The UK drought is serious!

[Diplo]

The funny thing is that May was the wettest year for nearly 25 years in the UK.... Still, as long as the shareholders are happy, I am. No, honest, I feel for them...

 

[Frank]

Yeah, unfortunately that doesn't work very well either. The private sector only care about the bottom line, the public sector doesn't care about the bottom line at all, and things end up costing five times what they need to.

That's what everyone says. But, do such things really become much cheaper after privatizing them? That doesn't seem to be the case. Because there is no real competition, lowering prices directly reduces the profit.

 

[MfA]

Yeah, unfortunately that doesn't work very well either. The private sector only care about the bottom line, the public sector doesn't care about the bottom line at all, and things end up costing five times what they need to.

On the other hand, the private sector doesn't care about quality at all ... water quality will be five times worse than it needs to be (sarcasm).

AFAIK the empirical evidence doesn't really support the assertion that privatization+regulation really provides better service than public companies in these kinds of semi-monopoly markets, or vice versa. It's more a case of picking your poison, overemployment and union troubles or a leaner profit generating company which spends money on lobbying/white-collar-corruption to increase market share.

 

[euan]

Up here in Scotland we sell tankers of water to Spain, and other countries. Yet Engerland gets none of it. If anyone down south wants to lay a rubber hose, feel free...

 

[nutball]

AFAIK the empirical evidence doesn't really support the assertion that privatization+regulation really provides better service than public companies in these kinds of semi-monopoly markets, or vice versa. It's more a case of picking your poison, overemployment and union troubles or a leaner profit generating company which spends money on lobbying/white-collar-corruption to increase market share.

Indeed.

 

[davefb]

there was an interesting article by a meteorologist on the bbc website aparently all this "driest for" , is extremely dubious.

why?

well for one , the "wettest" 6 months was taken from november 2005... but if they started in october 2005 ( the wettest october for a few years),, it ends up looking not quite so bad.

the water companies needed these quotes in order to force ofwat ( the regulation people) into allowing them to charge the consumer above average price rises... "funnily" enough the water companies are all now announcing massive rises in profits.. *gee* what a surprise.


iirc , some capital investment is 'bad' because they can't make profits and some investment was good because they could cream off profit ( ie charge the users).. but they cant make profit from fixing the leaks.. therefore they are kicking and screaming before doing so.. it's extremely pathetic....
i also remember that when the companies privatised , one of the issues was the large amount of land and excess capacity these companies had.. a lot of excess capacity was sold off for profits ( to shareholders)... doesnt look quite so excess now does it... in which case why shouldnt the companies be forced to actually PAY to fix leaks and get capacity!!

the desalination is interesting though,,, thames water want to,, but the mayor of london is basically pointing out that in the grand scheme of things why not spend 200 million fixing leaks as that wouldnt generate more co2 ( which the desal would).........

 

[Neeyik]

One needs to be a little bit careful when analysing profits made by UK water companies because they do more than just the "supply water" service - they get rid of your waste too and that's an even bigger drain on resources and potential profits. Trust me on this one, you never want a job inspecting major sewer systems...

 

[Simon F]

Trust me on this one, you never want a job inspecting major sewer systems...

What? A proctologist?

 

[Basic]

I must admit that I have a hard time to grasp that leaks could cause the drought.

Yes leaks are bad, but mostly because the damage the water can do. Water damages in cellars, or undermined roads and houses are really expensive. But regularily leaking so much water that you've got problems supplying water to your customers...

How is the pipeing done if that's possible without causing lots of other damage?

 

[Neeyik]

Most of the leakage is from either big old feeder pipes, which run underneath countryside areas (and are a major pig to track correctly) or from valves in the main network (used to create district metered areas) which reside all over the place. Anyway, you're right that the leaks themselves aren't causing the drought - in fact they wouldn't make that much of a difference to the problem if they were totally solved. The real problem is a lack of prolonged rain, during key times of the year, to top up the water table.

 

[davefb]

Most of the leakage is from either big old feeder pipes, which run underneath countryside areas (and are a major pig to track correctly) or from valves in the main network (used to create district metered areas) which reside all over the place. Anyway, you're right that the leaks themselves aren't causing the drought - in fact they wouldn't make that much of a difference to the problem if they were totally solved. The real problem is a lack of prolonged rain, during key times of the year, to top up the water table.

but it's a falsehood to claim this is due to 'wierd' weather patterns.. yes theres less rain, but is it actually statistically that different? surely the main problem is that theres been a slow increase in demand ,a corresponding lack of investment and worst a reduction in capacity because it was deemed we had an over-capacity..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5019846.stm
"Yet to find a year drier than 2005 for most of the UK, there is no need to delve back into prehistory; 2003 fits the bill, as do 1997, 1996, 1991 and 1990. "
Whats even more barking is that why have they waited so long to issue drought orders ? if we've now had possibly the wettest may for 300 yrs (!) and this hasnt solved anything,, then why weren't measures taken earlier ?


blimey, we've even had "it was the wrong sort of rain"...

