Water charges revisited?

Edward M

We have come from one of the wettest periods in our weather patterns, we've had about 6 weeks of reasonably dry weather, we're facing in to a heatwave and already they're talking about water restrictions.
I see in a separate headline that health has acceded its budget in the hundreds of millions already this year, though tax takes are up all our services are struggling it seems, increasing costs eating up any gains it looks like.
Should we now be looking at revisiting some way of charging for water usage given that its obvious even to a blind donkey that our water system is a sieve and that we won't be able to invest as necessary to fix it up.
Are politicians now seriously really against these charges still or just playing the populist game?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/heatwave-continues-as-dry-spell-puts-pressure-on-water-supplies-851147.html

Idbatterim

Edward M wrote: »

We have come from one of the wettest periods in our weather patterns, we've had about 6 weeks of reasonably dry weather, we're facing in to a heatwave and already they're talking about water restrictions.
I see in a separate headline that health has acceded its budget in the hundreds of millions already this year, though tax takes are up all our services are struggling it seems, increasing costs eating up any gains it looks like.
Should we now be looking at revisiting some way of charging for water usage given that its obvious even to a blind donkey that our water system is a sieve and that we won't be able to invest as necessary to fix it up.
Are politicians now seriously really against these charges still or just playing the populist game?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/heatwave-continues-as-dry-spell-puts-pressure-on-water-supplies-851147.html

no due to politics here it won’t happen. With property price rises, they can generate more from the lpt. Of course the moron tds are already looking at lowering the rates there, due to the hikes in property!

Edward M

Idbatterim wrote: »

no due to politics here it won’t happen. With property price rises, they can generate more from the lpt. Of course the moron tds are already looking at lowering the rates there, due to the hikes in property!

I see your point, but taking everything into consideration, in the end is user pays not the best policy?
I know all the arguments have been gone through before, the debacle IW was and poor governing re implementation of charges, but if a better way of putting charges forward was found, and there must be one, could the public not be brought to see that paying for the service as a stand alone charge would be best all round?

VinLieger

Idbatterim wrote: »

no due to politics here it won’t happen. With property price rises, they can generate more from the lpt. Of course the moron tds are already looking at lowering the rates there, due to the hikes in property!

They need to lower the rates as the cost of some peoples property tax will have doubled since its introduction, they wont be getting less money from the LPT by reducing rates they will just be fairly accounting for the property price bubble

El Tarangu

Edward M wrote: »

I see your point, but taking everything into consideration, in the end is user pays not the best policy?

While I 100% agree with you, I'm sure it won't happen. Paul Murphy's rent-a-mob would only be delighted for a chance to get out and about to jump on a bandwagon in the current sunny weather; I can't see either the current government or the next government (which I presume will be coalition of either FF or FG along with some strange bedfellows, with a very narrow majority) risking the political capital needed to go after the sacred cow of "free" water.

Chips Lovell

It is the best policy but it's politically toxic now. No way is anyone going to stick their head above that parapet for at least another generation. We're stuck with what we have at the moment.

James Brown

If we brought in a charge for everything the state, (council/national) ignored or mismanaged we'd have a plethora of new fees.
They should have been investing in water supply for decades, not getting an interest because they saw a new way to make a few bob for crony board appointments, sweet deals, (still under investigation) and not wanting to be seen to raise taxes. That's what it was ultimately all about. What a complete waste of tax payer money.
Again Fine Gael and Labour hyped and in part created Paul Murphy not the general public. They didn't even want him at the Jobstown protest. They needed a whipping boy when the general public where up in arms.

They can find the money when they want to. If they monetise water they'll privatise it.

LuckyLloyd

As I always said, I'd have no problem in principle with paying for water charges, but I was manifestly opposed to the manner of its introduction. What's done is done, and FG need to appropriate more of the general tax take towards water infrastructure across their coming budgets.

Seth Brundle

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

As I always said, I'd have no problem in principle with paying for water charges, but I was manifestly opposed to the manner of its introduction. What's done is done, and FG need to appropriate more of the general tax take towards water infrastructure across their coming budgets.

We've been told that 10 billion is required to get it up to standard.
This can't come out of the tax take without major sacrifices which never go down well with the electorate!

