Water metering myths

probe

One has read/heard numerous reports in the Irish media about the need for water metering and how Ireland is the only country in Europe without it.

Most people on the continent live in apartments and apartments generally are not individually metered for water consumption. It would be needlessly expensive to meter people living in apartments – and retroactively installing meters would cost billions. Only individual houses and business premises are metered for water as a rule. Given the high percentage of householders living in houses as opposed to apartments in Ireland, the capital cost and on-going costs of water metering will be far higher than elsewhere.

It would cost about €700 million to install water meters in Ireland – perhaps a lot more when the practicalities of each individual installation are added up. The presence of water meters will probably reduce water consumption by about 10% or so.

If that €700 million was instead spent on renewing leaking public water mains pipes – prioritised on trunk mains leaks and moving down the hierarchy of priorities as finances permit, the water savings would be far greater – perhaps 40% after a few years of work.

If it costs a billion € to treat and pump water (which is a very high figure by European standards, if one allows for the large number of one-off houses in Ireland that have their own wells and similar arrangements) – deduct the commercial water revenues from this billion and send a fixed bill to each household to recover the balance of the costs - it would probably work out at around €400 per household per annum, to get full recovery, if that was the decision of government.

If the money which would otherwise have been spent on water meter installation is instead spent on infrastructure repairs and replacement, virtually all that money would stay in the Irish economy, and there would be a greater prospect of achieving material water savings. Water meters would have to be imported sending hundreds of millions out of the country. Water meters have to be read – even if they are electronic smart meters. This and the related metered consumption billing process costs additional money. Water meters freeze in cold weather (while you can insulate the pipe, it is not practical to insulate the meter in most circumstances as they have to be visible for inspection, and very often they have to be replaced because the freezing causes damage). The glass breaks on meters from time to time – which invariably destroys the meter recording mechanism. Providing the water keeps flowing, nobody notices when a meter is broken unless and until some billing anomaly is acted on.

If they use smart meters, they require a power supply – which either means wiring them to the mains or installing batteries which have to be replaced and are potentially toxic to dispose of. Getting power supplies to street or even garden based water meters is a non trivial task in terms of cost. Even changing batteries on over a million smart water meters would be an expensive operation to manage.

Where do you put the water meter? One the street – leaving it exposed to vandalism and wear and tear from traffic etc, and making the installation and maintenance of footpaths more complicated. Or in the garden of the house – leading to access problems for meter reading, finding the pipe to install the meter (in some gardens due to the topology of the area, the pipes are buried very deep). If the pipe is very deep, the installer is going to have to install a loop of pipe from the deep ground to near surface level where the meter will live – exposing plumbing to freezing risk where it never existed before because the depth of the pipe gave it insulation.

There is a huge “devil in the detail” – particularly when it comes to installing meters for legacy housing on a nationwide basis.

Most local authorities already issue a bill of one kind or another to households (eg for waste collection) – which would allow a fixed water charge to be added on as an additional line item on a bill that is being produced anyway. An infinitesimal additional cost compared with the water metering alternative.

The core issue is raising revenue to renew the water infrastructure - this should surely be done as simply and cost effectively as possible, without going off in a tangent that leads little added value?

Coles

I'm inclined to agree with you. A water charge based on house or household size would be far simpler, but it doesn't address the need to reduce the waste of treated drinking water. Perhaps a scheme such as this could operate with a reduction in the rates if a household installs rainwater harvesting? Or grants for such systems?

On a not unrelated topic, I recently came across a domestic leak detector. Every house should have one. Also came across an electronic isolation valve for the mains water supply. You can flick off the water supply like a light switch when you are leaving the house.

We still need to upgrade the water supply. Use your vote.

bg07

probe wrote: »

Water meters have to be read – even if they are electronic smart meters. This and the related metered consumption billing process costs additional money. Water meters freeze in cold weather (while you can insulate the pipe, it is not practical to insulate the meter in most circumstances as they have to be visible for inspection, and very often they have to be replaced because the freezing causes damage). The glass breaks on meters from time to time – which invariably destroys the meter recording mechanism. Providing the water keeps flowing, nobody notices when a meter is broken unless and until some billing anomaly is acted on.

