Water charges

RandomName2

Surprised there isn't a thread on this already.

Short argument against this new pseudo-tax.

• The lions share of local service costs is water provision, but they aren't actually covered by the LPT which is ostensibly designed to cover local services
• Water charges handled by limited company. Therefore central government will only see a small fraction of these profits.
• Although privatisation has the general beneficial effect of bringing cost-effectiveness to the fore, the recent debacle with the consultants show this to be anything but.
• Despite privatisation the water charges are operated by a monopoly. Note how local authority handling of waste collection only ended when there were a plurality of private collection firms in existence.
• Charges will be determied by use, despite the fact that the vast majority of costs are infrastructural; meaning that increased rates are merely an excuse to squeeze more money out of people.

To what extent can parties realistically run on a platform of removing or reducing such a charge?

emo72

well. the argument that it was about protecting our resource is taking a torpedo now, due to the fact that if we are careful and start using our water carefully, which i assume is a good thing. in that scenario they will charge us more? makes me want to pull my hair out.

bord gais got this because they had the experience and knowledge of how to set this up. and then they pay 50 million to consultants? why?

heard that 2.2 billion will be spent on this before its ready to go. we could have fixed all the leakage and upgraded the system for less than half of that. and think of the jobs that could have been created with that.

this is been set up so that it can be privatised eventually and then sold off to pay off our national debt. we already pay for our water through our high general taxation.

this is so wrong no matter what way you look at it.

Donaldio

Yeah i think it is ridiculous Ireland is first and foremost a Nation we are not some sort of defunct company to be sold off and liquidated. People paid for this Nation with there blood and now we are to be just to be sold off like peasants by some fatsos in suits ?
Its a ****ing joke.

Cookie_Monster

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

golfball37

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

Water is undrinkable in several parts of the country for a start. There are major infrastructural deficits in the system that need repairing far more urgently before we should start paying for it.

Also you can bet there is someone prominent profiting from this who shouldn't be- [No names]. of course our media won't look into it though.

Colm R

golfball37 wrote: »

Water is undrinkable in several parts of the country for a start. There are major infrastructural deficits in the system that need repairing far more urgently before we should start paying for it.

Also you can bet there is someone prominent profiting from this who shouldn't be- [No names]. of course our media won't look into it though.

You have, for me touched on a key difference between water and other utilities, such as electricity and gas - in the case of the latter two, you can't really get bad electricity or gas - it either works or doesn't, and when it does not, you don't pay for it.

Water, obviously is different, and quality can vary.

Leaving out the debate about consultant fees, privitization and everything that`is in the newspapers, I personally agree with the principle that users should be charged for water.

However, as a consequence of the very vocal anti-charges side, versus the very often obnoxious pro-charges (government side), everyone is missing one key thing - there should be an SLA (Service Level Agreement) whereby water provided to household should be only charged if said water passes a test - carried out by a regulator as opposed to the company providing the water.

In so doing, people throughout the country, who unfortunately find themselves having to pay for boiling water or purchasing bottled water will be in exactly the same position they are now, until such a time as the owners of the system can deliver drinkable water to their home.

Grudaire

emo72 wrote: »

well. the argument that it was about protecting our resource is taking a torpedo now, due to the fact that if we are careful and start using our water carefully, which i assume is a good thing. in that scenario they will charge us more? makes me want to pull my hair out.

Is this bit true?

Any link to back it up?

Chips Lovell

The water service isn't being privatised.

emo72

Grudaire wrote: »

Is this bit true?

Any link to back it up?

All over the media on Thursday and Friday. On a mobile can't attach links.

emo72

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The water service isn't being privatised.

You are of course 100% right. There is no plans to privatise it. I wouldn't bet my house on it not being privatised in the future though.

We would have to hope our leaders would do the right thing in the future.

Eh.... Was a sale agreed for bord gais recently?

Chips Lovell

Not the part of Bord Gais that owns Irish Water, no.

