Water charges revisited?

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

Not sure what thats got to do with anything?
The point of a meter is that you cant charge what you cant measure.
And you cant charge if you are not delivering 100% of what you are charging for.

Going to simplify this for you one item at a time.
At least you have moved on to the realization that meters were ever only intended for charging purposes.
Irish Water were not charging for what you used. They were charging for what they produced where the householder was expected to pay for all household water produced while using less than 50%

charlie14

GreeBo wrote: »

Whats madcap about expecting people to pay by usage like almost every other utility does?
Other than yourself, no one is saying that the meters are ONLY being used to detect leaks. They are used for measuring usage.
You can do whatever you want with that data.
Such as, identify leaks, charge per usage, get accurate figures for consumption per capita, etc, etc.
You cant do any of that without meters.


Again, no one said that meters were ONLY to find leaks except you.

You were the one that actually came on here pushing the glory of meters for leak detection. Now when your own figures have show how ridiculous that is you are jumping all over the place attempting to sell them.
All that data collection did not require 880,000 meters at a cost for meters alone of 465 Million Euro.
A sample survey with 1% of 880,000 at 1% of the cost would have achieved the same.

charlie14

[QUOTE=GreeBo;107563861

I dont think anyone is arguing that the way IW was (mis) managed by the various governments was a good thing, but that doesnt mean usage based charging is a bad thing as you seem to imply.


Why?
Why wouldnt people be happy paying based on what they use?
It could be as simple as
€1 for the first x M3
€1.50 for the next y M3 above that
etc etc

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.[/QUOTE]


First two section I have address long ago on the mega threads so I have no interest in going down any further rabbit holes with you on it.


The last section is just despicable and undeserving of any comment.

blanch152

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

Thank you for bringing some reality and clarity to this debate. It is good to learn that the meters are helping to identify and fix leaks.

charlie14 wrote: »

Unless you had a minimum leakage on the domestic side of 53,000 liters Irish Water were not interested with their first fix scheme.
Irish Water`s own figures from their first fix scheme concluded that the leakage on the household side was 3.75%.
1 Billion Euro is a hell of a spend just to flag 3.75%, and a waste of time and effort when mains are leaking 50%.

You trust Irish Water now? That makes a change. I really don't understand this. I thought they were wrong about everything, except when it suits.

For me it is simple, those figures were then, Tommy Kelly's experience is now.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Thank you for bringing some reality and clarity to this debate. It is good to learn that the meters are helping to identify and fix leaks.





You trust Irish Water now? That makes a change. I really don't understand this. I thought they were wrong about everything, except when it suits.

For me it is simple, those figures were then, Tommy Kelly's experience is now.

Interesting that you would just take Tommys figures here at face value and without question....

Let's do the maths.

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

Tommy reckons out of the 10 houses he worked on today, 7 were losing 10liters per minute due to leaks.

10L x 60mins = 600liters per hour.

24hrs x 600 litres = 14,400 litres per day.

14,400 litres x 365 days = 5,265,000 litres per year.

That's five million, two hundred and sixty five thousand litres for anyone not good with figures.

And there was 7 of them so that makes the total water being leaked at 37million litres per year.
Lol tbh.

I reckon Tommy might be exaggerating a wee bit. Either that or these houses were house boats:D

charlie14

blanch152 wrote: »

You trust Irish Water now? That makes a change. I really don't understand this. I thought they were wrong about everything, except when it suits.

For me it is simple, those figures were then, Tommy Kelly's experience is now.

Like many others I have never trusted Irish Water for numerous stated reasons.
And I doubt we would ever have seen those figures if someone in Irish Water had not thought it a whiz idea for getting media headlines by telling us how many swimming pools household leaks could fill daily not realising that the percentage of leaks attributable to households easily calculated from that.
As much as I would distrust Irish Water, I would at least hope their data wasn`t based on one plumber guessing how much was leaking which now seems to be your fall back position on household leaks

Hitman3000

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Interesting that you would just take Tommys figures here at face value and without question....

Plays to the agenda.

aido79

charlie14 wrote: »

You were long enough around the old threads to know that the figure for average household occupancy is not "a stab in the dark". It is the figure from the Central Statistics Office. You were also around long enough to know that the average usage of water per occupant was determine by Irish Water. Although I seem to recall you didn`t agree with that figure but had no explanation when asked as to why.
A determination that was arrived at after massive cost when a sample survey would have achieved the same for a fraction of the cost.


AS to the highlighted above, try and read posts rather than make things up.
I never said that.

