Water metering New Taxes and selling of state assets

ISAW

Rarely do I cange my opinion. Yesterday on george Hooks radio show I think ther was a guy on talking about State assest being privatizing. He mintioned England france and Germany in particular with reference to Water and how private firms make loads of money on this.

Now my position has always been that people probably should pay for water by useage to prevent waste. I object to meters being used ( they can be installed but not used) until all the leaky mains are fixed and half the water isnt wasted in thy system.

Here is where this guy got me thinking though. Private companies make profits and if they lose revenue have to make it back. Suppose people use a million gallons of water and the company charges a dollar a gallon. They make a million dollars and that pays for their services. Now suppose we all get meters and they encourage us to cut back on water use. We all cut back by 50 percent. So now only half a million gallons are used. But they still need a million dollars to pay last years staff. What do they do? they charge TWO dollars a gallon to make their million back.

Basically the guy said that the stats show that if water is used less the price goes up!

I can think of a few ways around this i.e. I have a solution but the stats seem to show that those who use more water push the price down and those who use less push the unit price up! Ironic. So what is your solution?

DrumSteve

How about having the state set the price and reap the profits?

ei.sdraob

DrumSteve wrote: »

How about having the state set the price and reap the profits?

That works great in the electricity sector

Sulmac

The new government doesn't want to privatise the water supply. They're planning to combine all 34 local authorities' water departments into a single state-owned "Irish Water" company (like they did in Scotland).

wes

I think stuff like water should never really be privatised. Its not the sort of thing we want a company ripping people off for.

20Cent

Water and energy are two things we should be using less of. Don't see how privatising these suppliers will encourage that.

Einhard

Is water being privatised, or is it just that charges are going to be imposed? There's a pretty big difference.

joulter

Einhard wrote: »

Is water being privatised, or is it just that charges are going to be imposed? There's a pretty big difference.

just water charges, and the charges are to be used to upgrade the water system

Overheal

ISAW wrote: »

Here is where this guy got me thinking though. Private companies make profits and if they lose revenue have to make it back. Suppose people use a million gallons of water and the company charges a dollar a gallon. They make a million dollars and that pays for their services. Now suppose we all get meters and they encourage us to cut back on water use. We all cut back by 50 percent. So now only half a million gallons are used. But they still need a million dollars to pay last years staff. What do they do? they charge TWO dollars a gallon to make their million back.

Well now you've got me thinking, and Im one of the guys who thinks you should meter and you need to do it before the problems get fixed (unfortunately) not after. The meters will expedite the repairs, in theory.

But you're right: that's basically what the Irish Government did with taxes on Cigarettes. Started small and got very big as more and more people stopped affording cigarettes or cut back on them. I'm sure you can think of a handful of people who quit them over the cost. It became a bit of a landslide, it seemed like the taxes from it were relied on too much.

So there is the potential for it to happen with water but water is not a luxury item like cigarettes are (despite how addicted you may be to them). You aren't likely looking at the same model, with regard to water. I imagine in the first while, consumption will drop dramatically but it will eventually level out. Which in itself may alleviate some of the pressure on the infrastructure.

I guess your worries center around how smart the government is in gauging how much revenue the new system will generate. If they base it off projections and not the initial figures they should be alright.

Victor

ISAW wrote: »

Here is where this guy got me thinking though. Private companies make profits and if they lose revenue have to make it back. Suppose people use a million gallons of water and the company charges a dollar a gallon. They make a million dollars and that pays for their services. Now suppose we all get meters and they encourage us to cut back on water use. We all cut back by 50 percent. So now only half a million gallons are used. But they still need a million dollars to pay last years staff. What do they do? they charge TWO dollars a gallon to make their million back.

The mistake you are making is thinking that the company is still producing the water for the same price.

There are two major factors is supplying water (a) the permanent infrastructure, primarily water processing plants, storage and the transmission/distribution networks and (b) the marginal cost of supplying the water (treatment and pumping).

If demand drops from X to 0.5X, then the permanent infrastructure still needs to be paid for, but the cost of supply will drop. It won't necessarily be to half the previous cost because of various factors, including that some supplies are cheaper than others.

This is exactly the same as the electricity and gas industries where you pay a standing charge for the supply and billing and a marginal charge for the energy supplied.

