Hose pipe ban east and S.E.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
God makes it rain more on poor benighted leak detectors obviously...

For a more sensible answer - the less that is lost by wastage the more there is in the pipes QED

It makes no difference to the volume in the reservoirs though as leaks end up back there.

There are only two considerations really.
How much is falling out of the sky and how much we use?

If less falls from the sky than we use, that's a problem.
 
We've got loads of water up here, the ladybower ressy up wood head is full to bursting :rock:
 
I've never known one to be enforced for businesses, even in 1976. Can you show any examples of enforcement for businesses?

I can see hand wash type car wash businesses having enforcement as unlike a mechanised car wash, they don't recycle the water.

I believe Yorkshire water imposed such restrictions (on car washes and window cleaners for example) during their difficulties in the 1996 drought.
 
I've never known one to be enforced for businesses, even in 1976. Can you show any examples of enforcement for businesses?

I can see hand wash type car wash businesses having enforcement as unlike a mechanised car wash, they don't recycle the water.[/

Your right they do not touch business as large profits are made, the water companies would not stop a hand car wash but if the public complained the council could do something.
 
A lot of Towns had their own reservoirs many years ago but these were discontinued for various reasons
 
The people of Birmingham owe a big debt of gratitute to the foresight of the City Fathers for the construction, 150 odd years ago, of a series on dams in Wales and a pipeline bringing the (lovely soft) water to Birmingham.

And a big thanks also goes to the people of the valley who had to be moved.

If a pipeline such as that could be built so long ago, why not pipe water from Scotland to the south east? We did it for gas.

..or would that hit the water company profits?

ker-ching! Investment is expensive, and has to come out of dividend... hosepipe ban costs very little...QED
 
I believe Yorkshire water imposed such restrictions (on car washes and window cleaners for example) during their difficulties in the 1996 drought.

We had one down here 5 years ago, they would not dare do it but then again they did not have to, the good folk of Kent stopped using water based services:wallbash: changed the direction of my company from that tough time never again.
 
I believe Yorkshire water imposed such restrictions (on car washes and window cleaners for example) during their difficulties in the 1996 drought.

I can believe that as they were ferrying water in tankers from Lancashire. 1000 tankers a day...

I was told a story about a piece of moorland being offered for sale. A group of elderly people discussed who should buy it over a pint (two of these people relayed the story), one of them bought it for a song.

Six months later Yorkshire water were using it as their tanker staging point for water transfers and He made a vast sum of money from it.
 
A lot of Towns had their own reservoirs many years ago but these were discontinued for various reasons

Well, reservoirs cost money and...no, that'll do it all by itself...
 
The people of Birmingham owe a big debt of gratitute to the foresight of the City Fathers for the construction, 150 odd years ago, of a series on dams in Wales and a pipeline bringing the (lovely soft) water to Birmingham.

And a big thanks also goes to the people of the valley who had to be moved.

If a pipeline such as that could be built so long ago, why not pipe water from Scotland to the south east? We did it for gas.

..or would that hit the water company profits?

That 40 mile pipeline isn't helping too much though.

Drought in England and Wales
 
At the end of the day, you can have a plentiful supply of water.

However,

it has to be paid for.

Are people prepared to pay higher bills to fund investment which may only be required once overy 20 years?
 
Surely the water companies are supposed to invest a sensible proportion of their profits into maintaining and modernising their (largely Victorian) infrastructure, to ensure they stay in business in the future...or did those goalposts get shifted too...
 
Surely the water companies are supposed to invest a sensible proportion of their profits into maintaining and modernising their (largely Victorian) infrastructure, to ensure they stay in business in the future...or did those goalposts get shifted too...


I think the "Victorian" infrastructure is a slightly over used cliche. Especially in the water supply arena.
 
Surely the water companies are supposed to invest a sensible proportion of their profits into maintaining and modernising their (largely Victorian) infrastructure, to ensure they stay in business in the future...or did those goalposts get shifted too...


The choice is invest or pay dividends and we know what the answer is
 
The choice is invest or pay dividends and we know what the answer is


Why are water companies able to invest sums greater than their profits each year?

Because they pay a dividend which encourages investors to lend money to the industry.

Most water companies are cash negative.

I seem to recall the water industry was a shining example of efficiency under goverment ownership.........
 
Actually, the water companies only get returns to shareholders by investing and operating efficiently. Ofwat, the water regulator, controls investment (including spending on leaks, new reservoirs and what is necessary to meet environmental and drinking water quality) and prices absolutely, and has since 1989. Dividends versus investment is an utterly false dichotomy under economic regulation - you only get dividends by investing, and if you invest too much or too little your returns are reduced.

The only way more water is going to get to the dry South East is if bills there rise. There is no magic pot of dividends or shareholders funds to pay for it.
 
Why are water companies able to invest sums greater than their profits each year?

Because they pay a dividend which encourages investors to lend money to the industry.

Most water companies are cash negative.

I seem to recall the water industry was a shining example of efficiency under goverment ownership.........

I'm in Yorkshire.

I can only get my water from Yorkshire Water.

I thought privatisation was all about choice?

Just like the energy companies, it's all one big cartel.
 
About time someone (an armchair engineer perhaps?) mentions leakage and how we should have zero leakage (and free water as it falls from the skies doesn't it?) because cost / benefit does not matter:rolleyes:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom