Water charges revisited?

tom1ie · 20-07-2018 08:59AM

GreeBo wrote: »

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

And has this or was it ever addresses? Answer is no. I’m not going to allow a cash cow for the government be set up that myself and my kids are going to be paying for in 10 years time, all the while it pays dividends to its shareholders/government to squander on whatever is in fashion.

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 10:20AM

aido79 wrote: »

I didn't agree with it because it was less than the amount an average person would use to shower, brush their teeth, go to the toilet and have a cup of tea in the morning. You must have missed that part.

Just because you keep repeating something doesn't make it true. You seem to have a false understanding of how area metering works. If an area meter is responsible for 1000 to 1500 homes and you have no idea whether the water passing through it is leaking into the ground or actually being used in a house how do you even know there is a leak in the system?

You didn`t agree on the old thread either, but when asked never came back with any data to counter what is there. So I didn`t miss anything other than I did see any point in again replying to quesswork.

I have been through all this before with you on the previous thread.
Area meters will tell you if there is a potential major loss of water from a section of the main much faster and much cheaper than installing domestic meters in every household in that section, reading them and then adding up all the readings.
Even afer doing all that reading and addition etc. it would be pointless. Without area meters you would not know what volume of water entered and exited that section.

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 10:51AM

aido79 wrote: »

Unless you can give me a reason not to believe Tommy Kelly's figures then I see no reason to question them. In my view unless he is lying then they are from a source on the frontline and more believable than taking a random sample of figures and calling the average of the sample the average usage for the entire population.
Lots of anti water charges posters have quoted figures by Irish Water which they seem to believe without any question because it suits their agenda. However I am reluctant to believe them because they defy common sense.

You may have missed a few facts here and there.
It was not just "a random sample" it was according to Irish Water data gleaned from reading 880,000 meters. Half the households in the country.
Would you seriously expect any difference if another 465 Million was spent as you are calling for.

Funny when you recall how at one time Irish Water`s figures were being waved around here as the new bible by pro posters.
Now when the fiasco they supported has been shown up for what they were/are,, chancers, by their own data, pro posters don`t believe them based of nothing other than guesswork yet still expect to be taken seriously.

aido79 · 20-07-2018 10:56AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Aido, I find it difficult to believe that a house could be leaking 10liters per minute (I've already done the maths) which amounts to more than 5 million litres per year, and no one noticed it/wouldn't have been noticed without meters.

I find it difficult to believe that a house was leaking the equivalent of more than 2 x full sized olympic swimming pools worth of water, and no one noticed. Where did water go? Was the house on stilts, or out at sea?

But the MOST DIFFICULT thing for me to believe, is that Tommy just happened to come across, not 1, but 7 of these 5million litres a year leaks out of the 10 houses he visited yesterday. What a missed propaganda photo oppurtunity for FG or Irish Waters Paul Melia. :pac:

Must have been some chat with the wife all the same...

How'd you get on in work today Tommy?

Ah 70% of the houses we called with today were leaking 600liters p/h, or more than 5million litres a year and no one even noticed til we rocked up love.

I don't believe it myself. I think Tommy might have confused his minutes with hours or forgot a decimal point.

I think we should wait for Tommy to come back and defend his figures before continuing this.

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 10:58AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just inventing things now?

Nope, and I have no interest in going down rabbit holes with you or anyone else on that ECJ ruling.

Already done to death on the old threads.
Posted that for anyone that is not aware of it and up to themselves if they want to peruse it and make up their own minds.

aido79 · 20-07-2018 11:03AM

charlie14 wrote: »

You may have missed a few facts here and there.
It was not just "a random sample" it was according to Irish Water data gleaned from reading 880,000 meters. Half the households in the country.
Would you seriously expect any difference if another 465 Million was spent as you are calling for.

Funny when you recall how at one time Irish Water`s figures were being waved around here as the new bible by pro posters.
Now when the fiasco they supported has been shown up for what they were/are,, chancers, by their own data, pro posters don`t believe them based of nothing other than guesswork yet still expect to be taken seriously.

I don't think you should paint us all with the same brush. I don't believe them. It doesn't mean other pro posters don't believe them.
It may be guesswork but I like to think of it as educated guesswork.
Do you have a water meter? If so what is your average daily usage?
Mine is somewhere between 250 and 500 litres a day depending on time of year which is well above Irish Water's average figures. That's for 2 adults and one child with no swimming pool or anything like that. I'm also 100% sure I have no leaks also.

