Wales just has a lot of water, as in general does the western parts of the country, so there is less to be said for metering, etc, there. S Wales suffered especially badly in 1976, but I think the money has been spent to connect S Wales consumers to nearby resources since then. Your bills may not have gone up so much recently, but they are still fairly high in comparison to most of the rest of us. It is probably related to the history of the timing of investments. I think the highest bills are in the SW of England, where the topography and distribution of the population results in much more pipe in the ground per person than any other part of the country.

Not for profit companies certainly mean that the political inconvenience of profit observed to be paid out to shareholders doesn't exist. Whether this actually reduces total cost is another matter. In general industry without a profit motive has in the long run proved to be inefficient, though it does not always have to be the case.

I'm still not convinced by a lot of the arguments. My water rates are about fifty percent of my community charge, at one time it was just fraction of it and we didn't have hosepipe bans.

A lot of money is being made out of water by utility companies since privatisation, many of them foreign owned.
Successive governments and these firms have had time enough to resolve the problem.

In message , Doghouse Riley
writes

echinosum;951771 Wrote:
Wales just has a lot of water, as in general does the western parts of
the country, so there is less to be said for metering, etc, there. S
Wales suffered especially badly in 1976, but I think the money has been
spent to connect S Wales consumers to nearby resources since then. Your
bills may not have gone up so much recently, but they are still fairly
high in comparison to most of the rest of us. It is probably related to
the history of the timing of investments. I think the highest bills are
in the SW of England, where the topography and distribution of the
population results in much more pipe in the ground per person than any
other part of the country.

Not for profit companies certainly mean that the political inconvenience
of profit observed to be paid out to shareholders doesn't exist.
Whether this actually reduces total cost is another matter. In general
industry without a profit motive has in the long run proved to be
inefficient, though it does not always have to be the case.

I'm still not convinced by a lot of the arguments. My water rates are
about fifty percent of my community charge, at one time it was just
fraction of it and we didn't have hosepipe bans.

Well demand has probably gone up as population increases and usage per
person has probably gone up too with auto washing machines car washing
etc. Meanwhile supply in the form of reservoir capacity has probably
remained the same. We could of course flood another Welsh valley to get
round that.
A lot of money is being made out of water by utility companies since
privatisation, many of them foreign owned.
Successive governments and these firms have had time enough to resolve
the problem.




Much of the water infrastructure consists of old Victorian cast iron
pipe. These are now very brittle and break relatively easily. There is
constant investment in new replacement pipes which will pay off in the
long run.
This capital has to be raised some how either by offering private
investors a reasonable return or by extra taxes or water charges.
Provided an unhealthy monopoly situation doesn't develop then as a
general rule the private company will deliver a better return to the
customer even after allowing for dividends.
--
hugh

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Doghouse Riley
writes

echinosum;951771 Wrote:
Wales just has a lot of water, as in general does the western parts of
the country, so there is less to be said for metering, etc, there. S
Wales suffered especially badly in 1976, but I think the money has been
spent to connect S Wales consumers to nearby resources since then. Your
bills may not have gone up so much recently, but they are still fairly
high in comparison to most of the rest of us. It is probably related to
the history of the timing of investments. I think the highest bills are
in the SW of England, where the topography and distribution of the
population results in much more pipe in the ground per person than any
other part of the country.

Not for profit companies certainly mean that the political inconvenience
of profit observed to be paid out to shareholders doesn't exist.
Whether this actually reduces total cost is another matter. In general
industry without a profit motive has in the long run proved to be
inefficient, though it does not always have to be the case.

I'm still not convinced by a lot of the arguments. My water rates are
about fifty percent of my community charge, at one time it was just
fraction of it and we didn't have hosepipe bans.

Well demand has probably gone up as population increases and usage per
person has probably gone up too with auto washing machines car washing
etc. Meanwhile supply in the form of reservoir capacity has probably
remained the same. We could of course flood another Welsh valley to get
round that.
A lot of money is being made out of water by utility companies since
privatisation, many of them foreign owned.
Successive governments and these firms have had time enough to resolve
the problem.




Much of the water infrastructure consists of old Victorian cast iron pipe.
These are now very brittle and break relatively easily. There is constant
investment in new replacement pipes which will pay off in the long run.
This capital has to be raised some how either by offering private
investors a reasonable return or by extra taxes or water charges.
Provided an unhealthy monopoly situation doesn't develop then as a general
rule the private company will deliver a better return to the customer even
after allowing for dividends.
--
hugh


Sounds as if you are an executive of Southern Water.
Get a good bonus this year did you? ................................ and who
do you think paid for it?

