Water charges revisited?

crossman47 · 16-07-2018 11:50AM

People keep going on about leaks but surely, if IW had adequate funding (which it doesn't) these would be addressed.

blanch152 · 16-07-2018 11:58AM

dense wrote: »

Again, households only use a proportion of the water that is produced, a 5% - 10% saving of household water used is estimated by you to be how much in actual litres please?

If you don't know, that's fine, just say it, that way I needn't think you do and just don't want to share the figure.

I could look up published Irish Water statistics and extrapolate, you could do the same, but they are out of date and therefore inaccurate. Unless you have real-time current data, anything you or I would post would only be a guesstimate.

The Bishop Basher · 16-07-2018 11:59AM

blanch152 wrote: »

First of all, as Freudian has clearly demonstrated, metering reduces demand, based on empirical evidence from across the world.

Let's not forget that while this may have some impact, it's largely negated by the fact that a third of households can't be metered and therefore will aparrently have no incentive to conserve water.

blanch152 wrote: »

The three-fold purpose of water charges was

(1) to reduce demand in the short-term through addressing the overuse by some,
(2) to use the revenue raised to address the supply issues through investment
(3) to create a sustainable funding model for Irish Water that would enable it to borrow for further investment off-book and avoid the chronic underfunding of the previous decades.

We wouldn't be having this issue this summer if water charges had been introduced three years ago.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-water-waste-and-environment-your-drinking-water-managing-our-water-supplies/how

And yet in Dublin alone we managed to reduce water leakage from 43% down to 29% through investment in the infrastructure from 97 to 09.

I don't know about the rest of the country but we also have significant investment going into our own supply despite not paying charges.

I thought none of this was possible without Dinny's meters and a bloated quango for Enda's cronies..

blanch152 · 16-07-2018 12:00PM

crossman47 wrote: »

People keep going on about leaks but surely, if IW had adequate funding (which it doesn't) these would be addressed.

Exactly. It is chicken and egg. There are some posters who have been taking the following nonsense position: we will pay the water charges once they fix the leaks.

However, Irish Water can't fix the leaks because they don't have the revenue and financial independence to borrow without water charges, so the issue goes round in a circle until we hit a crisis like now and people begin to realise how stupid it was to reject water charges.

The Bishop Basher · 16-07-2018 12:04PM

blanch152 wrote: »

However, Irish Water can't fix the leaks because they don't have the revenue and financial independence to borrow without water charges, so the issue goes round in a circle until we hit a crisis like now and people begin to realise how stupid it was to reject water charges.

Except they have been fixing the leaks..

It just suited FG at the time to tell us all the the sky was falling down but it wasn't, it hasn't and it won't.

At least not on this issue anyway.

dense · 16-07-2018 12:12PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I could look up published Irish Water statistics and extrapolate, you could do the same, but they are out of date and therefore inaccurate. Unless you have real-time current data, anything you or I would post would only be a guesstimate.

So effectively you don't know and neither do I.

Therefore any talk about spending x amount on meters etc to deliver a saving of 5% to 10% of a further unkown percentage to deliver another unkown figure and how it would somehow have prevented from us being in the position we are now in is completely illogical.

Do you accept that?
It's nonsense without hard figures.
It is pure fantasy.

If someone has got the figures I'd like to see them.

McMurphy · 16-07-2018 12:23PM

blanch152 wrote: »

First of all, as Freudian has clearly demonstrated, metering reduces demand, based on empirical evidence from across the world. Thankfully you no longer seem to be challenging this notion.

.

Irish waters own data directly contradicts this.

Average Irish person uses half the water previously estimated, says Irish Water

IRC, that placed Irish water usage as being amongst the lowest in the EC.

this was despite previously not being metered at all, so no incentive to conserve.

Then meter usage being capped, so no incentive to conserve.

We aren't wasteful with water.

Fact.

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 12:36PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Irish waters own data directly contradicts this.

Average Irish person uses half the water previously estimated, says Irish Water

IRC, that placed Irish water usage as being amongst the lowest in the EC.

this was despite previously not being metered at all, so no incentive to conserve.

Then meter usage being capped, so no incentive to conserve.

We aren't wasteful with water.

Fact.

The figures I provided were from Irish Water.

McMurphy · 16-07-2018 12:39PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The figures I provided were from Irish Water.

Where do you think mine were from

blanch152 · 16-07-2018 12:41PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Irish waters own data directly contradicts this.

