I agree that it is definately not the best timing. Water is the basis of everything so we need to remember that not only will our household water bill increase but it is highly likely that food costs will go up, rent and generally everything. As its a large increase I doubt companies will be able to absorb the cost.

Perhaps the increase could be smaller with increments over say a 3 year period. Look at it another way if unions ask for salary increase for its members its usually an agreement over a few years. Or if your building a house do you get the money from the financial institution all at once or in stages? Why not apply this stategy to water. Or is the 60% increase the first stage with more increases in the pipeline????

Hopefully once they’ve started to repair/replace the pipes etc. Wastage should be reduced and the overall costs may reduce as well.

Remember a few years ago when Prime Minister Arthur put 1 cent on petrol and raised funds then. Very few noticed. I’m not suggesting raising petrol but is there not some other creative but transparent method the Government can use to raise funds? Or perhaps a bond?

In addition to my above comment. Perhaps the Government could look at the possibility of creating an environment fund, instead of increasing the water bill. Monies could be deducted directly from salaries (like a tax but under another name). A reasonable amount of no more than $5 or $10.00 a month. Monies not to be taxable. If some people opt to contribute more then that should be accommodated.

Administration, costs of administration and transparency may be a problem but perhaps it could be set up like a banking system so that each person can check online and see their contributions.

Monies accrued could be used for water, drainage, garbage disposal, looking after the coral reefs, coastal zone projects, protecting shorelines etc. The Government each month or every quarter should let the public know the amount of money received and how the money is going to allocated and then updates on each project until completion.

At the end of each financial year the Government should declare the amount of interest accrued and the general public invited to vote online as to how they want the monies to be utilised, so we have a little say in how our money is being used.

I think the time has come to stop blaming things on “the previous administration” and just deal with things as they are now. I’m yet to see how a 60% increase in water rates is justified, especially as the BWA is by now means and efficient body!!!

Correction: “the BWA is by no means an efficient body”.

It seems the DLP government is in a panic situation,and I hope not. We’re asking persons to wash properly at this time for fear of type A, H1N1 virus yet you’re telling us to reduce the use of water. I thought that a systematic increase over a period of time, maybe one to two years would have cushioned the impact. I agree water rates were too low and bajans misused water but the way the matter was handled leaves much to be desired. The rates should have been raised in accordance of the effective management of the water system. Why should I have to pay now for water that has to be wasted when there are frequent burst mains in my area and when the water comes back on it is discoloured and not fit for human consumption? Also, when the water comes back on, the line is full of air, so the meter registers much before water actually reaches the meter. I guess if I am asked to pay 60% more for water, when there is a burst and the discoloured water damages my cloths while they are in the washinh machine, I can now sue BWA because I’m now paying for primium service. What about when there is a burst and the water flows onto my property for days and causes discomfort and damage, can I expect compensation? I don’t mind paying 60% increase but PLEASE give me at lease 50% increase in service.

BLP asking to hold strain when they nearly had Wood as scapegoat to raise Bus Fare *AND* Water, but then they decide elections were more important. See where that got them…

What has me is how Barbados is grunting now, and yet DLP want to hike rates? Not just Government but Private Sector too… As in Electricity??

Soon folks will build grass huts eat African snails and use oil lamps again!

This is seriously going to have an impact on the cost of food.

Vegetables in Barbados are already expensive and the small farmers have been complaining about their water bills. What is going to happen now? They certainly cannot afford to absorb the increased water rates and it will most likely be passed on to the consumer.

Fish is probably going to up as well, because the ice boats need ice.

Looks like we are in for a very rough ride.

One would hope, that explainably, the increase is to fund improvement in the capital and operations of the BWA, which is needed.

Point taken above, that operational controls and transparency are necessary before pumping money in.

Point also taken, that this will affect a lot of people, thus a balance must be sought.

Incidentally, blogger ‘Pearl’ above mentioned upon a point that I personally am in favour of and would go a long way toward multiple issues.

Raising petrol tax by say, twenty cents, would not only raise an emergency economic fund, that would be used not only to partially subsidise improvement in captial plant such as BWA (I would still increase rates however, by some margin), but it would either reduce consumption and hence foreign reserve usage i.e. a measure which would address the country rating etc as discussed under the blog title re Dr.Robinson’s presentation, or even if not reducing consumption it would provide an internal fund that would be cheaper than borrowing i.e. no borrowing cost.

To me, it is unavoidable and will come, I am surprised it has not come yet.

Nevertheless, the point above on operational controls and not putting money into a suckwell, is valid.

