Water Meters - €500m down the drain??

lyndonjones

Water Charges and Water Meters:


An article by Colm Rapple in the Mail on Sunday [Date Jan 2nd 2011] raises the issue of water meters and begs the question what is more important - metering our usage or fixing the leakages???


Both the Government parties and Fine Gael it seems are committed to this proposal and to the tune of €550m it ain't gonna be cheap.

The Green party claim that by metering water usage we will act more responsibly with our use of the fresh water and this is pretty obvious but as stated by Mr. Rapple however Mr. Gormley admitted that areas in Britain where meters were installed only saw consumption fall by 16% !!! It has been widely reported by various sources that 40% - 50% is lost through mains leakage so what is more important here - Installing meters to create a revenue stream or fixing the mains leakages??


Another point made by Mr. Rapple was the sourcing of the meters, these will come from abroad and as such monies invested in the 1.1 million meters required will flow out of the country, excuse the pun!!

I think the points made are quite valid and IMHO the installation of water meters is purely for revenue/ taxation.

I would like to hear the views of others on this issue and if you read the article by Mr. Rapple are his point valid?

Surely we could invest the €550m on the mains and reduce the leakages to a lower level and then perhaps in the near future consider a flat charge?

If water meters were in use now would you be happy with the level of service you are getting?

gandalf

TBH I agree a more pragmatic approach would be to sort out the leaks before metering is brought in and invest the money in those repairs rather than in meters. If it means a flat rate initially then so be it (however I believe we are being taxed too much for an inefficient PS service anyway!).

If we are being charged for water then we need a service level agreement in place so if we have a situation like we do now where we are without our service for some of (or all of the time) we can claim a rebate back on the amount of time we are without water. If we as the taxpayer are going to be charged then there has to be some sort of standard that the authorities be they the county councils or whoever in future will be responsible for water delivery have to adhere to and penalties if they do not reach those goals.

ParkRunner

It's a chicken and egg question really. We may have to be charged for water initially to finance the upgrading of the water system. It may take a few years but in the long run it would be worth it in my opinion. Waste charges and the plastic bag levy brought about a signficant change in attitude in terms of the protecting the environment and I don't see why metering water would not have the same impact. It could even be outsourced if the right expertise exists out there

syklops

You have to admire the water situation in the North. While, yes, they had similar problems to the Republic over the last few weeks, and continue to have problems, there is a water body who is responsible for the problems. Heads will roll at said body, and at the very least there is someone to direct anger at.

Versus the situation in the south where those responsible can hide behind the inefficiencies of 30+(or more?) county and city councils. No one will resign over it, there is no-one to look to for answers, and probably nothing more will be done about it, just the usual moaning. Then next year, when water is flowing like the springs of ancient Babylon in the 6 counties, the south will have the same problems all over again.

We keep hearing that its a bad idea to privatise state bodies, and that you cant run a country like a business. Well I say we have tried it this way and it isn't working. So we need to try something different.

lyndonjones

EF wrote: »

It's a chicken and egg question really. We may have to be charged for water initially to finance the upgrading of the water system. It may take a few years but in the long run it would be worth it in my opinion. Waste charges and the plastic bag levy brought about a signficant change in attitude in terms of the protecting the environment and I don't see why metering water would not have the same impact. It could even be outsourced if the right expertise exists out there

Have to disagree with you we are already paying for our water service to central government and so this water metering will be IMO double taxation.

Why spend €550 on meters when that money could be spent on the upgrading of the water system, now is the time, costs, in theory, should be lower.

I agree that waste charges brought a change in attitude but I still paid €400 on refuse charges last year and that was increasing year on year, each KG lift was increasing, figure that on out.

I don't think outsourcing is a good option either, a 3rd party is only interested in revenue generation and let's be honest here within this island we don't even have enough expertise to run a bank or government.

What bothers me is that the water meter/ charge will be the thin end of the wedge and once it has been implemented it will be cranked up so that eventually the cost will be astronomical!

Fix the pipes/ leakages and prove that the service is worth paying and MAYBE then introduce a flat rate.

lyndonjones

gandalf wrote: »

TBH I agree a more pragmatic approach would be to sort out the leaks before metering is brought in and invest the money in those repairs rather than in meters. If it means a flat rate initially then so be it (however I believe we are being taxed too much for an inefficient PS service anyway!).