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

Here is where this guy got me thinking though. Private companies make profits and if they lose revenue have to make it back. Suppose people use a million gallons of water and the company charges a dollar a gallon. They make a million dollars and that pays for their services. Now suppose we all get meters and they encourage us to cut back on water use. We all cut back by 50 percent. So now only half a million gallons are used. But they still need a million dollars to pay last years staff. What do they do? they charge TWO dollars a gallon to make their million back.

Basically the guy said that the stats show that if water is used less the price goes up!

I can think of a few ways around this i.e. I have a solution but the stats seem to show that those who use more water push the price down and those who use less push the unit price up! Ironic. So what is your solution?

Deja vu.
Do you remember the deal for the incinerator in Dublin port?

aftermn

Would it be possible for the state to maintain the transmission system and for private suppliers to supply into it as in the electricity system.

Supplies into the system would be monitored at entry to ensure confirmity with standards. They would be paid by the users of that supplier, as with the current electricity system.

The transmission system needs major investment, but it could be paid for through a small levy on all water. Not beyond the imagination of man, I would hope.

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

Well now you've got me thinking, and Im one of the guys who thinks you should meter and you need to do it before the problems get fixed (unfortunately) not after. The meters will expedite the repairs, in theory.

But you're right: that's basically what the Irish Government did with taxes on Cigarettes. Started small and got very big as more and more people stopped affording cigarettes or cut back on them. I'm sure you can think of a handful of people who quit them over the cost. It became a bit of a landslide, it seemed like the taxes from it were relied on too much.

So there is the potential for it to happen with water but water is not a luxury item like cigarettes are (despite how addicted you may be to them). You aren't likely looking at the same model, with regard to water. I imagine in the first while, consumption will drop dramatically but it will eventually level out. Which in itself may alleviate some of the pressure on the infrastructure.

I guess your worries center around how smart the government is in gauging how much revenue the new system will generate. If they base it off projections and not the initial figures they should be alright.

To be fair, cigarettes aren't a good example, because the intention is not to get your to reduce cigarette wastage, but to make smoking prohibitively expensive over time - the reason for taking it slowly being that making it suddenly prohibitively expensive is the equivalent of prohibition, and simply makes the smoker move over to criminal supply.

Water is more like fuel - and we have seen how much political damage you can suffer over a fuel price hike.

Assuming we have an uncharged allowance for water, then the aim of a privatised water company will actually be to hit the sweet spot in terms of price that maximises their profits. That will be a balance of keeping the price up in order to make supplying water profitable in the first place, and keeping it down in order to encourage you to use more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

ei.sdraob wrote: »

That works great in the electricity sector

Are you being ironic/sarcastic? The ESB have subsidised restaurants, fat pensions, sports clubs, and a whole host of other benefits paid for out of State funds i.e. taxpayers. It works great if you work for the ESB and especially in the higher echelons.

Overheal

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, cigarettes aren't a good example, because the intention is not to get your to reduce cigarette wastage, but to make smoking prohibitively expensive over time - the reason for taking it slowly being that making it suddenly prohibitively expensive is the equivalent of prohibition, and simply makes the smoker move over to criminal supply.

Water is more like fuel - and we have seen how much political damage you can suffer over a fuel price hike.

Assuming we have an uncharged allowance for water, then the aim of a privatised water company will actually be to hit the sweet spot in terms of price that maximises their profits. That will be a balance of keeping the price up in order to make supplying water profitable in the first place, and keeping it down in order to encourage you to use more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No I agree you're talking about a Necessity and a Luxury Good. They simply shouldn't under normal circumstances follow the same lanes of economic thought. But the question asked is the gov't competent enough to regard it as such. I'm hoping the answer is "Yes" but you know, you never know.

ISAW

Victor wrote: »

The mistake you are making is thing that the company is still producing the water for the same price.

Where did I say it wasn't?

If demand drops from X to 0.5X, then the permanent infrastructure still needs to be paid for, but the cost of supply will drop. It won't necessarily be to half the previous cost because of various factors, including that some supplies are cheaper than others.

You already stated supply is minimal and maintainance is the lions share. If demand drops to 0.5 x and x is the revenue made per gallon then the company has 50 % of the money they had last year. what do they do ? They increase price to 2x so they have x revenue again.

This is exactly the same as the electricity and gas industries where you pay a standing charge for the supply and billing and a marginal charge for the energy supplied.

No it isn't! If everyone just paid for connection and used no water the company would have next to no revenue and the price would be more like 200x than 2x. If everyone refused to use gas or electricity they would just shut down power or stop pumping gas and then when demand came back they would not have to charge 200 times the price price the supply element of the cost is much higher than in water. In gas you are using up a resource that is finite. with water it falls from the sky.

