Water - where do you stand?

The_Captain

I stand in the shallow end.

I tread water in the deep end

meglome

mrbrianj wrote: »

Seemly the people employed were already working with the water supply from the local authorities- already "experts"

Some new hire in a call centre is not going to know their stuff yet. In six months if it was still like that I'd be complaining myself.

mrbrianj wrote: »

Excessive amounts were spent on consultants to instruct how to set up the company "running".

I've heard this excessive claim over and over. Not one person has made any comparison to anything to show that is is excessive. I have no idea but it seems no one making the claim has either.

mrbrianj wrote: »

On the time frame of the problem - it went on for 3 weeks (service was not off for the whole time - but several breaks in supply) before the problem was addressed. 80 yr old widow, but she was not the only person effected.

The water may not of been poisoned - it was undrinkable and brown in colour during for several days.

If any organisation set up from scratch like this got it 100% right that would be shocking. The only question is will they sort it out going forward.

mrbrianj wrote: »

I dont have a problem with metering or charges - I do have a problem with the establishment method of IW. Conservation and clean supply is not the number 1 goal. Revenue and remuneration packages seem more important.

What is so different between Irish Water and other centralised utilities in other countries? Apart from being a semi-state maybe.

joolsveer wrote: »

I am in favour of paying for the water resources that I use. Metering is probably the way to do this.

We are currently paying in excess of one billion euros a year for our water. Will we get a rebate on this?

Our government debt outside of any bank borrowings is 150 billion euro, the vast majority of which was used to keep the lights on since 2008. You think we should get a rebate?

PeterBrown1415

alastair wrote: »

It's a simple question that ignores two additionally simple facts:

It's 0.0045% of what we're spending in total
It's a spend we had no choice in, as it was a requirement of receiving loans we needed.

And your answer - taxes of course.

There is always a choice. It was, and is, a FF/FG decision to pay the bondholders.

So, you admit that we are paying it back through taxes then. Taxes like USC, Property tax, water charges and whatever new taxes FF/FG come up with.

Do you realise how much money is involved?

alastair

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

There is always a choice.

So - where would you have gone to for the loan? Because the only lenders I'm aware of were quite clear as to the requirement to stand over over the promissory notes etc.

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

It was, and is, a FF/FG decision to pay the bondholders.

Not really.

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

So, you admit that we are paying it back through taxes then. Taxes like USC, Property tax, water charges and whatever new taxes FF/FG come up with.

Do you realise how much money is involved?

I sure do - it's a huge amount - but still 0.0045% of what we're spending in total.

meglome

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

There is always a choice. It was, and is, a FF/FG decision to pay the bondholders.

So, you admit that we are paying it back through taxes then. Taxes like USC, Property tax, water charges and whatever new taxes FF/FG come up with.

Do you realise how much money is involved?

We borrowed 65 billion for the banks and another 150 billion to keep the country running. We're still borrowing to keep the country running. And the banks may actually be worth something at the end of the day, the other money is just gone.

I love how you guys are so fixated on the banks when it's the smallest part of the **** we're in. But it doesn't fit the narrative that we are only charging for water as we had to pay for the banks. We're charging for water as we don't take in enough tax to pay for our services.

ninty9er

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

There is always a choice. It was, and is, a FF/FG decision to pay the bondholders.

So, you admit that we are paying it back through taxes then. Taxes like USC, Property tax, water charges and whatever new taxes FF/FG come up with.

Do you realise how much money is involved?

This has nothing to do with water charges. If you want to discuss the success of banking recapitalisation, come back in 10/15 years when the process is complete.

This thread is about water charges, in a vacuum.

If we had been paying enough for water up to now there would be no such thing as a boil water notice, or lack of funding to repair leaking pipes, or to replace asbestos and lead pipes.

BoJack Horseman

PeterBrown1415 wrote: »

Do you realise how much money is involved?

About 1.7b out of 61b total expenditure annually.

jackhammer

meglome wrote: »

I've heard this excessive claim over and over. Not one person has made any comparison to anything to show that is is excessive. I have no idea but it seems no one making the claim has either.

