Skip to content

DEFRA Proposes Personal Water Budgets

July 23, 2019
tags: ,

By Paul Homewood

 

DEFRA have set up a public consultation to look at ways to reduce water usage:

 image

The proposal forms part of a public consultation examining how water can be better managed at individual, local and business levels, launched in the wake of the Environment Agency’s (EA) warning that England could run short of water within 25 years.

Launched on Friday (19 July), the consultation is asking academics, businesses and individuals what measures the Government can take to foster a “water-saving culture” in which water utilities actively support domestic and business customers to use less.

In addition to personal water targets, the consultation will cover how water-using products should be labelled, how information on water saving is made available to consumers and which behaviour change campaign methods are most effective.

It will additionally explore how building standards can be improved to boost water efficiency, and how metering could be used to manage water systems in the future, as the population grows and the temperature increases.

“We take our supply of clean water for granted and to keep doing that, given the growing population and impact of climate change, we need to challenge ourselves more on how much water we actually need to use,” Environment Minister Therese Coffey said.

“While water companies must lead the way in reducing leakage, using water efficiently will help ensure we all have enough water for our homes, to produce food, products and services – and to protect our valuable natural environment for the next generation."

According to Defra, the average UK resident currently uses 141 litres of water per day – a figure which does not account for the water footprint of the products and services they consume. Recent research by the National Infrastructure Commission, supported by the EA, has suggested that this trajectory could result in England reaching its “Day Zero” for water in 2050.

The consultation will run until 11 October. Information can be found and responses can be submitted here.

https://www.edie.net/news/4/Defra-proposes-personal-water–budgets-/?adfesuccess=1

 

How long will it be before a “personal water target” becomes a ration? There is already a push to install more water meters, and these could easily be used to punish over users, via penalty pricing.

Increasing population may increase demands, but surely the government should be addressing this problem at its root, and not rationing water.

But there is absolutely no evidence at all that “climate change” has had any effect on water shortages at all, either annually or in summer:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series

 

 

And the same is true of the south of England, water shortages tend to be more of a problem:

image

image

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Rainfall/date/England_S.txt 

For years both DEFRA and the Environment Agency have been using “climate change” as an excuse for not doing their job properly, whether it’s drought or floods. And they have not been challenged by a complicit media.

There are many things which they should be doing, such as ensuring that water leaks are dealt with properly or building new reservoirs where population pressures require it.

But it is also vital that public expenditure on new water infrastructure is not based on faulty climate projections supplied by the Met Office.

What is not acceptable is that water is rationed in a country where rainfall is so plentiful.

55 Comments
  1. July 23, 2019 10:50 am

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  2. Immune to Propaganda permalink
    July 23, 2019 10:54 am

    Here, here Paul, It’s as though the country is now run by the climate change eco fascists.

  3. jack broughton permalink
    July 23, 2019 11:07 am

    It is amazing that our “political management” elite apparently cannot see that the UK can, and should, be self-sufficient in energy, water and food and ensure this through proper planning. The climate change believers have almost managed to wreck all future stability in the UK by throwing out the economically and technically successful basis for the UK’s growth over one generation.

    My desk callander yesterday had a quote from Lenin ” A lie told often enough becomes the truth”; however, I see it as more like Orwell’s 1984 myself.

    • Nial permalink
      July 23, 2019 11:33 am

      ”A lie told often enough becomes the truth”

      ‘Climate Change’ is so accepted now that if you challenge it people think you’re some sort of swivel eyed loon.

      My Aunt was a geography teacher, any sort fo rational discussion about the usefulness of wind turbines etc is out of the question. 😦

    • Paul Reynolds permalink
      July 23, 2019 11:44 am

      For once Lenin was right. Your first paragraph sums up the lunacy perfectly. We are a creative resourceful nation but are being emasculated by an inept self seeking bureaucracy.

    • dennisambler permalink
      July 23, 2019 11:46 am

      From 2007: “Global Warming – The Social Construction Of A Quasi-Reality”
      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/reprint/social-construction

      “…former Environment Minister David Miliband saw the mission of the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) as enabling a move towards what the World Wildlife Fund, (WWF), calls “one planet living.”

      The leader of the UK opposition, David Cameron, follows a similar line. He made a much-publicised visit to Norway in April 2006 “to see global warming for himself at first hand”. This was very much a WWF event and was used extensively as publicity by them. The following is an extract from his Norway speech:

      “I’m enormously grateful to WWF for arranging this visit. It was great to meet their experts who understand so deeply the impact climate change is having, and whose important works underpins WWF’s call for action.”

      The fact that an advocacy group is regarded as an objective scientific source shows the extent of the political influence now enjoyed by such groups.”

      “A [Labour] government-favoured think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, (David
      Miliband was an IPPR Research Fellow in the 1990s), had the following advice for public agencies interfacing with the public:

      “…it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won.”

      “This means simply behaving as if man-made climate change is real, and that individual actions to prevent further change will be effective.

      The UK Government’s new climate-change slogan—‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006)—is but an example of this approach. It constructs…its own factuality.”

      Seems to have worked……

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      July 23, 2019 11:50 am

      Interestingly – or not, as the case may be, I was accosted by a friend’s 17 year-old school-leaver son the other night at a party. He wanted to tell me that not only was climate change (AKA AGW) a reality but the world was running out of resources such as oil, coal and gas. When I argued to the contrary I realised he had been coached in his arguments: he actually said to me: ‘OK, what scientific papers can you reference that supports your argument?’ (!!) I told him I had probably read more papers than he had and I challenged him to tell me the alternative.
      Simple, he said, renewables and nuclear could do it but not the sort of nuclear we now have, we need Fusion.
      But, says I, that’s always 50 years away! It went right over his head. When I mentioned thorium he claimed never to have heard of it. As also did he claim not to have heard of the ‘hockey stick’. A really quite weird conversation, only lightened when I found out he spent most of the night with his head down the bog after somebody slipped him some Absinthe.

      • Pancho Plail permalink
        July 23, 2019 12:27 pm

        Brings a new meaning to going green!

      • Athelstan. permalink
        July 23, 2019 11:35 pm

        “Absinthe”?

        Blimey, la belle Epoque! were you in Montmatre, rue de la falling down artistes quarter dans #moiaussieGay Paris?

        😉

  4. Charles Turner permalink
    July 23, 2019 11:20 am

    Bring on the North South Water main that could be put under the proposed HS2 railway tracks.Climate change is the spectre behind the destruction of capitalism by the left. Please keep up the good work Paul — thanks to your exposees there is a growing groundswell of better informed opinion at least….

    • July 23, 2019 2:01 pm

      Good point, HS2 is just another railway line, and Heathrow third runway is just another runway, these things used to be routine, now they create hysteria.

  5. Jon permalink
    July 23, 2019 11:22 am

    This is just a stepping stone on the way to plans for personal carbon budgets. Water will simply be given a carbon price to come off your government allocated carbon budget. Years ago I heard Hilary Benn excitedly talking about personal carbon budgets on Radio 4’s The World Tonight. Every time you DO anything or USE anything you have to spend not only money but some of your diminishing personal carbon budget. Let that sink in. Think of ALL the ramifications. It’s horrific. But this is what is being planned. However hard you’ve worked or saved, your money with be worthless to you if you’ve run out of carbon points. Or been fined carbon points. It does of course mean the government will need to know and record EVERYTHING about you. This is the plan.

    • July 23, 2019 1:45 pm

      Definitely Orwellian. When you are born, the government allocates you a carbon budget, and that’s it for life. If you have any left over when you die, you pass it to your children – without declaring it to the authorities, of course. I’m glad I’ve only got 20 more years on the planet but I worry for my grandchildren.

