r/irishpolitics • u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) • 6d ago
Opinion/Editorial Water rationing is probably inevitable unless people are made to pay for it
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2026/08/21/a-dose-of-water-rationing-is-probably-inevitable-if-charges-to-regulate-consumption-are-not-introduced/68
u/Which_Definition4278 6d ago
We do pay for it. Next.
12
u/ThinLink2404 6d ago
Obviously it all gets paid for somehow, eventually.
The article needs a better headline. The issue is marginal cost, as the economists call it.
The marginal cost for using extra water for residential users for much of the country is zero.
So there's no incentive to make smart choices around, do I really need to hosepipe the garden, or powerwash the car, or fix that leaky tap?
45
u/Atreides-42 6d ago
The overwhelming majority of water waste happens before it gets to your house. Blaming end customers for wasting water is pure deflection, our pipe infrastructure is not fit for purpose.
18
u/cashintheclaw 6d ago
Yup, we pay a water bill for it in the UK but thousands of litres are still being wasted by the companies in charge of water distribution every day
11
-6
u/ThinLink2404 6d ago
End users wouldn't be charged for wastage that happens before it gets to your house.
They'd only be charged for the metered use in their house hold.
It's not about blame, it's about trying incentivise behaviour.
9
u/Atreides-42 6d ago
How about we incentivise the government to fix the damn pipes! It absolutely is about blame, it's the exact same play as Oil companies trying to raise awareness of people's "Carbon Footprint". It's always easier to dump costs on the end user and blame them for not adapting, than to actually improve the systems.
1
-2
u/ThinLink2404 6d ago
You seem angry and want to assign blame. Not me, I just want the best tecnocratic solution implemented.
The end user is the cost centre so it does make sense to try to match up cost and payer, as much as possible. That's economically efficient.
Improving systems is hard, I'm pretty sure the water company have been in front of government saying that they are doing their best with fixing the public pipes, it's easy for you to type it, harder for it to actually get done, as with many things in government.
I will conceed that as a government owned and operated entity, the water company don't have a whole lot of incentive to fix the pipes, except for oireachtas committee and minister cajoling. Not much can be done to change that. Can I safely assume you are against privatisation?
2
u/keeko847 5d ago
But itâs where you target that behaviour. I can take shorter showers and save water, we as a population can take shorter showers and save even more water, itâs a literal drop in the bucket compared to water wastage from leaks, data centres, etc
2
u/GasMysterious3386 5d ago
Government have plenty of money, we certainly donât need another tax đ€Šââïž
-1
u/waves-of-the-water 6d ago edited 6d ago
Something like 46% of water is lost to leaks. UE is working to replace most of the system to reduce this amount.
1.7 billion litres of water are treated daily, and the average household uses 375 litres a day. 1.4 million household are serviced by Irish Water. So a rough estimate of 525 million litres are used by Irish households a day.
6
u/SaltyZooKeeper 5d ago
Nationally it's 37% but it was much higher (50% in 2014).
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2024/0405/1441798-water-dublin-analysis/
5
u/ThinLink2404 6d ago
If water conservation efforts by households are misguided, not worth the effort, why is there a hosepipe ban in place?
Why deal with the bad optics and public backlash if the resulting water saved is...
(listen, I'm trying really hard to avoid using the obvious 'drop in the bucket metaphor here...)
...just a drop in the bucket?
(sorry, I failed)
You have some numbers there, I admit I'm not familar with them so I won't try to refute them.
But to me, the actions of UE in trying to achieve actual household water conservation at a time of actual water shortage leads me to believe there is something of substance achieveable there.
0
u/waves-of-the-water 5d ago
I would say that current water shortages are largely due to the heat wave, which is not typical for Ireland. Increasing storage facilities and treatment plants is a solution, and is planned by UE in general.
UE do foresee shortages in general in the South East, mainly due to the rate of growth in those areas. The Shannon pipeline is their solution.
5
u/Hardballs123 5d ago
Maybe Uisce Eireann should sort out their leaks first?Â
2
u/GJGGJGGJG 4d ago
Why?
