โ† Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Hartley Henry - DLP Political Strategist
Hartley Henry – DLP Political Strategist

Two separate but yet related matters sparked my attention this past week. First, there was the predictable hue and cry from โ€œprofessional opposersโ€ to the increase in water rates. Second, there was Barrack Jagdeo swiping and getting clean bowled by his fellow countrymen.

It is clear to me that if water rates had been increased by five cents a gallon the reaction of some in our midst would have been the same.

What took the cake for me in the gas station last Sunday afternoon was this known Barbados Labour Party operative and spokesman who approached me, in their usual arrogant and bombastic manner, claiming that โ€œthe new water rates will kill poor peopleโ€.

My intended response would have been to set forth the argument in favour of the need for an increase in rates, given the magnitude of the capital development programme about to be undertaken by the Authority as well as the ongoing desire to enhance both the quality of and accessibility to the resource. I am sure I could have made a compelling argument, but this gentleman gave me the perfect opening when, in approaching me he armed himself with nothing less than a two litre bottle of water, which, from the label, I became aware was bottled in Trinidad and Tobago.

I deliberately asked him to buy me a similar drink, because quietly I wanted to discover the price he had so willingly paid a few seconds ago for imported drinking water. The price at the register was $3.40.

He did not bash an eye lid. For himself and more importantly for a known political nemesis, he shelled out $6.80 for four litres of imported, Trinidad and Tobago water. Then, he resumed his argument.ย  โ€œDavid Thompson is killing poor people. How they expect poor people to survive? When you increase water by 60 per cent you in effect declare war on poor peopleโ€.

He went on and on and I sipped on my well chilled Trinidad and Tobago water, without saying a word. At the end of his ranting I suggested to him that there was a small detail I needed to work out and that coincidentally, he may just have provided me with the basis for my next newspaper column.

So, bright and early on Tuesday morning, I called the Barbados Water Authority and first confessed my Mathematical shortcoming, as I had referenced in a previous article, and asked that they work out for me the cost, using the new rate structure, of a litre of Barbados water.

I wanted to find out what โ€˜the poor manโ€™ was paying for a litre of water in Barbados as well as what was being asked of those in the highest Block on the rate scale. Remember, the protagonist in the gas station was comfortable paying $3.40 for two litres, which worked out at $1.70 per litre of drinking water from Trinidad and Tobago, which, incidentally, is not known for the purity of its water.

Even before I spoke to the Chairman of the BWA, Dr. Atlee Brathwaite or the General Manager, Mr. Denis Yearwood, I recalled recent lunch and dinner engagements on the south and west coasts of Barbados at which my sponsors, and on one or two occasions, yours truly paid, somewhat painfully, up to $11 for a two litre bottle of high ranked French and Canadian water.

This water, to be honest, tasted no better than what we get from Bowmanston Pumping Station on the border of St. George and St. John, but, the retail establishments were offering it at $11 a bottle and a โ€˜dummyโ€™ like me paid that sort of money for it.

So I had a clear idea in my head what extra-regional water imported into Barbados was going for and what regional water was also being sold at. What was interesting is that the water that I consider to be the best tasting in the Caribbean, if not the world, which runs through the valleys of Dominica, was completely absent from the equation.

Nevertheless, I contacted officials of the BWA and was surprised, indeed, flabbergasted to hear that the litre of water from Trinidad that my BLP acquaintance paid $1.70 for and the litre from France and Canada that my dinner host and I paid $5.50 for, was actually available in limitless quantities here in Barbados for the grand price of $0.0025 per litre.

In other words, David Thompson and his new Democratic Labour Party Government are โ€˜killing poor people in Barbadosโ€™ with the new rate of point two-five cents per litre for water. Simply put, poor persons in Barbados are now being asked as of July 1st to pay one cent for four litres of water. That is what those at the bottom of the rate structure are paying; One solitary cent for four litres of water!

Those at the top are paying $0.0078 per litre or an average of five cents for six litres of water. This is the new rate that โ€˜professional opposersโ€™ are beating the government over.

Yet, these said people are willingly and without murmur, paying $1.70 for a litre of Trinidad and Tobago water, which, as I intimated before, has never and is unlikely ever to win an award for its natural purity or processing. They also wine and dine on the south and west coast each day, paying in excess of $5.50 for the said litre of water. But, with that they find no fault.

I am told also of the Knighted gentleman who has been compiling statistics for use by a certain lady in her opposition to the new one cent per four litre rate. I look forward to that debate, because a few embarrassing truths will come to light.

The point remains, however, that Barbadians are spending in excess of $3 million a month on water, of questionable quality, imported from parts unknown. There is never a murmur or even a squeak in opposition to the ridiculous prices that are charged for this imported bottled water, but the said consumers of this product are on the rampage about paying a quarter of a cent for a litre of their own lime-stone derived liquid gold.

Something has got to be fundamentally wrong with the thinking of our people when they allow blinded, partisan, political loyalty to cloud their vision and perspective in matters of this nature.

Space has ran out and therefore I will have to defer dealing with my second point pertaining to the forwardness of Barrack Jagdeo and his sidekick in the Barbados media.

Next week also, we shall examine how Prime Minister David Thompson has grown in stature, right before our very eyes.

Hartley Henry is a Regional Political strategist. He can be reached at hartleyhenry@gmail.com

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

50 responses to “What Is The Song And Dance About The Hike In Water Rates?”


  1. Its amazing how everthing has to be raised in Barbados to accomodate increased cost and development except bus fare. “Something has got to be fundamentally wrong with the thinking of our people when they allow blinded, partisan, political loyalty to cloud their vision and perspective in matters of this nature”.
    Your party promised to “save us ” during your election campaign, we are still waiting to be saved.

  2. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    Harley Henry really really hit the nail on it’s head.

  3. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    Harley Henry really really hit the nail on it’s head.

  4. Carson C. Cadogan Avatar
    Carson C. Cadogan

    Harley Henry really really hit the nail on it’s head.

  5. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    Really the only ones who do not understand the new water rates or the need to have an increase despite their cabinet paper to increase the rate by as much as 169 % is the BLP and it core of supporters.

    Any sensible reasonable thinking person will fully appreciate the need to upgrade the delivery of our water and to upgrade the service of the BWA.

    I am completely confident that this is the way forward and that we will see a new level of service and services.

    Instead of whining and making silly of themselves they should honestly address where the missing $ 15 million went to or disappeared from with regard to the Northern Upgrade Program, Owing, Mottley and Hallam Nicholls know all about this scam that set about to extract this money from two builders of this island, with a further request for another $ 1 million to correct the problem that the pipes were not of the correct specs for the Barbados Water Authority.


  6. While reading the post I cannot help but think that HH is really putting up a lot of smoke and screen. What does the price of a bottle water in a gas station or a restaurant have to do with the price that we pay for our water supply into our house????

    You have won the election already. Save the politricks for another time – the people you are speaking to see through that kind of talk about the past party.

    Start talking and doing something about the real issues. We are a country that is being over taxed on everything we do – during the good times a government can get away with that. However in the times we are in where is the government going to save money and make it easier for the people by not taxing us to not spending!!!


  7. Nevertheless, I contacted officials of the BWA and was surprised, indeed, flabbergasted to hear that the litre of water from Trinidad that my BLP acquaintance paid $1.70 for and the litre from France and Canada that my dinner host and I paid $5.50 for, was actually available in limitless quantities here in Barbados for the grand price of $0.0025 per litre.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I’ve heard this one years ago, also from some of the folks at the BWA.

    Hartley just put in the LIMITLESS word which of course is completely incorrect, water is not available in LIMITLESS quantities, and therein lies the problem.

    It seems it is not only the MP that has difficulty grasping the idea of a LIMITED supply of water.

    If he is advising the PM it would be better if he stuck to political matters and leave matters pertaining to the availability of water alone.

    However, it is true that the cost of water bears no relation to its value and this is easily illustrated using the example of the two litre pet bottle.

    A cubic metre of water is 1000 litres.

    If you were looking for something to contain 1000 liters of water, 500 two litre pet bottles would do the trick.

    I pay typically $24.35 as a minimum monthhly charge and typically I use about 2 cubic metres in a month, 1000 two litre pet bottles of water.

    Each two litre pet bottle contains water that is thus worth $0.02435 with a litre worth $0.012175.

    If I went into a supermarket or gas station I would purchase a two litre pet bottle of sweet drink for about $5.00.

    When you think about what is in the two litre pet bottle of sweet drink it is only the $0.02435 worth of water and $4.97565 worth of colouring …. and of course the pet bottle!!

    It would be interesting to see if the sweet drink manufacturers pass on the increased cost of water to us, ….. and how much they will claim!!

    The reason my cost per litre and Hartley’s own are different is because I am using the minimum charge from a household bill and not the “Rate per Cubic Metre”.