McMurphy · 20-07-2018 11:27AM

aido79 wrote: »

I think we should wait for Tommy to come back and defend his figures before continuing this.

Fair enough, but I don't think people grasped the magnitude of the leak Tommy was telling us he found in not 1, but 7 homes in the one day.

10liters per minute.

That's the equivalent of 5 x 2ltr empty bottles of coke being filled each minute, or 1 every 12 seconds.

Anyone that thinks a 2.5millon liter leak wouldn't have been noticed but for a meter isn't living in the real world.

2 x Olympic sized swimming pools worth of water has to go somewhere, and meters aside, I think needing a kayak to visit the next door neighbour might have indicated something was wrong..

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 11:36AM

aido79 wrote: »

I don't think you should paint us all with the same brush. I don't believe them. It doesn't mean other pro posters don't believe them.
It may be guesswork but I like to think of it as educated guesswork.
Do you have a water meter? If so what is your average daily usage?
Mine is somewhere between 250 and 500 litres a day depending on time of year which is well above Irish Water's average figures. That's for 2 adults and one child with no swimming pool or anything like that. I'm also 100% sure I have no leaks also.

Funnily enough there are quite a few pro posters on here that at one stage on the old threads waved around Irish Water figures as if they had found the Holy Grail, yet now when actual data from the same source contradicts their agenda they have become non believers.
Educated or not, guesswork is still just guesswork and not something that would convince me (or anyone else I imagine) that it is a basis for flushing another 465 Million down the tubes to join the 465 Million already flushed there. Which is what you have been proposing.

I really do not see what me reading a meter will do for your arguement unless you are going to contact ever household that has one to do the same.
Come to think off it, hasn`t that been already done and the figures published!

dense · 20-07-2018 11:44AM

Recent US research published suggests that using less and less water will mean bigger, not smaller bills for customers:

Steady, reliable decreases in consumption due to better water conservation measures or other factors also pose problems for water utilities. As costs remain largely the same, water utilities may choose to raise their water prices to bring in necessary revenue.

However, consumers may view increased prices as a “punishment” for their reduced consumption. Higher prices could also usher in more conservation, leaving the utility facing the same revenue shortfall it sought to avoid.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.03237.x

Seems to make sense so I don't see how it will be any different here.

McMurphy · 20-07-2018 11:52AM

dense wrote: »

Recent US research published suggests that using less and less water will mean bigger, not smaller bills for customers:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.03237.x

Seems to make sense so I don't see how it will be any different here.

Wasn't one of the first cock ups made by iw, was to give away the underlying agenda and how we were to be fleeced if we conserved water.

It was designed to be a cash generator for the govt from the ground up.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 11:53AM

charlie14 wrote: »

Funnily enough there are quite a few pro posters on here that at one stage on the old threads waved around Irish Water figures as if they had found the Holy Grail, yet now when actual data from the same source contradicts their agenda they have become non believers.
Educated or not, guesswork is still just guesswork and not something that would convince me (or anyone else I imagine) that it is a basis for flushing another 465 Million down the tubes to join the 465 Million already flushed there. Which is what you have been proposing.

I really do not see what me reading a meter will do for your arguement unless you are going to contact ever household that has one to do the same.
Come to think off it, hasn`t that been already done and the figures published!

My biggest issue is with people quoting something from some Irish Water spokesperson from 4 years ago as if it was gospel then and still 100% true today.

For a start, a radio interview isn't statistics, and even if it was, those statistics must be out of date now.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 11:55AM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Wasn't one of the first cock ups made by iw, was to give away the underlying agenda and how we were to be fleeced if we conserved water.

It was designed to be a cash generator for the govt from the ground up.

When some people think that actually paying for the water you use is equivalent to being fleeced, then we have a very immature attitude to politics in Ireland.

McMurphy · 20-07-2018 11:59AM

blanch152 wrote: »

When some people think that actually paying for the water you use is equivalent to being fleeced, then we have a very immature attitude to politics in Ireland.

Fleeced for conserving water, when conservation was the original selling point.

You don't need a first class degree in political science to understand that.

dense · 20-07-2018 12:11PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Wasn't one of the first cock ups made by iw, was to give away the underlying agenda and how we were to be fleeced if we conserved water.

It was designed to be a cash generator for the govt from the ground up.

It has to be if it's going to successfully exist as an independent off the books utility with the necessary accounts available to demonstrate to creditors its ability not only to borrow substantial amounts, but to repay them.

If it's not going to be a profit oriented business, no one is going to extend proper loan facilities to it.