    • JBW permalink
      July 23, 2019 3:38 pm

      I recall a certain book that said something like
      “For years, the fabulously beautiful planet of Bethselamin increased its booming tourist industry without any worries at all. Alas, as is often the case, this was an act of utter stupidity, as it led to a colossal cumulative erosion problem. Of course, what else could one expect with ten billion tourists per annum? Thus today the net balance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete while on the planet is surgically removed from your body weight when you leave; so every time you go to the lavatory there, it is vitally important to get a receipt.” Douglas Adams

  6. July 23, 2019 11:25 am

    I recall reading somewhere that most, if not all, applications to build reservoirs in the UK over the last few decades, have been turned down. I’ve no idea if that is correct, but it would be consistent with, what seems to be, attempts to cripple our utilities in general.
    I’m also amazed with the numbers of ‘Joe Public’ I speak to who actually believe that once you’ve have used water, for whatever purpose, it’s gone forever. They put it in the same category as gas – once burnt, that’s it, gone! They have no idea how ‘recycling’ of this stuff works. Very easy meat for the activists.

  7. Derek Wood permalink
    July 23, 2019 11:43 am

    No one’s considered a reservoir or two then?

    • July 23, 2019 4:10 pm

      Costs money, hurts profits. Water butt sales set to rise?

  8. Up2snuff permalink
    July 23, 2019 12:08 pm

    Funny thing how one wing of the AGW/CC Brigade adamantly believes and states we will be burnt to a crisp and dying of thirst in 10, 12, 15, 20, 30 or 100 years time while the other wing adamantly believes and states we will be up to our ears in rain and floods and rising seawater from melted ice in those same time periods.

    Can they both be right?

  9. Athelstan. permalink
    July 23, 2019 12:10 pm

    FFS wot about leakage?

    all these ‘big brained’ gasbags, why don’t they ever attend the elephant causing the biggest wet patch?

    next, limited breathing required, all levels of CO2 respiration will be measured!

    you heard it here and first!

    • Up2snuff permalink
      July 23, 2019 1:39 pm

      Athelstan, “next, limited breathing required, all levels of CO2 respiration will be measured!”

      That’s the end of Marathon running and the Tour de France, etc., then.

      • Athelstan. permalink
        July 23, 2019 11:31 pm

        banned by order!

  10. Pancho Plail permalink
    July 23, 2019 12:23 pm

    Did anyone see a report from project fear a couple of days ago that the import of clean water was only the fifth priority for imports through Dover! This is obviously why we are going to have to ration water.

  11. HotScot permalink
    July 23, 2019 12:30 pm

    This is going to be laughed at in Scotland, Wales and N.I.

    Tragically it exemplifies the mentality of the London elite. There used to be a perceptible North/South divide, now it’s a London/Rest of UK divide.

  12. Ivan permalink
    July 23, 2019 12:31 pm

    “What is not acceptable is that water is rationed in a country where rainfall is so plentiful.”

    Plentitude is a function of rainfall per capita, and at regional rather than country level, as moving water very far can soon get very expensive. Per capita, rainfall is not very plentiful in SE England, especially along the south coastal strip, as it is not practical to have large scale long distance inter-regional transfer schemes into these regions, in contrast to some other British population centres.

    Water metering, like energy metering, is just normal in much of the developed world. It’s like paying for your food, which doesn’t seem to surprise people. (Free food went out with the collapse of the western Roman Empire). When universal water metering was introduced to the Isle of Wight, its water supply problems were substantially reduced. The objection to it in Britain is mainly on grounds of inequality, but our neighbours who meter water generally also have lower inequality, so it isn’t a necessary problem.

