Domestic Water Metering

conZ

I know it's inevitable under the EU Water Framework Directive that private residences will soon have to pay for their water used (after a certain limit - the current domestic allowance is 50,000 gallons). Under this directive, the user pays, the polluter pays.

Domestic water metering has been introduced across Europe (Italy, Sweden, UK, Germany...) although the majority of these countries have only 40-80% complete metering systems.

This topic has been of interest to me as I see it as a large source of contracts for Contractors across the country in the near future.

Currently, there are numerous Non-Domestic Water Metering Projects underway (and a couple complete) across the country. These projects involve metering every 'Non-Domestic' water connection across a certain area (at the moment, these are being undertaken on a county by county basis).

Farmers, shops, industrial units, houses with an office attached to it, Schools, Churches, everything with a commercial or non-domestic aspect to it will have a water meter installed and will be charged for the water that they use (instead of paying a fixed charge in most cases).

A lot of smaller shops for example will benefit (most would only have a WC and kitchen sink for tea) and are paying massive fixed charges. Introduction of a water meter could save +€300 per year (an astronomical amount when it comes to making a saving from the council).

Larger customers (farmers, restaurants, pubs, schools) will more than likely suffer. Farmers have the potential to have leaks throughout their land, and should be more careful in theory. On the commercial front, it will lead to smarter use of water.

Schools, Hospitals etc., they are generally older buildings with poor water systems in place, and do waste water. They will have to introduce smart water conservation (use of grey water for flushing etc). If schools and hospitals upgrade their wasteful systems, they won't be getting bills of €36,000+ per year like the National School in Ennis got last September (which sparked off the controversy). I know the National is and old school, with very wasteful systems in place - I walked the corridors there till '98 and every time you left the classroom you could hear the urinals being flushed out in the large WCs.
So in the long-run, schools can easily avoid having to pay massive rates.

In the past few years, it has been at the discretion of the Council whether a company or unit should have a meter installed. Some counties might only have 5% of connections metered, others 40%.
In the past 4-5 years, Councils have introduced Water Meter Installation as a stipulation in the planning for Domestic houses, therefore if you're building a house and you're taking a connection from the public mains, or GWS, you have to install a water meter.

The cause is a good one - water conservation, limit waste = efficient treatment, improvement in water quality, and in the long run we will have a mains water supply that can be trusted country-wide.

So, when are we to expect the introduction of domestic water metering? There will be uproar from the public (one more bill to add to the piles that have been stacking up in the past 2 years, will there be concessions for the elderly/schools/churchs/organisations? People will be reluctant to pay up with the quality of water these days, look at the coverage the Schools got before the end of 200).

People get very, very posessive about their water. If you went up to a private group water scheme of 200 customers and said 'we're gonna start charging you by the gallon after 50,000 gallons' they will swiftly rare up. Every Parish Hall in the country will be filled.


In my opinion, Domestic Water Metering will be announced within the next year, probably before the end of 2008. Brian Cowen will be the man to introduce the plans, and he won't be backing down. Implementation of such a plan will be tough, but they have or will have the majority of the work completed already.

There are, I don't off the top of my head (altough the number is easily found), but maybe 10-15 Non-Domestic Water Metering Projects underway or completed, and I bet if you look at the counties that have not started a NDWMP, there have been discussions and there's probably a budget set aside and documentation on the CC website.

Completion of a Nationwide domestic water metering project will be quite hard (well, maybe, time consuming), a lot of the ground work has already been completed (all new houses have meters, all the farmers have meters, GWS generally have meters on every connection). Under the NDWMP, every commercial building will be metered. Technology for Advanced Meter Reading (Radio Frequency) is easily implemented so there won't be any backbreaking (and potentially dangerous) meter reading going on at the side of roads across the country.

I can't remember Cowen's exact words today, but I heard him say something along the lines of "Some of my decisions will not go down well" - someone please correct me on this.

So, just said i'd see what Joe Publics opinion is on this. Surely everyones trying to cut down on wasting water (The Power of One?). Would you be happy to pay per 1,000 gallons if you went over the domestic allowance? Can you see a successful uptake on Domestic Water Metering?

The domestic allowance, by the way, is 50,000 gallons a year (based on usage of 2 adults and 2.4 children I presume?). Someone probably pulled it out of their head during the 80s. This may possibly be revised upon the introduction of domestic water metering (I wouldn't be surprised - it's gonna be an expensive project).

Einstein

i think its only right that we charge for water. Why should we take for granted what other countries can't get because of crap governments that do nothing.
This country wastes a ridiculous amount of water.

Simple things like leaving the tap running while brushing teeth is total waste. Who here actually turns off the tap until the rinsing at the end?

Honest now?

On the other hand, I don't agree with paying for water. Water is an absolute necessity, without it you're dead. Everything else is optional (electricity etc) and people did without them for years.

I'd only agree to pay for water if the standard of the product is improved. I wouldn't think those in Galway would be happy to be paying for water that gets infected every few months. Plus my parents' house in Kerry has nasty water, apparently one of the locals tested it and found manganese in it. It's a public water supply, not a well. They've gotten to the extent that they use bottled water for anything that requires it to be consumed, and my mam was complaining the other day about a weird smell off some of the washed clothes - again it's suspected to be the water.