Average Irish person uses half the water previously estimated, says Irish Water

IRC, that placed Irish water usage as being amongst the lowest in the EC.

this was despite previously not being metered at all, so no incentive to conserve.

Then meter usage being capped, so no incentive to conserve.

We aren't wasteful with water.

Fact.

Nope. Newstalk website isn't a source of facts about water.

Will take the other link direct from Irish Water instead. Anyway, even if we are not wasteful, the fact that metering reduces demand further by 5-15% is exactly what we need in the short term to address the water shortage issues. If we become the least wasteful in the world as a result, that is even better.

blanch152 · 16-07-2018 12:41PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Where do you think mine were from

Newstalk

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 12:41PM

dense wrote: »

Ok, I get that you're either not really interested in hard figures or just don't want to give them, or, maybe you just want to play with words!

You could always use the figures you think are correct if the one's I have used are wrong.

But, I don't really think you want to.

Surely someone can give me the number of litres that would be saved by household consumers reducing their consumption by 30% enforced by "demand control" via pricing by metered charges?

Anyone???

This is getting idiotic. I'm the only one supplying any kind of "hard figures" or evidence - you've plucked everything out of seemingly nowhere.

1) I don't see any figures you've put forward other than some hyperbolic and absurd statement that if water demand was reduced by 100% we would still lose .761bn litres of water a day.
2) The figures say 5-15% on average internationally is saved by introducing meters / rates. You said Irish Water produces 1.6bn litres a day - are you asking me to do those maths for you, seriously?! Fine... from 0.08bn litres / day to 0.24bn litres a day.

You seem to be, as an aside, under the bizarre impression that if demand were reduced by 100% that we would continue to supply at the levels at which we currently supply which, IMO, fails to show any kind of even tenuous knowledge of water supply.

Seth Brundle · 16-07-2018 12:42PM

blanch152 wrote:

metering reduces demand, based on empirical evidence from across the world

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Irish waters own data directly contradicts this.

Average Irish person uses half the water previously estimated, says Irish Water

Where does that article contradict the claim that demand is reduced based on empirical evidence from across the world?
It talks about usage and leaks and stuff but doesn't refer to any reduction once meters are installed. It doesn't even mention the word demand.
It does mention however...

"In our earlier days, we found that up to 50% of leaks were actually inside the home," Ms Gannon added.
...
"Historically, leakage was quite difficult to estimate, as we did not know how much water was being used by houses on a day to day basis," Ms Gannon added.
...
According to Irish Water, 7% of domestic customers have significant problems with leaking pipes and are using an average of 1,500 litres of water per day - nearly eight times more than the average household.

"There is one old house that we came across in Ringsend in Dublin that was leaking enough water to supply a big town," added Gannon.

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 12:48PM

Rennaws wrote: »

Let's not forget that while this may have some impact, it's largely negated by the fact that a third of households can't be metered and therefore will aparrently have no incentive to conserve water.

Is this that apartment thing? Or am I missing a reason why some can't be metered?

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-water-waste-and-environment-your-drinking-water-managing-our-water-supplies/how

And yet in Dublin alone we managed to reduce water leakage from 43% down to 29% through investment in the infrastructure from 97 to 09.

I don't know about the rest of the country but we also have significant investment going into our own supply despite not paying charges.

I thought none of this was possible without Dinny's meters and a bloated quango for Enda's cronies..

It's investment that has had to be on the government's books thereby reducing the level of investment in other areas on infrastructure that could have received that money. I also contend it's less expenditure than was initially anticipated, but because the Irish Water documents seem to be gone from their website, I can no longer prove that.

McMurphy · 16-07-2018 12:49PM

I'm not interested in going down the pedantry rabbit hole, but anyway, FS produces a link from Irish water dated 2015 (is this within their guessing/ estimating zone?)

The NT article, which directly quotes Kate Gannon is dated a full year later, and specifically says they're working of data provided by their own meters.

Kate Gannon, a conservation specialist with the controversial semi-state company, also said new measures introduced by Irish water have saved 34 million litres every day - enough to service the entire water needs of County Wicklow.

"It had been estimated homes could be using up to 190 litres per person per day," she told the Pat Kenny Show on Newstalk.

"But it has emerged that 93% of households are only using about 250 litres per day, or just over 80 litres per person.

Guestimations vs raw data provided by their own controversial meters?

Up the yard lads.

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 12:53PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Irish waters own data directly contradicts this.

