Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE on water published its final report a fortnight ago, after months of contentious debate, and amid ongoing controversy.
One of the major provisions in the report was that the 2007 Water Services Act should be amended so that “incentives, levies or other measures” can be deployed against the “excessive use” of water.
The threshold for excessive use, the committee said, should be set at 1.7 times the average household use, but this must take into account that the average consumption per person is 133 litres per day.
Is that really what the average individual in Ireland uses each day? And where did that figure come from?
In this FactFind, we’ll examine the committee’s now-famous figure of 133 litres per person per day, and look at some of the best estimates for average water usage in Ireland.
In calculating average water use, there are two major decisions to make: whether you include houses with or without leaks, and whether you use the mean or median. We’ll take a look at all of these.
In a submission to the Oireachtas Committee, the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) estimated that, including outliers (that is, households with water use so high it’s likely to be cause by leaks), the average (mean) consumption per household from April-June 2016 was 349 litres per day.
April-June 2016 is the most recent period for which figures are available.
According to the CER, the average household contained 2.6 people, which means the average (mean) consumption per person was around 133 litres per day.
That’s the source of the Oireachtas Committee’s much publicised figure.
However, it has to be noted that household size figures are based on 2014 Irish Water registrations, so they are three years old, and based on self-reporting.
The median household usage was 260 litres per day.
The median is the level that half of households are above, and half are below. It is often a more reliable indicator of normal use than the mean, because it mitigates against outliers at either end of the scale.
This average (median) works out as exactly 100 litres per person per day.
In the same document (on page 3), the CER presented consumption figures that included only houses with leak alarms installed, and so excluded households that use so much water it’s likely (though not certain) to be caused by leaks.
When you exclude leaks, the average (mean) consumption was 282 litres per household per day. This works out as roughly 108 litres per person per day.
Median consumption, meanwhile, was 249 litres per household per day, which roughly equates to 96 litres per person per day.
The committee has decided that there should be a charge or levy where a household uses 1.7 times the average.
Both Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have claimed that any charge or levy for wasteful or excessive use would only apply to 8% of households.
Fianna Fáil’s Housing and Environment spokesperson Barry Cowen said “92% of people, plus, will never receive a bill again”.
And in a statement, Fine Gael claimed: “The excessive usage/water wastage definition currently applies to 8% of households…”
The source of this figure is again data presented to the committee by the CER, and available here.
So we’ve taken the average consumption figures we presented above (mean and median use, including and excluding leaks), and applied some calculations to figure out how many households would be 1.7 times above all four measures of average use.
Mean
As you can see, the average used by the Committee – 133 litres per person per day – means that just under 8% of households would have consumption of 1.7 times the average, or above.
This works out as around 68,000 households, based on April-June 2016 figures that include leaks. However, this is the lowest estimate of the four averages.
If you exclude leaks from the calculations, around 76,000 households would fall into the “excessive use” category – some 8.6% of households.
The rationale behind excluding leaks from the figures is that this may give a fairer picture of normal average household water use, as opposed to simply what a water meter counts as being used, even if leaks are partly responsible for it.
Furthermore, as leaks continue to be fixed, average consumption including leaks will naturally begin to move closer to average consumption without leaks.
So excluding leaks from the calculations now may give a better sense of what average use (and therefore excessive use) might end up being in future.
Median
As the table above shows, using median household consumption, as opposed to the mean, has a significant effect on the number of households that would fall into the “excessive use” category, if that threshold were set at 1.7 times the median.
Remember that median consumption is the level of consumption that 50% of households are above and 50% are below. It can often give a better picture of normal usage, because it mitigates against extremely high or low consumption levels.
If we include leaks in our calculations, an estimated 168,000 households would fall into the category of “excessive use” – that is, 1.7 times the median, or more.
That works out as around 19% of the estimated 880,000 metered households in Ireland.
And if we exclude leaks, we get an even lower median household usage, and therefore an even lower threshold for excessive use – meaning roughly 176,000 households (20%) would be liable to a charge for excessive use.
When we talk about “average use” of water, there are really four different kinds.
And because of these four different averages, we get four different possible thresholds for “excessive use”, set at 1.7 times the average.
If we apply these to CER consumption figures, we can calculate a rough estimate of how many households would be above the “excessive use” threshold.
There are a few health warnings that comes with these figures, which are important to note:
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I think the concept is great but considering pills don’t protect from STIs and the rise in STIs particularly of Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea and genital warts I really think it is counter productive to try to buck the trend of condoms. If anything we should be trying to make condoms more accessible and encourage their use to prevent STIs being spread. Double up pill and condom if needs be but don’t avoid the later entirely. Obviously if you are in a committed monogamous relationship the use of condoms can be re-assessed though that also depends on people getting tested prior to having sex and on the fidelity/condom use of their partners.
Condoms are shite though.
Couldn’t see too many women trusting their fellow to take a daily pill. Have to be in the form of an injection administrated by a medical professionals and I’d say most women would have to witness it themselves.
Your problem is that you’ve forgotten that this isn’t for women – it’s for men.
As it stands, men have to trust that women won’t forget or “forget” to take their pill. If women don’t like having to trust someone else with something so important to them; welcome to our world.
This would be the first temporary contraceptive that men can use unilaterally. It would go some way toward addressing the enormous imbalance that exists in the spheres of fertility and parenting
You seem to be forgetting that it the woman that gets pregnant and all that entails so I don’t think it’s unreasonable on her behalf that she feels fully protected. Also I think you’ll find with an attitude like that you could find the only action you be getting will be with your right hand.
