Well owners set to pay for private water extraction

reilig

There's an extensive article about this in today's farming Indo.

What do you think?

Is it just another tax on rural dwellers???

Juniorhurler

reilig wrote: »

There's an extensive article about this in today's farming Indo.

What do you think?

Is it just another tax on rural dwellers???

Yes. They need a pound of fat off everybody and this is their way of getting it from us.

Birdnuts

Juniorhurler wrote: »

Yes. They need a pound of fat off everybody and this is their way of getting it from us.

Yep -thats basically it, its going to be another ugly budget for all the little people:(

JohnBoy

link?

reilig

JohnBoy wrote: »

link?

Can find no online link for it, but its on page 3 of today's Farming indo.

nilhg

Apparently the EU disagrees with our (Government) interpretation of the Water Framework Directive, the contention is that water underground is public property and we (farmers and houseowners) should pay for rights to extract it.

Maybe we'll have to charge them for allowing their water to pass through our land?;)

aujopimur

Yep, the Greens said it's everyones water.

bbam

I worked with a chap from the UK and everyone in his area pays for water.. The water company owns all water used in the catchment area and charges for it..

The difference I think was if you had a well it was a fixed fee where public users were on a meter which worked out at about twice...

Bloody disgrace....

I don't think I'd pay without a service.... I'd like a new pressure vesel and switch first

Rovi

Here's the article:
http://www.independent.ie/farming/news-features/well-owners-set-to-pay-for-private-water-extraction-2947796.html

Well owners set to pay for private water extraction
Irish 'incorrect' in implementing directive

By Declan O'Brien
Tuesday November 29 2011

Owners of wells could be forced to pay for all water extracted for private use under a strict interpretation of the EU Water Framework Directive.

The EU Commission informed the Government last week that Ireland had "incorrectly implemented" the directive and threatened to refer the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) within two months if Ireland failed to comply with the legislation.

A Commission statement said that Ireland's interpretation of the directive had been restricted to the introduction of water charges for public supplies and improving water quality.

However, the Commission said that it viewed water services as a "wider notion" that included the drilling of water wells for "agricultural, industrial or private consumption".

The issue has serious implications for more than 200,000 rural homeowners who use private wells for either their farm or domestic water supplies.

It is unclear how the Commission move will impact on well owners. Charges could be levied on a flat annual rate or the volume of water extracted may have to be metered and fees imposed accordingly.

The IFA has called on the Government to oppose the Commission's efforts to impose charges on private wells.

"The Commission's interpretation of the Water Framework Directive would place an unjustifiable burden on households in rural communities," said Pat Farrell, of the IFA's national environment committee.

"Householders with water wells have already absorbed the financial outlay of drilling and operating the well. It would be wholly unfair to charge them again for the water," he said.

Blow

"Coming so soon after moves by the Department of the Environment to register septic tanks, this would be another financial body blow," he added.

A Department of Environment spokesman said officials were taking legal advice on the Commission's communication and that Ireland would continue to engage with Brussels to get "a satisfactory outcome".

Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Sweden were also cautioned for being in breach of the directive.

The imposition of water charges and differences in water costs between local authorities has provoked huge public anger, particularly in the west and south.

The increase in water charges by local authorities has also led to renewed interest among farmers in the drilling of private wells.

This is particularly the case with beef finishers and dairy farmers. Water is now a major input cost, with an annual charge for an 80-cow dairy unit totalling around €1,600.

Meanwhile, Fianna Fail has called for major changes to the Septic Tanks Bill, which is currently being debated by the Dail and Seanad.

Fianna Fail's agriculture spokesperson in the Seanad, Brian Ó Domhnaill, said Cavan should be exempted from the bill because the county was the only one in Ireland complying with the European directive.

Senator Ó Domhnaill said Cavan had in place a system with no registration fee and only selective inspections without the criminal charges being proposed by the Government. He said such a system should be introduced nationally.

Among the Fianna Fail amendments to the bill are:

One free desludging of septic tanks each year;

No registration fees;

No appeal fees;

Grants of at least 85pc to meet any upgrade costs;

Not having criminal action placed against septic tank owners.