Einstein

you can still shower in this water, boil this water, cook with this water...
Agreed the whole Galway thing spiralled Waaaaay out of control though.
You hit the nail on the head about it being a necessity. So is food. Food aint free. Or medicine.

leninbenjamin

Karsini wrote: »

On the other hand, I don't agree with paying for water. Water is an absolute necessity, without it you're dead. Everything else is optional (electricity etc) and people did without them for years.

I'd only agree to pay for water if the standard of the product is improved. I wouldn't think those in Galway would be happy to be paying for water that gets infected every few months. Plus my parents' house in Kerry has nasty water, apparently one of the locals tested it and found manganese in it. It's a public water supply, not a well. They've gotten to the extent that they use bottled water for anything that requires it to be consumed, and my mam was complaining the other day about a weird smell off some of the washed clothes - again it's suspected to be the water.

yeah, the water is still basically undrinkable in Galway due to the obscenely high levels of chlorine and whatnot. on top of charges most are still paying for bottled water. no problem paying as long as it's a product worth paying for, which it isn't at the moment.

Steve

How can they possibly charge for water when they lose more through leaky pipes than is actually consumed????
Not to mention the poison they are supplying in the west:mad::mad:

jkell

I know a contractor who is working in Dublin fitting water meters .They are concentrating on commercial properties first.Have no doubt that every property private and otherwise through out Ireland will be metered..I wonder will the authorities get rid of the old lead water pipes and leakes before they decide to charge for water.the idea behind is to conserve and save water wastage.The biggest wastage of water to my mind is the infrastructure .?
Will water metering guarantee clean germ free water or will we also have to incurr the extra cost of filtering. Will the private water suppliers be cheaper than local authority, Will they outsource to contractors??

conZ

stevec wrote: »

How can they possibly charge for water when they lose more through leaky pipes than is actually consumed????
Not to mention the poison they are supplying in the west:mad::mad:

Well, Domestic and Non-Dom WMP are the first steps in sorting out the water quality in Ireland.

If everything connection is metered and, and Bulk meters fitted on every mains (they're already in place) they will soon be able to figure out where the leaks are, every connection and main can be accounted for and easily sorted out. Everything will be fitted with AMR units that wirelessly transmit the read from each meter so the metering can be carried out in the car using a reciever.

Once they have an efficient water supply, it will be much easier to produce top quality water. Once people start paying for their wasted water, the government and councils can invest this money in treatment plants and on upgrading the infrastructure.
In the last ten years, there has been too much building for the existing treatment facilities to work efficiently, hence the increased number of cases of polluted water.

This project will also increase rainwater storage - so if you don't want to pay for it from the council, get it yourself (not potable, but for flushing etc. but all the same, will surely keep mains usage minimum).

It will be a slow process, but you can bet every water supply in the country will be fit for purpose year round after it (i'd estimate within 5 or 6 years after introduction, but as it stands, the government are investing a lot of money into water - €471 million this year alone).

I know a contractor who is working in Dublin fitting water meters .They are concentrating on commercial properties first.Have no doubt that every property private and otherwise through out Ireland will be metered..I wonder will the authorities get rid of the old lead water pipes and leakes before they decide to charge for water.the idea behind is to conserve and save water wastage.The biggest wastage of water to my mind is the infrastructure .?
Will water metering guarantee clean germ free water or will we also have to incurr the extra cost of filtering. Will the private water suppliers be cheaper than local authority, Will they outsource to contractors??

I'm sure he's working on the Dublin NDWMP - i'd say there are a couple subbies installing them. You'd be surprised, but a lot of the mains pipes and connections aren't classified (location, condition, material). I heard a story that plans for all the mains in Dublin were lost years ago, and there is was no record of them. Once the money starts flowing from the start of the project, the whole network of mains pipes and older connections will be upgraded.

Water quality will surely be guaranteed, as explained above. The EU are coming down hard on member states with this Directive - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=32000L0060&model=guichett (or just search EU Water Framework Directive), but this is an interesting read (though, it hasn't been in the media too often).

Article 9

Recovery of costs for water services

1. Member States shall take account of the principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs, having regard to the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III, and in accordance in particular with the polluter pays principle.

Member States shall ensure by 2010

- that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive,

- an adequate contribution of the different water uses, disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of water services, based on the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III and taking account of the polluter pays principle.

Member States may in so doing have regard to the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected.

2. Member States shall report in the river basin management plans on the planned steps towards implementing paragraph 1 which will contribute to achieving the environmental objectives of this Directive and on the contribution made by the various water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services.

3. Nothing in this Article shall prevent the funding of particular preventive or remedial measures in order to achieve the objectives of this Directive.

4. Member States shall not be in breach of this Directive if they decide in accordance with established practices not to apply the provisions of paragraph 1, second sentence, and for that purpose the relevant provisions of paragraph 2, for a given water-use activity, where this does not compromise the purposes and the achievement of the objectives of this Directive. Member States shall report the reasons for not fully applying paragraph 1, second sentence, in the river basin management plans.

50% of the mains water in Ireland is lost through leaks.

Will the private water suppliers be cheaper than local authority, Will they outsource to contractors??