    PS …. Hope my math is right!!


  8. At the risk of being labeled (again) a BLP operative, there is a fatal flaw in the logic presented in this article which effectively renders it nonsense.

    The writer sheds scorn on poor people for objecting to a 60% increase which takes water rates to $0.0025 per litre in the lowest band, but to quote “Yet, these said people are willingly and without murmur, paying $1.70 for a litre of Trinidad and Tobago water……. They also wine and dine on the south and west coast each day, paying in excess of $5.50 for the said litre of water. But, with that they find no fault.”

    Some news for the writer…Poor people do not buy bottled water, nor do they dine at south coast restaurants on any day, furthermore “each day “. They simply cannot afford it.

    That argument reveals a telling disconnect with the daily lives of the poor or at the very least that the proponent is allowing “blinded, partisan, political loyalty to cloud (his) vision and perspective”, the very failing of which he is accusing objectors.

    While I am not per se complaining about an increase in water rates, it seems insensitive to further increase the burden on the poor, given the high and rising cost of living and the substantial tax increases of the 2008 budget, especially since the party built its political campaign around a pledge to reduce the cost of living.

    Surely it would not have impacted significantly on projected revenues from the new rates if that for the lowest consumption category, termed “basic needs” had been kept at $1.55 per cubic meter instead of the new $2.48 per cubic meter.

    That would have shown some consideration for the financial plight of the poor and those living on fixed incomes.


  9. True.

  10. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    MR INKWELL, I am sure that you and most of Barbados agree that we pay a pittance for our clean fresh supply of some of the best water in the world and that rates were in need of reviewing for some time now as your former cabinet had a paper before them with rate request to the tune of 169 % so do not come here with your absolute nonsense about being over taxed, which will it be fix our water issues now or wait for our water services to get to the point that our drinking water is at peril.

    Someof you due to your political view point throw away good logic and common sense when it comes to making sensible and what should be non political decisions.

    Your former Gov’t should have done some good work for the people and not themselves when they collected in excess over and above the expected rate of revenue on VAT returns to the tune of nearly $ 400 million had some of those funds been spent wisely on projects like the restoring of the BWA rather than on projects like ones that you raped the people of Barbados on, like the cost overuns on the Prison started at a cost of US $ 60 Million with a finished cost of US $ 144 Million, Oil Storage, Danos 3 S road works assigned on a rolling basis.

    The BLP have tremendous gall and contempt to tell someone about managing programs when during your term in office you all were THE AUTHORS OF COST OVERRUNS ON EVERY PROJECT YOU UNDER TOOK leaving the country with a debt of in excess of $ 750 million in numerous projects and their associated cost over run.


  11. BU’s position agrees with those who think hiking water rates at this time is off. We agree the former government neglected the BWA and it is now left to the current government to address this pressing issue. Why a flat increase across the board? Why not exempt those who pay the minimum rate or better still have a tiered rate structure based on use? The taxpayers also need to hear a lot more about management changes which is required!


  12. Another self serving article by Mr. Henry. To attempt to compare government supplied water with bottled water is nothing more than a red herring. No where in the world will you find a public water supply rate that equates with that of bottled water. You are simply comparing apples and oranges.

    The main here is why 60% increase “at the stroke of a pen” could this not have been phased in?

    The impact is not so much the person at the bottom of the scale who will pay $32 where he used to pay $20 before (although that person will feel the pain) but what are the wider economic implications of this?

    What is the impact on say a hairdresser for whom water is a major bill?

    What about manufacturing? Soft drinks, beer, ice cream all require water as a basic input. Bico if you read their annual report is already teetering from the increase in the price of Diesel (70% increase also enacted overnight by this administration)

    What about agriculture?

    In short the massive increase in rates will have a far bigger impact than is being put forward by the government.

    To attempt to dismiss these concerns by equating the price of government juice with the price of Evian or Perrier shows a level of immaturity or a basic lack of understanding of the implications of this action.


  13. All I have to say is that I was silent on this because I thought 60% was way to high. Now I understand why the 60% and not the actual dollar increase was use to knock the GoB. I am still for a phased increase or the approach David highlighted, but no longer am I as concern with 60% now that I know the actual dollar amount of the increase. A lot of people on both sides are playing politics as usual, and neither of them care about poor people. If they did, their positions on illegal immigration, and on a REAL manage migration policy would be markedly different, If their cared about poor people they would not capitulate to the regionalist, academics, and the failed state Guyana and caricom countries by allowing domestic workers into Barbados as a skilled category.