Larbre34

The main issue, as far as I was concerned, was that the money to be raised, even if 100% collected, would not even have covered the administrative costs of the feckless, bloated quango they set up to run it. That massive political error torpedoed the whole idea and took it off the table for decades. Yes the EU will have a problem with that, but frankly I think its own existential crisis and the rise of ultra nationalism will more occupy their minds than pipes in Ireland.

I still believe Irish Water should be disbanded with the infrastructure provision being handed over to TII, who have decades of experience delivering billion euro civil projects, and the local water management being handed back to the County Councils who have the people where it matters.

listermint

Seth Brundle wrote: »

We've been told that 10 billion is required to get it up to standard.
This can't come out of the tax take without major sacrifices which never go down well with the electorate!

Well then borrow and pay for it. There is no shortage of cash in this state for flights of fancy but infrastructure is always down the list.

MJohnston

Edward M wrote: »

We have come from one of the wettest periods in our weather patterns, we've had about 6 weeks of reasonably dry weather, we're facing in to a heatwave and already they're talking about water restrictions.

Just as a quick fact-check, this is not quite correct. Out of the last 6 months, we've had 3 whole months (June, May, February) significantly below average rainfall in the Dublin area. One month (March) was significantly above average rainfall, but the majority of that came in a very short period at the start of the month, which is the kind of rainfall that isn't particularly helpful to replenishing groundwater supplies (it runs off quickly and ends up mostly in the sea). The other months were about average.

So this is much more than 6 weeks of reasonably dry weather, it's 12 weeks of extremely dry weather. June in particular, the mean rainfall is 69.1mm at Phoenix Park, and this year we've had 3.8mm. That's extreme. We can't really describe any of this period as 'the wettest period in our weather patterns either', as only March has been significantly wetter than usual.

So not only do you have much less water going into the system, you have much more going out of it too - both increased usage with people water gardens, but also increased evaporation at reservoirs with more direct sunlight.

Added to that, the temperatures in May and June have been quite a bit above average, which increases water usage by itself, people are thirstier!

The deviations from our mean rainfalls and long-term-average temperatures by themselves show that this is a period of extreme weather in Irish terms.

Just don't increase job seekers allowance going forward. Look after some of the water charges out of the savings. Pensions and disability payments can be increased as planned IMO.

Chips Lovell

Let's be realistic though. While there are options that may change some people's opinion, there is a big enough constituency out there who don't want water charges full stop, no matter what way they're run. Whatever it is, they'll find some reason to object.

Which means there'd be uproar if the water system was turned back to local authorities and they levied water charges and there'd be uproar if the water system was turned over to TII and they levied water charges.

LuckyLloyd

Seth Brundle wrote: »

We've been told that 10 billion is required to get it up to standard.
This can't come out of the tax take without major sacrifices which never go down well with the electorate!

Interest rates will never be this low again. It's an infrastructure expense, split it into phases and get moving on the biggest priority items up front. I will consistently advocate government investment in infrastructure.

James Brown

Irish Water explains it all. There's no interest in upgrading the infrastructure unless there's some kind of gimmick attached. If some money and attention was put into it rather than patching, it wouldn't be in such a mess. There was no interest, but throw a quango in the mix and it's suddenly the number one crisis we need deal with immediately after almost going belly up as a nation and looking after the banks. Funny that.

crossman47

listermint wrote: »

Well then borrow and pay for it. There is no shortage of cash in this state for flights of fancy but infrastructure is always down the list.

But if you borrow and pay for it, it still comes out of tax. Just a question of timing unless you think borrowed money is paid for some other way. Irish Water was the right idea i.e. a commercial body whose borrowings would be off the states books but it was ineptly handled and gave Murphy and his gang the excuse they needed to raise their profile.

Idbatterim

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It is the best policy but it's politically toxic now. No way is anyone going to stick their head above that parapet for at least another generation. We're stuck with what we have at the moment.

agreed, it would take another bail out to even consider it I reckon. Given what has happened though, they may not ever go down that route again though...

