Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Water charges revisited?

1…3334353739

Comments

  • #1082
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,849 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Jolly Red Giant wrote: »
    The fact that Joan Burton had even been in Jobstown is utterly irrelevant.

    It’s very relevant. Everything I’ve read about this particular case says that the brick throwing incident happened 15 minutes after she’d left the area. There was still a large Garda presence there.


  • #1083
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    We're going to be paying more for our water. The network needs massive overhaul. The only question is who will be paying for it and how will they be paying for it. The water charges gave a shot at sharing the burden among users and reducing the effect on the state finances. Now the money will likely come from general taxation at the expense of other things or at extra expense to tax payers. I'd like to see it taken from VAT rather than paye or usc. At least the same old working suckers won't be paying out for everyone else on their own

    I think general taxation is the fairest way considering who the players are. It makes politicians less likely to engage in cronyism and sweet deals, not saying it'll stop them.
    The big problem with any model is Fine Gael have been shown that they cannot be trusted to look after such a venture and I don't hold out any hope of FF doing any better. Even if one of them came out with a model all could agree on, I would still be against FG/FF overseeing any aspect of it.
    The tax payer is paying either way. Those on welfare or low incomes will be subsidised either way. Whether it's charges or general taxation, the tax payer will be taking money from somewhere else to pay it too.


  • #1084
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod note:

    There is a separate thread from last year about the Jobstown Trial. While there may be very specific and limited instances whereby an aspect of that trial may be relevant to the current position of water charges, this is not a thread for discussing the pros and cons of how that trial ran, how the gardai behaved, how it was reported and in particular it is not for casting aspersions on any of the persons who were acquitted during that trial or witnesses during the trial.

    If anyone wants to discuss that trial, they can do so in this thread, obviously having regard to the mod warnings there and the charter:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103949304
    2018 style wrote: »
    Yea, but he's probably Murphy's bessie mate etc etc...
    You know the score around here...

    Mod note:

    In your short period of time in this forum you have been backseat moderating, making vague allegations against other posters in general rather than debating points and ignoring the mod warning not to be sniping at other posters. Please read the charter and comply with same or you will not be permitted to post any further in the politics forum.


  • #1085
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    I'd like to see it taken from VAT rather than paye or usc. At least the same old working suckers won't be paying out for everyone else on their own


    The same old suckers will be paying.

    VAT is what those on social welfare point to when they say everyone pays taxes.



    One only pays VAT with money received on social welfare because money raised from the taxes of others provides that money to be spent to begin with.



    The same as the taxes teachers pay, because their wages come from the general private sector workforce.


    No private sector beavering away means no wages for the public sector.



    What is needed is a simple appraisal.
    The Shannon project is going to cost 1.5bn.


    Cost the full overhaul of the system, say its €10bn.


    Whatever it is, spread it out over 20 years, no major burden and if its as good work as the Victorians did, it should last another hundred years.


    Instead they're farting around piecemeal with bits and pieces.



    There is €315bn EU funding available for infrastructure and water but we're not applying for it.


  • #1086
    Autochange
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭Autochange


    Can it not be taken from the USC. Remember the temporary tax.


  • Advertisement
  • #1087
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Autochange wrote: »
    Can it not be taken from the USC. Remember the temporary tax.


    It could be, except those who designed the utility system and who want to pay water charges don't ever want it called a tax for reasons best known to themselves.



    Probably something to do with keeping options open for the future liberalisation of water supplies.



    I suppose you couldn't really have Irish Water and its competitors collecting taxes.....


    Heads do need to be knocked together to come up with a smart and acceptable plan.


  • #1088
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Some seem to think that water charges solve problems.
    We saw that they certainly don't encourage conservation.
    Now we see that they do little to protect the environment:
    There are between 25,000 and 31,000 combined sewer overflows around the UK coast that discharge raw, untreated or lightly treated human sewage, particularly after periods of heavy rain or during breakdowns in the sewerage system.
    Over 4,500 wet wipes were found on one 154m sq patch of foreshore at our latest Thames River Watch citizen science event, the biannual Big Count: the highest number ever found in one place.


    https://www.thames21.org.uk/2017/04/17995/


  • #1089
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,916 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    dense wrote: »
    Some seem to think that water charges solve problems.
    We saw that they certainly don't encourage conservation.
    Now we see that they do little to protect the environment:


    https://www.thames21.org.uk/2017/04/17995/


    I don't know. Compared to the well-documented problems in Ireland -

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/epa-criticises-irish-water-for-sewage-treatment-failures-in-dublin-and-cork-1.3266134

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/raw-sewage-entering-water-in-44-places-around-ireland-1.3266141

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1024/914731-epa_-_irish_water/

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sewage-plants-serving-rural-areas-primitive-34586463.html


    - I would think that the issues in water charges UK are much smaller.


