Most people are net recipient from the state. Only 30% of people are net contributors.
Another General Election
- Thread starter Sophrosyne
- Start date
- Status
How are they currently identified?
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,180
Untreated leakages & neglected connections are the main source of wilful water waste. Of course meters are hugely helpful in detecting leaks. That's why private group schemes have invested millions in meters. They certainly didn't do it for the hell of it.
Last edited:
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,426
Quite how FF can credibly state that they are against water charges when they are the party who first agreed to them back in 2009 is quite hard to believe tbh. I can absolutely see how they might have an issue with how Irish Water was set up with the amount of money wasted there (don't we all if we're honest) and even how they might have concerns over the charging structure. But let's remind ourselves that FF are the party who first raised the idea of water charges in the budget of 2009 and who agreed to it's inclusion in the memorandum of understanding on the conditions of the €85 billion EU-IMF bailout. To have them now turn around and say they are against the very notion of water charges and Irish Water suggests they are completing going back over their previous beliefs. Either you agree that water should be managed via a Utility and the public should be charged or you don't. Their statements now suggest they don't agree to these fundamental points whereas a mere 6 years ago they very much did. So are FF capable of governing or are they just interested in populist politics?
History has proven that FF are not capable of governing and from their pre election budgets and their current stance it is populist politics
but don't forget FF are not abolishing water charges as promised in their manifesto before the election but rather suspending them in the short term
Last edited:
Helpful yes but I read somewhere that they did not need house meters to detect most of the leaks, perhaps estate or area meters did the job and If I can find it I will post it.
Perhaps the group schemes had other reasons such as some members doing Farming, Horticulture, other businesses taking a large share of the flow.
In the interest of fairness: Full Disclosure: I have no party or protest group affiliation.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,424
Does anybody think that FF wish this FG min gov well? Of course not. They are waiting for the inevitable collapse and will be plotting their position to be able to march in and mop up the spoils. Not that FF are particularly wicked in that regard, that is simply the political condition.
So why did FG walk into this trap? Well two years with mercs and percs is better than none. But the real reason is that the big winner is Henda. This is beyond what he should have expected from his disastrous GE performance - first FG Teashop to be re-elected. Not that Henda is particularly wicked in that regard, that is simply the human condition.
So why did FG walk into this trap? Well two years with mercs and percs is better than none. But the real reason is that the big winner is Henda. This is beyond what he should have expected from his disastrous GE performance - first FG Teashop to be re-elected. Not that Henda is particularly wicked in that regard, that is simply the human condition.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,180
Please do, because it's frankly daft.
Ah come on, businesses have paid water charges for years. We're talking about households here - all of which are metered separately from connected businesses, farms etc in any case.
[broken link removed]
"However, international research shows that installing domestic water meters is unlikely to make any real difference to the amount of water used by families. For example in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands it has been found that metering each home makes little difference to the amount of water used by families. Researchers have found that while consumption dropped initially following the installation of meters, after a relatively short time this was more or less reversed with families returning to the pre-metered level of consumption. For the taxpayer to receive a return on the investment in the installation, maintenance, administration, and replacement of domestic water meters there would need to be a significant re- duction in domestic consumption. Given the experience already referred to in similar European countries this is unlikely to materi- alise. Therefore, the €500 million which is the conservatively esti- mated cost of the installation programme for domestic meters would provide little or no return to the taxpayer. "
I assume meters at different points within the network that can detect large leaks in different sections.
Why did they not install large area meters first, local meters next, estate meters and then domestic meters on thus getting getting a better return phased over a 5 year period?
Fix the big leaks first and then refine down to individual dwellings. (and bringing people on board showing the savings and benefits as the whole exercise succeeds)
The rush to install over a 2 year period, privatise it and sell it off resulted in poor planning and execution and typical of FG arrogance when they get into Government (Listen to no one, allow no debate and railroad the peasants)
FG in 4 years become as arrogant as FF in 16.................but we elect them all again and again, so its a reflection on us.
In the interest of fairness: Full Disclosure: I have no party, union or protest group affiliation.
"However, international research shows that installing domestic water meters is unlikely to make any real difference to the amount of water used by families. For example in the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands it has been found that metering each home makes little difference to the amount of water used by families. Researchers have found that while consumption dropped initially following the installation of meters, after a relatively short time this was more or less reversed with families returning to the pre-metered level of consumption. For the taxpayer to receive a return on the investment in the installation, maintenance, administration, and replacement of domestic water meters there would need to be a significant re- duction in domestic consumption. Given the experience already referred to in similar European countries this is unlikely to materi- alise. Therefore, the €500 million which is the conservatively esti- mated cost of the installation programme for domestic meters would provide little or no return to the taxpayer. "
I assume meters at different points within the network that can detect large leaks in different sections.
Why did they not install large area meters first, local meters next, estate meters and then domestic meters on thus getting getting a better return phased over a 5 year period?
Fix the big leaks first and then refine down to individual dwellings. (and bringing people on board showing the savings and benefits as the whole exercise succeeds)
The rush to install over a 2 year period, privatise it and sell it off resulted in poor planning and execution and typical of FG arrogance when they get into Government (Listen to no one, allow no debate and railroad the peasants)
FG in 4 years become as arrogant as FF in 16.................but we elect them all again and again, so its a reflection on us.