I was using it as an example to explain to another poster how in practice district metering works.
Terrible standard of posting from someone who is a moderator imho



LOL. You provide a link to an article that says Irish Water think Domestic meters are necessary to identify leaks.
It didn`t cross your mind that after burying 900,000 of them at gigantic expense that they were scrambling to come up with any reason to justify it.
It is a quite simple fact that area metering can be used in the detection of leaks for a fraction of the cost of metering every household. But you already know that from the older threads.

I didn't agree with it because it was less than the amount an average person would use to shower, brush their teeth, go to the toilet and have a cup of tea in the morning. You must have missed that part.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. You seem to have a false understanding of how area metering works. If an area meter is responsible for 1000 to 1500 homes and you have no idea whether the water passing through it is leaking into the ground or actually being used in a house how do you even know there is a leak in the system?

aido79

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

For the slow learners in the class this amounts to around 5.2 million litres of water leaked per house in a year. In one day the poster saved in the region of 40 million litres of water per year and the only reason these leaks were picked up was because of the domestic meters installed on the properties.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And FGs expert commitee.

You're very gullible Johnny.


You excoriate FG and have this overwhelming reverence for 'their' committee.


Supposedly! Because you never needed any committee to convince you anyway, did you?


You pretend 'this committee' had carte blanche to come up with any recommendation they desired - but you know very well the cards were stacked.


Did this so-called FG committee have Paul Murphy and Eoin O Broin as members?

Checkmate19

Avg price that uk pay is 400. I think we where looking at 900. Its like anything in this country. Total bollix setup and if its setptup gravy boat.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

For the slow learners in the class this amounts to around 5.2 million litres of water leaked per house in a year. In one day the poster saved in the region of 40 million litres of water per year and the only reason these leaks were picked up was because of the domestic meters installed on the properties.

'Slow learners' from you 'Scroungers' from another poster. Are people capable of making a point without the necessity of insult and derogatory name calling. This behaviour seems to only emanate from one camp. Does anyone know why?

Checkmate19

Id say if we gave any money to irish water the way this clown country do it it would make no difference.

Checkmate19

They would make any difference. Property tax. Around my area there is more dumping no cleaner etc.

Checkmate19

If you want to do something about water give a private contractor outside ireland

aido79

Hitman3000 wrote: »

'Slow learners' from you 'Scroungers' from another poster. Are people capable of making a point without the necessity of insult and derogatory name calling. This behaviour seems to only emanate from one camp. Does anyone know why?

Some people seem very slow to learn that domestic meters are useful in detecting leaks...some even to the point of insinuating that the person responsible for fixing the leak due to the meter detecting the leak is lying.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

Some people seem very slow to learn that domestic meters are useful in detecting leaks...some even to the point of insinuating that the person responsible for fixing the leak due to the meter detecting the leak is lying.

The figures supplied were questioned, the honesty of the poster in my opinion was not. The word exaggeration was used. My point still stands why do those in favour charges feel they have a right/ moral authority to insult and resort to name calling of those whom do not share their opinion. Even you yourself engaged in trying to suggest a poster is a re reg. I thought the rules were if you have an issue such as that the idea was to report and not to do so on thread.

aido79

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The figures supplied were questioned, the honesty of the poster in my opinion was not. The word exaggeration was used. My point still stands why do those in favour charges feel they have a right/ moral authority to insult and resort to name calling of those whom do not share their opinion. Even you yourself engaged in trying to suggest a poster is a re reg. I thought the rules were if you have an issue such as that the idea was to report and not to do so on thread.

The figures supplied were the equivalent of a tap being left on halfway. It's not absurd to think a leak like this could go unnoticed so I don't really why the figures would be questioned.
If you wish to discuss the other points feel free to PM me as I do not wish to drag the thread off topic. That was what caused alot of issues/infractions/petty arguments in the old water threads.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

The figures supplied were the equivalent of a tap being left on halfway. It's not absurd to think a leak like this could go unnoticed so I don't really why the figures would be questioned. If you wish to discuss the other points feel free to PM me as I do not wish to drag the thread off topic. That was what caused alot of issues/infractions/petty arguments in the old water threads.

You don't know why the figures would be questioned? You're joking right? Do you seriously believe only figures offered by one group or opinion should be subject to question or examination.
No interest in discussing the other topics . I have made my point.

aido79

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You don't know why the figures would be questioned? You're joking right? Do you seriously believe only figures offered by one group or opinion should be subject to question or examination.
No interest in discussing the other topics . I have made my point.

Unless you can give me a reason not to believe Tommy Kelly's figures then I see no reason to question them. In my view unless he is lying then they are from a source on the frontline and more believable than taking a random sample of figures and calling the average of the sample the average usage for the entire population.
Lots of anti water charges posters have quoted figures by Irish Water which they seem to believe without any question because it suits their agenda. However I am reluctant to believe them because they defy common sense.

Hitman3000

aido79 wrote:

Unless you can give me a reason not to believe Tommy Kelly's figures then I see no reason to question them. In my view unless he is lying then they are from a source on the frontline and more believable than taking a random sample of figures and calling the average of the sample the average usage for the entire population. Lots of anti water charges posters have quoted figures by Irish Water which they seem to believe without any question because it suits their agenda. However I am reluctant to believe them because they defy common sense.

So the figures from IW and the CSO that have been quoted are questionable? but the anecdotal figures from a random poster on the internet without back up are acceptable due to his backing up your position generally. Bias in evidence. Not engaging with this nonsense any further today.

aido79

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So the figures from IW and the CSO that have been quoted are questionable? but the anecdotal figures from a random poster on the internet without back up are acceptable due to his backing up your position generally. Bias in evidence. Not engaging with this nonsense any further today.

I'm entitled to my opinion or to believe whatever I want.It really doesn't bother me if you engage or not.

FreudianSlippers

charlie14 wrote: »

There have been a few ruling by the ECJ on the matter.
Well documented on the old threads but short version, the EU environmental commission got its nose well bloodied on the issue of attempting to dictate to any member state on water charges.

EUR-Lex - 6212CJ0525 - EN - EUR-Lex If you want to have a look.

Just inventing things now?

FreudianSlippers

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Unworthy of a reasoned reply.

Why else would you oppose charges in excess of that amount? Unless you want to protect the ability of people to do that - so I ask again unless you are just talking the usual nonsense why you would be so obsessed with allowing people to freely use excessive amounts of water?

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

You're very gullible Johnny.

Welcome back G.L I thought you'd taken the huff after I had to school you on the annual subsistence grants those on private wells/GWS were entitled to each year.

Here you are posting again about a subject you seem to know so little about.

You excoriate FG and have this overwhelming reverence for 'their' committee.

"Excoriate"..... peculiar choice of words.

It was their comiitte. What's the problem with calling it what it is

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Mr Simon Coveney, T.D. has today (29 June 2016) announced the establishment of the Expert Commission on the funding of domestic public water services in Ireland

.

Supposedly! Because you never needed any committee to convince you anyway, did you?

This is true, I (and the vast majority of the public) wasn't hoodwinked. It took their own committee to bring FG to their senses, even then they went kicking and screaming, their supporters are still clutching the dream.

You pretend 'this committee' had carte blanche to come up with any recommendation they desired - but you know very well the cards were stacked.

In what way were they stacked? The only controversy I recall around the E.C was that time it had a less than impartial chairman, handpicked by FG that had to step down due to his less than impartial comments.

Did this so-called FG committee have Paul Murphy and Eoin O Broin as members?

Didn't see either of their names on the panel.

The terms of reference of the Commission are outlined below.

The Expert Commission will have 8 independent members and an independent secretariat will be provided by the Institute of Public Administration. The Commission will be chaired by former Senator, Mr Joe O’Toole, and the other members are as follows:

• Dr Xavier Leflaive of the Environmental Directorate of the OECD;
• Mr Peter Peacock, Chair of the Customer Forum for Water Scotland and former Scottish Minister;
• Mr Bill Emery, Chair of the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator;
• Mr Brendan O’Mahony, Chair of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes;
• Ms Sarah Hendry, academic lawyer specialising in water and environmental law, University of Dundee, Scotland;
• Dr. Andrew Kelly, founder and executive Director of EnvEcon; and
• Ms Gritta Nottelman, strategy consultant for Waternet, the only water company in the Netherlands that is dedicated to the entire water cycle.

These individuals (their biographies are attached) bring with them a wealth of experience and skills which will be essential in addressing this complex issue. "I have chosen people who I consider to have the necessary professional expertise in environmental matters, law, economics, the customer perspective, the water sector and the regulatory system, and I have included a mix of both national and international experts," said the Minister.

Glad to help.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Interesting that you would just take Tommys figures here at face value and without question....

Let's do the maths.



Tommy reckons out of the 10 houses he worked on today, 7 were losing 10liters per minute due to leaks.