- Declan O'Brien

And another one:
http://www.independent.ie/farming/news-features/commissions-stance-on-wells-could-get-nasty-2947800.html

Commission's stance on wells could get nasty

Tuesday November 29 2011

Who actually owns the water beneath the ground? And should landowners have the right to sink wells to extract water without having to pay for it?

These are very pertinent questions in light of the accusation by the EU Commission that Ireland has "incorrectly" interpreted and implemented the Water Framework Directive.

The problems centre on the issue of private wells. A recent communication from the Commission to the Government appears to suggest that all groundwater is either owned by the State or, at the very least, the State has a duty to control its extraction.

It is unclear at this stage how the Commission's stance will impact on private well owners. A Department of Environment spokesman said officials were taking legal advice on the Commission's communication and that Ireland would continue to engage with Brussels to achieve a "satisfactory outcome".

However, achieving a "satisfactory outcome" to this particular problem may not be all that easy given the very fundamental issues at stake.

Already the imposition of water charges has provoked a lot of anger in rural areas.

The levying of multiple meter charges on fragmented farm holdings, particularly in the west and southwest, has been viewed as a stealth tax.

The fact that this metering service has been contracted out by local authorities to private water companies has added to the sense of resentment.

The cost of public water supplies is also significant. Annual water charges for domestic use and a dairy farm with 100 livestock units are now running at around €1,600.

With water costs at these levels, it is hardly surprising that many livestock farmers are considering sinking wells.

However, such an option might not be feasible if water charges are also to be levied on private wells.

The Water Framework Directive is a useful piece of legislation but in adopting a strict and inflexible interpretation of it, Brussels is once again guilty of taking a one-size-fits-all approach.

Water is an essential resource that should not be wasted. However, it's a bit rich to equate the serious need for water efficiency in the arid plains of Andalucia with those of the west of Ireland. It's stuff like this that gives Brussels a bad name.

The Commission's position also raises another point. Environment Minister Phil Hogan has indicated that he intends establishing a single water authority for the country.

Should the Commission's interpretation of the Water Framework Directive prevail, any national water authority would be a very powerful and valuable organisation.

One wonders if such a body was in place at the moment, would it be privatised on the Troika's insistence?

johngalway

If I had a well, and paid for it all myself, and received nothing from the Government for doing it all off my own bat. They could sing for their supper, I wouldn't pay a tax like that.

The next one, I bet, will be to tax people who have rainwater recovery systems in place. After all, if they claim ownership of the water under the ground, what's stopping them claim the stuff falling from the sky?

nilhg

I think if they try to make this one run it'll make the turfcutters protest look like a teddy bears picnic, and I'd say they know it too

They'd want to look up the story of the straw that broke the camel's back.

pakalasa

In Ireland it's a bit like taxing the air we breath.

bbam

pakalasa wrote: »

In Ireland it's a bit like taxing the air we breath.

Keep those revenue generating ideas to yourself there..:p:p

sh1tstirrer

pakalasa wrote: »

In Ireland it's a bit like taxing the air we breath.

I suppose the carbon tax is exactly that. Now what else can they tax oh almost forgot its already in the pipeline a sh1t tax:mad:

bob charles

All our lives we have paid to pump water be it boring the well, installing, and upkeep while everybody in towns recieved as much water as they liked free of charge. People that received free water was basically a tax on anyone that extracted their own water.

What would be the story for animals drinking water straight from a river, as all our farms needs is now pumped from a river

greysides

Charging you for God-given water is extortion.

Completely unjustifiable.


Next up, a sunlight tax.

All they've got to do it deem that sunlight is public property.

Those who live by the sea will have to pay a 'sea view' tax. Living inland, there's the 'no chilly sea breeze' tax.


It's getting to be like a Banana Republic here.

Sorry, it already is. (Check out the first line from Wiki.)

Tora Bora

There is no doubt whatsoever, that the authorothies, want to absolutely control every single aspect of our lives.
You know rural Ireland, has pretty much been able to look after itself in tough times, without recourse to central government for handouts.
Since time began, we have been resourcefull enough to be able to eat, drink and wash ourselves, without poisoning the environment, and without poisoning any person through bad food management and preservation.