If they use smart meters, they require a power supply – which either means wiring them to the mains or installing batteries which have to be replaced and are potentially toxic to dispose of. Getting power supplies to street or even garden based water meters is a non trivial task in terms of cost. Even changing batteries on over a million smart water meters would be an expensive operation to manage.

Where do you put the water meter? One the street – leaving it exposed to vandalism and wear and tear from traffic etc, and making the installation and maintenance of footpaths more complicated. Or in the garden of the house – leading to access problems for meter reading, finding the pipe to install the meter (in some gardens due to the topology of the area, the pipes are buried very deep). If the pipe is very deep, the installer is going to have to install a loop of pipe from the deep ground to near surface level where the meter will live – exposing plumbing to freezing risk where it never existed before because the depth of the pipe gave it insulation.

There is a huge “devil in the detail” – particularly when it comes to installing meters for legacy housing on a nationwide basis.

Most local authorities already issue a bill of one kind or another to households (eg for waste collection) – which would allow a fixed water charge to be added on as an additional line item on a bill that is being produced anyway. An infinitesimal additional cost compared with the water metering alternative.

The core issue is raising revenue to renew the water infrastructure - this should surely be done as simply and cost effectively as possible, without going off in a tangent that leads little added value?

Water meters have already been installed in every commercial premises in the country including farm yards. As well as that any new residential connections for the last few years or anywhere where the mains have been replaced have been provided with meters.

To install a water meter all that is done is that the stop cock outside your house is replaced. Therefore reading a water meter should be straight forward as the meter will generally be on public property rather than private property for a gas or electricity meter. The meter is no more likely to freeze than the stop cock. The stop cock shouldn’t be that deep in the ground otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to turn it off.

So far well over 10,000 meters have been installed (heard the figure but I cant remember it exactly) and there have been no major issues associated with them. If you are so worried about the cost of imports for the meters then there is not stopping an Irish manufacturer making them.

In my opinion meter should be installed but I would suggest that they are installed over a long period. This would mean that they could be installed in conjunction with mains replacement works and footpath replacment works etc in order to lower the costs and to spread the costs over a number of years.

probe

bg07 wrote: »

Water meters have already been installed in every commercial premises in the country including farm yards. As well as that any new residential connections for the last few years or anywhere where the mains have been replaced have been provided with meters.

To install a water meter all that is done is that the stop cock outside your house is replaced. Therefore reading a water meter should be straight forward as the meter will generally be on public property rather than private property for a gas or electricity meter. The meter is no more likely to freeze than the stop cock. The stop cock shouldn’t be that deep in the ground otherwise it wouldn’t be possible to turn it off.

So far well over 10,000 meters have been installed (heard the figure but I cant remember it exactly) and there have been no major issues associated with them. If you are so worried about the cost of imports for the meters then there is not stopping an Irish manufacturer making them.

In my opinion meter should be installed but I would suggest that they are installed over a long period. This would mean that they could be installed in conjunction with mains replacement works and footpath replacment works etc in order to lower the costs and to spread the costs over a number of years.

Commercial premises and farmyards are a different proposition. They are larger users of water and there is usually more access space to the pipework. It is far more economic to administer metered water supplies to a large consumer. Legacy housing is a very different kettle of fish. Water supplies are fed into older houses from all directions – not just from the street in front (eg from neighbour to neighbour running between backyards etc).

Even if you install meters on a long term basis in conjunction with water mains pipework renewal, you are still faced with the reality of the last 10 to 200 metres of legacy pipework off the street. One connection to the mains water on the road or street can be shared among several households – branching off within private property. Where do you put the metres to provide separate bills to each household under these circumstances?

In any event you have a huge cost in the metering infrastructure and very little benefit. The main culprit is “rotten” pipework in the public system – it makes more sense to put the resources into fixing that.

Heroditas

Gormley's excuse this morning was "we're the only country in Europe that doesn't charge for water" sounds like an excuse to introduce water charges, simply because it will fit in with EU legislation regarding utility monopolies, i.e. we need "competition".

probe

Heroditas wrote: »

Gormley's excuse this morning was "we're the only country in Europe that doesn't charge for water" sounds like an excuse to introduce water charges, simply because it will fit in with EU legislation regarding utility monopolies, i.e. we need "competition".

There is an EU involvement in water metering - they have been trying to push the metering agenda on Ireland for the past decade. (Water supply is a natural monopoly - so competition is not an issue).