Average Irish person uses half the water previously estimated, says Irish Water

IRC, that placed Irish water usage as being amongst the lowest in the EC.

this was despite previously not being metered at all, so no incentive to conserve.

Then meter usage being capped, so no incentive to conserve.

We aren't wasteful with water.

Fact.

Wait - your point also makes zero sense in context. What does it matter if Irish people as a whole aren't as wasteful as we initially thought? It's clear that there is an average household amount - I don't think anyone is contesting that the State should subsidize this level of usage through general taxation. There is a small cohort that is absolutely taking the piss and on average using double the national average - these people should have to pay for this water unless there is an absolutely valid reason.

Now, is your claim that we also shouldn't bother reducing water use by up to 15% percent just because you personally don't care? If metering resulted in (i) reduction of up to 15% and (ii) either curbing excessive use or penalising those who engage in waste/excessive use then metering is a success.

Your Newstalk link does not contradict the facts that metering reduces use by up to 15%, nor does it dispute in any way that there is empirical evidence from the UK that metered households use less water than those who are not metered.

dense · 16-07-2018 12:53PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is getting idiotic. I'm the only one supplying any kind of "hard figures" or evidence - you've plucked everything out of seemingly nowhere.

1) I don't see any figures you've put forward other than some hyperbolic and absurd statement that if water demand was reduced by 100% we would still lose .761bn litres of water a day.
2) The figures say 5-15% on average internationally is saved by introducing meters / rates. You said Irish Water produces 1.6bn litres a day - are you asking me to do those maths for you, seriously?! Fine... from 0.08bn litres / day to 0.24bn litres a day.

You seem to be, as an aside, under the bizarre impression that if demand were reduced by 100% that we would continue to supply at the levels at which we currently supply which, IMO, fails to show any kind of even tenuous knowledge of water supply.

Maybe if I put my question differently you will understand it better.

Irish Water produces X amount of water a day.

Households use Y amount of water a day.

Z is everything else, leaking water, water used by hotels, factories, farms etc.

What is X and what is Y and what is Z in actual figures?

I don't think we know, do we?
Therefore we can't presume to know that a 10% reduction in household usage would have prevented the situation we are now in, which is the claim that is being made.

It's not your claim, but you seem to be supporting it without any evidence being produced by the poster or yourself to explain why anyone else should accept it.

Therefore it fails.

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 12:54PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm not interested in going down the pedantry rabbit hole, but anyway, FS produces a link from Irish water dated 2015 (is this within their guessing/ estimating zone?)

The NT article, which directly quotes Kate Gannon is dated a full year later, and specifically says they're working of data provided by their own meters.

Guestimations vs raw data provided by their own controversial meters?

Up the yard lads.

Up the yard yourself - you aren't even playing in the same pitch let alone the same sport here.

What point are you actually trying to make? Irish Water's evidence from 2015 as to use of water in a domestic setting in the UK and on an international scale has literally no impact on whatever nonsense you're talking about.

McMurphy · 16-07-2018 12:58PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Where does that article contradict the claim that demand is reduced based on empirical evidence from across the world?
It talks about usage and leaks and stuff but doesn't refer to any reduction once meters are installed. It doesn't even mention the word demand.
It does mention however...

I didn't think I'd have to simplify this, but here goes.

We use less water than those already metered?

Being resourceful/non wasteful with water evidently does not have a direct correlation with metering, otherwise people already metered in different countries wouldn't be using more than we are.

Ie, people paying for what they use might not view it as wasting it. Why would they? They're paying for it after all.

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 01:16PM

dense wrote: »

Maybe if I put my question differently you will understand it better.

Irish Water produces X amount of water a day.

Households use Y amount of water a day.

Z is everything else, leaking water, water used by hotels, factories, farms etc.

What is X and what is Y and what is Z in actual figures?

I don't think we know, do we?
Therefore we can't presume to know that a 10% reduction in household usage would have prevented the situation we are now in, which is the claim that is being made.

It's not your claim, but you seem to be supporting it without any evidence being produced by the poster or yourself to explain why anyone else should accept it.

Therefore it fails.

Again, I don't think you're fully grasping that the full amount of water produced per day is just pumped into pipes for the craic. It's dependent on demand.

However, if you had bothered to do even a scintilla of research you'd have the answers to your questions.

Irish Water produces X amount of water a day.

Up to 1,670m litres a day.

https://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-Business-Plan.pdf

Households use Y amount of water a day.