  • #1090
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I don't know. Compared to the well-documented problems in Ireland -

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/epa-criticises-irish-water-for-sewage-treatment-failures-in-dublin-and-cork-1.3266134

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/raw-sewage-entering-water-in-44-places-around-ireland-1.3266141

    https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1024/914731-epa_-_irish_water/

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/sewage-plants-serving-rural-areas-primitive-34586463.html


    - I would think that the issues in water charges UK are much smaller.


    Worse actually.



    One third of the rivers in England and Wales have raw sewage discharged into them.


    With 80% of rivers failing to meet "good ecological status".


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raw-sewage-uk-rivers-pollution-england-wales-wwf-wildlife-a8006246.html


  • #1091
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,916 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    dense wrote: »
    Worse actually.



    One third of the rivers in England and Wales have raw sewage discharged into them.


    With 80% of rivers failing to meet "good ecological status".


    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/raw-sewage-uk-rivers-pollution-england-wales-wwf-wildlife-a8006246.html

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/urban-waste-water-treatment/urban-waste-water-treatment-assessment-4

    The problem when you rely on sensational news articles is that they don't tell the real story.

    If you look at figure 3 in the attached - the official EU figures - and the two graphs for the UK and Ireland, you will see how much worse off we are in Ireland for waste water treatment.


  • Advertisement
  • #1092
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Would the UK not include other countries besides England?

    Belgium not faring too well. Closer to the IW model.
    Service provision
    The 589 municipalities of Belgium (308 in the Flemish region with 6.2 million inhabitants, 262 in the Walloon region with 3.4 million inhabitants and 19 in Brussels with 1.1 million inhabitants) are responsible for providing drinking water and sanitation services. However, most municipalities have delegated this task to regional or inter-municipal water or sanitation companies. In total, according to one source there were 72 water supply companies in Belgium in 2005.[8] However, another source indicates that there were more than about 62 water supply companies, including 2 regional companies, 30 inter-municipal utilities and 30 municipal utilities. Another 100 mostly small municipalities provide services directly without having a legally of financially separate entity for water supply.[1]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Belgium#Responsibility_for_service_provision


  • #1093
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,916 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Would the UK not include other countries besides England?

    Belgium not faring too well. Closer to the IW model.


    I am not going to repost my link with actual facts, but you can go back and check it.

    73% of Belgium's population covered by tertiary treatment (the most advanced), compared to 18% of Ireland's. No context there, Belgium treats their water far better than Ireland.

    What the newspaper articles do show is that countries like Belgium and the UK take their water treatment problems seriously at the public discussion level. Our coverage is reflective of the silly attitude to water charges and water supply.


  • #1094
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I am not going to repost my link with actual facts, but you can go back and check it.

    73% of Belgium's population covered by tertiary treatment (the most advanced), compared to 18% of Ireland's. No context there, Belgium treats their water far better than Ireland.

    What the newspaper articles do show is that countries like Belgium and the UK take their water treatment problems seriously at the public discussion level. Our coverage is reflective of the silly attitude to water charges and water supply.

