As a customer of Three Valleys Water (geographical monopoly suppliers
like the rest of them in the UK), I have suffered their regular above
inflation price increases for a goodly number of years. Along with 5
other 'London Area' suppliers they imposed a 'hosepipe ban' in April.
Since then, it has hardly stopped raining.
I do not believe claims that rainfall other than in winter does not
raise the water table. The ground around here is becoming saturated
and seasonal springs and streams are flowing well. That's only half
the story anyway, which is never indicated by the propagandists.
Simply, if it rains outside winter, there is not the demand for water
by gardeners and so on, because you don't need to use a hose or
sprinkler when it's p***ing down!
Today I spent considerable time investigating the company's website.
It seems that they have no supply problems whatsoever, but along with
other 'London area' suppliers were approached by the Labour
Government's Environment Agency and invited to impose a hosepipe ban
to 'raise awareness'.
Now it seems that Thames Water may indeed have a problem, not least
caused by losing about a quarter of their entire supply through leaks.
So, it seems like coillective punishment for South East England.
More sinister, however, are the imposed plans for the building of
thousands of new houses to accommodate 'asylum seekers' , immigrants
and suchlike.
If we do not have enough water to supply existing residents, how the
hell can we cope with the demand from thousands more houses?
--- or are we being 'softened up', i.e.by 'raising awareness' to
anticipate real problems when the plans allegedly generated by the
laughable Neanderthal ignorant fornicating thug Prescott come to
fruition?

Descendent of Imigrants Jupiter wrote:

Now it seems that Thames Water may indeed have a problem, not least
caused by losing about a quarter of their entire supply through leaks.
So, it seems like coillective punishment for South East England.
More sinister, however, are the imposed plans for the building of
thousands of new houses to accommodate 'asylum seekers' , immigrants
and suchlike.

It is all Gwrtheyrn's fault! :-)

--
Neil Jones

Jupiter wrote:
Today I spent considerable time investigating the company's website.
It seems that they have no supply problems whatsoever, but along with
other 'London area' suppliers were approached by the Labour
Government's Environment Agency and invited to impose a hosepipe ban
to 'raise awareness'.

It does seem a very good way of getting people to rush out and buy
water butts and get people used to conserving water. ..but at the
moment I can't imagine a lot of people are worrying about a drought!

When water meters were starting to be installed it was said that for
most houses the water bill would be reduced. As more and more meters
get fitted the overall income to the water companies can't go down so
they'll have to raise prices.

I am also a Three Valleys customer, and in the past I worked in the water industry on the government side.

If you look at detailed local rainfall data for last winter, you will observe that the Chilterns was not as starved of rainfall as most other SE areas - 75% rather than the 50% in parts of Surrey/Sussex/Kent. It is demonstrably true that less water gets into aquifers during the growing season, though rainfall will certainly add a short-term boost to watercourses that are mainly spring-fed, and to surface water sources (a third of TVW's supply). There is currently no flow in the Misbourne river at all. The last time there was no flow in the Misbourne, we had a three-year hosepipe ban (approx 1988-1991).

I am prepared to believe you that TVW does not really need a hosepipe ban at the moment. A hosepipe ban only reduces water consumption by 2%, which makes little difference ("every little helps", lied some government spokesman, embarrassed by the low number). What hosepipe bans can usefully do is preserve water pressure, which can be seriously compromised when everyone in the road is sprinklering their lawn in the evening of a hot summer's day, and we don't need that yet. Serious water savings come from a drought order. The Enviroment Agency is encouraging Thames Water, TVW, and others, to apply for drought orders. They are resisting: a drought order will reduce consumption by major commercial customers, who are metered, and therefore hit the companies where it hurts, in the bank account.

