No refund for families who have paid water charges

Jack Killian · 09-03-2016 09:11PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I give up. I haven't the faintest idea what you think the question I asked you four times means, but clearly we're speaking different dialects of English.

Do you say that bills will be that much because you think (a) that's what it costs to provide water to the average family, or (b) it costs less than that, but the bills will be artificially inflated?

If (a), why do you think the average family shouldn't have to pay what it costs to provide them with water?

If (b), why?

I hope you're better at providing actual answers to simple questions than the other chap.

Pathetic. A supposed acknowledgement that you're incapable of understanding my posts, and then you come out with that snide remark.

ancapailldorcha · 09-03-2016 10:08PM

Jack Killian wrote: »

Pathetic. A supposed acknowledgement that you're incapable of understanding my posts, and then you come out with that snide remark.

You've used language in recent posts which is unacceptable in this forum. I ask that you try to be more civil and constructive in your posting.

Niemoj · 10-03-2016 01:01AM

I wonder will Uisce Éireann be brought up at all tomorrow - the first day of the 32nd Dáil.

Zubeneschamali · 10-03-2016 09:52AM

Niemoj wrote: »

I wonder will Uisce Éireann be brought up at all tomorrow - the first day of the 32nd Dáil.

Water protests outside the Dail today.

There was a sense of worry out there there for a while about what all the anti-water-charge candidates we elected might do, but talks have made it clear that they have no intention of doing anything other than sitting on their holes collecting their TD salary and giving out from the opposition benches.

We'll get a FG-FF coalition, IW will continue as Continuity Irish Water, and most important:

All that on-the-ground organization will not be wasted! Water protests will continue for another 5 years! What a relief.

Jack Killian · 10-03-2016 08:15PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've used language in recent posts which is unacceptable in this forum. I ask that you try to be more civil and constructive in your posting.

Apologies - switched between here and the Café and didn't realise, with the tone of what I was replying to adding to the illusion that it wasn't the serious discussion forum.

Sorry again.

Going Forward · 11-03-2016 02:47PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

1) I believe it was always anticipated savings (or more accurately reinvestment) would occur down the line;

You may have believed that, but the public was led to believe that substantial savings were going to be achieved within a matter of months:

"This year alone, there will be a saving of €300 million in the provision of water to Irish homes. Last year, it cost €1.2 billion to provide water to every household in Ireland. This year, under Irish Water, it will cost €899 million. That is a saving of €300 million."

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2014112000054

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

2) I don't believe anyone anticipated the extreme abreaction to the billing which has increased costs for collection.

Have the collection costs increased?

I know there were no collection costs for domestic billing prior to IW being created, but you're saying that they have increased from something to something else.

Can you fill in the blanks, as in, what was the envisaged cost, and what has this been increased to, as a result of "abreaction to the billing process"?

FreudianSlippers · 11-03-2016 02:58PM

Going Forward wrote: »

You may have believed that, but the public was led to believe that substantial savings were going to be achieved within a matter of months:

"This year alone, there will be a saving of €300 million in the provision of water to Irish homes. Last year, it cost €1.2 billion to provide water to every household in Ireland. This year, under Irish Water, it will cost €899 million. That is a saving of €300 million."

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2014112000054

What was the total cost to the taxpayer of Irish Water in its first year?

Have the collection costs increased?

I know there were no collection costs for domestic billing prior to IW being created, but you're saying that they have increased from something to something else.

Can you fill in the blanks, as in, what was the envisaged cost, and what has this been increased to, as a result of "abreaction to the billing process"?

This is a fallacious argument; there were no collection costs for a bill that didn't exist obviously.

Going Forward · 11-03-2016 06:14PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What was the total cost to the taxpayer of Irish Water in its first year?

This is a fallacious argument; there were no collection costs for a bill that didn't exist obviously.

Are you suggesting that the public was not fed lines that substantial savings would be made in a matter of months, and that these claims were not made as part of an effort to create public confidence in the utility?

Or are you simply suggesting that time has proven that the Fine Gael TD was correct when he made the claim?

And have you anything to show which could back up your belief that collection costs have increased as a result of "abreaction to the billing process".

