Water charges

Stato x

How can people advocate charges on water in this country considering the poor quality of supply and massive leakage and contamination?

Last year in Co. Kildare the co. council used urea instead of salt on the roads which then leaked into the supply. Im sure there is examples of poor water quality all over the country.

Would charging for water not require it to be of a constant standard and also leave the co. council open to legal charges?

I am personally for paying for QUALITY water but at the moment it is just not available in my area(except from lidl which I do pay for).
Also with the current leakage rates which are up to 50% in some regions there is no way I could agree to pay.

Overheal

Stato x wrote: »

How can people advocate charges on water in this country considering the poor quality of supply and massive leakage and contamination?

Last year in Co. Kildare the co. council used urea instead of salt on the roads which then leaked into the supply. Im sure there is examples of poor water quality all over the country.

Would charging for water not require it to be of a constant standard and also leave the co. council open to legal charges?

I am personally for paying for QUALITY water but at the moment it is just not available in my area(except from lidl which I do pay for).
Also with the current leakage rates which are up to 50% in some regions there is no way I could agree to pay.

Well, you didn't mention anywhere in your post the amount of rainfall in Ireland: so that tells me you actually want and are prepared for a serious answer

Legally, no I'm not sure there's any law - even in the US - that says the Municipal water can't charge for service if the quality falls below a certain level. We do have the EPA and they might shut down a supply or issue a non-potable warning, but the water isn't free simply because you can't drink it. You can still shower with it, water your garden, hose down your car, run the dishwasher, etc.

As for the leakage rates they only know from major Point As and Bs that there are leaks between this municipal point and that. What they really need to know, to pinpoint leaks, is which houses between Point A and B are getting what amount of water to help track the problem. "Great, why not meter for free", the system in Ireland is in huge disrepair since the charges were repealed in the Celtic Tiger years and either the maintenance stopped or it was never properly maintained to begin with. Either way the damage is extensive and free metering would cost more money in itself than is feasible or fiscally responsible. That's before you even begin repairs to the system or upgrades to treatment.

There's two solutions: either a) Bailout the water system, conduct the repairs and only charge for water when the project is finished. The problem is this approach still takes the same amount of time (years) and then it will be until some time later that the debt incurred is brought back. Or b) Begin the charges now and use them to help fund the restoration, whether in part or completely.

It's water, it's not your typical good or service; it's not a luxury item. While I can say "okay I'm not paying for Sky until they get their act together" I can live without television. And, you can live without municipal tap but in the long run you're spending 10x more for your water in the store, if not more. It's a chicken-meet-egg scenario.

Riskymove

Stato x wrote: »

Would charging for water not require it to be of a constant standard and also leave the co. council open to legal charges?

no...there are already standards in place

Also with the current leakage rates which are up to 50% in some regions there is no way I could agree to pay.

under water metering you would only pay for what you use in the house...i.e. only leaks in your own home would be an issue

Stato x

Overheal wrote: »

Legally, no I'm not sure there's any law - even in the US - that says the Municipal water can't charge for service if the quality falls below a certain level. We do have the EPA and they might shut down a supply or issue a non-potable warning, but the water isn't free simply because you can't drink it. You can still shower with it, water your garden, hose down your car, run the dishwasher, etc.

But this is the whole point imo

The water is all treated to a drinking standard to start and if its not drinkable at the end point, then the whole process is pointless.
Why would the public pay for water that is only suitable for washing when ,as u pointed out, such water is of massive abundance in this part of the world.

My view is that the system needs to be repaired and maintained properly first and then no one can have a problem in paying for water.

Stato x

Riskymove wrote: »

no...there are already standards in place



under water metering you would only pay for what you use in the house...i.e. only leaks in your own home would be an issue

I disagree here as the overall water charges, i.e standing charges or similar,
would have to pay for the losses through leaks. Also the more leaks that exist the more possibility exists for contamination.

CCCP

I seem to remember from History class that there was once 8 million people living here, and they all had enough water to go round.

Stato x

CCCP wrote: »

I seem to remember from History class that there was once 8 million people living here, and they all had enough water to go round.