They need to lower the rates as the cost of some peoples property tax will have doubled since its introduction, they wont be getting less money from the LPT by reducing rates they will just be fairly accounting for the property price bubble

Are you a politician by any chance? I hear terms used, like "catastrophic" "insane" about the rate hikes from local councillors, wow , they will go from E400 ish to E800 a year, people renting in dublin are paying E800-900 a room, massive hikes in rent, massive property price jumps, E50-60k a year on average houses in Dublin. Yet .18% of the value of a property being taxed, needs to be meddled with? spare me! LPT is an open goal for them, just leave it as it is, they will need to spend massive amounts going forward on health, ageing population, infrastructure. It absolutely hilarious to me, the economy doing well again, you think they would have billions to throw at every one come election time, every year, those days are LOOOOOOONG over!

The Legend Of Kira

The issue of water charges will be revisited in the future at some point. Some people may of heard about the 9.4 exemption clause Ireland had to avoid domestic water charges, MEP Marian Harkin spoke about this clause a year ago.

https://www.oceanfm.ie/2017/06/23/north-west-mep-says-government-has-the-key-to-preventing-future-water-charges/

Unknown to a lot of people the 9.4 exemption clause wasn,t included in the recent River Basin Management Plan to be kept meaning its gone- as the 9.4 exemption clause is gone the whole water charges issue will have to be revisited.

Edward M

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

The issue of water charges will be revisited in the future at some point. Some people may of heard about the 9.4 exemption clause Ireland had to avoid domestic water charges, MEP Marian Harkin spoke about this clause a year ago.

https://www.oceanfm.ie/2017/06/23/north-west-mep-says-government-has-the-key-to-preventing-future-water-charges/

Unknown to a lot of people the 9.4 exemption clause wasn,t included in the recent River Basin Management Plan to be kept meaning its gone- as the 9.4 exemption clause is gone the whole water charges issue will have to be revisited.

That's all been debated too I think.
We have this farce now of being fined for over consumption, whereby after a reasonable amount you will have to pay for your overuse.
Now,how the hell can that be enforced or consumption monitored without metering.
I think that clause was introduced to try to overcome what you mention, but as I said without full metering its just ridiculous.
The whole thing, from the party's that sought to introduce it and their handling of it, to the ones who opposed it was just ridiculous really IMO.
An Irish solution to a problem that has still left a huge problem!

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Irish Water explains it all. There's no interest in upgrading the infrastructure unless there's some kind of gimmick attached. If some money and attention was put into it rather than patching, it wouldn't be in such a mess. There was no interest, but throw a quango in the mix and it's suddenly the number one crisis we need deal with immediately after almost going belly up as a nation and looking after the banks. Funny that.

Therein was the problem I think too.
John Tierney heading it, DOB and siteserve, laughing yoga, it was so easy to sell IW as a pup, and it certainly looked that way.
The ineffective handling of it by the two ministers who had it before 2016, reversal after reversal of implementation and basically no real prospect of punishment for non payers, it was easily the worst piece of governance since the crash!

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Irish Water explains it all. There's no interest in upgrading the infrastructure unless there's some kind of gimmick attached. If some money and attention was put into it rather than patching, it wouldn't be in such a mess. There was no interest, but throw a quango in the mix and it's suddenly the number one crisis we need deal with immediately after almost going belly up as a nation and looking after the banks. Funny that.

Try telling those who are facing water shortages next month that there is no problem.

If Irish Water had got the money it needed from water charges (and please don't post the urban myth about it costing as much to collect them) they would be well on the way to improving the supply.

Idbatterim

A reasonable amount should be ring fenced for our water infrastructure , good luck with that though. More investment in critical infrastructure or throwing a fiver at all welfare recipients in each years budget. It’s a no brainer for our politicians !

Sleeper12

Edward M wrote:

We have come from one of the wettest periods in our weather patterns, we've had about 6 weeks of reasonably dry weather, we're facing in to a heatwave and already they're talking about water restrictions. I see in a separate headline that health has acceded its budget in the hundreds of millions already this year, though tax takes are up all our services are struggling it seems, increasing costs eating up any gains it looks like. Should we now be looking at revisiting some way of charging for water usage given that its obvious even to a blind donkey that our water system is a sieve and that we won't be able to invest as necessary to fix it up. Are politicians now seriously really against these charges still or just playing the populist game?

Not all of the country got the rain you are talking about. We haven't had a lot of Rainfall in Dublin. We'd be way behind the national average. This is why Irish water are talking about reducing water pressure in Dublin. Personally I think they should reduce now instead of waiting another week or two.