I wouldn't say they'll outsource. I'm sure they know there's money in it. That said, I never took that into consideration. Isin't Bolivia's supply privatised?- and the country is in a state because of it. Must read up on that.

godtabh

conZ wrote: »

The domestic allowance, by the way, is 50,000 gallons a year (based on usage of 2 adults and 2.4 children I presume?). Someone probably pulled it out of their head during the 80s.

Based on 200 l/h/d thats about 73000l per person per year based on the GDSDS. Some figures have it at 220l/h/d some have it at 180 l/h/d.

73000l is about 16057 G. Average occupany per house is 3 so the average consumption is 48171.

So it wasnt pulled out of some ones head during the 80's

Steve

conZ wrote: »

Well, Domestic and Non-Dom WMP are the first steps in sorting out the water quality in Ireland.

If everything connection is metered and, and Bulk meters fitted on every mains (they're already in place) they will soon be able to figure out where the leaks are, every connection and main can be accounted for and easily sorted out. Everything will be fitted with AMR units that wirelessly transmit the read from each meter so the metering can be carried out in the car using a reciever.

Once they have an efficient water supply, it will be much easier to produce top quality water. Once people start paying for their wasted water, the government and councils can invest this money in treatment plants and on upgrading the infrastructure.

In the last ten years, there has been too much building for the existing treatment facilities to work efficiently, hence the increased number of cases of polluted water.

This project will also increase rainwater storage - so if you don't want to pay for it from the council, get it yourself (not potable, but for flushing etc. but all the same, will surely keep mains usage minimum).

It will be a slow process, but you can bet every water supply in the country will be fit for purpose year round after it (i'd estimate within 5 or 6 years after introduction, but as it stands, the government are investing a lot of money into water - €471 million this year alone).

Every new building has a local council tax levied on it supposedly for the supply and upkeep of local infrastructure including water supply, road maintenance, supply of public lighting etc (and used to include refuse collection).

So the fact that in the last ten years there has been unprecedented levels of building also means they had a proportionate increase in taxes to provide new infrastructure.
As the system now seems to be creaking at the seams, where has the money gone?

If / when they start charging for water usage will they abolish this levy? I think not. It'll go the same route as the double taxation on bin collections.

How big are these meters? where will they be put?

Will this scheme involve digging up every road in the country to access the individual water supplies or will users be expected to surrender part of their home to house it?


What's left for them to tax us on - maybe a turd counter on each users jacks??

The Real B-man

How can they justify charging for it? it never stops pissing rain not like theres a shortage in this country :rolleyes:

Overheal

Having water, and having drinkable water, are not one and the same B-Man.

Dinter

I loathe that polluter pays principle.

It's being used to introduce any shadow tax and levies that are wanted.

In my opinion water is a basic human right and necessity. There is no way they should charge for domestic consumption. If the state really gave a shit about cutting consumption instead of raking in more cash they could introduce tax breaks so people can retrofit reduced consumption cisterns etc.

At home I've a water butt that I use out in the garden and I've installed, at my expense, dual flush cisterns. I try not to waste an awful lot of water and I think it is ridiculous that the State doesn't trust people to do this to assuage their own conscience or dares to impose charges on people who don't. I don't mind my PAYE taxes being diverted to pay for it. It makes more sense than that failure of a Health Levy.

Also, why should I have to pay for water when if I was on a lower income I'd get it for free? (I assume there'll be some sort of waiver scheme like with bin charges) I have no problem paying my bin charges, car tax, fuel bills or the innumerable other shadow taxes I'm hammered with every day but I think people definitely deserve to have water on tap without having to budget for it.

In my opinion, if the State has to charge for water than they can take it out of the percentage of our GDP that we give to charity to provide basic human necessities in developing nations. Before we provide wells elsewhere let's get our own house in order.

Wertz

kearnsr wrote: »

Based on 200 l/h/d thats about 73000l per person per year based on the GDSDS. Some figures have it at 220l/h/d some have it at 180 l/h/d.

73000l is about 16057 G. Average occupany per house is 3 so the average consumption is 48171.

So it wasnt pulled out of some ones head during the 80's

...and you see here's where the problems start.
What about low occupancy households versus high?
If it's going to be a blanket average use per house then automatically you're taxing people with large families/households...if you have a lot of kids, you're doing more washing, using more bath/shower water, more for cooking....more more more.
Then add the fact that most larger families are also at the lower end of the income bracket.
I'm sure for people on low incomes, there'd be some sort of grant scheme or waiver....but the fact remains that if you charge by a "pulled out of your hole" average usage € value, you unfairly lumber some households with higher charges, who's incomes are already stretched paying for more of the other life essentials.

It's all very well talkign about grey water recycling and rainfall collection, but for many people in the high use bracket, systems like that are another expense and may be impossible to implement depending on location and type of dwelling.

I'm not shouting down the need for water metering here; we obviously should be paying for a service and paying for that service should reduce wastage and improve quality. But again, fix the delivery infrastructure first...or are water charges going to be used to fund the repair of mains supplies?
One thing I'll never understand in this country is why public buldings and toilets don't use rainwater flush systems already....their use is widespread on the continent. I mean we have ample rainfall here to keep tanks topped up...the amount of treated water produced to a standard fit for consumption, that literally get's poured down the toilet is a disgrace...

godtabh

Wertz wrote: »

...and you see here's where the problems start.
What about low occupancy households versus high?
If it's going to be a blanket average use per house then automatically you're taxing people with large families/households...if you have a lot of kids, you're doing more washing, using more bath/shower water, more for cooking....more more more.


