Feck the Examiner I'm copying the whole thing in here until I find out how to find their archives after or they learn how to archive them, whichever is true.

Mother of God but this is an awful shame if true...

685 million litres lost daily over leaks - Examiner Link

Quote :

Wasted water: 685m litres lost daily over leaks

By Claire O’Sullivan
More than 43% of the water produced across the country is being wasted.


AT LEAST 685 million litres of our water is being lost every day because of widespread leaks, a creaking water infrastructure and illegal connections to the network, according to figures obtained by the Irish Examiner.

The problem is so great that at least a quarter of local authorities cannot account for more than half of the water they produce each day.

Quote :

More than 43% of the water produced across the country is being wasted, 25 local authorities have revealed when questioned by the Irish Examiner.

This water loss is costing the public service millions of euro as production has to be accelerated to ensure waterworks can meet the growing needs of the population.

Some of the highest levels of unaccounted-for water are in parts of Kilkenny and Roscommon, where up to 60% of water produced is lost.

Offaly County Council appears to be fighting a losing battle with up to 53% of water produced lost.

Some private housing schemes in Monaghan are recording water loss figures of 50-57%.

Half of the water produced in Co Clare and South Tipperary is lost to leaks, illegal connections, old service connections and inadequate water mains schemes.

Up to 42% of water produced in Co Cork is unaccounted for, while the figure stands at 42% in Cork city. Limerick city is losing 47.5% of water it produces.

Quote :

All the city and county councils say that much of the water is lost at the consumer end of supply and they have their sights set on reducing water loss by double digits in the coming years due to planned government investment.

Some of the lowest figures for unaccounted-for water are in Kildare where a mere 25% is lost, Fingal where just 24% is lost and in Waterford where 30% is lost.

A spokesman for the Department of the Environment said last night that it is committed to water conservation and has allocated e288 million to the issue since 2003. “This level of funding is, by any measure, a very substantial investment and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to maximising efficiency in the way our water supply resources are managed and used.”

Green party Senator Dan Boyle told the Irish Examiner that if we are to invest further in water, we have to examine how we will pay for this modernisation.

“Throughout Europe and elsewhere these costs are met by a separate system of charging for water. This isn’t necessarily the best response but it should at least be worthy of consideration, something the Commission on Taxation and the green paper reform of local government represent good opportunities for doing,” he said.

Labour party environment spokeswoman Liz Mc Manus said it was “intolerable” that water loss figures were so high when commercial bodies and schools now had their water usage metered.

“This is terribly wasteful. This is essential infrastructure that needs to be upgraded. We have known about the condition of the water network for some time but clearly, not enough has been done,” she said.

I've a feeling in my water that this is a topic which will come up again and again in the near future...

You can bet your life that you're going to hear more about this.

We haven't just known about wasted supply for "some time," we've known about it for decades.

Course, seeing that the European Water Framework Directive demands that water charges be introduced on or before 2010 and that the powers that be have promised that there will be no private charges (for supply) - we're left with a problem - what's the solution (no pun intended)? Charge private households for the water that they waste (of course the charge will be based on a calculation that looks at the total amount of water wasted) - that's the solution (again no pun intended... okay maybe a little).

The Government have happily allowed the fruit to rot on the vines for decades to facilitate this move. The next step after it will be the wholesale privatisation of our water supply. And the majority will be grateful for it. Interestingly, unlike the rest of the Europe and the rest of the developed world (the UK might be an exception too, I think), there is legislation in place that facilitates cutting the water supply off, from those who don't, or refuse to pay.

Welcome to the water wars, and ye thought the oil wars were bad.

Hermes wouldn't charging for water be a good thing up to a point?

With the water loss here I imagine there are a few problems such as -

information on leaks and misuse,
casual overuse,
resources at hand to fix these problems,
will,

among others. Shouldn't domestic water charges be re-introduced but a certain number of litres provided free and a charge applied above that? The household is given three/five years to install a meter which would serve as information feedback as well as a meter.

Meanwhile an extensive water education campaign goes on the telly and radio, Orwellian sounding or not, it
would invite suggestions from the public as to how they would try to limit casual water overuse. Regardless, a certain amount of water should be free in my opinion.

