Reservoir Watch

[Timmytour]

Not everyone can have children, you know. I work and pay taxes. I also pay NI, even tho' I am opted out.

I'm not entirely convinced that many of the 'future taxpayers' will in fact be paying tax, looking at the number of welfare families being encouraged to breed without constraint.

Sorry, but that sort of comment (above) gets my dander up. If people choose to have a family then they should be able to support them - and if they use more water (and all of its associated services) than others then they should pay a little extra for it.

Calm down dear....it's only a post on a forum! :lol:

Seriously, I'd ask you to think about the point more deeply. This country simply cannot afford NOT to have people making the choice to have children. By saying that I am stating a blatantly obvious truth. But please note, that blatant truth does NOT include any kind of condemnation of those who don't have children, or any belittling of the contribution they make through their taxes and National Insurance.

I've no qualms about parenting being a lifstyle choice (for the most part anyway). And my comments are certainly not aimed AGAINST those who choose not to, while my sympathies are very much there for people who might wish it but find themselves unable to.

My whole argument is based on the principle I disagree with, namely putting houses on water meters and charging them dependent on the amount they use. I simply don't see why two working people with no children should pay less for their water supply simply because they use less water then for example a family with one working parent who will invariably use more.

The former is already better off financially. Why do they need to increase that financial advantage with the implementation of a system that charges for water by the amount used? Think about it...its water, for God's sake. Not oil, or electricity or petrol or schools, but water!

We'll be saying fat people have got to pay more for the air that they breathe or because they expel more methane into the air next! :lol:

JBD

Is it not the case now that those on water meters already pay by their usage? I understand where you come from regarding the desire to assess need, but I think we both know what the real motivation behind water metering is. So I think the library analogy stands up very well.

The only way I could see it working on a metering situation is if average use was established over the course of a year and then fines(rather than charges) were implemented (in times of shortage ONLY) by a failure to reduce use by a certain percentage relative to that average use. But imagine the bureacratic nightmare this would involve with people moving houses and new houses being built all the time. Money would be better spent elsewhere!

I think the supply of water should be based on a community response...ie in times of shortage we don't cast our eyes around for who is using it most, but all work together to conserve it. I'm all in favour of hosepipe bans as well. I think we need to do our bit when water is scarce, but we also need to do our bit when it's plentiful. Now - that doesn't necessarily mean conserving it at times such as we are experiencing now (especially if it's running out to sea anyway), but drawing attention to what can all too easily be forgotten about during such times. One day we will have shortages again, so let's think about what we were doing when supply was bountiful - how were we putting aside something for a dry day!

This thread is in that spirit!

Edited January 15, 2008 by Timmytour

[Just Before Dawn]

JBD

Is it not the case now that those on water meters already pay by their usage? I understand where you come from regarding the desire to assess need, but I think we both know what the real motivation behind water metering is. So I think the library analogy stands up very well.

The only way I could see it working on a metering situation is if average use was established over the course of a year and then fines(rather than charges) were implemented (in times of shortage ONLY) by a failure to reduce use by a certain percentage relative to that average use. But imagine the bureacratic nightmare this would involve with people moving houses and new houses being built all the time. Money would be better spent elsewhere!

I think the supply of water should be based on a community response...ie in times of shortage we don't cast our eyes around for who is using it most, but all work together to conserve it. I'm all in favour of hosepipe bans as well. I think we need to do our bit when water is scarce, but we also need to do our bit when it's plentiful. Now - that doesn't necessarily mean conserving it at times such as we are experiencing now (especially if it's running out to sea anyway), but drawing attention to what can all too easily be forgotten about during such times. One day we will have shortages again, so let's think about what we were doing when supply was bountiful - how were we putting aside something for a dry day!

This thread is in that spirit!

Hooray - we agree. You're right of course about metering - the water companies would like to use it for pricing and billing - you're also right that with water it is more complicated than that. In some respects, one would hope that OFWAT would be able to de-couple the need for metering with mechanisms for charging - they don't need to be linked at all - as you say the water rates system worked reasonably well, and metering doesn't take into account the sort of social and economic issues which are perfectly pertinent to pricing issues if used as a pricing and billing mechanism.

AMP5 will shortly be enacted (in fact it might have already passed) so water companies will be scabbling around at present trying to assess their infrastructure needs over the next AMP reporting period. It'll be interesting to note how different the submissions of water companies are, particularly those who have a high level of meter data (Anglian Water, for example) to those which don't.

