Hosepipe ban finally lifted!

mkpdavies · 18-01-2007, 11:22 AM

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/n...lly_lifted.php

Quote:

THAMES Water has today lifted a hosepipe ban that more than 250 people in Swindon were reported for breaching.

While the ban on hosepipes and sprinklers, which came into force in April last year, has stopped it is essential people still try to save water.

Because even though it has been raining like cats and dogs for months, we now have so much demand, that th supply can't cope.

Besoeker · 19-01-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/swindonnewsheadlines/display.var.1130923.0.hosepipe_ban_finally_lifted. php

Quote:

THAMES Water has today lifted a hosepipe ban that more than 250 people in Swindon were reported for breaching.

While the ban on hosepipes and sprinklers, which came into force in April last year, has stopped it is essential people still try to save water.

Because even though it has been raining like cats and dogs for months, we now have so much demand, that th supply can't cope.

There have been several seasons of significantly under average rainfall.
A few months of above average rainfall doesn't compensate in the short term. Quite a lot of domestic water in the south east is supplied from boreholes. The rainwater has to permeate into the levels that borehole pumps draw from. That takes time. And the amout that can be withdrawn is subject to extraction licenses.

In short, even if it p1sses down rain for weeks on end, that does not automatically equate to more availability of domestic water.

mkpdavies · 19-01-2007, 09:09 AM

Months on end, to the point of monsoons. Rivers breaking their banks. Lakes full to the brim.

If they can't harness that, then they are not fit for purpose.

g hall · 19-01-2007, 01:44 PM

mkpdavies

Quote:

then they are not fit for purpose.

Oh but they are fit for purpose which is to rip off the public create even bigger profits for themselves and dig up the road to cause traffic chaos

Westcountryman · 19-01-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by g hall

mkpdavies

Quote:

then they are not fit for purpose.

Oh but they are fit for purpose which is to rip off the public create even bigger profits for themselves and dig up the road to cause traffic chaos

Water should never have been privatised. It needs to be either under government ownership or run by a charity/non-profit organisation.

mark starr · 19-01-2007, 04:28 PM

Not so sure about that, when Water was under the control of Government nothing was done about reinvesting for the future. When privatised the whole network was in a parlous state. The Water companies, because their activities are controlled by Government including swingeing EU directives on water quality , have invested billions into the network. They are still facing a difficult task in reducing leakages but that is because of 2 factors the decrepit state of the pipes when they took them over (some particularly in London went back 100years) and they were set higher priorities by Govt. If you want to cut back leakages then the roads have to be dug up because thats where the pipes are laid.
Profits have to be made if you want further investment to be made.
I am fairly sure that privatisation has been very good news for the public. Government couldnt run a ****-up in a brewery and private charities /non profit organisations are frankly not the best thing to run a commercial operation.

Westcountryman · 19-01-2007, 04:46 PM

I would agree with you - if there was any viability for a market in water, but there isn't. Like it or lump it, I'm stuck with South West Water, they hold the monopoly for this area. As does every other water company.

Quote:

Profits have to be made if you want further investment to be made.

Rubbish, a non-profit organisation ploughs ALL proceeds back into the company, not just part of it.

Quote:

brewery and private charities /non profit organisations are frankly not the best thing to run a commercial operation.

That's exactly my point - supply of water - a natural monopoly as it currently stands, shouldn't be a commercial operation.

Besoeker · 19-01-2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Months on end, to the point of monsoons. Rivers breaking their banks. Lakes full to the brim.

Rainfall in the Thames Water area for 2006 was below average.
And in 2005.
Not months, years.

g hall · 19-01-2007, 08:20 PM

Why is it that Israel has the foresight to invets in desalination plants and infrastructure.
Our water companies spent the privitisation monies on buying up everything in sight at overinflated prices.
Then the people responsible took early retirement loaded down with OUR money.
Now what were once assets have been bought in the main by foreign countries, who like the sale of BAA to a spanish company would not allow this to happen the other way around.

A lot of foreign companies able to asset strip the UK whilst our companies cannot do the reverse

Besoeker · 19-01-2007, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP

Rubbish, a non-profit organisation ploughs ALL proceeds back into the company, not just part of it.

A couple of quick points.
(a) The proceeds may be ploughed back into the organisation. There also needs to be accountability to those who fund this organisation (taxpayers) of how those proceeds are allocated. And a means for those who pay for the organisation to have a voice in its decisions.

(b) Without profit as a motive, there is no mechanism or motivation to ensure that costs are controlled.

19-01-2007, 09:09 AM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 32,059 Party: Libertarian Party	Months on end, to the point of monsoons. Rivers breaking their banks. Lakes full to the brim. If they can't harness that, then they are not fit for purpose. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

19-01-2007, 04:28 PM	#6 (permalink)
mark starr Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 645	Not so sure about that, when Water was under the control of Government nothing was done about reinvesting for the future. When privatised the whole network was in a parlous state. The Water companies, because their activities are controlled by Government including swingeing EU directives on water quality , have invested billions into the network. They are still facing a difficult task in reducing leakages but that is because of 2 factors the decrepit state of the pipes when they took them over (some particularly in London went back 100years) and they were set higher priorities by Govt. If you want to cut back leakages then the roads have to be dug up because thats where the pipes are laid. Profits have to be made if you want further investment to be made. I am fairly sure that privatisation has been very good news for the public. Government couldnt run a ****-up in a brewery and private charities /non profit organisations are frankly not the best thing to run a commercial operation.

19-01-2007, 08:20 PM	#9 (permalink)
g hall Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: erewhon Posts: 5,935	Why is it that Israel has the foresight to invets in desalination plants and infrastructure. Our water companies spent the privitisation monies on buying up everything in sight at overinflated prices. Then the people responsible took early retirement loaded down with OUR money. Now what were once assets have been bought in the main by foreign countries, who like the sale of BAA to a spanish company would not allow this to happen the other way around. A lot of foreign companies able to asset strip the UK whilst our companies cannot do the reverse