Peace

Watch out for long lines of cars waiting to be washed at standpipes. Then you will really see how Bajans love to waste water.

David,

There is nothing inherently sinister about a BOLT arrangement. The BOLT is essentially another form of financing. The guaranteed return to Williams is not much different in conceptual terms from if the Government “guaranteed” a bank a return in the form of an interest rate.

The idea of Fortess funds et al is perhaps not that different from floating a public bond or Treasury note issue.

In paragraph 5, line 4, delete “be” from between the words “will” and “grovel” and in same paragraph, line 5, insert “to” between the words “made” and “suck”.

PDC

If we continue to waste money up front through poor decision-making and do not pay attention to maintenance, then we will continue to see increases in taxes and user fees.

The solution to our problems in this regard is to put in place systems to control expenditure. We seriously need to reduce wastage and “fat “in government.

All of the recent increases in taxation are aimed at reducing the fiscal deficit and making the international bankers and the central bank happy. In the end however we are creating hardships for many citizen.

We can make the bankers and the citizens happy by implementing a serious programme of expenditure control.

The only persons who would be unhappy with an expenditure control programme are the kinds of persons who like to feed at the public trough.

The problems at BWA didn’t start yesterday. We all knew about the slow responses to calls, the thousands of customers who were heavily in arrears, the reported “burst pipes” that went unattended for weeks and the list goes on. What happens if your car has a minor problem and you ignore it? The small problem becomes a major problem and what could be fixed for a relatively small sum now becomes a major overhaul at significant cost.

Simply put the BWA is an anachronism, you can’t run a major utility company today as part of the Civil Service with the same basic structure except for a few minor details as was the norm in the 1960’s. The rates have been kept artificially low as part of the political process by the previous Gov’t (this is a pattern with some goods in Barbados see Gasoline prices) and now the chickens have come home to roost. Someone- and that means you- the taxpayer- has to pay the piper. When the other utility companies need more revenue to support expansion or upgrading of service they approach the relative board and request an increase in rates. These companies have to answer to their shareholders who are interested in the bottom line. When the BWA expands or upgrades it reaches into Gov’t coffers -read your pockets- and presto like magic they have more money. Who is paying for the sewerage plants and associated construction? Shouldn’t there be a surcharge based on water consumption on every consumer’s bill to help reduce the debt? That suggestion would have multiple benefits including reduced water consumption; dedicated amount applied to debt reduction; less pressure on Gov’t general revenues.

An independently run BWA free from political interference should be able to reduce arrears to a minimum; Lime and BL&P seem to have the problem under control- No payment = no service.

No one rides for free

Could the BLP have better allocated resources to ensure Barbados’ water supply was better protected? Many may say yes given it was a boom period.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

… but the boom period was based on the “development” of activities which were inimical to the proper management of our water resource.

I believe that the boom period was also based on concessions not balanced by the cost of water.

The gamble was taken, …. it’s now time to count the cost.

It is a pity that at the time there was not a more careful assesment of the odds.

The thinking behind the rate structure at BL&P can be applied to water rates.

Now that I look more closely at the Light and Power Bill I see that even a householder contributes something to peak demand, in addition to paying for the actual kWH used.

I used to think that it was only large customers who paid for this demand.

My understanding of the peak demand charge is that it is a charge which is applied to the supply of the generation capacity.

The thinking as I understand it is “if you want electricity, share the cost of putting the capacity in place to supply it.”

My peak demand charge is $3.00 per month, a relatively small percentage of the whole bill.

In the case of water, nature supplies the water, it doesn’t have to be made by machines, but it supplies a fixed amount.

We put the capacity in place to exploit it by building pumping stations.

Our demand for water has surpassed the limit.

To make more water available requires machines/equipment to supply the excess and the cost is measurable.

We never put a cost on the supply of water from nature and assumed it was free, whereas if we had treated and thought of the cost to meet the demand, we could see our way through the natural barrier presented.

There should also be an equivalent fuel charge for the delivery of water because water is moved by electricity, the cost of which varies depending on the fuel charge.

Just as electricity attracts a fuel charge, so too should water.

Water rates should thus be variable, as are elecrticity rates.

Hopefully we will see a rate structure emerge from BWA/Government that models closely the process of supplying water to the public.

I understand that water rates must go up but I would like to know how that increase is arrived at.

It has to be more transparent than someone saying “lewee try 60% and see wuh happen”.

Perhaps for sustainability, 100% is the more sensible figure, or even 200%.

@ Anonymous

“I think the time has come to stop blaming things on “the previous administration” and just deal with things as they are now.”

