Water charges revisited?

crossman47 wrote: »

Would all of those who oppose water charges please answer the following question. If water infrastructure is to be built/repaired from general taxation and if tax rates are not increased for that purpose, what item from education, health or social welfare (the three big spends) can the government cut to fund the expenditure on water? I know Paul Murphy would be up in arms if any of them were cut.

I’ve no problem paying for water, as long as the following criteria is met:

a fair amount is allocated for washing, drinking etc with no charge
Irish water can not increase the price of a unit of water by more than inflation and not two years in a row.
Irish water cannot be privatized.
All money generated by Irish water goes back into the water infrastructure, not to be paid out in the form of dividends to its shareholders. (Shareholder being the government) a la esb.
The original charging price will be set the same as the lowest price in Europe. (I’d be willing to move a little on this)

If these criteria was met then I’d have no problem.

tom1ie wrote: »

I’ve no problem paying for water, as long as the following criteria is met:

a fair amount is allocated for washing, drinking etc with no charge
Irish water can not increase the price of a unit of water by more than inflation and not two years in a row.
Irish water cannot be privatized.
All money generated by Irish water goes back into the water infrastructure, not to be paid out in the form of dividends to its shareholders. (Shareholder being the government) a la esb.
The original charging price will be set the same as the lowest price in Europe. (I’d be willing to move a little on this)

If these criteria was met then I’d have no problem.

Why should any of the water you use be free?
Why do you think we should only pay the lowest European price? I think there is a cost of living and average income difference between us and other European countries...

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Half of the water is lost through the mains leaks. Not half of the leaks are in the mains.

Half of the water thats lost is lost through the mains.
The other half is lost on the consumer side.

If you believe that 50% of the water is lost in the mains you are saying that ZERO water is lost on the customer side, which completely against what IW and local authorities say.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Bad house keeping, as pointed out, refers to allocation of monies and attention paid to areas, or lack thereof. It's about managing priorities and funding areas. As regards water infrastructure, it was under funded and neglected...to the point, where generations later it needs a complete overhaul. That's bad housekeeping. Water infrastructure upkeep was underfunded for decades. As mentioned, it's not a new problem discovered in 2011.
A single government body, like say the Dept. of Environment, (who oversee IW) to oversee all the LA's upgrading, replacing pipe is a great idea. Why we would create IW is another idea.

Do you not think that the money that didnt go to IW went to other areas that needed it? Health for example?

So why do we have ESB, Bord Gais etc etc if we can just leave everything to the local authorities?
DoE is far too broad reaching to also have to control the water system which in turn is controlled by each LA.

Your argument contains the large contradiction that you (rightly) say the water system was neglected for years by the LAs. Your solution to this is to continue to let the LA individually manage their own systems?

dense wrote: »

Is there any possibility that wanting to pay water charges is just a symbolic thing, some people will say they want to pay them, and others ahould too, but in truth don't really want to.



Would anyone like to put forward in figures what they (the average household user) think they should be be paying in water charges per year?


To enable IW be independent funded and all the off the books loans stuff etc.

Maybe, now bear with me, some people believe they should just pay for what they use?

Do you pay your ESB and gas bill out of symbolic reasons?

GreeBo wrote: »

They facilitate charging for usage, thats not their sole purpose.
They are designed to measure water flowing through them.
This figure is then used to charge people.
The statement was made on here that they were rotting in the ground.
This is quite clearly false, they are measuring water, irrespective of charging or not. They have no idea if water is being charged or not.


No it doesn't tell you how much is actually being *used* it just tells you how much you have for the next district.
If 100L are measured on the way in and 0L are measured on the way out, how does that help you determine if you have a leak or not?



I think you are incorrect there.
The total losses are 50%, its not 50% + 25% = 75%
Its 50% of all treated water that is lost. (UFW)

Actually that is domestic meters only purpose. The one they were designed to do. Charge domestic households for water.
What else to you appear to believe they are capable off. Detecting mains leaks ?
If you do, then go read the mega thread. That whole baloney was exposed there for what it was.



Please go and read at least something on area metering and how it works.
Quick synopsis. Area meter A going into a housing estate. Area meter B coming out of a housing estate. Subtract A from B and that is the total used or leaked in that estate. Take the number of houses in that estate multiply by the average household water use, subtract from your first total and that will give you the quantity leaked.
If the difference is over, say 20% (a general acceptable level for leakage) then depending on the percentage above that, you have a level of leakage going from minor to major.

Now for a major leak, considering the size of the mains pipe and the pressure compared to the size and pressure of the domestic side pipe where would you imagine that major leak is. Mains or a domestic side pipe ?


If you do not believe me on mains leaks then stop the nonsense of "I think you are incorrect there" and come back with your percentage for mains leaks and household side leaks.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's false. 50% of our water is lost due to mains leaks.
No, I'm saying 50% of our water is lost due to mains leaks. Of the remaining 50%, people use that, there is likely a portion lost in household leaks.

Do you have numbers to back that up?
According to IW in 2017 we had 47% leaks, they have since fixed some.
Why are you ignoring the leaks that are on the customers side when IW says they are a significant % of leaks?
You have decided that the "50%" number that is bandied about is all in the mains, this is incorrect and wrong.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Of course the money was allocated elsewhere. That's the point. Now it's suddenly an emergency for government, sorry it was until we said no to the con.

