Water charges for excessive usage

K.Flyer wrote: »

That puts the onus on approx 55% of properties to monitor their usage / consumption, while the other 45% of un-metered properties can do whatever they want, wash their cars every day, power hose their driveway, fill swimming pools all without penalty.
As long as they don't have a leak, in probably 90+% of cases, they will remain undetectable.
Is that fair and equitable in your eyes?
Its like saying that all Red cars in the country can drive without tax and insurance, speed to their hearts content and not suffer any consequences.

From a conservation perspective, that is better than 0% of properties monitoring their usage.

Ideally, I would want 100%, but that is not practical in the current climate. A few more 10-day boil water notices in Dublin are needed for the slow learners in the Irish population to accept water charges.

K.Flyer wrote: »

Here's the thing, they could have metered 90+% of all properties, including apartments. That would have made it a more level playing field.
If they hadn't squandered multiple millions we could have upgraded the network and had almost every property metered. But instead they lined their own pockets first and ba!!sed the rest of it up.



The boil water and issues that cause it predates I.W. by a long time.
I would be happy to bet money that had they spent the obscene amounts setting up I.W. on the water network and infrastructure there would be minimal network leaks and probably no boil water notices.
But no, successive governments have kicked it down the road for decades and eventually, after a ham fisted attempt, its bit them on the ar$e.
So who pays and suffers as a consequence?

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

The Irish Water Business Plan set out how €5.5bn of capital expenditure to 2021 would have been achieved. We will fall well short of that, thanks to the abolition of domestic water charges, a key part of the business plan.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/untruths-of-irish-water-setup-costs-467510.html

Even if O'Dowd's claim of over €200m in set-up costs is true, the delivery of annual savings of €70m would have been well worth it.

"Mr Quinn said the change would, in time, free up €70m a year in operational savings and efficiencies."

As it is, we got some of the set-up charge, but none of the savings because the politicians caved.

blanch152 wrote: »

Why are people on here complaining about excess water charges. After all, if you reduce your usage, you won't be charged.

Ultimately, that points to the link between charging and consumption, the main reason for the introduction of charging in the first place.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that bringing in rules for one half of users while allowing anarchy for the other half is OK? You'd be happy with that?



With respect, that is a recipe for revolt - you try to run a business in that way and your staff would be at each other's throats in 5 minutes. Say "Mary, if you're late, I won't doc your wages - John, if you're late, you lose money"



You really are very naive if you think such discrimination could work.

blanch152 wrote: »

From a conservation perspective, that is better than 0% of properties monitoring their usage.

Ideally, I would want 100%, but that is not practical in the current climate. A few more 10-day boil water notices in Dublin are needed for the slow learners in the Irish population to accept water charges.

What the real slow learning supporters of metering are learning daily is that the whole fiasco was a failed FIne Gael political wet dream that cost the tax payer a very large fortune and left them with the inept quango of Irish Water.

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Hmmm ... anyone kinda link the introduction of the PS card to these water charges....regarding responses.

Seems certain folk were not too keen that the ‘Feds’ knew too much about them....uhmmm ....kinda strange, I might suggest.

Lot of push back on both issues....... wonder why.... hmmm

If you are referring to the failed attempted to harvest PPS numbers your Middle Ireland refused to "engage".


Lucky for that FG/Lab government they did when you see the slapping they are now getting from the Data Protection Commission on their Public Service card scam attempt.

charlie14 wrote: »

If you are referring to the failed attempted to harvest PPS numbers your Middle Ireland refused to "engage".


Lucky for that FG/Lab government they did when you see the slapping they are now getting from the Data Protection Commission on their Public Service card scam attempt.

It is amazing how so many law-abiding, tax-paying, cash-avoiding citizens don’t like the government having the ability Through PPS numbers to link up their house with their income tax payments (or their social welfare) but at the same time they will tell google and Facebook everything about their whole life.

blanch152 wrote: »

I really don’t care what FG think.

I have set out why I believe water charges are a good idea - for conservation. So address the issue rather than the usual strawman nonsense. It doesn’t matter if it is a quango, it doesn’t matter if it only breaks even, if consumption is reduced, water charges are a good idea.

No strawman nonsense in the fact if all metered households had paid the then household charge not a red cent would have contributed to water services.

That was due to metering.

260 euro per average household just to break even on 1 Billion euro spent.


Now to your airy fairy break even nonsense.

How much will it cost the average household to meter the remaining 50% of households plus all the unmetered apartments to simply break even on a crazy undertaking adding nothing to water services in a country where we are one of the lowest household misusers of water in the O.E.C.D.?


Calculations to the nearest 50 Euro will suffice.

charlie14 wrote: »

No strawman nonsense in the fact if all metered households had paid the then household charge not a red cent would have contributed to water services.

That was due to metering.

260 euro per average household just to break even on 1 Billion euro spent.


Now to your airy fairy break even nonsense.

How much will it cost the average household to meter the remaining 50% of households plus all the unmetered apartments to simply break even on a crazy undertaking adding nothing to water services in a country where we are one of the lowest household misusers of water in the O.E.C.D.?


Calculations to the nearest 50 Euro will suffice.

For a start, the 1 billion is fantasy stuff, even O'Dowd in the link I provided put the set-up costs at €200m. With €70m coming in, the set-up costs would have been paid back in three years, as the Irish Water Business Plan in the other link I provided backed up.

Doesn't matter if we are one of the lowest household misusers of water in the OECD (and I note that once again, you provided a slogan without a link to back it up, and I don't mean a link to another slogan), that would still put us among the highest 20% of misusers of water in the world.

If you are looking at this from the perspective of "no way, we won't pay", then you are against water charges, if you are looking from the perspective of long-term environmental and climate change perspective, water charges that only break even are a very good thing, because they reduce consumption.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Listening to Eoghan Murphy earlier, seems even FG have accepted water charges are dead in the water. They got their answer in 2016 according to Eoghan, time for some here to come to the same realisation.

People were told in 1983 that they they got the answer to abortion then, and to come to the same realisation. Ditto divorce.

Some of us aren't tied to political parties, and are more interested in issues. Water charges are a good thing, and I won't stop arguing in favour of them.

blanch152 wrote: »

Doesn't matter if we are one of the lowest household misusers of water in the OECD (and I note that once again, you provided a slogan without a link to back it up, and I don't mean a link to another slogan), that would still put us among the highest 20% of misusers of water in the world.

If you are looking at this from the perspective of "no way, we won't pay", then you are against water charges, if you are looking from the perspective of long-term environmental and climate change perspective, water charges that only break even are a very good thing, because they reduce consumption.

Still running away when asked to back up your airy fairy nonsense with bluster I see. Same as your claim on Dáil Standing Orders on another thread that were none existent when you were asked to back them up in fact.
On your latest nonsense.

We know that with 50% of households metered the 260 euro household charge if everyone had paid would have resulted in Irish Water breaking even without a cent going to water services.
You now want all the remaining households metered plus all the apartments, again at a break even where nothing will go to water services for nothing other than conservation where 50% of water is lost through mains leaks.



My question was quite simple.

Seeing as the fairies are not going to do all that work for free, what will be the average household charge required to cover that outlay just to break even.


Answer that and we will move on to the rest of your nonsense.
And btw, if you doubt we are one of the lowest users of domestic water in the O.E.C.D. then either look it up yourself, or just take a look at the quango you are such a champion off, Irish Water`s on figure for mean household consumption.