The Greens and water

Shea O'Meara

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gormley-rules-out-flat-rate-water-metering-463389.html
As part of the ruling, in my opinion, undemocratic (as people remain unrepresented in some areas) government does he come out with snipes at the opposition and, lets be fair, side issues when our current crisis is taken into account?

On water and taking into account it's Ireland...I've a few points.
Firstly, it's a long running joke that when Ireland gets a few weeks of sun we have a water shortage, what with the rain we get all year round. Then if you look at England, there's been numerous reports on the many private companies who look after ther water supply and how they rip off the public and let x amount of gallons disappear due to badly kept pipes. The cost of this loss coming back on the consumer.
Now this being Ireland it will eventually end up being privatised, most likely to one company and we will be shafted. Either way, rain eleven months of the year, water shortage for a few weeks bringing us to hiked up prices for a number of months.
Are we cool with all this? We will, have no doubt, get f***ed by this in the long run.

syklops

The water infrastructure in Ireland has been badly neglected. Many of the pipes that bring you your water were laid under british rule, in fact some were laid during the rule of Queen Victoria, and have never been replaced or maintained.

The task of maintaining the water systems is left to the county councils, which is means there is no large joined up system in place for dealing with water infrastructure.

To use a simple analogy, imagine instead of the ESB being responsible for your electricity supply, it was your local council who were responsible for the power equipment in your area, and your area alone. With no joined up thinking, power outages and black out would be rife.

If Gormley puts forward a plan and then implements it then I will take my hat off to him. It is badly needed. If his plan to fix the water systems is create a new tax to pay for it first, but nothing happens then I will have been right about him.

In Galway, my parents have not drank tap water in nearly 4 years because it cant be trusted. The last time the local water got infected with something, the only announcement that was made was a hand written line at the bottom of the Church Newsletter(though my Dad thinks that was an attempt at ethnic cleansing).

djpbarry

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?

Because having enough clean drinking water to go 'round is kind of important?

Macha

There are severe water shortages in the west at the moment:

several west coast authorities are now struggling to cope with severely depleted water supplies.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0624/1224273187074.html

Significant investment in the water supply is needed after years of underinvestment, as syklops said. While the pipes are being upgraded, we also need to install censors in the water network so that we know where leaks are happening - a bit similar to what we need to do with our electricity grid.

Brian McDonald of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes has said that in some cases the introduction of metering reduced demand by 90% as waste that had originally thought to have come from leaking pipes was actually due to waste on the part of end users.

Nijmegen

I had a conversation with some German friends around the time of the freeze and water shortages in Dublin, when it was reported that a large percentage of the water pipes serving the city are over 70 years old.

Their question for me was quite simple:

"Why didn't anyone think about this thirty or forty years ago?"

Kind of sums up the difference between the countries.

dan_d

Recently I saw an exposed cast iron water main in the city centre (as part of my job).There had been branches off it to feed old buildings that have now been knocked down. The branch pipes were cut off. The holes they left in the main were plugged with....wooden pegs. They looked kind of like wooden bowling skittles. They were within about 5 metres of each other on the water main. I'm pretty sure they were put in about 25 years ago.Or more.

Needless to say there was a constant light spray of water around them when they were exposed. The ground was soaking from the water leaking out of them all the time underground.This is a large main, feeding the city centre, and that's only a tiny example of the kind of leaks that are there.

Need we say more??

Scofflaw

dan_d wrote: »

Recently I saw an exposed cast iron water main in the city centre (as part of my job).There had been branches off it to feed old buildings that have now been knocked down. The branch pipes were cut off. The holes they left in the main were plugged with....wooden pegs. They looked kind of like wooden bowling skittles. They were within about 5 metres of each other on the water main. I'm pretty sure they were put in about 25 years ago.Or more.

Needless to say there was a constant light spray of water around them when they were exposed. The ground was soaking from the water leaking out of them all the time underground.This is a large main, feeding the city centre, and that's only a tiny example of the kind of leaks that are there.

Need we say more??

We probably do have to say more, if there are people who feel it's outrageous that the Minister for the Environment should be looking at trivial and irrelevant issues like water quality and wastage when there's clearly vital things like by-elections to be taken care of.

After all, what we really need is more TDs, so that they can go up to the Dáil and look after vital national issues like...well, water quality, say.

amused,
Scofflaw

monkeypants

When we all start paying for it, will there be court cases following over quality? That's where I can see this going.

Macha

monkeypants wrote: »

When we all start paying for it, will there be court cases following over quality? That's where I can see this going.

Court cases brought by who?

Has this happened in other countries (by that I mean most other countries) where residential water usage is metered?

syklops

taconnol wrote: »

Court cases brought by who?