  14. I trust readers have noted that WIV once again does not respond in a rational manner to a criticism of a Government policy. He goes off on an irrelevant rant about the performance of the previous administration,

    This is not the BLP trying to tell the Government how to run programs, it is a citizen exercising his right to express his opinion (not just in a critical manner, but making a suggestion which clearly has merit) to the party that promised to represent him and bring down the high cost of living, but appears bent on doing the opposite. WIV seems to have a problem with that.

    Hartley’s stricture that “something has got to be fundamentally wrong with the thinking of (our) people when they allow blinded, partisan, political loyalty to cloud their vision and perspective in matters of this nature.” seems very apt here. A pity.


  15. Inkwell you are just as partisan as WIV difference being WIV doesn’t attempt to hide his.

    The writer did not as you claim,….

    ” sheds scorn on poor people for objecting to a 60% increase which takes water rates ”

    The writer clearly and at length detail he was having a conversation with someone known to him. The writer gave date and time of day and location for this conversation.

    From falsely linking the writers personal conversation with someone know to him you further and maliciously suggest that they were say poor people would dine at restaurants and pay exorbitant prices for bottle water.

    I was not mistaken when the writer went on to say “these people” that he meant the person with whom he had the gas station conversation with and others of their political kind.


  16. For all of the mathematics being put out here, the increase of 60% when put into context will still be a burden for those who are barely making it right now. NOONE is paying less than a cent for water when the month comes. Ppl pay $30, $80, whatever the case is. The calculations being done by the people of the country are not at the unit level but on their bills in total. So while it looks like much ado about nothing when reading Hartley’s article, that is truly not going to be the case when the bill actually comes.


  17. GBL modify the mathematics to its lowest terms for us.

    Is the 60% increase represented by a $80 water bill?

    If no one else has, and you deemed it pertinent to the discussion, can you calculate at the unit level and let us know?

    I read HH article to be dismissive of a BLP member/spokesperson and their kind as truly concern or representive of poor people. Am I wrong?


  18. Given the magnitude of the capital development programme about to be undertaken by the Authority as well as the ongoing desire to enhance both the quality of and accessibility to the resource.
    ………………………………………………………
    Here lies your smoke-screen logic WIV. Are we to believe that the increase is due to the projected capital expenditure to be carried out by the BWA? I am not against an increase, but the magnitude of the increase is beyond our imagination. We might have political operatives venting feelings, but what about the silent majority (poor people) who now have to dig deeper in their pockets to pay for this herculean increase?

    What the BWA should do, is to investigate the many underground leakeage that will be impossible to see by the naked eye. All those massive pipes that passes through gullies or barren lands should be checked for leaks. I can remember whilst on an evening hike, a massive pipe had burst and floods of water were gushing deep into the gully. If this wasn’t reported, Barbados water supply would be minus millions of gallons of our precious water supply. Hartley, your litany of nonsense pertaining to the purchase of water is pure political hogwash. How many poor people can afford to pay for bottle water? Probably, it could be your circle of friends that regularly purchased water.

    Enjoy the rest of the day my friend.


  19. Depending on if you are talking US or imperial gallons the 2 cubic meters per month translates into about 500 gallons … seems ridiculous, maybe it is an error in reading but I also made a change that month.

    I expect the cosumption will level off at 10 to 16 cubic metres per month.

    My bill used to be for 30 to 40 cubic metres per month but in the past couple of years as I have been more aware of consumption I found it varies between the low of 2 and a high of 16 cubic meters.

    I used to be on flat rate (no meter) and paid $41.66 per month, just under $500 per year.

    After metring my bill went in a couple of years to about $750.00 per year.

    I was really concerned that my bill was escalating so I started to be a bit more observant of practices around the place and did simple things.

    Now, I could only have a beef if my minimum charge went above the old flat rate figure of $41.66 per month which I used to pay every month for several years.

    Believe it or not, metering actually caused my consumption, and my water bill to fall!!!!!!!

    I am actually paying less per month now that I am being metered … and have been for a good few years!!!!

    I think that many Bajans started to take note of their water bills after metering and reduced their consumption.


