Water charges revisited?

tom1ie · 19-07-2018 05:10PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I find it laughable that people believe the agenda is privatisation. I also find it laughable that people believe it was all done to benefit Denis O'Brien. There is an awful lot laughable around here.

Explain to me why you find this laughable? Do you also find it laughable that an existing semi state company pays 1.5 billion over 10 years in dividends to the government from their profits? Yeah I’m in hysterics alright.

blanch152 · 19-07-2018 05:16PM

tom1ie wrote: »

Explain to me why you find this laughable? Do you also find it laughable that an existing semi state company pays 1.5 billion over 10 years in dividends to the government from their profits? Yeah I’m in hysterics alright.

If I had found that laughable I would say so. However, a company (ESB) returning dividends to the owner (the State) that invested in it is completely normal.

Setting up a water utility for the private benefit of Denis O'Brien, now that is laughable.

GreeBo · 19-07-2018 05:33PM

tom1ie wrote: »

Explain to me why you find this laughable? Do you also find it laughable that an existing semi state company pays 1.5 billion over 10 years in dividends to the government from their profits? Yeah I’m in hysterics alright.

What exactly is the problem with giving money back to the government?
What do you think they are going to spend it on exactly?

McMurphy · 19-07-2018 05:33PM

blanch152 wrote: »

It was predicted, it came to pass.

The UK are only now introducing a hosepipe ban, a month behind Ireland, and they probably won't reach the problems we will be having later this year.

And a few years back they had water shortages/ severe drought when we had none....

They were charged, and we weren't?

I predicted that the charging system would be thrown under a bus, that came to pass too.

GreeBo · 19-07-2018 05:35PM

K.Flyer wrote: »

But there is one huge problem with that, which has been pointed out before.
Irish Water have No Plans to install water meters in apartment buildings.
How can they work out losses or above normal consumption, or fair billing systems, with that great big hole in their infrastructure.
There are vast areas in Dublin which are predominantly apartment buildings, they have no hope of quantifying losses against usage in these areas without meters.

So because we cant meter every property, meter none?

A single meter at the apartment block would at least tell you something useful about consumption within the apartment block.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Your question was answered further back not rehashing it for you as was the first part of your reply.
This is all just a complete retrashing of the pervious threads with the same straw grasping on evidence. Enjoy yourself I have more important things to do today.

How convenient.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

As already said though it will be a brave party that tries the same crap again......we don't have brave parties just sole traders under one banner seeking re-election every 5 years.

Give an alternative to the "crap" so?

Hitman3000 · 19-07-2018 05:44PM

GreeBo wrote:

Give an alternative to the "crap" so?

Already did, several times. Is this a new tactic of water charge proponents? Constantly asking for the same answers ad nauesum?

tom1ie · 19-07-2018 05:47PM

GreeBo wrote: »

What exactly is the problem with giving money back to the government?
What do you think they are going to spend it on exactly?

The money should be ring fenced for water network upgrades. Oh I don’t know maybe they’ll spend it on storing e voting machines?, maybe it’ll go towards minister expenses etc etc

Idbatterim · 19-07-2018 05:50PM

charlie14 wrote: »

We know where the water is being lost. We always knew. We didn`t need 1 Billion Euro wasted on domestic meters to tell us the overwhelming loss was from leaking mains.

I couldn`t be bothered checking, but if you are one of those that has mentioned magic money trees, but from advocating spending 1 Billion Euro to detect 3.75% leakage it sounds as if you found one.
Complete insanity.

If you were a first responder and came across someone with a scratch plus a major bleed, on you logic you would attempt to treat the scratch while the victim bleed out.

where in gods name is 1 billion from meters coming from?! (also any money spent on metering, a decent amount of it, ends back up in government coffers) I just googled the below... IF they had put a nominal charge and charged per liter, not only would the leaks on private property have been repaired, the psychology of paying for something, even if it was very little per litre, would have resulted in less water usage. It would have been a quick fix, a hell of a lot quicker than replacing thousands of kilometres of pipe...