As far as charges are concerned I don't think they ever went away. The EU hasn't ruled on it yet but its unlikely the current proposals will meet their polluter pays policy. Most people have gotten their heads around having to pay for water. FG made a dogs dinner of bringing it in. That doesn't mean that the idea is wrong.

Edward M

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not all of the country got the rain you are talking about. We haven't had a lot of Rainfall in Dublin. We'd be way behind the national average. This is why Irish water are talking about reducing water pressure in Dublin. Personally I think they should reduce now instead of waiting another week or two.

As far as charges are concerned I don't think they ever went away. The EU hasn't ruled on it yet but its unlikely the current proposals will meet their polluter pays policy. Most people have gotten their heads around having to pay for water. FG made a dogs dinner of bringing it in. That doesn't mean that the idea is wrong.

I see from a couple of posts my weather reference was wrong perhaps, it just seemed to me here that we had more than our fair share, its only in the last three weeks or so that ground actually dried out here in Cavan, we had a very wet spring overall.
We have been advised to conserve water here too and night time restrictions are in place in nearly all local areas according to local radio.
I think most wouldn't mind paying for a guaranteed reliable supply.
I don't know how it could be approached to get people on side with charges, maybe a dry Sumner with low supply might change minds on it.
But overall I see problems for everybody with the system as it stands, both commercial and private residents alike.
Something needs to be done to fix the system to make it more reliable and that can only mean huge investment.
Looking forward I see we are in this hot phase for most of next month, as its Sumner even average rainfall thereafter wont build the supply up anytime quickly either.
Someone needs to identify a way of getting this problem solved, be it through charging for a vital service or getting ring fenced investment funding from another source.

Sleeper12

Edward M wrote: »

I see from a couple of posts my weather reference was wrong perhaps, it just seemed to me here that we had more than our fair share, its only in the last three weeks or so that ground actually dried out here in Cavan, we had a very wet spring overall.
We have been advised to conserve water here too and night time restrictions are in place in nearly all local areas according to local radio.
I think most wouldn't mind paying for a guaranteed reliable supply.
I don't know how it could be approached to get people on side with charges, maybe a dry Sumner with low supply might change minds on it.
But overall I see problems for everybody with the system as it stands, both commercial and private residents alike.
Something needs to be done to fix the system to make it more reliable and that can only mean huge investment.
Looking forward I see we are in this hot phase for most of next month, as its Sumner even average rainfall thereafter wont build the supply up anytime quickly either.
Someone needs to identify a way of getting this problem solved, be it through charging for a vital service or getting ring fenced investment funding from another source.

I agree with you. I'm a plumber/ shower repair. I'm in 5 to 8 bathrooms per day & the amount a wasted water would make you cry. Not just drippy taps but taps that wont shut off all the & always has a flow of water. Cistern that constantly overflow. Back with the threat of water charges people got these things fixed, now they don't seem to care.


I'd start off 100 euro per household collected by revenue. From there starting metering with no allowances at all but a cheaper rate of water. Last time giving free water to anyone was stupid but the rate per litre was too high. Then homes without meters should pay a higher rate. This is the UK setup. People then ask to get meters in. In the UK you can't sell a house that doesn't have a meter. This is another way to force meter installation on the anti meter bunch.


If the government asked the people to pay a reasonable for metered water & had revenue collect it, it could be done.


As a plumber I see Irish water in Dublin All year around reducing pressure in areas without telling anyone. Mains fed electric showers wont work when they do this but they try all year round to save water. They still don't have enough money to do what they need to do.

BobMc

At its core I dont mind the thought of paying for water. But its was the way it was set up and run, end user should pay for what they use & I mean every end user, no skipping out if on dole etc. everyone pays abit. Sick of squeezed middle being bled for more.

Mr.H

listermint wrote:

Well then borrow and pay for it. There is no shortage of cash in this state for flights of fancy but infrastructure is always down the list.

The idea was to charge people for water (not as a tax but to a company called irish water). That would allow them to remove all outgoing water fees from the books. This would reduce the amount of spend meaning they would be in a better position to take out a massive loan to invest in infrastructure.

That would all be fine.