    Clearly from time to time we get periods of time with reduced rainfall. We also have population growth in the drier areas. Making provision for sufficient water storage to cover such lower rainfall periods involves a trade-off, because people have to pay for it, and they don’t like that. There is also a trade-off between leakage control and increased storage/supply resources. Leakage control is not cheap, especially in dense urban areas. London now has a desalination plant for use at times of water stress. It could probably be avoided by stricter leakage control, but what’s cheaper? It isn’t obvious.

    • John F. Hultquist permalink
      July 23, 2019 3:11 pm

      Ivan says,
      Water metering, like energy metering, is just normal in much of the developed world.

      I grew up in a small town in Western Pennsylvania. When young, the pricing was just for the water coming into the house. In the 1960s they thought about the other end — the sewage plant. Thus, the water rate was doubled. Pay for fresh water, pay for dirty water.
      There were objections, such as garden water or washing a car water did not go to the waste facility. The increased charges went through, and some uses were restrained. Later, I lived where there was a house water system AND an outside system. This was in a place where many people had small acreages of tree fruits and veggies. We had 2 1/2 acres (1 ha) of wine grapes.

  13. It doesn't add up... permalink
    July 23, 2019 12:35 pm

    Don’t forget that we have translated the EU Water Directive into UK law. That requires that water be made more expensive and be rationed rather than doing the obvious things such as building more reservoirs and aqueduct capacity. With a proper Brexit we could so easily change that.

    • Ivan permalink
      July 23, 2019 1:43 pm

      Rationing and charging are the converse of each other. One is using price, the other administrative means, of matching supply and demand. Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 requires costs of supply to be recovered from water users. There is nothing about rationing in the directive that I can see. And even if relieved from this Directive, I doubt the British government has it in mind to start subsidising water supply again. Indeed Article 9 is precisely the kind of thing that Britain tended to be a major supporter of in EU legislation.

      While we are at it, here is a map of water resources per capita in Europe which shows, at country level, that Britain is not notably plentiful in terms of water resources, we are very similar to France, Spain, Italy and Germany. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-025-1/page004.html Surprisingly Poland is one of the least well provisioned European counries. But again I caution this is at national level. I’ve seen a map which shows that the most significant waterstressed regions are the Rhine valley and much of Poland. The southern coastal strip of England is not far behind.

  14. Thomas Carr permalink
    July 23, 2019 12:59 pm

    Quite right Charles Turner at 11.20am although I think that is was described as an open water supply or canal on an almost level contour line from the wet north and west to the dry east and south. .
    My Belfast father said that in wet Ulster the water supply was free. Others can confirm but I think it more likely that the cost of water was grossed up in the domestic rates.
    Preaching infrastructure deficiency seems to be the opening gambit of those who wants the contracts to rectify same . Charlatans by any other name.
    As with so many things central direction from Brussels – in this case the Water Framework Directive — is not best suited to the circumstances of every member country in the E U .

  15. The Man at the Back permalink
    July 23, 2019 1:18 pm

    The main wrong turn goes back to the 19th century when we started flushing away excrement with purified drinking water. Crazy isn’t it?

    Any property that has rainwater harvesting equipment – just a posh water barrel – could half their consumption from the water main. This captured rainwater can be used for washing machines, the garden and toilet flushing with little treatment. They usually have the ability to switch to mains water in dry periods.

    Of course once this became widespread it would have be taxed to replace the reduced payments to water utilities. In the same way – governments will have to hike-up the cost of charging your electric car. Anyone who thinks they will forgo the petrol tax is living in another place altogether.

    • Up2snuff permalink
      July 23, 2019 1:59 pm

      TMatB, in domestic dwellings most toilets have a shower or bath nearby. All that is needed is a pump to capture ‘grey’ water and take it to a reservoir where it is used for lavatory flushing. Building standards could, and probably should, have been amended decades ago.

      The fact that they haven’t rather gives the lie to the whole AGW/CC thing.

      It’s not really an emergency if Government hasn’t got there yet. Well, maybe ….