RandomName2

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The water service isn't being privatised.

a private company limited by shares (in this Act referred to as the “subsidiary”)
conforming to the conditions laid down in this Act to be formed and
registered under the Companies Acts.
5.—(1) The subsidiary shall be known, in the Irish language, as
Uisce Éireann and, in the English language, as Irish Water

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

Well the resource itself is free and theoretically limitless (unlike gas). There is no cost in obtaining it as a raw resource (unlike either gas or electricity). Of course like gas or, to a lesser extent electricity, it must be treated before it is suitable for public consumption, and the pipes which supply it must be maintained. But this is a slightly different matter from paying for the resource itself (the division between ESB and Electric Ireland may somewhat highlight that).

Seeing that the main costs are infrastructural, indeed work such as pipe maintenance must be conducted to lesser or greater extent in tandem with local government and road maintenance, paying specifically for usage is somewhat strange.

Also, as a side note, of electricity, water and gas, water is the most essential service. Is it still illegal to cut off water supply entirely, even if the water bills aren't paid? I know that the council had the authority to reduce pressure, but not to cut off supply.

Chips Lovell

A private company, owned by the state. This is not usually what is understood by privatisation though

RandomName2

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

A private company, owned by the state. This is not usually what is understood by privatisation though

According to its own website it is only semi-state... but I suppose...

Colm R

RandomName2 wrote: »

a private company limited by shares (in this Act referred to as the “subsidiary”)
conforming to the conditions laid down in this Act to be formed and
registered under the Companies Acts.
5.—(1) The subsidiary shall be known, in the Irish language, as
Uisce Éireann and, in the English language, as Irish Water



Well the resource itself is free and theoretically limitless (unlike gas). There is no cost in obtaining it as a raw resource (unlike either gas or electricity). Of course like gas or, to a lesser extent electricity, it must be treated before it is suitable for public consumption, and the pipes which supply it must be maintained. But this is a slightly different matter from paying for the resource itself (the division between ESB and Electric Ireland may somewhat highlight that).

Seeing that the main costs are infrastructural, indeed work such as pipe maintenance must be conducted to lesser or greater extent in tandem with local government and road maintenance, paying specifically for usage is somewhat strange.

Also, as a side note, of electricity, water and gas, water is the most essential service. Is it still illegal to cut off water supply entirely, even if the water bills aren't paid? I know that the council had the authority to reduce pressure, but not to cut off supply.

I'm not sure if the main cost is infrastructural. Would anyone know what the cost of usage is versus infrastructure cost?

For example, from what I understand, the vast majority of homes are not gravity fed. The may be gravity fed from a water tower, but the water has to be electrically pumped into it to begin with.

And would treatment be considered a usage cost or an infrastructural cost?

jmayo

Perhaps someone can set me straight on a few points that I came across at the weekend.

Are users meant to get an allowance ?
Are users penalised if they go below a certain usage level ?

That last point sounds like penalising those who would be conservative in their water usage and targetting the enviromentally friendly.

Akrasia

jmayo wrote: »

Perhaps someone can set me straight on a few points that I came across at the weekend.

Are users meant to get an allowance ?
Are users penalised if they go below a certain usage level ?

That last point sounds like penalising those who would be conservative in their water usage and targetting the enviromentally friendly.

What will happen is there will be a 'service charge' to have a connection to the water supply and this will come with a certain allowance of units of water
If you go above this allowance, you will get charged per unit

The problem is if everyone becomes more efficient and uses less water than the water company expects us to, they'll increase the service charge to cover the shortfall in revenue.

_Kaiser_

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

Because we're already paying for it in general taxation for one thing.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Because we're already paying for it in general taxation for one thing.

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.
I can think of no good reason why consumers should not be charged for using treated supplied to them or for having their waste water treated.

For Reals

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.
I can think of no good reason why consumers should not be charged for using treated supplied to them or for having their waste water treated.

You're falling for government nonsense. And where are you getting 'freebies'? I'm not aware of anything we get as a freebie, in fact, we even get billed for things we already paid for, like homes.
The idea that we've been getting water in any discount or free way, ever, is the biggest load of crap. They are trying to push the view that we had it for free for decades and as much as they'd rather not, we need pay for it, for the first time ever. They are squeezing more money out of the taxpayer and this is just the latest scam. If we can afford to borrow billions to bailout private investors, we can fund a basic thing such as water supply. If any government cant organise supplying the basic needs of a society via tax, as is the whole point of tax, they should quit.
Street lights next?