The Dept. of the Environment would have to use any funds levied on water use/saved for improvement of water delivery but the existing systems would need both revamping and monitoring and the ultimate aim would be to provide water with as little loss as possible and with people paying as little as necessary. Feedback would be provided all the time to users of the system. Thus as the system was upgraded, the charges on the use of water might fall until it was finally at a point of ticking over as a maintenance body with a stock of development funds for new projects and growth.

The English system loses 4000, 000, 000 litres of water per day according to this graph while we lose 685,000, 000. I don't our populations reflect those fractions...


http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/inlwater/kf/iwkf13.htm

I see where you're coming from Audi, and I agree with the points you are making; but I disagree with your conclusion.

The vast majority of water wasted in this country is down to a complete and utter lack of infrastructure, planning and indeed, care.

We live in a country where it rains more days that it doesn't (touch wood - lovely weather presently). There's no shortage of water in the country. There might be a shortage of clean water and an issue with regard to providing clean water. These problems cannot be put at the feet of domestic users. Besides, 'polluter pays' is a concept framed within the European Water Framework Directive. Our lords and masters seem to have forgotton this (conveniently) when they made the peoples of Galway, Clare and Limerick (and others) pay for bottled water whilst they prevaricated about shite in the water supply. There was an opportunity to do some good, but greed and total cowardice got in the way.

Fair enough, we get the argument, that some bloke who decides to wash his car of a Sunday afternoon is wasting water. It's a good argument, I spose, if one leaves one's critical faculties at the door, and it's one we hear all the time. Are garages who offer car-washing services, wasting water too? I know that garages pay for their water, but let's just consider the problem in terms of depleting limited resources. The garage will probably use more water than the guy who fills a bucket and then hoses the suds off the car. The garage will use a lot more electricity and the user must use petrol to get to the garage. When one removes the cash aspect of this problem and we look at the individual components, the domesticated user is preventing waste and indeed in the bigger scheme of things, he's not wasting money.

We've known that our infrastructure has been outdated for decades and that it has needed replacement, not repair. Rather than replace the infrastructure where and when it was needed, we've literally poured billions down the sink with no return for this investment and indeed to be left still in the position that the system needs replacing. The Trojan Tiger has long made his exit, and replacement has become more expensive and is getting moreso every day. Rather than facing up to their duties the State has been holding out to privatise this neglected monstrosity and the time's nigh. Very shrewd on the part of the powers that be, but also, a not-so subtle admission that they are unable or unwilling to provide the basic services that are essential for life itself - more to the point, it's not rocket science.

With regard to educating the public - I'm all for that. But it won't happen, excepting in condescending drips. Truth is, for the most part, it's not essential. Most of the conservation methodologies could be incorporated into planning law with the stroke of a pen - and not a single baby-kisser would disagree with it, for fear of their political mortality. Christ! They can tell you what colour to paint you house, they can even change the plans for it without your permission. This is hardly rocket science either. This is deliberate neglect and it's founded upon greed - there is no other excuse.

For years now, every new house has been fitted with a water meter - in anticipation of water charges, privatisation and less responsibility/representation. That it has got this far is no reason to fall in with the plan. I'll be damned if I ever pay a red cent for a single drop of water in Ireland and God help the poor bastard who demands that I do.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!! (freaking out)

Hermes wrote:

We've known that our infrastructure has been outdated for decades and that it has needed replacement, not repair. Rather than replace the infrastructure where and when it was needed, we've literally poured billions down the sink with no return for this investment and indeed to be left still in the position that the system needs replacing. The Trojan Tiger has long made his exit, and replacement has become more expensive and is getting moreso every day. Rather than facing up to their duties the State has been holding out to privatise this neglected monstrosity and the time's nigh. Very shrewd on the part of the powers that be, but also, a not-so subtle admission that they are unable or unwilling to provide the basic services that are essential for life itself - more to the point, it's not rocket science.

Put like that you've almost convinced me - the original neglect should be paid for by the state and not by the individual - but what if the money is just not there?