Now I have a fundamental problem with this position. This position is insensitive to the scars along the way. A people without a history is doomed to repeat the past. We have to fix it.

You talking about a people that have been beaten to jelly pulp. Don’t you expect that when the beating stops it will not take time for people to regain shape and form?

Until we come face to face with this matter of corruption we will be doomed to repeat it. More important now than even the water rates is coming up with a method of identify the loopholes that will allow corruption in Government.

For example, I have problems with this bill being rushed through Parliament without any consultation with the people. Now the reasons may be noble but anytime you allow this for the noble, it will also apply to the ignoble.

Thewhiterabbit // July 1, 2009 at 11:18 am

There are soooooo many things to consider when thinking about water. If we are such a water-scarce country, then why are we yet able to waste so much? The answer is that we aren’t nearly as scarce in water as government would like us to believe. There is political hay to be made, both locally and internationally, by crying wolf over scarce water.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Senn in 1946 first estimated the limit of the water resources in the coral area.

His work was targetted at getting to a figure for the quantity of water available for irrigation because agriculture covered most of the land.

Since the 1960’s, the usage has not been for irrigated agriculture, but Senn’s work remains as pertinent now as it was then.

I don’t believe that at the moment Bajans waste water nearly as badly as they might have done in the past.

Sometimes the issue of wastage is confused by assuming the “unaccounted for” water spoken of in the past was the result of leaks when it was more to do with the volume of water that was not metered.

The metering program of the late 1990’s reduced this figure.

Now most if not all consumers are metered.

In the early 1990’s, very few were metered.

Some people on flat rate actually ended up paying less after metering!!!

What happened from the mid 1990’s was that BWA reached the limit of what it could extract, consistent with Senn’s work, confirmed in the Water Resources Studies of 1968 and 1978, and it sounds like 1997 too.

If the economy has grown since the mid 1990’s and by extension, the demand for water, then since the mid 1990’s it must mean that the usage of water has become more efficient.

There are thus significant positives to the situation which is why I will keep saying that I have alot of respect for the folks at BWA.

……. but plugging leaks and pleading with people not to waste water will not change the simple natural processes that govern the availability of ground water.

There will come a time when that water is fully committed, …. and efficiently used.

ace // July 1, 2009 at 3:48 pm

Seems as though I will have to go back to bathing once a week or to catching water from a well.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You must have been around in the 1930’s or before if you can remember catching water from a well to bathe.

I can remember it used to be usual for people to bathe at the standpipe back in the 1960’s.

This method of bathing largely died out but is still being used, very rarely, well out in the wilds of St. Joseph and St. Andrew.

This is largely because the stand pipes are a vanishing aspect of our culture.

This is no time to increase water rates, since for years the BWA have been functioning in Procrastination Mis-Management. But to tell you the truth I prefer to have the situation at BWA fixed and pay a little more for water than to see this precious commodity subject to further neglect. I certainly do not want to be scrambling for a drink or a shower over few more dollars and cents.

It is fine for some BLP die hards to say ” let us not blame the previous administration” but it is quite obvious to all that they had their priorities very mixed up. They suffer our loan health care institution to a sham of its former self and completely neglected the need to address the management system of our water resources. It is obvious that millions were spent focusing on projects that were not of priority but were made into priority because now, many of the BLP family are living larger than life. They deserved to be blamed for what they have done to this country and if the DLP ever go down the same path they have taken, by George I hope the citizens of this country will rise up and not stand for another friggin rape of the people’s Treasury.

@ace
You do not have to bathe at all.
You supporters of the BLP are so pitiful.
It was on the drawing board for a long time but your party did not have the foresight to put the increase on in the time of plenty.
Now the new government, under financial pressure from the world’s recession, has to bite the bullet.
From 1994 we could have looked after Glendairy prison and it would still be functioning as a prison. That $200 million for the new prison would have fixed all the pipes in Barbados.
Too much money was wasted between 1994-2008 and we are now looking down the barrel of a gun again.
Do you know that there are areas in Trinidad where there is no running pipe water? Trucks take the water to these villages. We are still blessed that there is running pipe water every area of Barbados.
We Barbadians must start to face up to the realities that world are experiencing

We could eliminate the excessive use of cell phones.That brings in more money for the cell phone companies than the water rates.

@WIV

I have to admit that I am so caught up right now that I was not following closely. I did hear the Minister state that it had to do with legitimising the present water rates but I think I was later misled into believing that it also sought to deal with the present water rates.

My mistake; and that is a relief.