RandomName2

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.

You're right, rainwater is free.

I would actually support a flat fee of maybe €200 per household for water supply - means tested, and uncharged on empty accommodation.

Paying what amounts to a poll tax on top of the "local services" LPT? Feck off.

munchkin_utd

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.
I can think of no good reason why consumers should not be charged for using treated supplied to them or for having their waste water treated.

+1
The cost of providing water for the portion of the population who get it for "free" (as opposed to say my parents who are both metered and charged for water on a group scheme) is far from negliable.

a billion euro a year for water purification and disposal was a figure I heard recently.
Of course that would be higher if everyone had "free" water rather than just having certain folks getting free water from the council and letting everyone else pay for it themselves.

By charging those who currently do not pay, you are eliminating this anomoly that some get free water from the taxpayer and others dont.

Grudaire

RandomName2 wrote: »

I would actually support a flat fee of maybe €200 per household for water supply - means tested, and uncharged on empty

That wouldn't encourage reduced usage though.. it also wouldn't reflect the fact that water does have significant running costs on top of infrastructural costs

RandomName2

Grudaire wrote: »

That wouldn't encourage reduced usage though.. it also wouldn't reflect the fact that water does have significant running costs on top of infrastructural costs

Why is reduced usage something that one should aspire to in particular?

munchkin_utd

RandomName2 wrote: »

You're right, rainwater is free.

I would actually support a flat fee of maybe €200 per household for water supply - means tested, and uncharged on empty accommodation.

Paying what amounts to a poll tax on top of the "local services" LPT? Feck off.

the parents in Cavan have such a scheme.
They pay a small-ish flat fee and have a gigantic allowance and only if they go over that will they have to pay on the excess.

Even with an allowance in place you can focus people on not leaving the taps on all day or the likes which is why Dublin always runs dry in cold weather (aside from leakage issues)

RandomName2

munchkin_utd wrote: »

the parents in Cavan have such a scheme.
They pay a small-ish flat fee and have a gigantic allowance and only if they go over that will they have to pay on the excess.

Even with an allowance in place you can focus people on not leaving the taps on all day or the likes which is why Dublin always runs dry in cold weather (aside from leakage issues)

Sounds fare enough.

Although there is already legislation for people who have large leaks or vastly disproportionate usage. The council currently sends a letter asking the person to rectify the problem, and then cut off the supply (to a trickle) if it isn't fixed.

In cold water the shortages haven't been due to people using more water (which they do in the summer). It seems predominantly due to burst mains.

oscarBravo

RandomName2 wrote: »

Why is reduced usage something that one should aspire to in particular?

Seriously?

RandomName2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes, seriously, in the same way that using solar energy or wind or any other renewable resource is not a big deal. Moreover, south county Dublin has been using the same reservoir for well over half a century; rarely experiencing shortages of any kind (and the shortages were almost never due to exhausting the reservoir's reserves.) There are almost no negative impacts from the usage of water (unlike, for instance, the usage of fossil fuels). Although there is a cost for water treatment, that is limited only by infrastructure and budget.

Spanish Eyes

I'm sure I'm missing some fundamental reason....

But why set up this feckin quango at all?

Why not just charge the user a flat fee as someone else suggested, payable to the Local Authority, then they can use the yield to invest in local water infrastructure, using their existing staff. Seems daft to have a quango employing new people, and a LA retaining the former staff.

But it's being set up this way to be privatised and sold off. That is being denied, but it's what the Troika IMF want. Watch this space.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

For Reals wrote: »

You're falling for government nonsense. And where are you getting 'freebies'? I'm not aware of anything we get as a freebie, in fact, we even get billed for things we already paid for, like homes.
The idea that we've been getting water in any discount or free way, ever, is the biggest load of crap. They are trying to push the view that we had it for free for decades and as much as they'd rather not, we need pay for it, for the first time ever. They are squeezing more money out of the taxpayer and this is just the latest scam. If we can afford to borrow billions to bailout private investors, we can fund a basic thing such as water supply. If any government cant organise supplying the basic needs of a society via tax, as is the whole point of tax, they should quit.
Street lights next?