In Britain, water supply shortages are a result of inadequate water supply infrastructure, obviously we have plenty of water if we have the infrastructure to store and harvest it, as even a "drought" in Britain is much wetter than many places. A water company has several choices how to increase water supply: water transfer schemes (the fabled water grid), improved leakage control, construct new storage reservoirs, develop new resources, and (for coastal companies) desalination. All of these are costly, but often the cheapest is leakage control, and long distance water transfer the most expensive. Water companies agree an asset management plan with OFWAT, the price regulator, which then funds the companies asset plans by setting water charges at a level to cover the costs. In short, if a company plans to spend money on leakage control, and OFWAT agrees to it, we the customers have to pay for it. So the much derided "economic leakage plan" is actually a careful balance between customers' bills and security of supply. I believe OFWAT has in the past erred on the side of low bills, but it has recently been persuaded to allow more expenditure on leakage control in the SE.

For comparison, average levels of leakage are Spain 40%, UK 29%, France 27%, Germany 9%, Netherlands 5%. But this 29% conceals wide variations - levels of leakage have been reduced in areas with supply shortages, so that they are now typically 17% in the drier parts, but higher in London where it costs a lot to dig the road up. There isn't much point doing much leakage control in soggy, sparsely populated, parts of the country, so in some wet areas leakage is around 50%. So we will never have German levels of water leakage, because it just isn't worth it in the soggy parts of Britain.

So we could have more leakage control, but you the customer would have to pay for it. Probably the Environment Agency wants drought orders to soften us up, so we won't complain when the water companies put up their prices to pay for more leakage control, and cause chaos on the roads implementing it.

Thames Water recently applied for planning permission to build a desalination plant in E London; this may indeed be an economic method of covering supply peaks, Thames Water justified it in relation to saving the chaos of digging up roads. I can't imagine they would run it most of the time. It was refused planning permission by Kuddly Krimson Ken. Modern methods of reverse osmosis desalination use much less energy than the old flash boiling method, but still a lot more than normal water supply.

New houses means additional expenditure on water supply infrastructure. No problem with this, the shortage is in infrastructure, not water, it just costs money to improve the infrastructure. (Same issue as in arid southern Spain with all their new villas and strawberry farms.) In theory that will be paid for by the new occupants of those houses, though in practice it doesn't really work like that, and existing customers will probably end up bearing some of it.

"Jupiter" wrote in message
...

snip
More sinister, however, are the imposed plans for the building of
thousands of new houses to accommodate 'asylum seekers' , immigrants
and suchlike.

Suchlike you. Your views are ignorant

echinosum wrote:

lots of sensible stuff that I pretty much see the sense of

So we could have more leakage control, but you the customer would have
to pay for it.

But surely we're *already* paying for the lack of leakage control, in
that we still have to pay the water companies (Wessex Water, in my
case) for providing water that never reaches us (about 25% of the WW
supply is leaked, I believe).

It's going to be hard to persuade anyone that they should pay more
to correct a problem that's already costing us more, so that the
water companies can profit more (because even if they fix every
single leak, you can bet they'll not reduce the price for the
customer even though they're saving money).

James

On Tue, 23 May 2006 11:39:31 +0100, "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)"
wrote:


"Jupiter" wrote in message
.. .

snip
More sinister, however, are the imposed plans for the building of
thousands of new houses to accommodate 'asylum seekers' , immigrants
and suchlike.

Suchlike you. Your views are ignorant

Of course. My local Borough Council claims that 10,000 new houses
will be required in this vicinity to cater for 'immigrants'. That too
must be an ignorant view.

"Jupiter" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 May 2006 11:39:31 +0100, "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)"
wrote:


"Jupiter" wrote in message
. ..

snip
More sinister, however, are the imposed plans for the building of
thousands of new houses to accommodate 'asylum seekers' , immigrants
and suchlike.

Suchlike you. Your views are ignorant

Of course. My local Borough Council claims that 10,000 new houses
will be required in this vicinity to cater for 'immigrants'. That too
must be an ignorant view.

What I was meaning and expressed badly was:- I think you are racist.