Collection costs may increase of course, as "more and more people engage" with the utility, but I've read nothing published by Irish Water referring to collection costs having increasing due to "abreaction to the billing process".
Perhaps you have, and you could share it?

As for your questions, the taxpayer bears all of Irish Water's costs, however you define "costs" or "taxpayer".

For example, John Tierney didn't spend €180million of his funds setting it up, nor did he or anyone else spend €550million of their own funds installing meters to alleviate any burden on the taxpayer.

Going Forward · 12-03-2016 12:40AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think you're more than slightly confused by this whole thing. So let me break it down:

Say provision of water costs €3bn p.a.

The government needs to (pursuant to the WFD) implement some level of consumption charges, but they don't want to bill individual households for the full amount (i.e. we have either "allowances" or "capped rates").

Say commercial rates bring in €1bn p.a. and, as a result of subsidy via "allowances" or "capped rates", domestic charges bring in €1bn p.a.; that leaves €1bn to be paid to cover the subsidy... someone has to pay for that! That someone is the government through taxation.

They need to get to €3bn somehow - subsidisation costs money - and that money has to come from somewhere.

You're adding to the confusion.

The "somewhere" you talk of, from where money will come, will be domestic customers, and not "the government".

Instead of hypotheticals, let's look at facts:

The FG/Lab Government, pursuant to a PWC report it commissioned, (and not the WFD,) introduced domestic charges.

"While the EU Water Directive 2000 did not require Ireland to charge for domestic water services, nor did it prohibit Ireland from doing so.

The Irish Government introduced national legislation in 2013 (Water Services Act No. 2) obliging Irish Water to introduce charging for the supply of domestic water services.

http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/does-ireland-have-an-exem/

"Why has Irish Water been set up?

After an examination of the Water Services in Ireland in 2011, the Government concluded that a new national water utility offered the best opportunity to:
Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of water services delivery
Provide access to new funding sources
Improve strategic planning and accountability."

http://www.water.ie/help-centre/questions-and-answers/why-has-irish-water-been-set-up/

Secondly, it was the FG/Lab government's intention that IW will be self funding:

http://www.google.ie/url?url=http://www.per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/46.-Irish-Water-Costs.pdf&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjH68XD27nLAhXCYA4KHZFlDV8QFggTMAA&usg=AFQjCNHLK29hkfHiqhh6TtIep7ZxQ39VeA

http://www.cer.ie/docs/000832/CER14146%20Irish%20Water%20Response%20to%20CER13246.pdf

By a remarkable coincidence, last week saw a range of media outlets republishing, in unison, as if they had been paid by Irish Water to do so, a "news" item that they originally published last October, that informs us that IW intends spending €1.1bn of public money each year:

https://goo.gl/HRWngc

As current domestic charges will yield just €271m, if 100% compliance is achieved, minus the costs of collecting them, it is not only safe, but imperative to assume that the current domestic charges are purely perfunctory, an introductory cut price offer strategy as opposed to attempting to implement a self funding model for a "self funded" utility overnight.

The FG/Lab government's stated intention, as we have just read, was to bridge the gap between €271m and €829m via substantially increasing domestic water charges, bearing in mind that commercial charges, which account for an additional source of funding in the region of €200m, have not been changed.

Godge · 12-03-2016 01:10AM

Going Forward wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the public was not fed lines that substantial savings would be made in a matter of months, and that these claims were not made as part of an effort to create public confidence in the utility?

.

If that is true, then you will have a link to that specific quotation.

BoatMad · 12-03-2016 01:13AM

The FG/Lab government's stated intention, as we have just read, was to bridge the gap between €271m and €829m via substantially increasing domestic water charges, bearing in mind that commercial charges, which account for an additional source of funding in the region of €200m, have not been changed.

actually FF supported a charge of around 500 euros

The FG/Lab government's stated intention, as we have just read, was to bridge the gap between €271m and €829m via substantially increasing domestic water charges,

that intention changed of course, over the course of three years to a situation where FG has realised that it is not possible to charge households that type of money , especially on top of an increasing LPT

oscarBravo · 12-03-2016 01:41AM

Going Forward wrote: »

The FG/Lab government's stated intention, as we have just read, was to bridge the gap between €271m and €829m via substantially increasing domestic water charges...