We have been getting it for free for years, for the last number of decades up to the current crisis ,Ireland seen its tax base reduced and a constant lowering of personal taxes, yet time again we have the socialist refrain whenever we are asked to pay for anything that it is "Double Taxation".
The simple fact is that even when you strip out the cost of the banking debacle there is and was a substantial gap in the cost to the state in providing services, and the contribution of those who reside in the state through taxation.

RandomName2

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

We have been getting it for free for years, for the last number of decades up to the current crisis ,Ireland seen its tax base reduced and a constant lowering of personal taxes, yet time again we have the socialist refrain whenever we are asked to pay for anything that it is "Double Taxation".

Well, up until the current crisis Ireland saw its tax base steadily increase. Since the crisis the tax base has been significantly reduced, but personal taxes have become increasingly punitive. Far from "socialist", I'm not seeing a corresponding cut in spending to merit these war-time economics. See that Dun Laoghaire is getting a massive cultural centre that no-one has called for. €113m budget before contingencies - never mind the running costs... for a single building. Austerity? :rolleyes:

Fr. Ned

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so why is it so different to electricity or gas supply?

Because we don't already pay for those through our general taxation.

Fr. Ned

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

We have been getting it for free for years,

No we haven't.
Cop on to yourself.

For Reals

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

We have been getting it for free for years, for the last number of decades up to the current crisis ,Ireland seen its tax base reduced and a constant lowering of personal taxes, yet time again we have the socialist refrain whenever we are asked to pay for anything that it is "Double Taxation".
The simple fact is that even when you strip out the cost of the banking debacle there is and was a substantial gap in the cost to the state in providing services, and the contribution of those who reside in the state through taxation.

It's Right Wing Capitalist folk who believe in getting things for free. The days of that socialist stereotype are gone. It's the private business concern expecting freebies or special treatment.
There's a contradiction there. On the one hand you say we've been getting water supplied for free, yet on the other hand you're saying we need this new set up due to lower tax revenue.
So we were in fact funding it through taxation, but now we need more tax, but in an effort to squeeze out as much as possible and gag those who believe we're getting ****ed, they'll claim we've been getting free water all these years, because that way the idea of paying for water will pass easier than the reality of just a plain old increase or double tax.
Its smoke and mirrors. Why not just increase taxes? Why spend all this money on an expensive ruse? Is it because we'll be selling it all off in about ten years? I can't see any other reasoning. Why not just raise the taxes we already pay and leave the already being paid councils etc. to carry it out?

What really pisses me off is its taxpayer money funds these flights of fancy. Then infrastructure, funded by the taxpayer is sold off, then we are left dealing with private companies having lost ownership. And its people who think they are being forward thinking and ever so smart by backing this 'progress' who are the bigger fools.

By the way 'Double tax' isn't a dirty or foolish term as people of your mindset would like to paint it. How else do you describe being taxed for the same thing twice? And the reason why its generally social leaning people is because right wing people barely pay tax once, so they've no need for it in their vocabulary.

Fr. Ned

For Reals wrote: »

Why not just raise the taxes we already pay and leave the already being paid councils etc. to carry it out?

Because then the friends of FG wouldn't benefit from high paid jobs in a state quango, wouldn't get lucrative water meter contracts and that €50 million wouldn't have gone to consultants who are in the know.

It's a scam of the highest order and at the PAC tomorrow they will give the people of Ireland the two fingers and we will do nothing about it.

jmayo

Akrasia wrote: »

What will happen is there will be a 'service charge' to have a connection to the water supply and this will come with a certain allowance of units of water
If you go above this allowance, you will get charged per unit

That's what I thought.
Only question is how is the allowance arrived at ?
Is it stabdard across the board or is based on occupants ?
Will it vary across counties, buroughs, etc ?