Mark O’Regan

June 4 2017 1:05 PM

More than €110,000 a day has been spent installing water meters following the suspension of controversial charges last year, the Sunday Independent can reveal.

New financial records reveal that over a nine-month period 51,700 metres were installed — costing the taxpayer €29.7m.

As part of an agreement reached between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael during government formation talks, water charges were suspended for nine months.

The suspension came into effect on July 1, and the charges were officially in place until March 31 this year.

As of January this year, the total administrative costs — including items such as stamps, envelopes and paper — arising from billing households totalled €13m.

A further €10m was spent on Irish Water’s customer ‘contact centre’ to deal with a range of issues, including customer complaints.

Between August 2013 and January this year, Irish Water installed almost 900,000 domestic meters. Latest data shows six out of 10 households now have meters installed.

ok so just did the maths quickly and yeah it would have been in or around a billion, fair enough. I still wont change my stance though, that billion is something that could have cut use and leaks by 10-15% I would guess. To save that amount by replacing mains, would be a hell of a lot more costly...

blanch152 · 19-07-2018 06:02PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

And a few years back they had water shortages/ severe drought when we had none....

They were charged, and we weren't?

I predicted that the charging system would be thrown under a bus, that came to pass too.

The charging system is still enshrined in legislation, can be introduced overnight by a future government.

Hitman3000 · 19-07-2018 06:07PM

blanch152 wrote:

The charging system is still enshrined in legislation, can be introduced overnight by a future government.

And just as before it can be opposed.

FreudianSlippers · 19-07-2018 06:13PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

And just as before it can be opposed.

Why are you obsessed with people being able to use excessive amounts of water?

Hitman3000 · 19-07-2018 06:18PM

FreudianSlippers wrote:

Why are you obsessed with people being able to use excessive amounts of water?

Unworthy of a reasoned reply.

dense · 19-07-2018 06:20PM

blanch152 wrote: »

It was predicted, it came to pass.

That is true. It was predicted last November that a ban would be needed in the UK this summer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5102177/Hosepipe-ban-warning-2018-lack-rainfall.html

blanch152 wrote: »

The UK are only now introducing a hosepipe ban, a month behind Ireland, and they probably won't reach the problems we will be having later this year.

But the UK through mismanagement of its water services had to impose hosepipe bans in 2012. We didn't.

Published research actually shows that hosepipe bans save very little water any.

Hosepipe bans do little to preserve water as the vast majority of people do not use them in their gardens anyway, according to the latest research.

With scorching temperatures predicted this summer, the bookies have already slashed odds on hosepipe bans being introduced.

But a study by three universities, conducted among almost 2,000 homes across southern England, suggested such restrictions have little impact on water shortages.

Research carried out jointly by the universities of Manchester, Edinburgh, Southampton and Lancaster found that 56 per cent of householders never watered their gardens whatever the weather.

A quarter of those with gardens said they never used hosepipes or sprinklers anyway, preferring to use watering cans and jugs even when there was no such ban in place.

Dr. Alison Browne from Manchester's Sustainable Consumption Institute, said: “Our findings provide food for thought for those implementing hosepipe bans and non-essential use bans.

“Although these bans do raise awareness of the importance of using less water, we think it would be good to think about different approaches to tackling behaviour leading up to drought.

“We also urge the water industry to think differently how they might intervene.”

Like building more reservoirs Dr.?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/10823473/Hosepipe-bans-are-pointless-study-concludes.html

K.Flyer · 19-07-2018 06:21PM

GreeBo wrote: »

So because we cant meter every property, meter none?

Where did I say that??

A single meter at the apartment block would at least tell you something useful about consumption within the apartment block.

If the put a meter on the main feed into every apartment complex, all it would tell them is whether there is a discrepancy between their water plant output and block usage. It will tell them nothing of individual dwelling consumption whether someone is wasting water or being conservative.
This makes a mockery of them considering introducing excessive water charges against those who are metered and none against those who are not.

charlie14 · 19-07-2018 06:27PM

GreeBo wrote: »

You still need meters at consumption point otherwise your district metres dont tell you squat.
The *ONLY* way a district meter would tell you something is if everyone within the district didnt use any water for a day and then you could determine water loss within that district.

