Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Water Under The Bridge?

Posted by at

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

many people find money to top up the cellphone (and this add to a biger amount then the monthly waterbill), but thats OK...???
On other hand I found our LEADERS in politics have to blamed,not WASCO,because they are the ones who keep it idle that way just to get votes...

February 26, 2013 at 12:41 PM
Anonymous said...

We cannot trust anything Jimmy Fletcher says.

We need an independent group like the Consumer Association to review the documents from the Bank where WASCO does business, and give us the clean facts.

Jimmy Fletcher is the last person to believe. This Agriculturist under Kenny Anthony has told himself that he is all-gurus in one . A whole lot of talk but he has absolutely nothing in terms of productive output, whether tangible or intangible to show or identify, with solid evidence.

Not impressed. So he can go to hell's hole where he belongs.

February 26, 2013 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...

The writer of this article know sweet f ckall about statistics. He should write about what he knows. But that is if you ask him.

February 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM
Anonymous said...

You are comparing bottled water that you buy to drink( how much water does the human body need for sustenance for a day?; less than a gallon?)with water used for agricultural, domestic and commercial purposes. How much water does a household use? How much water does a small hotel use? How much water does the Brewery use? A 66% increase does not look that insignificant anymore, does it?

February 27, 2013 at 5:08 AM
Anonymous said...


Doh worry wid mate. He is numerically illiterate like several of the people calling themselves leaders.

If for example a daily paid worker were to ask for a 66% increase, would he treat this in the same way?

So many jackass arguments get published in this country. It is really amazing.

February 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous said...

I'm really disappointed when matters of such import get treated with kid gloves. Quit comparing our unique, local situation with other territories if your research is surface-level. Did it ever occur to the writer that Antigua's water requires desalination; which may well account for the higher cost? Time alone cannot justify such a significant percentage increase in water rates. Inflation and consistency of supply must also be considered. It is this "long time coming" or "about time" culture of justification that has dug us deeper into debt.

February 28, 2013 at 6:00 AM
Laborian said...

A point to note is that no mention has been made of the meter rental and service tax that you pay regardless of using water or not.

Should that and other charges not be factored in as well in their breakdown?

I agree an increase is warranted. But 66%? And why compare how much a bottle of water costs with what Wasco charges? Did Wasco's management not have the foresight to exploit that avenue?

February 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)