  20. John it is amazing how metering can make you conserve. In peperation of my town going to a “pay as you throw” garbage disposal method, I have taken to watching what goes in the refuse and recycle bins. Since then I have an extra garbage bin that I may convert into a second compost container.

    http://rumshoplime.shutterfly.com/38


  21. TellMeWhy said:
    Hartley, your litany of nonsense pertaining to the purchase of water is pure political hogwash. How many poor people can afford to pay for bottle water? Probably, it could be your circle of friends that regularly purchased water.
    ————————————————

    It wasn’t nonsense to me. I was as the writer clearly intimated a response to a known Barbados Labour Party operative and spokesman who approached him, in their usual arrogant and bombastic manner, claiming that โ€œthe new water rates will kill poor peopleโ€.


  22. David asked “why not have a tiered rate structure based on use? ”

    The Barbados Water Authority already operates a tiered rate. People who use the smallest quantity of water already pay less per cubic meter and high users pay more per cubic meter.

    Look at the backof your water bill for an explanation.

    My bill will go from about $30 to $46 dollars per month.

    Dear John:

    Do not let the rest of us suffer.

    Please share your water saving tips. I cannot seem to get my use below 16 to 20 cubic meters per month.

    HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!


  23. BU’s suggestion is based on shifting the bulk of the increase to those above the bottom tiers.


  24. No problem with that as long as a just way can be found to do it.

    At present the BWA bill is based on use. So that a single wealthy person who lives alone and uses little water pays at the lowest rate, whereas a poor family with 5 or more children may of necessity use a lot of water and will pay at the higher rate.

    If a way can be found so that poor people pay comparitively less I would have no problem with that.


  25. This is where technology should help. One’s National ID number filed with Inland Revenue can/should establish annual pay giving the government to establish a baseline.

    Wishful thinking?


  26. J

    Set yourself a goal then do some simple arithmetic to see first if your household is using more water than your goal.

    You may be exactly where you want to be.

    How many members are in your household?

    How much water do you want to allow per person in your household per day?

    What is the number of bill days on your BWA bill?

    Take the number in your household, multiply it by whatever you figure the daily consumption per person should be, and then by the number of bill days on your bill.

    If you have four persons in your household and your number of bill days is 30, then if your goal for consumption per person is 100 gallons, expect your bill should be for the consumption of 4x100x30 = 12,000 gallons.

    This is about 48 cubic metres.

    If your goal is 50 gallons per day then the consumption you would be aiming at is about 24 cubic metres.

    If your goal is 75 gallons per day then the consumption you would be aiming at would be 36 cubic metres.

    If you have 2 persons in your household, that 36 cubic metres would become 18 cubic metres and the 24 cubic metres would become 12 cubic metres.

    FYI

    If you want to be more accurate in your calculations and take into consideration the differences in US and Imperial gallons, you can use the following data.

    1 cubic meter = 264.172052 US gallons
    1 cubic meter = 219.969157 Imperial gallons

    … but the first step should be setting yourself a goal to achieve, the rest will follow.

    …. and remember, it is probably better to wash clothes with rain water

    …. and there is no reason why flushing a toilet must use potable water.


  27. J // July 10, 2009 at 4:58 pm

    No problem with that as long as a just way can be found to do it.

    At present the BWA bill is based on use. So that a single wealthy person who lives alone and uses little water pays at the lowest rate, whereas a poor family with 5 or more children may of necessity use a lot of water and will pay at the higher rate.

    If a way can be found so that poor people pay comparitively less I would have no problem with that.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    As you can see from the simple arithmetic above, a household of five with a consumption per person of 50 gallons per person would consume 7500 gallons over 30 bill days.

    This is about 36 cubic metres.

    Anybody know what the minimum consumption is to qualify for the minimum charge?


  28. @John

    basic needs                             0 to 8m3 $1.55

    normal needs                        9 to 20m3 $1.94

    discretionary use over                40m3 $4.86

    extensive use

    commercial rate                        $2.91 per m3

    sewerage rate

    domestic                                  1/3 of water charge

    commercial                              2/3 of water charge


  29. Thanks David.

    So, the example of the famiy of 5 using 50 gallons of water per person per day would not fall into the $4.86 per cubic metre tier but would still qualify for normal use.

    That family would pay $1.55 per cubic metre for the first 8 cubic metres, as would anybody else. This is $12.40 per month.

    basic needs 0 to 8m3 $1.55

    normal needs 9 to 20m3 $1.94

    discretionary use over 40m3 $4.86

    It would be tough for a family of 5 to get by on 8 cubic metres per month.

    That translates to about 2000 gallons per month which gives less than 15 gallons per person per day.

    If the family used another 8 cubic metres the cost would be 8×1.94=$15.52 but then each person would get up to 30 gallons per day.