In article , echinosum
wrote:

Jupiter Wrote:
I do not believe claims that rainfall other than in winter does not
raise the water table.
[snip]
It seems that they have no supply problems whatsoever, but along with
other 'London area' suppliers were approached by the Labour
Government's Environment Agency and invited to impose a hosepipe ban
to 'raise awareness'.
Now it seems that Thames Water may indeed have a problem, not least
caused by losing about a quarter of their entire supply through leaks.
So, it seems like coillective punishment for South East England.
[snip]
If we do not have enough water to supply existing residents, how the
hell can we cope with the demand from thousands more houses?

I am also a Three Valleys customer, and in the past I worked in the
water industry on the government side.

If you look at detailed local rainfall data for last winter, you will
observe that the Chilterns was not as starved of rainfall as most other
SE areas - 75% rather than the 50% in parts of Surrey/Sussex/Kent. It is
demonstrably true that less water gets into aquifers during the growing
season, though rainfall will certainly add a short-term boost to
watercourses that are mainly spring-fed, and to surface water sources
(a third of TVW's supply). There is currently no flow in the Misbourne
river at all. The last time there was no flow in the Misbourne, we had
a three-year hosepipe ban (approx 1988-1991).

According to the Met Office the south east (actually called England
South East and South) had above average rainfall in October, February
and March - and it will again be above average for May. April's
rainfall was 94% of the long term average (for the whole region but
Thames are claiming less than 60% in their supply area so the rest of
the region must have been well over 100%). So, since the beginning of
the year, only January was dry, albeit it was very dry. Otherwise this
has been a period of sustained rainfall -- and more importantly for the
aquifers, the temperatire has been well below average at the same time,
thus ensuring that record low amounts of water were lost to evaporation
and/or growing flora/transpiration. Even if we accept that the
situation until January was bad with a long period of below average
rainfall in the region - one or two months excepted - it isn't
believable that the rainfall since January hasn't ended the drought
threat, especially as it has been assisted by the temperatures.

What's more - and here's where a conspiracy theory gathers strength -
the legislation (Water Industry Act, Water Resources Act and Drought
Direction 1991) makes it very clear that the only basis upon which a
drought order will be granted is a severe lack of rainfall. In other
words, if it had been shown that the water shortage was caused in part
by the housebuilding programme or by the water undertakers' leaks then
no drought order could have been granted.

Because the demands of the new homes in the south east are so great,
the Environment Agency had to make everyone believe that the lack of
rainfall was the sole cause of the threatened drought. Hence they have
been hyping the allegedly bleak rainfall scenario since February - and
indeed ignoring the issues of the leaks and the new homes.

Their spin began on February 24 when they sent out a national press
release urging 8 water compnaies in the south east to impose hosepipe
bans. Why did they not instead just drop those guys a memo? Presumably
because a memo gets no national press and TV headlines.

And why did their doomsday scenario press release fail to mention the
improved rainfall scenario in February which had been published on
their own website only the day before? That would be because they
didn't want to let facts get in the way of their scaremongering.

Why has the Environment Agency persisted in misdescribing the rainfall
stats for the south east as being below average continuously for 18
months when the Met Office figures were there to prove the lie? That
would be because it was very inconvenient that October and February
were wetter than average and why spoil a good headline with the truth?

The real cause of the water shortage is the preposterous new homes
programme in the south east plan - plus John Prescott's daft
Sustainable Communities programme which adds a further 150,000 homes to
an already inflated figure. And all of this rainfall spin is to protect
Prescott and his rotten advisers.

I am prepared to believe you that TVW does not really need a hosepipe
ban at the moment. A hosepipe ban only reduces water consumption by 2%,
which makes little difference ("every little helps", lied some
government spokesman, embarrassed by the low number).

Is that 2% figure quoted somewhere reliable? I have amassed all the
research papers I can find and while they all conclude that the savings
from hosepipe bans are negligible, none puts a credible figure on it.
Some research last year by Southern Water showed that consumption went
up as soon as a hosepipe ban was imposed -- but the sad fact is that
they probably don't know because they have very rudimentary measurement
methods which can't yet tell the difference between an outside tap and
an indoor one. Research by Anglia Water indicates that 4% of all
domestic water is used at the outside tap but of course not all of that
goes through a hosepipe. And that's an annual figu on one or two
very hot weekends in the summer, the figure is briefly much higher (not
that we've had any of those yet).

