UK drought - end in sight
 

In article ,
"shazzbat" writes:
|
| Lol, I made a typo with the decimal point. But my point stands. No moving
| the . will make the original example correct.

True.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...

Try this: the Govt needs to force us to use less water, whether it
rains or not. They want us to continue to use less water, whether it
rains or not. Hosepipe bans are the only way they know to make this
happen. So the Govt wants the bans to remain in place for as long as
possible. At the very least, they want the perception of water
shortage
to continue for as long as possible. Hence they won't publicise the
lifting of hosepipe bans - and they force the water companies to do
the
same (albeit they are required by law to at least put a small display
ad in the local paper to say that the ban is lifted).

Why do you think all this?

I don't think it, I know it. I have had numerous discussions directly
with Defra, the Environment Agency and the water compnaies in the
south-east. They all admit privately that hosepipe bans are a sham -
nothing more than a publicity device. And that all current hosepipe
bans have been illegally enforced because the legislation requires that
the only justification for such bans is a shortage of rainfall. Water
company pipe leaks and over-development of the south-east are not
acceptable by law as reasons to impose water restrictions.

If you have a few days, I can list any number of documents by way of
evidence to prove that the Environment Agency is manipulating the
rainfall figures, misrepresenting the cause and benefits of hosepipe
bans and leveraging the water companies to their own political ends.

No, I can't be bothered.

But I can't understand why if there's such a plot that it doesn't seem
that
anyone has been fined for using hosepipes. I have friends in the south
east
and they've all used hosepipes for watering gardens, filling a swimming
pool
and filling children's paddling pools.

The plot isn't working.

Firstly, filling swimming pools and paddling pools with a hosepipe is
perfectly legal during a hosepipe ban -- as our national newspapers
have gleefully pointed out

I don't read newspapers and wouldn't rely on them for the Law..

Secondly, the water compnaies don't want to fine anyone - their PR this
year has been bad enough without taking money from little old ladies.

What about big old ladies - like me?

Thirdly, they can't fine anyone anyway unless they can prove that a
hosepipe was connected to the mains supply at the time of the alleged
infringement. A defence lawyer would simply say that the hosepipe was
connected to a water butt, not the mains supply and its use was
therefore legal. Hence, no cases brought because they are unwinnable.

What about those who are using a hosepipe but don't have a butt?

Fourthly, your friends may not be saving water but others are -
allegedly there has been a 10% reduction in water consumption with all
the ballyhoo ...and that was enough for Thames Water to withdraw their
August application for a drought order.

There is a LOT of misinformation about water.

I remember the hoo-ha about Yorkshire Water in the bad drought we had. There
were stories about 'tankers thundering through villages' - which was utter
nonsense.

That example is (only) one reason why we don't buy newspapers and don't have
a television.

Mary

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Anne Jackson" wrote in message
...

I had formulated a question on exactly this subject[*], when I went
to a recording of 'Question Time' that was held in Perth a few
weeks ago. Unfortunately I wasn't one of the lucky few whose
questions were chosed for the panel to answer.

[*] Did you know that your questions to 'Question Time' should be
thirty words or less? Not easy, if it's a complicated question!

--


Wording a question in any case is difficult to bring out the correct answer.
I have written City & Guild of London Institute Questions and they are not
easy :-((

Mike


--
.................................................. .........
Royal Naval Electrical Branch Association
www.rnshipmates.co.uk
www.nsrafa.com

Meters was UK drought - end in sight
 

Many thanks to all who explained the situation regarding metering of
water in the UK. Rates vs meter usage is obvious now I know.

For those who are interested in water usage bans in Aus, then a bit of
info on how it works here in 2 different areas I know well. Both
areas have level of water restrictions level 1 (lowest ban) to Level 5
highest ban). One area seems to have now gone to a permanent Level 2
and it means:
No sprinkler or other irrigation systems during the week. Only hand
watering and drippers between 7-10am and 7-10pm as per the odds and
evens. ACTEW will also grant a general exemption for limited use of
sprinklers on weekends: even numbered houses on Saturdays and odd
numbered houses on Sundays, and only between 7-10pm, no other times.

The other area has had Level 5 restrictions for at least 2 years and
that means:
Each household is asked to use only 150 litres per person per day (in
the house). No outside use of water whatsoever for any purpose and
fines apply for misuse.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Anne Jackson" wrote in message
...
The message from Stan The Man contains these words:

b) the water shortage is much more to do with John Prescott's new house
building agenda (coupled with insufficient reservoirs) - and supply
pipe leaks - than it has to do with gardening (or rainfall - which
statistics have been much distorted by the Environment Agency to suit
the Govt's agenda)

So gardeners and their hosepipes are the sacrificial lambs to a much
bigger God: the need to build tens of thousands of new homes in the
south east, many of them for immigrants, without having the water
supply infrastructure in place to support them.

I had formulated a question on exactly this subject[*], when I went
to a recording of 'Question Time' that was held in Perth a few
weeks ago. Unfortunately I wasn't one of the lucky few whose
questions were chosed for the panel to answer.

[*] Did you know that your questions to 'Question Time' should be
thirty words or less? Not easy, if it's a complicated question!
AnneJ

The little card they give you to write question on is indeed small. You'd
have to write really small to get much more than 30 words on it!
Jenny

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Guig" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:19:04 +0000, Stan The Man
wrote:

They never issue any press releases about the good news because it
doesn't suit their political agenda but the Environment Agency is now
reporting big improvements in river, reservoir and groundwater levels:


Drought? What drought? There's no drought in Scotland, or do you
simply mean UK=South England?

They usually do :-)

Mary

UK drought - end in sight
 

Stan The Man wrote:

[...perfectly sound stuff snipped for space...]

b) the water shortage is much more to do with John Prescott's new house
building agenda (coupled with insufficient reservoirs) - and supply
pipe leaks - than it has to do with gardening (or rainfall - which
statistics have been much distorted by the Environment Agency to suit
the Govt's agenda)

So gardeners and their hosepipes are the sacrificial lambs to a much
bigger God: the need to build tens of thousands of new homes in the
south east, many of them for immigrants, without having the water
supply infrastructure in place to support them.

The lack of water infrastructure to support new house building won't go
away unless the water companies can be forced to build new reservoirs -
and they take 20 years to make. So even if we suffer months of
flooding, the Govt still wants us to use less water so that they can
give our 'donations' to the new housing estates. Hence, no publicity
when hosepipe bans are lifted.

Fortunately, the advance of water metering presents the water compnaies
with a dichotomy. If we are brainwashed into using less water, the
water industry gets less revenue from metered properties.[...]

Well, yes of course to all of the above.

But we do _need_ the houses, and they do have to be _somewhere_. It's
actually not an easy trick for a government to get long-term employment
into areas where there are a lot of old houses which could be
refurbished or replaced or infilled. Somebody has to be the Minister of
housing: we can't blame Prescott for people wanting a place to live.

Yes, the reservoirs are insufficient; but they have to be somewhere,
too. Whose farmland and villages and which bits of national parks are
we going to flood? When we've decided that, how much are we prepared to
pay for it?

Yes, the leakages are a scandal. I dare say that those who (both
myopically and understandably) voted for governments which attacked
council powers may be partly to blame for the lack of infrastructure
spending. Yes, it's obvious that turning over the supplies to private
profit instead of public welfare was moronic if not quasi-corrupt. But
it's a fact that these transmission losses are actually happening.

There should of course be a national water grid (and I suppose the
existing canals could be its backbone -- I don't know). But there
isn't.

So there really is a water shortage in some heavily populated areas,
and house-building will indeed exacerbate it. The Kennet really has run
dry. We do flush the loo with drinking water; people do let rain run
off the roof into the drains without using it first; they really do use
a gallon or two of water to clean their teeth; etc. Building practices
are clearly inadequate. Industry's nowhere near as wasteful as it used
to be, but I'm sure it could do better still.

If it takes a piece of spin like rumours of hosepipe bans to get people
thinking about water, and even saving a bit, then maybe it's not
entirely a bad thing.

--
Mike.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...



But we do _need_ the houses, and they do have to be _somewhere_. It's
actually not an easy trick for a government to get long-term employment
into areas where there are a lot of old houses which could be
refurbished or replaced or infilled. Somebody has to be the Minister of
housing: we can't blame Prescott for people wanting a place to live.

Yes, the reservoirs are insufficient; but they have to be somewhere,
too. Whose farmland and villages and which bits of national parks are
we going to flood? When we've decided that, how much are we prepared to
pay for it?