Akrasia wrote: »

The problem is if everyone becomes more efficient and uses less water than the water company expects us to, they'll increase the service charge to cover the shortfall in revenue.

So will they increase the service charge to all or just those using less ?

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

No we are not, general taxation does not meet the bills for the freebies that the people of this state want.
I can think of no good reason why consumers should not be charged for using treated supplied to them or for having their waste water treated.

Except this is Ireland and as Luke Ming Flanagan so colourfully illustrated in the Dáil, are people receiving "p*ss" as their water meant to pay the same as someone receiving perfectly good drinking water ?

And as he mentioned can Irish Water be done under trade descriptions act ?
Or are they immune from this law much like they are immune from outside investigation ?

Colm R

Colm R wrote: »

You have, for me touched on a key difference between water and other utilities, such as electricity and gas - in the case of the latter two, you can't really get bad electricity or gas - it either works or doesn't, and when it does not, you don't pay for it.

Water, obviously is different, and quality can vary.

Leaving out the debate about consultant fees, privitization and everything that`is in the newspapers, I personally agree with the principle that users should be charged for water.

However, as a consequence of the very vocal anti-charges side, versus the very often obnoxious pro-charges (government side), everyone is missing one key thing - there should be an SLA (Service Level Agreement) whereby water provided to household should be only charged if said water passes a test - carried out by a regulator as opposed to the company providing the water.

In so doing, people throughout the country, who unfortunately find themselves having to pay for boiling water or purchasing bottled water will be in exactly the same position they are now, until such a time as the owners of the system can deliver drinkable water to their home.

Quality and cost should be what's being discussed, unfortunately the only vocal opposition seems to be "No, we shouldn't pay".

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, seriously, in the same way that using solar energy or wind or any other renewable resource is not a big deal. Moreover, south county Dublin has been using the same reservoir for well over half a century; rarely experiencing shortages of any kind (and the shortages were almost never due to exhausting the reservoir's reserves.) There are almost no negative impacts from the usage of water (unlike, for instance, the usage of fossil fuels). Although there is a cost for water treatment, that is limited only by infrastructure and budget.

Levels are getting towards critical for a lot of Dublin at this stage and the population is still increasing.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Because we don't already pay for those through our general taxation.

We don't pay for water either, general taxation falls far short of spending.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

jmayo wrote: »

And as he mentioned can Irish Water be done under trade descriptions act ?
Or are they immune from this law much like they are immune from outside investigation ?

There is no such law as the trades description act on the Irish Statute book.

Fr. Ned

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

We don't pay for water either, general taxation falls far short of spending.

Who paid for water services up until now?

For Reals

Deleted User wrote: »

Quality and cost should be what's being discussed, unfortunately the only vocal opposition seems to be "No, we shouldn't pay".


Levels are getting towards critical for a lot of Dublin at this stage and the population is still increasing.

You're dismissing those who don't see it as a fair charge given the fact that many believe its a double tax. Discussing the various criteria of the working structure steps over those opposed to the whole set up, the idea of such a thing. That's why people are saying we shouldn't pay, not because they're missing any elements of the debate. Not that we're allowed a debate.

For Reals

For Reals wrote: »

You're dismissing those who don't see it as a fair charge given the fact that many believe its a double tax. Discussing the various criteria of the working structure steps over those opposed to the whole set up, the idea of such a thing. That's why people are saying we shouldn't pay, not because they're missing any elements of the debate. Not that we're allowed a debate.

I'm dismissing them (not really, but I'll go along with it) because the charges are going to come in either way. I would prefer if the opposition was productive and evaluated issues with the charges as they come in rather than the pointless "We shouldn't pay" argument.

jmayo

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

There is no such law as the trades description act on the Irish Statute book.

Ok Mr Pedantic, the Consumer Information Act of 1978 which in Section 2 specifically mentions the definition of “trade description" and Section 4 discusses the "Provision in relation to application and use of trade descriptions".

I think most people know what I was getting at, even if I did allude to the act incorrectly as named in the UK's 1968 Trade Descriptions Act.