It's already had a major false start with Eurostat, so it cannot afford to send another signal showing it continues to have half baked business and ownership plans to the EU , the next one will have to show it's a real moneymaker.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 12:14PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Fleeced for conserving water, when conservation was the original selling point.

You don't need a first class degree in political science to understand that.

That would be a positive outcome, if we are using less water, then that is to be welcomed. If that comes with higher prices, so be it, the main goal of conserving water will have been achieved.

The person who conserves more than their neighbour will always be a winner.

McMurphy · 20-07-2018 12:21PM

blanch152 wrote: »

That would be a positive outcome, if we are using less water, then that is to be welcomed. If that comes with higher prices, so be it, the main goal of conserving water will have been achieved.

The person who conserves more than their neighbour will always be a winner.

Would you listen to yourself

In what conservation planet would someone willingly conserve something, if they were charged less for using MORE?

You're presumably not in the oil busineess.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 12:30PM

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Would you listen to yourself

In what conservation planet would someone willingly conserve something, if they were charged less for using MORE?

You're presumably not in the oil busineess.

You are missing the point. For an individual, there will always be a gain by conserving more than someone else. If everyone conserves, you have to work harder and conserve even more to keep benefitting.

That is a win for conservation. That is the main objective from my point of view.

It seems to me you see everything through the lens of paying as little as possible for as much as you can get. Not everyone is like that.

aido79 · 20-07-2018 12:36PM

charlie14 wrote: »

Funnily enough there are quite a few pro posters on here that at one stage on the old threads waved around Irish Water figures as if they had found the Holy Grail, yet now when actual data from the same source contradicts their agenda they have become non believers.
Educated or not, guesswork is still just guesswork and not something that would convince me (or anyone else I imagine) that it is a basis for flushing another 465 Million down the tubes to join the 465 Million already flushed there. Which is what you have been proposing.

I really do not see what me reading a meter will do for your arguement unless you are going to contact ever household that has one to do the same.
Come to think off it, hasn`t that been already done and the figures published!

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/870162/

dense · 20-07-2018 12:39PM

aido79 wrote: »

I don't think you should paint us all with the same brush. I don't believe them. It doesn't mean other pro posters don't believe them.
It may be guesswork but I like to think of it as educated guesswork.
Do you have a water meter? If so what is your average daily usage?
Mine is somewhere between 250 and 500 litres a day depending on time of year which is well above Irish Water's average figures. That's for 2 adults and one child with no swimming pool or anything like that. I'm also 100% sure I have no leaks also.

The thing is nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors.

People might be showering only once a week in a majority of households.

Sure, any surveys or chatting to friends and they'll say they're showering every day. Twice a day, just to be sure.

That might not be the case at all.

If IW is sayong the vast majority of metered properties are showing an average use of 250 lpd it looks like people are not showering half as much as what they're claiming, and conserving a great degree of water.

But they'll say they are.

dense · 20-07-2018 12:43PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The person who conserves more than their neighbour will always be a winner.

That sounds like one of the ten commandments.

What's the prize? Eternal life?

charlie14 · 20-07-2018 12:45PM

blanch152 wrote: »

My biggest issue is with people quoting something from some Irish Water spokesperson from 4 years ago as if it was gospel then and still 100% true today.

For a start, a radio interview isn't statistics, and even if it was, those statistics must be out of date now.

You must be addressing the wrong poster.

Any statistics I have pointed to have not been from radio interviews. They have been from widely published data resulting from the first fix scheme and readings of 880,000 meters according to that previous statistical God of pro supporters, Irish Water.
For lads and lassies that were so enthusiastic about Irish Water, backing practically everything concerned with it, aren`t ye being a tad shallow when the figures do not suit ye perhaps.

McMurphy · 20-07-2018 12:59PM

blanch152 wrote: »

You are missing the point. For an individual, there will always be a gain by conserving more than someone else. If everyone conserves, you have to work harder and conserve even more to keep benefitting.

That is a win for conservation. That is the main objective from my point of view.

It seems to me you see everything through the lens of paying as little as possible for as much as you can get. Not everyone is like that.

I'm glad you seem to be going against the grain , and realise not everyone is a freeloading scrounger.

dense · 20-07-2018 01:09PM

aido79 wrote: »

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/870162/

Its headline contradicts the content.

That says the median figure is still 250 lpd

The median figure for all households, which is less sensitive to such distortions, was 252 litres a day.