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

Charles Babbage · 12-03-2016 01:45AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

People shouldn't have to pay for their own stuff, except for things like Sky Sports.

BoatMad · 12-03-2016 01:47AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

no it should not, no more then the average household did not pay to establish electricity or gas infrastructure .

the principle of charging is to establish a principle of "the polluter pays ", rather then a crude economic cost recovery , which isn't practical anyway, unless you can a consumption based charge there is no inventive to conserve water , but the charge doesnt not have to be " ecomonic "

this is irrespective of whatever mess IW is or isn't

weldoninhio · 12-03-2016 01:47AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

What is the actual economic cost of water minus consultants, meters which were offered for free, setup costs, a brand new software package while other countries use an off the shelf version, golden handshakes, massive pension packages???

BoatMad · 12-03-2016 01:53AM

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the actual economic cost of water minus consultants, meters which were offered for free, setup costs, a brand new software package while other countries use an off the shelf version, golden handshakes, massive pension packages???

whats the point, in either case, the water consumer is clearly not paying the economic cost of supplying water with or without IW or even part of ints infrastructure . you are engaging in debating point tactics

oscarBravo · 12-03-2016 01:56AM

BoatMad wrote: »

no it should not, no more then the average household did not pay to establish electricity or gas infrastructure .

the principle of charging is to establish a principle of "the polluter pays ", rather then a crude economic cost recovery , which isn't practical anyway, unless you can a consumption based charge there is no inventive to conserve water , but the charge doesnt not have to be " ecomonic "

this is irrespective of whatever mess IW is or isn't

That argument boils down to "I should only have to pay for part of my water, and someone else should pay for the rest".

The average household does pay to establish electricity and gas infrastructure. When you pay your electricity bill, a portion of it goes to ESB Networks, no matter who the retail provider is. Similarly Gas Networks Ireland.

What's not practical about cost recovery? It's going to have to be paid for anyway, so why shouldn't it be paid for by the consumer?

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the actual economic cost of water minus consultants, meters which were offered for free, setup costs, a brand new software package while other countries use an off the shelf version, golden handshakes, massive pension packages???

Buzzwords. Yay.

I love this idea that it's possible to set up an entire national utility from scratch for free. I particularly love the idea that Siemens is some sort of charity.

Once again, I shouldn't have to do this, but to pre-empt the inevitable monochromatic you're-either-for-us-or-agin-us argument that prevails lately: I'm not claiming that Irish Water is an exemplar of how a utility should be set up. But if you believe that Siemens wanted to install water meters just for the warm fuzzies, I have a nice selection of bridges that may interest you.

BoatMad · 12-03-2016 02:05AM

That argument boils down to "I should only have to pay for part of my water, and someone else should pay for the rest".

The average household does pay to establish electricity and gas infrastructure. When you pay your electricity bill, a portion of it goes to ESB Networks, no matter who the retail provider is. Similarly Gas Networks Ireland.

What's not practical about cost recovery? It's going to have to be paid for anyway, so why shouldn't it be paid for by the consumer?

both the Gas and electricity infrastructure of this state was developed using tax payers money and in many cases it still is, today its merely the incremental costs that are passed to the consumer.

since we are in effect back in 1925 with the equivalent of the Shannon scheme , we should take the same approach , the state will subvent from the general tax take to establish and run the water service , but just like the shannon electrification scheme, the end consumer will not get anything for "free", a charge is levied to encourage efficiency of use and deter wastage. in that regard its similar to the public library "fine" system for late books, its entirely uneconomic thats not its purpose

In time the large capital costs will diminish as the network is brought to standard

but it should be really remembered this isn't why IW and why charges are here. The primary purpose was the state , i.e. the Gov felt that it could move a considerable debt from the county councils to the semi-state sector , removing the borrowings to support the LAs and water services from the states books,, thereby giving the state more fiscal space to raise money and spend it elsewhere . it wa a fiscal ' sleight of hand". in doing so, Eurostat rules required that the company had to be seen as " commercial " and this required a certain amount of customer charging .

