Water charges revisited?

FreudianSlippers · 05-07-2018 10:53AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Roll on to mid 2018 and despite FG unveiling a plan to spend 120 billion on infrastructure and other ventures, water seemingly doesn't get a look in, and you're suggesting people pick one project over another.

Except that's not true.

NDP 2018-2027, Chapter 5, Page 83 - National Strategic Outcome 9. Sustainable Management of Water and other Environmental Resources

McMurphy · 05-07-2018 11:11AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Surprising goalpost shift! /sarcasm

What exactly have I shifted? Where is the sarcasm?

You stated that the expert commission didn't reach the conclusions I said they reached, and further to that, you said that the conclusions reached had no impact on the govt deciding to abolish them anyway (or similar, on phone but open to correction)

I even pasted extracts from the actual pdf that you attactched.

Bit of clarity on your end wouldn't go amiss.

FreudianSlippers · 05-07-2018 11:21AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

What exactly have I shifted? Where is the sarcasm?

You stated that the expert commission didn't reach the conclusions I said they reached, and further to that, you said that the conclusions reached had no impact on the govt deciding to abolish them anyway (or similar, on phone but open to correction)

I even pasted extracts from the actual pdf that you attactched.

Bit of clarity on your end wouldn't go amiss.

I've said it at least 5 times now, but you choose to ignore it. It's only "getting bizarre" because you're all over the shop on this. I've been clear:

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.

Water charges were suspended before the committee was put together, it says so clearly in their report. Therefore they can't be responsible for the suspension of something that occurred prior to their existence.

You also seem to imply that the report concluded that there should be no domestic charges, when they in fact they concluded that there should be an allowance over which domestic charges should apply - it is even obvious in your selective quotation.

The government has provided for legislation which is enacted (although admittedly I'm not sure commenced - I'd have to check) which provides for what the report concluded: an allowance of 213,000 litres over which amount domestic users will be required to pay tariffs.

jay0109 · 05-07-2018 11:34AM

Not sure if you have seen this but Irish Water have issued their pricing proposal document for non-domestic tariffs, with a view to these rates kicking in from Q4 19.

https://www.cru.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CRU18114-CRU-Consultation-Paper-Irish-Waters-Proposals-for-a-new-Non-Domestic-Tariff-Framework.pdf
See p97, section 6

Basically there are 3 tariffs:
Standard <1,000m3 €3.12 per m3
Commercial 1,000 - 19,999m3 €2.78 per m3
Industrial >20,000m3 €2.64 per m3

For the record, Dublin Corpo area is currently at €1.99 per m3.

Now obviously the Regulator will have a kick at these figures and they will probably fall a bit. But still, the company I work for is looking at 30% to 40% of an annual price rise. Which is huge.

I haven't heard any screams from ISME IBEC etc yet so I presume this info hasn't worked it's way through the business community yet. But when it does, there's going to be a lot of noise

FreudianSlippers · 05-07-2018 11:36AM

jay0109 wrote: »

Not sure if you have seen this but Irish Water have issued their pricing proposal document for non-domestic tariffs, with a view to these rates kicking in from Q4 19.

https://www.cru.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CRU18114-CRU-Consultation-Paper-Irish-Waters-Proposals-for-a-new-Non-Domestic-Tariff-Framework.pdf
See p97, section 6

Basically there are 3 tariffs:
Standard <1,000m3 €3.12 per m3
Commercial 1,000 - 19,999m3 €2.78 per m3
Industrial >20,000m3 €2.64 per m3

For the record, Dublin Corpo area is currently at €1.99 per m3.

Now obviously the Regulator will have a kick at these figures and they will probably fall a bit. But still, the company I work for is looking at 30% to 40% of an annual price rise. Which is huge.

I haven't heard any screams from ISME IBEC etc yet so I presume this info hasn't worked it's way through the business community yet. But when it does, there's going to be a lot of noise

I can't recall what the initial rates were, are these significantly higher?