It's all very well talkign about grey water recycling and rainfall collection, but for many people in the high use bracket, systems like that are another expense and may be impossible to implement depending on location and type of dwelling.

That figure is relatively conservative. What is allowed for and what is used can differ in both directions from time to time such as between summer and winter.

If people use water correctly I don't think there would be much of a problem.

At the moment grey water and rainfall harvesting are geared more towards industrial/commercial developments were life time costs can be significant.

Once of housing it can be expensive.

In large apartment developments (which there are many) stuff like this would only add a couple of thousand of Euro per apartment with that cost save over the life time of the building.

If politicans stay out of it a fair system can easily be setup

Wertz

kearnsr wrote: »

That figure is relatively conservative. What is allowed for and what is used can differ in both directions from time to time such as between summer and winter.

The latter being a time when you want to conserve as much water as you can, especially in parts of the country subject to droughts...would usage during summer months be "taxed" at a higher rate? Smart metering? (I know, we can't even get this for electricity in a domestic setting with any ease)

kearnsr wrote: »

If people use water correctly I don't think there would be much of a problem.

I agree 100%...brushing teeth is a good example but unnecessary flushing of toilets...ie using 12 litres of water to get rid of some yellow water in the bowl, or people who stick on their hose/pressure washer for car washing, pisses me off as it stands now. If metering can curtail the waste of potable water these activities contribute to, then it's all good in my eyes.

kearnsr wrote: »

If politicans stay out of it a fair system can easily be setup

In nanny state Ireland? Hardly likely...the greens will be all over this like a rash.

The Real B-man

Overheal wrote: »

Having water, and having drinkable water, are not one and the same B-Man.

Yeah but its a Basic Human Right in a Civilised society and this day & age you shouldnt be charged and well in other countries i suppose its up to them whether they do or not.

Overheal

The Real B-man wrote: »

Yeah but its a Basic Human Right in a Civilised society and this day & age you shouldnt be charged and well in other countries i suppose its up to them whether they do or not.

From Wikipedia:

There is no current universal human right to water, binding or not, enshrined by the United Nations or any other multilateral body. In November 2002, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a non-binding comment affirming that access to water was a human right:
“ the human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights. ”

—United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

This principle was reaffirmed at the 3rd and 4th World Water Councils in 2003 and 2006. This marks a departure from the conclusions of the 2nd World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000, which stated that water was a commodity to be bought and sold, not a right.[103] There are calls from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not as a commodity.[104]

While this may be introduced in the future, it is not a Human Right.

lostexpectation

what do we pay out income taxes for eh?

dresden8

Overheal wrote: »

From Wikipedia:



While this may be introduced in the future, it is not a Human Right.

I own my own human rights. They are not granted or gifted by anyone. Anyway, the UN is a morally bankrupt organisation. But that's for another argument.

Governments have only become green and concerned for the environment once they realised that suckers would be more than happy to pay more taxes.

Wake up you saps!

Wertz

There's nothing green about paying for water. The infrastructure, chemicals and staff used to render fresh water fit for mass consumption costs money. It costs a lot of money. By charging the customer for usage over a certain allowance, you cut the costs and thusly the income tax needed to pay for the sundries involved.
If that's a problem then go bore a well at your own expense.

lostexpectation; I agree to a point...our taxes are squandered elsewhere and it means the budgets for providing potable water aren't what they should be...ask any Galwegian.

Padraig Mor

AFAIK most new houses constructed in Ireland for the last few years have to have a water meter as a condition of planning. I certainly have one! And if they put it there, they're gonna use it!

markpb

Does anyone have any idea how this will work in privately managed estates and apartment blocks? I presume most of them don't have water meters fitted so will the council dig up the entire estate to fit them? What happens if the council don't own the water mains under the estate as is the case in most gated estates? If they're not going to fit them, will the estatre as a whole be charged for all the use and divide it evenly between all the owners which puts paid to the polluter pays principle?

godtabh

Wertz wrote: »

The latter being a time when you want to conserve as much water as you can, especially in parts of the country subject to droughts...would usage during summer months be "taxed" at a higher rate? Smart metering? (I know, we can't even get this for electricity in a domestic setting with any ease)

Again it comes down to smart use of the resource. There is plenty of water all year around. The problem comes when people dont use it properly.

Wertz wrote: »

I agree 100%...brushing teeth is a good example but unnecessary flushing of toilets...ie using 12 litres of water to get rid of some yellow water in the bowl, or people who stick on their hose/pressure washer for car washing, pisses me off as it stands now. If metering can curtail the waste of potable water these activities contribute to, then it's all good in my eyes.

Alot of new homes have dual flush jacks specified by county councils. THe new Ballymun development has grey water systems. Invest now and money can and will be saved over the long term.

Problem is people dont like spending money now if there is a long time for return.

Wertz wrote: »

In nanny state Ireland? Hardly likely...the greens will be all over this like a rash.