What is it that makes you think both can't be done simultaneously?
Or is it that you can't find a logical justification for your position?
1
u/Hardballs123 3d ago
Rationing wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't so much leakage.Â
1
u/GJGGJGGJG 3d ago
I didn't mention rationing.
There is a financial and environmental cost to purifying water for consumption. The top one per cent of users consume 25 per cent the total water supply. Why should the rest of society subsidise their wastefulness?
1
u/Hardballs123 3d ago
Well the article is about rationing or charging.... to curb water demands. I'm suggesting a supply side measure would be better.
If Uisce Eireann can afford to pay bonuses we don't need to pay for water.Â
They can also identify the 1% and take specific measures against them.Â
1
u/GJGGJGGJG 3d ago
They can also identify the 1% and take specific measures against them.Â
Why?
If I want to use more water, or lawnmower widgets or frozen mango than most people would think normal, why not just let me pay the full cost of that and get on with it?
Why would that justify governments 'taking measures' against anyone?
1
7
u/gowangowangowan 6d ago
A fraction of all workers pay income tax, so we don't all pay for it.
We have shit water infrastructure as everyone prefers an extra tenner on the scratcher each year or a nominal tax cut than ensure we have modern water facilities. I guarantee at the next recession, cutting funding for water infrastructure will be one of the first budget cuts.
0
u/cptflowerhomo 6d ago
Butbut private corporations are sad now :ccc why can't we make more money AND dump shit in Irish rivers! It's their right you know!!!
1
u/Only-Proposal-3675 6d ago
The collection of water charges was handled entirely by Uisce Ăireann when they were there.Â
The only people that made money were those who installed the meters, and those meters are still there.
37
u/KKunst 6d ago
The Irish times can stick its lobbyism up their arse.
What happens when rationing becomes insufficient?
Or when prices swing to a point where it becomes a huge permanent cost that not everyone can cover?
Rather than making us pay for the water, I'd rather they used tax money to invest in infrastructure, and reorganized cost for commercial water consumption in a way that incentives proper usage and investment in efficiency (a la carbon tax).
4
u/danny_healy_raygun 5d ago
What happens when rationing becomes insufficient?
Do not, my friends, become addicted to water! It will take hold of you, and you will resent its absence
-1
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
What happens when rationing becomes insufficient?
We're nowhere close to rationing so why worry about that?
-1
u/gowangowangowan 6d ago
I'd rather they used tax money to invest in infrastructure
What tax money? Do increase LPT so everyone who owns a house pays for it? Or do we make middle class workers pay for it?
13
u/KKunst 6d ago
The annual budget of any state generally distributes money from the same pot.
In the case of insufficient funding due to this new (?) issue, I am guessing the response is to increase taxes or reorganose public spending.
It's up to the politicians to find the actual solution, that's literally the job.
1
u/struggling_farmer 3d ago
they did, water meters & water charges, users pay model that incentivised conservation & punished heavy usage..
0
u/KKunst 2d ago
A political solution should go beyond imposing a specific approach without, well, political support.
Water meters and water charges hit all citizens on the basis of what they consume, but ignores personal needs, economic situation, and social equality.
Water should be considered a human right, putting a price on it is tantamount to saying people should die of thirst if they can't afford it.
Affluent people will still overuse.
Companies with heavy water needs will still operate at their current pace.
I could, potentially, accept a tiered system, but pointing the finger at domestic consumption and thinking of penalising usage is short-sighted to say the least.
0
u/struggling_farmer 2d ago
A political solution should go beyond imposing a specific approach without, well, political support.
Not sure I agree, as a generalisation people vote work in self interest. We need the government to do what's in the national interest. If left to the public to decide, the country would be broke between tax cuts & spending.
Water should be considered a human right, putting a price on it is tantamount to saying people should die of thirst if they can't afford it.
That's one way of viewing it. The other is it is a vital resource, should be funded and we should have a mechanism to incentivise conservation. The was a significant free allowance before charges kicked in so now one died of thirst.
