The Greens and water

The water infrastructure in Ireland has been badly neglected. Many of the pipes that bring you your water were laid under british rule, in fact some were laid during the rule of Queen Victoria, and have never been replaced or maintained.

The task of maintaining the water systems is left to the county councils, which is means there is no large joined up system in place for dealing with water infrastructure.

To use a simple analogy, imagine instead of the ESB being responsible for your electricity supply, it was your local council who were responsible for the power equipment in your area, and your area alone. With no joined up thinking, power outages and black out would be rife.

If Gormley puts forward a plan and then implements it then I will take my hat off to him. It is badly needed. If his plan to fix the water systems is create a new tax to pay for it first, but nothing happens then I will have been right about him.

In Galway, my parents have not drank tap water in nearly 4 years because it cant be trusted. The last time the local water got infected with something, the only announcement that was made was a hand written line at the bottom of the Church Newsletter(though my Dad thinks that was an attempt at ethnic cleansing).

djpbarry

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?

Because having enough clean drinking water to go 'round is kind of important?

There are severe water shortages in the west at the moment:

several west coast authorities are now struggling to cope with severely depleted water supplies.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0624/1224273187074.html

Significant investment in the water supply is needed after years of underinvestment, as syklops said. While the pipes are being upgraded, we also need to install censors in the water network so that we know where leaks are happening - a bit similar to what we need to do with our electricity grid.

Brian McDonald of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes has said that in some cases the introduction of metering reduced demand by 90% as waste that had originally thought to have come from leaking pipes was actually due to waste on the part of end users.

Nijmegen

I had a conversation with some German friends around the time of the freeze and water shortages in Dublin, when it was reported that a large percentage of the water pipes serving the city are over 70 years old.

Their question for me was quite simple:

"Why didn't anyone think about this thirty or forty years ago?"

Kind of sums up the difference between the countries.

dan_d

Recently I saw an exposed cast iron water main in the city centre (as part of my job).There had been branches off it to feed old buildings that have now been knocked down. The branch pipes were cut off. The holes they left in the main were plugged with....wooden pegs. They looked kind of like wooden bowling skittles. They were within about 5 metres of each other on the water main. I'm pretty sure they were put in about 25 years ago.Or more.

Needless to say there was a constant light spray of water around them when they were exposed. The ground was soaking from the water leaking out of them all the time underground.This is a large main, feeding the city centre, and that's only a tiny example of the kind of leaks that are there.

Need we say more??

Scofflaw

dan_d wrote: »

Recently I saw an exposed cast iron water main in the city centre (as part of my job).There had been branches off it to feed old buildings that have now been knocked down. The branch pipes were cut off. The holes they left in the main were plugged with....wooden pegs. They looked kind of like wooden bowling skittles. They were within about 5 metres of each other on the water main. I'm pretty sure they were put in about 25 years ago.Or more.

Needless to say there was a constant light spray of water around them when they were exposed. The ground was soaking from the water leaking out of them all the time underground.This is a large main, feeding the city centre, and that's only a tiny example of the kind of leaks that are there.

Need we say more??

We probably do have to say more, if there are people who feel it's outrageous that the Minister for the Environment should be looking at trivial and irrelevant issues like water quality and wastage when there's clearly vital things like by-elections to be taken care of.

After all, what we really need is more TDs, so that they can go up to the Dáil and look after vital national issues like...well, water quality, say.

amused,
Scofflaw

monkeypants

When we all start paying for it, will there be court cases following over quality? That's where I can see this going.

monkeypants wrote: »

When we all start paying for it, will there be court cases following over quality? That's where I can see this going.

Court cases brought by who?

Has this happened in other countries (by that I mean most other countries) where residential water usage is metered?

taconnol wrote: »

Court cases brought by who?

Has this happened in other countries (by that I mean most other countries) where residential water usage is metered?

I assume he means if you get sick from drinking the water, will you be able to sue for compensation.

You can always try I suppose.

[Deleted User]

syklops wrote: »

In Galway, my parents have not drank tap water in nearly 4 years because it cant be trusted. The last time the local water got infected with something, the only announcement that was made was a hand written line at the bottom of the Church Newsletter(though my Dad thinks that was an attempt at ethnic cleansing).

ethnic colon cleansing?

Colm R

Personally, I have no problem paying for water as long as it is:

1. metered charges only. If its a flat rate, then its no good.