In the end political pressure , persuaded the Giv to abandon the level of charges needed to convince Eurostat, which then rendered the purpose of IW irrelevant since its essentially a state supported enterprise

Going Forward · 12-03-2016 02:35AM

Godge wrote: »

If that is true, then you will have a link to that specific quotation.

I've already done do.

Very recently. In the last page or two.

Going Forward · 12-03-2016 02:40AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...presumably to the point where they'll cover the actual cost of providing water to domestic premises.

So, I'll keep asking different people the same question in the forlorn hope that one of them will eventually answer it: do you think that the average household shouldn't have to pay the actual economic cost of providing them with water? If not, why not?

Can we first clear up the confusion you caused by implying/querying that they weren't going to be asked to do so?

That seemed quite important to you earlier.

Do you now accept that they will?

Unless charges are further watered down or scrapped.

Going Forward · 12-03-2016 02:52AM

BoatMad wrote: »

actually FF supported a charge of around 500 euros

that intention changed of course, over the course of three years to a situation where FG has realised that it is not possible to charge households that type of money , especially on top of an increasing LPT

Presumably you're quoting my post whilst removing my user name for some unknown reason?

Anyway.

Please provide an official link that says that FG/Lab have said they have dropped the idea that it is to be a "self funded" utility.

Jack Killian · 12-03-2016 11:40AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I love this idea that it's possible to set up an entire national utility from scratch for free.

Once again, I shouldn't have to do this, but to pre-empt the inevitable monochromatic you're-either-for-us-or-agin-us argument that prevails lately......

Where did anyone suggest that it should be "for free" ?

All I saw were objections to the crazy level of mé féin culture / sure someone will pick up the tab shown.

Just a thought, but maybe your tendency to twist certain things like that is the reason why you experience said monochromatic replies ?

oscarBravo · 12-03-2016 04:05PM

Going Forward wrote: »

Can we first clear up the confusion you caused by implying/querying that they weren't going to be asked to do so?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Jack Killian wrote: »

Where did anyone suggest that it should be "for free" ?

...

weldoninhio wrote: »

What is the actual economic cost of water minus consultants, meters which were offered for free, setup costs, a brand new software package while other countries use an off the shelf version, golden handshakes, massive pension packages???

The implication being that it's possible to set up a national utility without hiring consultants; that a commercial company would offer water meters for free (it absolutely boggles my mind that any sane person could believe that); that you can set something up without setup costs; that an "off the shelf" billing system for millions of customers has no cost...

Just a thought, but maybe your tendency to twist certain things like that is the reason why you experience said monochromatic replies ?

I'm not twisting anything. If someone is bitching incessantly about the fact that there were setup costs for a water utility, then that person clearly believes that it's possible to establish a water utility without setup costs.

Jack Killian · 12-03-2016 04:23PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

... The implication being that it's possible to set up a national utility without hiring consultants; that a commercial company would offer water meters for free (it absolutely boggles my mind that any sane person could believe that); that you can set something up without setup costs; that an "off the shelf" billing system for millions of customers has no cost... I'm not twisting anything. If someone is bitching incessantly about the fact that there were setup costs for a water utility, then that person clearly believes that it's possible to establish a water utility without setup costs.

No-one is doing that, so you are arguing a point that hasn't been made.

The issue is the scale of those costs, and given the bonus culture and the nature of Tierney's previous waste, along with the "forget about planning & cost/benefit, get it done" mentality, there is zero reassurance that value for money was a factor.

In addition, bear in mind that Ervia were explicitly awarded the contract due to their existing billing expertise - Noonan had supposedly explicitly ruled out us footing the bill for any consultants and yet paid it.

Going Forward · 12-03-2016 05:25PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

My apologies, I thought there was some confusion about whether it was intended that Irish Water will be a self funded utility.

oscarBravo wrote: »

... The implication being that it's possible to set up a national utility without hiring consultants; that a commercial company would offer water meters for free (it absolutely boggles my mind that any sane person could believe that); that you can set something up without setup costs; that an "off the shelf" billing system for millions of customers has no cost... I'm not twisting anything.

If someone is bitching incessantly about the fact that there were setup costs for a water utility, then that person clearly believes that it's possible to establish a water utility without setup costs.