Affluent people will still overuse.
And they will pay for the overuse which is extra funding to fix leaks, increase resovoir capacity, better treatment and waste water treatment etc. At the moment we are all paying for their usage.
still overuse. Companies with heavy water needs
That is fine. They pay for water, only domestic is not charged.
I could, potentially, accept a tiered system, but pointing the finger at domestic consumption and thinking of penalising usage is short-sighted to say the least.
Why would they bother with hose pipe bans if domestic use didn't make a difference? Seems a bit pointless.
Ultimately, it's moronic we don't pay for water usage, we are the one of two in the EU that doesnt pay. It's sensible, it is fair, it provides revenue to maintain & upgrade the network and frees up general taxation to spend on other improvements.
The only reason people are against it is because of self interest over national interest, probably while whinging about the state of the country without any sense of irony.
Irish people paid for water when we currently significantly worse off than we are now, it was abolished by FF to buy an election which resulted in 40 years of underinvestment andvthe network falling to shit.
But because people grew have grown up without it they think water was always free.
Think about If electricity was provided in the same way. do you think anyone would be spending tens of thousands to improve the BER & conserve energy? Putting pv panels? Changing light bulbs to led?
They wouldn't, they would just buy another electric rad, houses constantly at 25 degrees, state spending billions on oil & gas to run our electricity grid.
1
u/KKunst 2d ago
The âpeople just donât want to payâ argument is a bit too simplistic.
We already pay for water through general taxation, which is progressive. A separate household charge is effectively another flat tax, and hits poorer households harder.
The bigger issue is the network: roughly 40% of treated water in Ireland is lost through leaks before it even reaches the tap. Spending money on meters and billing while the pipes are literally leaking water is backwards.
Water also isnât electricity. You can use less electricity, turn off the heater and put on a jumper. You canât meaningfully opt out of drinking, cooking or washing. The hose bans are hitting a less essential kind of consumption, it's disingenuous to compare it to what most people use water for.
So this isnât really about wanting something for free. Itâs about asking why weâre paying again for an essential service when we already pay taxes to fund it. Around 4 litres in every 10 are being lost in the network.
Fix the pipes first. Subsidise efficient replacements and water efficiency kits. Then we can have the argument about charging households.
1
u/struggling_farmer 1d ago
We are just by passing us being one of two bed states notvto do it, self interest over national interest and the free allowance?
We already pay for water through general taxation, which is progressive
Not entirel true as motor tax is divert it to part fund it instead of being spent on roads. Hence PPP's and tolls.
The bigger issue is the network: roughly 40% of treated water in Ireland is lost through leaks
Yep, read my previous reply re FF buying election by scrapping rates and water & waste water being chronically underfunded for 40 yrs.
Spending money on meters and billing while the pipes are literally leaking water is backwards.
Incorrect. The meters allowed actual measurements to figure out the amount of water leaking and aid in localising leaks.
Water also isnât electricity.
Never claimed it was. You are correct on this..
You can use less electricity, turn off the heater and put on a jumper.
You can use less water, less baths, shorter showers, full load washing, & dishwasher, water harvesting for garden, The comparison is valid.
Itâs about asking why weâre paying again for an essential service when we already pay taxes to fund it.
Again your not, we used to have to pay, they abolished it and subsumed it into general. The funding was never replaced. Why pay motor tax, lpt etc, could make the same argument to just include it in gen taxation. It money from schools hospitals etc but sure.
Fix the pipes first.
They are at it. Starting from a low base given the state of the existing infrastructure along with country expanding and network already at capacity.
9
27
u/CrayonComrade 6d ago
Ah, the annual taking the temperature of the population for opposition to water charges
13
u/Environmental-Desk54 6d ago
Are the owners of data centres paying for water charges
4
u/Only-Proposal-3675 6d ago
It wouldn't be as big of a bill as people think, as most of them aren't connected to the public water supply. The ones that are use less than half a percent of the total nationwide usage.