What's this about privatising the whole thing? Is this any way on the cards and if so is it the European Water Directive that's the culprit ? I've seen a few water debates on p.ie with DaveM and Kevin Doyle and Pax and it seems they have come to some conclusion that privatisation will not come in (although Kevin Doyle did quote Veolia which is a private company operating in Galway ??)

Using private companies to carry out contract work is one thing but privatising a system I just don't like the sound of it after Eircom but if someone pointed me to a case study I might be convinced.

On the costs of our water - I think given the resources we have here it's a perfect industry for us to milk to the utmost. If private companies want to pipe the rain to Spain then they are welcome but publicly this is a system that can and should be operated at maximum efficiency with the lowest public costs being aimed for. I wouldn't mind the introduction of a meter scheme where overuse was charged only - I think that might only be fair and any funds paid in water charges would have to end up financing and augmenting the system. What do you think of that? It's my contention that something like water isn't free and should be paid for by users but on the same score, if it's possible to construct or change a system which can be tuned to work optimally then that should be applied where fees charged could be adjusted according to efficiency of the service. It could be like a participative public service.

I don't see the full justification for it being totally free but at the same time I do but you'd have to take the resources of the wider economy into account.

It’s not a matter of the money not being there. Water is essential for life. There are many ongoing projects that are not essential for life, yet they receive a higher prioritisation. There’s just no excuse that’s plausible for not having done the work necessary and indeed for continuing to fail to do it.

Privatisation is on the way. This is easily shown via the point you’ve made:

Audi wrote:

Put like that you've almost convinced me - the original neglect should be paid for by the state and not by the individual - but what if the money is just not there?

The State is not going to fix this, it will even say that it cannot afford to do so. The European Water Framework Directive (EWFD) does not demand privatisation but it does facilitate the government introducing it. Water charges must be implemented by 2010 according to the EWFD. Water meters have been put into new houses, most business locations have also had the meters installed at this stage too. There was war last year with the farmers who were being billed whilst complaining that their water usage was dual-purpose, i.e. business and private. In fact (though the name of the company escapes me presently - I’ll post a link later) the meters were being read etc. by a private company. There was an outcry that the meter reading etc. should have at least been performed by a local accountancy firm.

One of the most poignant proofs that water is to be privatised in Ireland is to be found on the various sites devoted to each specific region (7 water basin regions). If you check out these sites and follow links within to the public consultation areas, you’ll see little if anything to suggest that public consultation has been accomplished or meaningful. What you will see though are lots of private companies listed as partners in the project. What could be the possible reasons for this? Why are private companies being listed as stakeholders?

IBEC and other unelected mouthpieces have been calling for privatisation. Tis but a matter of time. We have less than two years to go. Plenty of time for anyone to make me eat my words if I’m wrong. I’ll flesh out the points I’ve made over the coming days and supply links and further argument on this issue.

I don’t agree with you regarding either paying for overuse of water or that water’s not free.

Water most certainly is free and more to the point, nobody owns it. Dirty water is another matter and according to the EWFD, polluters should pay for the cleaning of it - that’s not the way it’s working out though. You cannot overuse water. Water, as you know, is part of the water cycle. When you use it, it goes right back into the cycle. Infrastructure is another thing, taxes have paid for that many times over and even worse, they’ve paid for an up-to-date system many times over, one that’s failed to materialise.

There are many aspects to this discussion that will prove to be quite fascinating should we get around to discussing them. Did you know for example, that Limerick County Council came close to setting the legal standard of drinking water using the river Deel (one of Ireland’s most polluted rivers) as the benchmark, in the High Court? Indeed, the High Court might still be forced to enter a judgement on this. Interesting stuff huh?

The point I’m making here is to not be fooled by the government’s ‘beal bocht’ routine, they’re out to do some shafting and we’re the intended shaftees.

I agree that the plan is to privatise water and a lot else, but I think we should be doing everything we can to prevent it. I would be in favour of a local property tax, with people voting on a budget and strategy, rather than just voting for individual councillors. That way people will be able to take responsibility for costs of water services but the payment can be according to people's ability to pay as well as the amount they use.

cactus flower wrote:

I agree that the plan is to privatise water and a lot else, but I think we should be doing everything we can to prevent it. I would be in favour of a local property tax, with people voting on a budget and strategy, rather than just voting for individual councillors. That way people will be able to take responsibility for costs of water services but the payment can be according to people's ability to pay as well as the amount they use.

What is stopping this now I wonder ? Some taxes that are collected should be used only on the departments they are collected by too, such as road tax - it should be used directly on the roads and shown to do so. This is my reason for charging for water - it gives responsibility to locals, something that we should be pressing them to have more of rather than just shoving purposeless taxes at them.

Maybe people would start to take more notice then of where their water is coming from, how it gets processed and more importantly, what can be done to keep up the standards of it and to improve it and to reduce costs over time (through micro-schemes on homes and in farms, fixing of leaks, voting on over-use etc. ) I have no doubt there should be a charge for it Hermes, but that charge should be made very transparent and the costs and associated expenses made very public. The costs might confuse some people but there are always train-spotters who know every cost of a tap or a valve or of the labour involved in it. The information would be available to public scrutiny and open to public vote and input. I cannot at all see why water should be privatised - it is a system which we should be using as a model of local and public management and full involvement and participation.

I've heard about the river Deal Hermes - is it near Aughinish ? Were the locals using a clean source of water from a well but it wasn't official so Limerick County Council tried to oblige them to use a polluted source because it was 'official' (or something like that) ? That part of the Shannon is totally dodgy for pollutants ..

I would say in reality it is closer to 100% when we consider.

Our waste water goes to sewage and gets treated almost up to (in some cases at) drinking water purity. This water is then put back into the rivers. When it comes to be put back into the system it is purified for the second time.

Direct water resuse needs to be considered.

riven wrote:

I would say in reality it is closer to 100% when we consider.

Our waste water goes to sewage and gets treated almost up to (in some cases at) drinking water purity. This water is then put back into the rivers. When it comes to be put back into the system it is purified for the second time.

Direct water resuse needs to be considered.

I agree, but grey water systems (particularly retrofitted) are really expensive. How do we overcome that?

Yes, and it is very wasteful putting all those nutrients into rivers the way we do.
We're already spreading some sludge from treatment plants (sorry to those of you having your tea) but I would have thought we could get better use out of our waste products. With oil-based fertiliser production getting too expensive to use, its the way to go.

Direct water reuse is not as expensive as one thinks as it only requires one plant (purification plant) rather than two (separate sewage and drinking water plant). In auxillary equipment, the savings are huge. Oz is beginning to do it but only because they are forced. They are finding savig though.

riven wrote:

Direct water reuse is not as expensive as one thinks as it only requires one plant (purification plant) rather than two (separate sewage and drinking water plant). In auxillary equipment, the savings are huge. Oz is beginning to do it but only because they are forced. They are finding savig though.

Do you know any nice internet links with diagrams?

I was reading that Perth is in a lot of trouble as it is relying on an aquifer for its total supply and the aquifer is being used up quickly by people using lawn sprinkers. When it is gone, Perth may not be viable any more. People talk about desalination but it is very expensive - is solar energy being used for desalination now I wonder?

riven wrote:

Direct water reuse is not as expensive as one thinks as it only requires one plant (purification plant) rather than two (separate sewage and drinking water plant). In auxillary equipment, the savings are huge. Oz is beginning to do it but only because they are forced. They are finding savig though.

In terms of capital cost I can certainly see savings. A constant, reliable and ever increasing supply of raw water is available. There is no need for costly extraction systems from rivers / lakes. Also the final effluent from most modern sewage plants would be comparible in cleanliness to what you'd get from a lot of our water courses. On the other hand this one is political dynamite.

On the point regarding leakage rates, the situation is pretty awful. We're lagging behind other countries in a big way. Some of our supply and distribution network is a hundred years old. Works to improve it are ongoing but its slow and expensive.

DaveM wrote:

riven wrote:

Direct water reuse is not as expensive as one thinks as it only requires one plant (purification plant) rather than two (separate sewage and drinking water plant). In auxillary equipment, the savings are huge. Oz is beginning to do it but only because they are forced. They are finding savig though.

In terms of capital cost I can certainly see savings. A constant, reliable and ever increasing supply of raw water is available. There is no need for costly extraction systems from rivers / lakes. Also the final effluent from most modern sewage plants would be comparible in cleanliness to what you'd get from a lot of our water courses. On the other hand this one is political dynamite.

On the point regarding leakage rates, the situation is pretty awful. We're lagging behind other countries in a big way. Some of our supply and distribution network is a hundred years old. Works to improve it are ongoing but its slow and expensive.

On a day like today it is hard to remember that the east of Ireland is facing into a lack of water supply.

DaveM wrote:

On the point regarding leakage rates, the situation is pretty awful. We're lagging behind other countries in a big way. Some of our supply and distribution network is a hundred years old. Works to improve it are ongoing but its slow and expensive.

I was of the mind that water rates paid by householders should pay for an upgrade to the pipe system but Hermes convinced me otherwise. The cutbacks announced this year entail compacting several agencies that were invented over the years of the economic boom which sounds like our government irresponsibly created jobs that may now have to be closed down because of belt-tightening.

It would make more sense to run projects that genuinely serve a purpose and in this case it might involve digging a lot of holes around the country and doing a much-needed update of the piping but it would be a task that would have a logical end, financed by windfalls and boom-money meanwhile and saving the country money in the long run. Not to mention, upgrading the sewerage system in a place like Ennis would also help boost the economy in the long term; a large housing development wasn't granted planning permission recently because of inadequate sewage facilities in the area...

Parties need to start putting 20-year projects into their manifestos, with a lot of flexibility built in but with genuine projects in mind.

I've been looking at this Metaefficient site now and they have some good reviews on solar panel charging and so on.

This report talks about the idea of schools gathering water in the States and using that - impressive looking reservoir. (There's no reason children shouldn't be growing food for their school either, not that we're that badly off but knowledge and training are good for the little ones)

http://www.metaefficient.com/rain-water-harvesting/high-school-captures-280000-gallons-of-water-per-year.html

Sorry about the journal artical .

Australia is the driest inhabited continent and since 2003 has
been experiencing a long, severe drought. The impact is especially felt in
regions of high population growth around the coasts like Brisbane
in Queensland.
In response to the crisis and in addition to water conservation strategies, the
region initiated a series of emergency water projects using membrane-based
technology to reuse waste effluent. Estimates now suggest that even if the
drought continues for a further 3 years, the region will not run out of water
as a result of the actions taken.






S. Freeman,
Scorched sunshine state delivered from
drought, Water & Waste Treatment, 50, 9 (September 2007)

The quickest low tech thing every householder can do is get a water butt for watering the garden. Will also do with a foot pump for washing the car if you're not too fussy.

The news from the UK today is reporting that some water bills there could rise to over 3% above inflation for the next couple of years until whatever infrastructure is necessary to upgrade the system gets installed if OFWAT, the water regulator, approves. (Has it any other choice? I'd be interested to know how this water 'market' works. )

The average annual bill for water in England will be close to £400 - could we see such a system installed here pretty soon? Half a billion per year might be another nice little number for the exchequer to mismanage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7552564.stm

As a matter of interest does anyone know low water usage washing machines dishwashers or the like and have any experience. I am always minimising detergent (if any) but water is a tricky one.

cactus flower wrote:

The quickest low tech thing every householder can do is get a water butt for watering the garden. Will also do with a foot pump for washing the car if you're not too fussy.

I could have filled 100 such butts on saturday.

riven wrote:

As a matter of interest does anyone know low water usage washing machines dishwashers or the like and have any experience. I am always minimising detergent (if any) but water is a tricky one.

Stick a brick in the cistern of your toilet.

I was horrified to find that where the IMF has forced water privatisation in developing countries, they have illegalised water butts.

cactus flower wrote:

I was horrified to find that where the IMF has forced water privatisation in developing countries, they have illegalised water butts.

Where did you find that fact?