Water Charges for households!

[R Paul]

Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?

[Oppenheimer]

Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?

No - we can afford to waste...not sure where we are with 40%, i.e., is that too much given the rainfall we get but I agree we should get it to be more efficient. Better thing to do would be to have water buttes in the attic spaces of new homes with water filter/deionisers on them to clean up the water or not and just use that water for the toilet system...mass customisation better than cleaning up the miles of pipes!

[goosebump]

Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?

I already pay for my water, as do hundreds of thousands of people who don't live in towns and cities.

[R Paul]

Should we introduce water charges for households?

Clean, safe, drinking water costs money to produce and distribute. We currently do an dreadful job in this area - the EPA report on water standards is grim reading. In addition, Forfas estimates that over 40% of the water supply pumped around the water system are lost due to leaks in the pipes.

Now, in theory, all this should be done out of our taxes under the current system, but, given the above, the system clearly isn't working well. Were an explicit water charge (as opposed to the implicit one in your taxes) introduced (along with a corresponding decrease in your taxes), how would it effect things? Would there be increased political pressure for improvements in the areas above and would it result in increased water conservation?

Pros and Cons anyone?

I already pay for my water, as do hundreds of thousands of people who don't live in towns and cities.

I know that is the case. That just means though that you are being double charged. You are directly charged for the water you receive and, in addition, via your taxes, you help pay the "water charges" of others who get their water provided without receiving a bill, like you do. Such a double standard, isn't really defensible but it is the current system. Would you favour a change?

[stewiegriffin]

Whatever way its done it should be handled by a national body rather than councilors .Water is as basic as it gets as regards our health and well being . If water is going to become a commodity of sorts , I certainly wouldnt trust them with it . There has been talk of supplying the east coast with water from the shannon and already certain groups are talking like they own the shaggin thing . A transparent national strategy is needed not more business opportunities for gombeen men and their friends .

[Podolski]

When Fianna Fáil abolished rates after the 1977 election they increased PAYE tax by 1.5% and increased VAT by a similar amount in order to make up the shortfall. The money thus collected was to have been paid on to local authorities in the form of a Rate Support Grant (RSG). Those extra taxes are still levied meaning that people already pay for local authority services, including water through their PAYE taxes and their VAT. Any additional charge would be double taxation. It is not the fault of householders that the amount collected through these taxes is no longer transferred to local authorities.

Last night's programme on RTE was clearly promoting the idea of re-introducing water charges. It was promoting the interests of the private water companies who want these charges wo that they can take over our water supply and charge what they like for water - a free resource.

There is a lot of scaremongering going on as part of the pro water charges agenda. Yes, there are problems - huge problems of pollution but these should be dealt with rather than giving up on them and seeking to drain places like Lough Ree. Put a stop to the unbridled growth of Dublin, put polluting farmers and industry out of business and introduce realistic fines for breaches of the law - replace the EPA with a credible body charged with protecting the environment, not granting licences to pollute it.

[eyeSpy]

as i've mentioned on a related thread water harvesting is a good solution for new buildings at least.
it's ridiculous that we use the same water for flushing the toilet as we do for drinking (even though it may actually only be suitable for flushing)
either impose new building regs to include the harvesting capacity or impose pay as you go charges for water and let it happen naturally.

[sparkey321]

I already pay for my water, .

As do I.

Just posted the cheque actually.

But the water is so hard around here I cannot use to make tea or coffee as it leaves scum. it destroys kettles and appliances and causes havoc with my water boiler. So I end up buying water for tea and coffee making.

[fatcat]

Water harvesting for all non-drinkable use is essential. Legislation needed to ensure building regulations allow for this.
Despite the rain, water shortage is a major issue. In Barcelona recently and they are importing thousands of gallons in tankers to supply the city.
Yes we all pay for water in general taxation already, however I would be supportive of a specific water charge. I would not however support water privatisation and the handing over of this essential resource to profiteers who would not make health and safety paramount.

[Aindriu]

No, no and no again.