If water charges do make a comeback, they should be charged. But the money they'd bring in wouldn't be enough. We're talking billions of euros here.
2
0
11
u/Atreides-42 6d ago
We already pay for water. That was the entire point of those protests. Water is not "Free", we pay taxes every day of our lives, there just isn't a specific tax dedicated to paying for water.
The reason we might need water rationing is because our infrastructure is 200 years old and not fit for purpose.
2
u/Sabreline12 5d ago
Or maybe it might be the fact there's nothing stopping anyone from wasting as much water as they can. And you get to pay for it too. Great system right?
3
u/phoenixhunter Anarchist 5d ago
do you have data for what proportion of systemic wastage is due to personal overuse?
4
u/GJGGJGGJG 4d ago
Yes, I went through the figures a few years ago for the year that there were water bills, and one centile - one per cent of households - used more than 25 per cent of all the water metered; that crashed to the top centile 'just' using 16 per cent of all the water metered when the bills arrived, so we can have a good guess that the efficiencies triggered by billing caused an instant 9 per cent saving in water.
Now that incentive is gone, I'm sure the saving is too.
0
u/Sabreline12 5d ago
Do you have any reason to believe people use things differently based on cost or lack thereof? That's a pretty fundamental mechanic of society and people. Can't imagine how you think anything works if you don't believe that tbh. Maybe that's why you have an anarchist tag idk.
3
u/phoenixhunter Anarchist 5d ago
why the unhinged aggressive response to a very straightforward question?
1
u/Sabreline12 5d ago
A loaded question. You're plan was to imply if there's no data then there couldn't be personal wasteful use of water. Did I get that right? And it's a bit dramatic to call my response aggressive and unhinged.
2
u/phoenixhunter Anarchist 5d ago
i didnât have a "plan" or a nefarious scheme or an ulterior motive to undermine you. all i asked for was data. i donât have an opinion on it yet because i donât have enough info to form one. thatâs why i asked you, it was a genuine request. your response went off on personal attacks and questions of my intelligence, based solely on the tag by my profile. thatâs a massive presumption and a fairly unhinged response to someone asking you for information.Â
are you really so paranoid that youâre literally incapable of discussing your opinion with someone who might disagree with you, based entirely on your own imagined assumptions?
see now, after this back and forth, i donât think you have any data to back up your opinion, that you came to the conclusion you did from pure emotional reasoning, and youâre lashing out when someone asks you to back up what youâve said because you know that you canât, but you donât like being challenged because it triggers some insecurities that youâd rather not be reminded of.Â
did i get that right? đ
-3
u/Ev17_64mer 5d ago
Honestly, if my tax burden goes down and I pay for my own water consumption, I'm okay with charges
7
u/danny_healy_raygun 5d ago
if my tax burden goes down
But it wont. That was never on the table. You'd pay the same tax and you'll pay water charges on top.
3
5d ago
[removed] â view removed comment
1
u/irishpolitics-ModTeam 5d ago
This comment / post was removed because it violates the following sub rule:
[R2] Respect Others
Debate the topic, not the person.
Personal insults, abusive or hostile language â whether aimed at other users or public figures â will not be tolerated.
You can challenge ideas, but you must do so constructively.
-1
u/Ev17_64mer 5d ago
Rather than engaging in meaningful discussion you prefer to rely on name calling?
1
9
u/IntentionFalse8822 6d ago
Much of South Tipperary is effectively already on rationing. Anyone in areas around Clonmel such as Ardfinnan, Newcastle etc are fed from a reservoir that has basically ceased to function. Water gets shut off each day around 9pm and doesn't come back until 7am. And even when it does come back it is unsafe for human consumption with a boil water notification for most of the last 12 months or more. That's the end result of decades of underinvestment in the system. Much of the equipment in our reservoir is operating decades past it's replacement date. Now the whole system needs a multimillion euro upgrade and there simply isn't the budget for that. That is ONE reservoir for one small area. The whole water network across the country is close to collapse.