If we are being charged for water then we need a service level agreement in place so if we have a situation like we do now where we are without our service for some of (or all of the time) we can claim a rebate back on the amount of time we are without water. If we as the taxpayer are going to be charged then there has to be some sort of standard that the authorities be they the county councils or whoever in future will be responsible for water delivery have to adhere to and penalties if they do not reach those goals.

If they plough on with the proposal then they very least should be SLA's so the consumer knows what they are getting for their dollar.

I can't see it happening though.

PCPhoto

like everything else the government has tried and in some cases implemented...... they don't actually look at the situation beforehand.

Most of the mains piping in the country is not deep enough and will freeze over - given that we are due to have more colder winters (like we are currently experiencing...another batch of heavy snow and cold temperatures on its way)

so it looks like the government are going to go into the "problem" head first trying to get money from people by implementing the system without considering the pitfalls, will people be compensated if the flow of water is stemmed/stopped/restricted ?
I doubt it.
Why cant we get people with a genuine interest in the country to run the country?

lyndonjones

PCPhoto wrote: »

like everything else the government has tried and in some cases implemented...... they don't actually look at the situation beforehand.

Most of the mains piping in the country is not deep enough and will freeze over - given that we are due to have more colder winters (like we are currently experiencing...another batch of heavy snow and cold temperatures on its way)

so it looks like the government are going to go into the "problem" head first trying to get money from people by implementing the system without considering the pitfalls, will people be compensated if the flow of water is stemmed/stopped/restricted ?
I doubt it.
Why cant we get people with a genuine interest in the country to run the country?

Your point about the mains piping not being deep enough is correct, from the stories we hear of new developments in various parts of the country where the mains pipes are freezing.

The developers, if they are still in the country, should be forced to rectify the problem or be forced to pay fines, if they have the money!!

I am not buying the green argument about this one bit!!

gandalf

lyndonjones wrote: »

If they plough on with the proposal then they very least should be SLA's so the consumer knows what they are getting for their dollar.

I can't see it happening though.

If we don't ask for it then it won't happen. We will have people canvassing for our vote and that is the time to bring up water charges with them. I for one will be making a very clear point to them that if they expect me to pay service charges for water delivery then I expect a standard to that delivery and penalties if that delivery does not hit required levels.

PCPhoto

lyndonjones wrote: »

I don't think outsourcing is a good option either, a 3rd party is only interested in revenue generation and let's be honest here within this island we don't even have enough expertise to run a bank or government.

we do - but in the past our policitians were blinded by greed and shrewd businessmen so the businessmen twisted policies and paid for no accountability.

lyndonjones wrote: »

What bothers me is that the water meter/ charge will be the thin end of the wedge and once it has been implemented it will be cranked up so that eventually the cost will be astronomical!

Fix the pipes/ leakages and prove that the service is worth paying and MAYBE then introduce a flat rate.

exactly !! .... fix the problem first ...create a service that is worth paying then charge appropriately, unfortunately our government can only see "projected" income from the system

ilovesleep

Its clear that saving water is not on the governments agenda. Water charges is a form of another tax.

djpbarry

lyndonjones wrote: »

Have to disagree with you we are already paying for our water service to central government and so this water metering will be IMO double taxation.

Given that maintenance of Ireland’s water infrastructure has been drastically underfunded, does that not suggest that, maybe, more revenue is required to deal with the problem?

lyndonjones wrote: »

Why spend €550 on meters when that money could be spent on the upgrading of the water system...

Great idea! Where does the state get the €550 million from?

lyndonjones wrote: »

I agree that waste charges brought a change in attitude but I still paid €400 on refuse charges last year and that was increasing year on year, each KG lift was increasing, figure that on out.

How much would it cost to dispose of said waste yourself?

lyndonjones wrote: »

What bothers me is that the water meter/ charge will be the thin end of the wedge and once it has been implemented it will be cranked up so that eventually the cost will be astronomical!

Because?

lyndonjones wrote: »

Fix the pipes/ leakages and prove that the service is worth paying and MAYBE then introduce a flat rate.

I see. So, conjure the necessary money from thin air, provide a top-class service and then, maybe, people will be willing to pay for it? Can’t see any flaws in that plan.

dixiefly

I have heard that a huge amount of the water meters that were installed in new houses have frozen during the recent freeze and many are inoperable now. Seems they were installed just over ground. Seemingly, they were sourced outside of this country from a country hotter than this one and are not fit for purpose here.

