Introduction of Water Charges - New grant system

With our government looking to introduce water charges and seeing as you can get grants to make you home more energy efficent do you think they should also introduce a grant to help home owners make their homes more water efficient, i.e. grants to help with purchase of new water efficient washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, installation of showers etc...

whatisayis

hellboy99 wrote: »

With our government looking to introduce water charges and seeing as you can get grants to make you home more energy efficent do you think they should also introduce a grant to help home owners make their homes more water efficient, i.e. grants to help with purchase of new water efficient washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, installation of showers etc...

I voted No. The reason I did so is because the grant system would have to be almost 100% of cost before the hundreds of thousands of unemployed in Ireland could afford to buy a new washing machine, dishwasher etc.

It would also mean the money generated from the water tax would be used to fund the grants and to pay for the administration costs which would negate any benefit of introducing a tax in the first place.

djpbarry

hellboy99 wrote: »

With our government looking to introduce water charges and seeing as you can get grants to make you home more energy efficent do you think they should also introduce a grant to help home owners make their homes more water efficient, i.e. grants to help with purchase of new water efficient washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, installation of showers etc...

Wouldn't that generate an absolutely colossal amount of waste?

Del2005

I've voted no for the same reasons as above.

I think if the government really want people to reduce their water usage they should allow people to sell on any of their unused quota, similar to carbon trading. It would encourage people to try and reduce their water usage and also earn some money. If no-one is going over their quota, then it will show what a waste the millions of Euro spent on metering is/was.

But since this is purely a revenue raising exercise it'll never happen.

probe

Installing water meters (which won’t be made in Ireland) will cost a fortune, and will be difficult and expensive to install on legacy properties. Not to mention repairing the meters, access, reading meters, billing costs, etc etc.

Cut out the needless meter bureaucracy, and charge each household on the mains water system €200 or whatever fixed charge for water consumption. Using the same system that local authorities use to charge for bin charges to collect same etc.

The provision of treated water is essentially a fixed cost. It is dysfunctional and illogical to install a bureaucracy to operate a metering system for a cost that will vary by +-15% with meters, in a country with no shortage of raw water.

€200 per house, assuming 1 million households on mains water will bring in €200 million to local authorities.

Keep it simple.

Few people have water meters on the continent because they live in apartments. The charge for tap water is included in their service charge. There is no meter for each housing unit. Why impose this stupidity in Ireland?

Del2005

probe wrote: »

Installing water meters (which won’t be made in Ireland) will cost a fortune, and will be difficult and expensive to install on legacy properties. Not to mention repairing the meters, access, reading meters, billing costs, etc etc.

Cut out the needless meter bureaucracy, and charge each household on the mains water system €200 or whatever fixed charge for water consumption. Using the same system that local authorities use to charge for bin charges to collect same etc.

The provision of treated water is essentially a fixed cost. It is dysfunctional and illogical to install a bureaucracy to operate a metering system for a cost that will vary by +-15% with meters, in a country with no shortage of raw water.

€200 per house, assuming 1 million households on mains water will bring in €200 million to local authorities.

Keep it simple.

Few people have water meters on the continent because they live in apartments. The charge for tap water is included in their service charge. There is no meter for each housing unit.

The problem with a flat rate is that people will now assume that as they are paying (directly) they will use more. It also penalises people living alone v's a full house.

But yeah the water meters are going to be a costly joke and if/when we get another hard winter all these meters will freeze and burst.

Why impose this stupidity in Ireland?

Because it sounds like they are doing something to reduce water usage when the money to be spent on installing the meters would fix a lot of the leaking pipes.
No one has ever said that our government does anything to make sense.

Don't forget that this is the same government who stopped the builders installing meters only a few years ago, and then they made the big song and dance about fighting Europe to keep our water free.( Can't link as I heard it on TV recently)

Shiny

Surely a universal utility meter could be used to
measure gas, water, electricity and report back
the data?

Why go to the trouble of installing the smart meters
for electricity when the whole lot could be done at
once?

pumpkinsoup

Shiny wrote: »

Surely a universal utility meter could be used to
measure gas, water, electricity and report back
the data?

Why go to the trouble of installing the smart meters
for electricity when the whole lot could be done at
once?

There's a world of difference between a gas flow meter and a power meter for instance. One meter can't measure all three. You could consider one device housing three meters, but that too has impracticalities:
- all three utilities would have to enter your house at the one point
- the meter would have to provide different information the three different utility companies and preserve confidentiality
- the type of data needed from each would be completely different; for electricity you'll need quarter-hourly data while for water you need only monthly or annual figures.

pumpkinsoup

pumpkinsoup wrote: »

There's a world of difference between a gas flow meter and a power meter for instance. One meter can't measure all three. You could consider one device housing three meters, but that too has impracticalities:
- all three utilities would have to enter your house at the one point
- the meter would have to provide different information the three different utility companies and preserve confidentiality
- the type of data needed from each would be completely different; for electricity you'll need quarter-hourly data while for water you need only monthly or annual figures.