McMurphy · 05-07-2018 11:43AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've said it at least 5 times now, but you choose to ignore it. It's only "getting bizarre" because you're all over the shop on this. I've been clear:

Water charges were suspended before the committee was put together, it says so clearly in their report. Therefore they can't be responsible for the suspension of something that occurred prior to their existence.

You also seem to imply that the report concluded that there should be no domestic charges, when they in fact they concluded that there should be an allowance over which domestic charges should apply - it is even obvious in your selective quotation.

The government has provided for legislation which is enacted (although admittedly I'm not sure commenced - I'd have to check) which provides for what the report concluded: an allowance of 213,000 litres over which amount domestic users will be required to pay tariffs.

Do you understand the difference in suspension and abolition yeah?

The charging regime was suspended by the govt, then abolished based on the recommendations of the expert committee.

I never mentioned suspension of the charging system, you brought that to the party.

Did you say I was all over the shop, and shifted goalposts?

FreudianSlippers · 05-07-2018 11:56AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Do you understand the difference in suspension and abolition yeah?

The charging regime was suspended by the govt, then abolished based on the recommendations of the expert committee.

I never mentioned suspension of the charging system, you brought that to the party.

Did you say I was all over the shop, and shifted goalposts?

Oh, I understand the difference between suspension and abolition... let's see if you do?

They didn't abolish domestic water charges. The charges have been suspended and the Water Services Act 2017 (and take note of the word "Act" and not "Bill" - this is a passed law) has amended the previous Act(s) vis-a-vis funding model.

10. The Act of 2007 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 53B (inserted by section 9 ):
“53C. (1) Irish Water shall not charge a customer for water services provided by Irish Water to the customer’s dwelling over a 12 month period unless the water services so provided exceed the threshold amount.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a calculation by Irish Water of water services provided to a customer’s dwelling may be made in respect of any 12 month period.”.

The "Threshold Amount" is defined in the Water Services Act 2007 (Threshold Amount and Allowance Amount) Order 2017 as 213,000 litres per annum.

That is the current law on our books, whether you like it or not.

The amount paid over that amount and the method for charging domestic users for that usage over the amount is not yet decided to my knowledge.

Say it with me slowly - domestic water charges have not been abolished, they have been suspended and the committee report had (unless they also invented a time machine) nothing to do with that suspension.

jay0109 · 05-07-2018 12:04PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can't recall what the initial rates were, are these significantly higher?

You mean the current rates that IW charges which they inherited from each Local Authority?

If yes those rates are currently:
DCC €1.99m3
DunLa/Rth €2.28m3
Fingal €2.21m3
Cork €2.44m3
Galway €2.10m3
Limerick €2.70m3
Louth €2.10m3

So as you can see, the new proposed rates are a substantial increase on any of the current rates.

McMurphy · 05-07-2018 12:04PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Oh, I understand the difference between suspension and abolition... let's see if you do?

They didn't abolish domestic water charges. The charges have been suspended and the Water Services Act 2017 (and take note of the word "Act" and not "Bill" - this is a passed law) has amended the previous Act(s) vis-a-vis funding model.

The "Threshold Amount" is defined in the Water Services Act 2007 (Threshold Amount and Allowance Amount) Order 2017 as 213,000 litres per annum.

That is the current law on our books, whether you like it or not.

The amount paid over that amount and the method for charging domestic users for that usage over the amount is not yet decided to my knowledge.

Say it with me slowly - domestic water charges have not been abolished, they have been suspended and the committee report had (unless they also invented a time machine) nothing to do with that suspension.

Oh dear. This is awkward.

You might want to check the timeline of this post, because its pretty clear, and makes you look like you have been chasing parked cars.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

FG got together a team of independent experts, with the task of investigating how best to fund our water system.

This expert commission came back, recommended that the charging system be abolished, and that we should continue to fund our water system from general taxation, and look at some way to sanction those deemed to be wasting water.