    I know you don't put much stock in newspaper articles that disagree with you and ignore official figures blaming ill thought out metrics when they don't agree with you and...I forget where I was going.
    here's a nice tit-bit. Just pointing out it's not all roses when companies come in either.
    Water supply and sanitation in Belgium is provided by a large variety of organizations: Most of the 589 municipalities of Belgium have delegated the responsibility for water supply and sanitation to regional or inter-municipal utilities. There are more than 62 water supply utilities, including 2 regional, 30 inter-municipal and 30 municipal utilities. Another 100 mostly small municipalities provide services directly without having a legally of financially separate entity for water supply.[1] Water is not scarce in Belgium and water supply is generally continuous and of good quality. However, wastewater treatment has long lagged behind and Brussels only achieved full treatment of its wastewater in 2007. In 2004 the European Court of Justice ruled condemning Belgium's failure to comply with the EU wastewater directive, and the ruling has not been fully complied with so far. Wallonia satisfies 55% of the national needs in drinking water while it counts only 37% of the population. Flanders and Brussels are dependent on drinking water from Wallonia, at a level of 40% and 98% respectively.

    An interesting aspect of the Belgian water and sanitation sector is the recognition of a basic right to water. The Walloon and Brussels Regions have set up Social Funds for Water, which provide financial support to people having difficulties to pay their water bill, while in Flanders everyone has the right to a minimal supply of 15 m³ (41 liter/capita/day) of free water per person per year.

    The average water tariff in Belgium for large users in 2008 was Euro 8.92 per cubic meter, the second-highest among 14 industrial countries compared in a recent survey. Between 2003 and 2008 water tariffs in Belgium had increased by 80%, the highest increase in that period among all 14 countries.[2]


  • #1095
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,916 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I know you don't put much stock in newspaper articles that disagree with you and ignore official figures blaming ill thought out metrics when they don't agree with you and...I forget where I was going.
    here's a nice tit-bit. Just pointing out it's not all roses when companies come in either.

    The facts show that Ireland are right down at the bottom when it comes to waste water treatment. Belgium aren't as bad when it comes to the issue but are far from the best, probably in the group of countries above Ireland.

    You say it is "not all roses when companies come in." I don't know where you draw that conclusion. The key issue when it comes to Belgium is the dispersed nature of the provision - 62 water supply utilities in a country not much different to Ireland. We have one.

    100 Belgian local authorities involved in providing supply. Need I say more? That is where the problem is.


  • #1096
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The facts show that Ireland are right down at the bottom when it comes to waste water treatment. Belgium aren't as bad when it comes to the issue but are far from the best, probably in the group of countries above Ireland.

    You say it is "not all roses when companies come in." I don't know where you draw that conclusion. The key issue when it comes to Belgium is the dispersed nature of the provision - 62 water supply utilities in a country not much different to Ireland. We have one.

    100 Belgian local authorities involved in providing supply. Need I say more? That is where the problem is.

    I draw the conclusion from the excerpt I quoted in my post you quoted. Did you miss it?
    But there is a similar model, areas, local government handing over responsibility to a water company. You seem to think LA's are some completely separate organisation. They are merely local government.
    If the argument is IW is great because one body can oversee everything, why have LA's at all in any regard? Also, why have IW when we've the DoE?


  • #1097
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,568 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    the water quality in my family home in Roscommon, is so bad with limescale, I am now buying 5L bottles for the kettle and drinking water. This bull**** we used to hear about the water charges and it just falling from the sky! LOL! It costs serious money to provide a fit for purpose water system! On the meters front, unless they charged per litre, they seem pretty poor value to me...


  • #1098
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    the water quality in my family home in Roscommon, is so bad with limescale, I am now buying 5L bottles for the kettle and drinking water. This bull**** we used to hear about the water charges and it just falling from the sky! LOL! It costs serious money to provide a fit for purpose water system! On the meters front, unless they charged per litre, they seem pretty poor value to me...

    I think everyone agrees the system is in need of overhaul.


  • #1099
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/urban-waste-water-treatment/urban-waste-water-treatment-assessment-4

    The problem when you rely on sensational news articles is that they don't tell the real story.

    If you look at figure 3 in the attached - the official EU figures - and the two graphs for the UK and Ireland, you will see how much worse off we are in Ireland for waste water treatment.


    It doesn't help that Irish Water is mismanaging some of the treatment plants either and making reporting errors to the EPA.


    https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/Urban%2520waste%2520water%2520report%2520for%25202016%2520Final%2520Version.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjlib2Z2NHcAhWkI8AKHX2EAqQQFggNMAE&usg=AOvVaw1qEAzmV3-OvRC94lHpU1lB


    Three areas, which Irish Water previously misreported as receiving primary treatment, were
    found to be discharging raw sewage in 2016. These are Glin and Foynes in Limerick and
    Newport in Mayo.





