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