Why do you think it went elsewhere?
The water system, while in desperate need of repair, was still satisfying demand unlike, say the health system.
"The con"? Please. :rolleyes:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because the LA's were set up to look after streets, housing and water supply. The others have there own areas to look after.
If the LA's were properly funded re water, we wouldn't have a problem.

Again using the magical money that comes from where exactly?
We wouldnt have any problem if we had the money.
IW is the vehicle setup to get this money.
Which part of the above dont you understand?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No, I did nae. I said the LA's were under funded for decades. They still did a great job considering, so Irish water thinks anyway.

Oh so when it suits your "argument" you agree with IW? Useful that.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How many yards of new pipes would:




have gotten us?
325 million needlessly wasted, not including staffing, set up costs, legal fees, accountants etc. etc. in the millions.
That's my issue with IW. It wasn't needed, but how else would one go about 'looking after our own'?

Well lets see, current estimate is €5.5bn and you are, as usual, ignoring the fact that setting up any entity has a one off cost, but in any case, €325M isn't much out of a budget of €5.5BN tbh.

charlie14 wrote: »

Actually that is domestic meters only purpose. The one they were designed to do. Charge domestic households for water.
What else to you appear to believe they are capable off. Detecting mains leaks ?

No, they can detect leaks at the household side, as they have done many times since they were installed.
Its simple stuff, but I'll go over it again.
Water leaves treatment plant, via a meter.
It enters a water district, via a meter.
It enters customer property, via a meter
It leaves district, via a meter.
Can you not see that without meters on the customer side you have no idea if water is actually being used or not. How do you differentiate between people using water and water pissing into the ground on customers property without a meter at the customer?
Area/District/Whatever metering thats only on the mains will only tell you whats flowing between to meters. Thats fine if there are no consumers between the two meters.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you do, then go read the mega thread. That whole baloney was exposed there for what it was.

You call it baloney, the rest of us will call it data.
As a scientist I prefer when people make decisions based on data, you observe and you measure. Thats what meters do.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Please go and read at least something on area metering and how it works.
Quick synopsis. Area meter A going into a housing estate. Area meter B coming out of a housing estate. Subtract A from B and that is the total used or leaked in that estate. Take the number of houses in that estate multiply by the average household water use, subtract from your first total and that will give you the quantity leaked.

Erm, how do you determine the average household use if the only numbers you have for usage include leaks that you have no figures for?!
Tarot cards?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If the difference is over, say 20% (a general acceptable level for leakage) then depending on the percentage above that, you have a level of leakage going from minor to major.

Now for a major leak, considering the size of the mains pipe and the pressure compared to the size and pressure of the domestic side pipe where would you imagine that major leak is. Mains or a domestic side pipe ?

It could be on the 1 mains or on many of the tens of thousands of domestic outlets.
1 high pressure leak = thousands of low pressure leaks.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you do not believe me on mains leaks then stop the nonsense of "I think you are incorrect there" and come back with your percentage for mains leaks and household side leaks.

I cant do that because some idiots stopped the meters that would give us these figures from being installed!

dense wrote: »

You use c250 litres a day in the average household.



How much should you pay a year?


And if you do offer a figure, will you explain how you arrived at it?

I should pay a figure that reasonably covers the cost of producing that water minus any government subsidy.

How much do you think you should pay for your electricity or gas?
I keep asking this and you keep ignoring it.
Why is water so different from gas and electricity?

Good loser wrote: »

Like every other country in the world people should pay in accordance with their usage. The charges should cover the costs of the utility - capital and current. It's called commonsense.

Bah, what are you a communist?! :pac:

charlie14 wrote: »

What a truly bizarre post.


There are poster on here mentioning laws to back up Irish Water collecting charges for using water over an allocation, yet you want to talk about just water charges.
If we were having a discussion about elephant dung, do you in all honesty believe it would be anyway credible to just talk about the steaming heap in the middle of the floor while ignoring the fact there is an elephant standing in the corner?

I don't think it is but you are entitled to your own opinion.

The overall discussion is about water charges. I agree with water charges but don't see Irish Water's previous methods as the answer to the problem.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Just checked there, and you've made 10 posts in this thread, 2 x of which touched on increasing taxes to fund water.

1 x was a theoretical tale of buying stuff in a supermarket.

1 x was in relation to conspiracy theories and buying a bankrupt company.

1 x was talking about property tax.

4 x were about metering, and demanding an answer as to how certain properties couldn't be metered.

When called out, your last post was how you wanted to discuss charges, not metering or the mistakes made establishing Irish Water.

The irony of the last post hasn't been lost on me.

You seem to have a habit of going backwards rather than going forward.
Isn't that ironic?

charlie14 wrote: »

Take the number of houses in that estate multiply by the average household water use

So you just take a stab in the dark at the average household water use? Some houses might be single occupants, some might have 4 occupants, some like mine might have different levels of occupancy from week to week as I am away for work regularly for a week or more. There is just so many variables in your method that it is impossible for it to measure water usage or leaks.

According to this article each district meter is responsible for 1000 to 1500 properties. This would indicate that you are wrong in saying there is a meter both on the entry and exit of a housing estate as there are only 4407 district meters in the country.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/utility-says-domestic-meters-key-to-finding-leaks-35494892.html

So before meters was installed, estimate was the only way to gauge how much households were using. When the meters were then installed and an accurate measurement was possible, it was discovered just how much households were using, and also just how much was being lost to leaks.

But you seem to feel this is a reason to beat Irish Water with a stick.

Strange.