[Mr Sleet]

Cheeky, I'm sorry but this is a classic example of the ignorant being led by the unknowing into areas where they know very little. Having worked with several of the UK's water companies I can assure you that you would much rather pay for a system that has excess capacity built in but which is leaky, than one which never leaks. There's a principle in most network asset operations of economic return, and it can be applied to almost any asset to determine the optimum range of operation of the asset, such that the cost of repair and maintenance does not go beyond a point at, on one end of the scale, service is inadequate, and on the other service is too expensive. I daresay you don't take your car to the garage for a check up every week do you, nor I bet do you turn the engine off when you're sat in a queue. Equally with water, FAR more is wasted by needless and wasteful use (e.g. washing cars, watering of gardens up and down the country, excess toilet flush, faulty overflows...) every year than is lost through uneconomic loss from leaky pipes.

Well with a leak rate close on 40 % for Thames Water , then by your reasoning say another 50% of water use is wasteful and unnecessary, we should be able to get by on 10% of the water that we actually use

Not everyone can have children, you know. I work and pay taxes. I also pay NI, even tho' I am opted out.

I'm not entirely convinced that many of the 'future taxpayers' will in fact be paying tax, looking at the number of welfare families being encouraged to breed without constraint.

Sorry, but that sort of comment (above) gets my dander up. If people choose to have a family then they should be able to support them - and if they use more water (and all of its associated services) than others then they should pay a little extra for it.

If I go to B&Q and buy huge quantities of a particular product I would expect a discount for a bulk buy. The same should be true of water consumption for people with families. Like me.

[Timmytour]

If I go to B&Q and buy huge quantities of a particular product I would expect a discount for a bulk buy. The same should be true of water consumption for people with families. Like me.

Ahhh but you see, those without kids are capable of using equally copious amounts of water. It's just that while we use it on the likes of bathing the kids and getting their clothes clean, they use it making their gardens look nice.

So in time of shortage the mutual arrangement might be that they will stop using water on their gardens and we will stop washing the kids and their clothes

[LadyPakal]

If I go to B&Q and buy huge quantities of a particular product I would expect a discount for a bulk buy. The same should be true of water consumption for people with families. Like me.

Whereas at the moment it's like you and I in a supermarket and you expecting me to pay part of the bill for your shopping at the checkout?

Ahhh but you see, those without kids are capable of using equally copious amounts of water. It's just that while we use it on the likes of bathing the kids and getting their clothes clean, they use it making their gardens look nice.

So in time of shortage the mutual arrangement might be that they will stop using water on their gardens and we will stop washing the kids and their clothes

Since when did kids object to being dirty? It is their natural state surely?

[The PIT]

I don't see why anyone should be expected to pay for something they don't use. Imagine having no gas but have to pay a gas bill you'd be up in arms. Meters are a fairer system but also a short term solution. Once everyone has got them expect the prices to shoot up as the Water Companies will have less income coming.

Anyway this thread is now getting political and probably needs to be moved.

Edited January 15, 2008 by The PIT

[Timmytour]

I don't see why anyone should be expected to pay for something they don't use. Imagine having no gas but have to pay a gas bill you'd be up in arms. Meters are a fairer system but also a short term solution. Once everyone has got them expect the prices to shoot up as the Water Companies will have less income coming.

Anyway this thread is now getting political and probably needs to be moved.

The point is that water is supplied free to the companies that pass it onto us, so what gives them the right to charge us for the amount we use? That's the big difference from gas, electricity, oil etc. What we need to pay for is the infrastructure which is fair enough, but that apart, a heavy user is not costing the companies that supply us any more than a light user is.

And with the present plentiful supply, there's no better time to drive home that point then now.

It's a little political...but being kept lighthearted and in context. and I still maintain that the point in the original post of the thread, about how we should be working on harvesting the current excess of water we are getting from the sky, is still relevant

Since when did kids object to being dirty? It is their natural state surely?

They never do...it's us parents who do the objecting!

[The PIT]

The point is that water is supplied free to the companies that pass it onto us, so what gives them the right to charge us for the amount we use? That's the big difference from gas, electricity, oil etc. What we need to pay for is the infrastructure which is fair enough, but that apart, a heavy user is not costing the companies that supply us any more than a light user is.

Water is free. Damns cost Money Electricity to power the pumps cost money so if you're using more you taking a larger part of the cake and should pay more. Gas is also free at the point of source as is oil.