There's nothing to stop then sharing the technology, readings could be hashed and sent over the homerowners broadband connection back to the utility company.

Significant saving there in energy for starters (no meter reader's van).

rayh

Deleted User wrote: »

There's nothing to stop then sharing the technology, readings could be hashed and sent over the homerowners broadband connection back to the utility company.

Significant saving there in energy for starters (no meter reader's van).

This makes real sense. Append another code to MPRN, but MRSO (Meter Registeration System Operator) may have another view?

Shiny

pumpkinsoup wrote: »

There's a world of difference between a gas flow meter and a power meter for instance. One meter can't measure all three. You could consider one device housing three meters, but that too has impracticalities:
- all three utilities would have to enter your house at the one point
- the meter would have to provide different information the three different utility companies and preserve confidentiality
- the type of data needed from each would be completely different; for electricity you'll need quarter-hourly data while for water you need only monthly or annual figures.

I should have clarified this.

All a meter(of any type) has to do, is increment when a 'unit' is consumed. Each one of
these can simply be connected to a "master unit" which would be capable
of transmitting/recording the data.

Andypando

Grants have been the vane of this country since its founding. There should be no grants for your services.
If we need utilities..We should pay for them.

Pete_Cavan

hellboy99 wrote: »

With our government looking to introduce water charges and seeing as you can get grants to make you home more energy efficent do you think they should also introduce a grant to help home owners make their homes more water efficient, i.e. grants to help with purchase of new water efficient washing machines, dishwashers, toilets, installation of showers etc...

Grants are not available for the purchase of energy efficient appliances so you are looking at it the wrong way. Grants are available for installing energy efficient systems in houses, such as boilers and this is the route we should go down with water. Make grants available to those who install rainwater harvesting systems to provide water for flushing toilets in their houses. At the very least there should be some incentive there for people to do this when building a new house when it would be a lot easier to do so.

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem with a flat rate is that people will now assume that as they are paying (directly) they will use more.

The solution here is to introduce a fixed charge (because it is easier and cheaper to introduce) but the charge is reduced greatly for having a rainwater harvesting system. Toilets use huge amounts of water and ridicules amount of treated water is literally flushed down the drain every day which is an unnecessary cost.

Even have a smaller reduction on the charge for just having water butts storing water for watering plants and washing cars. If fixed charge is €200, allow €25 off for having water storage capacity of 100 - 200l and €50 off for over 200l. Gardening and washing cars also use large amounts of clean water and if every house had 200l of rainwater for this purpose it would save a lot of mains water.

Heroditas

Shiny wrote: »

I should have clarified this.

All a meter(of any type) has to do, is increment when a 'unit' is consumed. Each one of
these can simply be connected to a "master unit" which would be capable
of transmitting/recording the data.

Bord Gáis and ESB Networks are trialling something like this in the Smart Meter trials, i.e. the BG meter will "piggy-back" off the ESB one.

Andypando

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Grants are not available for the purchase of energy efficient appliances so you are looking at it the wrong way. Grants are available for installing energy efficient systems in houses, such as boilers and this is the route we should go down with water. Make grants available to those who install rainwater harvesting systems to provide water for flushing toilets in their houses. At the very least there should be some incentive there for people to do this when building a new house when it would be a lot easier to do so.



The solution here is to introduce a fixed charge (because it is easier and cheaper to introduce) but the charge is reduced greatly for having a rainwater harvesting system. Toilets use huge amounts of water and ridicules amount of treated water is literally flushed down the drain every day which is an unnecessary cost.

Even have a smaller reduction on the charge for just having water butts storing water for watering plants and washing cars. If fixed charge is €200, allow €25 off for having water storage capacity of 100 - 200l and €50 off for over 200l. Gardening and washing cars also use large amounts of clean water and if every house had 200l of rainwater for this purpose it would save a lot of mains water.

Some very good thinking here. I remember back in the time of The Cuba Crisis, when my father was digging a hole in the ground and local people said he was mad to be building an under-ground shelter. Well he kept digging and we ended up with a flush toilet in what was a dry toilet. The neighbours were still using dry toilets in the 80s here then.He also had a notion of using the methane from this tank but he could never could figure that out.
I still use this old thank for waste sink, and washing machines, as he built as new thank for the new bathroom. I think it was a great pity we never had forward thinking on the part of all our elected officialdom, for there never seemed to be anyone who would listen to the mad people of the past and to-day. Even in to-days world of mad thinking we have none who will listen to thinkers and would prefer to avoid those they label as mad.
The grant system has it values and is a good idea. The problem with those grants is they are abused, and no policed. It seems there is a new grant for home insulation in my area, but on inquiry I find I would have to ask from a local politician. Thankfully I have been doing my own house overf the years so I will avoid the politician.
There should be a concerted effort by local councils to install meters on every house with the proceeds going to, and be monitored by honest people. (There be the problem, honesty). We are now living in times when we need all and every effort by everyone to reach solutions to problems we may not have even thought of yet. Water I think is going to be of supreme importance I think in the future, and I think we need to wake up this official non-action.