Yes, the leakages are a scandal. I dare say that those who (both
myopically and understandably) voted for governments which attacked
council powers may be partly to blame for the lack of infrastructure
spending. Yes, it's obvious that turning over the supplies to private
profit instead of public welfare was moronic if not quasi-corrupt. But
it's a fact that these transmission losses are actually happening.

There should of course be a national water grid (and I suppose the
existing canals could be its backbone -- I don't know). But there
isn't.

So there really is a water shortage in some heavily populated areas,
and house-building will indeed exacerbate it. The Kennet really has run
dry. We do flush the loo with drinking water; people do let rain run
off the roof into the drains without using it first; they really do use
a gallon or two of water to clean their teeth; etc. Building practices
are clearly inadequate. Industry's nowhere near as wasteful as it used
to be, but I'm sure it could do better still.

If it takes a piece of spin like rumours of hosepipe bans to get people
thinking about water, and even saving a bit, then maybe it's not
entirely a bad thing.

Well said.

Mary

--
Mike.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 06:43:07 +0200, "JennyC"
wrote:

The little card they give you to write question on is indeed small. You'd
have to write really small to get much more than 30 words on it!

Oh Shit! :-)
Martin

Oi !!
I've got the copyright on that :~)
Jenny

(For newcomers to URG : http://www.ljconline.nl/garden/gardenGQT.htm)

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article .com,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Stan The Man wrote:

[...perfectly sound stuff snipped for space...]

b) the water shortage is much more to do with John Prescott's new house
building agenda (coupled with insufficient reservoirs) - and supply
pipe leaks - than it has to do with gardening (or rainfall - which
statistics have been much distorted by the Environment Agency to suit
the Govt's agenda)

So gardeners and their hosepipes are the sacrificial lambs to a much
bigger God: the need to build tens of thousands of new homes in the
south east, many of them for immigrants, without having the water
supply infrastructure in place to support them.

The lack of water infrastructure to support new house building won't go
away unless the water companies can be forced to build new reservoirs -
and they take 20 years to make. So even if we suffer months of
flooding, the Govt still wants us to use less water so that they can
give our 'donations' to the new housing estates. Hence, no publicity
when hosepipe bans are lifted.

Fortunately, the advance of water metering presents the water compnaies
with a dichotomy. If we are brainwashed into using less water, the
water industry gets less revenue from metered properties.[...]

Well, yes of course to all of the above.

But we do _need_ the houses, and they do have to be _somewhere_. It's
actually not an easy trick for a government to get long-term employment
into areas where there are a lot of old houses which could be
refurbished or replaced or infilled. Somebody has to be the Minister of
housing: we can't blame Prescott for people wanting a place to live.

We can blame the Govt for not having infrastructure plans in place, or
at least regulatory powers to force the water companies to invest in
infrastructure.

Yes, the reservoirs are insufficient; but they have to be somewhere,
too. Whose farmland and villages and which bits of national parks are
we going to flood? When we've decided that, how much are we prepared to
pay for it?

Reservoirs have to be paid for by the water companies - hence few have
been built since privatisation...

Yes, the leakages are a scandal. I dare say that those who (both
myopically and understandably) voted for governments which attacked
council powers may be partly to blame for the lack of infrastructure
spending. Yes, it's obvious that turning over the supplies to private
profit instead of public welfare was moronic if not quasi-corrupt. But
it's a fact that these transmission losses are actually happening.

The bigger scandal might be that Prescott and Co drove through the
South East Plan and the Sustainable Housing programme without
consulting the water companies about the feasibility of supply. Several
key water companies knew nothing about the house building plans until
you and I did.

There should of course be a national water grid (and I suppose the
existing canals could be its backbone -- I don't know). But there
isn't.

The Secretary of State has recently ruled that one out for good - not
going to economically viable ever.

So there really is a water shortage in some heavily populated areas,
and house-building will indeed exacerbate it. The Kennet really has run
dry. We do flush the loo with drinking water; people do let rain run
off the roof into the drains without using it first; they really do use
a gallon or two of water to clean their teeth; etc. Building practices
are clearly inadequate. Industry's nowhere near as wasteful as it used
to be, but I'm sure it could do better still.

Another crime is that the run-off from roofs which isn't collected by
the property owner is allowed to flow out to sea when it could be a
huge source of almost clean water if channeled back to the reservoir or
to aquifers.