[LadyPakal]

Just 'cos the water is free doesn't mean it gets to your house in a form suitable and safe for drinking by itself. Each gallon of water has a unit cost based on everything done to it when taken from the reservoir, transport costs and post-use treatments at the sewage works.

[Stratos Ferric]

Amen. Two other things to consider here - not all of our potable water comes from reservoirs - I live on top of a commercially abstracted aquifer where groundwater is abstracted for domestic purposes. Our aquifer was abstracted in the late 90's to the point where Anglian Water voluntarily ceased abstraction on environmental grounds. I doubt that direct aquifer abstraction is commercially significant (SF?) but it is environmentally sensitive and these do require time to recharge.

Secondly, as SF says, there's always a trade off in complex systems between robustness and commercial realism. Just as our gas and electricity grid would not cope with every single eventuality, nor will our water infrastructure. What it is, is remarkable for the cost. I was recently involved in the expansion of Rutland Water (from an environmental point-of-view) and the figures Anglian Water produced regarding water 'leakage' in their system, compared with expanding the capacity at Rutland were eye-watering.

Personally, I'd love to see everyone metered.

Agree with everyone being metered, and this is the regulator's direction of travel. Contrary to the views of one or two on here metered houses tend to see bills fall precisely because people become a lot less careless with their consumption.

You're quite correct re aquifers being a source: I think Thames also uses some chalk storage for London, but all abstraction is carried out under licence, granted by the EA, including from rivers - the strategy of a lot of water co.s now is to take from Rivers when ever they can to protect stored water for dry periods: the caveat tends to be that river water can require more treatment, particularly if it's full of nitrates (cattle effluent / fertilizer etc.).

It's interesting, the real cost of stopping leakage - quite apart from finding the leaks in the first place - tends to be reinstating the surface. Electricity and telephones (copper, not fibre) have one big advantage in that impedence can be used to calculate where a break in circuit is occuring. Finding a leak can require a lot of hole digging. You simply don't do it for small leaks.

[rossco89]

Loch doon was full, its 5 miles long, 1 mile wide and about 500ft deep.

They have had they dam gates opened for the past few days, so the river is very high still, anymore water and it will be over the banking.

[Stratos Ferric]

...One more thing... I think the general principle of water metering leads to a situation where in times of shortage, the price of water rises. And that would lead to a situation where the well-to do could afford to continue watering their gardens while those least able to afford it would be watching every cup they drank, and become wary of flushing thier toilets.

While I regard myself as being on a different side of a fence than those who advocate socialism, that prospect fills me with dread. I think it's inevitable as far as the likes of electricity and gas are concerned, but god forbid we ever get to a situation where the freedom to use water is designated by how wealthy you are!

TT, why you imagine variable charging for water I do not know. Water charges are set by the regulator, and the regulator's determinations, certianly in the previous rounds of consideration, have all been based on the investment in infrastructure and service delivery achieved by the various water companies.

Be assured that your continuity of supply is far better served now than ever it was with small local boards, particularly if you are in any of Anglian, Yorkshire or Thames service areas.

[Timmytour]

Water is free. Damns cost Money Electricity to power the pumps cost money so if you're using more you taking a larger part of the cake and should pay more. Gas is also free at the point of source as is oil.

Oil and gas are free? With logic like that I can't argue B)

TT, why you imagine variable charging for water I do not know. Water charges are set by the regulator, and the regulator's determinations, certianly in the previous rounds of consideration, have all been based on the investment in infrastructure and service delivery achieved by the various water companies.

Be assured that your continuity of supply is far better served now than ever it was with small local boards, particularly if you are in any of Anglian, Yorkshire or Thames service areas.

If there is to be no charging for water based on the amount "consumed" (which is what I am against), what is the need for water meters? How would they affect the regulators view on the basis for charges as you have described?

Just 'cos the water is free doesn't mean it gets to your house in a form suitable and safe for drinking by itself. Each gallon of water has a unit cost based on everything done to it when taken from the reservoir, transport costs and post-use treatments at the sewage works.

In other words it's a completely artificial means of determining a price. The traditional means, such as supply and demand go completely out of the window. Here we are in winter with demand relatively low and supply incredibly high. But I've not heard of any rush to cut the cost of water coming to us.

All I'm saying is using ten times the amount of water as your next door neighbour has no bearing on the cost of producing that water in the first place. What should be charged for is the ability to have water supplied in the first place. The differential in charge should relate to the size of the property more than the amount of water being consumed. I refer you back to the point regarding charging people for librarian services based on the amount of books they borrow. This, in my opinion, is the same argument as determining how the cost for the infrastructure to provide water should be determined by the amount used.