We don't know because not everyone is metered, but median consumption is 252lpd at 771,348 meters or approx 195mlpd

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/dmwc/domesticmeteredpublicwaterconsumption2015/

The mistake you're making is the assumption that all 1.6bn litres of water are put into pipes every day.

dense · 16-07-2018 01:31PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Up the yard yourself - you aren't even playing in the same pitch let alone the same sport here.

What point are you actually trying to make? Irish Water's evidence from 2015 as to use of water in a domestic setting in the UK and on an international scale has literally no impact on whatever nonsense you're talking about.

You dont seem to want to accept that households here (excepting outliers, as IW and the CER does) use significantly less water than had been previously suspected.

What is the issue with accepting that?

There seems to be an emotional resistance to doing so (because it can't be a reasoned position to take) whilst displaying a similar emotional need to be seen supporting completely unfounded claims that a 10% reduction in household usage would have prevented the current water restrictions.

The Bishop Basher · 16-07-2018 01:35PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Is this that apartment thing? Or am I missing a reason why some can't be metered?

I don't know.

Ask Irish Water. They came up with the figure..

I'd imagine a significant proportion of them are apartments.

We share our mains with the house in front as do all our neighbours. It's the same setup on numerous roads nearby.

The meters they installed at our gates are useless.

I did point it out at the time. They checked with the office who told them to keep digging. More waste.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's investment that has had to be on the government's books thereby reducing the level of investment in other areas on infrastructure that could have received that money. I also contend it's less expenditure than was initially anticipated, but because the Irish Water documents seem to be gone from their website, I can no longer prove that.

We always seem to find the money when we need it. We're back to cutting out the waste again. Eliminate the scandalous waste of tax payers money right across the public sector and then let's see what the shortfall looks like. If we're still shy of a few bob i'll stick my hand in my pocket yet again but i'd bet the house that we'd be more then covered with some over.

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 01:43PM

dense wrote: »

You dont seem to want to accept that households here (excepting outliers, as IW and the CER does) use significantly less water than had been previously suspected.

What is the issue with accepting that?

I have never been asked to accept this or not. It's manifestly irrelevant to whatever point you were, unsuccessfully, trying to make earlier.

If this is your new point, I still support any reduction in water usage regardless of whether it is currently believed that the average Irish household uses less water than previously thought.

I think this is a massive own-goal for you and your ilk though, as it is the first building-block in the eventual reduction of the allowance come January 2019 when the charges for use over the allowance are re-introduced (by law).

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 01:46PM

Rennaws wrote: »

I don't know.

Ask Irish Water. They came up with the figure..

Can I take it you're not bothered and/or can't supply a source for this?

The meters they installed at our gates are useless.

I did point it out at the time. They checked with the office who told them to keep digging. More waste.

They will actually know the usage for both houses combined and will be able to tell if leaks are pre/post meter. Very useful information for a water utility, so not waste.

We always seem to find the money when we need it. We're back to cutting out the waste again.

That's not really the point though is it?

Eliminate the scandalous waste of tax payers money right across the public sector and then let's see what the shortfall looks like. If we're still shy of a few bob i'll stick my hand in my pocket yet again but i'd bet the house that we'd be more then covered with some over.

Pie-in-the-sky nonsense here; you either are or should be well aware that the kind of elimination of waste is impossible on political grounds.

McMurphy · 16-07-2018 01:51PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have never been asked to accept this or not. It's manifestly irrelevant to whatever point you were, unsuccessfully, trying to make earlier.

If this is your new point, I still support any reduction in water usage regardless of whether it is currently believed that the average Irish household uses less water than previously thought.

I think this is a massive own-goal for you and your ilk though, as it is the first building-block in the eventual reduction of the allowance come January 2019 when the charges for use over the allowance are re-introduced (by law).

I would have thought the own goal would be on the side of an entity who guessed what we as Irish households used as regards water, based on these guesses, campaigned that we were wasting water, and therefore needed to be charged at source in order for us to conserve.

Then come out saying that they over estimated x 2, and that we were actually only using the half of what they were guessing, and what we were using, was less than those who have been metered for years.

But whatever your having yourself.

FreudianSlippers · 16-07-2018 01:59PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I would have thought the own goal would be on the side of an entity who guessed what we as Irish households used as regards water, based on these guesses, campaigned that we were wasting water, and therefore needed to be charged at source in order for us to conserve.

Then come out saying that they over estimated x 2, and that we were actually only using the half of what they were guessing, and what we were using, was less than those who have been metered for years.

But whatever your having yourself.

