Water charges revisited?

Grab All Association

Grab All Association wrote: »

Why were Irish water hitting a steel pipe with a sledgehammer and then hitting it with a mini digger? Trying to split it so they could claim it was a burst pipe I bet.

Upon noticing me they quickly ceased. Never mind the fact the leak didn’t happen in that part.

Plastic pipe that burst 0.5km away.

Maybe they were doing what they’ve done around here. They’ve REPLACED miles of decrepit pipes. Not patched or mended in any way but REPLACED.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you're not happy with the conclusions contained in the report itself: https://webarchive.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/futurefundingofdomesticwaterservices/report-of-expert-commission-on-domestic-public-water-services.pdf

Fine. Maybe stop talking about a report you clearly have never read, have no intention of reading and don't understand.

This is getting bit bizarre, and you seem to be in a gang of one on this.

This is from the pdf you linked to.

5.2 The Funding of Domestic Water and Wastewater
Services

Having considered various options and the background to the current situation, the
Expert Commission has reached the conclusion that the optimal arrangement that
should now be put in place is one that involves the funding of water services, for
normal domestic and personal use, as a charge against taxation. The system should be predicated on an acceptance that access to adequate clean water for living
requirements should not be determined by affordability.

5.2.2 A distinction must, however, be made between a right to water for normal domestic
and personal purposes and wasteful usage. The former can reasonably be regarded
as a public service that should be funded out of taxation and which the State should
provide for all citizens. Where water is used at a level above those normal
requirements, that principle is no longer applicable and the user should pay for this
use through tariffs.

Based on those principles, it is recommended that:
5.2.3 Each household that is connected to the public water supply receives an allowance
of water and a corresponding allowance of wastewater that corresponds to the
accepted level of usage required for domestic and personal needs without any direct
charge being levied. This allowance should be related to the number of persons
resident in the household and adjusted for special conditions.

The Bishop Basher

Grab All Association wrote: »

If the steel can last that long then doesn’t it make economic sense to use the exact same type.

More waste..

Like the time i explained that the meter they were installing outside my gate had 2 houses running off it as did every other meter point on our road.

They called the boss who told them to install them anyway

I had to call a local politician and they eventually stopped.

I'm not sure how much Dinny got for each meter but remember they started out trying to charge us each €300 to have them installed :pac:

We've come a long way from that lunacy..

James Brown

Seth Brundle wrote: »

1. What is in place? We didn't pay taxes for water. We paid taxes but the public don't have a say in how the money is spent. The reality is that far too little of our tax money was spent on water services and spent in more visible areas. Would you rather that the money had been spent on water and not on health, welfare or education or whatever?

Funding for water services is taken from ncome tax, motor tax and other sources. This doesn't mean that we've paid for what is required for a sustainable water service. Our taxes pay towards water. We need to pay more for it to be fit for purpose!

You answered your own question.
We pay through taxation. No denying how poorly water has been managed for decades. Paying tax and a portion from that take going to water was already in place. The premise was we didn't want to pay. We are/have been paying.
How the state allocates the tax take for it's housekeeping is another issue.

Agreed. Again, how it's mismanaged is another issue. The fact remains money towards water, how ever poorly allocated, has and does come from tax, therefore we all already pay for it. Just because the state under-funds or mismanages an area, that's not to say we don't pay any taxes.

If the government are ever serious about improving the water supply infrastructure, they could make it a priority, but anything past a quango and looking after their own is of no interest, (see decades of under funding and disinterest).
IMO, in IW they saw a chance at making money off an already cash strapped public, for 'their own', with a nod to water but with an eye to privatising down the road and the public wouldn't buy it.

blanch152

Rennaws wrote: »

What is it with you guys putting words in my mouth ?

I never claimed to have all the answers..

I can see plenty of places to start but no one person has all the answers..

Nobody is asking you to have all the answers, one would be a start, but a top five realistic costed ideas to improve efficiency in the public sector would be a start. Here is one to get you going:

- replace the inefficient provision of water through multiple local authorities with a single national utility that will have demand-led charges and an ability to borrow off-books, a ten-year project that will deliver significant savings.