The cover story in this week's The Economist is also relevant in the context - Big Government!

And that includes unwanted supernational bodies like the European Union - just an other layer of government that has to be paid for directly and indirectly.

The size and power of the state is growing, and discontent is on the rise

Jan 21st 2010
From The Economist print edition





(Jon Berkeley)


IN THE aftermath of the Senate election in Massachusetts, the focus of attention is inevitably on what it means for Barack Obama. The impact on the Democratic president of the loss of the late Ted Kennedy’s seat to the Republicans will, no doubt, be significant (see article). Yet the result could be remembered as a message more profound than the disparate mutterings of a grumpy electorate that has lost faith in its leader—as a growl of hostility to the rising power of the state.

America’s most vibrant political force at the moment is the anti-tax tea-party movement. Even in leftish Massachusetts people are worried that Mr Obama’s spending splurge, notably his still-unpassed health-care bill, will send the deficit soaring. In Britain, where elections are usually spending competitions, the contest this year will be fought about where to cut. Even in regions as historically statist as Scandinavia and southern Europe debates are beginning to emerge about the size and effectiveness of government.

The full story is at:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15330481

Skipeeee

A Question for Probe - re the original posting.

I would be really interested as to where you came up with the figure of €700m as the cost of installing meters to the domestic water supply?

Thanks

CJhaughey

I support the idea of metering in principle but having seen the county council in action I know that the practicalities of metering make it a huge job.
I also have issues with the meters themselves. How are they calibrated and tested?
A friend of mine was on the phone to the council the other day while I was at his business. The meter was spinning around and the main pipe was sealed off and not flowing any water.
Seeing that didn't inspire any confidence in the accuracy of the meters.

antoobrien

Skipeeee wrote: »

A Question for Probe - re the original posting.

I would be really interested as to where you came up with the figure of €700m as the cost of installing meters to the domestic water supply?

I wouldn't nind seeing that either. I remember hearing about a multinational (Siemens I think) offering to do it nation wide for something like €300m (can't remember exactly). This had to be rejected due to the requirements for tendering public projects (i.e. they can put in this for tender and consideration along with others).

The only exact figure I saw was €550m to be provided from the NPRF (buried in the text of the article)

Skipeeee

Ya i can source that figure of €550 from the NPRF. Ah no worries, thanks for reply!

Nehaxak

We only use water from the mains in our house for making tea, cooking, as part of the heating system, flushing toilets, showers, dishwasher and washing machine.
Hard enough pushed to get me to pay for water at all in this country, considering it rains 355 days of the year, the other 10 it's snowing but there's no way in hell I'll pay anything at all without a meter installed.
I'm not paying a flat rate for something we barely use other than essentials and there is no wastage here, toilets are fitted with eco flushers, shower head is an expensive Nordic eco shower head which uses blah blah less water in a year, the heating water is re-used throughout, dishwasher and washing machine are all very much eco friendly and the dishwasher is tapped into the heating system so it uses that water and on eco setting all the time.

If I absolutely have to pay for something so essential, especially given the absolute bloody waste of same I see all around me, I want a meter installed.

Also annoys me that this whole "ah sure we need to upgrade the water infrastructure, sure look at the mess created from a bit of snow" lark, it shouldn't have even got to that stage, the whole infrastructure should have been improved in the boom times when the money was there for it, rather than wasting money elsewhere buying a site for a bottle plant or other such rubbish.

Skipeeee

Yes the water system should have been upgraded, but considering how our super efficient government manages the country it is no surprise that it hasn't! Most the capital allocated for water has been spent on up grading waste water and river basin water quality to try and reach EU standards before fines come in in 2015. I think that the money allocated for household metering would be better spent on up grading the system. Charging a flat rate for a couple of years would create more capital for lowering unaccounted-for water losses in the system. When the system is sorted out, let them charge us for consumption. But at the same time, the state of the country's water supply should be publicly highlighted and water conservation should be promoted.

We have to start somewhere, there is no point in digging in heels and refusing charges. A solution to the problem will be sought through compromise!

Nehaxak

If they're going to charge me a flat rate for what is essentially rain that pisses all over us the whole year and makes the country a feckin' misery to live in, then I'm leaving the mains water on full for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Meter me and I'll conserve water to reduce the charges I pay.