2. all money goes back in to the infrastructure and quality. If I am paying for it, I expect to be able to drink it.

Lets be honest, there are a few things that are common practice in other countries, which we take for granted.

- turning off the tap while actually brushing your teeth.

- turning off the shower whilst applying shower gel/shampoo. (Very common practice in Oz, espeicially Brisbane)

- aerrated taps. These are annoying when you want to fill a saucepan or jug as it takes longer. But for washing your hands under a regular tap, you do not need all the water that comes out.

- sensible toilet flushing. I once saw an advert in Queensland. Basically, if your pee is not very yellow, then consider not flushing the toilet!!!

We have plenty of water in this country. But we still have to use it properly.

syklops wrote: »

I assume he means if you get sick from drinking the water, will you be able to sue for compensation.

You can always try I suppose.

Ah I see. Well I think there's a legal obligation on local authorities to provide clean drinking water anyway under the European Communities (Drinking Water)
Regulations, 2000. I'm not sure what penalties, if any, exist within the legislation though.

Colm R wrote: »

Personally, I have no problem paying for water as long as it is:

1. metered charges only. If its a flat rate, then its no good.

2. all money goes back in to the infrastructure and quality. If I am paying for it, I expect to be able to drink it.

Lets be honest, there are a few things that are common practice in other countries, which we take for granted.

- turning off the tap while actually brushing your teeth.

- turning off the shower whilst applying shower gel/shampoo. (Very common practice in Oz, espeicially Brisbane)

- aerrated taps. These are annoying when you want to fill a saucepan or jug as it takes longer. But for washing your hands under a regular tap, you do not need all the water that comes out.

- sensible toilet flushing. I once saw an advert in Queensland. Basically, if your pee is not very yellow, then consider not flushing the toilet!!!

We have plenty of water in this country. But we still have to use it properly.

Absolutely. I have no problem whatsoever paying for water, as long as I feel comfortable drinking it, as long as there is water in the pipe when I go to use it, and so long as the money I pay goes to pay for the water. Not to go into the ever-increasing black-hole which is this countries finances.

syklops wrote: »

Absolutely. I have no problem whatsoever paying for water, as long as I feel comfortable drinking it, as long as there is water in the pipe when I go to use it, and so long as the money I pay goes to pay for the water. Not to go into the ever-increasing black-hole which is this countries finances.

It is very difficult to hypothecate taxes as estimates of investment and running costs can vary significantly. If we applied this logic to every tax, it would be even more of a mess than it is today. In addition, we have been running this country off unsustainable cyclical business taxes - the government needs to find new sources of revenue as well as implementing major cuts in public expenditure.

taconnol wrote: »

There are severe water shortages in the west at the moment:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0624/1224273187074.html

Significant investment in the water supply is needed after years of underinvestment, as syklops said. While the pipes are being upgraded, we also need to install censors in the water network so that we know where leaks are happening - a bit similar to what we need to do with our electricity grid.

Brian McDonald of the National Federation of Group Water Schemes has said that in some cases the introduction of metering reduced demand by 90% as waste that had originally thought to have come from leaking pipes was actually due to waste on the part of end users.

When you have reductions of 90% in the use of water, people start to change their behaviour. Do we want people to be worried about using any water at all? Do we want them to not shower, or flush the toilet? If the average person needs 160 L of water a day, why should we aim to reduce that to, say, 80 L? Because in centuries gone by, people did not have access to the amount of water we have today (nor was it as clean)... and it didn't turn out well for them. Disease and unhygienic practices were commonplace.

Please don't blame the end user. I agree that wasteful use of water should not continue, but when there were water shortages in the winter, John Gormely went on a tirade on the 6.1 news telling people: You're wasting water! This practice must stop! Then subsequently, over a number of days, we saw the state of the water infrastructure. All over the news, huge mangled pipes dug up, water meters burst... But, go on, its easier to blame the little guy.

Clearly, nothing can be done properly in Ireland with regards to this issue. The last 10 years saw the largest amount of residential and commercial construction since the beginning of the state and water infrastructure was barely touched. As eluded to in previous post, the mains are old, and that's putting it mildly. Nobody is going to want to pay through the nose for a shambles of a service. I recall in the UK, some water companies couldn't account for as much a 50% of leaks. With customers paying for the service.