They spent 50 million on IT consultants for their IT systems. Given that Irish Water's parent company is Bord Gais, and Bord Gais already has a functioning IT system (that provides customer service and billing for its customers for a fluid utility that is metered), it's no stretch to suggest that instead of hiring consultants to "re-invent the wheel", they could have just duplicated Bord Gais' IT system and tweaked it , for a fraction of that cost.

And that's coming from me wearing my IT consultant hat.:)

alastair

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

About 1.7b out of 61b total expenditure annually.

And that's the bank bailout costs - not 'the bond holders'.

BoJack Horseman

alastair wrote: »

And that's the bank bailout costs - not 'the bond holders'.

Is the promissory note not all 'bondholder'?

meglome

jackhammer wrote: »

They spent 50 million on IT consultants for their IT systems. Given that Irish Water's parent company is Bord Gais, and Bord Gais already has a functioning IT system (that provides customer service and billing for its customers for a fluid utility that is metered), it's no stretch to suggest that instead of hiring consultants to "re-invent the wheel", they could have just duplicated Bord Gais' IT system and tweaked it , for a fraction of that cost.

And that's coming from me wearing my IT consultant hat.:)

As I said I don't know. The issue I have is people are looking at the number and claiming that it's too much without any details or comparison. My new broadband connection was installed by a 'consultant' sent by Eircom i.e. a bloke in a van. Lot's of things are described as consultancy but without proper analysis we have no way whatsoever to say if it's too much or not.

alastair

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Is the promissory note not all 'bondholder'?

Seemingly €800 million of that is earmarked for debt derived from the promissory notes.

MayoAreMagic

You know, the thing about this is, if the government had just tried to bring in a flat rate across the board in the first place, people would be complaining that they don't use as much water as the large family down the road, or the lad who washes his range rover every week, and would be calling for some way for the water use to be measured.

I actually think people are viewing this all wrong. A flat rate for everyone is just going to punish people who are organised enough to not waste water (probably 90% of the population), and serve those who are wasting it. People are just frightened that they are going to be going over the limit etc, but more education around how much water people actually use on average would probably get people moving towards putting a meter on their water.

The reality is the way they have gone about it, and the way the press have reported it, has led this entire process down the wrong path. A flat rate would actually be a disaster - something that could be risen at a later date like any other tax, don't forget. At least with a meter you pay what you personally owe and you are in control of that. Everyone seems to be of the thinking that a flat rate will save them when they go over the limit, when in fact 90% of them would probably save money going the meter route. It is the fear of the unknown that is driving this thing.

Also, what do the wages of the people working in irish water have to do with anything? Every company has a wage structure. This focusing on theirs is actually pointless, and underlines what this whole thing is about.

creedp

jackhammer wrote: »

They spent 50 million on IT consultants for their IT systems. Given that Irish Water's parent company is Bord Gais, and Bord Gais already has a functioning IT system (that provides customer service and billing for its customers for a fluid utility that is metered), it's no stretch to suggest that instead of hiring consultants to "re-invent the wheel", they could have just duplicated Bord Gais' IT system and tweaked it , for a fraction of that cost.

And that's coming from me wearing my IT consultant hat.:)

They would then have had to justify not implementing a standing charge which is applicable to BG bills and all utility billing system I am familiar with .. instead spending €50m has allowed them implement an overly complex and bureaucratic system of charges which is ripe for political interference ... I suppose the end justifies the means here also ... I mean would the politians actually establish a brand new organisation and allow it to operate on an independent objective fashion .. hell no ..

Nollog

I stand somewhere around "they should hire some decent customer support staff before I'm willing to pay them".
Unfortunately, my land lord is pressing me to.
I've been trying to get them to confirm my application was received for about a month now, via twitter and email.
Their phone line is useless to me as I work longer hours than them.

Gosub

At least you got an application. I'm still waiting for mine.

DellyBelly

I stand outside it otherwise I'll get wet....

Peanut2011

alastair wrote: »

So - where would you have gone to for the loan? Because the only lenders I'm aware of were quite clear as to the requirement to stand over over the promissory notes etc.