A lot of this will come from the county councils engineers hopefully. In the past they have been directed within. Alot of them are set in their ways be it is getting a lot better but still there is only certain things that they will and wont accept.

Unless you have a background in this type of thing stay out of it

Overheal

dresden8 wrote: »

I own my own human rights. They are not granted or gifted by anyone. Anyway, the UN is a morally bankrupt organisation. But that's for another argument.

Governments have only become green and concerned for the environment once they realised that suckers would be more than happy to pay more taxes.

Wake up you saps!

Oh dont get me wrong I agree. But you rely on Government to provide and protect your Human Rights. If they aren't going to defend your Right to clean water, well..

You think maybe they paid farmers to pollute our drinking water with carcasses to get a little extra cash? I doubt it.

conZ

markpb wrote: »

Does anyone have any idea how this will work in privately managed estates and apartment blocks? I presume most of them don't have water meters fitted so will the council dig up the entire estate to fit them? What happens if the council don't own the water mains under the estate as is the case in most gated estates? If they're not going to fit them, will the estatre as a whole be charged for all the use and divide it evenly between all the owners which puts paid to the polluter pays principle?

Internal meters are easily fitted inside a building (i.e. seperate apartments, offices etc.) and can be monitored from a bulk meter where the mains come in (to install an internal meter, just find the internal stop tap for the apartment - but most newer apartment blocks would have a series of stop taps outside the building). These internal meters will too be fitted with AMR units so there will be no need for a reader to enter your property.

Installations for housing estates is pretty simple. Install the meter in the location of the existing stop tap to the house. Probably about 2 hours work max. and no major road works (as they are generally situated on paths) but it'll just be one or two men hacking away at the concrete. Water would only be off for about an hour, the rest would be surfacing work etc.

If you walk down the street in Dublin, or any major town, you'll notice new meter installs. The fresh concrete around the meter would only be about 35cm x 35cm. (Meters are quite visible - the newer ones can have round black plastic covers, cast iron oval boxes, or a steel lid.) In rural areas, meters are generally seen in concrete chambers, about 45cm x 45cm with a cast iron lid in the centre.


One grey area is Councils taking over private Group Water Schemes. Is there an official view from councils in relation to this (I've heard conflicting reports). A quick look at the Clare CC website brings up this -

http://www.clarecoco.ie/Transportation_and_Infrastructure/GroupSchemes.html

Takeover of Group Schemes
Funding of up to 100% of the cost is provided only where existing group scheme water quality is deficient, where the group serves more than 50 persons and where the identified solution is to have the scheme taken in charge by the Council. No group scheme will be taken over without the agreement of the group.

Subsidy Payments (Advance & Annual)
The annual subsidy payable towards the operating costs of providing water for domestic use to a group, meeting the conditions of the subsidy schemes is subject to a limit of:

€50.79 for each house supplied from a Local Authority source.
€101.58 for each house supplied from a private source.
€196.81 for each house where water disinfection and/or treatment constructed under Design, Build and Operate option or is operated and maintained by a contractor by way of a bona fide operational and maintenance contract.

Is there anyone here being supplied at the minute by a DBO Contractor?

Was there not legislation proposed about 2-3 years ago that would allow Councils to take over a GWS automatically if they had a majority of the customers signatures?

I know of at least two people who, when they had the meters installed had two pipes leading to it one before and one after the meter. (no prizes for guessing who installed the meter!)
The one before was connected to the garden sprinkler and swimming pool etc.

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote: »

AFAIK most new houses constructed in Ireland for the last few years have to have a water meter as a condition of planning. I certainly have one! And if they put it there, they're gonna use it!

It's been a manditory requirement for some years now, in preparation for when water charges will be impementated.
I see no problems with it as it will force the councils to look at leaks in their infrastructure.

Steve

Deleted User wrote: »

I know of at least two people who, when they had the meters installed had two pipes leading to it one before and one after the meter. (no prizes for guessing who installed the meter!)
The one before was connected to the garden sprinkler and swimming pool etc.

I guess that would show up as a 'leak' then when they tried to reconcile the figures.

cue digging up miles of road trying to find it...:D

stevec

stevec wrote: »

I guess that would show up as a 'leak' then when they tried to reconcile the figures.

cue digging up miles of road trying to find it...:D

btw they live in the UK but why should here be any different

Steve

Deleted User wrote: »

btw they live in the UK but why should here be any different

I know a resident of that very country who puts a padlock on his outdoor tap at night and when he goes on holidays - in case the neighbours stole his water....

Thought he was a tinfoil hat job at first but it's all beginning to make sense now..:pac:

conZ

Deleted User wrote: »

I know of at least two people who, when they had the meters installed had two pipes leading to it one before and one after the meter. (no prizes for guessing who installed the meter!)
The one before was connected to the garden sprinkler and swimming pool etc.

A quick paste from wiki -

Originally AMR devices just collected meter readings electronically and matched them with accounts. As technology has advanced, additional data could then be captured, stored, and transmitted to the main computer, and often the metering devices could be controlled remotely. This can include events alarms such as tamper, leak detection, low battery, or reverse flow. Many AMR devices can also capture interval data, and log meter events. The logged data can be used to collect or control time of use or rate of use data that can be used for water or energy usage profiling, time of use billing, demand forecasting, demand response, rate of flow recording, leak detection, flow monitoring, water and energy conservation enforcement, remote shutoff, etc. Advanced Metering Infrastructure, or AMI is the new term coined to represent the networking technology of fixed network meter systems that go beyond AMR into remote utility management. The meters in an AMI system are often referred to as smart meters, since they often can use collected data based on programmed logic.