I wonder did anyone else hear this? Also who will be liable for the faulty meters?

syklops

I don't think outsourcing is a good option either, a 3rd party is only interested in revenue generation and let's be honest here within this island we don't even have enough expertise to run a bank or government.

This is the main argument put forward against out-sourcing, and I can tell you in the private industry, thats not how it works.

Before I go into more detail let me ask you this. If a 3rd party, private company is only interested in revenue generation, what is a state or semi state owned company's sole interest? If a private company is in business to make money, then what is a public service in business for?

Having worked for a number of out-sourced companies in the past, I can tell you that yes while a company such as this is in business to make money, the way in which it makes money is somewhat different, and this is where the SLA or Service Level Agreement comes in. The SLA will state a certain level of service, for example, you must provide water to all homes and business, subject to a nominal fee, even during times of cold weather. If the company manages to stay within the SLA, they get their agreed amount, if not, they lose money. In some SLA's no or a small number of faults in a certain time frame might mean a bonus for the company. So too might recovering from a fault within a certain time frame.

Focus is then switched from making the sale, to making the system work well. keeping it running well, and making sure problems do not occur, or when they do, they are solved quickly and efficiently. This is how an amazing number of companies get their money. Yes they are only interested in revenue, but their revenue stream goes hand in hand with, in this case, clean running water. And if the water stops running, the shareholders and directors wont get paid.

I asked you before if a private company's job is to serve it's self and make money, what is a public service's job. The obvious answer is to provide a service to the public. If that is the case, why does the passport office shut at 4.30 on a Friday and not open until Monday morning, where as Tesco is open 7-days a week?

PCPhoto

syklops wrote: »

If a private company is in business to make money, then what is a public service in business for?

I think that debate has been heard many times...public v private blah blah blah.
if you really want to go there ... why is there so much money wasted in the public run services?

A public service is there to provide a service for the public....it is not a revenue generator.

A private business is there to make profit for its shareholders, owners, Company Directors etc etc

syklops

PCPhoto wrote: »

I think that debate has been heard many times...public v private blah blah blah.
if you really want to go there ... why is there so much money wasted in the public run services?

So much money is wasted in the public service because they are not there to make money, and by make money I also mean conserve money. Money is irrelevant to them. They will still be open for business next year whether they break even on their costs or not.

PCPhoto wrote: »

A public service is there to provide a service for the public....it is not a revenue generator.

A private business is there to make profit for its shareholders, owners, Company Directors etc etc

Did you read the rest of my post? Or did you read the question and then click reply?

Seth Brundle

gandalf wrote: »

If we are being charged for water then we need a service level agreement in place so if we have a situation like we do now where we are without our service for some of (or all of the time) we can claim a rebate back on the amount of time we are without water. If we as the taxpayer are going to be charged then there has to be some sort of standard that the authorities be they the county councils or whoever in future will be responsible for water delivery have to adhere to and penalties if they do not reach those goals.

That sounds like accountability. We don't do that here!

syklops wrote: »

You have to admire the water situation in the North. While, yes, they had similar problems to the Republic over the last few weeks, and continue to have problems, there is a water body who is responsible for the problems. Heads will roll at said body, and at the very least there is someone to direct anger at.

I was with the in-laws in Belfast during this period (and have the beard to show for it). The fuss has largely died down up there and I doubt that anyone's head will roll.

syklops wrote: »

We keep hearing that its a bad idea to privatise state bodies, and that you cant run a country like a business. Well I say we have tried it this way and it isn't working. So we need to try something different.

Setting up a body to carry out work that the system of government should be doing is, to me, pushing the problem away in the same way that our health system is not really owned by anyone - Harney refers all questions to the HSE and the HSE refer questions to Harney and meanwhile the system lies rotting.


With regard to the discussion on SLAs; if you were to take on the contract to supply and charge for water right now, would you be happy to provide an SLA given the state of the infrastructure?

PCPhoto

syklops wrote: »

So much money is wasted in the public service because they are not there to make money, and by make money I also mean conserve money. Money is irrelevant to them. They will still be open for business next year whether they break even on their costs or not.