The problem is noone trusts the government to not sell Irish water to a private company (one of their cronies) for a very much reduced amount with absolutely no long term returns. Nothing would stop this new company from charging whatever they wanted then with no competition.

Of course we all know who the crony would be that would get it. Hint is he already was handed the contract for the meters.

Unfortunately we have a habit of helping out government friends and screwing the Irish people. Remember when we were tricked into paying someone for saorview boxes? Someone made a fortune from that. Same with our gas supplies, electricity, telecoms and even airline! A lot of friends made a lot of money at our expense. Why would Irish water be any different?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Try telling those who are facing water shortages next month that there is no problem.

If Irish Water had got the money it needed from water charges (and please don't post the urban myth about it costing as much to collect them) they would be well on the way to improving the supply.

No one said there's no problem, even the various anti IW groups were screaming about how much of the water was leaking from within the system before it reached the mains.

What people are saying is, water charges was a good idea in principle.

But the opportunity to put them in place has now been lost , prob for a generation or two, for no other reason than the haimes made by the FG led govts that tried to sell them.

The debacles involved have already been listed on thread, so no need for me to rehash them, but the fact remains, no direct charges per usage = FGs incompetence.

Sleeper12

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No one said there's no problem, even the various anti IW groups were screaming about how much of the water was leaking from within the system before it reached the mains.

What people are saying is, water charges was a good idea in principle.

But the opportunity to put them in place has now been lost , prob for a generation or two, for no other reason than the haimes made by the FG led govts that tried to sell them.

The debacles involved have already been listed on thread, so no need for me to rehash them, but the fact remains, no direct charges per usage = FGs incompetence.

This might not be the case. The EU has yet to rule on this. It's actually thought unlikely if they will pass this. I think with Brexit they are putting the rulling on the long finger. If they rule against us we will have to pay millions in fines each year. I personally believe this will force in water charges

Mr.H

Sleeper12 wrote:

This might not be the case. The EU has yet to rule on this. It's actually thought unlikely if they will pass this. I think with Brexit they are putting the rulling on the long finger. If they rule against us we will have to pay millions in fines each year. I personally believe this will force in water charges

I think with brexit and italy hinting that they could follow suit, might make the eu think twice about making other countries think its a good idea.

Plus we dont need to have a end user charge to comply.

McMurphy

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I agree with you. I'm a plumber/ shower repair. I'm in 5 to 8 bathrooms per day & the amount a wasted water would make you cry. Not just drippy taps but taps that wont shut off all the & always has a flow of water. Cistern that constantly overflow. Back with the threat of water charges people got these things fixed, now they don't seem to care.


I'd start off 100 euro per household collected by revenue. From there starting metering with no allowances at all but a cheaper rate of water. Last time giving free water to anyone was stupid but the rate per litre was too high. Then homes without meters should pay a higher rate. This is the UK setup. People then ask to get meters in. In the UK you can't sell a house that doesn't have a meter. This is another way to force meter installation on the anti meter bunch.


If the government asked the people to pay a reasonable for metered water & had revenue collect it, it could be done.


As a plumber I see Irish water in Dublin All year around reducing pressure in areas without telling anyone. Mains fed electric showers wont work when they do this but they try all year round to save water. They still don't have enough money to do what they need to do.

Irish Water was registered as a private company.

I'm not sure if getting revenue to collect payment requests sent from a private company is doable.

Does it happen with any other companies does anyone know?

McMurphy

Mr.H wrote: »

I think with brexit and italy hinting that they could follow suit, might make the eu think twice about making other countries think its a good idea.

Plus we dont need to have a end user charge to comply.

Wasn't that what the govt appointed 'Expert Commission" basically concluded?

Sleeper12

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Irish Water was registered as a private company.

Sadly this is part of FGs mistake and mishandling of the whole affair. Irish water was a public company to get the whole water expenses off the government books. Water isn't off the government books nor does it look like it will for at least a decade maybe even two decades. It failed to do what it was set up to do so maybe it shouldn't be a private company any more.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Try telling those who are facing water shortages next month that there is no problem.

If Irish Water had got the money it needed from water charges (and please don't post the urban myth about it costing as much to collect them) they would be well on the way to improving the supply.