Water poaching is obviosly a problem, but the new AMR technology will limit this. Also, most of the metering projects are Design, Build & Operate Contracts (operate for example, for 10-20 years until a renewal of contract. In this period the Contractor will have to carry out replacements/reinstatement etc.) - every meter is mapped on GPS and every meter under the DBO contract will have to be physically checked and tested on a regular basis. Poaching will eventually be eliminated.

AMR has been successful notably in Italy and Sweden, where they have hit massive targets with their metering projects. I have one or two good articles in my favorites on another PC which I will post, but here's another interesting one about AMR for electricity -

http://tdworld.com/customer_service/power_swedish_utility_amr/

conZ

Sorry for absolutely dragging this out of the doldrums, but i've been out of the Irish media loop for the past few months, living in Berlin getting some of the best mains supplied water I have drank in my lifetime.

Obviously, I had to pay for domestic water use in Germany, but it was flat rate. I was living in an (older) apartment, and water was included in the rent. Each building does generally have a meter outside, but I have seen cases (generally newer apartment blocks) of meters (two in fact, a hot water meter and a cold water meter) installed inside some apartments. These meters were mounted on the wall, both discreet and each had their own stop valve.


The reason i'm dragging this up is to find out what has been mentioned in the media of recent regarding the introduction of domestic water metering. I did hear Matt Cooper mention that there would be a discussion later on on 'The Last Word' yesterday evening, but was unable to catch the discussion.

Has there been any word from the Government regarding it? Presumably not, I can imagine, seeing that there have been more and more boil notices introduced this Summer than ever, possibly because of the poor weather.

bigtime

I can't believe the amount of idiots here. I pay 60% of my income in taxes, the least I expect is drinkable water in return.

Another scam, with "green" as a front used to scam the odinary people.

This country has no shortage of water, to say it has is insane,

I tell you what, how about they start removing the flouride, would that not save them a few pound.

gurramok

Minister Gormless said today that there would be no domestic water metering charges.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0826/1219679951619.html

IT wrote:

WATER CHARGES will not be introduced during the lifetime of this Government, Minister for the Environment John Gormley has said.

30% leakage in urban areas!

Overheal

bigtime wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of idiots here. I pay 60% of my income in taxes, the least I expect is drinkable water in return.

Another scam, with "green" as a front used to scam the odinary people.

This country has no shortage of water, to say it has is insane,

I tell you what, how about they start removing the flouride, would that not save them a few pound.

:eek:

Padraig Mor

gurramok wrote: »

Minister Gormless said today that there would be no domestic water metering charges.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0826/1219679951619.html


30% leakage in urban areas!

He's full of crap. Most new houses are required to have one as a condition of planning. I have one (and my house was built five years ago)! Water metering is coming, whether we like it or not.

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote: »

He's full of crap. Most new houses are required to have one as a condition of planning. I have one (and my house was built five years ago)! Water metering is coming, whether we like it or not.

If (when) water charges are brought in, there must be a reduction in other taxes that are being paid in leau of a water rate.

I heard that a small percentage of the road tax for example is used to pay local authorities water services. Not sure how true that is but the water gets paid for somewhere!

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote: »

He's full of crap. Most new houses are required to have one as a condition of planning. I have one (and my house was built five years ago)! Water metering is coming, whether we like it or not.

I'm sure I've said it already but I don't think water in Ireland is worth paying for. I'm currently in one of the areas in Kerry which was served with the boil notice, though it was dropped about 24 hours later. You don't realise how much you need it until you can't use it.

Victor

SteveC wrote: »

How can they possibly charge for water when they lose more through leaky pipes than is actually consumed????

Part of the process is strategic metering to find leaks.

That there are leaks is not a reason to waste even more water.

Steve

Victor wrote: »

Part of the process is strategic metering to find leaks.

Thanks Victor, I gathered that much from what conZ said.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

Part of the process is strategic metering to find leaks.

That there are leaks is not a reason to waste even more water.

Just be sure there are no leaks your side of the meter, my sister got an enormous bill one year as the pipe was damaged in the garden.

Victor

Sorry Steve, I didn't realise how old the thread was.

bigtime wrote: »

I can't believe the amount of idiots here. I pay 60% of my income in taxes, the least I expect is drinkable water in return.

41% income tax
2% Health levy
4.5% PRSI
47.5% Total

Taking tax credits into account, nobody pays more than about 40-42%.

Victor

Victor wrote: »

41% income tax
2% Health levy
4.5% PRSI
47.5% Total

Taking tax credits into account, nobody pays more than about 40-42%.

Maybe bigtime was including spending taxation VAT etc.

Dyr

just another scam to get people to pay for services twice. Theres other ways to regulate water without taxing it. Do we get a reduction in our PRSI based on this extra charge for the service we already pay for? will we f***k.

conZ

Anyone catch that piece on RTE 1 tonight at 9.30 about water quality and possible domestic water charge introduction.