They have already decided, we cannot kill and butcher a pig, or a sheep, or a beef in the way we have done forever. Now we have to comply with some stupid, directive ............ blah, blah,.:(
Same mindset of the high and mighty has been applied to cutting a few wheelbarrows of turf, on our own property:(
Now the same stupidity to be applied to our water, ............ FFS.:(

Don't be surprised if the next move is to lower up front taxes on the purchase of cars etc, and replace the lost revenue for government with MUCH HIGHER, taxes on fuel. Who will that benefit and who will it hit?
It will benefit people in towns and citys, and will crucify, country dwellers, who need their cars to get around!

TB

the_syco

Love to know how they plan to measure it? To get to the well where my grandfather gets his water, they'll have to get past the cows, bulls, and the anti-human terrain :pac:

Also, since we ignore pretty much everything else Germany says, except where it involves our money, I wonder how much of this will get implemented?

reilig

the_syco wrote: »

Love to know how they plan to measure it? To get to the well where my grandfather gets his water, they'll have to get past the cows, bulls, and the anti-human terrain :pac:

Also, since we ignore pretty much everything else Germany says, except where it involves our money, I wonder how much of this will get implemented?

Like everything else, they'll stick a fixed charge on it so there won't be any measuring involved!!

5live

Isnt it funny that practically every tax being mooted now is aimed directly at rural dwellers. Where is the non septic tank charge, the mains water tax, the public transport tax

Atilathehun

5live wrote: »

Isnt it funny that practically every tax being mooted now is aimed directly at rural dwellers. Where is the non septic tank charge, the mains water tax, the public transport tax

Next thing is going to be NCT on tractors:eek: It's being discussed at the minute, and likely to be in force within two to three years. That would make the septic tank and well charges pale into insignificance, if every tractor had to comply with what some plonker, decides is necessary:mad:

Atilathehun

5live wrote: »

Isnt it funny that practically every tax being mooted now is aimed directly at rural dwellers. Where is the non septic tank charge, the mains water tax, the public transport tax

You are on the money there. Close rural schools, close rural hospitals and community care facilities, close rural Garda stations, jack up school transport charges, septic tank charges (you are guaranteed, you will need to spend €10k or so to upgrade), water charges, stop turf cutting, jack up petrol / diesel taxes, rob a slice of any pension fund built up by industrious people.
Time to bring the tractors to Dublin again!

5live

Atilathehun wrote: »

Next thing is going to be NCT on tractors:eek: It's being discussed at the minute, and likely to be in force within two to three years. That would make the septic tank and well charges pale into insignificance, if every tractor had to comply with what some plonker, decides is necessary:mad:

I may be on my own on this but a tractor NCT might be no harm. I've seen some pieces of s**t on the road drawing bales with no lights poor brakes and no handbrake. Now thats just pulling the p**s but it goes on all over the country:(

Tora Bora

5live wrote: »

I may be on my own on this but a tractor NCT might be no harm. I've seen some pieces of s**t on the road drawing bales with no lights poor brakes and no handbrake. Now thats just pulling the p**s but it goes on all over the country:(

Maybe. Also see the latest modern tractors, with serious loads behind, driven like a bat out of hell, by baby faced garsoons:o
Rather any day, be faced with an auld fella, driving a shook old 165, or something like that. Brakes or no brakes, he is usually able to keep things under control:eek:

the_syco

reilig wrote: »

Like everything else, they'll stick a fixed charge on it so there won't be any measuring involved!!

I wonder: if you're paying for it, can you demand it's fixed, and/or brought up to a drinkable standard?

Drill a cheap hole. Link it up. Get charged for it. Show that the quality of water is very poor, and you demand that they drill down further to get better quality water? :P

Grecco

Atilathehun wrote: »

Time to bring the tractors to Dublin again!