What strikes me from your replies is that you either must be Noonan or Varadkar under this username. Either that or the spin they all give works quite well on you.

Nothing about IW was done in a way to conserve and improve! The only conservation they are doing is to the income level of John Tierney!

The only improvement they are making is to their likability for future EU jobs!

Everything else is a spin!

BoJack Horseman

Peanut2011 wrote: »

you either must be Noonan or Varadkar under this username.
Either that or the spin they all give works quite well on you.

Nothing about IW was done in a way to conserve and improve!
The only conservation they are doing is to the income level of John Tierney!

The only improvement they are making is to their likability for future EU jobs!

Everything else is a spin!

This entire post is agenda & spin!

jimmycrackcorm

It irks me to watch people trying to block water meters being installed. Not having a meter does not prevent you being billed and likely more than you would with one.

Since my meter was installed I've been very conscientious about my water usage so the meter itself is beneficial.

alastair

Peanut2011 wrote: »

What strikes me from your replies is that you either must be Noonan or Varadkar under this username. Either that or the spin they all give works quite well on you.

Nothing about IW was done in a way to conserve and improve! The only conservation they are doing is to the income level of John Tierney!

The only improvement they are making is to their likability for future EU jobs!

Everything else is a spin!

You don't think having to pay for your water will encourage conservation? If you had all the petrol you could use, on the back of your existing tax outgoings, do you believe you'd consume more, less, or the same?

Banjoxed

So, why are the poll results hidden?

Reekwind

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Also, what do the wages of the people working in irish water have to do with anything? Every company has a wage structure. This focusing on theirs is actually pointless, and underlines what this whole thing is about.

Wot?

The issue with Irish Water is not that they have a wage structure (which, as you helpfully point out, every company has) but that this wage structure is going to be bloated and top heavy. This may not be at the heart of the principled objection to water charges but it's still understandably difficult to stomach witnessing the creation of an unwieldy patronage machine. Particularly when raising cash is the primary purpose of this whole endeavour.

Why would anyone have confidence that the money they pay in water charges is going to improve the water infrastructure when we already have sight of the degree to which many gombeens have already used this as an opportunity to milk the system?

nice_guy80

Doesn't help that there is a politically appointed inept person in charge of the whole operation

and that the configuration of Irish Water was set up by Big Phil Hogan


The aim should be to provide good quality water at the lowest possible price. That is the way local water schemes are run.


I'm in favour of meters. They promote conservation and with a proper and decent allowance most families would get away with paying very little.
However, that was before the property tax was brought in. WTF is that being used for???

Peanut2011

alastair wrote: »

You don't think having to pay for your water will encourage conservation? If you had all the petrol you could use, on the back of your existing tax outgoings, do you believe you'd consume more, less, or the same?

So are you saying we have people leaving their taps on constantly just cos they don't pay directly?

Petrol is commodity you can live without. Are you saying you would hold your breath for longer if they brought in air tax so you would pay less?

I never run my taps unnecessary, that would not change be it meters or not!

micosoft

jackhammer wrote: »

They spent 50 million on IT consultants for their IT systems. Given that Irish Water's parent company is Bord Gais, and Bord Gais already has a functioning IT system (that provides customer service and billing for its customers for a fluid utility that is metered), it's no stretch to suggest that instead of hiring consultants to "re-invent the wheel", they could have just duplicated Bord Gais' IT system and tweaked it , for a fraction of that cost.

And that's coming from me wearing my IT consultant hat.:)

Do you have any sectorial experience? To use your analogy, you do need to reinvent the wheel if you are going to travel across water instead of a road. A wheel won't do much in water. The system that runs a Gas Network is radically different to one that runs a water network? End of.

The 70 million was not just spent on consultants. It was licensing, water specific tools, hardware, datacentres etc, billing (everyone uses water, proportion uses Gas), handheld units, GIS, work order systems etc etc etc. The ESB spent a similar amount of money several years ago on a SAP system for the National Grid. The figures for anybody that knows anything about large systems implementation are actually very cheap. In fact I suspect the cost is only 70 million because of the BGE connection. It might well have been much more if it that link was not there.