Who said there was no problem?
I recall in the throws of austerity after securing the loan any mention of hardship or crisis was met with, 'these things take time' 'get the economy going first' ...but the problem we had practically ignored for decades suddenly warranted a Quango? It was either a complete con job or the most idiotic series of bumbling events to try tackle it.
Isn't the issue how we went about fixing it, not that there wasn't/isn't a problem? Being against a self interested quango does not mean people who saw through it didn't think there was a problem. That's like saying anyone complaining about the cost of emergency accommodation doesn't believe there's a housing problem.

James Brown

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This might not be the case. The EU has yet to rule on this. It's actually thought unlikely if they will pass this. I think with Brexit they are putting the rulling on the long finger. If they rule against us we will have to pay millions in fines each year. I personally believe this will force in water charges

We don't always do what the EU tells us, (see Apple) but as you say with Brexit and the financial cartel wanting to put on a united front, I can't see them forcing the issue anytime soon.

James Brown

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Sadly this is part of FGs mistake and mishandling of the whole affair. Irish water was a public company to get the whole water expenses off the government books. Water isn't off the government books nor does it look like it will for at least a decade maybe even two decades. It failed to do what it was set up to do so maybe it shouldn't be a private company any more.

They should have simply revamped the existing water departments. There was one in every council in the country, (overseen by the same government department oversees IW). And ironically, the same local council water departments are the ones orchestrating and overseeing IW in their area.
This draws the suspicion of privatisation that they opted to set up a company and replace a system already in place, with the same system, just with a very expensive head office. An entity separate enough that it could be sold, which was the plan as far as I'm concerned. It's always about short sighted profit which generally results in the tax payer getting a beating down the road.

If they try a run at it again, I would suggest funding the water departments in place and IW should be nothing more than a head office, overseeing for government that targets are met. If metering came back it would be a council job. Before anyone loses it, the council use contractors all the time for everything, so they would look after Dinny or whomever got the contract, (but Dinny).

Idbatterim

Even if the plan was to sell it. And I don’t believe it was. Given the chaos experienced to date with IW , I don’t think there is a chance in hell it would be privatised...

hatrickpatrick

I've always said that I was ok with water charges for excessive use, provided the free allowances were based on household population, plain and simple, without any discrimination based on factors such as people being married or living together, and with households of four or five adults (students or young single people) getting an allowance per person, so that they didn't unfairly pay more per person than a married couple or family with adult children living at home.

The blanket way the free allowances were introduced made them inherently discriminatory towards young people who tend to live together in groups, but got the same free allowance as a household of just two adults. That massively pissed me off since it would have unfairly loaded the charges onto people who are already cash strapped as it is with the rising cost of living in general. In other words, the free allowance (I think it was 30,000 litres annually?) would have been identical for a married couple living together, having one shower each per day and a washing load for two people, as for six students sharing a house together, having one shower each per day and a washing load for six people.

Always saw this as part of Leo's general disdain for people in education and young people struggling to get decent employment and move on from student-style living situations, which was the main reason I turned against the charges - and that was before the level of cronyism, waste, and nest-feathering at Irish Water was revealed to the public. This government has always seemed to give massively preferential treatment to traditional family setups at the expense of the young and single, which obviously is something that's going to piss off individuals in that demographic group.

Grab All Association

Water charges to block out the sun or buy the Evian water factory from France.

In unusually warm weather like this you’ll always get water shortages.

It would have happened with or without charges.

Sleeper12

Grab All Association wrote:

In unusually warm weather like this you’ll always get water shortages.

What the average guy on the street doesn't see is that Irish water play a daily balancing act with Dublins water supply. I can't speak about the rest of the country but any plumber in Dublin will tell you that Irish water is constantly reducing pressure in rotating areas.

Even if we had 6 months supply in reserve Irish water can't physically treat water fast enough during the summer to meet extra demand

Grab All Association

They were offered use of the Lisheen site for free in 2015 iirc. Irish Water said no. Lisheen mine is/was pumping 2.5 million gallons of water into the suir everyday. They had the opportunity of sorting it.

Edward M

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've always said that I was ok with water charges for excessive use, provided the free allowances were based on household population, plain and simple, without any discrimination based on factors such as people being married or living together, and with households of four or five adults (students or young single people) getting an allowance per person, so that they didn't unfairly pay more per person than a married couple or family with adult children living at home.