Yeah but this time don`t bring up the new John Deeres or the Big 4X4 Jeeps. I don't think Joan Burton is easily fooled

JohnBoy

5live wrote: »

I may be on my own on this but a tractor NCT might be no harm. I've seen some pieces of s**t on the road drawing bales with no lights poor brakes and no handbrake. Now thats just pulling the p**s but it goes on all over the country:(

completely agree, assuming a fair test is introduced which expects machines to pass the standards in place when they were new, not expecting older kit to meet the latest standards.

greysides

JohnBoy wrote: »

completely agree, assuming a fair test is introduced which expects machines to pass the standards in place when they were new, not expecting older kit to meet the latest standards.

There's certainly pro's and con's to DOE and NCT testing............but fairness and common-sense from jobsworths and officialdom is not to be assumed.

Username John

JohnBoy wrote: »

completely agree, assuming a fair test is introduced which expects machines to pass the standards in place when they were new, not expecting older kit to meet the latest standards.

I disagree.

Maybe a test for the tractor pulling a silage trailer, on the road a lot of the time... But thats one end of the scale...

But what about the 1960s or 70s Ford or Massey thats scraping out the yard, and never sees the road. Are we now saying that everything this tractor had when it was built first day, it should have again?

You might say, if it doesnt need to be taxed, then it doesnt need an NCT. But what will happen if the insurance people adopt a "no NCT, no insurance" If tractors had to do NCT / DOE, it wouldnt surprise me if insurance companies put it in there in the small print...

sh1tstirrer

Username John wrote: »

I disagree.

Maybe a test for the tractor pulling a silage trailer, on the road a lot of the time... But thats one end of the scale...

But what about the 1960s or 70s Ford or Massey thats scraping out the yard, and never sees the road. Are we now saying that everything this tractor had when it was built first day, it should have again?

You might say, if it doesnt need to be taxed, then it doesnt need an NCT. But what will happen if the insurance people adopt a "no NCT, no insurance" If tractors had to do NCT / DOE, it wouldnt surprise me if insurance companies put it in there in the small print...

Don't insure it then.

JohnBoy

if it never sees the road then it never sees the road.

but if I'm likely to meet it coming against me on the road. then I want it lit, braking and steering properly and I dont care how old it is.

it can be caked in sh*t from top to bottom and have holes you can put your hand through the wings (if they're non structural to the roll frame) , but it should be fundamentally safe.

whether in insurers require tractors to be tested to be covered for offroad only use or not is a seperate issue.

foundation10

greysides wrote: »

Charging you for God-given water is extortion.

Completely unjustifiable.


Next up, a sunlight tax.

All they've got to do it deem that sunlight is public property.

Those who live by the sea will have to pay a 'sea view' tax. Living inland, there's the 'no chilly sea breeze' tax.


It's getting to be like a Banana Republic here.

Sorry, it already is. (Check out the first line from Wiki.)

You are not too far off there with the sun light tax! You only need to go back to the 17th century where william III introudced the window tax from which the phrase "daylight robbery" was coined. Basically a tax on the number of windows you had. I think this is not too far away from daylight robbery

homolumo

Some joke. I wonder if the government would pay the 2000 Euro I have spent on maintaining my well in the last 5 yrs.

Birdnuts

greysides wrote: »

There's certainly pro's and con's to DOE and NCT testing............but fairness and common-sense from jobsworths and officialdom is not to be assumed.

I would assume tractors over 30 years of age would be classed as "Vintage" and therefore exempt from the NCT(as is the case with cars)

just do it

johngalway wrote: »

After all, if they claim ownership of the water under the ground, what's stopping them claim the stuff falling from the sky?

What about oxygen, will we have to pay for that as well?:rolleyes::mad:

TomOnBoard

reilig wrote: »

There's an extensive article about this in today's farming Indo.

What do you think?

Is it just another tax on rural dwellers???

This one is absolutely outrageous.

Alibaba

They can shove it if they think they are going to get away with this one.

No Bloody way.

MOSSAD

I suppose our leverage will come when the vote to change the treaties to allow for closer fiscal integration have to be amended. A definite No. Maybe it's time we threw our lot in with the UK which has a healthy disregard for the Institutions of the EU, unlike our own apparachitks who show a slavish mentality to the EU.