Either way I believe that if someone provides you with goods or services there is an implied fitness for purpose attached, is there not ?

Providing p1ss poor water full of cryptosporidium is hardly a service fit for purpose and hardly billable.
No wonder Luke Ming Flanagan has concerns as illustrated in the Dail, it is perfectly valid since 5 people fell ill in his consitutuency last summer last to an outbreak in one of the water supplies.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/five-people-fall-ill-after-cryptosporidium-outbreak-in-roscommon-29697690.html

vicwatson

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Who paid for water services up until now?

I paid €1,000.00 for a water softener as the council won't soften the water at source, does that count??

I also pay €60 per annum for salt for this softener plus electricty cost to run it

Sir Humphrey Appleby

Fr. Ned wrote: »

Who paid for water services up until now?

Business users through rates and the state through borrowing.

creedp

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Business users through rates and the state through borrowing.

So water provision is funded through borrowing and not taxation? What pray tell is then funded through taxation? Any chance of a breakdown of Govt expenditure funded through taxation and borrowing? It would be simple then to remove the deficit - cut out all expenditure funded through borrowing. Presumably though tax breaks and public contracts for the well connected are fully protected as they must be funded through tax revenues.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

So water provision is funded through borrowing and not taxation?

Water provision in Galway City is budgeted from commercial water rates. If (probably when) there's a shortfall then one would presume that it's taken up from motor tax (only 1/3 of which can be used on roads)

Godge

Colm R wrote: »

You have, for me touched on a key difference between water and other utilities, such as electricity and gas - in the case of the latter two, you can't really get bad electricity or gas - it either works or doesn't, and when it does not, you don't pay for it.

Water, obviously is different, and quality can vary.

Not exactly an exact comparison.

Many parts of the country have no connection to the gas supply, some isolated rural areas have no electricity supply.

There are disruptions to the electricity service from time to time. Let me tell you, when the water pressure is low you can store and hoard it, when the electricity is gone, it is gone.

Colm R

Godge wrote: »

Not exactly an exact comparison.

Many parts of the country have no connection to the gas supply, some isolated rural areas have no electricity supply.

There are disruptions to the electricity service from time to time. Let me tell you, when the water pressure is low you can store and hoard it, when the electricity is gone, it is gone.

There can't be an exact comparison. The utilities are different by their very nature.

Although, while much of the country does not have a gas connection, a home without access to electricity is extremely rare.

Its also worth noting that most rural areas, isolated and not so isolated do not have access the public water, and hence have free access to huge quantities of water under their properties.

Well, free to the extent that its there, and they can take it.

Not so free to the extent that it costs a small fortune in the first instance to get to it and running costs are also considerable.

jmayo

Godge wrote: »

Not exactly an exact comparison.

Many parts of the country have no connection to the gas supply, some isolated rural areas have no electricity supply.

There are disruptions to the electricity service from time to time. Let me tell you, when the water pressure is low you can store and hoard it, when the electricity is gone, it is gone.

The thing is if you lose gas you might feel the cold or not be able to cook.
If the gas provision is or poor quality you might have difficulty running devices or they may degrate quicker.
If you lose electricity you are in the dark with all that entails in today's society.
If electricity supply is poor then you cannot power certain devices.

But if you water supply is poor quality then you can end up in hospital and if you are the very young, the very old or already suffering from a health condition that can be very serious indeed.

Do the powers that be expect people to pay for the provision of cryptosporidium ?
Are there measures in place to not charge or to recompense people who have paid whose water quality is frankly to a third world standard ?

Mr.Micro

The water authority is being born and already causing trouble. It is acting at present like its a corporate animal, accountable to itself and it's executives. Looks to me like jobs for the boys......again.


It may well prove to be an outfit that provides a water service badly, but on a bigger scale. Just 4 of the 9 strong management were externally recruited. So what's all the consultancy money for then, since many if these people are supposed to know the drill already? I even heard bonuses mentioned on the lunchtime news. It has not even got going yet and bonuses already in the offing. Unbelievable.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0115/497912-hogan-irish-water/


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irish-water-staff-recruited-from-local-authorities-29884527.html