I also don't buy from they previous article that a few weeks without rain will cause water shortages. I would be inclined to think its lack of investment in infrastructure. Because if rainfall for May is around 60% of the mean in terms of volume, how does that translate to: no water! Other countries experience much drier weather that us, as a rule, and yet they don't run dry as quickly as we do. I mean, I live on the East coast which usually has much less rain that the west, and yet I haven't been threatened with a shortage (yet), even though I wouldn't hold up the infrastructure as a model here either.

Nobody in this country ever thinks outside the box. In the article the Donegal council said rainfall was down, but demand was up. Couldn't they anticipate the rise in demand due to warm weather and extra tourists? I'm sure the tourists come every year...?

I would also like to add that I am broadly in favour of water charges/metering, because the water doesn't just become clean as if by magic. Just so long as it's done so as people will not become stupid with its use. Everyone should get an allowance, above which, excessive use will be charged on a progressive scale, and that the quality of the service is adequate.

EDIT: Also, does anyone know where I can find water use (by volume) for both domestic and industrial in Ireland?

bryanw wrote: »

When you have reductions of 90% in the use of water, people start to change their behaviour. Do we want people to be worried about using any water at all? Do we want them to not shower, or flush the toilet? If the average person needs 160 L of water a day, why should we aim to reduce that to, say, 80 L? Because in centuries gone by, people did not have access to the amount of water we have today (nor was it as clean)... and it didn't turn out well for them. Disease and unhygienic practices were commonplace.

Demand was reduced 90%, not availability.

bryanw wrote: »

Nobody is going to want to pay through the nose for a shambles of a service. I recall in the UK, some water companies couldn't account for as much a 50% of leaks. With customers paying for the service.

And yet one wonders where the money is going to come from, if not the tax payer? How can we get private investment involved?

bryanw wrote: »

I also don't buy from they previous article that a few weeks without rain will cause water shortages. I would be inclined to think its lack of investment in infrastructure. Because if rainfall for May is around 60% of the mean in terms of volume, how does that translate to: no water! Other countries experience much drier weather that us, as a rule, and yet they don't run dry as quickly as we do. I mean, I live on the East coast which usually has much less rain that the west, and yet I haven't been threatened with a shortage (yet), even though I wouldn't hold up the infrastructure as a model here either.

Water supplies are replenished by rainfall, among other things.

And there are shortages on the east coast - there has been a hose pipe ban in Wicklow for the last number of weeks.

Edit: good luck getting stats - this country is just awful for measuring things. But um, without metering I'm not sure how exactly we're supposed to have accurate stats on the majority of residential water usage.

taconnol wrote: »

Demand was reduced 90%, not availability.

But my point was, that by forcing people to pay for their water, people automatically become worried about how much they use, and might think that showering is wasting water, or flushing the toilet, or washing clothes, or washing dishes. All these things are quite water intensive, but the are very necessary for quality of life. If someone uses say (taking the 90% figure) 200 L of water a day, which is then reduced to 20 L, they can't be doing very well with that amount. 20 L is nothing. And if the other 180 L is actually waste... what the hell were they doing with it? Turning on the hose in the morning, going to work, and turn it off before they go to bed. I don't think many people would do that.

And yet one wonders where the money is going to come from, if not the tax payer? How can we get private investment involved?

And yet one wonders why this wasn't done in the last 10 years when;

(a) We had the money.
(b) Developers could have done so when building all the houses.

We'll need some sort of investment... was it € 1 billion I heard to install meters to every home? Billions are hard to come by these days.

Water supplies are replenished by rainfall, among other things.

And there are shortages on the east coast - there has been a hose pipe ban in Wicklow for the last number of weeks.

Rainfall is the largest. Others may be underground systems? surface run-off? wells? These would also have some amount of reliance on rainwater also.

Also... how does one enforce a hose pipe ban? What about people who may grow their own fruit and veg... does a hose pipe ban apply to them? Because that's kind of cutting off you nose to spite you face. People try to be a little more economic and self sufficient, but can't water the garden. Because then they'll go and buy from the supermarket, produce from half way across the world, because the food at the top of the garden has died from no water...

AlekSmart

Why with all that's going on with the country is Gormley focusing on water?

Shay O Meara may well,unwittingly, answer his own question later on in his post...