    7 Operation and maintenance
    Some waste water treatment problems can be solved without capital investment. Operating
    and maintaining the existing treatment systems, to make the best use of them, can improve
    performance and effluent quality. The following are some of the operational issues identified
    by the EPA during 2016.





    At year end, 74 environmental incidents which were unresolved and likely to recur,
    were caused by operation and management issues at treatment plants 5
    .
     EPA inspections at 24 treatment plants found there was no maintenance programme
    in place. Maintenance is key to minimising breakdowns and ensuring the correct
    operation of equipment.
     Discharges from 12 large urban areas failed the Directive’s quality standards, despite
    these areas having sufficient treatment capacity. These include Portarlington, where
    the EPA took legal action to resolve operational problems.
    Maintenance should take a preventative or predictive approach, so that risks are identified
    and addressed before they can become a problem. This helps to keep equipment in the
    best condition. Treatment plant performance will also benefit from greater source control, for
    example through Irish Water’s regulation of discharges into sewers.


  • #1100
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,916 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    dense wrote: »
    It doesn't help that Irish Water is mismanaging some of the treatment plants either and making reporting errors to the EPA.


    https://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/Urban%2520waste%2520water%2520report%2520for%25202016%2520Final%2520Version.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjlib2Z2NHcAhWkI8AKHX2EAqQQFggNMAE&usg=AOvVaw1qEAzmV3-OvRC94lHpU1lB



    I read somewhere else on this site that the plural of anecdote is not data. Similarly, the plural of news story is not data either.

    I have produced the data which shows that only countries like Malta and some of the East Europeans are worse than us in terms of waste water treatment, thanks to a century of incompetence from local authorities and the lack of a stable financial arrangement like water charges.


  • #1101
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I read somewhere else on this site that the plural of anecdote is not data. Similarly, the plural of news story is not data either.

    I have produced the data which shows that only countries like Malta and some of the East Europeans are worse than us in terms of waste water treatment, thanks to a century of incompetence from local authorities and the lack of a stable financial arrangement like water charges.


    Your interpretation of the data is faulty, or skewed by bias.



    Ireland's bathing water quality has worsened as a direct result of Irish Water appearing on the scene.


    The quality was higher before water charges were introduced here.



    Ireland had the joint sixth worst level of bathing water quality in the EU in 2016 with 92.9% of bathing water sites classified as being of sufficient water quality, compared with an EU average of 96.3%.



    The results for the 2011 bathing season show that overall, the quality of bathing water in Ireland improved in comparison with the 2010 equivalent. Overall, 98.5 per cent (133 out of 135) of bathing areas complied with the EU mandatory standard, equating to ‘sufficient’ water quality. This is the highest number complying with the EU mandatory standard since 2000.



    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii18/mainfindings/



    http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-bathing-water-quality-improved-in-2011-438680-May2012/


  • Advertisement
  • #1102
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dense wrote: »
    Ireland's bathing water quality has worsened as a direct result of Irish Water appearing on the scene.


    The quality was higher before water charges were introduced here.

    Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?


  • #1103
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?


    Sure, it was just a coincidence, just as it would had bathing water quality improved after IW appeared on the scene.....


    That's not really going to be a runner for the charges advocates is it?


  • #1104
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dense wrote: »
    Sure, it was just a coincidence, just as it would had bathing water quality improved after IW appeared on the scene.....


    That's not really going to be a runner for the charges advocates is it?

    Is that your defence of your logical fallacy? To double down on it?

    You said Irish Water caused a deterioration of water quality. All you have to do is produce some evidence for that causation.


  • #1105
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,916 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    dense wrote: »
    Your interpretation of the data is faulty, or skewed by bias.



    Ireland's bathing water quality has worsened as a direct result of Irish Water appearing on the scene.


    The quality was higher before water charges were introduced here.



    Ireland had the joint sixth worst level of bathing water quality in the EU in 2016 with 92.9% of bathing water sites classified as being of sufficient water quality, compared with an EU average of 96.3%.