      As for the ‘petrol tax’ it is disappearing as we converse here. Every new electric vehicle on the road is one cut to it in a death of a million cuts. It will have to be done away with over the next ten years. There will be no alternative to adding it (all transport taxes, in fact) to the higher rates of income tax without devastating the UK economy.

      In a retail based economy you need to maintain your base disposable income or the country is stuffed.

    • MrGrimNasty permalink
      July 23, 2019 5:09 pm

      Rainwater harvesting always sound terribly cost effective and environmentally friendly, but the reason it isn’t in wide scale use is because it isn’t in 99% of situations.

      Everything in life comes down to efficiency, if something is efficient it normally means that in a free market it settles out at an acceptable financial and environmental cost.

      Rain water harvesting system installation and maintenance are like the proposed super insulation of old housing stock. You will never realistically break even.

      The dumbest most inefficient thing (well one of them) that is currently happening is millions of individuals using clean water to clean worthless containers for council recycling schemes.
      If it doesn’t end up in landfill or burnt for energy (best thing all round) it will undoubtedly be rewashed during reprocessing anyway.

  16. Dodgy Geezer permalink
    July 23, 2019 1:36 pm

    Water can never be created or destroyed. It runs in a cycle. Therefore there is ALWAYS enough for all the people in the world – no matter how many there are, and no matter how much water they want to use. We could give everyone a swimming pool of water every day, and we wouldn’t run out of water. We would just have to circulate it in greater bulk and quicker.

    But, of course, if we tried to do that anywhere, we would soon run up against a limit. It is VERY important to understand what this limit is. it is NOT ‘water shortage’. It is a shortage of equipment for storing, purifying and distributing water – in a word, water company assets.

    When we are asked to ‘Save Water’, we are not ‘saving water’. We are saving the water companies from having to invest in more water storage, purification and distribution equipment. In other words, saving them from spending money.

    Interestingly, the South East of England has witnessed a huge increase of population over recent years with the growth of London. And the water companies had planned to create new reservoirs to support this growth. They have been stopped form doing so by environmental directives from government, which require people to use less water, rather than water companies to provide more. The water companies do not object greatly – they do not have to spend on investment, but are able to charge more as water is sold per capita.

    This is yet another hidden environmental scandal. I have tried to ask Defra why we do not increase water provision rather than cutting water availability, and have just been ignored. Much like energy, it seems that environmental thinking is to deprive citizens of essential services rather than plan to increase them in line with demand…

  17. Rowland P permalink
    July 23, 2019 1:44 pm

    We have a population approaching 70 million, yet the sustainable population is reckoned to be 30 million. Meanwhile, the government blithely continues to allow some quarter of a million per year to immigrate into this country; it bolsters their growth figures, therefore it is addicted to immigration (and dubiously obtained foreign money to buy up our businesses and properties). Is it any wonder that there is pressure on our utilities due to a burgeoning population augmented by millions of tourists every year?

    Meanwhile, there is a food shortage apparently in America due to a terrible growing season…cold and wet.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      July 23, 2019 4:46 pm

      Who estimates the “sustainable” population is 30 million? In what way is the current popylatuon unsustainable?

  18. Gerry, England permalink
    July 23, 2019 2:05 pm

    Let’s see – allow unfettered immigration into the South-East and London, the areas with the highest population density and lowest rainfall already, and then don’t build any extra water storage capacity. Only a government could have such a plan in action. When the EU Water Directive came out, the Liberal government cancelled all proposed reservoirs.

  19. chaswarnertoo permalink
    July 23, 2019 2:33 pm

    Nothing to do with excess population, then? Good job I have a spring.