I wouldn't be alone in those thoughts either, we pay enough taxes and whatnot and this is just another one added on for their (state) convenience. How about county councillors, and elected TD's all reduce their salaries and pensions by 5% each to help pay for the meters ?

Skipeeee

Well Nehaxak you have valid points, but rainfall does not mean treated potable water and associated costs. 9% of potable water is used for drinking and cooking. But we, as a nation, use potable water for flushing toilets, showers, baths, dishwashing, and clothes washing etc! not to mention out door uses such as watering plants and washing cars!

In an ideal country, we could have a greywater line to cover water needs where treated drinking water is wasted! Or at least we could harvest rainwater. do you?

I agree with you, "meter me and i will pay my way"! But are you not concerned that your charges could be "cost from source"? Ok, county council's will not tell you how much per litre it costs to treat water, they will charge you for the supply to your dwelling incl leakages! how else will it be cost effective for them, plus recouping meter costs?

So you would inevitably be paying for losses in the supply, UFW which would double your bill! not your consumption, but your bill! I reckon sort the leakage out first!

Tayshty

A friend of mine works for a contractor who installes these meters. They are now using a different meter to when they started off first day. He says they're inferior to the first meters and alot are only in the ground a year and need to be dug up due to frost damage.
What will the cost be to maintain these when the country is metered?
Needless to say he's delighted and told me to keep it quiet.

Skipeeee

Yes I also read that the meters would need to be replaced every 5-7 years to be cost effective. From past experience it was evident that meters slow down after a number of years of use, and will under quantify water usage!! So where is the sense in fitting them then? A lot more research needs to go into this before metering can be a solution to the problem of water conservation, and not become another problem in itself!

Nehaxak

Skipeeee wrote: »

Well Nehaxak you have valid points, but rainfall does not mean treated potable water and associated costs. 9% of potable water is used for drinking and cooking. But we, as a nation, use potable water for flushing toilets, showers, baths, dishwashing, and clothes washing etc! not to mention out door uses such as watering plants and washing cars!

In an ideal country, we could have a greywater line to cover water needs where treated drinking water is wasted! Or at least we could harvest rainwater. do you?

I agree with you, "meter me and i will pay my way"! But are you not concerned that your charges could be "cost from source"? Ok, county council's will not tell you how much per litre it costs to treat water, they will charge you for the supply to your dwelling incl leakages! how else will it be cost effective for them, plus recouping meter costs?

So you would inevitably be paying for losses in the supply, UFW which would double your bill! not your consumption, but your bill! I reckon sort the leakage out first!

Oh for sure I'd definitely agree to the point about sorting out the leaks firstly, absolutely - but you and I know that's just not going to happen, sure it's taken them this long even through the boom times, to finally realise publicly that they have a problem at all.

If I had a garden big enough and I didn't live in an area full of jamrags who'd probably steal the water bin if I put it out, I would for sure be collecting rainwater and I have done when I've lived and worked overseas in Africa especially - where you're thankful for every drop of clean water you can get.

djpbarry

Nehaxak wrote: »

...we pay enough taxes and whatnot...

No, you don't. If you paid enough taxes and "whatnot", the maintenance of the water distribution system would not be so drastically underfunded.

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

No, you don't. If you paid enough taxes and "whatnot", the maintenance of the water distribution system would not be so drastically underfunded.

and if the total tax revenue wasnt mismanaged or spent paying off interest to prop up banks, there would be adequate funds to fix the water issue....

freddyuk

I can tell you that my latest bill in UK for the old rate system (ie. no meter) is £480 and that is £157 for the nice clean processed water and £323 for the wastewater charge. (that includes the drainage off my house into a soakaway and off the highway) I park my car over the stop cock as they may well come over and install a meter on you.
Now if I was on a meter would my charges go down? Well possibly but if all the charges went down then the water companies would have to increase the tariffs to keep themselves afloat.(sorry!) Unless they all took a pay and pension cut as it is all privately owned.
In Ireland I have a well. I bought my own filtration system but now I could get a 75% grant but then pay over the odds for someone "qualified" to fit it for me. The grant is only there to comply with EU regulations that off mains supplies must be of a suitable standard. So I am happy to be independent. If you are on the mains then you are somewhat stuffed. There is a law in UK that you cannot dig your own well on your property. Is that the case in Ireland 'cos that is what I would do.
Ireland used to be a place where you could find some independence but that is no longer the case as the new taxes are totally indiscriminate.
Still love it though.

