Water charges

Maudi

spank_inferno wrote: »

Where would Paddy be if Britain wasn't there to help with infrastructure.

near a century after of independence, we should not hear words like "Victorian Pipes".

Its a legitimate addage to indicate the era they were built..allows the reader to gain perspective on how old the pipes are..

creedp

Satriale wrote: »

but there are still those who would prefer to blame people who flush the toilet more than once a day...

Maybe IW should adopt the Fooker's slogan .. if its yellow let it mellow . if its brown flush it down!!

creedp

Phoebas wrote: »

Instead of paying for double the required workforce in perpetuity.


We don't know the answer to that yet.

Not really a strong argument .. the mightily efficent IW will only reduce the workforce using natural wastage .. somthing that could equally be achieved by local authorities and is now a very common strategy to reduce numbers across the public sector.

On the second point ..just look at the NTR scenario for precedent .. volumes go down will result in 2 options - 1. the State subsidises IW income through direct transfer of tax revenues; 2. IW rack up the charges. Take your choice - one way or the other IW income will not be reducing over time in response to reduced water consumption.

Satriale

creedp wrote: »

Maybe IW should adopt the Fooker's slogan .. if its yellow let it mellow . if its brown flush it down!!

lol, i think they have "the Circle of Trust" already sewn up, the Fockers.

For Reals

I believe the main reason Irish Water was set up was to separate and divide off the water supply. Take it out of the remaining services paid for by general taxation, (street lights, upkeep of parks, street cleaning and so on).
This was done for one or two reasons:
To increase tax income to the state, (as we were already paying tax towards water supply).
And/or to better enable the privatisation of water down the road, (I really expect this in ten years or so).

The environmental reasons are just nonsense. Not saying there isn't that side to it, conservation etc., just saying the government couldn't give a f*** about the environment. Why weren't we fixing leaks and infrastructure for the last 100 years? Don't say the money wasn't there, even on a piecemeal basis we could have done it over such a time period. They just couldn't care less, but now they see a pay day.

How can we squeeze more money out of them? Household Tax, Communications Tax, Water Tax.........


It's another case of the government treating the public like tenants and them the landlords. Sadly the next government, who ever they may be, will tout the, 'Our hands are tied' classic.

Phoebas

creedp wrote: »

Not really a strong argument .. the mightily efficent IW will only reduce the workforce using natural wastage .. somthing that could equally be achieved by local authorities and is now a very common strategy to reduce numbers across the public sector.

The facts don't show this. It is the centralisation of water services that allow numbers to be reduced over time - it was never going to happen under the LAs.

creedp wrote: »

On the second point ..just look at the NTR scenario for precedent .. volumes go down will result in 2 options - 1. the State subsidises IW income through direct transfer of tax revenues; 2. IW rack up the charges. Take your choice - one way or the other IW income will not be reducing over time in response to reduced water consumption.

Sorry - why look at NTR for precedent here?
You'd be better off looking at other comparable businesses (like the other utilities that have large fixed costs) for precedent.

Cookie_Monster

Maudi wrote: »

Its a legitimate addage to indicate the era they were built..allows the reader to gain perspective on how old the pipes are..

I presume he meant that they should not be that old and have been long replaced by now.

A friend of mine works in vartry resovoir. .he told me the whole victorian pipe structure is in the verge of collapse.and that the pipes that leave the resovoir are 15 foot diameter and that 40% of water flowing out is lost due to major leaks..40%!!...in his own words "its scary to look at"...

I've read somewhere that they were looking at replacing them but they can't even tell where a lot of the pipe actually is anymore.

creedp

Phoebas wrote: »

The facts don't show this. It is the centralisation of water services that allow numbers to be reduced over time - it was never going to happen under the LAs.


Sorry - why look at NTR for precedent here?
You'd be better off looking at other comparable businesses (like the other utilities that have large fixed costs) for precedent.

Didn't mean to exasperate you so much. Am I convinced that IW will not increase charges - either standing charges or metered charges - if it becomes very successful in reducing the consumption of water over time - No!

Niall Keane

creedp wrote: »

Didn't mean to exasperate you so much. Am I convinced that IW will not increase charges - either standing charges or metered charges - if it becomes very successful in reducing the consumption of water over time - No!

What will happen is what happens everywhere else Water charges are implemented, you get charged for "discharge" - soil water and surface water. So they will take a national average of rain fall and calculate the amount falling on your property, and obviously you get double charged for water they supply as it must be taken away too in one form or another.
This will be sold to the mob on the green agenda and creating jobs in rainwater harvesting etc...

Phoebas

creedp wrote: »

Didn't mean to exasperate you so much. Am I convinced that IW will not increase charges - either standing charges or metered charges - if it becomes very successful in reducing the consumption of water over time - No!