  20. Dave Ward permalink
    July 23, 2019 2:38 pm

    “What is not acceptable is that water is rationed in a country where rainfall is so plentiful”

    If you think it’s not acceptable here in the UK, there must be another level of crazy in The Irish Republic:

    “The Commission for Regulation of Utilities has sanctioned a proposal by Irish Water to impose a charge of €1.85 on customers for every 1,000 litres consumed above their annual household allowance”

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/bills-for-exceeding-fresh-waste-water-limits-will-be-500-a-year-1.3959201

    I gather the Irish say “If it’s not raining now, it soon will be” – Perhaps Paul could post the rainfall statistics for comparison.

  21. Ivan permalink
    July 23, 2019 2:43 pm

    The only way I can think of by which people are being “require()d … to use less water” are the regulations for efficiency of use of water by appliances on sale like washing machines. This saves you money, even if you don’t have a water meter, because they also use less electricity to heat the water up. Maybe it is a bit nanny state to think that people can’t/won’t think through the consequences of buying a cheaper less water-efficient appliance. But I also tend to think that overall there is an incentive on appliance makers to pay insufficient attention to appliance efficiency, unless we have some regulations on it. Otherwise, you are pretty free to turn your tap on if you want to, subject to paying for your water use.

    Since the water companies are funded by us through charges, it is good that they don’t splurge our money on new resources when it can be avoided. Kielder proved a massive waste of money, for example, good to avoid that kind of thing. Thames abandoned reservoirs in London because the London Ring Main and some semblance of more sensible leakage control than previously removed the requirement for them. London today has a more reliable water supply for more people with less reservoir capacity.

    I’m aware of a couple of major reservoir schemes in the SE that have been refused planning permission. The South Oxfordshire one just didn’t stack up financially against a bit of better leakage control, etc. The one denied somewhere in the Kent/ E Sussex area I think resulted in the Thames desalination scheme instead as a lower cost way of delivering the peak requirement it would serve. I think we can chalk these up as good decisions that saved customers money because there were cheaper ways of making water supply more reliable.

    “tried to ask Defra why we do not increase water provision rather than cutting water availability”
    I think they would disagree with the premise of the question.

  22. Ivan permalink
    July 23, 2019 2:53 pm

    It’s rainfall per capita in a region that matters. Dublin isn’t well provisioned, it seems the Wicklow Mountains doesn’t suffice to collect enough water for it and the Liffey is a small river. Irish Water is proposing a transfer scheme from the Shannon to Dublin at huge cost to solve that. Again the true question is whether you need such major schemes. Fixing leaks is unsurprisingly being mentioned. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/shannon-pipeline-not-needed-if-dublin-water-leaks-fixed-study-claims-1.3957356

  23. Mike Boulton permalink
    July 23, 2019 3:09 pm

    My American friends live in Tucson Arizona and when they hear that in some years the government has declared a drought. They ask me is this another of your crazy Monty Python jokes? We don’t get much rain here. They say – it’s always raining in the UK! I’ll have to let them know this latest Defra proposal, they will find it bizarre in the extreme. When I talk to some of the AGW types (mainly youngsters) they just switch off to the other side arguments and facts, they are just case proven no further discussion – brainwashed I suspect by school teachers and the BBC. How are they going to handle their future lives? When it goes horribly wrong the aforesaid teachers and BBC will, I suspect, abdicate all responsibility.

  24. July 23, 2019 3:15 pm

    Christopher Booker wrote about this in 2012 and his observations are still worth a read. http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9613
    One of his main points was
    “The great water shambles, as we know, centres on two major failings of national policy. One is the water companies’ failure to plug the leaks that are costing us nearly as much water every two years as is contained in all our reservoirs. The other is their failure to add to that reservoir capacity, which has barely increased in the 20 years since water was privatised, despite our 10 per cent growth in population.”
    The other observation is “Astonishingly, it now emerges, it has become quite deliberate government policy to keep Britain short of water.”

  25. Messenger permalink
    July 23, 2019 3:43 pm

    How long before people start economising by not washing their hands after going to the loo, and only pulling the plug of the lavatory once a day so that they don’t overspend their water budget? Let’s not bother to wash the kitchen floor or the children and their clothes, they’ll only get dirty again.