Macha

robtri wrote: »

and if the total tax revenue wasnt mismanaged or spent paying off interest to prop up banks, there would be adequate funds to fix the water issue....

That can be used as an excuse again pretty much any tax. Would its application get us anywhere? No.

robtri

Macha wrote: »

That can be used as an excuse again pretty much any tax. Would its application get us anywhere? No.

so you honestly believe that by the introduction of a Water charge, all our pipes and leaks are going to be fixed????????
seriously....

Macha

robtri wrote: »

so you honestly believe that by the introduction of a Water charge, all our pipes and leaks are going to be fixed????????
seriously....

The poor quality of our water infrastructure is not the result of corruption, as appealing as that idea is.

It is the result of over 50 years of underinvestment. Water charges will provide the capital necessary to implement a complete programme of investment. It will also incentivise consumers to resolve inefficiencies in their side.

It also brings the utility of water under the same sphere as electricity, gas, telecoms and other utilities, ie the consumer pays for what she uses.

robtri

Macha wrote: »

The poor quality of our water infrastructure is not the result of corruption, as appealing as that idea is.

It is the result of over 50 years of underinvestment. Water charges will provide the capital necessary to implement a complete programme of investment. It will also incentivise consumers to resolve inefficiencies in their side.

It also brings the utility of water under the same sphere as electricity, gas, telecoms and other utilities, ie the consumer pays for what she uses.

while i agree completely with the over 50 years of under investment.

I have to ask again ..do you think that the money recieved from water charges will be put into fixing the water issues???????

Skipeeee

Most of the figures quoted as expenditure for water services are actually spent on waste water, and upgrading water sources quality to EU Directive by 2015 before Ireland will experience heavy fines for poor water quality river basins etc.

The economic level of leakage is the point at which the cost of reducing leakages is equal to the cost of producing more water. At this point the benefits of delivering any further leakage reduction would be outweighed by the cost of doing so!!!

so it is hard to presume that water charges will go towards infrastructure repairs.:eek:

Macha

robtri wrote: »

while i agree completely with the over 50 years of under investment.

I have to ask again ..do you think that the money recieved from water charges will be put into fixing the water issues???????

I think it will help provide us with the capital needed to implement a fully comprehensive water infrastructure investment programme, including, for example, the installation of sensors across the network so that leaks or even threats of leaks are identified and repaired as quickly as possible.

It will also perform the important role of incentivising consumers to use water more efficiently. Many leaks are on the property side of the boundary and are the obligation of property owners to repair. That's in addition to the more general simple tools and changes in behaviour that can have significant impacts of the levels of water demand.

I'm not a strong supporter of hypothecation, if that's what you're asking. And the idea that charges collected from water would even be enough for such an investment programme is optimistic indeed.

robtri

Macha wrote: »

I think it will help provide us with the capital needed to implement a fully comprehensive water infrastructure investment programme, including, for example, the installation of sensors across the network so that leaks or even threats of leaks are identified and repaired as quickly as possible.

It will also perform the important role of incentivising consumers to use water more efficiently. Many leaks are on the property side of the boundary and are the obligation of property owners to repair. That's in addition to the more general simple tools and changes in behaviour that can have significant impacts of the levels of water demand.

I'm not a strong supporter of hypothecation, if that's what you're asking. And the idea that charges collected from water would even be enough for such an investment programme is optimistic indeed.

well personally i dont believe the money earned from water charges will go towards water supply and removal infrastructure, no more than what is being currently spent....

has a smell of carbon tax about it....... I dont see any additional funding for more enviromental projects then previous years....

I have no issue with the water charge, if the money recieved was being used to repair/upgrade our network...

Macha

robtri wrote: »

well personally i dont believe the money earned from water charges will go towards water supply and removal infrastructure, no more than what is being currently spent....

has a smell of carbon tax about it....... I dont see any additional funding for more enviromental projects then previous years....

I have no issue with the water charge, if the money recieved was being used to repair/upgrade our network...