True - and what we need in our political system and various other systems is accountability - if someone makes mistakes they need to be punished .... so they and others can learn from their mistakes.

syklops wrote: »

Did you read the rest of my post? Or did you read the question and then click reply?

I did - but for some reason my brain wouldn't let me get past the question - just wanted to air my view before I lost my train of thought.

syklops wrote: »

You have to admire the water situation in the North. While, yes, they had similar problems to the Republic over the last few weeks, and continue to have problems, there is a water body who is responsible for the problems. Heads will roll at said body, and at the very least there is someone to direct anger at.

I agree - accountability is the key, but the problem is with our politicians and spindoctors .... we have a head of the HSE .... The minister for Health !!! ...yet when problems arise ...she clearly points the finger at the HSE while the HSE point the finger at her department .... so people don't know who is at fault....and who to blame.

Proper accountability seems to be the way forward - in all sectors....regulation is only part of the solution.

syklops

kbannon wrote: »

Setting up a body to carry out work that the system of government should be doing is, to me, pushing the problem away in the same way that our health system is not really owned by anyone - Harney refers all questions to the HSE and the HSE refer questions to Harney and meanwhile the system lies rotting.

I didn't say setting up a body. You are right, that would give us another HSE. I want to put it out to tender. Not just to Irish companies, to European. Maybe even further a field. We are not the only country in the world with pipes in the ground.

kbannon wrote: »

With regard to the discussion on SLAs; if you were to take on the contract to supply and charge for water right now, would you be happy to provide an SLA given the state of the infrastructure?

Yes I would. Obviously there would be provisos in the contract pertaining to the poor infrastructure that is currently in place, and agreements made with the various planning authorities, and clauses stating that the company is not liable for delays caused by state bodes etc etc. With a bit of capital behind me I absolutely would take it on.

lyndonjones

djpbarry wrote: »

Given that maintenance of Ireland’s water infrastructure has been drastically underfunded, does that not suggest that, maybe, more revenue is required to deal with the problem?

Why has it been drastically underfunded?? Some one/ party leave the ball drop on this or hoping it would go away. So proper maintenance of our water works would have made sense but no let's leave it build up to a massive issue, a massive €550M issue.

djpbarry wrote: »

Great idea! Where does the state get the €550 million from?

The governments proposal is to take the money form the National pension reserve fund.
So there is your answer, so we pay for the investment and then pay for the service, double whammy!

djpbarry wrote: »

I see. So, conjure the necessary money from thin air, provide a top-class service and then, maybe, people will be willing to pay for it? Can’t see any flaws in that plan.

So we stump money up first and hope for a top-class service? Is that your plan?


Don't forget that the water meters won't even be sourced here so more revenue flowing out of the economy.

wes

The problem will be that, we will be charged for water, and we will probably see the exact same poor level of service. This just seems to be the way things are done here. I have no issues paying taxes etc if I get my money worth, but as it stands, I don't get my moneys worth for taxes, and I don't see water charges being any different.

Overheal

lyndonjones wrote: »

Your point about the mains piping not being deep enough is correct, from the stories we hear of new developments in various parts of the country where the mains pipes are freezing.

The developers, if they are still in the country, should be forced to rectify the problem or be forced to pay fines, if they have the money!!

I am not buying the green argument about this one bit!!

Hadnt heard about this issue, that's fairly shocking,

lyndonjones wrote: »

Why has it been drastically underfunded?? Some one/ party leave the ball drop on this or hoping it would go away. So proper maintenance of our water works would have made sense but no let's leave it build up to a massive issue, a massive €550M issue.

But the reason for that, and the Development Mains, is as another poster already put it: There is no Central Authority on the country's water. After all who would regulate the building code for those pipes? Who would actually follow in behind the Developer and know to say "Hey dipshyte, these pipes are too shallow".

Similarly if the responsibility for operating the water system (not even regulating its construction, or if it does, very mishapenly) and appropriating funds and payroll and technicians and materials, seems to be left to the County Councils at the moment, whom seem to be failing miserably.

I support the metering and improvement plan but whats going to become of the administration for the system? Is a central authority going to be established or not?

The governments proposal is to take the money form the National pension reserve fund.
So there is your answer, so we pay for the investment and then pay for the service, double whammy!

Money will, hopefully, flow right back in the reserve fund before long. You can likely view it as a loan from the PRF to kickstart the changes to the water system.