Not if that "someone" rejected the necessity of setting up such a thing up in the first place.

It would be akin to asking someone who abhors Sinn Fein to pick out their favourite SF politician and upon their refusal, saying "Come on, you must like one of them."

So no, not everyone who criticises the costs automatically accepts that any of them were inevitable.

oscarBravo · 12-03-2016 08:56PM

Going Forward wrote: »

My apologies, I thought there was some confusion about whether it was intended that Irish Water will be a self funded utility.

No bother.

Not if that "someone" rejected the necessity of setting up such a thing up in the first place.

It would be akin to asking someone who abhors Sinn Fein to pick out their favourite SF politician and upon their refusal, saying "Come on, you must like one of them."

So no, not everyone who criticises the costs automatically accepts that any of them were inevitable.

Sure: if your position is that the local authorities were doing a bang-up job of providing water, and that everyone should be allowed to use as much water as they want without regard for the cost of providing it, then it makes perfect sense to carp about the cost of setting up a utility.

No matter how much they dance around it, the fundamental issue is that some people want to have water provided to them without being billed for the cost of doing so. I'd actually have a lot more respect for people who came out and said so, but very few of them will.

Going Forward · 12-03-2016 10:24PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

No bother.

You're welcome.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure: if your position is that the local authorities were doing a bang-up job of providing water, and that everyone should be allowed to use as much water as they want without regard for the cost of providing it, then it makes perfect sense to carp about the cost of setting up a utility.

I'm glad you prefaced all of that with IF.

oscarBravo wrote: »

No matter how much they dance around it, the fundamental issue is that some people want to have water provided to them without being billed for the cost of doing so. I'd actually have a lot more respect for people who came out and said so, but very few of them will.

That's an issue you'll have to deal with yourself.

I mean that in the sense that I am entitled to make corrections or clarifications to anyone's claims without having to justify my position no more than I'd ask you to justify yours.

As a matter of interest, prior to any charging regime being in place, IW found that far from wasting water, we as a nation cherish and value it so much that we already had one of the lowest personal consumption rates in the OECD.

So that contradicts the theory that people here will waste as much water as they like as long as theyre not being charged for it.

We didn't.

And nor has IW published anything since then showing a further reduction in usage which would validate the oft repeated claim that charging for water would deliver reduced consumption figures.

It hasn't.

Which is odd, because meters were "all about conservation" at one time.

oscarBravo · 13-03-2016 02:17AM

Going Forward wrote: »

And nor has IW published anything since then showing a further reduction in usage which would validate the oft repeated claim that charging for water would deliver reduced consumption figures.

Oh, come on. Of course charging for water won't deliver reduced consumption figures if there's no connection between the level of consumption and the level of the charges. That's a ridiculous argument.

Water John · 13-03-2016 02:05PM

It might be of interest that the Government grant aided Private Group Water Schemes to buy and install water meters. This was done to the tune of 85%.
So if they got a contractor to install them for €350. The cost to the GWS which is a private coop was, just over €50 per installation.
In order to cover the issue. It was not named as a grant for water meters but a conservation measure.
This compares with the total cost of IW, which wishes to pass the full cost onto each consumer, including interest, of €800.

Going Forward · 13-03-2016 02:16PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh, come on. Of course charging for water won't deliver reduced consumption figures if there's no connection between the level of consumption and the level of the charges. That's a ridiculous argument.

Irish Water and the CER would disagree with you there.

Do you know how the new national consumption rate was arrived at?

It's just 111 litres per person by the way.

It was determined just by telling a group of householders who agreed to take part in a survey for IW that their usage of water was being analysed, before charges were ever decided upon.

Their usage rate was then taken as being the new average personal consumption rate.

Here's the interesting bit, the analysis was undertaken to determine allowances.

So there IS clear evidence that metering alone does deliver considerably reduced consumption rates, in this case a drop of 26% from the previously published 150 litres a day to 111 litres a day.

I genuinely don't foresee, having already reduced our consumption by 26%, any further significant usage drop if charging per use does ever kick in, do you?

No refund for families who have paid water charges

Comments