If it takes a piece of spin like rumours of hosepipe bans to get people
thinking about water, and even saving a bit, then maybe it's not
entirely a bad thing.

It's bad for some folk. Garden hose manufacturer, Hozelock has
announced 100 redundancies in the summer because of this hosepipe
"spin". And the gardening industry at large is losing jobs and people.
I think that's a bigger crime when the hopsepipe is just a scapegoat
for the real problem.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Anne Jackson" wrote in message
...
The message from "JennyC" contains these words:

[*] Did you know that your questions to 'Question Time' should be
thirty words or less? Not easy, if it's a complicated question!

The little card they give you to write question on is indeed small.
You'd have to write really small to get much more than 30 words on it!

Indeed it is, but the size of your writing has no bearing on this.

You wouldn't say that if you'd ever seen my excuse for handwriting :~)


The instructions we were given by Dimbleby was "No more than 30 words"!

Jenny

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Snip
There should of course be a national water grid (and I suppose the
existing canals could be its backbone -- I don't know). But there
isn't.

Mike.

Nice thought on the canal system. Unfortunately it's a static system and if
you get it flowing at any decent rate then the bargees will move a bit too
quick in one direction and will never return. Unfortunately the canals are
open sewers and too small to offer any real solution.
As there is no overall shortage of water and it's environmental production
cost is approaching zero then why would anyone be interested in saving the
stuff. I am afraid it's a political issue on which we currently have little
or no say-other than turning the taps on full blast. Socially irresponsible
I hear you cry-but to all intents and purposes that is what happened in this
region during the 95/96 drought, resulting in such a dramatic improvement in
infrastructure that it's seems inconceivable that hosepipe bans could ever
be imposed again.
Yorkshire Water are now hailed as one of the best producers in the UK after
the 95 fiasco all down to the fact that as they pleaded for consumers to
reduce their usage the demand increased.

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article .com,
Mike Lyle wrote:

(snip)
Yes, the leakages are a scandal. I dare say that those who (both
myopically and understandably) voted for governments which attacked
council powers may be partly to blame for the lack of infrastructure
spending. Yes, it's obvious that turning over the supplies to private
profit instead of public welfare was moronic if not quasi-corrupt. But
it's a fact that these transmission losses are actually happening.

There should of course be a national water grid (and I suppose the
existing canals could be its backbone -- I don't know). But there
isn't.

So there really is a water shortage in some heavily populated areas,
and house-building will indeed exacerbate it. The Kennet really has run
dry. We do flush the loo with drinking water; people do let rain run
off the roof into the drains without using it first; they really do use
a gallon or two of water to clean their teeth; etc. Building practices
are clearly inadequate. Industry's nowhere near as wasteful as it used
to be, but I'm sure it could do better still.

If it takes a piece of spin like rumours of hosepipe bans to get people
thinking about water, and even saving a bit, then maybe it's not
entirely a bad thing.

You might be interested to read the Environment Agency's
thought-provoking (October 2005) memorandum to the House of Lords at
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

In the grand scheme of things, garden watering doesn't even register on
the Richter scale.

UK drought - end in sight
 

Stan The Man wrote:
[...]
You might be interested to read the Environment Agency's
thought-provoking (October 2005) memorandum to the House of Lords at
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

In the grand scheme of things, garden watering doesn't even register on
the Richter scale.

I imagine that's absolutely true; but I'm all for anything short of
downright lies that gets water on the agenda.

The link you kindly posted gives me a "not found". I've had a look at
the URL, and it looks credible enough. I'll try again later.

--
Mike.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Anne Jackson" wrote in message
...
The message from "JennyC" contains these words:

[*] Did you know that your questions to 'Question Time' should be
thirty words or less? Not easy, if it's a complicated question!

The little card they give you to write question on is indeed small.
You'd have to write really small to get much more than 30 words on it!

Indeed it is, but the size of your writing has no bearing on this.
The instructions we were given by Dimbleby was "No more than 30 words"!

My handwriting is completely unreadable!

Even to me!

Alan


--
AnneJ
(If you don't like it, you can Foscar Oxtrot)

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article .com,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Stan The Man wrote:
[...]
You might be interested to read the Environment Agency's
thought-provoking (October 2005) memorandum to the House of Lords at
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

In the grand scheme of things, garden watering doesn't even register on
the Richter scale.

