Water shortage can be eased... by charging more!

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by chocolate_frog, Jun 7, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Saw this and wondered where all the plans that were put forward post 76,for building all these new reservoirs had gone,knowing of course that some have been sold off in the last 10 years,WTF?

    That twat of an engineer wants a sharp impliment shoved up his arse,how about this for a plan,it rains a lot in the North of the country,but not in the South,find an easy way to transport the water from the north to the south...................in my garden I can transport water to any part by using a hosepipe (but not at the moment),how about we make a big pipeline from the north to the south..................nah to ******* easy,and no engineers involved!

    Oh,and as our water is no longer nationalised,how about making the Water Companies pay for it,oh look,a Wessex Saddleback with wings. /images/smilies/icon_giggle.gif
  2. This seems to be SOP for any shortages, charge more. If the water companies were charged for the leakages that they haven't repaired that would make a bit more sense. I believe that some fire brigades have noted a drop in mains pressure, denied by the water companies.
  3. Does this mean the worlds wettest drought is now over?
    • Like Like x 2
  4. The population of this country is a lot more than what official figures say. They're gonna use water as well.
  5. How about the water companies divert some of those enormous profits they're making to sorting out their supply-side shit and making sure that they're not squandering vast amounts of it before it even reaches the taps?

    Not that I really give a shit. Up here, we didn't fall for that 'private sector efficiency' bollocks so we don't need to pay for what someone else throws away.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Every house should be metered & then you pay for what you use. Why should a single person living alone pay the same as a family of 12 or more?
  7. Anything from 30% - 45% of the water in the pipes leaks away.
  8. I'd imagine there would be a fair few engineers involved in such a project.
  9. ancienturion

    ancienturion LE Book Reviewer

    That is the problem at present. The water companies have run around reviling the British public for using so much water in a drought. They promptly declared bans with the result that people used less water. That means less money for the water companies if meters are involved hence the panic "start using hoses again" campaign recently even though aquifers are not topped up yet.

    The water companies are all for making money and, in some cases, for foreign interests. The idea of reducing leaks, providing a grid system of pipes to move water around the country (the gas people managed it quite easily for North Sea gas), and maintaining reservoirs rather than selling them, means they would not have such large profits. This means forward planning and investment is ignored.

    In brief it is much easier to hit the population with higher bills, meters or no.
  10. The shortage can be easily remedied by diluting it, the stuff will go much further then.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. I worked for Severn Trent water for about seven months (just to have something to do) and there was an interesting article on the intranet with instructions on how to convince folks who rang up that it wasn't in their best interests to have water-meters fitted. The main tactic was to tell folks that when they had a water-meter fitted and their consumption proved to be higher, they couldn't have it removed. Which is a blatant lie. There's nothing in the regulations stating that it can't be removed.

    Water companies hate the idea of univeral water-meters because it would provide accurate figures of just how much they're wasting by not fixing the pipeline system. At Severn Trent, the estimation was around 40 percent losses. That's water wasted but still paid for by consumers because it's unmetered. I'd advocate everybody getting a water-meter. Then the shysters would have no excuse but to repair the leaky system.

    • Like Like x 1
  12. I opted for a meter and my bill dropped by more than a half.

    My next door neighbours (the family from hell) are unmetered and can use as much as they like. Considering there are 12 of them bathing, showering and shitting. Washing cars & the 'dog pound' with a high pressure washer; filling friggin paddling pools, it would be more expensive for them yet it is families like them that are using the most.
  13. Depends, don't it. If the single person lives alone in a property with a swimming pool and big lawns front and back... ...while the family of 12 lives on the 8th floor... ...or is French...

    Increasing prices to cut consumption will only have an effect on metered supplies - and then only in the short term. Non-metered users will probably increase their usage just to get their money's worth.

    And what of the revenue? Used to fix the leaks? Not likely. It'll end up in bank accounts, either as a result of industrial action, bosses' greed or dividends on shares.

    A bit more legislation with effective enforcement is necessary to ensure that distribution wastage is reduced and to encourage (read compel) the use of grey water in new-build industries and housing. And while thinking about that, think about how to collect and distribute the massive volume of grey water that is currently wasted, such as that from road run-off.
  14. And if you go on to a meter, the simple expedient of a grey water system in the house would save a fair bit...

    ie rain water - shower water - washer water - toilet water.