Water Charges...back on the agenda!

WolfeTone

Registered User
Messages
1,083
I've seen the Green Party make some noises in this regard recently.

Now the OECD is reporting that Ireland is failing in its environmental standards by not introducing water charges.

This is pure ideology of privatising water supplies and nothing to do with the environment.
Household family water wastage is already minimal.
There is little evidence that water charges would reduce household water usage and waste. Charges are effective in warmer drier climates like Australia where households water spray gardens and shrubberies. There is minimal requirement for that here.
Car washing is probably the biggest culprit of water wastage. Notably it increases during hot sunny weather and is minimal is wet colder weather.

Kamala Harris has recently stated that wars of the future will be about water. She admitted that past wars were over oil (not that we didn't know but nice she can admit it instead of the patronising 'freedom and democracy' tag).

Water Charges need to be resisted. Water is a necessity for all. Investment in water treatment and pollution is what needed. We have an abundance of this resource in this country that if managed better would be a calling card for FDI here and thousands of jobs, which will by itself pay for the investment.


OECD: Ireland needs water charges
 
Last edited:
Well lets not generalise about a whole organisation.

The crux of the issue is the requirement for Ireland to meet its obligations of providing safe, clean water and treating waste pollution to specific and sustainable standards.

How Ireland achieves this is really the remit of the sovereign government.
To suggest a particular model of fundraising for the required investment (household charges) over any other model (corporation tax, income tax, state borrowing, or other) without any real analysis of the actual investment involved but rather 'everyone else is doing it, so we should follow', smacks of ideological thinking more than anything else.
 
To suggest a particular model of fundraising for the required investment (household charges) over any other model (corporation tax, income tax, state borrowing, or other) without any real analysis of the actual investment involved but rather 'everyone else is doing it, so we should follow', smacks of ideological thinking more than anything else.
Sure, because all those other countries in Europe didn't look at the other options and are far right neo-cons (like Bertie) and so introduced water charges for ideological reasons.
Those far right nutters who don't care about the environment, the Green Party, are also in favour of water charges.
Maybe those people who were out protesting the last time should reflect on the issue and admit that they were just caught up in anti-government, anti-austerity* populism and that they got this one wrong. It's not a weakness to admit you made a mistake.

* (which took the form of massive borrowing and tax increases to fund a massive increase in spending)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo
How Ireland achieves this is really the remit of the sovereign government.

Why are there no protests about the 20% of the populate already paying for water via private supplies? If the concern is regarding the state's responsibility to provide safe water, that's where the focus should be.
 
That's why they claim to be socialist but oppose socialist policies like property taxes and water charges

Sure, because all those other countries in Europe didn't look at the other options and are far right neo-cons (like Bertie) and so introduced water charges for ideological reasons.

I'm confused @Purple. You appear to be saying that water charges are a leftist socialist right-wing neo-con policy ?

Let me clarify, I am not against water charges per se. I'm against water charges in a country that has an abundance of under utilised water resources.
Water charges may be a suitable fit for countries with drier climates and higher density populations. But Ireland is not one of those countries so it is silly to simply adapt the same policy. This is inefficiency, I would have thought someone like you would abhorr inefficient policy?

Ireland has vast under utilised water resources relative to its population. Water, as Kamala Harris informs, will be the wars of the future. Developing our water treatment and waste management to an environmentally sustainable standard is a calling card for FDI in the future. The cost of sustaining that development to be borne by those who extract greatest commercial benefit from it.
I just think we could be missing a trick here.

Why are there no protests about the 20% of the populate already paying for water via private supplies? If the concern is regarding the state's responsibility to provide safe water, that's where the focus should be.

Very good point.
 
Let me clarify, I am not against water charges per se. I'm against water charges in a country that has an abundance of under utilised water resources.
Ah, okay.
So you are okay with paying for everyone to have limitless access to an infrastructure to clean it for consumption and clean it again after consumption?
We have an abundance of resourced capable of generating electricity but I don't think electricity should be free at the point of consumption.
We have an abundance of resourced capable of producing food but I don't think food should be free at the point of consumption.
All of those things have a big environmental cost and so we should encourage restraint and moderation in their consumption.
 
I'm confused @Purple. You appear to be saying that water charges are a leftist socialist right-wing neo-con policy ?
I know you are confused. You seem to think that Water Charges are a capitalist neo-con policy or ploy. I pointed out that they are embraced by socialist governments all over Europe.
 
We have an abundance of resourced capable of generating electricity but I don't think electricity should be free at the point of consumption.
We have an abundance of resourced capable of producing food but I don't think food should be free at the point of consumption.

These are different matters, please stay on topic.

So you are okay with paying for everyone to have limitless access to an infrastructure to clean it for consumption and clean it again after consumption?

"Limitless access", I never said any such thing.
You have to consider what the resource is. Water, it is a very useful precious commodity. But having 'unlimited' household access to it does not automatically encourage over-indulgence in it, unlike say, having unlimited access to food would probably encourage over-indulgence leading to increasing rates of obseity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

Most households use water specifically for need not for indulgence. For instance if you are thirsty, water is very useful for treating this condition.

Of course, some people spend too much time in the shower, perhaps they overfill kettles for a cup of tea, maybe washing the car 2/3 times a year is reasonable rather than 6/7 times. From time to time people leave a tap running in a sink. But mostly once they become aware of this the automatic reaction is to turn off the tap, even though it is not running up a bill. Compare that to electricity, where someone is aware that they have left lights on upstairs but leave them running until the next time they go upstairs.