IW can't increase charges - that's a decision for the regulator.

Niall Keane wrote: »

What will happen is what happens everywhere else Water charges are implemented, you get charged for "discharge" - soil water and surface water. So they will take a national average of rain fall and calculate the amount falling on your property, and obviously you get double charged for water they supply as it must be taken away too in one form or another.

That's simply not true.

creedp

Phoebas wrote: »

IW can't increase charges - that's a decision for the regulator.


That's simply not true.

Just like the energy regulator who increases electricity charges to subsidise expensive green energy generation thereby making the ESB a very profitable organisation - who gets the spolis - the employees in the form of the highest average wages in hte public sector and the Govt in the form of a dividend. Nifty stealth taxation. Of course IW won't head in that direction. Sure this is a new public body that won't be tainted by past semi-state practices, especially with tough FG at the helm. Oh wait ........

Phoebas

creedp wrote: »

Just like the energy regulator who increases electricity charges to subsidise expensive green energy generation thereby making the ESB a very profitable organisation - who gets the spolis - the employees in the form of the highest average wages in hte public sector and the Govt in the form of a dividend. Nifty stealth taxation. Of course IW won't head in that direction. Sure this is a new public body that won't be tainted by past semi-state practices, especially with tough FG at the helm. Oh wait ........

... my apologies. I didn't realise you were just using this discussion thread as place to rant.

Carry on.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

IW can't increase charges - that's a decision for the regulator.

The only way any water rates will ever be hiked is if the regulator calls IW and tell them to raise pricing?
Don't you mean, as with every semi-state, any proposed hike need be approved? Borderline pedantism.

Phoebas wrote: »

That's simply not true.

To be fair that's Niall's view, so it may or may not come to be.
I think all on here concerned about the future actions of IW are genuine and basing it on the record of successive governments and their management/mismanagement of state and semi-state bodies.
I mean how often are we sold on one thing that ends up biting us in the ass down the road? I think a level of cynicism is more than justified.
Can I ask why every post of yours, intended or not, buys into and defends every pro-IW point on here? It's one thing to blindly buy into the propaganda, but why defend it against any criticism? We can all cite the party pamphlet as gospel, but that doesn't make it so.

Alun

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I've read somewhere that they were looking at replacing them but they can't even tell where a lot of the pipe actually is anymore.

The biggest problem is a tunnel called the Cannow Hill tunnel that covers the first 3 or 4 km from the water treatment plant, which is near to collapse. There are well advance plans to replace this.

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/braypeople/news/vartry-tunnel-replacement-scheme-said-to-be-advancing-29476392.html

Regarding the course of the water main into South Dublin to the reservoirs in Leopardstown, I'm sure they know pretty well where they run. You can even follow the path quite easily using the historical map layers on maps.osi.ie.

Interesting article here ... https://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/heritage/Water,-Drainage,-People-and-Heritage.pdf?ext=.pdf

Phoebas

For Reals wrote: »

The only way any water rates will ever be hiked is if the regulator calls IW and tell them to raise pricing?
Don't you mean, as with every semi-state, any proposed hike need be approved? Borderline pedantism.

Prices increases need to be approved by the regulator - that's a lot more than pedantism in my view, but I suppose some people think that regulators are just rubber stamping machines for the industries they regulate - which is an understandable enough view to take I suppose.

For Reals wrote: »

To be fair that's Niall's view, so it may or may not come to be.

What Niall said was "what happens everywhere else Water charges are implemented, you get charged for 'discharge' - soil water and surface water"...
That is simply not true; it's not just a matter of opinion.

For Reals wrote: »

Can I ask why every post of yours, intended or not, buys into and defends every pro-IW point on here? It's one thing to blindly buy into the propaganda, but why defend it against any criticism? We can all cite the party pamphlet as gospel, but that doesn't make it so.

What pro IW point? That Irish Water want to charge householders for the surface water that discharges from their property? I don't think that's an actual Irish Water position, except maybe a made up cartoon (propaganda) version of Irish Water that some people like to imagine.

For Reals

Phoebas wrote: »

Prices increases need to be approved by the regulator - that's a lot more than pedantism in my view, but I suppose some people think that regulators are just rubber stamping machines for the industries they regulate - which is an understandable enough view to take I suppose.


What Niall said was "what happens everywhere else Water charges are implemented, you get charged for 'discharge' - soil water and surface water"...
That is simply not true; it's not just a matter of opinion.


What pro IW point? That Irish Water want to charge householders for the surface water that discharges from their property? I don't think that's an actual Irish Water position, except maybe a made up cartoon (propaganda) version of Irish Water that some people like to imagine.