Then if you look at England, there's been numerous reports on the many private companies who look after ther water supply and how they rip off the public and let x amount of gallons disappear due to badly kept pipes. The cost of this loss coming back on the consumer.
Now this being Ireland it will eventually end up being privatised, most likely to one company and we will be shafted.

The key to understanding the motivations of Politicians,when they suddenly start advocating major infrastructural change,especially if it incorporates a large element of financial imposition and transactions,is to get forensic about that Politicians declared interests.

The Oireachtas register of members declared interests would be a good starting point.

However,most savvy Political types will probably have endeavoured to get the Spouse or Offspring to become "Interested" in the "investment opportunities" offered by new entreprenurial companies (probably offshore based) in,for example,the Water and Waste Treatment or Recycling industries.

All of this "savvy investing" is of course Totally legal and above suspicion,particularly when it does not directly involve any senior figure.

It`s a Depression Dahling....and we have to turn a cent somewhere,don`t we ????

To sum up my feelings on the issue..

IT`S ANOTHER SCAM,PURE AND SIMPLE. :mad:

bryanw wrote: »

But my point was, that by forcing people to pay for their water, people automatically become worried about how much they use, and might think that showering is wasting water, or flushing the toilet, or washing clothes, or washing dishes. All these things are quite water intensive, but the are very necessary for quality of life. If someone uses say (taking the 90% figure) 200 L of water a day, which is then reduced to 20 L, they can't be doing very well with that amount. 20 L is nothing. And if the other 180 L is actually waste... what the hell were they doing with it? Turning on the hose in the morning, going to work, and turn it off before they go to bed. I don't think many people would do that.

So why don't we have food and electricity free as well?

bryanw wrote: »

And yet one wonders why this wasn't done in the last 10 years when;

(a) We had the money.
(b) Developers could have done so when building all the houses.

Last 10 years? Try the last 40 years.

bryanw wrote: »

Rainfall is the largest. Others may be underground systems? surface run-off? wells? These would also have some amount of reliance on rainwater also.

Underground acquifers are replenished by rain. Those that aren't are called fossil acquifers and I don't think Ireland has any and if we did, they are a non-renewable source of water. Saudi Arabia tried to run an agricultural system off fossil water. Needless to say it was a disaster. Surface run-off comes from rain. The only other source is desalinated sea water, which is incredible energy-intenstive to produce.

A hosepipe ban is usually enforced by the water authority, mostly the local authority in Ireland. It doesn't stop people from watering through the use of watering cans but hosepipes are the garden version of power showers and can use up large amounts of water. Hosepipe bans are implemented widely in the UK and Australia when public supplies are running short. The main aim of the ban is to stop car washing and lawn irrigation. I have a vegetable garden and I'm well able to water it without a hosepipe.

But my point was, that by forcing people to pay for their water, people automatically become worried about how much they use, and might think that showering is wasting water, or flushing the toilet, or washing clothes, or washing dishes.

Showering is not wasting water. Showering 4 times a day is. There was a thread in AH some time ago entitled how often do you shower. The number of people who took more than 2 a day was alarming.

The same can be said of the other things you mentioned, washing clothes etc.

Anyway, the people who worry about the increase in cost of showering from water charges, are the same people who worry about the cost of showering because of the immersion heater, and the detrimental effects it has on their ESB bill. These people are probably down to the minimum number of showers as it is.

Bringing in water charges will put the onus on people to save a little bit extra of water. All those dripping taps will get fixed, as it now makes economic sense to do so. All those garden hoses that dribble constantly, will be fixed.

That in itself would be a big step.

All these things are quite water intensive, but the are very necessary for quality of life. If someone uses say (taking the 90% figure) 200 L of water a day, which is then reduced to 20 L, they can't be doing very well with that amount. 20 L is nothing. And if the other 180 L is actually waste... what the hell were they doing with it? Turning on the hose in the morning, going to work, and turn it off before they go to bed. I don't think many people would do that.

I dont think your figures are based on any actual stats, as they dont make a lot of sense. No-one is talking about people using 90% less water. Not, at least, assuming the 90% less is not utter wastage, but small reductions here and there and alot could be saved.

Think about it, if a dripping tap drips 1 milliliter once every 2 seconds, then it wastes 30 mililitres in a minute, 1800ml in an hour, and a whopping 43.2 litres in a day. Now think about how many dripping taps there are in Ireland.

taconnol wrote: »

So why don't we have food and electricity free as well?