I imagine that's absolutely true; but I'm all for anything short of
downright lies that gets water on the agenda.

The link you kindly posted gives me a "not found". I've had a look at
the URL, and it looks credible enough. I'll try again later.

Make sure you don't have a blank space before the 5 in the 5112902 bit

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Stan The Man wrote:
[...]
You might be interested to read the Environment Agency's
thought-provoking (October 2005) memorandum to the House of Lords at
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

In the grand scheme of things, garden watering doesn't even register on
the Richter scale.

I imagine that's absolutely true; but I'm all for anything short of
downright lies that gets water on the agenda.

The link you kindly posted gives me a "not found". I've had a look at
the URL, and it looks credible enough. I'll try again later.

Make sure you don't have a blank space before the 5 in the 5112902 bit

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

Or http://tinyurl.com/yzbgzw :~)
Jenny

UK drought - end in sight
 

Ah but.... councils have assigned an attractive temporary cost/rate per
unit of water which has not been based on what is actually needed by the
companies.

For example if it costs £x amount to run the water company, invest and
make a profit that x should eventually be shared out equally between
ALL water users.

Up until now they can create the illusion that water metering is cheap
as they have probably assigned a lower than required cost to each unit
used, this makes it 'appear' more attractive to would be meter
installers.


Wait until we all have the blinking things and I bet my bottom dollar
that the prices will be hiked up until the pips squeak!

For those of us at home all day etc. it will not be as advantageous as
for those who eat/drink/use washing facilities etc at work, some will be
able to use the gyms etc to save at home! Likewise it may well affect
those who have 'dirty' jobs. None of this will become apparent until
everyone has gone past the point of no return with the meters.



Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...

Ah but.... councils have assigned an attractive temporary cost/rate per
unit of water which has not been based on what is actually needed by the
companies.

For example if it costs £x amount to run the water company, invest and
make a profit that x should eventually be shared out equally between ALL
water users.

Up until now they can create the illusion that water metering is cheap as
they have probably assigned a lower than required cost to each unit used,
this makes it 'appear' more attractive to would be meter installers.


Wait until we all have the blinking things and I bet my bottom dollar that
the prices will be hiked up until the pips squeak!

For those of us at home all day etc. it will not be as advantageous as for
those who eat/drink/use washing facilities etc at work, some will be able
to use the gyms etc to save at home! Likewise it may well affect those who
have 'dirty' jobs. None of this will become apparent until everyone has
gone past the point of no return with the meters.

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

Mary



Janet
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article , Mary
Fisher writes

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

Mary


Yes I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pay for what we actually use. What
I said was that each unit at the moment is being priced low enough to be
appealing. People will think that they will save money as average bills
will be low.
When everyone is on a meter or enough that makes no difference, the
water companies can double or treble the price per unit as they see fit
and you will be paying a lot more for your water than you thought!
After all, as people install meters they will arguably be using LESS
water thus the amount of income generated will be reduced as water use
is reduced. This means the companies will have to charge more per unit
to get their investment and their profit returns.

er, well, I thought I knew what I meant................

The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

We should, and doubtless we all will before long. Profiteering by the
water compnaies shouldn't be an issue as Ofcom keeps a close eye on
prices and they are anyway limited by law to a maximum profit of 7% of
turnover.

One reason they have been playing for time is that metering technology
is antiquated and a lot of people have been trying to come up with a
meter which does more than simply measure the amount of water passing
through it. They want timers as well so that they can charge more for
high season water in summer (as per the current smart metering trials
in Kent, and they also want data feedback which tells them where the
water goes, eg to a bath, a kitchen appliance, an outside tap, etc.
They would then finally have reliable data on water usage patterns and
needs and they would also be able to introduce different tariffs for
different uses. Current meter technology doesn't differentiate between
indoor use (which the compnaies have a statutory obligation to supply)
and outside tap use (which currently has no service level agreement,
hence the over-use and mis-use of hosepipe bans).

UK drought - end in sight
 

Stan The Man wrote:
In article .com,
Mike Lyle wrote:

Stan The Man wrote:
[...]
You might be interested to read the Environment Agency's
thought-provoking (October 2005) memorandum to the House of Lords at
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

In the grand scheme of things, garden watering doesn't even register on
the Richter scale.

I imagine that's absolutely true; but I'm all for anything short of
downright lies that gets water on the agenda.