So we stump money up first and hope for a top-class service? Is that your plan?


Don't forget that the water meters won't even be sourced here so more revenue flowing out of the economy.

You havent had water metering in the country for a long time. Who in Ireland has the expertise or manufacturing ability to produce these million or more meters? Did any company, hearing the announcements for a future metering system several years ago think to themselves "boy, we better drum up a way to build those meters if the govt ever does this so we can win the contract"?

gandalf

wes wrote: »

The problem will be that, we will be charged for water, and we will probably see the exact same poor level of service. This just seems to be the way things are done here. I have no issues paying taxes etc if I get my money worth, but as it stands, I don't get my moneys worth for taxes, and I don't see water charges being any different.

This is the heart of the problem in this country. I am in complete agreement here, if we pay a water tax I do not honestly see any hope that the situation will change at all.

Unless this tax is accompanied by a clear commitment to improve the system and to implement service level agreements with proper responsibility by the delivering authorities with clear consequences for non-delivery both for consumers and providers then I do not agree with having this additional tax imposed on me and my family.

ei.sdraob

If anyone here is actually foolish enough to believe that a cent of water taxes will actually go to improve the water infrastructure, here I have a candy for you.
Face it we will endup with another tax that we can thank the Greens for that would not be used for the purpose its brought in.

oscarBravo

lyndonjones wrote: »

Have to disagree with you we are already paying for our water service to central government and so this water metering will be IMO double taxation.

"Double taxation" is a phrase that annoys the living hell out of me.

We're paying for our water services out of central revenue because we're currently not paying for it at the point of usage. If we pay for it through metering, then we won't be paying for it out of central revenue anymore.

Analogy: suppose all rail journeys were originally free, paid for by central government. Then a change was proposed so that passengers had to pay for tickets, so that the cost of providing rail transport was borne in proportion by the people who used it most. Would that be "double taxation"?

Are you suggesting that the money that currently goes from central revenue to pay for the provision of free water to your house will still be used to pay for the provision of water to your house, even though you'll be paying directly for the provision of water to your house?

djpbarry

lyndonjones wrote: »

Why has it been drastically underfunded??

Because, in my opinion, it hasn’t been paid for directly by the end user, meaning that central revenue has been stretched to try and meet the cost but has come up way short. That and the fact that people are using way more water now than they were in the past.

lyndonjones wrote: »

Some one/ party leave the ball drop on this or hoping it would go away. So proper maintenance of our water works would have made sense but no let's leave it build up to a massive issue, a massive €550M issue.

Well, yeah, because people don’t want to pay for their water. And until that changes, the issue is not going to go away.

lyndonjones wrote: »

The governments proposal is to take the money form the National pension reserve fund.
So there is your answer, so we pay for the investment and then pay for the service, double whammy!

Yes. Taxpayers pay what they should have been paying in the past to cover the cost of maintenance and provision to modernise the distribution system, then they pay for maintenance and provision going forward. Who else is going to pay for it?

lyndonjones wrote: »

So we stump money up first and hope for a top-class service? Is that your plan?

No, consumers “stump up” and then ensure they get value for money. If they are not getting value for money, they are quite entitled to know why and insist that the necessary changes be made.

wes wrote: »

I have no issues paying taxes etc if I get my money worth, but as it stands, I don't get my moneys worth for taxes...

By what measure of “worth”?

Pete_Cavan

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. AFAIK there is an EU directive and we must improve the quality of our drinking water to comply with it. The situation with leaks is the network is not as bad as it is made out to be, people exaggerate these things. 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 and there are some large projects out for tender at the minute.

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. They should also update the Building Regs to include rainwater harvesting in all new houses, if this was widespread it would also help to alleviate flooding as there would be less storm water run off which ends up in a river or lake.

Personally, I would be in favour of introducing a flat rate charge to every house to fund installing the meters etc. and getting our drinking water up to standard. Once this is done the charge should be for usage. Whatever way it happens I firmly believe that some form of water charges absolutely must be introduced. Any money raised from water charges should be ringfenced and be spent on improving the quality of our water.

gandalf wrote: »

If we as the taxpayer are going to be charged then there has to be some sort of standard that the authorities be they the county councils or whoever in future will be responsible for water delivery have to adhere to and penalties if they do not reach those goals.