  26. bobn permalink
    July 23, 2019 4:24 pm

    The lack of infrastructure is at the heart of the issue. When Nationalised the Govt spent little on building it, now private they still havent built it. There is no National grid for water but there could be at relatively little cost. Its done by connecting up the existing canal and river structure.
    A good example of this is the proposal (disregarded by thames water) to restore the ‘Cotswold Canal’ which would allow water from the Severn to be moved into the Thames. I cant paste in the PDF report but below is a link to the enquiry into Water provision that includes the Cotswold canal proposal.

    Thames water inquiry inspector’s report – Vale of White Horse District …
    http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/node/6548
    18 Sep 2009 – Wooster17 and the Cotswold Canals Trust (CCT)18. 1.3.8 …… whether or not abstraction from the River Severn as part of a ST scheme.

    Once severn can flow to thames then absent links can be built to allow wales to flow to severn, lake district to manchester, Kielder to the south. The water is there but no grid to move it. Most of the needed canals and rivers are there but its peppered with missing links.

    Infrastructure is what is needed, and the govt should mandate that if water companies cannot provide the water required in their monopoly areas, and thus impose any form of rationing, then the price they can charge for water due to their failure to provide service is halved. If faced with having to reduce charges if they fail to provide, the companies will very quickly build infrastructure and fix leaks. At the moment what is their incentive? The Govt protects their monopolies and lets them punish and charge customers for their failings. Once again monopolies are to blame – we need competition.

    • Gamecock permalink
      July 23, 2019 10:43 pm

      “The lack of infrastructure is at the heart of the issue.”

      There is no issue.

      ‘England could run short of water within 25 years.’

      Rilly? A million things could happen in 25 years.

      Water is local. It’s none of the national government’s business.

      People on the Thames have no right to the waters of the Severn. Riparian rights trumps all other considerations. Need more water? The Severn has it? Move to the Severn. Don’t try to move the Severn to you.

  27. Phoenix44 permalink
    July 23, 2019 4:42 pm

    Aren’t we getting more rain if it’s warmer? Or is that only the claim when we get more rain?

    And why bother, aren’t we solving climate change thanks to Theresa May?

  28. markl permalink
    July 23, 2019 4:57 pm

    Living in a water challenged/drought plagued location I can tell you what will become of this …… nothing. Like AGW scare mongering, people just don’t care until it either hurts their pocket book or they have to do without. Water is too inexpensive to ever hurt them financially so they will ignore saving it. Rationing with fines for over use is ineffective. Here 80% of our water is used by agriculture and most of that is shipped elsewhere so the economy wins over individual use. It’s not that we don’t have enough fresh water for the world, it’s that politicians are shortsighted. You can’t win votes preparing for something in the future that people take for granted today.

  29. Tom O permalink
    July 23, 2019 5:01 pm

    Interestingly, this probably will go through with a lot of talk against it, but like every other climate issue that has come up, pushed through by the people that have no fear of their population. Just like every other climate plan has passed without the people’s support, so will the BREXIT be thrown out in the end, because there isn’t a damn thing you can do to stop the government from doing what it wants.

    That was exactly WHY the 2nd Amendment was placed in the US Constitution, to make sure the population didn’t lose its teeth. And the lack of such protection in the UK is exactly why the UK citizenry is all bark and no bite, and the government merely rolls its eyes and does whatever it damn well wants.

    The elite in every country envision that they will be among the leaders in the world government that they are attempting to form, but first you have to realize that central government can’t manage 7 billion people, thus the billions of perceived “useless eaters” have to be purged – freezing weather in an all electric home during a shutdown of the grid should accomplish that quite nicely. If you think this is some sort of civilized, misinformed ongoing eco-nut issue, you are dreadfully wrong. From across the pond, I don’t see where the UK citizenry has a whole helluva lot of input into the UK government, and even less into the EU. But fear not, my government really isn’t much better at listening to people, which is why the socialists are forever pushing for gun control. That tiny margin of safety is slowly being eroded, and we will be in the same boat as you and those folks “down under.”