Without knowing the actual REAL consumption within a district your top and tail meters are useless.

It would be like trying to determine how many people die on the M50 by subtracting the number of people who get off at the M1 from the number who join in Wicklow, all the while ignoring the fact that people leave the motorway are the multitude of exits inbetween.

You really do not have a clue do you on water leakage or what is an acceptable level of leakage in a water system ?
I`ll give you a hint shall I ?
It is a quite a few multiple of 3.75%

You are in favour of water metering. Fair enough, your prerogative. Just don`t come on using any madcap idea that comes into your head on the percentage of leaks that are domestic, (Even your on posted statistics have shown how ridiculous that was), or trying to justify a spend of 1 Billion euro for that minuscule percentage reason and expect to be taken seriously that your concerns are anything to do with leaks.

I for one certainly do not.

oceanman · 19-07-2018 06:38PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The charging system is still enshrined in legislation, can be introduced overnight by a future government.

no government that plans to stay in power would ever try it now..

charlie14 · 19-07-2018 06:51PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

where in gods name is 1 billion from meters coming from?! (also any money spent on metering, a decent amount of it, ends back up in government coffers) I just googled the below... IF they had put a nominal charge and charged per liter, not only would the leaks on private property have been repaired, the psychology of paying for something, even if it was very little per litre, would have resulted in less water usage. It would have been a quick fix, a hell of a lot quicker than replacing thousands of kilometres of pipe...

ok so just did the maths quickly and yeah it would have been in or around a billion, fair enough. I still wont change my stance though, that billion is something that could have cut use and leaks by 10-15% I would guess. To save that amount by replacing mains, would be a hell of a lot more costly...

Fair enough.
880,000 meters cost 465 Million so to install the rest would be as close to 1 Billion as would make no difference.

As one of the lowest per capita users of water in Europe my guess would be that your 10-15% is way off.
The poster I was replying too was not on the scale of spending 1 Billion to cut leakage by 10-15%. It was to cut 3.75% leakage.
Economic madness imho.

charlie14 · 19-07-2018 06:57PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The charging system is still enshrined in legislation, can be introduced overnight by a future government.

We could have an army coup as well, but I cannot see either happening within the next few generation at the very least.

Sleeper12 · 19-07-2018 07:05PM

oceanman wrote:

no government that plans to stay in power would ever try it now..

Don't forget that the EU hasn't passed our current plans. I believe that they will hold off well past Brexit but in two years time we might be paying millions in fines. I do believe we'll be paying water charges in 10 years or less. I believe we'll hear to EU then the Irish government talking about them within 2 to 3 years. Just because Enda Kenny made a bags of it doesn't mean we won't have water charges.

charlie14 · 19-07-2018 07:08PM

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Already did, several times. Is this a new tactic of water charge proponents? Constantly asking for the same answers ad nauesum?

Not really.

Once pro posters back in the day on the mega thread saw the way the wind was blowing on metering charges, it became practically the norm.

Tommy Kelly · 19-07-2018 07:16PM

charlie14 wrote: »

How often has it to be explained to you. Domestic water meters were not installed to detect leaks. Nor are they even a vaguely cost effective way of doing so.
They were installed to charge for water.

If you have been reading the published information then from the link you posted you should be able to calculate from that estimated 46Million liters, what the percentage of the 1,600Million liters that are produced daily is in household leakage.

2.25% unless my mathematics are completely askew.

Before you came back with all water treated daily does not go to domestic household, I will save you the trouble and me the time.
60% of water treated daily goes to domestic households, therefore that 2.25% now becomes 3.75% of water produced leaked on the household side of mains.

So.... what percentage of water is leaking from the mains, and do you still think a spend of 1 Billion euros is justifiable to detect 3.75% of leaked water .