In the main however, these 'excesses' of household water are miniscule and introducing water charges is going to have a negligible impact on water usage. The charges may have some use in paying for and developing an environmentally sustainable water supply and waste management system. But I would suggest that given our abundance of water supply relative to our population, there may be other more efficient advantageous ways of exploiting this resource to paying for the cost of this development.
One such way may be to see how much commercial entities are willing to pay to have access to this supply, particularly foreign based entities that already pay considerable sums of money in their own water scarce regions.

You seem to think that Water Charges are a capitalist neo-con policy or ploy

They are only a capitalist neo-con policy or ploy when the free usage limit is reduced and the entity that manages it eg - Irish Water is sold off to private corporations to commercialise and maximise profit from. Within a decade of the introduction of water charges we will have the marketing circus of various companies advertising their water rates, offering discounts, of providing the exact same product that was being provided all along.
 
Within a decade of the introduction of water charges we will have the marketing circus of various companies advertising their water rates, offering discounts, of providing the exact same product that was being provided all along.
Can you give me next weeks Lotto numbers while you're at it?
They are only a capitalist neo-con policy or ploy when the free usage limit is reduced and the entity that manages it eg - Irish Water is sold off to private corporations to commercialise and maximise profit from.
Then you must be in favour of the Green Party proposal that there's a Constitutional Amendment ensuring Water resources are never privatised and that there are generous household allowances. That's grand so; all sorted.
 
Then you must be in favour of the Green Party proposal that there's a Constitutional Amendment ensuring Water resources are never privatised and that there are generous household allowances.

Absolutely, very much a step in the right direction. And seeing as they are in power, they can put that proposal into effect?
 
Kamala Harris has recently stated that wars of the future will be about water. She admitted that past wars were over oil
I can't remember who said it initially, but it goes back at least 30 years as I heard it before the first gulf war. "The next wars will be over oil. The wars after that will be over water".
 
Within a decade of the introduction of water charges we will have the marketing circus of various companies advertising their water rates, offering discounts, of providing the exact same product that was being provided all along.
I would love to see that, with it we'd need to ditch the bloated LA staff of course!! When waste collection services were privatised, my bill dropped by ~70% through better value and being incentivised to make better choices.
 
I would love to see that, with it we'd need to ditch the bloated LA staff of course!!

Don't count on it.

When waste collection services were privatised, my bill dropped by ~70% through better value and being incentivised to make better choices.

Really? I wasn't paying any charges before charges were introduced.. When Mary Harney introduced it my initial charges were €2.50 per tag, or about €75 a year. Now the most competitive price in my region is €225.00pa.

Worse still, I've noticed since lockdown that where I live there are 28 houses in the estate. There are three companies 'competing' to collect the rubbish and recyclables.
In our small estate we now have the pleasure of four waste collection lorries entering the estate one week, two lorries the next week on fortnightly collections.

Two lorries a fortnight would do it. The efficiency of the free-market!
 
Really? I wasn't paying any charges before charges were introduced.. When Mary Harney introduced it my initial charges were €2.50 per tag, or about €75 a year. Now the most competitive price in my region is €225.00pa.

Unless you were on a waiver, domestic waste charges were applied by the local authorities prior to privatisation.

There are three companies 'competing' to collect the rubbish and recyclables.

You're lucky, that competition is keeping prices down.
 
I wasn't paying any charges before charges were introduced..
Really? Who was paying for it then? I suppose that unless we are in the top 30% of earners none of us are net contributors to the exchequer so before privatisation our rich neighbours were paying our bin charges, just like they are paying our water charges now. I don't like being a freeloader so, along with the obvious environmental advantages of a "polluter pays" strategy, I'm all in favour of doing the right thing and paying for water and waste.
 
True story. We have an 'umble abode in the South of France. September 2019 we came home but turned on a timer for the outside hose to water a few plants 30 mins a day. The timer broke off the tap and for the whole month of September it spewed high pressure water 24/7.
Got a water bill for over €7k:eek:
After considerable argument we convinced them that they hadn't actually sanitised the water as it went simply into the ground. They cut the bill in a about a half, but still the mind boggles to think what we would have had to pay if the thing was left on all winter!!
 
True story. We have an 'umble abode in the South of France. September 2019 we came home but turned on a timer for the outside hose to water a few plants 30 mins a day. The timer broke off the tap and for the whole month of September it spewed high pressure water 24/7.
Got a water bill for over €7k:eek:
After considerable argument we convinced them that they hadn't actually sanitised the water as it went simply into the ground. They cut the bill in a about a half, but still the mind boggles to think what we would have had to pay if the thing was left on all winter!!

Were you watering plants or filling your Moat around your Chateau???
 
Really? Who was paying for it then?
Not sure, I assume it was out of general taxation.

I don't like being a freeloader so,

Don't worry you are not. If we were all to pay individually for all our public services on a pay as you consume basis we would all be living in a third world country.

I'm all in favour of doing the right thing and paying for water and waste.

The thread is not about waste management, although I mention the inefficiency of six lorries collecting for 28 houses every two weeks.

I'm not against paying for water per se. I'm against applying a policy of charges for a resource that it is abundant in this country relative to population.
Primarily, it seems, because in countries where scarcity has been identified, relative to population, this is the policy adopted.

As I mentioned, investment in an environmentally sustainable water supply and waste management system could be a calling card for FDI who may be more than prepared to utilise such a resource for a price.
If we are to believe the VP of the USA, wars will be fought over water in the near future.
 
Got a water bill for over €7k:eek:
After considerable argument we convinced them that they hadn't actually sanitised the water as it went simply into the ground.

See, this is the type of ridiculous penal situation people could find themselves in under a system of water charging.
It wasn't even polluted and at the end of the day the water just went back into the ground to be recycled by mother nature in her own good time.
A ridiculous sum of money to be paid for what was basically an unseen leak.
 
Back
Top