Says a lot really!

    Reminds one of the debates in England about the poll tax, really. :p


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,261 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    It would, I suppose. It's ironic how there was virtually nothing spent on the infrastructure during the boom (in fact major industrial areas like SFIE had notorious problems with the water infrastructure).

    I wouldn't call billions "virtually nothing".


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    I wouldn't call billions "virtually nothing".

    Link?

    Sorry for the scepticism but I didn't notice the local authority even fixing major mains leaks until a year or two ago (and that was just a sop for the introduction of water charges).


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,261 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    For example:
    Some €4.6 billion in Exchequer resources has been invested in the water services sector over the past decade. This has included €3.7 billion under the multi-annual Water Services Investment Programmes which, allied with €900 million spent from water services authorities own resources, facilitated the completion of some 480 major water and wastewater public schemes over the period 2000 to 2009.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,172 ✭✭✭emo72


    i wonder how much of that 4.6 billion spend went on management, consultants?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2



    Assuming that that is excluding the cost of service provision (which tbf I think it is), seeing that there was a housing boom during that period I'd wager that the vast majority of that went on extending to new estates (residential and commercial) rather than doing anything to improve the existing infrastructure.

    I will admit that our waste water treatment on the whole is pretty decent - although if I remember correctly the backbone of that work (for Dublin at least) took place during the 90s.

    I don't believe there was any major attempt to increase capacity, or reduce the usage of treated water in the fixing of leaks (which eat up the majority of treated water) during that period.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,261 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    ...I'd wager that...

    No need to wager. Expenditure is broken down in the report linked to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    No need to wager. Expenditure is broken down in the report linked to.

    Well that report is 2010-2012 if I'm not mistaken.

    Yeah, for Dublin region for instance I see:
    Dublin Region Watermains
    Rehabilitation Project (Dublin City)
    Tranche 1 W 26,642,000


    Which I actually noticed in action. It was the first time I've seen a concerted effort to reduce mains leakage. And yes... €18 million to clear up the mess that was the Sandyford water infrastructure...


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Maragenie


    How the hell we're even buying into this in the first place is beyond me. Forcing people to pay for a resource that is needed to exist is one thing but the salt in the wound is that it rains almost every other day all year round. I blame the PC yuppies that think they know better than the rest of us common folks for supporting the idea in the first place.

    It's another money racket, nothing more and nothing less so I'm not going to entertain the idea that we're saving the planet, not even for a second. Nothing is going to change, everything will stay the same, same pipes and same **** different day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Maragenie wrote: »
    How the hell we're even buying into this in the first place is beyond me. Forcing people to pay for a resource that is needed to exist is one thing but the salt in the wound is that it rains almost every other day all year round. I blame the PC yuppies that think they know better than the rest of us common folks for supporting the idea in the first place.
    That stuff is still free - help yourself.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Maragenie wrote: »
    Forcing people to pay for a resource that is needed to exist is one thing...
    Yeah, they'll be making us pay for food next.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭Satriale


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yeah, they'll be making us pay for food next.


    Good idea, they are far too many food items exempt from tax, and everyone has to eat.
    Another resource to be harvested... gold star for you;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Maragenie


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yeah, they'll be making us pay for food next.

    Quality.

    Guess you voted yes to Lisbon and was one of the first to sign up for the house hold tax aswell. Either way I'm not going to debate you as your kind are better than the rest of us by default.

    Enjoy your life, there's plenty more taxes for you down the pipe line.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    A few things.....
    Water was never free so the point stands, why is it acceptable that we are paying 'extra' for water now? I await the road sweeper tax and street light tax. Them bulbs don't change themselves you know.
    As for the food remark, as with water, we pay for all costs incurred.
    Regarding Rain. It's currently free. Rain water collection is illegal in parts of the states because those companies contracted to supply water successfully claimed they were losing money due to rain water collection. That could quite easily come in here.