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

dense · 19-07-2018 07:20PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

where in gods name is 1 billion from meters coming from?! (also any money spent on metering, a decent amount of it, ends back up in government coffers) I just googled the below... IF they had put a nominal charge and charged per liter, not only would the leaks on private property have been repaired, the psychology of paying for something, even if it was very little per litre, would have resulted in less water usage. It would have been a quick fix, a hell of a lot quicker than replacing thousands of kilometres of pipe...

ok so just did the maths quickly and yeah it would have been in or around a billion, fair enough. I still wont change my stance though, that billion is something that could have cut use and leaks by 10-15% I would guess. To save that amount by replacing mains, would be a hell of a lot more costly...

The 46m litres that was found leaking after the meters is a very small amount and less than 3% of whats produced. Fix it and the network is still blowing leaks.

That was all that was found after spending big money.

You can only imagine what it would cost to locate and fix the network leaks. Fix one and another blows half a mile away.

Actually according to this its found 89m litres of leaks

https://www.water.ie/for-home/first-fix/

charlie14 · 19-07-2018 07:26PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Don't forget that the EU hasn't passed our current plans. I believe that they will hold off well past Brexit but in two years time we might be paying millions in fines. I do believe we'll be paying water charges in 10 years or less. I believe we'll hear to EU then the Irish government talking about them within 2 to 3 years. Just because Enda Kenny made a bags of it doesn't mean we won't have water charges.

There have been a few ruling by the ECJ on the matter.
Well documented on the old threads but short version, the EU environmental commission got its nose well bloodied on the issue of attempting to dictate to any member state on water charges.

EUR-Lex - 6212CJ0525 - EN - EUR-Lex If you want to have a look.

Tommy Kelly · 19-07-2018 07:31PM

dense wrote: »

The 46m litres that was found leaking after the meters is a very small amount and less than 3% of whats produced. Fix it and the network is still blowing leaks.

That was all that was found after spending big money.

You can only imagine what it would cost to locate and fix the network leaks. Fix one and another blows half a mile away.

Could you imagine the employment it would create. Serious amount of people employed now for this first free fix scheme.

charlie14 · 19-07-2018 07:34PM

Tommy Kelly wrote: »

I work with a company that IW have subbed in for leak detection and repair between the Boundary Box / Meter and the Point of Entry to house and I can tell you now there's at least 100 years work in this business. Every second house has a leak. Out of my 10 leak investigation appointments today there were 7 households losing approx 10 litres per min. If it wasn't for these Itron water meters the leaks would never have been flagged

Unless you had a minimum leakage on the domestic side of 53,000 liters Irish Water were not interested with their first fix scheme.
Irish Water`s own figures from their first fix scheme concluded that the leakage on the household side was 3.75%.
1 Billion Euro is a hell of a spend just to flag 3.75%, and a waste of time and effort when mains are leaking 50%.

Idbatterim · 19-07-2018 07:43PM

charlie14 wrote: »

Unless you had a minimum leakage on the domestic side of 53,000 liters Irish Water were not interested with their first fix scheme.
Irish Water`s own figures from their first fix scheme concluded that the leakage on the household side was 3.75%.
1 Billion Euro is a hell of a spend just to flag 3.75%, and a waste of time and effort when mains are leaking 50%.

yes for the one billion, without a charging regime in place, which would be a simple pay per litre, no certain amount free etc, then yes, the meters would appear to represent poor value...

Could you imagine the employment it would create. Serious amount of people employed now for this first free fix scheme.

exactly, its made out as if all this money, goes up in smoke! funny how money spent on this is seen as wasted, yet money spent on welfare etc is "great for the economy" ... Look I am not saying it makes economic sense v simply replacing the mains pipes. But much of that money goes back to government, one way or another...

charlie14 · 19-07-2018 09:15PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

yes for the one billion, without a charging regime in place, which would be a simple pay per litre, no certain amount free etc, then yes, the meters would appear to represent poor value...

The whole disaster was a badly thought out disaster monetarily, and for FG and Labour politically. A complete and utter clusterf**k.

It feel apart with capped charges where there was no limit on the water you could use, a "conservation" grant that had nothing to do with conserving water, (or anything else other than an attempted bribe), and a first fix scheme where labour and yet more money was wasted messing around on minuscule leaks while half the water treated was pouring out of mains.