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make here.

We didn't have meters so we guessed average usage, that number was wrong so we don't need to care?

10% of households are still using/losing excessive amounts of water after the meter.

All of this information wouldn't have been possible without meters and if we can reduce overall consumption by 5-15% then it's worth it.

dense · 16-07-2018 02:08PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Again, I don't think you're fully grasping that the full amount of water produced per day is just pumped into pipes for the craic. It's dependent on demand.

However, if you had bothered to do even a scintilla of research you'd have the answers to your questions.

Up to 1,670m litres a day.

https://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-Business-Plan.pdf

We don't know because not everyone is metered, but median consumption is 252lpd at 771,348 meters or approx 195mlpd

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/dmwc/domesticmeteredpublicwaterconsumption2015/

The mistake you're making is the assumption that all 1.6bn litres of water are put into pipes every day.

So we don't actually have a handle on what the average daily supply figure is, nor the average consumption figure, because all households are not metered and because business users usage is unknown.

Which demonstrates that claims about householders using 10% less would have prevented the current scarcity is based on the stuff of fantasy.

James Brown · 16-07-2018 02:38PM

blanch152 wrote: »

So the State's "bad housekeeping" leaves them short, so they decide to bring in a water charge to make up the shortfall, but you shouldn't pay them because of their "bad housekeeping". As an example in circular logic, you have produced a great one.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Myself and the greater Irish public, along with some politicians disagree. If there's a 'shortfall' in tax take, increase tax take don't squander millions on a gimmick while throwing in cronyism and bad deals costly to the tax payer.
'Who'll pay higher tax, you?' you might say. Well who's going to pay towards a transparent con? Nobody. They need get their priorities straight and not try codding people.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's insane. You are the state - that's like saying to your landlord that your salary covers numerous things, including rent, but because of your mismanagement of the money you can't pay the full rent. Well, you'd better hit the street corner then, because you have to get that money from somewhere.

I'll simplify. Your Mammy looks after the housekeeping. You pay her rent every week. Then one week she brings in a staircase charge, because you've been getting the use of it for free for years etc. etc.
You and I do not manage the states finances. You and I cannot dictate were taxes are spent. I assumed you'd know this. If the state/LA's neglect an area covered under general taxation to a point were it can no longer be maintained, that's bad housekeeping on their part. Bad allocation of our taxes.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make here.

We didn't have meters so we guessed average usage, that number was wrong so we don't need to care?

10% of households are still using/losing excessive amounts of water after the meter.

All of this information wouldn't have been possible without meters and if we can reduce overall consumption by 5-15% then it's worth it.

Well, anecdotal evidence aside, (hearsay and conjecture?) we lose over 50% of water through mains leaks over decades. I suppose that was due to not bringing in metering a few years ago?

Edward M · 16-07-2018 05:18PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Myself and the greater Irish public, along with some politicians disagree. If there's a 'shortfall' in tax take, increase tax take don't squander millions on a gimmick while throwing in cronyism and bad deals costly to the tax payer.
'Who'll pay higher tax, you?' you might say. Well who's going to pay towards a transparent con? Nobody. They need get their priorities straight and not try codding people.

I'll simplify. Your Mammy looks after the housekeeping. You pay her rent every week. Then one week she brings in a staircase charge, because you've been getting the use of it for free for years etc. etc.
You and I do not manage the states finances. You and I cannot dictate were taxes are spent. I assumed you'd know this. If the state/LA's neglect an area covered under general taxation to a point were it can no longer be maintained, that's bad housekeeping on their part. Bad allocation of our taxes.

To be frank Matt, that's just not cutting the mustard as an answer at all.
If we increase taxes to the extent that we solve all our problems by increasing taxes alone then we won't have workers, or companies investing here.
Some services need to be paid for by the citizen using the services provided, like transport, electricity, medical, housing etc, water I think should fit into this category.
Bad allocation of taxes can be having too much depending on it as well as misspending it!

Edward M · 16-07-2018 05:25PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Well, anecdotal evidence aside, (hearsay and conjecture?) we lose over 50% of water through mains leaks over decades. I suppose that was due to not bringing in metering a few years ago?

Maybe not a few years ago, a couple of decades more like.
But even a few years ago, and with IW borrowing on its own, some progress might have been made by now.
Its a pity FG/Lab made such a pigs ear of it I admit, and share your sentiments re cronyism and perks for staff, but I think metering and charges are necessary.

Water charges revisited?

Comments