‘Solutions’ to water charge problem are filled with guff and political posturing

When the dust settles, it is the taxpayer who will be left to pick up the bill – once again

We finally got the ‘answer’ to the water charge problem this week.

It only took 22 meetings of a special Oireachtas committee.

Unfortunately, it’s also a politician’s answer to the problem.

There’s talk of ‘empowering and engaging citizens’ but the final report is also rife with fudge, wishful thinking and political posturing.

The lesson the politicians have learned from the water-charge debacle seems to be that the public won’t stand for a bill coming through their letterbox, but you can easily pull the wool over their eyes by stealth by shoving costs under the carpet through taxation.

The default go-to guy who pays for everything, time and time again, in this report is the taxpayer. Where the taxpayer doesn’t pay, stealth taxes seem on the cards through extra regulations on home-builders.

Those who paid water charges will get their money back minus the conservation grant – but those who didn’t pay anything and pocketed the grant seem set to make a profit as there is no mention of pursuing outstanding charges.

People in private waste-management schemes will also do well from State investment and some sort of compensation.

So what started out as a badly needed way to fund our creaking water infrastructure ended up raising nothing and costing taxpayers a packet!

Fianna Fáil was first out of the blocks when the report on this matter came out, calling on the Government to allow for refunds in the autumn Budget. Again, this is pure political posturing.

The party was trying to take credit for the refunds that were already enshrined in the report. Whatever will be paid out will, of course, have to be budgeted for.

And having already done more U-turns on water than a dodgy plumber, Fianna Fáil wanted to deflect attention from another climb-down when it finally accepted fines for heavy usage, which, it is hoped, will help us escape hefty EU fines for not penalising water wasters.

Here are some of the key sections of the report – translated into English: ‘Domestic water use should be funded through general taxation.’ Translation: People who pay tax will pay for everything, as usual. The committee notes that

existing legislation already provides a statutory prohibition on the privatisation of Irish Water…

Translation: The anti-water charge crowd have been pretending that it didn’t, so we’ll put it in again and have a pointless referendum as well for good measure to keep them happy.

‘Wilful wastage of water should be… monitored utilising district water meters…’

Translation: More guff. You can’t monitor individual wastage through district meters.

‘Incentives, levies and other measures will address excessive use of water.’

Translation: Extreme water wasters will be fined. But will this stand up in court when based on district meters?

‘A national awareness campaign (will be undertaken) to assist water conservation.’

Translation: More costs to the taxpayer for marketing that will be a fraction as effective as water charges would have been.

‘An ambitious amendment to existing building standards and regulations (will) ensure the maximum level of water conservation.’

Translation: Meters and/or water conservation devices to be fitted to new homes. Again this could mean either more costs on the taxpayers’ tab – or for new home buyers.

‘Incentives( for) practical/ innovative systems that reduce water consumption (to be introduced).’

Translation: More costs for the taxpayer. But don’t worry, few will take up these incentives to invest in costly systems that are pretty pointless without water charges.

‘Households should be compensated in an equitable manner (for charges already paid) taking the €100 conservation grant into consideration.’

Translation: We will get our money back – minus the water grant. But will people who didn’t pay and got the grant make a profit?

‘Equity of treatment and equivalent financial support should be applied equally between households on public water supplies and those in group water schemes.’

Translation: More public money to go to those who have quietly and efficiently provided their own water for many decades – the only group to emerge with any credit from this debacle.