.

So the previous charging system.... it got thrown under the bus, yeah?

The govt abolished said regime, following the experts report, yeah?

They are looking to penalize people who are deemed to be wasting water by exceeding an allowance, yeah?

Oops

crossman47 · 05-07-2018 12:05PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I would lump FG as a whole, along with Labour in to this personally. What happened to their own cause and principles surrounding 'potable water' and Irish Water?
Weren't we told that pps nos were vital to Irish Water? Couldn't work at all without them being handed over? Then they weren't needed anymore, and it could still work.

The set unit per litre had to be set at a certain level, and the allowances couldn't be adjusted or it wouldn't work. Then they were, and it could still work.

Charges couldn't be capped, the project wouldn't work if they were capped. Then they were capped, and it could still work.

Non payers would have to be shut off and reduced to a trickle, then they weren't.

Daily fines of millions. Etc etc etc.

Conmen and charlatans the lot of them.

FG had manners put on them. Time to get over it GL.

All true and all symptoms of how badly the government handled the establishment of IW. But, IMO, the basic idea was the correct one because (a) it would allow IW as a commercial entity to borrow without affecting the states balance sheet and (b) paying for water would undoubtedly result in less wastage (accepting that leaks are a major problem also).

I can understand oppostion to IW as it was set up but I cannot understand the opposition to the basic idea by anyone with a brain in their head. We need major investment (which we never got because current priorities will always trump long term investment when budgets are being drawn up) and this is the only way. I accept it won't happen because of lousy implementation but we will all suffer for it in the long term.

FreudianSlippers · 05-07-2018 12:14PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Oh dear. This is awkward.

You might want to check the timeline of this post, because its pretty clear, and makes you look like you have been chasing parked cars.

So the previous charging system.... it got thrown under the bus, yeah?

The govt abolished said regime, following the experts report, yeah?

They are looking to penalize people who are deemed to be wasting water by exceeding an allowance, yeah?

Oops

It got thrown under the bus, it got suspended and it got amended - what it didn't get was abolished.

McMurphy · 05-07-2018 12:19PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It got thrown under the bus, it got suspended and it got amended - what it didn't get was abolished.

Did I not specify that they would look at ways to penalize people who would exceed their allowance

Pretty sure I did tbh.

I'm not going to keep arguing with someone who not only is wrong, but consistently wrong.

Lifes too short tbh.

FreudianSlippers · 05-07-2018 12:46PM

It's not a penalty, it's a charge. Or are you suggesting now that the report specifies penalties?

Idbatterim · 05-07-2018 12:56PM

This bs of taxes have to be increased, they won’t. There will simply be less tax cuts and less of a welfare increases... long gone are they day of e20 welfare increases or more every budget, they’ll get a fiver and that’s a fiver too much ...

One easy way to fund it would be not meddling with property tax. But you know what , In a way, everyone shouldering the burden is the best outcome and not only the usual suspects and that will only happen with the scenario we now have ...

McMurphy · 05-07-2018 01:07PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not a penalty, it's a charge. Or are you suggesting now that the report specifies penalties?

Going over your allowance = being charged/penalised.

You're splitting hairs now for the sake of it.

dense · 05-07-2018 02:50PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We didn't need to raise tax because we're just not doing the work that IW was going to do. There is a bit of activity going on, but not much, and that activity is taking away from investment in infrastructure in other areas.

Billions of euros worth of "activities" in investment in infrastructure going on.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-water-to-spend-55bn-on-capital-expenditure-by-2021-456237.html

Can you cite some activities that have been cancelled, "that IW was going to do"??

James Brown · 05-07-2018 03:38PM

Good loser wrote: »

The campaigns against water charges goes back to the lamentable Joe Higgins. He started with the tautology that 'we were already paying for it'
(RTE could never handle that absurdity)

This was before any body had been constituted to run the utility.