    This is still pretty basic but certainly easily livable.

    One other fact which I find pertinent in appreciating just how great is the benefit of having access to potable water on tap.

    Those 16 cubic metres of water weigh 16 tonnes!!!

    My car weighs 0.75 tonnes!!


  30. Google

    “basic water requirements for human activities meeting basic needs”

  31. livinginbarbados Avatar
    livinginbarbados

    The ‘story’ does not hold water, as they say. It began with a claim of how ‘a poor man’ would be affected then went on to tell of how another man, described as “a known Barbados Labour Party operative and spokesman”, went on to pay a seemingly large amount for a bottle of water from elsewhere in the region. We are not told if he was in fact ‘poor’ or not, but the description leads me to believe that he is not. The author (whom I understand to not qualify as poor) then mentions asking this “operative” to also purchase a similar bottle of water for him. If the other man is really poor then this is a bit much; if he is not poor, then the story really falls apart. The author then mentions his paying even more for water imported from outside the region. I have little belief that the author and is “operative” foe are themselves poor, so the comparison with the plight of the poor is hardly useful.

    The 60% increase in water rates is but one step. That direct increase will/may be borne by those who pay for water. The increase in rates will also feed into prodution costs for a host of other domestic goods (and services), and will, I believe be passed on to consumers rather than absorbed by producers/providers. So, someone can have a go at trying to figure out the total impact of the water rate increase on costs across the economy. (I am surprised that neither the central bank nor Ministry of Finance put out an estimate on what they thought the impact would be. The central bank, at least, could have done that as a public service.) Whatever, the burden on consumers had been before the increase of 60% on water, that will be magnified as the increase courses through the economy, so it is not just higher payments for water use that need to be borne in mind.

    The issue is not necessarily that water was too cheap before and that the increase, though large, still leaves it relatively cheap. People have built behaviour around known costs, and had not anticipated a large increase. They still have to adjust to the increase, and for some that adjustment will not be easy, at least in the short term.


  32. It would be useful to confirm if info circulating that former PM Arthur posponed a rate hike until after the general election is true. One thing it would show is the games we allow our politicians to play with the most important of things.


  33. David,

    If he did so what?
    Politicians of both sides have a history of deferring unpopular political decisions until after the election.

    Politics as usual in this island.

  34. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    It would be useful to confirm if info circulating that former PM Arthur posponed a rate hike until after the general election is true. One thing it would show is the games we allow our politicians to play with the most important of things.

    This is indeed a fact of life and it was stated as such by Minister Lowe when he presented copies of proposed rate increases that were shelved at that time, you also do remember that the energy file had a note attached to deal with this after elections!!!!!!!


  35. so WIV your excuse for the ham handed implementation of this increase is that the BLP was going to do it?

    How does that change the fact that it’s still badly done regardless of which party did it.

  36. Wishing In Vain Avatar
    Wishing In Vain

    Lets remember it was not the DLP that collected well in excess of expectations to the tune of $ 400 Million, in VAT and never saw it fit to save for a rainy day but encouraged and drove schemes with raped the taxpayes with $ 750 Million in COST OVERUNS.

    Had the former Gov’t not been so preoccupied with personal engorgement this island would be much further ahead that it is, I repost below for your benifit so you may read it once again and to draw sense out of it.

    I am sure that you and most of Barbados agree that we pay a pittance for our clean fresh supply of some of the best water in the world and that rates were in need of reviewing for some time now as your former cabinet had a paper before them with rate request to the tune of 169 % so do not come here with your absolute nonsense about being over taxed, which will it be fix our water issues now or wait for our water services to get to the point that our drinking water is at peril.

    Someof you due to your political view point throw away good logic and common sense when it comes to making sensible and what should be non political decisions.

    Your former Govโ€™t should have done some good work for the people and not themselves when they collected in excess over and above the expected rate of revenue on VAT returns to the tune of nearly $ 400 million had some of those funds been spent wisely on projects like the restoring of the BWA rather than on projects like ones that you raped the people of Barbados on, like the cost overuns on the Prison started at a cost of US $ 60 Million with a finished cost of US $ 144 Million, Oil Storage, Danos 3 S road works assigned on a rolling basis.

    The BLP have tremendous gall and contempt to tell someone about managing programs when during your term in office you all were THE AUTHORS OF COST OVERRUNS ON EVERY PROJECT YOU UNDER TOOK leaving the country with a debt of in excess of $ 750 million in numerous projects and their associated cost over run


  37. Our point was politicians do whatever is necessary to maintain popularity it begs the question therefore why is the DLP raising rates left right and centre!