Sleeper12 · 20-07-2018 01:16PM

aido79 wrote:

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

+1

One of the many mistakes the go made was to use figures we all knew weren't true. I had my meter in for about a month and I realised how far out government figures were & how much more expensive everyone's water bill was going to be.

I'm still 100 percent beh metered water but it has to be fair. Everyone should have a to pay something. Even children & OAPS. They could introduce a means tested social welfare payment to OAPs if needed. The important thing is everyone pays something

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 01:20PM

aido79 wrote: »

Can we agree to use these figures? They seem more believable to me:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.rte.ie/amp/870162/

The 3.4% accounting for 31% of the water used fall into two categories:

(1) Those who have leaks on their properties
(2) Those who are completely wasting water

The argument for paying is clear.

The other point is that if this group were using twice the normal amount and the rest was accounted for in leaks, then there is leakage of 24% of the water supply on the customer side.

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 01:31PM

charlie14 wrote: »

Going to simplify this for you one item at a time.
At least you have moved on to the realization that meters were ever only intended for charging purposes.

I havent moved on to anything.
As I have already said: Meters measure water.
What you or anyone else chooses to do with the data a meter delivers is irrelevant to the meter.
ONE of the things the data (should) be used for is charging by usage
Another is detecting leaks.

charlie14 wrote: »

Irish Water were not charging for what you used. They were charging for what they produced where the householder was expected to pay for all household water produced while using less than 50%

This thread is not about what IW *were* doing. Its called "water charges revisited"
Move on and try to fix the problem.

charlie14 wrote: »

First two section I have address long ago on the mega threads so I have no interest in going down any further rabbit holes with you on it.

Useful. So you are only going to engage with posters who have read eveyone of your previous posts?
Handy for debating that.

charlie14 wrote: »

The last section is just despicable and undeserving of any comment.

Give me an other reason why people are refusing to pay for what they use then?

charlie14 wrote: »

You were the one that actually came on here pushing the glory of meters for leak detection. Now when your own figures have show how ridiculous that is you are jumping all over the place attempting to sell them.
All that data collection did not require 880,000 meters at a cost for meters alone of 465 Million Euro.
A sample survey with 1% of 880,000 at 1% of the cost would have achieved the same.

Again, (and for the last time)
Meters on the consumer side allow you to make sense out of the district/area meter readings.
Without them your area meters are worthless as you cannot distinguish between use and loss.
Unless you are going to rely on averages of averages of EU averages.
I'd rather billions were spent based on facts and not based on meaningless averages.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Aido, I find it difficult to believe that a house could be leaking 10liters per minute (I've already done
the maths) which amounts to more than 2. 5 million litres per year, and no one noticed it/wouldn't have been noticed without meters.

I find it difficult to believe that a house was leaking the equivalent of more than 2 x full sized olympic swimming pools worth of water, and no one noticed. Where did water go? Was the house on stilts, or out at sea?

From IW

"20 million litres per day, is as a result of leaks at just 1,100 properties."

OR 12.6l/min.

Perhaps, like most toilets since about 1970, the leaks just go back into the waste system and no one sees them?

But you can be bloody sure that people will go looking for them IF they were being charged.

GreeBo · 20-07-2018 01:34PM

dense wrote: »

Recent US research published suggests that using less and less water will mean bigger, not smaller bills for customers:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2017.03237.x

Seems to make sense so I don't see how it will be any different here.

Of course that would only be true of private companies who are in the business to make a profit.

dense · 20-07-2018 01:47PM

blanch152 wrote: »

The 3.4% accounting for 31% of the water used fall into two categories:

(1) Those who have leaks on their properties
(2) Those who are completely wasting water

The argument for paying is clear.

The other point is that if this group were using twice the normal amount and the rest was accounted for in leaks, then there is leakage of 24% of the water supply on the customer side.

Looks like less than 4% of households waste water.

Cure that and the problem, if it is a problem, is sorted.

blanch152 · 20-07-2018 01:52PM

dense wrote: »

Looks like less than 4% of households waste water.

Cure that and the problem, if it is a problem, is sorted.

We only know which 4% in the case of metered houses.

To identify the 4% in respect of unmetered houses, we have to meter them.

You make an excellent argument for metering, especially as these figures show we could save 25% of the water supplied to houses. Would have made a big difference this summer.

dense · 20-07-2018 01:58PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Of course that would only be true of private companies who are in the business to make a profit.

Is there any good reason why you think IW, which was intended on being a self funding independent single utility applying for market loans should not assume a financial position of taking more revenue in than it is paying out?

The credit ratings agencies would laugh at it.

Water charges revisited?

Comments