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote: »

Water is more like fuel - and we have seen how much political damage you can suffer over a fuel price hike.

I partially agree. But the supply cost is larger in the fuel case since we havce to pay for gas or oil. water falls from the sky. If there is no useage the storage and treatment is minimal and the supply cost even less. Raw material is zero. Oil costs money to drill transport refine and distribute. Water treatment isn't in that league i would guess. i could be worng but I don't think so.

SkepticOne

ISAW wrote: »

I can think of a few ways around this i.e. I have a solution but the stats seem to show that those who use more water push the price down and those who use less push the unit price up! Ironic. So what is your solution?

It is not a normal market because you have a fixed and expensive distribution network but the unit cost of production of water is low. What we want is a system where the distributor of water to the home is incentivised to make the best use of the network and pass on the savings to the consumer.

Therefore two things:
1. Supply of water to the distributor is made artificially expensive (a subsidy can be applied at the consumer level to compensate for this).
2. Companies compete by bidding for contracts where they stipulate in advance what price they are going to charge to the consumer. They can't simply up the price just to maintain profit as and when they feel the need.

As far as the distribution company is concerned, they are still trying to sell as much water as they can to the consumer but it is in their interest to maintain their network as (to them) water is not a cheap commodity. The extra money that is generated from the primary production of water is then transferred as a subsidy to the consumer.

Note that the goal here isn't to limit the use of water by the consumer but rather to deliver better value. If the consumers use a lot of water, prices will still come down (this is your original problem) but the amount by which prices come down will be less since, from the distributors point of view, fixed distribution costs are a lower proportion of overall costs.

They may even rise if companies believe it is in their interest to build new infrastructure to cope with the increased demand. Which is what you want. This becomes possible if water is considered by them to be a valuable commodity rather than a cheap one as it is now.

Note that there should not be an overall increase to the consumer by all of this if subsidies are correctly applied.

Victor

aftermn wrote: »

Would it be possible for the state to maintain the transmission system and for private suppliers to supply into it as in the electricity system.

I'm not sure if that is meaningful. The places for big savings are in more efficient use, e.g. direct domestic / commercial use of rainwater, more efficient toilets, recycling water in car washes, re-using treated sewage water (used in Poolbeg as cooling water for the power stations) and cutting wastage.

Electricity is much more generic than water and easier to transmit. Anyone can supply water, but is it suitable for drinking purposes? Many urban / industrial users will only have a few meaningful supplies. Dublin has Pollaphuca, Leixlip, Bohernabreena and Vartry. While there is a suggestion for extracting water from the Shannon, there aren't many options for private suppliers to join in locally - it would be very hard to create a cost-effective source of a meaningful size.

ISAW wrote: »

You already stated supply is minimal and maintainance is the lions share.

No, I referred to marginal cost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost

If demand drops to 0.5 x and x is the revenue made per gallon then the company has 50 % of the money they had last year. what do they do ? They increase price to 2x so they have x revenue again.

Let us say a user is charged €200 per year for the connection (I have no idea if this would be accurate) + €1 per m3 and uses 300m3/year, a total of €500/year. Let us say the company make a 10% profit. If they cut their usage to 150m3 per year they will still pay €200 per year for the connection + €1 per m3, a total of €350/year. The company still makes a ~10%* profit, albeit on a smaller turnover. This is not particularly different to the electricity or gas situation.

No it isn't! If everyone just paid for connection and used no water the company would have next to no revenue and the price would be more like 200x than 2x.

There would still be the connection income. In any case, people will still continue to use water and I don't imagine the total used by an entire city/county/catchment area radically changing from year to year.

If everyone refused to use gas or electricity they would just shut down power or stop pumping gas and then when demand came back they would not have to charge 200 times the price price the supply element of the cost is much higher than in water.

But people use a lot more water than gas. Moreover, you are being unrealistic in your assertions.

In gas you are using up a resource that is finite. with water it falls from the sky.

Sure water falls from the sky, but drinkable water is a whole other matter. Drinkable water costs money.


* Remember that some water resources will cost more than others, e.g. water from a peaty area may need the pH adjusted at extra cost. If that source isn't used, then the suppliers costs will fall.

donkey balls

ISAW wrote: »

Are you being ironic/sarcastic? The ESB have subsidised restaurants, fat pensions, sports clubs, and a whole host of other benefits paid for out of State funds i.e. taxpayers. It works great if you work for the ESB and especially in the higher echelons.