What hosepipe
bans can usefully do is preserve water pressure, which can be seriously
compromised when everyone in the road is sprinklering their lawn in the
evening of a hot summer's day, and we don't need that yet. Serious
water savings come from a drought order. The Enviroment Agency is
encouraging Thames Water, TVW, and others, to apply for drought orders.
They are resisting: a drought order will reduce consumption by major
commercial customers, who are metered, and therefore hit the companies
where it hurts, in the bank account.

Don't forget the inexorable rise of domestic water meters. Thirty
percent of all homes are now metered, so even a hosepipe ban hits the
water companies in the pocket. Thames Water say that a hosepipe ban
costs them £12m. Drought orders will doubtless cost them even more -
but of course they have the option to increase their bills next year,
with Ofwat's blessing, to recover their losses.

On top of all this, we now have the water compnaies telling blatant
lies, presumably with the Environment Agency's blessing. Their awful
beathtedrought.com website wrongly (and knowingly) states that the use
of domestic and commercial hosepipe has been totally banned in all the
south east regions with a hose ban or drought order. And Sutton and
East Surrey Water issued a press release last week, after its drought
order application had been granted, to tell exactly the same lies. In
fact, many uses of a hosepipe are still permitted, even under a drought
order - including filling watering cans, water butts and other
containers, topping up fishponds, washing clothes or pets, cleaning a
path or drive, etc.

There are also instances of water company advisory staff giving
misinformation to callers. In this case (see
http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/200...ce__firm_says_
sorry ) Thames Water was caught out telling an arthritic old lady that
she was not allowed to fill her watering can with a hose. How much more
misinformation doesn't get reported? None of the water companies'
website FAQs is honest when it comes to explaining what is and isn't
permitted under a hosepipe ban or drought order. That's because they
want to spread disinformation and confuse customers into thinking that
they aren't allowed to use their hose.

All this means that the threats of £1000 hosepipe abuse fines are
laughable. In order to win such an action, a water copnay would have to
prove not only that a hosepipe was being used for a specific prohibited
purpose but also that it was actually connected to the mains supply at
the time since it is legitimate to use a hosepipe connected to a water
butt or other reservoir. Which is why they crow about the number of
people who have reported their neighbours but don't have any successful
cases to bolster their campaign. In fact there have been zero
successful cases brought against hosepipe users by any water company in
the past 40 years - through several hosepipe bans.

It's Big Brother/1984 stuff. The public is being conned by the
Government and the water companies - with the help of the media.

(Good stuff snipped)

On Tue, 23 May 2006 22:23:47 +0100, "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)"
wrote:


"Jupiter" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 May 2006 11:39:31 +0100, "Rupert \(W.Yorkshire\)"
wrote:


"Jupiter" wrote in message
...

snip
More sinister, however, are the imposed plans for the building of
thousands of new houses to accommodate 'asylum seekers' , immigrants
and suchlike.

Suchlike you. Your views are ignorant

Of course. My local Borough Council claims that 10,000 new houses
will be required in this vicinity to cater for 'immigrants'. That too
must be an ignorant view.

What I was meaning and expressed badly was:- I think you are racist.

Ah, the catch-all, portmaneau insult so frequently resorted to by the
ignorant.

Agreed. The 50%/75% (which I am remembering to the nearest 25%) figures were 14 months to end Feb 06. But the Misbourne is still empty, which is the first time in 15 years, so I guess the aquifers must be very low. To the extent that the recent good late winter rainfall is refreshing the aquifers, it won't actually get into those aquifers for 6-18 months depending upon the aquifer.

Yes, but that is far, far cheaper than fixing the leaks. You may pay about £1 per cubic metre for metered water, but that covers mainly the fixed costs of providing the service: the unit operating cost of losing a cubic metre of water is in the order of 1% to 5% of that. If you had a choice between £1.05 for 2 kg of sugar with a hole in the bag so that you only got 1kg home, or £2 for 1 kg of sugar with no hole in the bag, which would you choose?