Has this happened in other countries (by that I mean most other countries) where residential water usage is metered?

I assume he means if you get sick from drinking the water, will you be able to sue for compensation.

You can always try I suppose.

syklops

syklops wrote: »

In Galway, my parents have not drank tap water in nearly 4 years because it cant be trusted. The last time the local water got infected with something, the only announcement that was made was a hand written line at the bottom of the Church Newsletter(though my Dad thinks that was an attempt at ethnic cleansing).

ethnic colon cleansing?

Colm R

Personally, I have no problem paying for water as long as it is:

1. metered charges only. If its a flat rate, then its no good.

2. all money goes back in to the infrastructure and quality. If I am paying for it, I expect to be able to drink it.


Lets be honest, there are a few things that are common practice in other countries, which we take for granted.

- turning off the tap while actually brushing your teeth.

- turning off the shower whilst applying shower gel/shampoo. (Very common practice in Oz, espeicially Brisbane)

- aerrated taps. These are annoying when you want to fill a saucepan or jug as it takes longer. But for washing your hands under a regular tap, you do not need all the water that comes out.

- sensible toilet flushing. I once saw an advert in Queensland. Basically, if your pee is not very yellow, then consider not flushing the toilet!!!


We have plenty of water in this country. But we still have to use it properly.

Macha

syklops wrote: »

I assume he means if you get sick from drinking the water, will you be able to sue for compensation.

You can always try I suppose.

Ah I see. Well I think there's a legal obligation on local authorities to provide clean drinking water anyway under the European Communities (Drinking Water)
Regulations, 2000. I'm not sure what penalties, if any, exist within the legislation though.

syklops

Colm R wrote: »

Personally, I have no problem paying for water as long as it is:

1. metered charges only. If its a flat rate, then its no good.

2. all money goes back in to the infrastructure and quality. If I am paying for it, I expect to be able to drink it.


Lets be honest, there are a few things that are common practice in other countries, which we take for granted.

- turning off the tap while actually brushing your teeth.

- turning off the shower whilst applying shower gel/shampoo. (Very common practice in Oz, espeicially Brisbane)

- aerrated taps. These are annoying when you want to fill a saucepan or jug as it takes longer. But for washing your hands under a regular tap, you do not need all the water that comes out.

- sensible toilet flushing. I once saw an advert in Queensland. Basically, if your pee is not very yellow, then consider not flushing the toilet!!!


We have plenty of water in this country. But we still have to use it properly.

Absolutely. I have no problem whatsoever paying for water, as long as I feel comfortable drinking it, as long as there is water in the pipe when I go to use it, and so long as the money I pay goes to pay for the water. Not to go into the ever-increasing black-hole which is this countries finances.

Macha

syklops wrote: »

Absolutely. I have no problem whatsoever paying for water, as long as I feel comfortable drinking it, as long as there is water in the pipe when I go to use it, and so long as the money I pay goes to pay for the water. Not to go into the ever-increasing black-hole which is this countries finances.

It is very difficult to hypothecate taxes as estimates of investment and running costs can vary significantly. If we applied this logic to every tax, it would be even more of a mess than it is today. In addition, we have been running this country off unsustainable cyclical business taxes - the government needs to find new sources of revenue as well as implementing major cuts in public expenditure.

bryanw

taconnol wrote: »

There are severe water shortages in the west at the moment:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0624/1224273187074.html

Significant investment in the water supply is needed after years of underinvestment, as syklops said. While the pipes are being upgraded, we also need to install censors in the water network so that we know where leaks are happening - a bit similar to what we need to do with our electricity grid.

Brian McDonald of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes has said that in some cases the introduction of metering reduced demand by 90% as waste that had originally thought to have come from leaking pipes was actually due to waste on the part of end users.

When you have reductions of 90% in the use of water, people start to change their behaviour. Do we want people to be worried about using any water at all? Do we want them to not shower, or flush the toilet? If the average person needs 160 L of water a day, why should we aim to reduce that to, say, 80 L? Because in centuries gone by, people did not have access to the amount of water we have today (nor was it as clean)... and it didn't turn out well for them. Disease and unhygienic practices were commonplace.

Please don't blame the end user. I agree that wasteful use of water should not continue, but when there were water shortages in the winter, John Gormely went on a tirade on the 6.1 news telling people: You're wasting water! This practice must stop! Then subsequently, over a number of days, we saw the state of the water infrastructure. All over the news, huge mangled pipes dug up, water meters burst... But, go on, its easier to blame the little guy.