    The results for the 2011 bathing season show that overall, the quality of bathing water in Ireland improved in comparison with the 2010 equivalent. Overall, 98.5 per cent (133 out of 135) of bathing areas complied with the EU mandatory standard, equating to ‘sufficient’ water quality. This is the highest number complying with the EU mandatory standard since 2000.



    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-eii/eii18/mainfindings/



    http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-bathing-water-quality-improved-in-2011-438680-May2012/



    Firstly, the data I presented was about waste water treatment, not about bathing water quality, so how can I be interpreting wrongly data that I did not even examine.

    Secondly, I was comparing Ireland with other jurisdictions in the EU, most of whom have had water charges for years and most of whom have a far better record in waste water treatment.

    Thirdly, any attempt to assess Irish Water or water quality after one year of it being in existence is not a serious examination of data, as the data sample is too small.

    Fourthly, as water charges were never fully collected, it is not possible to examine any coherent data about the difference between a water charges regime and a non-water charges regime if you are confining that comparison to Ireland.


  • #1106
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Is that your defence of your logical fallacy? To double down on it?

    You said Irish Water caused a deterioration of water quality. All you have to do is produce some evidence for that causation.


    For starters:
    At year end, 74 environmental incidents which were unresolved and likely to recur,
    were caused by operation and management issues at treatment plants.




    An incident is:
    • any discharge that does not comply with the requirements of a waste water
    discharge licence; or
    • any occurrence at a waste water works with the potential for environmental
    contamination, or requiring an emergency response.



    At the end of 2016 there were 269 incidents which were either ongoing, or likely to
    recur, until the underlying cause is resolved. These are referred to as ‘recurring
    incidents’.
    The chart below summarises the causes of these recurring incidents.
    There were also over 550 short term incidents during 2016, which were unlikely to
    recur. The underlying causes of half of the short term incidents were operation and
    management issues at treatment plants.
    The EPA prosecuted Irish Water for two incidents, where uncontrolled discharges
    from the collection systems serving Cork City and Balbriggan - Skerries caused
    pollution in the receiving waters.


    http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/water/wastewater/Urban%20waste%20water%20report%20for%202016%20Final%20Version.pdf


  • #1107
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Firstly, the data I presented was about waste water treatment, not about bathing water quality, so how can I be interpreting wrongly data that I did not even examine.

    Secondly, I was comparing Ireland with other jurisdictions in the EU, most of whom have had water charges for years and most of whom have a far better record in waste water treatment.

    Thirdly, any attempt to assess Irish Water or water quality after one year of it being in existence is not a serious examination of data, as the data sample is too small.

    Fourthly, as water charges were never fully collected, it is not possible to examine any coherent data about the difference between a water charges regime and a non-water charges regime if you are confining that comparison to Ireland.


    Ok, I get the feeling that you want Irish Water to be seen as failing hopelessly, and, simultaneously, being totes amazing, both being due to not having functioning water charges in this country.



    Is that accurate?



    I'm just trying to keep up with the position.....


  • #1108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,849 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I suppose what it boils down to is some of us believe in the policy of people paying for what they use.

    Those of us who have our own septic tanks are used to paying for their maintenance and can understand and accept the necessity of paying for water.


  • #1109
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    dense wrote: »
    For starters: [...]

    I would point out that, for your "evidence" to stand up, you'd have to demonstrate that those problems could only have happened as a result of the introduction of Irish Water.

    But then I saw the website you've linked in your sig, so I know that discussing the concept of evidence with you is probably a waste of time.


  • #1110
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I would point out that, for your "evidence" to stand up, you'd have to demonstrate that those problems could only have happened as a result of the introduction of Irish Water.


    And I would point out that you appear to be chancing your arm.



    You asked for examples of evidence of Irish Water causing pollution, and were given it.



    It is always best to know the answer to a seemingly clever question before asking it.


  • Advertisement
  • #1111
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I suppose what it boils down to is some of us believe in the policy of people paying for what they use.

    Those of us who have our own septic tanks are used to paying for their maintenance and can understand and accept the necessity of paying for water.


    Just out of interest, what do you pay on maintenance of it?


    How many regular occupants in the house?


    A neighbour of mine said if they're working correctly they hardly ever need any work.



    We have one and have it emptied every 6 years or so more out of habit than anything else. It just does what its supposed to do.


Advertisement