Mike


--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:01:22 +0000, echinosum
wrote:


Jake;951587 Wrote:
Don't forget Wales is different - most of Wales is covered by a
non-profit company so there are no shareholders.


Wales just has a lot of water, as in general does the western parts of
the country, so there is less to be said for metering, etc, there. S
Wales suffered especially badly in 1976, but I think the money has been
spent to connect S Wales consumers to nearby resources since then.

Funnily enough I was just wondering if I had imagined that, We were
having a bowl wash in a S Wales layby having kipped in the car
overnight . A local made a point of saying we should not be wasting
water and didn't really like it when I pointed out the 10 gallons of
water in ex cider barrels in the boot we had brought from Hampshire to
be self sufficient for the weekend having heard about the problems.
Maybe he went on to set fire to a cottage to appease his bad attitude.

G.Harman

The water companies are very heavily regulated, both in terms of what they can charge and what capital schemes they must deliver. They are not run as charities whether publicly, privately or private-not-for-profit, so if they are directed to deliver a capital scheme you pay for it. The govt could direct water companies to construct sufficient storage capacity etc to allow people to sprinkle their lawns through the driest summer imaginable, but this costs a lot of money and the customers would have to pay for it. What you end up with in such a case is what they have in the NE - Kielder Water, Britain's largest reservoir, whose water is never touched most years, as it is expensive even to pump it to Newcastle, and it is only needed in the driest years. It was built at a time when the govt thought that industrial water use would grow, but in practice the heavy industry all closed. But at least there was the land and the rainfall for Kielder Water so by the standards of these things it wasn't very expensive, building the equivalent in the SE of England would be hugely expensive. And pumping Kielder's water down to the SE would be more expensive than desalination.

Even leakage control is expensive, which is why the govt regulates how much leakage control the water companies do and how much money they are paid for doing it. Leakage control is more expensive to deliver in heavily urbanised areas, which is why the level of leakage control done in London is less than in other areas. The government determines this, because it is the economic level of leakage control.

Most people would, perhaps, prefer to pay less and have the odd hosepipe ban in a dry year. As I said previously, the major water companies in the SW, Southern and Thames, have applied to build major new reservoirs, but have been refused permission to do so.

A government agency called the Office of Water Services was set up in 1989 and has been considering these things very carefully over the years since then. It simply is not politically feasible to build so much water resource that there is never a water shortage, because it would increase the bills. Much better to encourage people to be more modest in their usage of water.

I expect you will find that the level of leakage from the UK's pipes is low. But it will be hard to verify this, because in the kind of disorganised country where the level of leakage is very high, you just won't get the data.

In message ,
writes
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:01:22 +0000, echinosum
wrote:


Jake;951587 Wrote:
Don't forget Wales is different - most of Wales is covered by a
non-profit company so there are no shareholders.


Wales just has a lot of water, as in general does the western parts of
the country, so there is less to be said for metering, etc, there. S
Wales suffered especially badly in 1976, but I think the money has been
spent to connect S Wales consumers to nearby resources since then.

Funnily enough I was just wondering if I had imagined that, We were
having a bowl wash in a S Wales layby having kipped in the car
overnight . A local made a point of saying we should not be wasting
water and didn't really like it when I pointed out the 10 gallons of
water in ex cider barrels in the boot we had brought from Hampshire to
be self sufficient for the weekend having heard about the problems.
Maybe he went on to set fire to a cottage to appease his bad attitude.

G.Harman
LOL
--
hugh

If people did that, it would be a waste of water. But is there any evidence that they actually do?

In article , echinosum
writes
The graphic in the BBC article tells me that the Chilterns have had
about 80-90% of our normal rainfall, which is consistent with what my
rain-gauge tells me. Nevertheless the River Chess in nearby Chesham has
completely dried up, so I suspect that it is at least partly to do with
timing of the rainfall


Yet the Misbourne down here through Amersham is quite high! (Mind you if
the HS2 comes no doubt it'll drain Shardeloes lake and we'll lose it
all)
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk

In article , Doghouse Riley
writes
The problem is that utility companies sold off by the Conservatives are
now a money making business not a service.


Well if the Midlands construction industries want work so much they are
prepared to steamroller the HS2 across the Chilterns why don't they use
the same amount of money and put a pipe between the North and the South
to provide water? Better still don't waste money on the Olympics use
that money as well to distribute water!
--
Janet Tweedy
Dalmatian Telegraph
http://www.lancedal.demon.co.uk