Sports clubs:eek:and other benefits I have friends that work there and they dont have any other benefits bar a subsidised canteen which most private companies have,As for tax payers money the govt dont pay the ESB anything it's the other way around.

SkepticOne

Victor wrote: »

Sure water falls from the sky, but drinkable water is a whole other matter. Drinkable water costs money.

Are there any figures for the average cost of production of drinkable water vs. the average cost of delivering it to the home? The sort of problems ISAW mentions suggests that in general it is the latter delivery cost in Ireland that is high in comparison to production costs.

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Are there any figures for the average cost of production of drinkable water vs. the average cost of delivering it to the home? The sort of problems ISAW mentions suggests that in general it is the latter delivery cost in Ireland that is high in comparison to production costs.

Something to chew on, at least: http://www.wfdireland.ie/Documents/Characterisation%20Report/Chapter%205/Chapter%205%20-%20Economic%20Analysis%20of%20Water%20Use%202005%20v2.doc

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Victor wrote: »

Let us say a user is charged €200 per year for the connection (I have no idea if this would be accurate) + €1 per m3 and uses 300m3/year, a total of €500/year. Let us say the company make a 10% profit.

It costs about a tenth of a cent a liter or a Euro per cubic meter in France yes.
so above €200 connection ( it is nothing like that and the standing charge is like €10 a year) But I am quoting Brittany which has lots of rain.

http://www.eau-international-france.fr/article.php3?id_article=203&idRubSel=2&id_parent=&id_rubrique=206&id_pere=

Average Bill €320 Fixed part €50

anyway your example:

Say 50 charge plus 450 cubic metres at 450 Euro = €500
If they make ~10% profit the service costs them €450 per average user and they make 50 profit out of the 500 they take in minus the 450 costs.

If they cut their usage to 150m3 per year they will still pay €200 per year for the connection + €1 per m3, a total of €350/year. The company still makes a ~10%* profit, albeit on a smaller turnover. This is not particularly different to the electricity or gas situation.

Lets say 50 + 300 metres cubed at 300 = €350
Minus the 450 costs
This is a loss of €100 ~20to 25% loss not a ten per cent profit!

There would still be the connection income.

Which is once off and pays for the connection.

In any case, people will still continue to use water and I don't imagine the total used by an entire city/county/catchment area radically changing from year to year.

But this is the con. The price is always going up and the company making profit. If you use less water the price goes up even more! It is a big company coming in to town using lots of water that drives the price down. the more you waste the cheaper per gallon it will get because the company only has to get what they need plus profit and it has nothing to do with useage.

But people use a lot more water than gas. Moreover, you are being unrealistic in your assertions.

How?

Sure water falls from the sky, but drinkable water is a whole other matter. Drinkable water costs money.

Yes a tenth of a cent a liter. But people still buy it bottled for a Euro a liter. Water costs nothing like oil to produce and transport.

* Remember that some water resources will cost more than others, e.g. water from a peaty area may need the pH adjusted at extra cost. If that source isn't used, then the suppliers costs will fall.

So what if some places in France charge €3.60 a liter? If you only use half as much how will you stop then doubling the unit cost?

donkey balls wrote: »

Sports clubs:eek:and other benefits I have friends that work there and they dont have any other benefits bar a subsidised canteen which most private companies have,As for tax payers money the govt don't pay the ESB anything it's the other way around.

Private companies pay for that. the ESB has state land. Ha e you asked your friend about his pension? Have you asked him about the silver service restaurant at the end of the canteen? How about the Waiter service roof Restaurant with private lift access from the basement with its own chef? Or the private dining room for the CEO and Chairman? Where does your friend think his Trade Union bosses the Workers' Directors eat?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/average-pay-and-pension-of-esb-workers-near-euro100000-2065160.html

dvpower

wes wrote: »

I think stuff like water should never really be privatised. Its not the sort of thing we want a company ripping people off for.

We prefer the state ripping us off. Large proportions of our water being lost down the drain and opaque charges because its largely paid for directly out of taxpayers money.

donkey balls wrote: »

Sports clubs:eek:and other benefits I have friends that work there and they dont have any other benefits bar a subsidised canteen which most private companies have.

donkey balls:eek:

aftermn

To refer again to the thread title, Water metering, new taxes and selling off of state assets.