Over to you for the rest.....

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

- replace the inefficient provision of water through multiple local authorities with a single national utility that will have demand-led charges and an ability to borrow off-books, a ten-year project that will deliver significant savings.

Are you asking a question? Or giving the answer you want to hear?

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Are you asking a question? Or giving the answer you want to hear?

I asked him for five, and gave him a free one for starters. If you have better ideas, please let us know.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

I asked him for five, and gave him a free one for starters. If you have better ideas, please let us know.

It seems to me you have already decided on what you want to hear and are gleefully waiting to shout nonsense. Do you think people are obliged to play your game?

James Brown

Anecdotal 'evidence' aside, it seems folk aren't just leaving water running for the craic because they aren't paying...

Irish Water has confirmed that consumption of water in the greater Dublin Area has reduced as households and businesses heed their message to conserve water and the measures they have taken to resource water pressure at night time in the region have kicked in.

The company said that a total of 578 million litres of water was consumed yesterday in the Greater Dublin Area down from 615 million litres on Wednesday last week.

That is a 6% reduction from the peak and brings consumption to below the level that Irish water says in can sustainably supply to the region.
https://www.rte.ie/news/weather/2018/0703/975959-hot-weather-farmers/

Now how IW measured all this without every household being metered is just one of those mysteries.

facehugger99

The battle was fought and lost.

No Government will revisit the idea for decades.

There’s no alternative either, that’s the really funny thing. There’s simply no way the money can be raised to fund the required upgrading works. There are too many vested interests that would want a piece of the pie if the Government increased borrowing or taxation.

The beauty of IW as originality envisaged was that it could borrow the cash which would be ring fenced.

‘Twas a once in a generation shot and FG and FF managed to royally balls it up.

Hitman3000

facehugger99 wrote:

‘Twas a once in a generation shot and FG and FF managed to royally balls it up.

No supporter of any party least of all FF but I'm curious why the screwup that was the introduction of IW is in anyway the fault of FF. FG and Lab were the governing parties at the time and their fingerprints are all over the mess. From Hogans threats to laughing yoga.

James Brown

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No supporter of any party least of all FF but I'm curious why the screwup that was the introduction of IW is in anyway the fault of FF. FG and Lab were the governing parties at the time and their fingerprints are all over the mess. From Hogans threats to laughing yoga.

The board appointments and consultant fees were signs of rot, even before the sweet deal currently under investigation. Even if there were no charge to the public, it was a quango. There were no winners in this, except of course for the board appointees, consultants, laughing Yoga instructors and metering contract recipient.
And these same people would never privatise? :rolleyes:

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Anecdotal 'evidence' aside, it seems folk aren't just leaving water running for the craic because they aren't paying...



Now how IW measured all this without every household being metered is just one of those mysteries.

Er, by reading the meter on their treatment plants? It’s a bit like a petrol pump. It tells you how much goes from the holding tank.

Really glad to hear that people are being responsible.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Really glad to hear that people are being responsible.

They always were. During the height of the water charge threads there was multiple links to reports that showed we used water wisely, pity there was no interest in addressing the leaks. Nice to see you agree.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

Er, by reading the meter on their treatment plants? It’s a bit like a petrol pump. It tells you how much goes from the holding tank.

Really glad to hear that people are being responsible.

Me too. My family always were anyway.
By the by, it was put forward that one of the reasons metering households was required was so IW could keep water supply levels in check, which was odd considering the leaks in the mains, but no point in IW charging itself with a one armed bandit meter.

The Bishop Basher

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Do you think people are obliged to play your game?

I think he thinks I’m some kind of performing monkey.

Im not playing..

I’d relish a chance to get into some government departments In a professional capacity though. I’d six sigma their asses for all of about 5 minutes before the unions would run me out the door..

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

They always were. During the height of the water charge threads there was multiple links to reports that showed we used water wisely, pity there was no interest in addressing the leaks. Nice to see you agree.

If they were, then there’d be no need for a hose pipe ban.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

If they were, then there’d be no need for a hose pipe ban.

No offence meant but do you understand the word hypocrite ? As an aside the UK has water charges and at present a wide spread hose pipe ban. Down to, like us Drought conditions.

