Water charges revisited?

FreudianSlippers

theyoungchap wrote: »

When you say "we pay", what do you mean - who is paying and how are you paying it? General tax, commercial water rates, etc?

We've never one spoken about commercial rates in relation to Irish Water on this thread. How much do you think the government pays to the Local Authorities specifically in relation to provision of water services per annum; not including salaries, etc.

Would you guess it's higher or lower than the subsidization (and planned subsidization) of Irish Water?

The Bishop Basher

VinLieger wrote: »

Austerity for a short sustained period is a perfectly acceptable economic theory that worked for us and many other countries.

So why do our taxes continue to increase while our services disintegrate yet we're supposed to be 'in recovery'..

Honest question..

I know they've given us a fiver back in the last couple of budgets but they've gotten that back many times over in other ways..

Just buy a couple of cans of coke now and you'll have handed it back through the sugar tax such was the meagre offering.

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.

Those 'other issues' in many cases literally cost lives. Are we ok with that cost ? I know i'm not.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Again, I'm not sure you've read the expert report you keep referencing have you?

I read the report when it first was released, yeah.

The charging system in place then, is now no more, that previous charging system has been abolished.

What do you think is inaccurate about this may I ask?

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I read the report when it first was released, yeah.

The charging system in place then, is now no more, that previous charging system has been abolished.

What do you think is inaccurate about this may I ask?

You keep making the claim that the charging system was abolished on foot of recommendations by the committee. This assumes the committee recommended abolition of the charging system and/or that the recommendations resulted in the charging system being abolished.

Neither statement is accurate and this is quite clear in the report itself.

Grab All Association

The pipes they decided to randomly replaced have burst again. The old pipes that were there 40 years never gave a bother. This is the 4th time this has happened in two years. Private contractors too that did the work. Can’t blame the “ageing” infrastructure here can we?

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

So why do our taxes continue to increase while our services disintegrate yet we're supposed to be 'in recovery'..

Honest question..

Is it an honest question... do you really not know? Because I don't want to spend the next 15 minutes going through Budget 2018 to dig out the answers to this question for you to just ignore it or deflect from the basic fact that income < expenditure.

FreudianSlippers

Grab All Association wrote: »

The pipes they decided to randomly replaced have burst again. The old pipes that were there 40 years never gave a bother. This is the 4th time this has happened in two years. Private contractors too that did the work. Can’t blame the “ageing” infrastructure here can we?

Source?

Grab All Association

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Source?

My tap not working. R498 3-4 months of traffic delays laying these pipes. The sloppy patchwork on what was otherwise a good road surface. Actually getting caught in a jam near the incident and coming home to no water.

Those plastic pipes are like straws. Complete false flag to give the impression of a failing infrastructure. Yet it is an infrastructure THEY INSTALLED.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You keep making the claim that the charging system was abolished on foot of recommendations by the committee. This assumes the committee recommended abolition of the charging system and/or that the recommendations resulted in the charging system being abolished.

Neither statement is accurate and this is quite clear in the report itself.

I said the previous charging system has been abolished (it has) because an expert commission established by the FG led govt established that taxation should cover normal usage.

Why was the charging system previously in use abolished?

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I said the previous charging system has been abolished (it has) because an expert commission established by the FG led govt established that taxation should cover normal usage.

Why was the charging system previously in use abolished?

In the background of the report it acknowledges that the charging regime was amended and then suspended. Nothing changed since then and the implementation of the recommendations is, as I pointed out earlier, due to occur (or be enacted) in January 2019 with the introduction of charges over 213,000 litres per annum.

You continue to make a claim about the report that is not factually based.

Let me be abundantly clear: (i) the report does not conclude what you claim it does; (ii) the report had no impact on suspension of the charges - the report is manifestly clear in the first few pages that this occurred prior to the group being established; (iii) the report recommends water charges over a prescribed amount.

McMurphy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In the background of the report it acknowledges that the charging regime was amended and then suspended. Nothing changed since then and the implementation of the recommendations is, as I pointed out earlier, due to occur (or be enacted) in January 2019 with the introduction of charges over 213,000 litres per annum.

You continue to make a claim about the report that is not factually based.

Let me be abundantly clear: (i) the report does not conclude what you claim it does; (ii) the report had no impact on suspension of the charges - they are clear in the first few pages of the report that this occurred prior to the group being established; (iii) the report recommends water charges over a prescribed amount.

These extracts are from housing.gov.ie

Under the 'Confidence and Supply Arrangement' it was agreed with Fianna F, in the context of supporting a minority government, an Expert Commission on Domestic Public Water Services was to be established to assess and make recommendations on the funding of domestic public water services in Ireland and improvements in water quality,

The Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Future Funding of Domestic Water Services deliberated the Commission's findings and published its report on 12 April 2017. Both Houses of the Oireachtas approved the report in April. Its main recommendations were:

Funding domestic water services should be provided through general taxation, with such funding clearly identifiable within existing taxation;

Long-term funding certainty for Irish Water through multi-annual budgetary cycles;
A link between revenue provided to Irish Water from the Exchequer and services that such revenue pays for;
Public ownership of water services: support for a referendum to enshrine public ownership in the Constitution;
An expanded role for the Public Water Forum;
The setting by the Commission for Regulation of Utilities of an average consumption level for domestic water customers, setting the threshold at 1.7 times the average household use;
The curbing of wastage of water through an approach based on incentives, levies and other measures;
Enhanced measures to increase water conservation, including a proactive retrofitting programme and ambitious amendment to existing building standards and regulations;
The use of district metering, existing domestic meters and modern technology to support leakage reduction, including bulk metering for multi-unit developments such as apartment blocks and the use of meters in new dwellings and dwelling refurbishments requiring full planning permission;
A review of the strategy based on the report after a five year period.

The times gives a synopsis of what and why the Dail voted to make the previous charging system redundant.

The current water charges regime has been formally abolished after the D accepted the report of the Oireachtas committee on water charges by 96 votes to 48.

Fine Gael, its Independent Government partners and Fianna F backed the controversial report, and their vote means 92 per cent of people on a public mains system will pay no water charges.

Sinn F, Labour, Solidarity-People Before Profit, the Green Party, Independents4Change and other Independents including Thomas Pringle, Catherine Connolly, Michael Fitzmaurice, Michael Collins, Sus Healy and Mattie McGrath voted against accepting the report.

The report will now be considered by Minister for Housing Simon Coveney who is to consult the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Department of Finance about the best way to deal with refunds to people who have paid their water charges.

The €100 conservation grant paid to households is expected to be deducted from refunds.

The report, as well as recommending refunds, recommends a levy for excessive usage of water, installation of meters in all new buildings, and a referendum to enshrine Irish Water in public ownership.

Citizens information.

Recommendations on funding
An expert commission was established to make recommendations on a sustainable long-term funding model for domestic water and wastewater services. The commission’s report (pdf) was published in November 2016.

An Oireachtas committee then considered the commission’s recommendations and developed its own recommendations, which were published on 12 April 2017. You can read the committee’s report (pdf) on oireachtas.ie. There is a set of FAQs (pdf) about the report on housing.gov.ie.

The Oireachtas has approved the committee’s report. Its recommendations include:

Domestic water charging under the Water Services Act 2014 should be discontinued and replaced by alternative arrangements, as outlined in the committee’s report
Domestic water use should be funded through general taxation
The Water Services Act 2007 should be amended to ensure that wastage, excess use or wilful abuse of water can be addressed, using incentives, levies and other measures proposed in the report
Conservation of water resources should be embedded as a principle of water policy and a cross-departmental strategy should be developed to increase water conservation
The principles of equity of treatment and equivalent financial support should be applied equally between households using public water and wastewater systems and households using other systems
The most effective combination of metering (including the existing stock of domestic meters) should be used in order to promote conservation through leak reduction
All new domestic buildings should incorporate water conservation fittings
The role of the Public Water Forum should be further developed and the legislation establishing it should be reviewed
An overall review of the strategy based on this report should take place after 5 years
A referendum should be held on the issue of water services continuing in public ownership

So, the previous charging system was abolished following a report, that was accepted by the dail.