[LadyPakal]

In other words it's a completely artificial means of determining a price. The traditional means, such as supply and demand go completely out of the window. Here we are in winter with demand relatively low and supply incredibly high. But I've not heard of any rush to cut the cost of water coming to us.

Except that it is probably an annual charge divided by number of users, then by month for those paying monthly. Similar (but not identical) to the way the gas board/electricity company charge those paying by DD monthly - they average your annual use then divide by 12, so the same amount of money is collected each month. It's nicer than getting clouted hard with a huge bill in cold weather when you use more, but you pay more in summer than you use. I expect that people tend to use more water in the summer however with outdoor activities - gardens, paddling pools, car washing etc. - being less likely in winter.

In Scotland the water rates are actually collected with our Council Tax and the charge is annual.

[Timmytour]

Except that it is probably an annual charge divided by number of users, then by month for those paying monthly. Similar (but not identical) to the way the gas board/electricity company charge those paying by DD monthly - they average your annual use then divide by 12, so the same amount of money is collected each month. It's nicer than getting clouted hard with a huge bill in cold weather when you use more, but you pay more in summer than you use. I expect that people tend to use more water in the summer however with outdoor activities - gardens, paddling pools, car washing etc. - being less likely in winter.

In Scotland the water rates are actually collected with our Council Tax and the charge is annual.

I don't see much to disagree with here. I'm assuming that water rates in Scotland are not determined by individual usage?

I've never disagreed with the notion that it costs money to provide the infrastructure to store and supply water. What I have been at pains to emphasise is the fact that there is no cost to the companies involved in getting the water in the first place. It is not similar to oil and gas (which some have suggested). There are no international markets for water in the commodities exchange with prices going up and down on a daily basis, nor are there imports and exports of the stuff. It rains...the water arrives. No need to drill deep down into ocean beds, spend money on finding the stuff in the first place, pay money to buy the rights to it nor drill down deep into ocean beds to then get at it.

So I don't consider that water companies have the right to charge for it on a usage basis. When you previously said that there is a designated "per gallon" charge...what is this based on? The amount available to provide or the amount actually used?

Let's say it's on usage. That would mean the more we use the cheaper it is, and vice versa....which is a bit ridiculous when you think of it.

What about it being on supply? Well that would indicate that the cost per gallon would have fallen dramatically in the last year or so, especially when measured against the previous year. But to whose benefit? Certainly the companies will need to spend just as much on their infrastructure as ever.

I'm advocating that Water Companies should be made to spend a certain percentage of their turnover on the provision of new storage facilities, and that it's particularly important to be thinking about this when we are being as "blessed" with an abundance of water, rather than at a time when we are forced into panic measures because of a shortage. I'm not even against prices rising a wee bit to accomodate this. But I am against the principle that water is charged in the same way as gas and electricity ie on a units used basis.

[LadyPakal]

So I don't consider that water companies have the right to charge for it on a usage basis. When you previously said that there is a designated "per gallon" charge...what is this based on? The amount available to provide or the amount actually used?

Unit cost consists of getting a 'unit' of water from the reservoir/river/waterwell to your tap, in potable form, and removing & treating a 'unit' of water waste. The cost increases as water consumption increases, for obvious reasons. 2 'units' cost maybe a little less than double (chemicals, electricity etc.), discounting the initial infrastructure costs.

It is not similar to oil and gas (which some have suggested).

Untrue. The oil and gas sit in reservoirs totally free and waiting to be extracted. In the same way as it may be necessary to drill down to a water reservoir or you need to create a pipe network to remove water from a reservoir, so it is the same for extracting oil or gas. Just a little tricker and probably more expensive. Once the infrastructure is there, the costs of extraction decrease. I work in the Oil & Gas sector so I know.

Licensing from the government for exploration & extraction is required, but that's not much different for the water companies either.

I don't see much to disagree with here. I'm assuming that water rates in Scotland are not determined by individual usage?

No it's not, but we don't have water shortages here.

Edited January 16, 2008 by LadyPakal

[Stratos Ferric]

Just 'cos the water is free doesn't mean it gets to your house in a form suitable and safe for drinking by itself. Each gallon of water has a unit cost based on everything done to it when taken from the reservoir, transport costs and post-use treatments at the sewage works.