Be a good catholic and pull out
Come again?
This is a very important step towards gender equality! Think about how many forms of contraception are available for women and how many of those options have horrible side effects, short term or long term, because they change hormonal balances in the body. The pill, implant, IUD and Nuvaring to name a few. Great to see the playing field levelled.
Absolutely noway would I ever take any chemical that interferes with the natural process in my balls.
‘Look, it’s perfectly safe, no harmful side effects whatsoever’
Yeah sure.
but yet Jack I bet you expect a woman too.
What a woman does with her balls is her business.
It’s quite different to the female pill, I’d have concerns until good long term research is done. The pill is tried and trusted – but is still known to have caused stroke in some form in some women.
There are women who don’t like the idea of taking it and that’s fine – it’s wrong to criticise a man for having the same concerns.
Men won’t get it. Especially not if they have to go to a doctor to get a prescription. We’re stubborn like that.
Well I must admit this issue always makes me smile and cry. Unless they build into the male pill a deliberate side effect, such as a glowing nose; would you trust a boyfriend who says, “I’ve taken my pill darling”. What exactly do they mean by “a low risk of side effects”. In comparison to the female pill, does it clot the blood less? Mabey it’s just a class two carcinogenic, rather than its female equivalent, which is a class one, up there with asbestos. Or perhaps it dosent have the same effects in reducing libido, and greatly reducing fertility after use. Oh and of course the men don’t actually get pregnant if they slightly get the timing incorrect, actually they don’t get pregnant the 5% of times it fails. Finally is is not the men who will be having the abortion because of failed contraception. At present its just 65%of abortions are attributed to failed contraceptives, it will be sad watching this increase, just because men are willing to lie, and women are willing to believe, those who don’t love them enough to avoid having sex, when they are not willing to have a child together as a result of lovemaking. “O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive!”
It makes you smile, yeah? Sure it does.
Let’s be honest here Paddy.
Even if contraception was 100% effective without a single potential side-effect you’d STILL be against it because as far as you’re concerned sex should only occur within marriage and for the soul purpose of procreation so do me a favour and feck off with your false concern as to the long term side-effects of what was probably the best thing to ever happen to women. You don’t care! You probably think an increased risk of some cancers (and actually a decreased risk of others funnily enough) is god’s punishment to those evil women that try to “twart” his plan for them to be brood mares.
@Tricia Golden In reality, someone who finds it necessary to use expletives to make a simple point, don’t need a reply. But the point is that this “medicine”, is deadly, and is the only medicine human beings take to make a perfectly working natural function, stop working. The only medicine we take because were healthy. I believe relationships between men and women are complicated enough, without demanding from our women that they walk the gauntlet of the pill, just because we don’t love them enough to have a child with them. And of course this is “freedom”. I can only hope you don’t feel like that “brood mare” (your expression). I can of course accept your anger in this issue. It (the pill) has of course led to the mass exploitation of one of women’s greatest gifts to humanity. It greatly increased divorce in society, and has led to the breakdowns in society of marriage and family. I wonder, based on our experience to date, will the male pill make us a better, more caring society. Turning this debate to religion, just means there is no reply to the issues I raised. Head in sand, and plough on.
You’re right, I didn’t need a response.
I know precisely where you stand.
In the past.
You and your outdated opinions are (thankfully) being consigned to history.
And the world is a better place because of it.
@ Tricia Golden When I see such astringency towards the views of others, I recognise it as a natural reaction of a people, who know they are been deceived, but are incapable of rising above that which is the source of their angst. What you choose to believe, is your own concern; what I believe is mine. What I believe does not gag you, so carry on. It’s a sad people who believe they know everything, and have nothing to learn from previous generations. It’s also sad that the dangers of the pill are so simply brushed aside, for the convenience of the moment.
Sure Paddy, you know us all SO well.
Think I’ll go and donate to one of those charity’s you hate. You know, the ones that recognise that women are not not only here to procreate.
@ Tricia Golden Do you mean someone like Planned Parenthood (PP). The ones supplying human livers and hearts and lungs, from the non-human human beings? The most under-reported scandal of the past month. It appears from the response by PP, that society really ought to revise the negative portrail of one of films adorable role models, Hannibal Lecter. In a parallel statement PP said they have a wide portfolia of investments, including beans and wines, on the commodities market. “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.” – one purchaser was heard to remark. May God have Mercy on us who fail to cry out at this outrage. But you carry on with your donations!
I HAVE donated to Planned Parenthood in the past and I will again in the future. As someone who plans on donating their body to science I don’t take issue with fetal cells being used to save lives. I hope my body can be used after my death to help as many people as possible.
But no, this time I donated to the Abortion Support Network.
Until I spoke to you today I hadn’t been planning a donation so I’m sure they would like to thank you.
Fortunately, we are all only responsible for our own actions.
No
Would never use it personally. I don’t like the idea of using something that alters the chemistry of my body over a long term.
Would be a great development for the dole class though. Make the men have to use contraception in order to claim their dole. Reduce the amount of scroungers born. Win win.
why not just hammer away? fook contraception
Might still cause pregnancies but cause birth defects, I thought that they already invented this in the U.K. or were testing it. It is a tablet they stick into the male butt like they do for testosterone implants?
have your say