Water ownership...It hasn't gone away you know.

McMurphy

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is interesting:



It seems to say that Irish Water the company would not be privatised but neglects to cover water, the alternative being a 'critical flaw'?
I can see no room for inappropriate behaviour here...

And folk wonder why some don't trust these people.

This seems to be the devil in the detail.

If a constitution is held, and if it passes through as proposed in this quote, from what I am reading, it would propose that Irish Water (as an entity/company) could never be sold, and would always remain a state owned company (read liability from past experiences).

Here in lies the potential Trojan Horse.

If Irish Water is accepted, a market for water is accepted with it.

If a market for water is accepted, then the market would be opened up for other competitors (like gas, electricity, waste collection etc etc beforehand).

Irish Water (the company) and Irish Water (water from our state) are completely different things.

Eoghan seems to have been handed the poisoned chalice, maybe he laughed at Leo's socks or something, but I don't see him fairing any better than those who mishandled and misjudged this thorny one before him.

Sir Oxman

emo72 wrote: »

If we could trust politicians it wouldn't need to be put in the Constitution. But we don't. So it does.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Worked out great for communications, (eircom/broadband) and Rubbish collection/charges didn't it?
If you want short sighted gombeenism look at the sell/privatise everything ideology.



Looks like we do need clarity in some shape.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Idiotic addition to the constitution and completely unnecessary. Vote in a government who won't privatise it. Simple as.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd agree if we could trust a FF/FG government. Also neither party is known for sticking rigidly to pre-election promises.

Larbre34 wrote: »

That's deliberately obtuse, but then you knew that.

Each of those entities you cite have a range of different state and semi-state ownership and governance models. They also have a whole range of lesser or greater importance to the daily life of citizens.

No individual citizen or lobby group sought to turn public water supply into a political football. It came about by a combination or bad crisis management and appalling political nous by our elected representatives and the permanent civil service. Following that, It is no surprise that there is agitation to protect through the Constitution the vital public health issue of a robust public water supply for the future, if only so it is never again used to threaten or blackmail the people.

If this is a purely populist issue as you say, ask yourself why.

emo72 wrote: »

if we could trust them. but you know, they have a habit of going to dinner with millionaire entrepreneurs. and sometimes they forget to tell us about it. until forced to admit it. ministers eh? yet some people would try to label us paranoid for not trusting them.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'd be very wary of putting something like this in the constitution.

Why bother doing something like this unless they plan to introduce water charges again?
I don't have a problem paying a reasonable amount for metered water myself but I can't see any reason for putting it in the constitution unless charges are coming back. Very little chance of them privatisation without water charges

Matt Barrett wrote: »

While investment in water infrastructure would help protect the quality of water supply it may or may not protect the water supply itself as regards ownership. The paying of charges aside, once it became monetised it's open to abuse. The very first thing the state did was the Siteserv deal with Denis O'Brien, which I believe is still under investigation and then the awarding of the metering contract. That battle was lost by all sides.

There is a hell of a lot of private money to be made in a resource such as water. More so as the years roll on. They actually bottle it and sell it in shops don't you know and the CEO of Nestle, who buy up water rights world round, said water isn't a right, as he buys up access to nationally owned lakes in Canada and the like.

All of the above.

Moreover, I can't understand the twitchy shrieks of why this and not that/it's a waste of time/vote in someone who'd never privatise <-- yes, that would work

Even FG and FF (if this is true) realise their next attempt at water payments will never pass the will of the people (and that's what stopped the disastrous last attempt) without a constitutional guarantee

Payment for water will eventually materalise bhut I do not want a private corporation to monetise it

lawred2

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Most definitely has a place in the constitution - I'll be yes (dependent if they don't balls the wording)

why not all infrastructure?

lawred2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Firstly, how will that encourage efficiency compared to regular water chargws baswd on consumption?
Secondly, under your plan only home owners woukd have to pay. Tenants, businesses and other users wouldn't have to pay. How do you find that fair?

the efficiency argument is balls... is there really any evidence that Irish people waste water?

The cost of maintaining a metering, billing and customer management system is just not worth it. Irish Water's retail folly proved that.

The waste is in the network... that's where the investment should go.

0.5% on every euro everyone earns would go a long way to sorting the issue. Collected by revenue and directed to Ervia.

atticu

listermint wrote: »

There will be literal wars fought over water. Anyone that thinks there would not be a serious push for privatisation and sell offs really needs to examine the direction the world is going .

Climate change , lengthy droughts

Time is to be a bit more serious about this.

Comparing water to roads is disingenuous to say the least.

Why will there be wars fought over water?

What is wrong with privatization?

McMurphy

atticu wrote: »

Why will there be wars fought over water?

Why are wars fought over oil?

TheChizler

Doesn't Irish Water (and the concept of any legal entity) owe it's existence to legislation, and the document that gives authority to legislation is the constitution, so if you put something in the constitution that references something created by legislation...

\\Error: Circular reference\\

Sir Oxman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is interesting:



It seems to say that Irish Water the company would not be privatised but neglects to cover water, the alternative being a 'critical flaw'?
I can see no room for inappropriate behaviour here...

And folk wonder why some don't trust these people.

As I said, I would be yes dependent on wording...sleeveens i do not trust one iota!

The Bishop Basher

PeadarCo wrote: »

The best way to protect the water supply would be to implement water charges. Give Irish water its own revenue stream to reduce the impact of capital expenditure cuts during recession. It would also take it off balance sheet which would free up money to save or spend on other government services.

Only one slight issue with your plan, the charges proposed wouldn’t cover the cost of running Irish Water never mind capital or infrastructural expenditure.

As it is over 90% of our family home tax also goes to prop up Irish Water yet the quality of our water has worsened in recent years and reeks of chemicals.

Funny how the street lights manage to stay lit without the family home tax though. We were led to believe they were about to be switched off if we didn’t pay up..

We are governed by gangsters and crooks.

Incompetent ones at that..

uptherebels

atticu wrote: »

Why will there be wars fought over water?

What is wrong with privatization?

Eventually there will be.
clean water is a finite resource. If wars can be fought over oil when there are alternatives to it (neglecting supply issues) what would happen will happen when there is no alternative to water?
You would have seen recently about Cape town almost running out of water! That is only the beginning...
Read up on the effect of over consumption on natural aquifers and the problems that is going to cause.
I have no problem paying for water
I do have a problem over paying for it so that some CEO or group of investors can make a profit.

PeadarCo

Rennaws wrote:

Only one slight issue with your plan, the charges proposed wouldn’t cover the cost of running Irish Water never mind capital or infrastructural expenditure.

It all depends on the actual structure and amount of the charge. There is no reason it can't. Look at the ESB electricity charges do cover the infrastructure costs. Most European countries have water charges. So the concept of a water utility managing and maintaining water infrastructure using water charges isn't exactly radical or new.

PeadarCo

Rennaws wrote:

Funny how the street lights manage to stay lit without the family home tax though. We were led to believe they were about to be switched off if we didn’t pay up..

If you stopped paying your electricity bills you would find yourself cut off.

The Bishop Basher

PeadarCo wrote: »

If you stopped paying your electricity bills you would find yourself cut off.

I pay more then my fair share of tax..

I already pay for my water..

charlie14

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Idiotic addition to the constitution and completely unnecessary. Vote in a government who won't privatise it. Simple as.

We vote in a government in 2011 that was going to provide us with a world class water and waste water system before there would be any water or waste water charges.
Care to remind us how that went

Larbre34

lawred2 wrote: »

why not all infrastructure?

Its not a matter of basic public health management if there's a toll bridge on the M8 or a parallel runway at Dublin Airport.

BOHtox

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Why water, and not roads, or railways, or the power grid, or air traffic control, or RTE, or Ervia, or Dublin Port, or anything else that's in public ownership?

Should all of those things be written into the Constitution, or just the populist issue that the most recent hissy fit made about it?

It's a fair point you're making.

But I believe water should be billed and I agree with water charges. Now there should be allowances etc. But ultimately, people who use more water need to pay for it. It has to be done to reduce excessive water consumption, fund a water system that can fix leaks, old pipes, ensure water is all year round, so possibly another reservoir for summer and pipes that can withstand winter.

A big block in the way of these charges was the fear that it would be privatised. Nobody thinks air traffic control will be privatised, similarly nobody thinks Irish Rail will be either. But people do think Irish Water might be. So to ease these fears, I'd be for it. But I completely get the point you're making

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm not talking about water utility providers, I'm talking about the engineering challenge of updating the infrastructure.

However a constitutional amendment does have plenty to do with a charging regime, it makes it far less attractive to any potential private investment interests who would seek to exploit it for profit, if the public service obligation conditions that could never be changed make it unlikely that there would be big money in it for them.

How would a constitutional amendment ensure that the public service obligation conditions could never be changed????

That doesn't make sense.

blanch152

BOHtox wrote: »

A big block in the way of these charges was the fear that it would be privatised. Nobody thinks air traffic control will be privatised, similarly nobody thinks Irish Rail will be either. But people do think Irish Water might be. So to ease these fears, I'd be for it. But I completely get the point you're making

There is nothing rational to suggest that Irish Water might be privatised. There never has been any proposal to privatise Irish Water.

There is loads of waffle from irrational scaremongering politicians imbued with an unhealthy dose of paranoia.

The whole "Irish Water will be privatised unless we have a constitutional amendment" cause is a small step up from the "post this on Facebook to stop them stealing your identity" fraud.

FG are stupidly falling for the idea that the mob in the Dail have to be appeased on the issue, most people don't care. Just like the British people are slowly waking up and telling their Conservative MPs to back May's deal, some day rationality will return to Irish politics, and the sooner the better.

oscarBravo

BOHtox wrote: »

A big block in the way of these charges was the fear that it would be privatised.

Maybe (I'm unconvinced) - but why are people collectively crapping the bed at the prospect of privatisation of water, while not giving a damn about the privatisation of anything else?

There was never, ever the faintest hint of a suggestion that privatisation was on the cards, except from opponents of water charges. A cynic might be tempted to suspect that all the waffle about privatisation was a bogeyman used to add a veneer of respectability to a reluctance to pay for a utility.

Nobody thinks air traffic control will be privatised, similarly nobody thinks Irish Rail will be either. But people do think Irish Water might be. So to ease these fears, I'd be for it.

What people decide to believe without evidence is a pretty poor rationale for amending the Constitution.

Larbre34

blanch152 wrote: »

How would a constitutional amendment ensure that the public service obligation conditions could never be changed????

That doesn't make sense.

That would depend on the wording, wouldn't it?

Not much point holding a referendum if it doesn't put the citizen at the centre of the objective.

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

That would depend on the wording, wouldn't it?

Not much point holding a referendum if it doesn't put the citizen at the centre of the objective.

It will be some wording if it can ensure that Irish Water stays in public ownership, but doesn't hand over every well in the country to the State, but also ensures a public service obligation so that the usual suspects don't have to pay for water.

I pity the poor lawyer tasked with drawing it up.

Larbre34

blanch152 wrote: »

It will be some wording if it can ensure that Irish Water stays in public ownership, but doesn't hand over every well in the country to the State, but also ensures a public service obligation so that the usual suspects don't have to pay for water.

I pity the poor lawyer tasked with drawing it up.

Anyone paying tax, pays for water. The commercial sector pays directly for the amount it consumes because of the volumes involved.

Its a false premise to talk about Irish Water and the public water suppy being one and the same. Irish Water absolutely does not have to exist in perpetuity for a constitutional amendment to be satisfied. In fact, the wording of the amendment need only be fairly simple to achieve the eternal public ownership of the supply.

Wells and private supplies that never fell under the public system can carry on as before, it should be a matter for the planning system to ensure that new premises have a sustainable and non polluting water supply, be it public or private.

blanch152

Larbre34 wrote: »

Anyone paying tax, pays for water. The commercial sector pays directly for the amount it consumes because of the volumes involved.

Its a false premise to talk about Irish Water and the public water suppy being one and the same. Irish Water absolutely does not have to exist in perpetuity for a constitutional amendment to be satisfied. In fact, the wording of the amendment need only be fairly simple to achieve the eternal public ownership of the supply.

Wells and private supplies that never fell under the public system can carry on as before, it should be a matter for the planning system to ensure that new premises have a sustainable and non polluting water supply, be it public or private.

Except that a constitutional amendment that fixes the eternal public ownership of the supply would still allow for a rival private supply if private wells and private supplies are allowed continue. There is no easy way to square the circle of maintaining public and private ownership at the same time. You also forget that EU competition law would trump any constitutional provision if it were to expand into that area in the future.

A completely pointless exercise that adds nothing is what a constitutional amendment on water is.

TheChizler

Larbre34 wrote: »

In fact, the wording of the amendment need only be fairly simple to achieve the eternal public ownership of the supply.

You must have an example of this simple wording in mind?

Larbre34

TheChizler wrote: »

You must have an example of this simple wording in mind?

I'm neither a parliamentary draftsperson nor a constitutional lawyer, but some of the most contentious issues of recent years have been dealt with in amendment texts of less than 100 words.

As I see it, the proposal would need to identify the public health and societal necessity to access potable water, describe the scope of all public water infrastructure, provide that it be owned and maintained in perpetuity by and on behalf of the people and never be commoditized or commercialised.

The Government and state agencies should, of course, be enabled to develop policy for water under legislation, so long as whatever it is honours the amendment.

I imagine there will be plenty of debate on the content once this matter begins its Oireachtas committee journey.

Cookie_Monster

why is water so special? Why not the same protection for food, or why is food not provided for free by the govt, when we expect them to do so for water? It's a truly bizarre argument that it should be free and without limit.

It's also a stupidly easy resource to collect for the vast majority of people, 5k+ litre tank run from the roof, couple of filters and job done. The need for massive centralised infrastructure would be greatly reduced, as would costs. If it was mandated every new house hand to have such a setup the need for the likes of piping from the Shannon to Dublin would disappear and the current resources could last much much longer...

Captain Obvious

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why is water so special? Why not the same protection for food, or why is food not provided for free by the govt, when we expect them to do so for water? It's a truly bizarre argument that it should be free and without limit.

It's also a stupidly easy resource to collect for the vast majority of people, 5k+ litre tank run from the roof, couple of filters and job done. The need for massive centralised infrastructure would be greatly reduced, as would costs. If it was mandated every new house hand to have such a setup the need for the likes of piping from the Shannon to Dublin would disappear and the current resources could last much much longer...

Wasn't there a push a while back to get a right to housing enshrined?

McMurphy

oscarBravo wrote: »

There was never, ever the faintest hint of a suggestion that privatisation was on the cards, except from opponents of water charges. A cynic might be tempted to suspect that all the waffle about privatisation was a bogeyman used to add a veneer of respectability to a reluctance to pay for a utility. .

Fergus O"Dowd, a former FG minister involved in the setting up of Irish Water, and still a FG TD wouldn't tick most of the above boxes, and yet he believed the same thing.

O'Dowd: My proposal to ban Irish Water privatisation was deleted

The minister who set up Irish Water has said there are "forces" within the Department of the Environment who want to privatise the water network.

Fergus O'Dowd said there was good reason to be concerned about the possibility of Irish Water being sold to private hands.

The Fine Gael TD made his comments in the D in the early hours of the morning, as TDs debated the Water Services Bill.

"We have reason to be concerned," he said. "I am convinced there are other forces at work here - not necessarily political forces - that are active and they do have an influence."

He said he wanted a ban on privatisation to be included in previous legislation, but that proposal was deleted.

Larbre34

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why is water so special? Why not the same protection for food, or why is food not provided for free by the govt, when we expect them to do so for water? It's a truly bizarre argument that it should be free and without limit.

It's also a stupidly easy resource to collect for the vast majority of people, 5k+ litre tank run from the roof, couple of filters and job done. The need for massive centralised infrastructure would be greatly reduced, as would costs. If it was mandated every new house hand to have such a setup the need for the likes of piping from the Shannon to Dublin would disappear and the current resources could last much much longer...

Several posts in the thread have answered why water is so special.

Yes, in future, like energy generation and insulation properties, each new home should be much better at water harvesting and grey water use, but at the moment we have millions of older homes where that doesnt apply and where it is not so simple a matter to chuck a tank and pipework on the roof, for cost, practicality and planning reasons.

The Bishop Basher

The fact that people are asking why water is so special demonstrates just how protected we’ve been with regard to water supply in this country.

People I know in India are put on lock down every year as the annual riots kick off over water supply and who has rights to which water.

I’m completely opposed to water charges for numerous reasons, not least that our politicians are so corrupt, wasteful and incompetent but also because I already pay over 50c of every euro I earn in direct and indirect taxation and I get almost nothing in return without paying again.

I’m not going to start paying another tax on top of it to cover up their incompetence.

The governement need to stop spending wasting it on overly generous welfare, pensions etc and start prioritizing water..

It’s amazing how they always manage to find the cash for their cosy yet unaffordable pay deals with Gardai etc

Let them go back to the same magic money tree on this one..