The main problem we have when upgrading our infrastructure is that we have so many local authorities responsible for different parts of the network. The same lack of cohesion that is prevalent in all areas of Irish public services. I read through Fine Geals NewEra plan and I really liked the idea they had of having one national authority responsible for our water. County Councils are so inefficient and by having one authority they do twice as much with the same budget.

PCPhoto wrote: »

Most of the mains piping in the country is not deep enough and will freeze over - given that we are due to have more colder winters (like we are currently experiencing...another batch of heavy snow and cold temperatures on its way)

Not true, the water mains themselves have to be a minimum of 1.5m below ground and we would need arctic conditions for the frost to penetrate that deep. The freeze is in our connection, between our house and the water main. Also another problem is the water meter boxes, ironically. The pipe is not as protected in the box so it is liable to freeze there. If they had any sense they would specify insulated boxes going forward, but I cant see that happening. If we are going to have more cold winters they should really use insulated pipes as the standard as they do in other countries where they have colder weather but never any freezing pipes.

lyndonjones

oscarBravo wrote: »

"Double taxation" is a phrase that annoys the living hell out of me.

We're paying for our water services out of central revenue because we're currently not paying for it at the point of usage. If we pay for it through metering, then we won't be paying for it out of central revenue anymore.

Analogy: suppose all rail journeys were originally free, paid for by central government. Then a change was proposed so that passengers had to pay for tickets, so that the cost of providing rail transport was borne in proportion by the people who used it most. Would that be "double taxation"?

Are you suggesting that the money that currently goes from central revenue to pay for the provision of free water to your house will still be used to pay for the provision of water to your house, even though you'll be paying directly for the provision of water to your house?

No I am not suggesting this but where will the money that goes to central revenue go to?

You agree with your argument above that if we pay through metering or a flat rate and it continues to be paid through central revenue then we are paying double taxation.

Also how can you say we are being provided with free water when monies are central revenue (TAX) is being used to pay for it!!

oscarBravo

lyndonjones wrote: »

No I am not suggesting this but where will the money that goes to central revenue go to?

Hospitals. Schools. Whatever. Places it's not currently going because it's being spent on the provision of water.

You agree with your argument above that if we pay through metering or a flat rate and it continues to be paid through central revenue then we are paying double taxation.

If the same proportion of the taxes I currently pay continue to be spent on the provision of water, then yes: that would be double taxation.

However, why would that happen? Why would central revenue be spent on the provision of water, when the provision of water was being paid for at source?

In the analogy I described, are you suggesting that once people started paying train fares, the exchequer would also continue to pay those same fares?

Also how can you say we are being provided with free water when monies are central revenue (TAX) is being used to pay for it!!

How much money did you pay for food last year? How much for petrol? How much for electricity? How much for tapwater?

lyndonjones

djpbarry wrote: »

Because, in my opinion, it hasn’t been paid for directly by the end user, meaning that central revenue has been stretched to try and meet the cost but has come up way short. That and the fact that people are using way more water now than they were in the past.
Well, yeah, because people don’t want to pay for their water. And until that changes, the issue is not going to go away.
Yes. Taxpayers pay what they should have been paying in the past to cover the cost of maintenance and provision to modernise the distribution system, then they pay for maintenance and provision going forward. Who else is going to pay for it?
No, consumers “stump up” and then ensure they get value for money. If they are not getting value for money, they are quite entitled to know why and insist that the necessary changes be made.

And do you think the necessary changes will be made? This is Ireland for goodness sake, as stated by a poster earlier in the discussion a SLA would need to be defined and implemented and also a Water Regulator appointed.

djpbarry

lyndonjones wrote: »

No I am not suggesting this but where will the money that goes to central revenue go to?

Elsewhere? Despite popular belief, Irish residents do not pay particularly high levels of tax.

lyndonjones wrote: »

You agree with your argument above that if we pay through metering or a flat rate and it continues to be paid through central revenue then we are paying double taxation.

Dude – the water infrastructure in Ireland is suffering from years of underinvestment. The users of said water will need to pay for said infrastructure to be upgraded. Whether that money comes from central revenue or a separate water charge is pretty irrelevant. The point is that, at present, the money is not there to do the necessary work.

lyndonjones wrote: »

Also how can you say we are being provided with free water when monies are central revenue (TAX) is being used to pay for it!!