With all that another charging regime that would attempt to meter all households on a basis of no allowances with a charge for every liter is a very very leaky pipe-dream imo.

GreeBo · 19-07-2018 09:43PM

tom1ie wrote: »

The money should be ring fenced for water network upgrades. Oh I don’t know maybe they’ll spend it on storing e voting machines?, maybe it’ll go towards minister expenses etc etc

They wouldnt be giving back dividends if they still needed the money for capital expenses. We are talking about a scenario thats 10 years away at least
i.e. when the leaks are down to industry norms.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

And just as before it can be opposed.

Again you have no problem telling us what you are opposed to....yet are too busy to tell us what you are in favour of?

K.Flyer wrote: »

Where did I say that??

If the put a meter on the main feed into every apartment complex, all it would tell them is whether there is a discrepancy between their water plant output and block usage. It will tell them nothing of individual dwelling consumption whether someone is wasting water or being conservative.
This makes a mockery of them considering introducing excessive water charges against those who are metered and none against those who are not.

What % of all housing in the country is apartments that cant be metered?
You dont abandon the whole scheme because a tiny percentage can get individual metering.
Having a meter on the entire apartment is much more granular data than having a meter on the entire district. At a minimum it can tell you if one block is skewed compared to the rest of them, i.e. it might have a leak within it.

charlie14 wrote: »

You really do not have a clue do you on water leakage or what is an acceptable level of leakage in a water system ?
I`ll give you a hint shall I ?
It is a quite a few multiple of 3.75%

Not sure what thats got to do with anything?
The point of a meter is that you cant charge what you cant measure.
And you cant charge if you are not delivering 100% of what you are charging for.

charlie14 wrote: »

You are in favour of water metering. Fair enough, your prerogative. Just don`t come on using any madcap idea that comes into your head on the percentage of leaks that are domestic, (Even your on posted statistics have shown how ridiculous that was), or trying to justify a spend of 1 Billion euro for that minuscule percentage reason and expect to be taken seriously that your concerns are anything to do with leaks.

I for one certainly do not.

Whats madcap about expecting people to pay by usage like almost every other utility does?
Other than yourself, no one is saying that the meters are ONLY being used to detect leaks. They are used for measuring usage.
You can do whatever you want with that data.
Such as, identify leaks, charge per usage, get accurate figures for consumption per capita, etc, etc.
You cant do any of that without meters.

charlie14 wrote: »

Fair enough.
The poster I was replying too was not on the scale of spending 1 Billion to cut leakage by 10-15%. It was to cut 3.75% leakage.
Economic madness imho.

Again, no one said that meters were ONLY to find leaks except you.

charlie14 wrote: »

The whole disaster was a badly thought out disaster monetarily, and for FG and Labour politically. A complete and utter clusterf**k.

It feel apart with capped charges where there was no limit on the water you could use, a "conservation" grant that had nothing to do with conserving water, (or anything else other than an attempted bribe), and a first fix scheme where labour and yet more money was wasted messing around on minuscule leaks while half the water treated was pouring out of mains.

I dont think anyone is arguing that the way IW was (mis) managed by the various governments was a good thing, but that doesnt mean usage based charging is a bad thing as you seem to imply.

charlie14 wrote: »

With all that another charging regime that would attempt to meter all households on a basis of no allowances with a charge for every liter is a very very leaky pipe-dream imo.

Why?
Why wouldnt people be happy paying based on what they use?
It could be as simple as
€1 for the first x M3
€1.50 for the next y M3 above that
etc etc

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

McMurphy · 19-07-2018 09:50PM

GreeBo wrote: »

It could be as simple as
€1 for the first x M3
€1.50 for the next y M3 above that
etc etc

Then your bill is all down to what you use and everyone wins.
Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

And FGs expert commitee.

Hitman3000 · 19-07-2018 09:53PM

GreeBo wrote:

Well everyone other than the scroungers who want someone else to pay their way of course.

See this is where everything you say can be ignored.

Water charges revisited?

Comments