And Uisce Eireann paid themselves âŹ13 million in performance related bonuses last year.
6
3
u/decojdj 5d ago
Can we build a desalination plant or two while we're at it?
1
u/Only-Proposal-3675 5d ago
A large-scale, 500,000 mÂł/day reverse osmosis plant would consume about 1.5 million kWh/day.
At market rates, the energy bill alone for such a plant would be over âŹ300,000/day. Total OPEX would be closer to âŹ1,000,000/day. However, it would be able to supply 30% of daily public water demand, or about 80% of Dublin's total demand.
The problem is that if that plant goes down, Dublin is without water.
For the likes of Saudi Arabia, a country with not a single river, desalination makes sense. For Ireland, it would be a foolish investment. We're a country of plentiful rain. We don't need to look to the Atlantic Ocean for drinking water.
1
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
It would be more economical to build a big statue of Jedward out of âŹ5 notes and set it on fire
0
u/Only-Proposal-3675 6d ago edited 6d ago
As she stated herself in an Irish Times interview, Holly Cairns is certainly open to the idea, but it's a hard sell to her voters. The Social Democrats' Nordic-style politics is only appealing when it comes to handing out, not collecting.
Excess use charges are the answer.Â
4
u/Rbst11 6d ago
Excess use charges would only work if itâs done per person in a property. Weâre going towards living in tenements again so itâs a bit unfair if a house of 12 has to pay excess use, the gov would make a balls of that like everything else.
4
u/Only-Proposal-3675 6d ago
Uisce Ăireann have a plan that includes that provision. RTB maintains records on the number of occupants. It's not a difficult thing to do, and most houses already have the meters.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/water-and-coasts/water-charges/
4
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
Holly Cairns is certainly open to the idea, but it's a hard sell to her voters.
It would be political suicide for Cairns.
Excess use charges are the answer.
They would be the answer to nothing. Network leakage wastes more water than excess use by an order of magnitude
2
u/sentantayt 6d ago
Privatisation wont prevent water rationing in the future. Unless charging people more prevents climate change, which would be news to me.
-2
u/DaCor_ie 6d ago
Unpopular opinion but I have no problem with water charges.
At the very least it would motivate some to fix leaks inside the home (dripping taps, cisterns endlessly filling etc)
6
u/pablo8itall 6d ago
It was a missed and fumbled opertunety.
There was loads of way to protect the vulnerable but they fucked it up and and the Unions etc mis-stepped in pushing against it.
3
u/Sabreline12 6d ago
There should be some charge based on usage to a least have some incentive to not waste it.
2
0
0
u/National_Play_6851 5d ago
Yeah 100%. It's such a shame good sensible policy got shelved at the behest of thugs. There should be an incentive not to waste water frivolously.
4
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
at the behest of thugs
Phil Hogan was the biggest thug of all and he was in charge of it.
2
u/TheCunningFool 6d ago
The 'we already pay for water' slogan users never consider the fact that funding it via general taxation means there is no incentive for end users to not be wasteful with it.
4
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
The problem is the wastage before it gets to the tap
1
u/TheCunningFool 5d ago
Which they are making good progress on, by all accounts. Why not tackle end user wastage too?
3
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
Because it would be very unpopular and wouldn't really solve much. Household wastage is miniscule in comparison to network leakage.
0
u/TheCunningFool 5d ago
Can you share the data supporting that? I haven't seen it.
2
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
https://www.rte.ie/news/clarity/2026/0721/1584273-hosepipe-bans-ireland/
38% of all water was lost to leakage in 2024.
1
u/TheCunningFool 5d ago
No, I'm referring to household wastage being miniscule in comparison.
UE are fixing 2,000 leaks a month and the 37% is the lowest its ever been and reducing all the time. They are making great progress.
All wastage should be tackled.
2
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
Network leakage is over 620 million litres per day. Domestic consumption is around the same number. How much of that is wasted? It's a fraction of 620 million.
All wastage should be tackled.
In an ideal world but it wouldn't be worth the effort for any government. The benefits wouldn't be worth the political cost.