Once set up, or thereabouts, the arguments against the concept moved on to the actualities involved in the set up of this IW (every new and old organization makes mistakes). Each and every one of these was bigged up by the opportunists/tax dodgers/the Left into' inflated points of principle' so that A was against charges because Tierney, a failed LG official got the top job (he's gone now so what are the new 'principles' [Jerry Grant impresses me as a CEO]
B was against charges because of Tierney's salary
C was against charges because of Tierney's pension
D ditto consultants
E ditto Siteserv
etc etc etc

The third phase of principled (so called) objections were based on scares
for the future - privatization and charges escalating.

Thus the past,the present and the future were encapsulated into a farrago of nonsense.

All the objections lumped together do not amount to a hill of beans.

I do not believe that for one moment any of the political actors (sans Brendan Ogle) believed in the 'cause' they argued for, not Paul Murphy, not Eoin O'Broin, not Barry Cowan.

Opportunists the lot of them.

Talk about re-writing history.

Mistakes? 'We look after our own'? The metering/siteserv deal under investigation. The Consultant fees. The charge. These were not 'mistakes' sadly.

Opportunists? Dinny did okay after venturing into a brand new business, and just in time, (or preemptively? actually the timing of all this is all very chicken and egg. Did he get the sweet deal and then the contract or get the contract and then the company?) to win a state contract.

Tax dodgers? But Fine Gael/Noonan supported it?
(See 9 years of forgetting to pay FG taxes)

You can pretend the charge wasn't the number one reason for protests, but that doesn't make it so. Your alphabetised list was just more proof of the quality of the people overseeing the organisation.
Nobody made more of a meal out of promoting Murphy than FG/Lab. He was handy when calling people protesting 'ISIS' didn't float. It was easier castigating Murphy than politicians having to disagree and try vilify the public.

I still believe privatisation was the goal. That's how these people roll.

FreudianSlippers · 05-07-2018 06:18PM

dense wrote: »

Billions of euros worth of "activities" in investment in infrastructure going on.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irish-water-to-spend-55bn-on-capital-expenditure-by-2021-456237.html

Can you cite some activities that have been cancelled, "that IW was going to do"??

The €5.5bn to 2021 is what Irish Water was going to do and it is them that's doing it currently, but that's down from €9.2bn (€8bn initial proposal plus the 1.22bn that was supposed to happen 2014-2016), so we're down €3.7bn with the added good measure of it being counted on the government balance sheet - so with increased surplus since 2016, we're probably just about breaking even.

With €3.7bn less spent on water infrastructure and €5.5bn that could have been spent elsewhere.

Yay?

blanch152 · 05-07-2018 06:28PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've said it at least 5 times now, but you choose to ignore it. It's only "getting bizarre" because you're all over the shop on this. I've been clear:

Water charges were suspended before the committee was put together, it says so clearly in their report. Therefore they can't be responsible for the suspension of something that occurred prior to their existence.

You also seem to imply that the report concluded that there should be no domestic charges, when they in fact they concluded that there should be an allowance over which domestic charges should apply - it is even obvious in your selective quotation.

The government has provided for legislation which is enacted (although admittedly I'm not sure commenced - I'd have to check) which provides for what the report concluded: an allowance of 213,000 litres over which amount domestic users will be required to pay tariffs.

The final outcome is closer to the original proposal than the interim fudge. In time, and in response to repeated drought crises like the current one, the allowance will be cut and cut again, and we will have a fair system where there is a basic allowance and charges for exceeding this.

In time, the government may relinquish further control, and by around 2026, Irish Water may be able to borrow off-books, 10 years later than needed, but at least they can get on with proper investment then.

In the meantime, some people have to maintain the fiction that water charges were abolished, they weren't, the threshold was increased to such a level that most people are exempt. At least the cap was removed. Let us hope for a return of rationality to political discourse.