The link you kindly posted gives me a "not found". I've had a look at
the URL, and it looks credible enough. I'll try again later.

Make sure you don't have a blank space before the 5 in the 5112902 bit

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../ldsctech/191/
5112902.htm

Ah, that was it. My usually fairly fanatical editor's eye let me down.
Duly bookmarked, thanks.

--
Mike.

UK drought - end in sight
 

Janet Tweedy writes
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

The poll tax was independent of consumption. Unlike electricity and gas
(where you can use less), food (where you can eat cheaper), TV license
(you can do without TV), with poll tax there was no way to reduce what
you paid by reducing your consumption.

Water rates are similar, but unlike poll tax they are based on some
assessment of ability to pay (albeit a very inaccurate one)
--
Kay

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary Fisher
writes

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

Mary


Yes I'm not arguing that we shouldn't pay for what we actually use. What I
said was that each unit at the moment is being priced low enough to be
appealing. People will think that they will save money as average bills
will be low.
When everyone is on a meter or enough that makes no difference, the water
companies can double or treble the price per unit as they see fit and you
will be paying a lot more for your water than you thought!

We might be paying a true price. Water is a valuable and essential asset.

After all, as people install meters they will arguably be using LESS water
thus the amount of income generated will be reduced as water use is
reduced. This means the companies will have to charge more per unit to get
their investment and their profit returns.

er, well, I thought I knew what I meant................

LOL!

The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Mary

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

We should, and doubtless we all will before long. Profiteering by the
water compnaies shouldn't be an issue as Ofcom keeps a close eye on
prices and they are anyway limited by law to a maximum profit of 7% of
turnover.

One reason they have been playing for time is that metering technology
is antiquated and a lot of people have been trying to come up with a
meter which does more than simply measure the amount of water passing
through it. They want timers as well so that they can charge more for
high season water in summer (as per the current smart metering trials
in Kent,

Again - how do you know?

and they also want data feedback which tells them where the
water goes, eg to a bath, a kitchen appliance, an outside tap, etc.

How do you know?

They would then finally have reliable data on water usage patterns and
needs and they would also be able to introduce different tariffs for
different uses.

How do you know?

Current meter technology doesn't differentiate between
indoor use (which the compnaies have a statutory obligation to supply)
and outside tap use (which currently has no service level agreement,
hence the over-use and mis-use of hosepipe bans).

How do you know?

UK drought - end in sight
 

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect. I'll let you know when they reintroduce
Courts of Piepowder, no doubt as some subtle consequence of the
Congestion Charge.

--
Mike.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

But why shouldn't we pay for what we use?

We should, and doubtless we all will before long. Profiteering by the
water compnaies shouldn't be an issue as Ofcom keeps a close eye on
prices and they are anyway limited by law to a maximum profit of 7% of
turnover.

One reason they have been playing for time is that metering technology
is antiquated and a lot of people have been trying to come up with a
meter which does more than simply measure the amount of water passing
through it. They want timers as well so that they can charge more for
high season water in summer (as per the current smart metering trials
in Kent,

Again - how do you know?

and they also want data feedback which tells them where the
water goes, eg to a bath, a kitchen appliance, an outside tap, etc.

How do you know?

They would then finally have reliable data on water usage patterns and
needs and they would also be able to introduce different tariffs for
different uses.

How do you know?

Current meter technology doesn't differentiate between
indoor use (which the compnaies have a statutory obligation to supply)
and outside tap use (which currently has no service level agreement,
hence the over-use and mis-use of hosepipe bans).

How do you know?

He knows you know

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

How do you know?

It's my business to know - but I won't tell you what my business is.
However, most of the information is published by Ofwat, Defra, the
Environment Agency, the WRc, the Water Demand Management Group, the
water companies, WaterUK, CCWater, Waterwise, Exeter University,
Imperial College London, the Institute for Public Policy Research and
various associated technical bodies and NGOs.

Here's a quote from CCWater (formerly the Consumer Council for Water):

"Current metering policy is inherently inefficient as, with the
exception of new developments, installation is piecemeal as companies
react largely to notifications of change of occupation or to customers¹
requests to install meters. This limits the development of smart
metering thereby reducing the prospect of innovative tariffs. If
companies introduce tariffs that vary according to the stress on supply
and increase according to consumption above a certain threshold, then
consumers will be able to adjust their water use on a rational basis.
Such tariffs would need safeguards to protect vulnerable groups and
those on low incomes."