The blanket way the free allowances were introduced made them inherently discriminatory towards young people who tend to live together in groups, but got the same free allowance as a household of just two adults. That massively pissed me off since it would have unfairly loaded the charges onto people who are already cash strapped as it is with the rising cost of living in general. In other words, the free allowance (I think it was 30,000 litres annually?) would have been identical for a married couple living together, having one shower each per day and a washing load for two people, as for six students sharing a house together, having one shower each per day and a washing load for six people.

Always saw this as part of Leo's general disdain for people in education and young people struggling to get decent employment and move on from student-style living situations, which was the main reason I turned against the charges - and that was before the level of cronyism, waste, and nest-feathering at Irish Water was revealed to the public. This government has always seemed to give massively preferential treatment to traditional family setups at the expense of the young and single, which obviously is something that's going to piss off individuals in that demographic group.

Well OK, fair play for your view, but how did you equate it to Leo's general disdain for people, like he wasn't taoiseach or minister responsible even, at the time?

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Irish Water was registered as a private company.

I'm not sure if getting revenue to collect payment requests sent from a private company is doable.

Does it happen with any other companies does anyone know?

Irish Water is not a private company, that is just an urban myth.

By that logic, a lot of state organisations set up under statute like the Irish Aviation Authority, Dublin Bus, Irish Rail, etc are all private companies.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They should have simply revamped the existing water departments. There was one in every council in the country, (overseen by the same government department oversees IW). And ironically, the same local council water departments are the ones orchestrating and overseeing IW in their area.
This draws the suspicion of privatisation that they opted to set up a company and replace a system already in place, with the same system, just with a very expensive head office. An entity separate enough that it could be sold, which was the plan as far as I'm concerned. It's always about short sighted profit which generally results in the tax payer getting a beating down the road.

If they try a run at it again, I would suggest funding the water departments in place and IW should be nothing more than a head office, overseeing for government that targets are met. If metering came back it would be a council job. Before anyone loses it, the council use contractors all the time for everything, so they would look after Dinny or whomever got the contract, (but Dinny).

Funding the water departments in place? Really? The people that were responsible for spending the guts of a century putting in place the worst public water infrastructure in the Western World? Of all of the solutions, this is the most ridiculous.

The local authority water departments had a century to deliver a fit-for-purpose water service, and they didn't, yet you want them to have the job.

As for privatisation being the ultimate objective, there was one line in one European document, out of millions of lines that were written on Irish Water that mentioned privatisation, and the reply from the Irish government was that privatisation wasn't envisaged, yet still people continue to bang the privatisation drum.

I really don't understand how perspective is lost so easily.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Funding the water departments in place? Really? The people that were responsible for spending the guts of a century putting in place the worst public water infrastructure in the Western World? Of all of the solutions, this is the most ridiculous.

The local authority water departments had a century to deliver a fit-for-purpose water service, and they didn't, yet you want them to have the job.

As for privatisation being the ultimate objective, there was one line in one European document, out of millions of lines that were written on Irish Water that mentioned privatisation, and the reply from the Irish government was that privatisation wasn't envisaged, yet still people continue to bang the privatisation drum.

I really don't understand how perspective is lost so easily.

This is well worn carpet.
IW conceded that LA's did an amazing job considering they were underfunded for decades. Also please note, IW is little more than an expensive shell operation. The LA's are very heavily involved. You're basically saying the LA's weren't fit for purpose, lets set up IW and get the LA's to carry out the work.

Knowing how Fine Gael and Fianna Fail operate, is reason enough to suspect privatisation. I don't need it alluded to in any document.

There was absolutely no need for IW, consultants or laughing yoga.
The administrative infrastructure was in place, they simply needed money and a H.Q. to orchestrate nationwide roll out. And we had a H.Q. in the Dept. of the Environment but it's easier to sell an entity/company off.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is well worn carpet.
IW conceded that LA's did an amazing job considering they were underfunded for decades. Also please note, IW is little more than an expensive shell operation. The LA's are very heavily involved. You're basically saying the LA's weren't fit for purpose, lets set up IW and get the LA's to carry out the work.

Knowing how Fine Gael and Fianna Fail operate, is reason enough to suspect privatisation. I don't need it alluded to in any document.