Thanks for the balanced response.
I do feel we need explore all possible ways we may or may not get screwed by IW. Just based on past government incentives and schemes.
I think its fair to err on the side of caution when speaking on areas and possible eventualities not mapped out. We shall see.
I hope we're all still fighting fit to debate when they privatise it
(still upset many of the 'Don't vote Labour, keep Biffo in, otherwise we'll have the IMF at the door!' crowd still posted here).

JohnDawson

1. It costs a significant amount of money both to deliver potable water to households & businesses, and to deal with waste water
2. Ireland's water infrastructure is in a woeful state, and requires major investment if it to become fit for purpose
3. It is better to administer Ireland's water centrally because water resources and water issues transcend local administrative boundaries
4. Setting up a centralised Irish Water Authority will incur a significant setup cost
5. If people pay for water they use less of it

Does anyone disagree with any of the above? The Government may have made a dog's dinner over this, but how exactly is NOT implementing water charges going to help anyone?

Satriale

JohnDawson wrote: »

1. It costs a significant amount of money both to deliver potable water to households & businesses, and to deal with waste water
2. Ireland's water infrastructure is in a woeful state, and requires major investment if it to become fit for purpose
3. It is better to administer Ireland's water centrally because water resources and water issues transcend local administrative boundaries
4. Setting up a centralised Irish Water Authority will incur a significant setup cost
5. If people pay for water they use less of it

Does anyone disagree with any of the above? The Government may have made a dog's dinner over this, but how exactly is NOT implementing water charges going to help anyone?

Welcome back, John.

Seanachai

Has anybody been reading the posts under the water charges thread in Accom & Property? the past week or so has just been posters buzzing over their bills. I think this shows the divide in this country and might see FG voted back in next year. Anybody who is against the charges is being tarnished as some sort of a bad citizen shirking their responsibilities, I see being compliant as weakness and actually being selfish to the detriment of the other people you share a country with. If these people help to vote FG back in they will be inflicting more pain on the working class people, but judging by the posters they really don't seem to give a toss.

sarumite

Seanachai wrote: »

I see being compliant as weakness and actually being selfish to the detriment of the other people you share a country with. If these people help to vote FG back in they will be inflicting more pain on the working class people, but judging by the posters they really don't seem to give a toss.

You will have to explain this one a little more to me. How is paying for the water you use being Selfish?

Genuinely struggling to understand your logic here. Perhaps you could expand on your point.

blackwhite

Seanachai wrote: »

Has anybody been reading the posts under the water charges thread in Accom & Property? the past week or so has just been posters buzzing over their bills. I think this shows the divide in this country and might see FG voted back in next year. Anybody who is against the charges is being tarnished as some sort of a bad citizen shirking their responsibilities, I see being compliant as weakness and actually being selfish to the detriment of the other people you share a country with. If these people help to vote FG back in they will be inflicting more pain on the working class people, but judging by the posters they really don't seem to give a toss.

Surely paying your water charges is taking some pain away from "working class people", as it reduces the amount that needs to be sourced from general taxation (you know, the taxes that actual working people pay).

Idbatterim

Has anybody been reading the posts under the water charges thread in Accom & Property? the past week or so has just been posters buzzing over their bills. I think this shows the divide in this country and might see FG voted back in next year. Anybody who is against the charges is being tarnished as some sort of a bad citizen shirking their responsibilities, I see being compliant as weakness and actually being selfish to the detriment of the other people you share a country with. If these people help to vote FG back in they will be inflicting more pain on the working class people, but judging by the posters they really don't seem to give a toss.

I disagree with that totally, is having parties who dont reward work, enterprise etc and run the country poorly in the interests of the "working class"? FG by the way are the ones still happy to tax many of the working poor on the pittance over E34,000 at 51%...

I voted for them last time, not this time. You are talking about the working class, those on under 18k (soon to be raised to 20,000) are contributing as good as nothing in direct taxes. Its a large part of the problem. Then we have a huge amount of people on by european standards a very generous welfare system, I mean I get why they feel shafted, because they have no basis for comparison. They hear boyd barrett, SF etc all telling them how they are being shafted, while we borrowed tens of billions to keep living standards, relatively extremely high... The pensioners were let off nearly scott free. Low income earners being taxed at a marginal rate of 51%. Decisions were made on who should feel the pain most and it wasn't one based on merit or sound analysis, it was always political...

Nobody can disagree with the below...

1. It costs a significant amount of money both to deliver potable water to households & businesses, and to deal with waste water
2. Ireland's water infrastructure is in a woeful state, and requires major investment if it to become fit for purpose
3. It is better to administer Ireland's water centrally because water resources and water issues transcend local administrative boundaries
4. Setting up a centralised Irish Water Authority will incur a significant setup cost
5. If people pay for water they use less of it

Does anyone disagree with any of the above? The Government may have made a dog's dinner over this, but how exactly is NOT implementing water charges going to help anyone?