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

but it's a falsehood to claim this is due to 'wierd' weather patterns.. yes theres less rain, but is it actually statistically that different? surely the main problem is that theres been a slow increase in demand ,a corresponding lack of investment and worst a reduction in capacity because it was deemed we had an over-capacity..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5019846.stm
"Yet to find a year drier than 2005 for most of the UK, there is no need to delve back into prehistory; 2003 fits the bill, as do 1997, 1996, 1991 and 1990. "
Whats even more barking is that why have they waited so long to issue drought orders ? if we've now had possibly the wettest may for 300 yrs (!) and this hasnt solved anything,, then why weren't measures taken earlier ?

Pure mismanagement from greedy corporations for the last 20 years. Lack of investment, selling off assets, rising bills, rising water usage, excessive leaks, fat cat payouts to bosses and shareholders, increasingly dry winters, and now they act all surprised and claim it's not their fault.

 

[davefb]

i think what *really* is utterly dispiciable is the profits rise which just seems to tally exactly with the extra money ofwat allowed the companies to put into investment.

eg ( the latest )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5054814.stm
"Pre-tax profits of £130.3m were helped by a 10% increase in bills allowed by regulator Ofwat to fund investment."
"The water business alone saw sales of £555.5m, up from £508.2m. "

erm , so 10% charge increase is the 508 to 555 million.. yeah ? ?
and profits are 130 million............ (pre-tax admittedly) , up 35%.....

i suppose really i should be buying water company shares

 

[Crisidelm]

Btw, also the Northwest of Italy is facing a series of severe droughts in the last 3 years: a few years ago it was one of the "wettest" parts of the Country, ironically. Fortunately they have the Alps that help a lot, but also on their Alps it snows and rains a lot less lately...

 

[Neeyik]

but it's a falsehood to claim this is due to 'wierd' weather patterns.. yes theres less rain, but is it actually statistically that different? surely the main problem is that theres been a slow increase in demand ,a corresponding lack of investment and worst a reduction in capacity because it was deemed we had an over-capacity..

I said there was less rain at key times - not less rain overall. There needs to be lengthy periods of "medium" rain during late Autumn and early Winter (as well as slow snow thaws) to top up the water tables. Sporadic bursts, prolonged downpours or rain in late Winter does little for the water levels. Up in the far North of England, which supplies water to a lot of other parts of Britain, there have been real problems keeping the resevoirs full (old example) - locally there isn't a water shortage but those regions that are fed by our systems have been forced to issue drought orders. Such areas cannot build their own reservoirs and won't have the right landscape to collect sufficient water to maintain a decent table, ergo they are reduced to transporting water in from other areas. The privitisation of the water industry made matters worse because contracts had to be renegotiated between competing water bodies and pipeline companies.

i think what *really* is utterly dispiciable is the profits rise which just seems to tally exactly with the extra money ofwat allowed the companies to put into investment.

It might be worth reading the following:

http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/aptrix/ofwa...Title/pn4804tables.pdf/$FILE/pn4804tables.pdf

http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/aptrix/ofwat/publish.nsf/Content/pn4804

 

[davefb]

think thats a good example.. they ask for more money to fix stuff that *should* have already been paid for , then they increase profits the next year because they've not used all that money for investment.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=401023&in_page_id=2

course a problem with UU is they dont publish full information.....


as for the rain,, i can see the idea, but i dont see any information that credibly shows this is actually a large change in weather patterns .. As i said (edit or maybe i didnt ?hehe), the companies removed so called 'excess' capacity because they deemed it wasnt needed. i can't find any links for how many reservoirs were removed , but i do know of two in my area ( bolton , so thanks for the water neeyik )

its also pretty scary how much more water we use than 20yrs ago,, all these powershowers ,dishwashers and watered lawns..... and in the uk all from a 'drinkable' supply

interesting link about water supply
http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/nrfa/water_watch/dr2005_06/index.html
water companies must plan for supply , i just think they dont plan for 'worst case' well enough