    Oh, and this...
    Repair bill of €136,000 for Dublin water meter leaks
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/repair-bill-of-136-000-for-dublin-water-meter-leaks-1.1679723


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,620 ✭✭✭Grudaire


    For Reals wrote: »
    As for the food remark, as with water, we pay for all costs incurred.
    Regarding Rain. It's currently free. Rain water collection is illegal in parts of the states because those companies contracted to supply water successfully claimed they were losing money due to rain water collection. That could quite easily come in here.

    As bad as Irish politicians are, I seriously (and I mean seriously) doubt that this is a real possibility.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,964 ✭✭✭For Reals


    Grudaire wrote: »
    As bad as Irish politicians are, I seriously (and I mean seriously) doubt that this is a real possibility.

    It's a contractual thing, as we've heard a number of times....'Our hands are tied'. Making a commodity out or a public service opens water supply up to possible privatisation and if, (in my view when) this happens the government of the day, as with the public, will simply be beholding to the whims of a private concern as regards water.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    For Reals wrote: »

    http://inishowenindo.ie/2013/11/outrage-inishowen-water-meter-installer-jobbridge-advert/

    Cock ups like this are inevitable when your workers have no experience nor incentive on doing a good job. Well, there's fifty quid on top of your social.

    Jobbridge. Buy cheap, buy twice.


  • Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Maragenie


    Excuses excuses, keep on covering for them.




  • Charging for water is a good idea, if only to stop the waste. It costs money to make water useable. This is wasted through leaks being ignored, people letting taps run and in general being wasteful. Having to pay will focus minds and make people use water more efficiently. It's sad that people have to be told what to do about reporting leaks and being careful with our precious resources. Of course, I'm now going to slated for being a realist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,380 ✭✭✭✭Banjo String


    Charging for water is a good idea, if only to stop the waste. It costs money to make water useable. This is wasted through leaks being ignored, people letting taps run and in general being wasteful. Having to pay will focus minds and make people use water more efficiently. It's sad that people have to be told what to do about reporting leaks and being careful with our precious resources. Of course, I'm now going to slated for being a realist.

    Wastage?

    Won't we be paying for more than double the required workforce needed to 'run' Irish Water up until 2016?

    And when it's reserved to the extent that it's not generating the expected Revenue, the price of water may be hiked up?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Wastage?

    Won't we be paying for more than double the required workforce needed to 'run' Irish Water up until 2016?
    Instead of paying for double the required workforce in perpetuity.
    And when it's reserved to the extent that it's not generating the expected Revenue, the price of water may be hiked up?
    We don't know the answer to that yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,565 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Charging for water is a good idea, if only to stop the waste. It costs money to make water useable. This is wasted through leaks being ignored, people letting taps run and in general being wasteful.

    If I remember correctly something like 40% of all treated water is wasted in leaks in mains (under public roads, etc). Charging people for their usage is really going to cure that. :/


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,516 ✭✭✭Maudi


    A friend of mine works in vartry resovoir. .he told me the whole victorian pipe structure is in the verge of collapse.and that the pipes that leave the resovoir are 15 foot diameter and that 40% of water flowing out is lost due to major leaks..40%!!...in his own words "its scary to look at"...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭Satriale


    Maudi wrote: »
    A friend of mine works in vartry resovoir. .he told me the whole victorian pipe structure is in the verge of collapse.and that the pipes that leave the resovoir are 15 foot diameter and that 40% of water flowing out is lost due to major leaks..40%!!...in his own words "its scary to look at"...

    but there are still those who would prefer to blame people who flush the toilet more than once a day...


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,892 ✭✭✭spank_inferno


    Maudi wrote: »
    A friend of mine works in vartry resovoir. .he told me the whole victorian pipe structure is in the verge of collapse.and that the pipes that leave the resovoir are 15 foot diameter and that 40% of water flowing out is lost due to major leaks..40%!!...in his own words "its scary to look at"...

    Where would Paddy be if Britain wasn't there to help with infrastructure.

    near a century after of independence, we should not hear words like "Victorian Pipes".


Advertisement