In the interest of fairness: Full Disclosure: I have no party, union or protest group affiliation.
Last edited:
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,180
That "report" wasn't even strong enough for its author to put their name to it. It's simply SIPTU pandering to its target market
All very good points.
In his presentation to the seminar local authority Senior Executive Engineer for Water, Gerry Concannon, estimated that the cost of unmetered water is currently about €350.00 p.a. per domestic unit. When all of the costs of metering involving installation, maintenance, administration and replacement are considered he pointed out that this cost almost doubles in the medium term. With no return on the investment in water metering it makes more sense to invest this money in the mains network to reduce leaks and to promote water conservation.
See previous SIPTU post.
According to the UK water supply boards, where they have had domestic water charges in place since the 1980s, the average end user uses 68,405 litres of water per year. Yet, according to Irish Water, that figure in Ireland is 54,750 litres. So the evidence shows that water charges actually increase water consumption by up to 20%.
In the interest of fairness: Full Disclosure: I have no party, union or protest group affiliation.
Now that's a fair comment and one that in all probability has cost them the last election. The main difficulty for the broad electorate is that we have no reasonable middle party left to vote for. To a large extent this explains the rising number of independents getting elected. A new election is likely to see a rise in independent numbers as the analogy of "2 bald men bickering over a comb" is very applicable to the recent FF/FG discussions.
The EU says that households account for only 10% of all water usage.
The biggest users of water are agriculture and commercial companies, using 90% of all water.
Yet, a quick look at the breakdown of the new water billing structure shows that householders will initially be expected to pay up to 78% of all costs, and that figure will no doubt rise in the immediate future.
Commercial companies will be expected to pay 22% of the costs for using 90% of the product, yet at this point in time, evidence shows they already have a non-compliance rate of 37% and €50m in water debt has been written off for them.
Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 70% of all water consumption, compared to 20% for industry and 10% for domestic use. In industrialized nations, however, industries consume more than half of the water available for human use. Belgium, for example, uses 80% of the water available for industry.
The data on water consumption in the world is provided by the United Nations (UN, UNESCO, and FAO, see list of publications below).
http://www.worldometers.info/water/
The biggest users of water are agriculture and commercial companies, using 90% of all water.
Yet, a quick look at the breakdown of the new water billing structure shows that householders will initially be expected to pay up to 78% of all costs, and that figure will no doubt rise in the immediate future.
Commercial companies will be expected to pay 22% of the costs for using 90% of the product, yet at this point in time, evidence shows they already have a non-compliance rate of 37% and €50m in water debt has been written off for them.
Worldwide, agriculture accounts for 70% of all water consumption, compared to 20% for industry and 10% for domestic use. In industrialized nations, however, industries consume more than half of the water available for human use. Belgium, for example, uses 80% of the water available for industry.
The data on water consumption in the world is provided by the United Nations (UN, UNESCO, and FAO, see list of publications below).
http://www.worldometers.info/water/
Ceist Beag
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,426
As others have said, good points, hard to argue with any of that.
Good points.
There is no plan and never was any plan to sell it off. Just because people like Paul Murphy, the Shinners and other loony-left politicians who want a soviet style republic say it doesn't make it so. Stick to the facts or at least opinions based on facts.
Can you give a source for that please? [broken link removed] suggests that it's 54,750 liters.
Are you talking about treated drinking quality water or just water?
When you say "commercial companies" are you including farmers?
There is no plan and never was any plan to sell it off -> intent then - lets see the consultants report ...........
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/105667
http://www.*****************.com/average-water-usage-figures.html
I have no connection with either site.
From the Indymedia link "This article by David Gibney from the Right2Water website has been republished here in light of the upcoming water charges protest on this Sat 23rd Jan in advance of the election due in the next few weeks. It highlights the scam and lies around Irish Water and how it is fully intended to privatise it. If and when the TIPP agreement is signed between the EU and USA, privatisation will be unstoppable not just for our water but for all services right across the board. "
Indymedia can hardly be accused of being a balanced or impartial or even rational source of information.
Your second link, money guide ireland, shows that a figure of 68,405 is for a single occupancy household but that the average usage is in fact 54,750. In other words the link you posted shows that your assertion is incorrect.
From the link;
" On our sample – the average usage for a single person medium usage household was 68405 l per year.
With two people in a house the average household usage was 113609 l (which is 56804 per person per year ). With 3 people in a house the average usage was 138115 l (46038 l per person per year )"
―PwC suggest that once Irish Water is well established as a self- funding utility the Government and Regulators may wish to assess international experience of the introduction of competition in water and sewerage services to identify whether Ireland could benefit from competitive markets in the water sector at a later date. With this in mind, PwC recommend that, when undertaking the detailed design of the new organisational structure for Irish Water, the possibility of future retail competition should be taken into account.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/final-water-report.pdf
Again, let see all Irish Water Planning documents allowing for the fact that Phil Hogan et al did not keep minutes of their meetings.
No minutes...........very unprofessional and raises many questions
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/final-water-report.pdf
Again, let see all Irish Water Planning documents allowing for the fact that Phil Hogan et al did not keep minutes of their meetings.
No minutes...........very unprofessional and raises many questions
- Status