Grass over concrete

silverwhistle

Davesnave wrote: »

I agree with Spadoosh; there is no need for hosepipe bans in this country, which has perfectly adequate rainfall to support drought periods like we're experiencing now.

No, I'd disagree with you both. The heavily populated SE and east of the country along with London are a water stressed area and have less rain than Barcelona or Rome, to take an oft quoted example.

Whilst I agree the water companies should be castigated for their poor record on leaks, there is little opportunity for major storage schemes in the SE, and the Welsh aren't particularly happy with more reservoirs being built there either.

There's a desalinisation plant in London, which hasn't been used in anger yet, but the very fact that the investment has been made in an expensive form of obtaining fresh water tells you that, yes, there is an issue.

Even if I weren't on a water meter I'd still be careful in these conditions. I don't want to see the wildlife suffer as streams dry up, which is what happened last time we had a bad drought.

Encouraging people to waste water as another poster suggested? Please grow up, you're not getting one over the man, and if a hosepipe ban is instituted it's the vulnerable who suffer, not them.

andrewf75

Well said silverwhistle. I also agree that the water companies waste far too much water, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all take personal responsibility not to waste it.

DaftyDuck

I'm in the "conserve water" brigade, and think it a nonsense we plant in such a way that we, in effect, are willing to pour bottled drinking water, glibly, over garden plants, regardless of the environmental impact elsewhere.

The financial cost is only one part of the equation; the environmental and social cost of using a scarce resource is incalculable.

I'm lucky enough to live on the banks of a small river, which is drying steadily; much of the water that should be flowing has been extracted upstream, to be processed for drinking water. As a result, there are environmental consequences downstream. There already is long-term damage that didn't occur in 1976, when there wasn't so much water extracted as there is now. Trees that survived then are already showing extreme bark damage, losing leaves, and are likely to die.

Sure, recycle your brown water, store rainwater in waterbutts, but leave that expensively-processed water in the household taps, for drinking purposes.

Plant your garden in such a way it'll survive the occasional drought, or simply enjoy the cycle of events, allow some plants to die, and replant later on.

Davesnave

We haven't found a way to store electricity very effectively yet, but I don't see those in the SE suffering black-outs due to the pressure of demand. It's a matter of will, and the will doesn't seem to be there when it comes to water storage. I agree, taking ever more from acquifers and rivers is short-termism, along with failing to invest in new pipes..

I didn't advocate wasting water, although when it comes to the tree I paid £80 for not long ago, I'll probably not take Dafty's advice and allow it to die! I won't let the plants in my nursery wither away either. They're all low-input, locally produced plants sold to passing locals and therefore almost as 'ethical' as one can find, right down to the recycled pots they go into.

Lawns? No, haven't touched what passes as a lawn here. To the guy who started this I'd add that I currently have about 50m2 of bare earth waiting to be sown with grass seed. In spring it was too wet and we couldn't get on it, and now it's just desert, so we have started calling it 'Afghanistan.' Maybe in September....

But regardless of what's happening here, which is nothing in terms of hose bans etc, what I do won't help those of you anywhere else, because nothing's joined-up. To join it up and make things better, everyone will have to pay more, just as we did, making the beaches meet appropriate standards in the SW.

RosesInTheHospital

I'm in the SE and seeing as the authorities are allowing houses to go up left right and center (1000's at a time) then there can't be much of a water shortage issue (either for the building or the on-gong usage once occupied).

spadoosh

silverwhistle wrote: »

No, I'd disagree with you both. The heavily populated SE and east of the country along with London are a water stressed area and have less rain than Barcelona or Rome, to take an oft quoted example.

Whilst I agree the water companies should be castigated for their poor record on leaks, there is little opportunity for major storage schemes in the SE, and the Welsh aren't particularly happy with more reservoirs being built there either.

There's a desalinisation plant in London, which hasn't been used in anger yet, but the very fact that the investment has been made in an expensive form of obtaining fresh water tells you that, yes, there is an issue.

Even if I weren't on a water meter I'd still be careful in these conditions. I don't want to see the wildlife suffer as streams dry up, which is what happened last time we had a bad drought.

Encouraging people to waste water as another poster suggested? Please grow up, you're not getting one over the man, and if a hosepipe ban is instituted it's the vulnerable who suffer, not them.

Yeh that was me, i accept its irresponsible. Its not something i do really either. Im not on a meter so pay far more than i would metered.

The south does get less rain, which is why they get it from the north and wales. Across the uk, there is enough water to supply the whole of the UK.

The problems are many and they all lie at the feet of how the water industry is managed and legislated.

The simple fact is it requires investment on infastrucutre. Building enough storage facilities to cope with the most extreme dry periods. Having a network that can distribute water anywhere in the UK when needed without the levels of losses they currently have.

United Utilities for the last 5 years have had revenues of around £1.7bn. For the last 5 years theyve had profits averaging around £600 million. It doesnt take a genius to see that the priority is profit. General operating costs (exluding infrastructure investment) will eat up most of the turnover. Im struggling to find how much they spend on improving infrastructure, but there is clearly money available to improve it further.

They have all the information they need about usage, nothing should come as a surprise. Its just a complete lack of contingency and the ethos of extrapolating as much money whilst maintaining a bare bones system.

Your issues with stream running dry is again the fault of the water companies. Youre absolutely right it shouldnt happen. The reason it does, its the cheapest way of processing water. Most of the work gets done before hand. You mentioned desalination. Its the only sustainable option, yet for whatever reason the uk, an island, has one plant. We know fresh water supplies arent really sustainable because we have a habit of poisoning them.

It cost £250 million to build the thames one. It can produce 140 million litres per day. United utilities can build nearly 3 of those plants every year from their profits. Thats pretty much the 500 million litre shortfall theyve been complaining to me about. But no as always its my fault for having a bath once a week and having the cheek to water my veg bed. God forbid they reduce their profit margins.

Its not like they dont have the tech either. They can detect if someones had cocaine from their stools and water samples in the sewers. Yet seem unable to detect when and where a leak happens. Im no scientist but thought that if theres a leak you get a drop in system pressure. I understand there will be natural variation in pressure but natural variations are predictable.