  30. AZ1971 permalink
    July 23, 2019 7:08 pm

    The UK government should look into mitigating losses during delivery. I’ve seen reports that up to 40% of water deliveries are lost through cracks and leaks in the piping system here in the U.S. so one has to wonder how much is lost in an even older network like the UK’s.

  31. Gamecock permalink
    July 23, 2019 8:46 pm

    “Use all you want; we’ll make more.” – Ronald Reagan paraphrased.

    Defra mandarins want to control everyone’s lives. This is just an early artillery barrage to get people to start accepting their control.

  32. Mikehig permalink
    July 23, 2019 10:16 pm

    bobn: the idea of moving water around the country is attractive and it has been looked at many times. However, there are a number of problems.
    It would mix up the ecology of one system to bring in raw water from somewhere else. No doubt nature would adapt and things would stabilise in time but it would be disruptive.
    That same mixing would necessitate alterations to water treatment works for changes in raw water composition such as dealing with pesticides not present in the original water.
    Then there’s the question of flowrates. To enhance London’s supply significantly would require a huge volume of water which would have consequences for the rivers used and would generate undesirable currents in canals as well as requiring large “bypasses” for locks.

    For years the industry, especially Thames with its huge, old network, worked on the basis that it was cheaper to increase supply than to fix the leaks. That became politically unacceptable so they were obliged to invest heavily in leak reduction, at our cost since the regulator approves their capital programmes and allows them a set return thereon, all of which is recovered from customers.

    Since privatisation many of the companies have been through a number of owners, usually foreign. They have been hollowed out for their assets and loaded with debt. It’s a slow-motion trainwreck.

  33. BLACK PEARL permalink
    July 23, 2019 11:16 pm

    If you need anymore water down south you’ll have to pay and manage it yourselves.
    ‘Fix those leaks’
    Plenty in Kielder for us, so they’ll be no more talk of a North South pipeline just so you can squander it all 🙂

  34. Trevor Breslin permalink
    July 24, 2019 1:18 am

    The water industry is a private monopoly with one aim, to supply the least at the highest price. To say we are short of water is laughable but if they keep on saying it someone will believe it There has been an increase of millions of bill paying households but no increase in water storage. In fact they have been selling off reservoirs. They have relied on extracting water from rivers and boreholes to supply the additional demand. Then they claim a “water crisis” when the rivers run out and the aquifers are empty. It is beyond belief that they are allowed to get away with it

  35. cockneygit permalink
    July 24, 2019 10:25 pm

    I’m a plumber. Believe me, people waste massive amounts of water. I’ve come across water leaks that have been going for months or even years. I come across taps that are running, not dripping, and have been doing so for years. A few weeks ago I came across a toilet cistern that was evacuating its water to the bowl, constantly (modern ones don’t have overflow pipes to outside). I asked the owner how long it had been doing it and she couldn’t even remember. Bear in mind that a flush uses around 9 litres, and this has been emptying for god knows how long. The idiot who lives two doors away from me waters his neighbour’s garden by tying up a hose to his hedge. The garden doesn’t need watering, and he did it yesterday despite the forecast saying we’d have quite a bit of rain to go with the lightning. People have got to be told they have to have a water meter – it’s the only solution. They won’t waste it then! We went over to a meter years ago – our bill went from £500 a year to £300. It’s scandalous that people are allowed to use as much water as they want by paying a set fee, it has to stop. If you saw what I saw, you’d think the same.

    • July 25, 2019 10:01 am

      We’ve had a meter for years as well, and saved a lot on the changeover.

      It is commonsense to fit them in all homes

  36. swan101 permalink
    July 25, 2019 2:56 pm

    Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: