Water charges revisited?

McMurphy · 27-06-2018 09:55AM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Irish Water was registered as a private company.

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

Does it happen with any other companies does anyone know?

McMurphy · 27-06-2018 10:02AM

Mr.H wrote: »

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

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

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

Sleeper12 · 27-06-2018 11:14AM

Johnny Dogs wrote:

Irish Water was registered as a private company.

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

James Brown · 27-06-2018 02:46PM

blanch152 wrote: »

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

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

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

James Brown · 27-06-2018 02:53PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

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

James Brown · 27-06-2018 02:59PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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

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

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

Idbatterim · 27-06-2018 03:30PM

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

hatrickpatrick · 27-06-2018 04:18PM

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

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

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

Grab All Association · 27-06-2018 04:23PM

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

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

It would have happened with or without charges.

Sleeper12 · 27-06-2018 04:30PM

Grab All Association wrote:

In unusually warm weather like this youâ€™ll always get water shortages.

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

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

Grab All Association · 27-06-2018 04:46PM

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

Edward M · 27-06-2018 05:30PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

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

blanch152 · 27-06-2018 05:38PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Irish Water was registered as a private company.

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

Does it happen with any other companies does anyone know?

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

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

blanch152 · 27-06-2018 05:57PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Brown · 27-06-2018 06:09PM

blanch152 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

blanch152 · 27-06-2018 06:43PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Water and social housing.

See the connection - both are messed up.

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

PeadarCo · 27-06-2018 06:47PM

Matt Barrett wrote:

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

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

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

James Brown · 27-06-2018 07:43PM

blanch152 wrote: »

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

Water and social housing.

See the connection - both are messed up.

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

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

PeadarCo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

blanch152 · 27-06-2018 10:27PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

PeadarCo · 27-06-2018 10:27PM

Matt Barrett wrote:

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

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

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

Edward M · 27-06-2018 10:27PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

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

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

But none of any of that addresses where the funding for the infrastructure is to come from.
Its going back over dead issues, I'm wondering for future purposes how this can be solved.
Water is one of our big wastes given so much of it just leaks away, and that causes such problems when we do get dry spells.

Good loser · 27-06-2018 10:55PM

Edward M wrote: »

But none of any of that addresses where the funding for the infrastructure is to come from.
Its going back over dead issues, I'm wondering for future purposes how this can be solved.
Water is one of our big wastes given so much of it just leaks away, and that causes such problems when we do get dry spells.

Precisely.

As Micheal Healy Rea would say 'anyone with a brain in their head could see that those who use the water should pay for it.' As 20% of the population does already.

The 'campaign' against the charges was mind-numbingly stupid in all its aspects, taking standards of public debate to a new low. Just like the Brexit stuff next door.

Of course it's not fair to blame SF, Paul Murphy or Joe Higgins. It is/was solely the responsibility of Fianna Fail. Long may they languish in the polls!

blanch152 · 27-06-2018 11:48PM

Good loser wrote: »

Precisely.

As Micheal Healy Rea would say 'anyone with a brain in their head could see that those who use the water should pay for it.' As 20% of the population does already.

The 'campaign' against the charges was mind-numbingly stupid in all its aspects, taking standards of public debate to a new low. Just like the Brexit stuff next door.

Of course it's not fair to blame SF, Paul Murphy or Joe Higgins. It is/was solely the responsibility of Fianna Fail. Long may they languish in the polls!

I hadn't thought of it before, but you are right, the anti-water charges lot were intellectually and politically at the same level as the Brexiteers, riding a popular idea to get support even though it made no sense, but it made them popular.

Fann Linn · 27-06-2018 11:54PM

I look forward to FF/FG suggesting the reintroduction of water charges prior to the next election.

Spanish Eyes · 28-06-2018 12:01AM

Keep the USC and ring fence it for Irish water. At least everyone is paying for it then.

Well apart from those who have paddling pools galore and do not work/contribute to the taxation fund.

There is so much inequality in this country regarding paying for things!

Nuff said now.

blanch152 · 28-06-2018 12:08AM

Fann Linn wrote: »

I look forward to FF/FG suggesting the reintroduction of water charges prior to the next election.

Too smart for that. EU review after the next election could be the catalyst. Hands are tied etc. Once Brexit is shown up for the mess that it is, the Commission can flex their muscles against us, especially as we may owe them if there is no hard border.

hatrickpatrick · 28-06-2018 12:28AM

Edward M wrote: »

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

Jesus that was a Freudian slip, I meant the current FG establishment (2011-present), not Leo specifically

View · 28-06-2018 12:36AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local authorities were until recently entirely dependent on central government for their finances (and largely still are). It is therefore ridiculous to blame them for the state of the water infrastructure.

We have the least local “local authorities” in Europe, yet blame them even though it is the deliberate policy of our central government of keeping local authorities on their knees.

McMurphy · 28-06-2018 12:38AM

blanch152 wrote: »

I hadn't thought of it before, but you are right, the anti-water charges lot were intellectually and politically at the same level as the Brexiteers, riding a popular idea to get support even though it made no sense, but it made them popular.

But wasn't it an independent expert commission, (appointed by the govt,) who ultimately decided that water charges needed to go

You're giving the "anti charges lot" some undeserved credit imo.

blanch152 · 28-06-2018 12:49AM

View wrote: »

Local authorities were until recently entirely dependent on central government for their finances (and largely still are). It is therefore ridiculous to blame them for the state of the water infrastructure.

We have the least local “local authorities” in Europe, yet blame them even though it is the deliberate policy of our central government of keeping local authorities on their knees.

They can't even collect business rates, the only revenue that they have full control of.

http://www.echo.ie/news/article/rates-owed-to-council-came-to-around-13m

Look at that for compliance.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

But wasn't it an independent expert commission, (appointed by the govt,) who ultimately decided that water charges needed to go

You're giving the "anti charges lot" some undeserved credit imo.

Doesn't affect my opinion that anti-water charges people are equivalent to Brexiteers.

Kevin Duffy has made many strange decisions in his previous life as Labour Court chairman, he had a few overturned by the High Court.

Water charges revisited?

Comments