Compare for example with PPARS which has cost over 200million so far just to do payroll and HR for the HSE. A bad project for sure (The issues being around change management more then the technology). But you can see the scale of large systems implementations.

TCDStudent1

Reekwind wrote: »

Wot?

The issue with Irish Water is not that they have a wage structure (which, as you helpfully point out, every company has) but that this wage structure is going to be bloated and top heavy. This may not be at the heart of the principled objection to water charges but it's still understandably difficult to stomach witnessing the creation of an unwieldy patronage machine. Particularly when raising cash is the primary purpose of this whole endeavour.

Why would anyone have confidence that the money they pay in water charges is going to improve the water infrastructure when we already have sight of the degree to which many gombeens have already used this as an opportunity to milk the system?

As far as I could see, most people were protesting water charges though.

It would make far more sense if they protested against wages likes this (or similar things where our taxes go).

The majority of people out protesting believe they should get water for free. Water does not magically fall from the sky into their tap. Do they expect the man who goes out an lay down pipes to not get paid. Or they expect somebody else to pay for their water - where is the fairness in that?

syklops

Reports of people with boil water notices, for extended periods of time isn't a sign of a well run system. Also if I stand back for a moment, I'd never consider splitting the electricity network up between 30-odd local authorities, so why split the water network? That inefficiency has a hidden cost which has to paid, plus interest, by the state, and then by me anyway.

My mother came home from Mass a few years ago with the Mass leaflet. Written in biro at the bottom of the leaflet was the message "Water not safe to drink". Thats was the only real indicator they got for about 3 days.

My father(protestant) suggested, tongue in cheek, that it was ethnic cleansing.

They have bought water pretty much ever since. Even after the announcement that it was safe to drink again, and beyond the period when it wasn't again. They have a well but the pump died a death about 20 years ago and were quoted 20k to get it fixed. They have recently been quoted 700 to get it fixed and are going down that route.

Maybe with an actual water charge, with the charge actually going to the water system, boil notices will become a thing of the past. Maybe.

Sand

I've no objection to water charges as such. I just cant get over how hamfisted and pathetic the government are on it. Its like property taxes all over again. So many of the objections to the water charges are so easily dealt with when some honesty is applied.

1 - Don't we already pay for water out of income taxes?
Sure, okay. Think of this as a tax hike then.
2 - Why not just bump up income tax then Ted?
Because there's obvious beneficial outcomes to charging on water consumption. If you purchase water conserving appliances, surely you should see some benefit over your neighbour who wastes water and leaves taps running all day. Only fair, and incentivises investment in water conservation.
3 - But water is free. It falls out of the sky. Its immoral to charge for it.
And by all means feel free to drink the water that falls out of the sky. The water that is treated and piped to your home at high pressure is not free. Vast amounts of electricity regularly fall out of the sky too - we still pay for electricity to our sockets.

Done.

The hard bit is Irish Water itself. It is blatantly obvious the snouts were firmly stuck into the trough with ridiculous call out charges, consultancy fees, guaranteed bonus payments written into contracts (who has *ever* heard of this outside of football and the civil service?). This entire company was created to hide costs off the government balance sheet and the government has allowed all the bad habits of the civil service, semi-states and public sector unions infest it, right from birth. Extremely poor.

Like I said, I've no problems with water charges as such, but I've a major problem with paying them to Irish Water to fund their "fact finding" holidays to the Caribbean every winter. This is a problem of political leadership - of which Kenny and Fine Gael display absolutely none.

Dan_Solo

Reekwind wrote: »

Why would anyone have confidence that the money they pay in water charges is going to improve the water infrastructure when we already have sight of the degree to which many gombeens have already used this as an opportunity to milk the system?

Well that's exactly it, isn't it? Irish Water, like every other company, is there to make money, not water. If they find a way to make money that involves them providing zero water they will do it.
Essential services should be in the hands of the public. As far as I can see, water is more important than the armed forces, so why don't we privatise the army too?