The volume of water is clearly not a problem

GreeBo

The volume of water Vs the volume of fresh drinking water is the problem.
Regarding charges its chicken and egg.
If we dont pay for it now they cant afford to improve the infrastructure.
If they dont improve the infrastructure we dont think its worth paying for.

Separating grey from black waste is vital to ensuring we dont spend millions treating heavily soiled water thats just going to be sprayed into fields anyway.

There should be 2 levels of water deliver to every home, each with a different meter and a different cost/litre.

Essexboy

Stato x wrote: »

How can people advocate charges on water in this country considering the poor quality of supply and massive leakage and contamination?

Last year in Co. Kildare the co. council used urea instead of salt on the roads which then leaked into the supply. Im sure there is examples of poor water quality all over the country.

Would charging for water not require it to be of a constant standard and also leave the co. council open to legal charges?

I am personally for paying for QUALITY water but at the moment it is just not available in my area(except from lidl which I do pay for).
Also with the current leakage rates which are up to 50% in some regions there is no way I could agree to pay.

I agree.
Our mains water supply is regularly discoloured but Sligo County Council just shrug it off. people have opened washing machines to find clothes ruined by the discolouration.
We need clear, enforceable standards for water quality and for customer service before metering is introduced.

There are 3 retail units near me but there are only TWO meters. Why? because the county council connected two premises to the same meter!

Water services at the frontline are being delivered by guys who never got to 2nd-level education.

Overheal

Essexboy I'll have to do some research to verify my previous claim about Quality Standards. I sympathize.

There may already be a European Law in precedent, but I'm not even an amateur of European Law

Stato x wrote: »

But this is the whole point imo

The water is all treated to a drinking standard to start and if its not drinkable at the end point, then the whole process is pointless.
Why would the public pay for water that is only suitable for washing when ,as u pointed out, such water is of massive abundance in this part of the world.

My view is that the system needs to be repaired and maintained properly first and then no one can have a problem in paying for water.

Well, in that example, you don't have to pay for Municipal water, you can always just go off the grid: the shutoff valve is in your driveway. At least it was in mine. Set up some rainbarrels, link em to your gutter system.. hell, add a pump to the barrel you can push it all up into your cistern on the cheap. Just don't drink it.

The problem with 'Maintaining it properly first, billing it second', is that simply did not happen. In fact it was a case of 'stop billing for it, stop properly maintaining it'. I assume when the pipe was laid, or you had the Celtic Tiger or whatever, back when charges already took place, that the system was in repair. Then the people decided they didn't want to pay for such an abundant resource and ultimately this is the result today. Which is why your viewpoint brings us to option a) as I discussed in my last post, which would add millions or more to national and local deficits.

I agree however that the amount of Fluoridation in the Irish municipal water system is debatable. I don't know how much that fluoridation costs but thats one place to find savings to fund the restoration project.

We need some numbers and truthfully outside of Wikipedia I don't know where to find them: The cost of Ireland's Municipal system; the cost to repair it; the proposed fees from metering, and revenue; The cost of current fluoridation (and tangentially, the State's Dental Care expenses for which fluoride is meant to alleviate) ; etc.

I seem to remember from History class that there was once 8 million people living here, and they all had enough water to go round.

And what was the rate of waterborne illness? What was the level of industrialization? What was the subsequent level of environmental pollution? What are the other factors you need to consider?

would have to pay for the losses through leaks.

How? If the meter at your wall says your house received X litres, they're going to charge you for X+Y ? If you receive X litres but used X-Z litres, then the leak is on your property, and one of your own pipes is at fault.

The volume of water is clearly not a problem

Actually it can be. Boil notices in Clare in ~2005 were the result of excessive rainfall, groundwater saturation and surface pollutant runoff from animal pastures and roads, etc.

Stato x

Overheal wrote: »

Well, in that example, you don't have to pay for Municipal water, you can always just go off the grid: the shutoff valve is in your driveway. At least it was in mine. Set up some rainbarrels, link em to your gutter system.. hell, add a pump to the barrel you can push it all up into your cistern on the cheap. Just don't drink it.