10L x 60mins = 600liters per hour.

24hrs x 600 litres = 14,400 litres per day.

14,400 litres x 365 days = 5,265,000 litres per year.

That's five million, two hundred and sixty five thousand litres for anyone not good with figures.

And there was 7 of them so that makes the total water being leaked at 37million litres per year.
Lol tbh.

I reckon Tommy might be exaggerating a wee bit. Either that or these houses were house boats:D

I agree with your maths here, but the interesting thing I noticed about his post was that it seems to be referring to leaks on the property? That's what I would take "between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house" to mean.

Irish Water "has saved over 89 million litres of water every day (enough for the daily supply of the City and County of Galway) from the repair of almost 63,000 leaks ["between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house"]".

89,000,000l / 63,000 = 1,412.70lpd per house;

1,412.70l / 24h = 58.56lph;

58.56l / 60m = 0.98lpm

1 litre per minute is a hell of a lot less than 10 litres, but it's still a fairly shocking amount of water leakage per minute.

McMurphy

aido79 wrote: »

Unless you can give me a reason not to believe Tommy Kelly's figures then I see no reason to question them. In my view unless he is lying then they are from a source on the frontline and more believable than taking a random sample of figures and calling the average of the sample the average usage for the entire population.
Lots of anti water charges posters have quoted figures by Irish Water which they seem to believe without any question because it suits their agenda. However I am reluctant to believe them because they defy common sense.

Aido, I find it difficult to believe that a house could be leaking 10liters per minute (I've already done the maths) which amounts to more than 2. 5 million litres per year, and no one noticed it/wouldn't have been noticed without meters.

I find it difficult to believe that a house was leaking the equivalent of more than 2 x full sized olympic swimming pools worth of water, and no one noticed. Where did water go? Was the house on stilts, or out at sea?

But the MOST DIFFICULT thing for me to believe, is that Tommy just happened to come across, not 1, but 7 of these 2.5million litres a year leaks out of the 10 houses he visited yesterday. What a missed propaganda photo oppurtunity for FG or Irish Waters Paul Melia. :pac:

Must have been some chat with the wife all the same...

How'd you get on in work today Tommy?

Ah 70% of the houses we called with today were leaking 600liters p/h, or more than 5million litres a year and no one even noticed til we rocked up love.

I don't believe it myself. I think Tommy might have confused his minutes with hours or forgot a decimal point.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I agree with your maths here, but the interesting thing I noticed about his post was that it seems to be referring to leaks on the property? That's what I would take "between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house" to mean.

Irish Water "has saved over 89 million litres of water every day (enough for the daily supply of the City and County of Galway) from the repair of almost 63,000 leaks ["between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house"]".

89,000,000l / 63,000 = 1,412.70lpd per house;

1,412.70l / 24h = 58.56lph;

58.56l / 60m = 0.98lpm

1 litre per minute is a hell of a lot less than 10 litres, but it's still a fairly shocking amount of water leakage per minute.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but its one thing to exaggerate 10 litres per min, but the hot air leaves the balloon when the exaggeration gets stretched to 7/10 houses in the one day.

Any one else that believes the story is most welcome to pm me, as I have a box of magic beans they might be interested in.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, but its one thing to exaggerate 10 litres per min, but the hot air leaves the balloon when the exaggeration gets stretched to 7/10 houses in the one day.

Any one else that believes the story is most welcome to pm me, as I have a box of magic beans they might be interested in.

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that I "believe the story" - I'm backing up your post in fact.

I'm also not making a call on whether Tommy's post was exaggeration or a typo or whatever.

I don't think that's super relevant... in fact I think it's a distraction from the issue that we agree on: 1lpm loss between the meter and the house at that level is extraordinary.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not suggesting that I "believe the story" - I'm backing up your post in fact.

I'm also not making a call on whether Tommy's post was exaggeration or a typo or whatever.

I don't think that's super relevant... in fact I think it's a distraction from the issue that we agree on: 1lpm loss between the meter and the house at that level is extraordinary.

Yeah, sorry I understand you were backing my post , it's not a believable figure tbh, but I'm not suggesting Tommy is lying.

I think he might come back and clarify later that he mixed up minute with hour, or even that there was a rogue zero in there, and it should have been 0.1 a minute.

The irony for me is that people will just thank and believe a post without doing the sums because it would suit a narrative, yet they'll call people out on things that are in the public domain because it doesn't.

Hopefully Tommy will reappear and clear everything up.