James Brown · 05-07-2018 06:39PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The final outcome is closer to the original proposal than the interim fudge. In time, and in response to repeated drought crises like the current one, the allowance will be cut and cut again, and we will have a fair system where there is a basic allowance and charges for exceeding this.

In time, the government may relinquish further control, and by around 2026, Irish Water may be able to borrow off-books, 10 years later than needed, but at least they can get on with proper investment then.

In the meantime, some people have to maintain the fiction that water charges were abolished, they weren't, the threshold was increased to such a level that most people are exempt. At least the cap was removed. Let us hope for a return of rationality to political discourse.

Excuse me? It wasn't needed 11 or 12 years ago? It's been let fester with minimal patching for decades or are we back to the only important thing being 'off the books'? Please try keep from fudging.
So my Irish Water bill sits in the shadows waiting on it's time to shine? The amount of fanciful pedantry on here is ridiculous. They changed the charge by cancelling it. To say IW was billing you and then they stopped because the criteria under which they were billing you had changed not because the charge was abolished is a nonsense. It's nothing beyond mildly amusing, or maybe worrying if you genuinely buy that codology. What a farce.
We will never see water charges again in the manner we were threatened with. The whole con was a disgrace and waste. Most of us saw it for what it was.

Seth Brundle · 05-07-2018 06:46PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Yay?

Yes because no more water tax and Denis and stuff.

blanch152 · 05-07-2018 09:36PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Excuse me? It wasn't needed 11 or 12 years ago? It's been let fester with minimal patching for decades or are we back to the only important thing being 'off the books'? Please try keep from fudging.
So my Irish Water bill sits in the shadows waiting on it's time to shine? The amount of fanciful pedantry on here is ridiculous. They changed the charge by cancelling it. To say IW was billing you and then they stopped because the criteria under which they were billing you had changed not because the charge was abolished is a nonsense. It's nothing beyond mildly amusing, or maybe worrying if you genuinely buy that codology. What a farce.
We will never see water charges again in the manner we were threatened with. The whole con was a disgrace and waste. Most of us saw it for what it was.

If you have any semblance of understanding of the reality of Irish politics, then you would understand how important being off the books is.

Sewage treatment plants aren't sexy photoshoots, so the politicians spend the infrastructure money on roads, schools and hospitals instead. That is what nearly 80 of the last 100 years of FF gives us. So, Irish Water will never get the investment needed from the centre.

The original system of water charges is still in place. All that has happened is that the threshold for free water has been pushed so high that most people can waste as much as they want. It will change, events such as climate change and drought ensure that it will.

View · 05-07-2018 10:32PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Excuse me? It wasn't needed 11 or 12 years ago? It's been let fester with minimal patching for decades or are we back to the only important thing being 'off the books'? Please try keep from fudging.
So my Irish Water bill sits in the shadows waiting on it's time to shine? The amount of fanciful pedantry on here is ridiculous. They changed the charge by cancelling it. To say IW was billing you and then they stopped because the criteria under which they were billing you had changed not because the charge was abolished is a nonsense. It's nothing beyond mildly amusing, or maybe worrying if you genuinely buy that codology. What a farce.
We will never see water charges again in the manner we were threatened with. The whole con was a disgrace and waste. Most of us saw it for what it was.

If you have any semblance of understanding of the reality of Irish politics, then you would understand how important being off the books is.

Sewage treatment plants aren't sexy photoshoots, so the politicians spend the infrastructure money on roads, schools and hospitals instead. That is what nearly 80 of the last 100 years of FF gives us. So, Irish Water will never get the investment needed from the centre.

The original system of water charges is still in place. All that has happened is that the threshold for free water has been pushed so high that most people can waste as much as they want. It will change, events such as climate change and drought ensure that it will.

Plus, of course, it is hard to see how the current system for water charges/non-charges would be defensible under EU law if it all ends up before the CJEU (and if I remember correctly the CJEU can levy fines back to the date that the water charge were suspended).