We seem to have concentrated on the water metering aspect and to have accepted that it's comming in one form or another.

What about other new taxes? property tax, site tax, or maybe we could come up with some other form of taxation not yet mentioned.

On selling state assets, is there anything which we should definitely not sell?

Shea O'Meara

Always iffy regarding privatisation.
We lose control. Paying is an issue onto itself, but at least when in state hands we can push for changes. If private, its pay them whatever, tough. Also the last shower, (look a pun!) had a habit of signing us up to contracts which turned out sweeter for the private concern than the state, would be concerned of the same happening as regards water.

Victor

ISAW wrote: »

Say 50 charge plus 45o cubic metres at 450 Euro = €500
If they make 10% profit the service costs them €450 per average user and they make 50 profit.

Lets say 50 + 300 metres cubed at 300 = €400
This is a loss of €50 not a ten per cent profit!

€50+€300 = €350

Of course, costs will also drop.

If you are going to be innumerate and financially illiterate, there is little use is arguing with you.

ISAW

Victor wrote: »

€50+€300 = €350

Of course, costs will also drop.

If you are going to be innumerate and financially illiterate, there is little use is arguing with you.

I edited the original. I was going to thank you but I won't now due to your snide comment. Careful about the personal attacks please.

€450 costs minus €350 raised equals €100 loss which is more than a ten percent loss . In fact it is more than a twenty percent loss.

I can't see where the marginal cost argument is since the cost of supplying millions of extra gallons is minimal. Water falls from the sky and gravity feeds much of the rest. The pumps are going anyway to fill tanks so the electricity is already being used anyway. Chemicals like fluoride are probably added at a $10 bag per several million liters. Most of the cost is the staff which are already paid. I mean if Dublin Water supplies say a billion liters for a million Euro two billion Liters are not going to cost two million and probably be more like one million ten thousand.

irishh_bob

donkey balls wrote: »

Sports clubs:eek:and other benefits I have friends that work there and they dont have any other benefits bar a subsidised canteen which most private companies have,As for tax payers money the govt dont pay the ESB anything it's the other way around.

the goverment prevents competion in the electricity market , this in turn benefits those who work for ESB , same deal with the consultant , GP , dentist sector

HivemindXX

ISAW wrote: »

I can't see where the marginal cost argument is since the cost of supplying millions of extra gallons is minimal. Water falls from the sky and gravity feeds much of the rest. The pumps are going anyway to fill tanks so the electricity is already being used anyway. Chemicals like fluoride are probably added at a $10 bag per several million liters. Most of the cost is the staff which are already paid. I mean if Dublin Water supplies say a billion liters for a million Euro two billion Liters are not going to cost two million and probably be more like one million ten thousand.

Perhaps you still don't understand the concept of marginal costs.

Your cost analysis is full of guesses. However, to correctly cost a water business you would work out the cost of operating your infrastructure, the fixed amount that you can't reduce, and you make that your standing charge to each customer. You then work out the cost for every liter that you provide (in your guess this is essentially zero) and you make that your per liter charge.

Despite the poor reasoning you do have a good point though. Even if a company still makes the profit on every liter sold they may suffer reductions in revenue and they will almost certainly have loans to repay. There is no guarantee that the company will properly cost their business. They may want to compete with someone else and have a low standing charge, confident that they can ramp up per unit charges for a commodity people can't live without. A poorly regulated company which has been given a private monopoly wouldn't do this to maintain their profits as people started to reduce consumption. Why should they wait for that point and increase charges just to maintain their current profit? They would do it immediately because the only thing better than a big sack of money is an even bigger sack.

Unless privitisation was done carefully a private water company could jack their prices up to just short of bottled water and people would have to pay it. Luckily nobody is actually talking about this as far as I know.

ISAW

HivemindXX wrote: »

Perhaps you still don't understand the concept of marginal costs.

Perhaps i don't. I read the reference given. It does not change my argument. If you use less water then the Water Company will increase the price of water to compensate for their loss of profits.

Your cost analysis is full of guesses.

It was not I supplied the forst guess. In fact I supplied actual French prices. WE don't have to pay for domestic water in Ireland. But Im just say what the expert said. If you use less you pay more oer litre.

However, to correctly cost a water business you would work out the cost of operating your infrastructure, the fixed amount that you can't reduce, and you make that your standing charge to each customer.