@WIV

Given all you have said about wastage and charges of corruption, I now have to ask whether or not a raise in water rates is justified. Are we are going to ask consumers to support past corruption without putting the necessary checks in place to correct it in the future?

Service standards and industry standards must be set out for the operations of the BWA before it gets one red cent more. Let us see how labour is going to be utilised; What equipment is to be purchased; The state of the national pipeline grid; how many people or districts have water; how many don’t have; what is required to achieve 100% penetration; what solutions are being recommended to deal with water pressure and water availability; produce a water study that takes into account the water that runs into the sea.

Are we really a water scarce country or is it that we are not managing this resource properly? Allowing it to waste? The amount of water that runs into the sea constantly year in year out, could very well supply the entire tourism sector. Will capturing this water be part of a capital works programme?

What about those wells that are supplying water through BADMC for agricultural purposes? Can this supply expand to more small farmers and for domestic use in gardens and washing motor vehicles, etc?

For the records, it is more than a joke for an island to be surrounded by water and have potable water running into the sea, to be deemed a water scarce country. It is the biggest joke I have heard since IMF. More critical is, what does it say about us and the way we manage our resources as a country? Are we inept? What else are we squandering?

The crisis here stems from the lack of both governments over the years to deal with the real issues at hand.
The present party have realised now, it must be tackled at all cost; if not by them by the next party.
The problems stem from the inability of past governments to deal sincerely with the issues facing the water authority.
I will go a bit further and point to similar problems which exist in most government institutions.
Now that the ‘water issue is the focal of attention, government must take a closer look at how things are done throughout the civil service and implement solutions.
To throw money at one project and not looking at the whole issue is like throwing money down the drain.
Agree totally with “Thewhiterabbit: july 1, 2009@11.18“.

@ Paradox
The crisis here stems from the lack of both governments over the years to deal with the real issues at hand.
==========================
Both governments have to take a share in the blame of what, “Paradox”? The last administration had three terms in power so if any one is going to take the brunt of the blame it must be them. In addition, it is apparent that the the last administration has been accused moreso in the history of Barbados’s politics, with more corruption and deception than any other time in the history of the two parties.

The current administration has to be very meticulous in their undertakings of government spending and provide the public in this country with justification and some form transparency for any projects implemented. The last administration became arrogant and inert to the cries of Barbadians, refusing to inform the public on the rational behind a number of projects. Instead their rule with fair and intimidation tactics that subjected many Barbadians into reticents. Even now Barbadians are fearful to speak out for fear of losing their jobs or being victims of the system.

GIS was hardly used by the last administration to make known to the public projects of public interest. Justification was placed on the back burner for many of the project endeavours of the of the last administration. Their interests became less involved with the people (well accept those who were in cohoots with their system of government).

Both parties are responsible for doing wrong but who was it that was it again that sat in the seat of power for 3 terms?

It is with great chagrin and loath that we read on page 3 of yesterday’s Daily Nation Newspaper ( Thursday, July 2, 2009) the following: “He ( meaning the acting Minister of Water Resources, Mr. George Hutson ) said that in succeeding years the BWA had millions of dollars on its books in the form of treasury bills, deposits at the bank and other government paper.”

Whereas we are NOT in a position to know what is the amount in money that the Barbados Water Authority ( BWA) has in government paper, or on the bank, at this stage, it is nothing short of gross and reckless mismanagement of the affairs at the BWA that it is found that this outdated monopoly, to a greater extent, has invested in government paper, and, to a lesser extent, has had much money in the bank.

What is worse is that this mismanagement has been happening in a context whereby – at this stage – the BWA has reportedly racked up BDS $ 150 million and has reportedly been owed BDS $ 20 something million by customers, and has been getting huge subventions from central government for years. Certainly, with these kinds of contemptible affairs going on at the BWA, it is no wonder then why this particular government entity is in such a financial mess.

And, if you examine the fact that many other statutory corporations like the Transport Board, the NHC, and the CBC, have up to this point in time been racking up huge debts as well, have been owed tremendous amounts of and have continued to receive many subventions from government, then one will begin to understand the great magnitude of the political managerial academic problems that Barbados has within the government, and in the wider so called economy.

Believe it, were a PDC Government in office today, since January 15, 2008, we would have started to enact legislation ABOLISHING the issuing of government paper, and started to enact legislation preventing state owned entities from having no more than 1 % of their operating costs in the bank, in the credit union, or at whatever financial institutions.

Such laws would have been enacted primarily with a view to drastically reducing the government debt, and to making sure that money is made more available and made to circulate greater more within government circles, and within the wider country.

PDC