Not enough is being used to pay for it, quite clearly. Hence the need for an additional charge to cover the shortfall.

djpbarry

lyndonjones wrote: »

And do you think the necessary changes will be made?

Only if people demand same from their representatives.

lyndonjones wrote: »

This is Ireland for goodness sake, as stated by a poster earlier in the discussion a SLA would need to be defined and implemented and also a Water Regulator appointed.

So outline the above when canvassers come knocking on your door in the run-up to the general election.

i57dwun4yb1pt8

no problem paying for water if

1/ it is not turned off in winter
2/ they stop putting flouride in it
3/ they reduce the chlorine as much as possbile
4/ they publish quaterly independent quality reviews online

if they want us to pay , they need to meet the standards of a service first.

wes

djpbarry wrote: »

By what measure of “worth”?

Thats a good question, and something that would need to established. For example with the water infrastructure, some sort of agreed metrics, between the customer and government, as to what level of service can be expected would be great. Right now we have no real way to measure the level of service we receive in general, and all I have is a general perception of the government not doing its job right.

Manach

djpbarry wrote: »

Elsewhere? Despite popular belief, Irish residents do not pay particularly high levels of tax.

Whilst I'm naturally skeptical about that, the following link does support your claim. http://www.photius.com/rankings/tax_burden_country_ranks_2009.html

lyndonjones

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hospitals. Schools. Whatever. Places it's not currently going because it's being spent on the provision of water. If the same proportion of the taxes I currently pay continue to be spent on the provision of water, then yes: that would be double taxation.

However, why would that happen? Why would central revenue be spent on the provision of water, when the provision of water was being paid for at source?

In the analogy I described, are you suggesting that once people started paying train fares, the exchequer would also continue to pay those same fares? How much money did you pay for food last year? How much for petrol? How much for electricity? How much for tapwater?

As you stated a portion of Taxation collected went to provision of "so-called" free water so yes I have paid for the provision of tap water.

How much did I pay on...

Food - Too much with VAT increase
Petrol - Too much with Carbon Tax increase
Electricity - Again too much

I mentioned that I would be in agreement, to a degree, if a flat rate for water usage was implemented but this revenue would not be ring fenced for water supply orientated projects so we might never see improvements on the water supply service.

lyndonjones

djpbarry wrote: »

Only if people demand same from their representatives.
So outline the above when canvassers come knocking on your door in the run-up to the general election.

Don't worry I will but as we all know when power is achieved those points "taken on board" at the door step by the canvassers are forgotten about!

nuac

Domestic water should be metered and paid for, with appropriate allowances for minimum quantities and those unable to pay.

djpbarry

lyndonjones wrote: »

As you stated a portion of Taxation collected went to provision of "so-called" free water so yes I have paid for the provision of tap water.

But you, and everyone else, have not paid enough to cover the cost of providing said water and maintaining the infrastructure.

lyndonjones wrote: »

Don't worry I will but as we all know when power is achieved those points "taken on board" at the door step by the canvassers are forgotten about!

Make sure they don’t forget.

lyndonjones

djpbarry wrote: »

But you, and everyone else, have not paid enough to cover the cost of providing said water and maintaining the infrastructure.
Make sure they don’t forget.

Don't worry I won't but as you know all promises are just lip service

oscarBravo

lyndonjones wrote: »

As you stated a portion of Taxation collected went to provision of "so-called" free water so yes I have paid for the provision of tap water.

How much did I pay on...

Food - Too much with VAT increase
Petrol - Too much with Carbon Tax increase
Electricity - Again too much

You're carefully and deliberately avoiding my point.

You pay for food when you buy it in a shop. You pay for petrol when you pump it into your car. You pay for electricity when the bill arrives every two months. When did you last get a bill for water?

I mentioned that I would be in agreement, to a degree, if a flat rate for water usage was implemented but this revenue would not be ring fenced for water supply orientated projects so we might never see improvements on the water supply service.

The only possible way to ring-fence monies paid for water is to charge for its usage. All tax collected must, by law, be paid into central exchequer funding to be disbursed according to the government's wishes. This isn't true of the money you pay for electricity (and wasn't, even when there was a state-owned monopoly).

The only possible way to ring-fence funds for re-investment in water supply is to charge directly for the use of that water in the first place.