I was on the way out fishing when I heard about it on the radio and couldn't get it recorded. Anybody know the name of the programme and whether it's going to be repeated?

conZ

- Take from yesterdays Irish Times - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0922/1221998220429.html

Should we introduce charges for domestic water usage?

HEADTOHEAD: Seán Murphy says that it's only by measuring and paying for the use of a precious resource that we will learn to value and conserve it, while Martin Cronin says the savings to the State through the reduction of water usage could be cancelled out by the cost of monitoring and administering the scheme.

Yes: Seán Murphy

SUMMER 2008 will be remembered as the wettest season since records began. Why then, at a time of unprecedented rainfall, does it appear that Ireland may be running out of water? Our growing population and industrial needs mean that we now face a supply deficit. A recent report published by Forfás notes that despite significant investment in water capacity in recent times we face every prospect of water shortages in the medium term unless action is taken now.

The conundrum of climate change brings additional challenges. We have also witnessed significant quality problems arising in a number of towns.

Only last week, we heard that Ireland has been found guilty of failing to provide secondary waste-water treatment plants in towns with populations more than 15,000, in line with the relevant EU directive.

The delay in the delivery of these required services has been 18 years and appears, at first instance, to be a direct result of lack of funding leading to inadequate water treatment investment and provision. The outlook is that significant fines will follow.

A guaranteed clean water supply for homes and businesses is as vital a requirement for investment as international perceptions of our skills base and our corporate tax rate are. We risk this at our peril.

For these reasons we must deal with our water needs in a combined approach that incentivises conservation efforts while guaranteeing supplies for the future.

Local authorities are the vital conduit to deliver on this vision, yet they are not being funded at the levels needed to secure our water needs for the future.

National experience shows that it is only by measuring and paying for a service that we establish a responsible attitude towards consumption of that service. Domestic refuse charges have proven very successful and led directly to significantly reduced waste volumes - down 30 per cent in one local authority alone - while encouraging enhanced recycling rates.

In the short term, domestic customers must at the very least be metered in all new housing, even if not charged, so that water consumption can be measured and real conservation quantified for the benefit of all. This should be complemented by a programme of retrofitting subject to an adequate funding regime being established.

An added benefit would be quicker identification of systemic water loss and the enabling of more targeted investment in the core infrastructure, a major issue given that a stunning 43 per cent of treated water is currently lost in transit from reservoir to tap in our nine regional gateways and hub towns.

In the medium term, reasonable thresholds must then be put in place per capita where an allowance of water is allocated free of charge to all. This would allow those who waste water to pay fairly for additional water which they use at their own discretion.

In addition, metering would allow local authorities to ascertain the true cost of domestic water provision and recoup these costs from the exchequer.

Although some claim that domestic users pay indirectly for their water supply through income tax paid to central government, this money is not being passed on to local authorities. As a result the true cost of provision of domestic water services is not being met. In addition, 38.2 per cent of the labour force does not pay any income tax. Everybody needs to be incentivised to conserve water.

Furthermore, where water quality issues have arisen, such as in Ennis and Galway, non-domestic paying customers should be given a 100 per cent rebate for water supplies that are polluted.

A dual-taxation approach involving income tax and consumption-based taxes must be seriously considered by Government. This would balance the cost burden, ensure greater conservation and guarantee adequate investment in the future to assure our water supplies with consequential benefits for all.

We are now awaking to the significant challenges to be faced in the provision of a clean water supply needed to secure future foreign investment, sustain our tourism industry and assure Ireland's international reputation as a clean, green country.

At a time of straitened Government finances, additional revenue streams need to be identified to secure our water needs for the future. In order to address the emerging disparities in charges for business across local authority areas, reasonable, transparent, consolidated charging for water use together with a single fixed charge for all meter-related costs must be implemented as a priority.

Such full-cost recovery must be accompanied by transparent reductions in commercial rates charged to business.

The contents of Forfás's report demands that debate begins on this issue. Let it do so, but ultimately investment will cost money. All users must pay a fair price for excess, discretionary use of one of our most valuable economic resources.

Seán Murphy is director of policy with Chambers Ireland, representing over 13,000 businesses on the island of Ireland.

No: Martin Cronin

IT SEEMS inconceivable, given the inclement weather of recent months, that within five years some of Ireland's most important cities and towns will be facing water service deficits.

Yet this is one of the key findings of a recent report by Forfás that assessed Ireland's ability to meet the future water services needs of enterprise. The report found that water treatment capacity in Athlone, Dublin, Galway and Letterkenny may be insufficient to meet development objectives by 2013. These urban centres, along with Mallow and Wexford, may also experience shortages of waste water treatment capacity within the same period.

Secure and competitively priced water supplies and treatment services are essential for business and particularly for a number of sectors of strategic importance to the Irish economy including the biopharma and food sectors. In general, water charges in Ireland are competitive, although there are significant variations in different parts of the country.

Successive national development plans have invested heavily in water services to meet the needs of our growing economy and population. The current NDP has earmarked more than €4.7 billion for investment in these areas over the lifetime of the plan.

To date the water services investment programme has focused on improving services and capacity levels across the country and ensuring that water quality levels are in line with EU requirements. These objectives are close to being achieved.

