Forum menu
restricting supplies is not an 'easy' option. It is only something that is done where it must be.
Choice in who you buy water from would be unlikely to make a difference in this type of situation. Even if you could choose the provider, the resource is still finite and only available from certain locations, all of which are heavily regulated as to how much can be taken.
jota180 - MemberBut you can also buy a water butt pump http://www.hozelock.com/watering/garden-pumps/water-butt-pump.html to connect to a hose to to water your garden.
I reckon that would fall foul of the regs too
You're right Jota
From those in the know
"the new legislation says that "you can't use a hose to draw water for recreational use" that includes filling a butt""
Br - the customer hasn't paid as the companies are cash negative as assets are paid for over their lifetime. So given most assets are 40+ years life so they've not been paid for. They have been paid for by debt else bills would not be affordable in any one year.
The companies make reasonable returns but you have to to attract the investors because of the above issue.
I cant think of a single company who would want to restrict supplies if they didn't have to? No revenue benefit, no media benefit? No cost saving?
I'd be more worried about your price of food which will be an issue if the drought continues. And power (where they abstract from rivers for cooling water)
Am I right in saying no one has actually been prosecuted in the past couple of droughts?
I was at Yorkshire Water during the mid-90s drought, manic times. We did build a pipeline at YW, yes - the Tees-Wiske transfer.
The last few km weren't connected though, as it's a measure of last resort. The water chemistry is significantly different and plonking that water into the Wiske would have a rather big impact on the ecology. So YW would only be likely to be allowed to use it [i]in extremis[/i], as they'd need permission from the EA.
The cost-benefit trade-off would come down to societal needs vs the environmental damage. The industry has done a lot in the last 15 years or so on cost benefit analysis, so it'd be interesting to see how that panned out.
I imagine we'll be seeing a fair bit of that in the future as the effects of climate change become apparent. The ELL should shift so I'd anticipate that leakage levels will be driven lower to some degree but that's not a foregone conclusion.
If the water company would consider reducing my fee's when a hose pipe ban is on then I would comply.
they do, their investment programme is based on one hosepipe ban every 10 years IIRC, never want a hosepipe ban then pay for more infrastructure
And it looks like they are struggling, not:http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/company-comment/2010/11/30/these-dividends-look-watertight.aspx
suggested reading
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/competition/review/prs_web_competition_mrf
the water industry in England and Wales is an exercise in off balance sheet financing of environmental improvements. The big issue for the recent Water White Paper was to propose reform without triggering a round of refinancing which in turn would have put bill's up.
The Scottish and the N Irish are going to have to come up with an innovative way of financing their future capital spend which is about to hit them like a financial tsunami
we need some of those wind turbines to switch to blow and send the rain darn sarf
wind farms on a catchment increase the cost to treat the water as the access roads etc disturb the deep peat moors, never seen a windfarm company cough up any compensation yet
And surely we could route it alongside the HS2, at least that way the NIMBY's would see a point to it?
somebody has already though of that harebrained scheme
Send our hard-earned Northern water down south?
Nah, get lost, they should just learn not to waste all theirs in the first place and then assume the rest of the country will bail them out.
Surely if there's a hosepipe ban there's not need to wash your bike? Maybe wipe the dust off from time time.
This!!! 😆