As for a flat rate: I live with one other person in a house that doesn't have a hosepipe. My next door neighbour has seven kids and a garden hose. Why should we both pay the same amount for water?

Where's the incentive not to squander precious treated water if there's a flat rate charge? If there was a flat rate charge for electricity, how many people do you think would turn their lights off?

snoop09

can anyone give me the specs for water meter installation,

i.e how far down in the ground they should me, is it 300mm?

i looked up doelg website and can't find anything

Thanks

flutered

vast areas of this country has water meters, also most of the country has water rates, so how about equality for all, also the water distrbution systm requires serious upgradeing, anyone who has holidayed in lanzrote should know the value of water.

galwayrush

I live in a country area, where it costs aprox €1500 to build a water tank, won't take too long for that to pay for it's self.A local farmer, he has quite a large number of cattle and horses had a bill of €3700 for 3 months supply, he is now boring his own well at a cost of approx €10000, as a result he will save a small fortune in a short period of time.
Lots of people in the country areas will be telling the water suppliers to feck off with their metered charges.

Dannyboy83

OP,

Your mistake is that you are attempting to apply common sense to the policies of this government.

You are expecting a service to be delivered, when this is nothing more than a money grabbing exercise.

Macha

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

OP,

Your mistake is that you are attempting to apply common sense to the policies of this government.

You are expecting a service to be delivered, when this is nothing more than a money grabbing exercise.

A strange point of view, considering the service is being delivered. The issue is that we are not currently paying for it.

Dannyboy83

Macha wrote: »

A strange point of view, considering the service is being delivered. The issue is that we are not currently paying for it.

We already pay for the currently delivered services to the Central Government, through taxation, all goes into the exchequer.

There is no new service being delivered here.
Simply a money grab.

Macha

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

We already pay for the currently delivered services to the Central Government, through taxation, all goes into the exchequer.

There is no new service being delivered here.
Simply a money grab.

Given that our deficit for 2010 alone was €18.74 billion, it's quite easy to see that we aren't actually paying enough to cover the costs of government, which includes providing drinking water to residences free of charge.

mickc009

are there any ways of reducing the amount of water we use? iwas recently cut off due to weather and it took about 7 litres for the average flush- i have heard if its yellow let it mellow etc... but what about using rainwater. Can you connect a waterbut to your cistern- obviously i like big butts and i cannot lie!

Pete_Cavan

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

We already pay for the currently delivered services to the Central Government, through taxation, all goes into the exchequer.

There is no new service being delivered here.
Simply a money grab.

The problem is we are not paying for water directly and paying through general taxation means there is no incentive to conserve water. Paying directly for water will mean people are less likely to waste it, which will also reduce the cost of providing the service.

Also, unless something is done water consumption will increase which would mean we have to build more infrastructure. If this is paid for by Central Government the opportunity cost is other services Central Government should be providing, such as hospital and schools. If consumption remains constant or decreases we only have to maintain existing infrastructure which would be much cheaper than building new reservoirs, pumping stations, etc.

mickc009 wrote: »

are there any ways of reducing the amount of water we use? iwas recently cut off due to weather and it took about 7 litres for the average flush- i have heard if its yellow let it mellow etc... but what about using rainwater. Can you connect a waterbut to your cistern- obviously i like big butts and i cannot lie!

Flushing perfectly clean water down the toilet is a waste of what is a valuable resource. You can get a rainwater harvesting system installed but it would be quite expensive to retrofit.

As I said in post #27, IMO there should be grants for installing rainwater harvesting systems for non-potable water in the same way as there are grants for solar panels and other renewable heating sources. They should also update the Building Regs to include rainwater harvesting in all new houses, if this was widespread it would also help to alleviate flooding as there would be less storm water run off which ends up in a river or lake.

Macha

mickc009 wrote: »

are there any ways of reducing the amount of water we use? iwas recently cut off due to weather and it took about 7 litres for the average flush- i have heard if its yellow let it mellow etc... but what about using rainwater. Can you connect a waterbut to your cistern- obviously i like big butts and i cannot lie!

The best method I know is the simple installation of one of these:



They also come in white, which looks much better.

You simply press the button as soon as you judge that enough water has been flushed through the system, cutting off the flow. It's easy to install, simple to use and flexible (and no I don't own shares)

Apologies if this is off topic a bit.