Del2005

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Grants are not available for the purchase of energy efficient appliances so you are looking at it the wrong way. Grants are available for installing energy efficient systems in houses, such as boilers and this is the route we should go down with water. Make grants available to those who install rainwater harvesting systems to provide water for flushing toilets in their houses. At the very least there should be some incentive there for people to do this when building a new house when it would be a lot easier to do so.

And the grants for solar water where so good the prices went up by the exact same amount.

I also like the grants they are giving out for "Green" cars. They are making people scrap perfectly good cars that still have many years left in them to buy "low carbon" cars. Have they forgot that all these cars have to be made and transported here, then the old cars also have to be scrapped which produces CO2. Therefore it'll take years for the environment to actually benefit, if it ever does, from this BS.

The solution here is to introduce a fixed charge (because it is easier and cheaper to introduce) but the charge is reduced greatly for having a rainwater harvesting system. Toilets use huge amounts of water and ridicules amount of treated water is literally flushed down the drain every day which is an unnecessary cost.

Even have a smaller reduction on the charge for just having water butts storing water for watering plants and washing cars. If fixed charge is €200, allow €25 off for having water storage capacity of 100 - 200l and €50 off for over 200l. Gardening and washing cars also use large amounts of clean water and if every house had 200l of rainwater for this purpose it would save a lot of mains water.

A 200l water butt won't last much time in a house with 6 people in it if we have a week of dry weather, while a couple who can't install a butt will be paying more!! Not a logical system. Either measure it or work out a fair system.

I know if I have to pay the same amount as a house with 2x the amount of people then me I have no incentive to save water, as I'm being penalised, so I could happily leave my taps running 24x7 in the knowledge that I'm paying for it.

If I was metered then I would save water. They are also talking about giving each house a free quota. Why can't they bring in water trading like emission trading? If a household doesn't use all it's free water they can sell it to someone who's exceeded their quota. That would encourage people to reduce their usage and make a little cash.

Pete_Cavan

You are right Del2005,metering is the only fair solution to water charges. However, as pointed out in earlier posts the cost of installing meters at every house in the country and then maintaining them, reading them and sending out bills etc. would make this too expensive. Your "Green" car analogy could be used hear, total costs and benefits must be considered, not just the obvious ones.

Del2005 wrote: »

And the grants for solar water where so good the prices went up by the exact same amount.

That is not true and if it was nobody would be able to afford the cost of installing solar panels.

If it costs €1500 to install solar panels and the additional works that go with it and you got a €600 grant from the government it is something you may seriously consider because the annual savings provide a reasonable payback period. However, if the company do the work charged you €2100 for it the payback period would be too long. Therefore no one would install solar panels and the company who quoted the price would get no work. So it is in the companies interests to keep the cost as low as possible in order to get more work.

The cost of installing solar panels and rainwater harvesting system (which I was talking about originally) are too great and do not represent value for money. This is why grants are needed, to encourage people to install such systems. The cost to the government, the grant, is covered by the reduced cost of providing clean, treated water.

Del2005 wrote: »

A 200l water butt won't last much time in a house with 6 people in it if we have a week of dry weather, while a couple who can't install a butt will be paying more!! Not a logical system. Either measure it or work out a fair system.

The water butts I was talking about can be installed anywhere there is a down pipe, so just about every house in the country. It doesnt matter how many people live in a house because the water from the butts are for outdoor use, watering the garden and washing the car etc. where mains water is not necessary and is a waste if used for these purposes. My point was the first step should be to reduce the amount of mains water used unnecessarily via low cost solutions like rainwater harvesting and storage.

Del2005 wrote: »

I know if I have to pay the same amount as a house with 2x the amount of people then me I have no incentive to save water, as I'm being penalised, so I could happily leave my taps running 24x7 in the knowledge that I'm paying for it. If I was metered then I would save water.

You cant legislate for this type of childish attitude when forming a policy that will govern this countries use of a precious natural resource. Like I said the first step is to reduce the amount of mains water that is wasted. If waste is minimised and some money is collected by way of water charges, even €100 per household per annum by 1 million houses equals €100million pa. There would be very little cost in setting this up, when compared to metering. If supplying water continues to be too expensive a proportion of the money collected in charges can be ring-fenced over a number of years to pay for metering every house in the country and charge people based on usage like Del2005 described.