Clearly, nothing can be done properly in Ireland with regards to this issue. The last 10 years saw the largest amount of residential and commercial construction since the beginning of the state and water infrastructure was barely touched. As eluded to in previous post, the mains are old, and that's putting it mildly. Nobody is going to want to pay through the nose for a shambles of a service. I recall in the UK, some water companies couldn't account for as much a 50% of leaks. With customers paying for the service.

I also don't buy from they previous article that a few weeks without rain will cause water shortages. I would be inclined to think its lack of investment in infrastructure. Because if rainfall for May is around 60% of the mean in terms of volume, how does that translate to: no water! Other countries experience much drier weather that us, as a rule, and yet they don't run dry as quickly as we do. I mean, I live on the East coast which usually has much less rain that the west, and yet I haven't been threatened with a shortage (yet), even though I wouldn't hold up the infrastructure as a model here either.

Nobody in this country ever thinks outside the box. In the article the Donegal council said rainfall was down, but demand was up. Couldn't they anticipate the rise in demand due to warm weather and extra tourists? I'm sure the tourists come every year...?

bryanw

I would also like to add that I am broadly in favour of water charges/metering, because the water doesn't just become clean as if by magic. Just so long as it's done so as people will not become stupid with its use. Everyone should get an allowance, above which, excessive use will be charged on a progressive scale, and that the quality of the service is adequate.

EDIT: Also, does anyone know where I can find water use (by volume) for both domestic and industrial in Ireland?

Macha

bryanw wrote: »

When you have reductions of 90% in the use of water, people start to change their behaviour. Do we want people to be worried about using any water at all? Do we want them to not shower, or flush the toilet? If the average person needs 160 L of water a day, why should we aim to reduce that to, say, 80 L? Because in centuries gone by, people did not have access to the amount of water we have today (nor was it as clean)... and it didn't turn out well for them. Disease and unhygienic practices were commonplace.

Demand was reduced 90%, not availability.

bryanw wrote: »

Nobody is going to want to pay through the nose for a shambles of a service. I recall in the UK, some water companies couldn't account for as much a 50% of leaks. With customers paying for the service.

And yet one wonders where the money is going to come from, if not the tax payer? How can we get private investment involved?

bryanw wrote: »

I also don't buy from they previous article that a few weeks without rain will cause water shortages. I would be inclined to think its lack of investment in infrastructure. Because if rainfall for May is around 60% of the mean in terms of volume, how does that translate to: no water! Other countries experience much drier weather that us, as a rule, and yet they don't run dry as quickly as we do. I mean, I live on the East coast which usually has much less rain that the west, and yet I haven't been threatened with a shortage (yet), even though I wouldn't hold up the infrastructure as a model here either.

Water supplies are replenished by rainfall, among other things.

And there are shortages on the east coast - there has been a hose pipe ban in Wicklow for the last number of weeks.

Edit: good luck getting stats - this country is just awful for measuring things. But um, without metering I'm not sure how exactly we're supposed to have accurate stats on the majority of residential water usage.

bryanw

taconnol wrote: »

Demand was reduced 90%, not availability.

But my point was, that by forcing people to pay for their water, people automatically become worried about how much they use, and might think that showering is wasting water, or flushing the toilet, or washing clothes, or washing dishes. All these things are quite water intensive, but the are very necessary for quality of life. If someone uses say (taking the 90% figure) 200 L of water a day, which is then reduced to 20 L, they can't be doing very well with that amount. 20 L is nothing. And if the other 180 L is actually waste... what the hell were they doing with it? Turning on the hose in the morning, going to work, and turn it off before they go to bed. I don't think many people would do that.

And yet one wonders where the money is going to come from, if not the tax payer? How can we get private investment involved?

And yet one wonders why this wasn't done in the last 10 years when;

(a) We had the money.
(b) Developers could have done so when building all the houses.

We'll need some sort of investment... was it € 1 billion I heard to install meters to every home? Billions are hard to come by these days.

Water supplies are replenished by rainfall, among other things.

And there are shortages on the east coast - there has been a hose pipe ban in Wicklow for the last number of weeks.

Rainfall is the largest. Others may be underground systems? surface run-off? wells? These would also have some amount of reliance on rainwater also.

Also... how does one enforce a hose pipe ban? What about people who may grow their own fruit and veg... does a hose pipe ban apply to them? Because that's kind of cutting off you nose to spite you face. People try to be a little more economic and self sufficient, but can't water the garden. Because then they'll go and buy from the supermarket, produce from half way across the world, because the food at the top of the garden has died from no water...

AlekSmart

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?

Shay O Meara may well,unwittingly, answer his own question later on in his post...