The next phase of water service investment will require a more focused strategy that prioritises investment in the gateway and hub towns, to provide the capacities needed for future enterprise and population growth in these centres. A strategic approach to investment in water service infrastructure should not centre solely on investment in water and waste water treatment facilities, it will require a multi-faceted approach that aims to increase the efficiency of the water and waste water systems.

Firstly, we need to adopt a national approach to the delivery of water and waste water services. Currently 34 local authorities are involved in the provision of these services. Moving to a river basin district provision of services would maximise the potential for economies of scale and enable greater strategic planning.

Secondly, reducing the levels of water leakage occurring and encouraging greater water conservation among businesses and domestic users has the potential to reduce the level of capital investment required.

Ireland has relatively high levels of unaccounted for water. On average 43 per cent of treated drinking water is lost through the distribution network, largely via pipe leakage and illegal connections.

In future, no additional Exchequer funds should be allocated for the building of treatment capacity in urban centres until the local authority takes actions to reduce leakages to economically acceptable levels.

The EU Water Framework Directive requires the implementation of the "polluter pays principle" subject to established practice. This means that all water users should pay the full costs for their use of water and waste water services. The Irish Government has secured a derogation from the directive in relation to domestic water users.

Currently, all non-domestic users (eg businesses, farms, schools, hospitals) are required to pay for water and waste water services. Over the last number of years, local authorities have introduced metering and volumetric pricing for these users.

The cost of providing water services to Irish homes is borne by the State, through local government funding rather than a specific water fund. The full cost of providing water services for domestic users needs to be clearly identified to ensure adequate funding is provided by the Exchequer. Once the cost of delivering water services to domestic users has been established, an analysis of the merits of retaining the derogation for domestic water charges can be undertaken to determine how best to fund water provision between users and the Exchequer.

It cannot be assumed that the introduction of domestic water service charges would be the silver bullet required to resolve local and central government water service funding requirements. As witnessed in other jurisdictions, the introduction of domestic water charging involves not only political challenges but technical and economic ones.

The introduction of quotas, which provide for limited free water and waste water services, would also require an expensive national metering installation programme and could be open to significant fraud. Even if the majority of homes would limit their usage to below quota levels the savings to the State through the reduction of usage could be cancelled out by the cost of monitoring and administering the programme.

Finally, a core element of developing a strategic approach to water and waste water provision must be to enhance awareness of the need for water conservation. Greater conversation will help to protect a precious resource, as well as reducing the need for capital investment in new infrastructure.

Cookie_Monster

conZ wrote: »

-
given that a stunning 43 per cent of treated water is currently lost in transit

That's mad Ted!

Prof.Badass

Whatever about charging for water, It definately should not be privatised.

That would be a disatster!

jcgowran

ConZ

Coming back to your discussion about paying for water, you certainly are well up on the facts. Yes we are the only country in europe now that does not pay for domestic water.

Schools of course are now paying for water at a rate of €3.50/pupil rising to €4.00/pupil from 1st January 2009. Wouldn't it be better if all the schools paid for water on a metered basis then the incentive to save water would be greater. As 85% of school water is used for flushing toilets. The Galway city schools http://www.galwaycity.ie/TopNews/MainBody,4572,en.html have the right approach. They didn't have to throw out all their toilets and replace them with dual flush toilets which don't work at huge expense to the taxpayer in these difficult times.

They installed Mecon Green Buttons www.meconwml.com on all their toilets which reduces the flush volume from 11L to 1L per flush. the school children now take an active part in saving water everytime they flush the toilet which is good fror their Green Schools project.

conZ

Sorry for the delay in getting back, only spotted the thread again while researching Domestic Water Metering...

Originally - and you'll find in all the Non Domestic Water Metering Project Contracts - Schools, Churches, Community Halls etc, were all intended to be paying for their water on a metered basis (as set out by the local CC's).

The Government kind of slipped the NDWM Projects into existence, and there wasn't much debate about the projects.

The Schools incident arose in Ennis, where a local National School principal went to the press regarding a bill he recieved for the School (possibly up to €19k maybe?) for 6 months I think. I went to the same school and all I can remember are the sound of all the toilets flushing from 100m down the corridor, constantly. Serious waste of water in there. Maybe they had a meter fitted originally, but they were probably only paying the flat rate (which, I don't have off hand).

Once the billing system for the NDWMP was introduced, this school had to pay the same rates as any normal establishment, as the flat rate was abolished (hence the outrageous bill).

The principal in that school is the same one heard on the Last Word and Joe Duffy 6 times a year complaining about the funding and whatnot (but fair play to him). Heard him on in the radio last week in fact, and said that the school was built in 1975 - imagine the plumbing in there!

Once this debate was sparked with this bill, the Government were under pressure and decided to modify the billing system for schools, and charge a flat rate (per pupil) which was to be increased progressively, and eventually (possibly the end of '09?) they will be moved up to the same rate as regular businesses and 100% metered (€5.50 per 1,000 gallons - 2008 Clare CoCo price but sure to be revised, if not already).

This gives each school the opportunity to sort out their water systems and implement water conservation procedures. This gives rise to the arguement of funding for schools - where are they going to get the funding to retrofit and install new systems?