And what about the money needed to actually pay for the service? It looks like you want all the money to go to repairing and upgrading the network.

And what if sufficient money isn't collected from water charges to cover both the cost of providing the service and the required network upgrade? Are we banned from taking money from other areas?

Hypothecation is a nice sounding idea but in reality it's quite a simplistic way of looking at a national taxation system.

robtri

Macha wrote: »

And what about the money needed to actually pay for the service? It looks like you want all the money to go to repairing and upgrading the network.

And what if sufficient money isn't collected from water charges to cover both the cost of providing the service and the required network upgrade? Are we banned from taking money from other areas?

Hypothecation is a nice sounding idea but in reality it's quite a simplistic way of looking at a national taxation system.

Currently a large amout is set aside for running the sytem and repairs, if this amount plus what is taken in in water charges is not sufficient, then there is something wrong....

its another BS charge that will have no impact on the service or leaks or anything else to do with the water........

proof being the Carbon tax... nothing extra has been achieved by this tax...

Macha

robtri wrote: »

Currently a large amout is set aside for running the sytem and repairs, if this amount plus what is taken in in water charges is not sufficient, then there is something wrong....

its another BS charge that will have no impact on the service or leaks or anything else to do with the water........

proof being the Carbon tax... nothing extra has been achieved by this tax...

What is the current amount? What are the water charges expected to take in? On what basis are you determining that this amount is more than sufficient?

I'm not sure why you keep talking about the carbon tax,apart from it being a consumption tax, it has nothing to do with a debate on water charges or water metering for that matter.

robtri

Macha wrote: »

What is the current amount? What are the water charges expected to take in? On what basis are you determining that this amount is more than sufficient?

I'm not sure why you keep talking about the carbon tax,apart from it being a consumption tax, it has nothing to do with a debate on water charges or water metering for that matter.

i am not saying it will be sufficient, but if the money recieved was put towards the repair and upgrade and running of the water network it can only get better.... but the problem is the way i see it, is that the money recieved will not go to fund repirs or running of the water network...

I am using the carbon tax as an example as it is the exact same as this water charge.. i cant believe you cant see the similarities ....

Macha

robtri wrote: »

i am not saying it will be sufficient, but if the money recieved was put towards the repair and upgrade and running of the water network it can only get better...

but the problem is the way i see it, is that the money recieved will not go to fund repirs or running of the water network....

Actually, you said you thought it would be more than sufficient.

The simple fact is that hypothecation is not the best way to plan government investment. If we want the government to invest a suitable amount in water infrastructure, we can ask it to do so. But to tie it to some arbitrary figure, ie the amount collected though water charges is inane. Moreover, it can very easily be used by a government to curtail spending despite the need for further investment.

This discussion is also missing the fact that water charges are water charges, not water taxes. The money collected is to go towards the simple service of providing potable water to households. It is not a tax, that simply delivers extra money into the hands of the government - they are providing a service for which we, the tax payer currently pays out of other taxes.

robtri wrote: »

I am using the carbon tax as an example as it is the exact same as this water charge.. i cant believe you cant see the similarities ....

Water and carbon are different because we are talking about water charges not water taxes. Fundamental difference.

mutlie

i done the coarse 4 yrs ago when it all came out that every house was to get a meter ,my cert is nearly up and no sign of any work , it cost me 960e what a waste of money . will phil hogan refund me ? dont think so!!!!!!!!

paddy147

mutlie wrote: »

i done the coarse 4 yrs ago when it all came out that every house was to get a meter ,my cert is nearly up and no sign of any work , it cost me 960e what a waste of money . will phil hogan refund me ? dont think so!!!!!!!!

Irish Water has come out today and said that they will be very luicky to have the water meters installed by 2016...yes 2016.

No one knows where all the stop cocks are located,as there are no actual plans of the water pipe infastructure in Ireland.

Phil Hogan is going to try and force a flat rate on EVERYONE from 2014 though,so it will be like a re-run of the 100 euro HHC again,but this time it will be more.

Even though Phil Hogan prommised that nobody would pay anything till all the meters were installed.

So yet again Phil Hogan has made a major fcuk up and opened his gob,before getting the actual facts right.



A few words that may crop up later on down the line,for poor auld Big Phil.



Phil Hogan...Shovel.....Dig.....Big Hole......Resign.