FreudianSlippers · 05-07-2018 11:41PM

View wrote: »

Plus, of course, it is hard to see how the current system for water charges/non-charges would be defensible under EU law if it all ends up before the CJEU (and if I remember correctly the CJEU can levy fines back to the date that the water charge were suspended).

I think the current proposal (i.e. basically the original proposal) of subsidized allowance with fees above that level should satisfy the WFD.

Good loser · 06-07-2018 01:08AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think the current proposal (i.e. basically the original proposal) of subsidized allowance with fees above that level should satisfy the WFD.

The proposal is framed, I believe, to capture 8% of domestic users. Are you saying you think this will be enough to satisfy the WFD?

On another tack I wonder if a constitutional action was brought by those who are currently paying privately for water, while those on mains substantially pay nothing, on the basis that it was against the provision that all should be treated equally, would it succeed?

Good loser · 06-07-2018 01:23AM

Larbre34 wrote: »

Laughing at the irony of Good Loser being a very bad loser. The vitriol even after all the water under the bridge, pun intended!

We mustnt forget to give Fianna Fáil their share of the blame for IW, they signed us up for the damn thing when they were busy hawking the rest of family silver and studiously not burning junior bondholders.

There are many, many ways the running/management of this country could be improved but the asininity of not charging households for the water they use combines cretinous logic with unparalleled mathematical incompetence on an industrial scale. To be repeated again and again.

Good loser · 06-07-2018 01:31AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I would lump FG as a whole, along with Labour in to this personally. What happened to their own cause and principles surrounding 'potable water' and Irish Water?
Weren't we told that pps nos were vital to Irish Water? Couldn't work at all without them being handed over? Then they weren't needed anymore, and it could still work.

The set unit per litre had to be set at a certain level, and the allowances couldn't be adjusted or it wouldn't work. Then they were, and it could still work.

Charges couldn't be capped, the project wouldn't work if they were capped. Then they were capped, and it could still work.

Non payers would have to be shut off and reduced to a trickle, then they weren't.

Daily fines of millions. Etc etc etc.

Conmen and charlatans the lot of them.

FG had manners put on them. Time to get over it GL.

You've been called out on the so-called 'expert committee' so many times by Freudian Slippers I won't waste time on any more of your guff.

Good loser · 06-07-2018 01:36AM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Use NAMA monies instead of allocating it to cheap loans for developers, some of who caused a need for NAMA.

Didn't you allocate this money for social housing? And loads more?

Spending the same money twice - much like paying for water twice!

McMurphy · 06-07-2018 07:16AM

Good loser wrote: »

You've been called out on the so-called 'expert committee' so many times by Freudian Slippers I won't waste time on any more of your guff.

What an excellent rebuttal, and as regards being "called out" when a so called legal whiz kid gets so much wrong their arguments been reducedto pathetic pedantry with attempting to split hairs between a charge and a penalty in a desperate attempt to be right about something - I'll let yourself and the other lemon suckers stew.

Fg screwed the project up.

Stop looking for others to blame.

McMurphy · 06-07-2018 07:27AM

Good loser wrote: »

On another tack I wonder if a constitutional action was brought by those who are currently paying privately for water, while those on mains substantially pay nothing, on the basis that it was against the provision that all should be treated equally, would it succeed?

It would not, because then you would be faced with the problem that urban dwellers were subsidising others via property tax.

There is also the conundrum of annual subsidies paid by way of grants that the private payers receive.

Lastly, they're all treated equally regardless.

Constantly whinging on here, (always in the small hours) about people paying privately for water, and how everyone should be treated equally is laughable.

Everyone in the state is treated equally, the public mains was paid for and maintained by the state, and is there for any citizen to avail of.

There is nothing stopping you upping sticks, and moving into a house connected to the public mains, and being treated equally to everyone and anyone else on it.

Just the same as public beaches in Kerry are free to be enjoyed by those in Kerry, or those in Monaghan.

Water charges revisited?

Comments