Aha! But half the pipes are leaking and they are using a Victorian system. why should the State pay to revamp the infrastructure only to sell it to a private concern? surely they should do it up themselves? Which in the long run means fixed costs will decline and standing charges therefore also will. After that we are back to the "use less means pay more per liter" argument.

You then work out the cost for every liter that you provide (in your guess this is essentially zero) and you make that your per liter charge.

Not zero but about a tenth of a cent a liter. A small swimming pool (three foot deep fifteen foot across) will cost about 10 or 15 euro to fill.

Despite the poor reasoning you do have a good point though.

What poor reasoning? Where is my logic in error? and what invalid conclusion do I reach?

Even if a company still makes the profit on every liter sold they may suffer reductions in revenue and they will almost certainly have loans to repay. There is no guarantee that the company will properly cost their business. They may want to compete with someone else and have a low standing charge, confident that they can ramp up per unit charges for a commodity people can't live without. A poorly regulated company which has been given a private monopoly wouldn't do this to maintain their profits as people started to reduce consumption. Why should they wait for that point and increase charges just to maintain their current profit? They would do it immediately because the only thing better than a big sack of money is an even bigger sack.

Unless privitisation was done carefully a private water company could jack their prices up to just short of bottled water and people would have to pay it. Luckily nobody is actually talking about this as far as I know.

I would use the Chinese doctor solution. the Chinese doctor gets paid by the state and has to pay money back for ever sick person that visits him. why not do the same with water?

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote: »

I partially agree. But the supply cost is larger in the fuel case since we havce to pay for gas or oil. water falls from the sky. If there is no useage the storage and treatment is minimal and the supply cost even less. Raw material is zero. Oil costs money to drill transport refine and distribute. Water treatment isn't in that league i would guess. i could be worng but I don't think so.

The base cost of oil and gas is also zero by that argument - the stuff is just sitting there in the reservoirs, after all, the product of natural processes. It's not manufactured.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Idbatterim

why not just introduce a flat rate of say E500 per year. This money wont be ring fenced for water infrastructure anyway. Its just a new tax, obviously we are already paying for water infrastructure, just not directly! Stealth taxes will do less damage than, raising PAYE and USC etc... Wasnt the proposal to issue quite a large allowance, so in some cases, people wouldn't be paying anything? yet we would still have to install meter and take reading, issue bills etc? People may say that the system is unfair, that argument can be adopted to bank bailout, alot PS pay, social welfare levels, 50% paying no PAYE, very high rates of upper tax...

Victor

Idbatterim wrote: »

why not just introduce a flat rate of say E500 per year.

Its gives no encouragement to cut down on use.

More importantly, it does nothing to cut down waste. Imagine somebody has a leaky pipe, it leaks every hour of the day, every day of the year. With a flat rate, there is no incentive to fix it, with a charge per litre, there is an incentive to fix it.

Idbatterim

but this has alot less to do with fixing leaks and conserving supplies, than adding a new tax, that can easily be justified, because almost if not all other EU countries charge it! its much easier raising revenue this way than raising PRSI, cutting welfare etc! My point is, that the free allowance they were going to set was to be quite generous, in alot of cases, I reckon the surplus charges at end of month would be negligible, if there even was one!

saywhatyousee

why pay for water at all? Who cares if we lose some of it we have enough already and that is unlikely to change

21grams

Businesses should be charged but not in the way they are charged now.
For example a hair dresser who would use a fair amount of water is charged a flat fee of €80 because generally the premises is small, but a warehouse which has maybe one toilet which is never used and one tap for boiling a kettle is charged €250.

There is something wrong there when the hairdresser is using 10 times the amount of water as the warehouse.

Victor

saywhatyousee wrote: »

why pay for water at all? Who cares if we lose some of it we have enough already and that is unlikely to change

Because its costing us over €1bn/year?

21grams wrote: »

Businesses should be charged but not in the way they are charged now.
For example a hair dresser who would use a fair amount of water is charged a flat fee of €80 because generally the premises is small, but a warehouse which has maybe one toilet which is never used and one tap for boiling a kettle is charged €250.

There is something wrong there when the hairdresser is using 10 times the amount of water as the warehouse.

Most areas are now metered.

jamesbrond

Motorist pays tolls on M50 bridge.
The motosrist/tax payer buy the bridge outright.
Is the motorist/tax payer paying twice now? OF COURSE THEY ARE.