Ok, I don't know what you want me to say? As I posted previously, I said I was broadly in favour of water charges. But I don't think it should be at the expense of people not using water for necessary tasks. Water is the single most important resource needed to support life.

We pay for food because we live in a market economy and there are many different producers and competitors. The water infrastructure is a little different in that the network is usually controlled by on authority and it would be more difficult to open it up to private companies without regulation. Then there is also the aspect of monopoly.

taconnol wrote:

Last 10 years? Try the last 40 years.

It costs money... and water meters are also a technology, which would not have been as advanced 40 years ago.

taconnol wrote:

Underground acquifers are replenished by rain. Those that aren't are called fossil acquifers and I don't think Ireland has any and if we did, they are a non-renewable source of water. Saudi Arabia tried to run an agricultural system off fossil water. Needless to say it was a disaster. Surface run-off comes from rain. The only other source is desalinated sea water, which is incredible energy-intenstive to produce.

Thank you for confirming my point. Rain water is the main source.

taconnol wrote:

A hosepipe ban is usually enforced by the water authority, mostly the local authority in Ireland. It doesn't stop people from watering through the use of watering cans but hosepipes are the garden version of power showers and can use up large amounts of water. Hosepipe bans are implemented widely in the UK and Australia when public supplies are running short. The main aim of the ban is to stop car washing and lawn irrigation. I have a vegetable garden and I'm well able to water it without a hosepipe.

But what do they do? Do they inspect your house to see if your using a hose and give you a fine?

Lawn irrigation is rarely needed in Ireland. I don't think I remember it occurring very often that the grass would dry out here.

I don't agree that hose pipes are like a power shower. I know from experience that a hose, when off, is just like extending the tap. It also takes longer to fill a watering can with my hose than it does to fill it from the tap, so therefore a smaller volume of water is leaving the hose per unit time than from the tap.

bryanw wrote: »

Ok, I don't know what you want me to say? As I posted previously, I said I was broadly in favour of water charges. But I don't think it should be at the expense of people not using water for necessary tasks. Water is the single most important resource needed to support life.

No of course not, but we have social welfare payments for people who can't afford the daily necessities.

bryanw wrote: »

We pay for food because we live in a market economy and there are many different producers and competitors. The water infrastructure is a little different in that the network is usually controlled by on authority and it would be more difficult to open it up to private companies without regulation. Then there is also the aspect of monopoly.

Well, just as with gas or electricity, the network can remain in the hands of the local or state authority but allow private suppliers to compete. In England they have the worst of both worlds with private suppliers given monopolies over different municipalities.

bryanw wrote: »

It costs money... and water meters are also a technology, which would not have been as advanced 40 years ago.

No, but we also need the replacement of basic water pipes, some of which still date back to Victorian times. Underinvestment in the Irish water system is not a new problem.

bryanw wrote: »

But what do they do? Do they inspect your house to see if your using a hose and give you a fine?

I'm not sure to be honest. I imagine they mainly rely on self-regulation.

News just out that it will be the Elster V210 used for residential metering:

http://www.elstermetering.com/en/V200_V210.html

expectationlost

the market will cure all ills /pdgreens

bijapos

Just three points:

1. I don't think that figure of 90% is correct. I think that guy was on Morning Ireland or Pat Kenny yesterday morning and he said up to 90%. I presume the person who had a 90% drop had a leak on his property, ie between the meter on the footpath and the house. However, studies have shown that usage/wastage of water does drop off once its paid for.

2. As I understand it we will be given a certain amount free and everything over this is charged.

3. A certain amount of water comes from lakes and rivers, not just underground aquifiers and man made resevoirs. I understand that Dublin takes some of its water from the Barrow river and that they are looking to take it from the Shannon (!) if usage does not go down.

4. Talking of infrastructure and the last 10 years, a lot of frozen pipes from last winter were found to be buried too close to the ground surface and not buried as regulations stipulate at a certain depth.

Where I live there are water charges, and the arrangement with the landlord is we pay a fixed amount for utilities, and anything above what the bill comes to he keeps, anything below, he pays. He just rang me there to organize a time to come round to fix my dripping tap in the bathroom.

Seems charges do reduce the amount of water wasted.