How? If the meter at your wall says your house received X litres, they're going to charge you for X+Y ? If you receive X litres but used X-Z litres, then the leak is on your property, and one of your own pipes is at fault.

Actually it can be. Boil notices in Clare in ~2005 were the result of excessive rainfall, groundwater saturation and surface pollutant runoff from animal pastures and roads, etc.

The first point u make is the whole reason why im making the point in the first place. I could do all the obvious things mentioned above and not have drinking water but not "cheap" as u say as storage and pumping costs would drive the price up.
And individuals doing this defeats the whole point of us having a central system for the masses. U just said "stop using it then" and imo this is a really bad way to tackle this problem. Its like turning your back.


Secondly, as I already pointed out, that charges will not be only on usage but on the overall cost of the system. Like standing charges on Esb and Gas. These are charges for the network and leaks will cause a higher cost which will be passed to the end user. Thats how the people pay.

Third your last point about 2005. This shows the problem with leaks in the system and must be addressed.

Corsendonk

Stato x wrote: »

How can people advocate charges on water in this country considering the poor quality of supply and massive leakage and contamination?

Last year in Co. Kildare the co. council used urea instead of salt on the roads which then leaked into the supply. Im sure there is examples of poor water quality all over the country.

Would charging for water not require it to be of a constant standard and also leave the co. council open to legal charges?

I am personally for paying for QUALITY water but at the moment it is just not available in my area(except from lidl which I do pay for).
Also with the current leakage rates which are up to 50% in some regions there is no way I could agree to pay.

Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the whole idea of the water charges is to improve the network and the money is ring fenced for this so you need the charges before you can start improving the infrastructure. We already had a number of warnings from Europe about water quality levels. You could ask John in the EU section for the number of cases against the state. If they don't action them soon Europe starts imposing fines every week. And you only pay at the meter for what you use.

Further Reading
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/index_en.html
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/revision_en.html

Pete_Cavan

Stato x wrote: »

How can people advocate charges on water in this country considering the poor quality of supply and massive leakage and contamination?

Last year in Co. Kildare the co. council used urea instead of salt on the roads which then leaked into the supply. Im sure there is examples of poor water quality all over the country.

Would charging for water not require it to be of a constant standard and also leave the co. council open to legal charges?

I am personally for paying for QUALITY water but at the moment it is just not available in my area(except from lidl which I do pay for).
Also with the current leakage rates which are up to 50% in some regions there is no way I could agree to pay.

Introducing water charges is not something the government came up with since the recession kicked in, it has been on the agenda for more than 10 years. Over the last decade hundreds of thousands of kilometres of watermains have been upgraded with meterbox chambers installed at every house. I work for a civil engineering company who has done a lot of this work so I would say there are very few areas left with leakage rates of up to 50% and if they do exist they will be upgraded soon. In the next two or three weeks we have tenders due for watermain replacement projects in Meath, Mayo, Roscommon, Limerick and two in Dublin (there are also smaller schemes in Donegal, Waterford and Cork which we are not tendering for). My point is that contrary to popular belief the amount of water lost to leaks is actually quite low now (but it was huge not so long ago).

Water charges absolutely must be introduced. Not only because of the huge cost to the state (ie. taxpayer) but also because some people are so wasteful of it. The vast majority of our water is wasted in houses, not in the mains. It is scandalous the amount of water that is literally poured down the drain in this country, much of it unnecessarily so. The government should be incentivising efficient use of water in the same way as they do for efficient heating products. IMO there should be grants for rainwater harvesting systems for non-potable water in the same way as there are grants for solar panels and other renewable heating sources.

Of course the main difficulty with upgrading your water network is due to our awful planning laws. We let people build one off houses everywhere and then the state (again, taxpayers) have to pick up the tab for providing the utilities to houses in the middle of nowhere. By allowing people to built everywhere and not focusing on clustered settlements we have to spread our resources thinly over a bigger area. It is for this reason we have such poor roads/public transport/broadband and why upgrading our water and sewerage network is so slow and expensive. We will always be playing catch up to the rest of Europe.

Anyway, thats the end of my rant.