  38. livinginbarbados Avatar
    livinginbarbados

    @David
    “Our point was politicians do whatever is necessary to maintain popularity it begs the question therefore why is the DLP raising rates left right and centre!” Important adverbs are missing such as “OFTEN do…”, and these can have greater importance depending on where the electoral clock stands. Sometimes, the politicians will be faced with a moral or financial or other imperative that means biting the bullet. But, with water, the bullet was bit but we understand not as hard as it could have been: PM Thompson mentioned in the Budget that a 100% increase had been proposed. He may feel that people will later see him as ‘caring’ for only raising by 60%, and not the 100% or worse still nearly 170% that the previous administration reportedly had on the table.

    He will start to smell of roses if soon people see better services from BWA or he can show that finances are indeed improving and that the provision of water has been better secured.


  39. Now that the people have been conditioned to accept that this is the only way, there is no better time than the present for them to get away with it.

    They probably believe that two years from now things would have improved enough to allow big reductions in time for elections.
    If this does not occur and times are actually worst then, the present increases would be distant memories of better times.


  40. correction
    worst——->worse


  41. livinginbarbados // July 11, 2009 at 6:42 am

    But, with water, the bullet was bit but we understand not as hard as it could have been:
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    The problem associated with water is like an iceberg …..

    …….. and our politicians are like the captain of the Titanic

    …….. and the Titanic is Barbados!!

    The only thing they have going for them is that there was a movie recently made,

    ……. so they can’t ignore history.

    Any school child can point it out to them.


  42. Letโ€™s hope that the new water rates lead to an increased awareness in conservation. How often does one need to wash their car or water their flower garden? There are many other instances where water can be used more economically in the home e.g my son was the king of the 20 minute shower and brushing his teeth there until I threatened to have him pay the water bill.

    When Iโ€™m in Barbados one of my favourite places is โ€œMiami Beachโ€. While Iโ€™m grateful for the outdoor showers, Iโ€™ve observed a few people walking away without turning the water off.

    Itโ€™s time to start talking about our โ€œWater Footprintโ€

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_footprint

    Recently I caught a bit on this series while driving, some parts may be of interest to readers of this thread.

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/watershedsummer.html


  43. Maybe we would not have to raise those prices, if people like the same HARTLEY HENRY WAS NOT BEING PAID BY THE POOR PEOPLE OF BARBADOS. The DLP does not pay him…..WE DO…and for what??? I am a dem but I dont beleive in this wastage of money. Hartley does nothing but destroy Barbados, perhaps he should go back to ST Kitts…sorry forgot you cant go there anymore…for certain “reasons” .//lol……He is paid to write on this blog and the usual thompson tricks…propoganda and termoil and gossip and keep it juciy. . When I went to the Polls on Jan 15th 2008, I expected a different outlook for Barbados, but sadly to say it is worse. People type here, like myself however , we are in a sad state. I honestly think Freundel stuart would of made a better PM. He speaks better , dresses better he seems reasonable in his thinking and doesnt get on for the lack of a better word “COMMON”.So Hartley keep writing your garbage for your 20,000 bds a month, and we poor people will continue to strive in….DAY DOES RUN TILL NIGHT CATCH IT.!!!! Barbados should be shame too associate with people like you and so the DLP as well. I am the swing voter, and beleive you me, I will have my bat swiping at the next general election it isnt “I WID DEM” but “I HATE DEM” pun my T SHIRT..and i got a trail aload of people with me coming.


  44. I am stating all the mathematical jargon espousing from John, David and Adrian is a waste of time.
    Why are we water insufficient? Simple. Back in the 60’s, we had stand pipes and few houses with running water. Homes would collect around 5 buckets of water per day to do washing of wares, bathing, drinking and cooking. Today,almost every home have running water with an average of two sinks and a bath along with a water toilet. Everytime you use the toilet; five gallons down the drain, so think about a household with five people who use the toilet three times per day, bath twice and use a washing machine, notwithstanding homes are approximately 50 feet apart. Now you understand why we are water scarce? So David, stop the equations and let us deal with the tapping of new water supply and the maintenance of our existing 100 year old pipes in the barren lands of Barbados.