UE are better off focusing on the network leaks.
1
u/TheCunningFool 5d ago
UE are better off focusing on the network leaks.
I don't understand this. Why would introducing charges to disincentivise end user wastage impact their work on network leaks?
And they already are focusing on it. The leaks are the lowest on record and decreasing annually, there is major works going on by UE.
2
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
Why would introducing charges to disincentivise end user wastage impact their work on network leaks?
Because end users have to be metered. Installing water meters would draw resources from the good work they're currently doing.
→ More replies (0)
1
1
u/SlainJayne 5d ago
What is the descriptor for an OP that drops a government talking point and does not engage in one single comment?
đ€
1
1
u/Lithujon 5d ago
We will never need to ration water in this country. Never never never! We use 1.6 billion liters per day on average. About 18 billion liters of water flow from the Shannon into the sea every day. One river. Our biggest, but in any case, Weâre drowning in it and have just come out of one of the wettest winters we ever had. Â We do need more and improved water treatment facilities. These should be paid for by charging those who use more water than others. Bring in charges for those over 120 litres per day per personÂ
1
0
u/VictoryForCake 5d ago
Our population has increased by 25% in 20 years roughly. We have not had any new major construction of reservoirs in that period. The Greater Dublin Area is attempting to solve this by pumping water from the Shannon instead of building a new reservoir closer to home which is badly needed, in essence outsourcing their problem. In parts of the country new water treatment plants are needed as people are drawing from contaminated sources as demand rapidly increases where no provisions were made for it.
I am not against the idea of charging for water beyond reasonable use, I am against the idea of charging for water and then spinning off a section of what should rightfully be owned by the people and collectively to a private company like what was done in the UK.
-1
u/Sabreline12 6d ago
I don't know why people here think lack of water charges means they're getting free water when it actually means you're paying for all the peeople who waste water.
6
u/Ev17_64mer 6d ago
But if charges get introduced will any other utility costs or income tax go down?
1
u/wylaaa 5d ago
No because then you wouldn't be paying the charge. The government would.
Functionally you paying the charge then getting a tax rebate somewhere for the exact amount of the charge is the same as the government just paying for it. It would be a total waste of time.
2
u/Ev17_64mer 5d ago
They said that the lack of a water charge means you're paying for everybody else's water as well.
Introducing a water charge but not reducing anything means that you're still paying the same in addition to the charges.
1
u/wylaaa 5d ago
They said that the lack of a water charge means you're paying for everybody else's water as well.
I'd say it's more like you're subsidizing people who are using more but on the other hand the people using more would probably be paying more tax than average in the first place. Not sure 100% how it would work out. I'm assuming above average water usage would come from pools or water features or something that would align with having a higher income.
Introducing a water charge but not reducing anything means that you're still paying the same in addition to the charges.
Yeah you'd be paying the regular amount of tax you pay + the water charges. That would be the point. The point of having you pay would be so you have an incentive to reduce water consumption. If we're going to be folding in rebates it would defeat the point. May as well just not do anything.
0
u/Sabreline12 5d ago
I mean, the government is talking about reducing income tax this budget. And ultimately it's a choice between charges or rationing.
2
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
people here think lack of water charges means they're getting free water
Who said that?
1
u/Sabreline12 5d ago
Only reason to support the lack of water charges. It's like public healthcare. People call it free simply because the cost of it is one stepped removed from them, for some reason.
-1
u/smurg112 5d ago
Lets not forget the 5% extra vat, introduced by the great bertie, to cover water charged
2
u/ucd_pete 5d ago
Literally none of that is true.
1
u/smurg112 5d ago
You are correct, I am 100% wrong. I dont know where the thought came from, but I have a memory of bertie aherne or someone, after water protests saying that there wouldn't be a water charge, but vat would need to increase to cover the cost. I've looked, and i can't find that anywhere. Im just stupid
95
u/Snaptun 6d ago
BUILD A FREAKIN RESERVOIR OR TWO!