Mine's free: don't pay a diddly penny. And it rots the pipes: I'm sure my encroaching Alzheimers is being encouraged by all the extra copper I must be consuming.

[LadyPakal]

Hmm, addendum. Not counting those with their own private water wells/supply.

Edited January 17, 2008 by LadyPakal

[Timmytour]

Untrue. The oil and gas sit in reservoirs totally free and waiting to be extracted. In the same way as it may be necessary to drill down to a water reservoir or you need to create a pipe network to remove water from a reservoir, so it is the same for extracting oil or gas. Just a little tricker and probably more expensive. Once the infrastructure is there, the costs of extraction decrease. I work in the Oil & Gas sector so I know.

Licensing from the government for exploration & extraction is required, but that's not much different for the water companies either.

Hang on a sec....you don't consider the need to pay a government for a licence to explore and extract...is in effect paying for the oil?

Do you consider that we have as much right to the oil in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran etc etc as do the governments of those countries? Or does a little thing like "supply" enter the equation???????

As I think I've said of someone else on this thread...I can't argue with you if you're asserting that oil and gas are like water because they are essentially free with an inexhaustible supply. You're on a different planet and it's probably too difficult for you to hear me.

Oil got upto $100 a barrel on the international markets not long ago. What price was water trading at then?

Edited January 17, 2008 by Timmytour

[LadyPakal]

They don't pay for a license - the companies make 'bids' - they say they'll drill so many wells or shoot so much seismic and the gov decides who to give the license to for a set period of time (several years maybe). They are then taxed on the money they make from selling the oil, assuming they actually find any.

Some UK oil & gas companies are extracting oil from Iraq or Kuwait etc. Usually the companies form a coalition (several companies work together, splitting the costs & profits).

Who said it's inexhaustable - not me. However, if you had oil bubbling up in your garden I doubt you'd not consider it 'free'.

Water does cost more than oil - certainly bottled water does. $100 a barrel (£50 or so). A barrel of oil is 159 litres.

[PersianPaladin]

Kielder Reservoir is always full.

Glug glug.

[Timmytour]

They don't pay for a license - the companies make 'bids' - they say they'll drill so many wells or shoot so much seismic and the gov decides who to give the license to for a set period of time (several years maybe). They are then taxed on the money they make from selling the oil, assuming they actually find any.

Some UK oil & gas companies are extracting oil from Iraq or Kuwait etc. Usually the companies form a coalition (several companies work together, splitting the costs & profits).

Who said it's inexhaustable - not me. However, if you had oil bubbling up in your garden I doubt you'd not consider it 'free'.

Water does cost more than oil - certainly bottled water does. $100 a barrel (£50 or so). A barrel of oil is 159 litres.

Oh Christ! The price of bottled water argument Have things sunk that low?

Anyway, ignoring that complete irrelevance... ...... I'd say that if I found a supply of oil in my garden I'd be looking to make money from it. If I found a supply of water I'd think about building a pond. there's a big big big difference.

Charging for oil by the amount used makes sense because there isn't an inexhaustible supply, there are NEVER times when we can afford to waste it, and conserving its will always be beneficial.

Whereas we are probably at the point now where conserving water is a redundant exercise because what we don't use now will have absolutely no impact on what's available in six months time.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...those who advocate charging for the domestic use of water by the amount used, use arguments that would be valid for charging for library services by the amount of books taken out on loan, or even the amount of time spent inside library buildings. There a logic in the argument....but not all logic makes for common sense!

[Coast]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...those who advocate charging for the domestic use of water by the amount used, use arguments that would be valid for charging for library services by the amount of books taken out on loan, or even the amount of time spent inside library buildings. There a logic in the argument....but not all logic makes for common sense!

So Tesco's should charge by the size of the shopping basket you use, not by the cost of the shopping you have in it...........?

Edited January 17, 2008 by Coast

[LadyPakal]

And I've said this before (but maybe not here) - there are always going to be some people who are happy to have others subsidise their lifestyles. Doesn't mean I have to be happy paying for it.

Still, it's not like I have any choice in the matter, is it?

If charging on amount of water used makes people think before wasting it, then I consider it a good idea personally.

Edited January 17, 2008 by LadyPakal

[Timmytour]

So Tesco's should charge by the size of the shopping basket you use, not by the cost of the shopping you have in it...........?

To illustrate that to be a relative analogy, you'll have to point out exactly what Tesco sells us that they themselves acquire for nothing....