Information on Kent's seasonal tariff trial can be found at
http://www.savingsontap.co.uk/tariff.html

For the rest, Google "identiflow"

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect. I'll let you know when they reintroduce
Courts of Piepowder, no doubt as some subtle consequence of the
Congestion Charge.

--
Mike.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect.

It wasn't.

The words were a successful political ploy by the then Labour party, they
took people in by it.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Stan The Man" wrote in message
...
In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

How do you know?

It's my business to know - but I won't tell you what my business is.

In that case I shan't read any further.
However, most of the information is published by Ofwat, Defra, the
Environment Agency, the WRc, the Water Demand Management Group, the
water companies, WaterUK, CCWater, Waterwise, Exeter University,
Imperial College London, the Institute for Public Policy Research and
various associated technical bodies and NGOs.

Here's a quote from CCWater (formerly the Consumer Council for Water):

"Current metering policy is inherently inefficient as, with the
exception of new developments, installation is piecemeal as companies
react largely to notifications of change of occupation or to customers¹
requests to install meters. This limits the development of smart
metering thereby reducing the prospect of innovative tariffs. If
companies introduce tariffs that vary according to the stress on supply
and increase according to consumption above a certain threshold, then
consumers will be able to adjust their water use on a rational basis.
Such tariffs would need safeguards to protect vulnerable groups and
those on low incomes."

Information on Kent's seasonal tariff trial can be found at
http://www.savingsontap.co.uk/tariff.html

For the rest, Google "identiflow"

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article , Stan The Man
writes
This limits the development of smart
metering thereby reducing the prospect of innovative tariffs.


I'm so glad Waitrose and Tescos don't have
"innovative tariffs"

:)

--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

In that case I shan't read any further.

I'm sure I will get over that, somehow. I've already wasted enough of
my time trying to help your understanding. Try doing some research of
your own if you are really interested - and if you are not, don't
troll.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
...
In article , Stan The Man
writes
This limits the development of smart
metering thereby reducing the prospect of innovative tariffs.


I'm so glad Waitrose and Tescos don't have
"innovative tariffs"

:)

I wouldn't know one if it jumped out and shouted at me :-)

Mary

UK drought - end in sight
 

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult) and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect.

It wasn't.

The words were a successful political ploy by the then Labour party, they
took people in by it.

Even with a rebating system, a tax payable in respect of individuals
rather than income or wealth sounded awfully like a capitation, or poll
tax, to me: I didn't need the information mediated by a political
party. We can quibble over terminology, and perhaps we can disagree
over whether it was a good thing or a bad one -- though I imagine we
can agree it was badly presented; but it was a tax on people, not on
anything else.

--
Mike.

UK drought - end in sight
 

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
ups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult)
and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect.

It wasn't.

The words were a successful political ploy by the then Labour party, they
took people in by it.

Even with a rebating system, a tax payable in respect of individuals
rather than income or wealth sounded awfully like a capitation, or poll
tax, to me:

It wasn't payable by ALL people so it wasn't a poll tax.

Mary

UK drought - end in sight
 

Stan The Man writes

Any chance of keeping this thread on-topic?

That would be a bit out of character for urg, wouldn't it? ;-)
--
Kay

UK drought - end in sight
 

In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Janet Tweedy" wrote in message
[...]
The poll tax was based on per unit of consumption, (i.e. per adult)
and
that didn't go down too well!

We haven't had a poll tax for centuries!

Well, that was one in effect.

It wasn't.

The words were a successful political ploy by the then Labour party, they
took people in by it.

Even with a rebating system, a tax payable in respect of individuals
rather than income or wealth sounded awfully like a capitation, or poll
tax, to me:

It wasn't payable by ALL people so it wasn't a poll tax.

Any chance of keeping this thread on-topic? You could try a new thread
to discuss the poll tax if you think it's relevant to this ng.

UK drought - end in sight
 

K wrote:
Stan The Man writes

Any chance of keeping this thread on-topic?

That would be a bit out of character for urg, wouldn't it? ;-)

If I hadn't cut the Gordian knot by going away for a week and allowing
Mary and me to agree to differ on the niceties, I might have felt like
trying to prove it _was_ on topic in water-use terms! But enough's
enough -- till next time.

--
Mike.