Then if you look at England, there's been numerous reports on the many private companies who look after ther water supply and how they rip off the public and let x amount of gallons disappear due to badly kept pipes. The cost of this loss coming back on the consumer.
Now this being Ireland it will eventually end up being privatised, most likely to one company and we will be shafted.

The key to understanding the motivations of Politicians,when they suddenly start advocating major infrastructural change,especially if it incorporates a large element of financial imposition and transactions,is to get forensic about that Politicians declared interests.

The Oireachtas register of members declared interests would be a good starting point.

However,most savvy Political types will probably have endeavoured to get the Spouse or Offspring to become "Interested" in the "investment opportunities" offered by new entreprenurial companies (probably offshore based) in,for example,the Water and Waste Treatment or Recycling industries.

All of this "savvy investing" is of course Totally legal and above suspicion,particularly when it does not directly involve any senior figure.

It`s a Depression Dahling....and we have to turn a cent somewhere,don`t we ????

To sum up my feelings on the issue..


IT`S ANOTHER SCAM,PURE AND SIMPLE. :mad:

Macha

bryanw wrote: »

But my point was, that by forcing people to pay for their water, people automatically become worried about how much they use, and might think that showering is wasting water, or flushing the toilet, or washing clothes, or washing dishes. All these things are quite water intensive, but the are very necessary for quality of life. If someone uses say (taking the 90% figure) 200 L of water a day, which is then reduced to 20 L, they can't be doing very well with that amount. 20 L is nothing. And if the other 180 L is actually waste... what the hell were they doing with it? Turning on the hose in the morning, going to work, and turn it off before they go to bed. I don't think many people would do that.

So why don't we have food and electricity free as well?

bryanw wrote: »

And yet one wonders why this wasn't done in the last 10 years when;

(a) We had the money.
(b) Developers could have done so when building all the houses.

Last 10 years? Try the last 40 years.

bryanw wrote: »

Rainfall is the largest. Others may be underground systems? surface run-off? wells? These would also have some amount of reliance on rainwater also.

Underground acquifers are replenished by rain. Those that aren't are called fossil acquifers and I don't think Ireland has any and if we did, they are a non-renewable source of water. Saudi Arabia tried to run an agricultural system off fossil water. Needless to say it was a disaster. Surface run-off comes from rain. The only other source is desalinated sea water, which is incredible energy-intenstive to produce.

A hosepipe ban is usually enforced by the water authority, mostly the local authority in Ireland. It doesn't stop people from watering through the use of watering cans but hosepipes are the garden version of power showers and can use up large amounts of water. Hosepipe bans are implemented widely in the UK and Australia when public supplies are running short. The main aim of the ban is to stop car washing and lawn irrigation. I have a vegetable garden and I'm well able to water it without a hosepipe.

syklops

But my point was, that by forcing people to pay for their water, people automatically become worried about how much they use, and might think that showering is wasting water, or flushing the toilet, or washing clothes, or washing dishes.

Showering is not wasting water. Showering 4 times a day is. There was a thread in AH some time ago entitled how often do you shower. The number of people who took more than 2 a day was alarming.

The same can be said of the other things you mentioned, washing clothes etc.

Anyway, the people who worry about the increase in cost of showering from water charges, are the same people who worry about the cost of showering because of the immersion heater, and the detrimental effects it has on their ESB bill. These people are probably down to the minimum number of showers as it is.

Bringing in water charges will put the onus on people to save a little bit extra of water. All those dripping taps will get fixed, as it now makes economic sense to do so. All those garden hoses that dribble constantly, will be fixed.

That in itself would be a big step.

All these things are quite water intensive, but the are very necessary for quality of life. If someone uses say (taking the 90% figure) 200 L of water a day, which is then reduced to 20 L, they can't be doing very well with that amount. 20 L is nothing. And if the other 180 L is actually waste... what the hell were they doing with it? Turning on the hose in the morning, going to work, and turn it off before they go to bed. I don't think many people would do that.

I dont think your figures are based on any actual stats, as they dont make a lot of sense. No-one is talking about people using 90% less water. Not, at least, assuming the 90% less is not utter wastage, but small reductions here and there and alot could be saved.

Think about it, if a dripping tap drips 1 milliliter once every 2 seconds, then it wastes 30 mililitres in a minute, 1800ml in an hour, and a whopping 43.2 litres in a day. Now think about how many dripping taps there are in Ireland.

bryanw

taconnol wrote: »

So why don't we have food and electricity free as well?

Ok, I don't know what you want me to say? As I posted previously, I said I was broadly in favour of water charges. But I don't think it should be at the expense of people not using water for necessary tasks. Water is the single most important resource needed to support life.

We pay for food because we live in a market economy and there are many different producers and competitors. The water infrastructure is a little different in that the network is usually controlled by on authority and it would be more difficult to open it up to private companies without regulation. Then there is also the aspect of monopoly.

taconnol wrote:

Last 10 years? Try the last 40 years.

It costs money... and water meters are also a technology, which would not have been as advanced 40 years ago.

taconnol wrote:

Underground acquifers are replenished by rain. Those that aren't are called fossil acquifers and I don't think Ireland has any and if we did, they are a non-renewable source of water. Saudi Arabia tried to run an agricultural system off fossil water. Needless to say it was a disaster. Surface run-off comes from rain. The only other source is desalinated sea water, which is incredible energy-intenstive to produce.

Thank you for confirming my point. Rain water is the main source.

taconnol wrote:

A hosepipe ban is usually enforced by the water authority, mostly the local authority in Ireland. It doesn't stop people from watering through the use of watering cans but hosepipes are the garden version of power showers and can use up large amounts of water. Hosepipe bans are implemented widely in the UK and Australia when public supplies are running short. The main aim of the ban is to stop car washing and lawn irrigation. I have a vegetable garden and I'm well able to water it without a hosepipe.

But what do they do? Do they inspect your house to see if your using a hose and give you a fine?

Lawn irrigation is rarely needed in Ireland. I don't think I remember it occurring very often that the grass would dry out here.

I don't agree that hose pipes are like a power shower. I know from experience that a hose, when off, is just like extending the tap. It also takes longer to fill a watering can with my hose than it does to fill it from the tap, so therefore a smaller volume of water is leaving the hose per unit time than from the tap.

Macha

bryanw wrote: »

Ok, I don't know what you want me to say? As I posted previously, I said I was broadly in favour of water charges. But I don't think it should be at the expense of people not using water for necessary tasks. Water is the single most important resource needed to support life.

No of course not, but we have social welfare payments for people who can't afford the daily necessities.

bryanw wrote: »

We pay for food because we live in a market economy and there are many different producers and competitors. The water infrastructure is a little different in that the network is usually controlled by on authority and it would be more difficult to open it up to private companies without regulation. Then there is also the aspect of monopoly.

Well, just as with gas or electricity, the network can remain in the hands of the local or state authority but allow private suppliers to compete. In England they have the worst of both worlds with private suppliers given monopolies over different municipalities.

bryanw wrote: »

It costs money... and water meters are also a technology, which would not have been as advanced 40 years ago.

No, but we also need the replacement of basic water pipes, some of which still date back to Victorian times. Underinvestment in the Irish water system is not a new problem.

bryanw wrote: »

But what do they do? Do they inspect your house to see if your using a hose and give you a fine?

I'm not sure to be honest. I imagine they mainly rely on self-regulation.

Macha

News just out that it will be the Elster V210 used for residential metering:

http://www.elstermetering.com/en/V200_V210.html

expectationlost

the market will cure all ills /pdgreens

bijapos

Just three points:

1. I don't think that figure of 90% is correct. I think that guy was on Morning Ireland or Pat Kenny yesterday morning and he said up to 90%. I presume the person who had a 90% drop had a leak on his property, ie between the meter on the footpath and the house. However, studies have shown that usage/wastage of water does drop off once its paid for.

2. As I understand it we will be given a certain amount free and everything over this is charged.

3. A certain amount of water comes from lakes and rivers, not just underground aquifiers and man made resevoirs. I understand that Dublin takes some of its water from the Barrow river and that they are looking to take it from the Shannon (!) if usage does not go down.

4. Talking of infrastructure and the last 10 years, a lot of frozen pipes from last winter were found to be buried too close to the ground surface and not buried as regulations stipulate at a certain depth.

syklops

Where I live there are water charges, and the arrangement with the landlord is we pay a fixed amount for utilities, and anything above what the bill comes to he keeps, anything below, he pays. He just rang me there to organize a time to come round to fix my dripping tap in the bathroom.

Seems charges do reduce the amount of water wasted.

Macha

bijapos wrote: »

1. I don't think that figure of 90% is correct. I think that guy was on Morning Ireland or Pat Kenny yesterday morning and he said up to 90%. I presume the person who had a 90% drop had a leak on his property, ie between the meter on the footpath and the house. However, studies have shown that usage/wastage of water does drop off once its paid for.

I quoted Brian McDonald as saying it was 90% some cases. That is what he said and I hope I wasn't misunderstood as suggesting it was an overall figure. He didn't say why the reduction had dropped some much but the figure applied to a scheme, not an individual. The reduction in a scheme in Sligo was from 300m3/day down to 30m3/day.

He said that the reductions in demand were "phenomenal" and had significant positive economic benefits for the members of the scheme despite the fact that there was initial opposition to metering. Some schemes have been metered now for over 30 years.

The other interesting point he made was that what they originally had thought was wastage through the network was actually waste by consumers.

magicbastarder

syklops wrote: »

If Gormley puts forward a plan and then implements it then I will take my hat off to him. It is badly needed. If his plan to fix the water systems is create a new tax to pay for it first, but nothing happens then I will have been right about him.

i suspect that by the time any income starts rolling in from this, gormley will not be in a position where you can blame him for the allocation of the revenue.

Shea O'Meara

'We need water' well done, we do indeed.
My post was asking why Gormley has little or nothing to say unless against the opposition or on issues I do not deem as urgent compared to all the other issues at hand.
It seems to me that one day we will be paying tax for the sheer hell of it as we will have a myriad of specific taxes and charges to pay. I for one look forward to pavement tax, street light tax and so on. Because street lights cost money don't you know and cement isn't free.:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

'We need water' well done, we do indeed.
My post was asking why Gormley has little or nothing to say unless against the opposition or on issues I do not deem as urgent compared to all the other issues at hand.
It seems to me that one day we will be paying tax for the sheer hell of it as we will have a myriad of specific taxes and charges to pay. I for one look forward to pavement tax, street light tax and so on. Because street lights cost money don't you know and cement isn't free.:rolleyes:

There are two basic types of taxes:

1. taxes just "for the sheer hell of it" (VAT, corporation tax, income tax, capital gains tax, etc etc) where the payment has no other aim than supporting government spending

2. taxes which additionally or alternatively have the aim of discouraging or encouraging certain forms of behaviour.

Water charges are an example of the second kind of tax, where the aim is both to pay for government and to discourage excessive water use. As for street lighting - businesses in theory support that kind of expenditure through payment of rates (which reminds me...).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara

Scofflaw wrote: »

There are two basic types of taxes:

1. taxes just "for the sheer hell of it" (VAT, corporation tax, income tax, capital gains tax, etc etc) where the payment has no other aim than supporting government spending

2. taxes which additionally or alternatively have the aim of discouraging or encouraging certain forms of behaviour.

Water charges are an example of the second kind of tax, where the aim is both to pay for government and to discourage excessive water use. As for street lighting - businesses in theory support that kind of expenditure through payment of rates (which reminds me...).

cordially,
Scofflaw

So what's your point?

Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

So what's your point?

That you're already paying the bulk of your taxes "for the sheer hell of it" and that part of the point of water charges is to stop people using water wastefully.

Which in turn makes me wonder what your particular argument against water charges is supposed to be, other than that you personally feel he should be doing something about the by-elections instead?

By-elections require a writ to be moved in the Dáil, and therefore won't happen until Fianna Fáil decides they have a decent chance of winning, but you feel the Minister should ignore all else while he pursues that unattainable goal?

regards,
Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater

Indeed. I know the minister isn't female, but I'm sure he's not so bad at multi-tasking as to be unable to pursue two different political issues at the same time.

Shea O'Meara

Scofflaw wrote: »

That you're already paying the bulk of your taxes "for the sheer hell of it" and that part of the point of water charges is to stop people using water wastefully.

That's partially my point and as more pieces become separated can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?;)

Scofflaw wrote: »

Which in turn makes me wonder what your particular argument against water charges is supposed to be, other than that you personally feel he should be doing something about the by-elections instead?

My gripe (water) is not against the mere idea of paying for water, which while I agree a good argument can be made, I feel if introduced it will be abused to the detriment of you and I, but the fact that Gormley is a passenger in this government who keeps the status quo on bigger issues yet wakes from his slumber on hunting and water, which are not on as an important and immediate level as other issues we recently and currently face, where he was/is having a little nap somewhere when they are being discussed or nodding along with his partner party whom he initially vowed to keep in check.

Scofflaw wrote: »

By-elections require a writ to be moved in the Dáil, and therefore won't happen until Fianna Fáil decides they have a decent chance of winning, but you feel the Minister should ignore all else while he pursues that unattainable goal?

Well he does a damn good job of it, so why would he stop now?
I guess it comes down to priorities.

oscarBravo

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

...can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?;)

Do you think we can afford to cut taxes right now?

Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

That's partially my point and as more pieces become separated can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?;)

I wouldn't imagine so at the moment.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

My gripe (water) is not against the mere idea of paying for water, which while I agree a good argument can be made, I feel if introduced it will be abused to the detriment of you and I, but the fact that Gormley is a passenger in this government who keeps the status quo on bigger issues yet wakes from his slumber on hunting and water, which are not on as an important and immediate level as other issues we recently and currently face, where he was/is having a little nap somewhere when they are being discussed or nodding along with his partner party whom he initially vowed to keep in check.

Ah, so you think he ought not to pay attention to Green issues, despite people having voted him in on that basis?

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Well he does a damn good job of it, so why would he stop now?
I guess it comes down to priorities.

And some might say that the priorities of a Minister for the Environment were environmental issues, and that of a Green Minister for the Environment perhaps even more so. Apparently, you believe playing electoral politics is more important. I don't share that view, and I somehow doubt that many others do either - while a lot of people are waiting for this government to run its course it's still important to quite a lot of them that it actually does the job. The sensible ones, anyway.

regards,
Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you think we can afford to cut taxes right now?

Sorry, what I meant to say was 'That's partially my point and as more pieces become separated can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?:D'

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, so you think he ought not to pay attention to Green issues, despite people having voted him in on that basis?



And some might say that the priorities of a Minister for the Environment were environmental issues, and that of a Green Minister for the Environment perhaps even more so. Apparently, you believe playing electoral politics is more important. I don't share that view, and I somehow doubt that many others do either - while a lot of people are waiting for this government to run its course it's still important to quite a lot of them that it actually does the job. The sensible ones, anyway.

regards,
Scofflaw

I think anyone simply playing politics should resign.
As a minister in government at this time and a prominant figure in the coalition party, Environment or not, he should in the least voice an opinion on matters that relate to the well being of the country as well as Green issues. They were not soley voted for on environmental issues. They were seen to have a moral fortitude, ideals they would stick by. Unless you believe all government departments such as defence and health would become environmental posts if they were ever to win a majority? Minority or not, you seem to believe the few non-fianna fail voices within government should go with the flow, (another water pun) and stick within their department. I don't share that view. Arguments, votes and statements can be made while carrying out the duties of office. If the Greens stood by their principles the govenment may fold, (chance would be a fine thing) but I'd have some respect for them.

djpbarry

bryanw wrote: »

If someone uses say (taking the 90% figure) 200 L of water a day, which is then reduced to 20 L, they can't be doing very well with that amount. 20 L is nothing.

Indeed it is, but then, your figure of 200 L is entirely arbitrary, isn't it?

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

...the fact that Gormley is a passenger in this government who keeps the status quo on bigger issues yet wakes from his slumber on hunting and water, which are not on as an important and immediate level as other issues we recently and currently face...

I think you'll find that quite a large number of people will disagree with you on that, be they of an environmental persuasion or otherwise. Besides, security of water supply (or lack thereof) can hardly be considered purely a 'Green' issue - it's a serious public health issue.

Grumpypants

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gormley-rules-out-flat-rate-water-metering-463389.html
As part of the ruling, in my opinion, undemocratic (as people remain unrepresented in some areas) government does he come out with snipes at the opposition and, lets be fair, side issues when our current crisis is taken into account?

On water and taking into account it's Ireland...I've a few points.
Firstly, it's a long running joke that when Ireland gets a few weeks of sun we have a water shortage, what with the rain we get all year round. Then if you look at England, there's been numerous reports on the many private companies who look after ther water supply and how they rip off the public and let x amount of gallons disappear due to badly kept pipes. The cost of this loss coming back on the consumer.
Now this being Ireland it will eventually end up being privatised, most likely to one company and we will be shafted. Either way, rain eleven months of the year, water shortage for a few weeks bringing us to hiked up prices for a number of months.
Are we cool with all this? We will, have no doubt, get f***ed by this in the long run.

We dont drink rain so it doesnt matter how much it rains here. Water need to be treated and delivered that involves huge costs for the local councils which are paid for by the geverment with taxes. So cutting costs in goverment will help the current situation.

Secondly having clean water to drink is more important than any current crisis.

Its becasue its Ireland and often water mains have to ruin a few miles up back roads to serve single houses that its quite hard to maintain a proper network.

I have no problem with paying for water i would like an option though for an alternative source of water for the toilet. I dont really want to pay for 5 litres of drinking water to flush down the loo as we have at the momment.

Macha

Grumpypants wrote: »

I have no problem with paying for water i would like an option though for an alternative source of water for the toilet. I dont really want to pay for 5 litres of drinking water to flush down the loo as we have at the momment.

We've installed these really simple devices and they allow you to use exactly the amount of water you need:

http://www.meconwml.com/

Scofflaw

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Sorry, what I meant to say was 'That's partially my point and as more pieces become separated can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges?:D'

If you mean in the long run when a government can afford tax breaks, can we expect a tax cut to balance these new charges, the answer is undoubtedly yes. Tax cuts are popular.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I think anyone simply playing politics should resign.

But that's essentially what you want Gormley to do - play politics.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

As a minister in government at this time and a prominant figure in the coalition party, Environment or not, he should in the least voice an opinion on matters that relate to the well being of the country as well as Green issues. They were not soley voted for on environmental issues. They were seen to have a moral fortitude, ideals they would stick by. Unless you believe all government departments such as defence and health would become environmental posts if they were ever to win a majority? Minority or not, you seem to believe the few non-fianna fail voices within government should go with the flow, (another water pun) and stick within their department. I don't share that view. Arguments, votes and statements can be made while carrying out the duties of office. If the Greens stood by their principles the govenment may fold, (chance would be a fine thing) but I'd have some respect for them.

The example you gave was that of the by-elections. The by-elections aren't issues of national importance by any stretch of the term. The people of those constituencies aren't going unrepresented, because we have multi-seat constituencies - and, frankly, given the recent behaviour of the major parties over the hunting bill, the idea that TDs speak for their constituency in Dáil votes is laughable.

As to 'going with the flow' - I don't expect the Greens to go with the flow, and I haven't seen them doing so either. They've supported their government partners, for which they have a mandate from their membership, and they've extracted a lot more clout from the various unpleasant things they've had to do to continue supporting the government. Disagreements at a Ministerial level occur at the Cabinet meeting, not in public.

It's quite possible this is the only time the Green Party will be in government in Ireland, and I think they're making a decent fist of it so far. They may well be wiped out at the next election (Green support is marginal at best in most of their existing seats), but they'll still have achieved more than they would sitting on the opposition benches, and my faith in Fine Gael and Labour either delivering the next coalition - or allowing the Greens more clout than they currently have if they did - is very low.

cordially,
Scofflaw

monkeypants

I'm not looking forward to the day where it costs money to wash oneself. I've worked with a few stinkers in my time and it wasn't fun.

View

monkeypants wrote: »

I'm not looking forward to the day where it costs money to wash oneself. I've worked with a few stinkers in my time and it wasn't fun.

This problem is to be dealt with by on-the-spot fines for "shower evaders"...

View

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/gormley-rules-out-flat-rate-water-metering-463389.html
As part of the ruling, in my opinion, undemocratic (as people remain unrepresented in some areas) government does he come out with snipes at the opposition and, lets be fair, side issues when our current crisis is taken into account?

I am open to correction on this issue but I believe that the introduction of water meters was agreed at EU-level back in in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) in 2000 by the then FF-PD government.

As such blaming the Greens for actually trying to implement a policy agreed by FF and the PDs is a bit harsh - the alternative, after all, is that we refuse to implement it and it costs the tax-payers a lot after the ECJ rules against (and fines) Ireland for failing to implement the directive...

Link on this is here:

Water pricing is one of the measures used to reduce water demand. The Water Framework Directive requires EU Member States to ensure that by 2010 the proportion of the cost of water services – such as pumping, weirs, dams, channels, supply systems – with a negative impact on the environment – must be paid by the users (e.g. agriculture, hydropower, households, navigation).

Shea O'Meara

View wrote: »

As such blaming the Greens for actually trying to implement a policy agreed by FF and the PDs is a bit harsh -
Link on this is here:

Please re-read. The point is not who's to blame for water charges, but wondering why there isn't such enthusiasm about say finance, possible corruption etc. within their government.

View

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Please re-read. The point is not who's to blame for water charges, but wondering why there isn't such enthusiasm about say finance, possible corruption etc. within their government.

I did re-read and the focus of your original post still appears (to me) to be on water charges. I have to confess that I haven't personally gotten the impression there was a lack of enthusiasm in relation to (specific) other issues. I'd say it is more a case that items from the Programme for Government come up at different times.

syklops

There are many people in places like galway who are already paying for water. They need to buy drinking water because the stuff from the tap cannot be trusted. Many people in this situation would welcome with open arms water charges if it meant clean safe water coming from the tap.

yoshytoshy

I got an email detailing costs of meter installation ,which has stated that it can be up to €580 .

I presume people will be paying for these meters themselves ,if they don't want to pay a blanket amount.

Lu Tze

yoshytoshy wrote: »

I got an email detailing costs of meter installation ,which has stated that it can be up to €580 .

I presume people will be paying for these meters themselves ,if they don't want to pay a blanket amount.

It is likely that there will be no up front cost to the consumer for the meter, as this would put the meter in their ownership. Instead there will be a fixed monthly charge for the rental of the meter so that it stays in the water authority's ownership.

The rental will likely include a an allocation of water which if you go over you will pay per litrre used.