I'm happy enough with my own conclusions tbh.

VinLieger

Rennaws wrote: »

So why do our taxes continue to increase while our services disintegrate yet we're supposed to be 'in recovery'..

Honest question..

I know they've given us a fiver back in the last couple of budgets but they've gotten that back many times over in other ways..

Just buy a couple of cans of coke now and you'll have handed it back through the sugar tax such was the meagre offering.



Those 'other issues' in many cases literally cost lives. Are we ok with that cost ? I know i'm not.

Because our public sector is completely gridlocked by union intransigence, they refuse to allow performance evaluations and anytime any process or system improvements are brought in they demand to be paid extra for their implementation. You are right we do not get enough bang for our buck but the solution isnt to pay less tax its to use what we do pay in a far more efficient manner.


Saying people lost their lives as a direct result of austerity is hyperbolic nonsense.



And claiming that there would be no hardships if we had gone by another strategy is also naive in the extreme.

The Bishop Basher

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Is it an honest question... do you really not know? Because I don't want to spend the next 15 minutes going through Budget 2018 to dig out the answers to this question for you to just ignore it or deflect from the basic fact that income < expenditure.

You're equation ignores efficiency..

It could potentially save us billions if we got it right..

So if, as I suspect, your response is going to exclude any reference to a genuine elimination of waste in the public sector along with as yet unprecedented reform of our public sector then I suggest you not waste your time.

The Bishop Basher

VinLieger wrote: »

Because our public sector is completely gridlocked by union intransigence, they refuse to allow performance evaluations and anytime any process or system improvements are brought in they demand to be paid extra for their implementation. You are right we do not get enough bang for our buck but the solution isnt to pay less tax its to use what we do pay in a far more efficient manner.

100% Agreed.

From the get go it was obvious there was nothing efficient about Irish Water.

Just more of the usual cronyism politics that we've almost become immune to at this stage it's gone on so long.

The same people walking away with bundles of tax payers cash as usual.

John Tierney walked away with over half a million..

All on the back of Enda's election promises.. Remember them ?

What a farce.

VinLieger wrote: »

Saying people lost their lives as a direct result of austerity is hyperbolic nonsense.

So you didn't lose anyone. Lucky you.

VinLieger wrote: »

And claiming that there would be no hardships if we had gone by another strategy is also naive in the extreme.

I didn't.

jimmycrackcorm

Rennaws wrote:

From the get go it was obvious there was nothing efficient about Irish Water.

I'm always amused about how people criticise IW and yet can't come up with a national model.

Well we do have one adjust that nobody says boo to, the ESB.

Rennaws wrote:

John Tierney walked away with over half a million..

Peanuts compared to the retirement package given to one ex ESB chief.

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

These extracts are from housing.gov.ie







The times gives a synopsis of what and why the Dail voted to make the previous charging system redundant.



Citizens information.



So, the previous charging system was abolished following a report, that was accepted by the dail.

I'm happy enough with my own conclusions tbh.

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.

FreudianSlippers

Rennaws wrote: »

You're (sic) equation ignores efficiency..

It could potentially save us billions if we got it right..

Please. Educate us all on how to fix inefficiency in the Irish system - we've had the guts of 100 years with countless people attempting to solve it but I'm guessing you have the magic bullet we've all been waiting for. No? Didn't think so. We'll work with what we have so.

VinLieger

Rennaws wrote: »

So you didn't lose anyone. Lucky you.

Good for you trying to play the man not the ball, also turning factual arguments into emotional ones is a tacit admission you have no real factual basis to disagree with what I said

Rennaws wrote: »

I didn't.

Yes you did, by claiming the issues austerity caused cost lives and saying you weren't okay with that is thereby indirectly claiming your fantasy solution would have cost no lives

The Bishop Basher

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes you did, by claiming the issues austerity caused cost lives and saying you weren't okay with that is thereby indirectly claiming your fantasy solution would have cost no lives

Indirectly ?

I made no claim regarding alternatives whatsoever.

Neither directly nor indirectly.

You are literally making stuff up in your own head and claiming I said it.

I'm not going to debate on those terms..

The Bishop Basher

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Please. Educate us all on how to fix inefficiency in the Irish system

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..

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

we've had the guts of 100 years with countless people attempting to solve it but I'm guessing you have the magic bullet we've all been waiting for. No? Didn't think so. We'll work with what we have so.

There we go.. That's the attitude. We can't figure out how to fix it so we'll just trundle along as we are and every time we run out of cash, we'll just dream up another tax and hit the tax payer up for another few quid..

That's worked up to now but you can only take so much before the tax payer starts to push back which is why the anti water tax movement grew so large and was so successful.

It's not easy to force a determined government into numerous u turns before completely defeating them.

If it was just a bunch of dole scroungers as you seem to believe, we never would have achieved all we did.

VinLieger

Rennaws wrote: »

If it was just a bunch of dole scroungers as you seem to believe, we never would have achieved all we did.

Congrats on setting our water infrastructure back another 10+ years

The Bishop Basher

VinLieger wrote: »

Congrats on setting our water infrastructure back another 10+ years

Well as I mentioned earlier, we're currently getting a significant upgrade and have no problems at all with our water supply so we're all good here for the next 10 to 30 years.

I also have one less tax bill coming through the door which was my only aim.

Mission accomplished

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Literally didn't even have to go to the archives first to find a bunch.

It goes on and I'm not even getting started on the number of people who claimed that meters weren't necessary to monitor usage...

You'll note they say water shortages are due to infrastructure leaks and that we won't have any due to lack of rain/water, rather it's the getting it from A to B. Not as far fetched or simplistic as 'we'll never have water shortages'.

For example:

nietzy wrote: »

...We dont have water shortages in ireland, just shyte infostructure...

****

Rylan Stale Retirement wrote: »

Its not the areas so much as the people, and you'll know them when you see them -

.

They deserve a drought for refusing to pay their way.

And yes I agree its unfortunate that the pathetic government folded to them, its the tax payer that'll suffer.

Just an FYI, we all pay our way. People protested against the new charge, a metering sweet deal and a quango. You can't protest against bringing in something that's already in place. We pay through tax, they protested the new charge. In closing, we all pay for water already.

Seth Brundle

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You can't protest against bringing in something that's already in place.

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?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We pay through tax, they protested the new charge. In closing, we all pay for water already.

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!

Grab All Association

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.

Seth Brundle

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.

Did you ask them?
I doubt that they're so idle that they're making work for themselves :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

I don't feel I should have to point it out at this stage, but apparently I do: We don't just drink rainwater.

The Bishop Basher

Seth Brundle wrote: »

We need to pay more for it to be fit for purpose!

Why is the go to response always pay more when there is so much obvious waste in the system ?

We're hemorrhaging money through sheer negligence in many cases and we do nothing about it.

Ironically but unsurprisingly, if we want to find an example of how government departments should be run in terms of investment in infrastructure, IT, efficiency, customer experience etc.

It's Revenue.

Revenue looks, acts and feels like an efficient and well run organisation.

If only the rest of the state departments and bodies could mimic that combined with reform of our tax system to make USC the primary tax, and throw in a few years sustained growth and we wouldn't need to keep going back to the tax payer looking for more over and over again.

VinLieger

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.

Any evidence to prove this actually happened?

Grab All Association

VinLieger wrote: »

Any evidence to prove this actually happened?

Shop has CCTV facing out on the road. Apparently they were shortening/reshaping it as it has gone back in with a replacement plastic attached. Makes sense but why not just put steel pipes back in if the plastics aren’t up to the job. If the steel can last that long then doesn’t it make economic sense to use the exact same type.

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.