Currently the tax payer pays for water.
When metering comes in will this be refunded to the tax payer.
ie if €100 a year of my tax goes to providing me with water now and it costs €150 a year after they start charging for it. How much will I pay at the end of the day? I bet it wont be €50.


Oh dear. Its KY jelly time again.

21grams

Yes the flat fee of €80 and €250 then the meter charges come into play and then the warehouse is still charged more per unit of water then the hairdresser because the warehouse is a bigger area but uses less water then the hairdresser.

ei.sdraob

ISAW wrote: »

Are you being ironic/sarcastic? The ESB have subsidised restaurants, fat pensions, sports clubs, and a whole host of other benefits paid for out of State funds i.e. taxpayers. It works great if you work for the ESB and especially in the higher echelons.

Tell me about it I worked there and the food is great in the restaurants made me come in early for the delicious subsidised breakfast :P

K-9

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Tell me about it I worked there and the food is great in the restaurants made me come in early for the delicious subsidised breakfast :P

Ah, the libertarian principles make sense now, though a bit of an over reaction IMO!

ardmacha

The best plan might be privatise water under a deal which prioritises repair of the system in the short term. Perhaps a contract where the government still own the reservoirs or something. This might lead to lots of roads being dug up, but it would provide construction related employment when tenders are cheap for this sort of work.

dan_d

Public-run water meters with the revenue ring fenced for direct investment back into repairing the system.

Outside this, I'm unlikely to agree with any "pay for your water" scheme.It's too much, in a country that gets as much rain as we do. And I don't trust our Gov/County Councils an inch with revenue of any sort.Ring fence it, with a (cast iron) guarantee it's going back into repairing the system and nowhere else.

Sigh. I can dream.....:rolleyes:

saywhatyousee

Victor wrote: »

Because its costing us over €1bn/year?

.

How??

Slydice

I saw an interesting blog entry by namawinelake which involves water meters:
http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/a-fairy-tale-for-modern-times-the-old-man-and-his-wondrous-boxes/
A fairy tale for modern times : the old man and his wondrous boxes
March 12, 2011 by namawinelake

As it’s the weekend and to mark St Patrick’s Day during the week ahead, here is fairy tale in the old tradition which might have some relevance to the present day.

You can read the rest on the blog entry click here to go there

Pete_Cavan

Slydice wrote: »

http://namawinelake.wordpress.com/2011/03/12/a-fairy-tale-for-modern-times-the-old-man-and-his-wondrous-boxes/

The above is inspired by new Minister for the Environment Phil (Nagoh) Hogan’s plans to install a water meter in every home in the land for which we will need pay far more than five groats. Ireland is one of the wettest countries in the world (precipitation multiplied by land area divided by population) and whilst accepting that there are some variable costs in the treatment and delivery of water these costs are completely dwarfed by the proposed scheme which will see the manufacture and fitting of a box in every home in the land which is practically next to useless. It may well generate some income for installers and the government but it will come directly out of the pockets of households. Sadly the proposed scheme is more than a fairy tale and implementation studies are likely to start in the coming weeks.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

By introducing a charge for using over a certain amount of water, water consumption will drop. Having to produce less clean water will lower the cost. Water charges may not create much income but it will reduce expenditure - expenditure which can be used elsewhere (unfortunately that other use in most likely for the banks).

There is huge scope to reduce the amount of clean water consumed because a lot of the water we use need not be potable, ie. for flushing toilets, washing machines, washing cars, watering garden, etc. IMO there should be grants towards rain water harvesting systems in the same way as there is grants towards solar panels.

saywhatyousee

if you have your own well will you get charged?

Chris_5339762

Thats what bugs me because apparently the answer is yes.

You drilled your well, you paid for the pump and you pay for all the upkeep of the water that happens to flow under your house.

Yet they expect you to pay for that water?

I get the feeling that a lot of the water meters are going to be bypassed.

Slydice

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.

By introducing a charge for using over a certain amount of water, water consumption will drop. Having to produce less clean water will lower the cost. Water charges may not create much income but it will reduce expenditure - expenditure which can be used elsewhere (unfortunately that other use in most likely for the banks).

There is huge scope to reduce the amount of clean water consumed because a lot of the water we use need not be potable, ie. for flushing toilets, washing machines, washing cars, watering garden, etc. IMO there should be grants towards rain water harvesting systems in the same way as there is grants towards solar panels.

I guess we'll see. Everything made sense back in the property boom days too.