Easy option of free water a threat to environment

IMAGINE having to pay income tax when you're out of work. So runs the argument against flat rate service charges. Not only are such charges inequitable but they were not levied fairly across the state.

Before Mr Howlin's decision to abolish service charges in December, people living in Blanchardstown were paying for water that came from the same reservoir and through the same pipes as the free water used by those in Clontarf or Inchicore.

This policy made no administrative or environmental sense and was an easy target for those aggrieved by the inequity. However, no one seems to have considered the advantages of extending, rather than eliminating, service charges.

There is clearly political caprice in the way service charges have been both levied and abolished. Any policy review of local authority environmental services should consider two issues - sustainability an equity. On each count, the decision by Mr Howlin fails miserably.

Instead of introducing an environ mentally sound and fair charge, based on metered usage (with a threshold supply for free), he took the easy route by abolishing charges altogether and funding water - through motor taxes. (Arguably, local authorities should have been getting motor taxes all along to help alleviate traffic congestion).

This decision will not help local authorities to maintain or improve water supply as they still depend on central funds. Abolishing waters charges will not provide any incentive to reduce excessive use of water consumption, nor will it encourage less wastage.

Above all, this decision will not eliminate inequity since those still suffering from poor water quality in some private group water schemes have no guarantee that the funds raised from motor taxes will be used to prosecute polluters or to improve treatment facilities.

We have to admit that we waste too much water and that it does not coined for nothing. The Earthwatch Sustainable Ireland report says water consumption in Ireland is not at sustainable levels and is well above the European average.

For example, 32 per cent of domestic water usage is constituted by inefficient toilet flushing. Total weekly consumption of water per person is nearly two tonnes.

It is no wonder that David Kinnersley, the author of Coming Clean: The Politics of Water and the Environment, describes water supply as "essentially a task of transports and distribution... Imagine the size of the traffic jam if all this delivery and collection had to be done by road tankers".

Metered charges, in contrast to flat rate service charges, encourage less waste and penalise excessive and wasteful consumption. This applies particularly to treated water where it is estimated that a 30 per cent reduction could be achieve through reducing wastage and leaks.

But finding the leaks is also expensive. The Strategic Study for the Greater Dublin Water Supply identifies an annual investment of between £11 million and £14 million to rehabilitate the Dublin network. The total cost of providing water infrastructure nationally will run to over £600 million from 1994 until 1999.

Water quality is also an issue. Our water resources, though abundant, are not adequately protected from agricultural and industrial pollution. The EPA's State of the Environment Report (1996) points to the worrying increase in slight to moderate pollution of inland water sources - in the case of the Dublin region it is a shocking 54 per cent.

The report suggests that charges are more likely to be introduced in the future. The EPA points out that the infrequent use of charges for cost recovery represents an anomaly in environmental policy. This places the tax burden to tackle environmental degradation on persons other than those responsible for causing damage.

Ironically, Mr Howlin's gesture comes in the name of local government reform. His Department's report, A Programme for Change, cites the need for a buoyant income for local authorities which, it claims, is vital for them to meet essential requirements. These surely include the meeting of EU drinking water standards and the protection of our water resources from pollution.

THE Department's consultants, KPMG, concluded that since metering domestic supplies was uneconomic, charges should be consolidated into general tax. Yet the same report did not abolish user based waste charges as the Government wished to encourage waste reduction and provide local authorities with a source of income.

In France, political opposition to the introduction of water charges in 1963 centred on whether they would represent an ordinary tax or a special tax. It was decided that the charges had a special status and differed from existing taxes in that they are not levied on economic activity but on an economic resource.

The concept of water having an economic value is now accepted. Perhaps thinking of water as a resource, instead of an organisational nuisance, might change the outcome of the economic analysis carried out by KPMG into metering domestic water supplies.

The French system works - it reduced water consumption by 45 per cent over 10 years. It provides the funds for prosecuting polluters and gives farmers financial aid towards better animal housing The system operates as a partnership of local interests and is publicly owned and accountable.

In stark contrast, privatisation of water in the UK has left the consumers paying high charges for poor services - while the share prices and salaries of the water companies have rocketed.

Not charging for water is inequitable and environmentally dangerous. Charges for water must reflect use and ability to pay and not just he capacity of one public authority to duck its responsibilities by passing them to another. {CORRECTION} 97021400011