There was absolutely no need for IW, consultants or laughing yoga.
The administrative infrastructure was in place, they simply needed money and a H.Q. to orchestrate nationwide roll out. And we had a H.Q. in the Dept. of the Environment but it's easier to sell an entity/company off.

The local authorities aren't fit for any purpose. They messed up driver licensing (NDLS), that was taken off them, they messed up vocational education, that was taken off them (VECs), they messed up national roads, that was taken off them (NRA), they messed up motor taxation, that was taken off them, what were they left with?

Water and social housing.

See the connection - both are messed up.

The local authorities in Ireland are the greatest waste of money ever spent.

PeadarCo

Matt Barrett wrote:

This is well worn carpet. IW conceded that LA's did an amazing job considering they were underfunded for decades. Also please note, IW is little more than an expensive shell operation. The LA's are very heavily involved. You're basically saying the LA's weren't fit for purpose, lets set up IW and get the LA's to carry out the work.

The biggest problem with local authorities is that there boundaries are completely arbitrary and bare no relation to where water is sourced and where it needs to go. The best example being Dublin. Ireland largest city and population centre. It has 4 local authorities. None of them have complete control over their entire water supply from source to delivery. Local authorities can work together. But for something like water those discussions need to be constant. And then you have the arguments over who should contribute, if there are water restrictions which county should bare the brunt. Its easier to resolve and in some cases eliminate these issues when looking at a national level. As the last century has shown local authorities are not very good at this.

It's also more accountable. Local authorities have a large number of jobs to do. Water supply only being one. Irish water only job is the supply of fresh water and the cleaning of waste water.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The local authorities aren't fit for any purpose. They messed up driver licensing (NDLS), that was taken off them, they messed up vocational education, that was taken off them (VECs), they messed up national roads, that was taken off them (NRA), they messed up motor taxation, that was taken off them, what were they left with?

Water and social housing.

See the connection - both are messed up.

The local authorities in Ireland are the greatest waste of money ever spent.

But they're good enough to carry out IW works as long as it's under the pretense it's all shiny and new.

PeadarCo wrote: »

The biggest problem with local authorities is that there boundaries are completely arbitrary and bare no relation to where water is sourced and where it needs to go. The best example being Dublin. Ireland largest city and population centre. It has 4 local authorities. None of them have complete control over their entire water supply from source to delivery. Local authorities can work together. But for something like water those discussions need to be constant. And then you have the arguments over who should contribute, if there are water restrictions which county should bare the brunt. Its easier to resolve and in some cases eliminate these issues when looking at a national level. As the last century has shown local authorities are not very good at this.

It's also more accountable. Local authorities have a large number of jobs to do. Water supply only being one. Irish water only job is the supply of fresh water and the cleaning of waste water.

Agree to an extent. They were however underfunded and we simply replaced same with same at great cost to the tax payer.

All that was needed was more money invested and a national led project overseeing LA's as they carried out the work. So what we have know, without the bells and whistles of IW.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But they're good enough to carry out IW works as long as it's under the pretense it's all shiny and new.



Agree to an extent. They were however underfunded and we simply replaced same with same at great cost to the tax payer.

All that was needed was more money invested and a national led project overseeing LA's as they carried out the work. So what we have know, without the bells and whistles of IW.

You actually don't get it. As independent authorities, the local authorities would not have to follow any orders. Imagine if Offaly County Council or Kildare County Council refused to do the work on the pipeline from the Shannon. It would be stuck half-done for years.

Now, the answer to that is a statutory body with the responsibility to enforce co-operation and to organise the overall supply of water and treatment of wastewater, voila - Irish Water.

PeadarCo

Matt Barrett wrote:

All that was needed was more money invested and a national led project overseeing LA's as they carried out the work. So what we have know, without the bells and whistles of IW.

The problem is a national led project is what Irish water is. You have described pretty much how Irish water works currently

Any water project would have to be permanent as there is a constant need to maintain and update water infrastructure. You are going to need a body to assess what needs to done, when and how is distribute the money required. There needs to be accountability so you need someone in charge. What ever you do you will end up with Irish water. It may not have that name, its legal structure might be a bit different but beyond minutiae like that there would no practical difference to what you are proposing.