Wanderer78

VinLieger wrote:

It has undoubtedly led to other issues but who's to say with any certainty those issues or other worse ones would not exist were other strategies followed to bring us out of the hole we were. Calling it failed after it succeeded in its purpose its hilariously agenda driven and quite simply populist propaganda

May I suggest the research of political scientist mark Blyth, who has done exceptional research into its continual failures globally, he also has some very interesting opinions on our current wave of populist politics

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No offence meant but do you understand the word hypocrite ? As an aside the UK has water charges and at present a wide spread hose pipe ban. Down to, like us Drought conditions.

Drought conditions coupled with wasteful use of precious water. Like us, the UKs system is working at capacity.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Really glad to hear that people are being responsible.

You accept people are being responsible, yet you claim we are wasteful?

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You accept people are being responsible, yet you claim we are wasteful?

You do realise that the demand for water fell in the greater Dublin area after a hose ban was announced?

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

You do realise that the demand for water fell in the greater Dublin area after a hose ban was announced?

So you're saying people heeded the call for conservation and are being responsible. All good so.

Sam Russell

I think the water charge protesters forgot about the waste water aspect. It is just as bad that the Ringsend treatment plant stank for years and not a lot was done about it. The lumpy water on Sandymount Strand was a testament to that.

Whatever about the charges for clean potable water, charging the same for waste water was never explained. For each cubic metre of input water, they assumed a exact same amount of effluent, and an exact same charge for its disposal, without any study as to how much it actually cost.

The amount charged to the public was twice the amount DCC charged their commercial customers - again no justification.

Irish Water was a succession of wrong headed, wrongly implemented decisions. Every decision was wrong.

No wonder there were protests.

VinLieger

Wanderer78 wrote: »

May I suggest the research of political scientist mark Blyth, who has done exceptional research into its continual failures globally, he also has some very interesting opinions on our current wave of populist politics

Good for you, youve found someone who agrees with you, im sure i could find just as many if not likely quite a few more economists and political scientists of equal or greater qualifications who think it worked out quite well.

blanch152

Rennaws wrote: »

I think he thinks I’m some kind of performing monkey.

Im not playing..

I’d relish a chance to get into some government departments In a professional capacity though. I’d six sigma their asses for all of about 5 minutes before the unions would run me out the door..

I would agree that you would only last 5 minutes, it is an indication of how realistic your ideas are.

Still waiting....

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The board appointments and consultant fees were signs of rot, even before the sweet deal currently under investigation. Even if there were no charge to the public, it was a quango. There were no winners in this, except of course for the board appointees, consultants, laughing Yoga instructors and metering contract recipient.
And these same people would never privatise? :rolleyes:

Because people focussed on the small things like board appointments rather than the bigger picture.

It is a sad state of political discussion when people cannot distinguish between what is material and what is important. This failure, egged on by populist charlatan politicians was what brought Irish Water down.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

It is a sad state of political discussion when people cannot distinguish between what is material and what is important. This failure, egged on by populist charlatan politicians was what brought Irish Water down.

IW was brought down by the incompetence of FG but of course you will blame everyone except the party you only ever give a 3rd or 4th preference too. As for Populist you use the word like it is a slur. My understanding of 'populist' is a policy ideology targeted towards the common man. All parties are guilty of this, some just more so than others.

blanch152

Hitman3000 wrote: »

IW was brought down by the incompetence of FG but of course you will blame everyone except the party you only ever give a 3rd or 4th preference too. As for Populist you use the word like it is a slur. My understanding of 'populist' is a policy ideology targeted towards the common man. All parties are guilty of this, some just more so than others.

Populism is a slur, and I stand over it.

It is a symbolism of those who would put popularity over what is right. There are many forms of populism, but this definition probably sums it up for me:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

"In popular discourse, the term has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action."

If you wanted an explanation of the opportunistic opposition to water charges, you couldn't find a better one.

Hitman3000

blanch152 wrote:

If you wanted an explanation of the opportunistic opposition to water charges, you couldn't find a better one.

Nothing of what you say negates the mess FG created.