  45. Apart from the threats of salt-water intrusion and groundwater contamination due to nitrates from agricultural activity, I believe that political interference constitutes the single biggest threat to Barbadosโ€™ water resources. If Barbados is to move towards a sustainable future with regard to effective water resources management, sound science and engineering have to guide the decision making process. If Barbados continues along the same trajectory, whereby the BWA is politicized, irrespective of which party is in office, it is highly probable that the island will face a serious water resources crisis in the next 10 to 20 years.

    Dealing more specifically with Mr. Henryโ€™s comments, I find his argument to be highly illogical and nonsensical. How can one possibly compare bottled water, which is strictly used as drinking water, to water supplied by the BWA, which has a multiplicity of uses (washing clothes, bathing, washing hands, etc.)? Further, if the โ€œinferiorโ€ imported bottled water is so astronomically priced compared to that supplied by the BWA, why does government continue to import it? Thus, his entire premise and thesis is so inherently flawed that to expound would be a complete waste of time. It clearly reinforces the fact that the five year political horizon rather than altruistic motives is often the driving force behind those in the political realm.


  46. What is esther byer suckoo doing/??? Bringing our children into politics.kudos to Trevor Prescod for allowing the camp of the Isreal foundation to carrying on. ………Well done Prescod….!!!BLP TILL I DEAD!!!

    B


  47. Tell Me Why // July 13, 2009 at 12:05 pm

    Today,almost every home have running water with an average of two sinks and a bath along with a water toilet. Everytime you use the toilet; five gallons down the drain, so think about a household with five people who use the toilet three times per day, bath twice and use a washing machine, notwithstanding homes are approximately 50 feet apart.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    In arithmetic terms,

    3 toilet flushes per person at 5 gallons = 15 gallons per person per day.

    2 showers per day for 5 minutes at 3 gallons per minute = 30 gallons per person per day.

    You are spot on, these two activities consume most of the water a person uses in a household per day.

    … and if the flow rate in the shower goes to 5 gallons per minute that 30 gallons per day becomes 50 gallons per day, and if the shower lasts instead of 5 minutes, 10 minutes the 50 gallons per person per day becomes 100!!

    So, reduce flow rates in the house and cut back on times in the shower.

    …. and consider the merits of old saying, “if its yellow let it mellow, if its brown, flush it down”.

    There was a time when that water was fetched by hand from the standpipe.

    Have you noticed that the standpipes are disappearing?!!


  48. J

    Dear John:

    Do not let the rest of us suffer.

    Please share your water saving tips. I cannot seem to get my use below 16 to 20 cubic meters per month.

    HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    These are some more strategies that will help you conserve water in your household.


  49. โ€ฆ and if the flow rate in the shower goes to 5 gallons per minute that 30 gallons per day becomes 50 gallons per day, and if the shower lasts instead of 5 minutes, 10 minutes the 50 gallons per person per day becomes 100!!
    ………………………………………………………
    John.
    The the operative word you are using is “waste”. But have you factored in the massive leakage where one burst main on an over 12 inch main can dump 1000 of cubic meters in one hour. Think about it John. Here lies our water problem.

    Do you know if the BWA has a water detector for Leakage?


  50. Tell Me Why // July 14, 2009 at 10:01 am

    The the operative word you are using is โ€œwasteโ€. But have you factored in the massive leakage where one burst main on an over 12 inch main can dump 1000 of cubic meters in one hour. Think about it John. Here lies our water problem.

    Do you know if the BWA has a water detector for Leakage?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    I remember attending a talk, think it was at the Belle Pumping station, years ago where a means of detecting leaks in water mains by listening to the noise of the flowing water and using electronics to calculate where the leak existed along the pipe.

    There are probably other leak detection means being employed as well.

    http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/pdf/dw/publications/ontap/2009_tb/leak_detection_DWFSOM38.pdf

    I figure that the folks at BWA must have had some measure of success with leak detection becase since 1996 they have had a fixed quantity of water to sell and as far as I can tell, everybody gets, but not necessarily 24/7.

    The problem with most leaks is that you will not see them because the soil and rock is porous and the water disappears into the ground quickly.

    It is lucky if the leak presents at the surface.

    The leaks you do see are easily pinpointed and fixed but I think the majority require some serious detective work, which, logic tells me, must be going on because of the fixed volume of water the BWA has to sell.

    Ten thousand households wasting a tenth of a cubic metre per hour will dump the same 1000 cubic metres in an hour.

    A tenth of a cubic metre is 20 plus gallons.

    There are probably upwards of 100,000 households in Barbados.

    Leaks in mains are a serious form of waste ….. but don’t get carried away entirely by what you can see.

The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading