 |
| Perhaps water should be charged as to area that needs to covered, just a thought………….. |
There is no doubt that the privatisation of utilities has had mixed results, some such as telecoms have had a plus in most areas of supply and enjoy a degree of real competition.
Others not so much. The water companies which are monopolies have used their trading position to tread water (sigh) ever since they took over.
We had a vivid example a few years ago here with Anglia Water who saw the way forward as a reason to further fleece the customer. A survey was sent to all paying customers on how they would ‘prefer’ to pay for a modernisation plan, this from a well funded private company. I always believed that private companies would spend money on updating, modernising, expanding to then attract private finance, but not Anglian Water who provide the plan and want all customers to fund the ongoing works. The attitude of the survey was one of no modernisation without pay, not that this would have stopped price rises anyway.
Anglian water is fortunate in that it relies mainly on aquifers for the supply and even in dry years in a dry area escapes hose pipe bans and restrictions most of the time. This doesn’t stop them on their crusade to tell us how to use less water, endless emails give that information.
All this is to save the water company from doing its job: to supply fresh water as needed to an area with a growing population. No new storage facilities are being built or have been built since they took over.
The government has announced we need to save 20% of water by 2038; one has to ask why. It can only be because of the necessity to spend large sums on an industry notorious for not spending what it should. Why the government should back all this under a nefarious 25 year environment plan is a mystery.
Or is it? With an extra 400,000 immigrants per year the demand for water as with everything else inexorably rises. Once again years of neglect in infrastructure mean governments have dug a huge hole for themselves after the profligate covid period; we didn’t have the cash before covid, and now... !
If you take leakage into account, which should be an ongoing maintenance item, yet has become a permanently neglected problem, there would be currently no need to update water storage for some years. Endless neglect has seen leakage become a major problem nationally as old pipe infrastructure has reached way beyond its life expectancy and fails now on a regular basis.
Not only does the pipe fail but the road has to be dug up. A road parallel to us has been dug up at least three times in the last five years because of leaks and a substandard surface installed on what was a new pavement!
Wasn't it this government that decreed all local authorities should be informed of future utilities works so as to stop this constant digging up of newly laid roads and pavements? It seems like that has joined the long list of words and no deeds.
The current eco movement has its teeth into everything at the moment and water companies are not alone in band wagon jumping when it suits. Telling customers to cut back on usage and giving ‘advice’ has now had the inevitable threat of withdrawal of modern installations - dual flush toilets, which I always assumed were to save water are one, though in fairness experience shows they don’t: evidently they leak, and should be banned, though they don’t leak nearly as much as the supply mains!
Also power showers: I have had a power shower for years and if used sensibly they use less water than standard showers. I certainly spend a lot less time under a power shower than a standard one, but really I don’t care, these are devices of the modern age. The problem is not them but the supply companies who have failed to keep a decent standard of maintenance and an almost complete lack of future infrastructure needed with our increasing population, though why it is increasing is a separate matter.
To put it briefly, instead of managing resources either by building more reservoirs or by reducing immigration they want to reduce our quality of life and make us pay more for the privilege.
One final comment: water meters are still not compulsory other than for new builds. Why one section of the public should be forced to pay for water at a given rate and another use as much as they like is a mystery, I would not have a water meter from choice, the myth that they save you money was a statement to get people to change. Anyone who has had a water meter for any length of time and has looked at the differential between the cost of the actual water used and sewage removed will have noticed that the sewage component has become larger than the water amount without any explanation; here, it used to be roughly two thirds of the water element of the bill.
Once again we are being taken to the cleaners.
4 comments:
" I always believed that private companies would spend money on updating, modernising, expanding to then attract private finance, but not Anglian Water who provide the plan and want all customers to fund the ongoing works. The attitude of the survey was one of no modernisation without pay, not that this would have stopped price rises anyway."
Thats really rather naive - it really doesn't matter where the capital comes from to fund infrastructure improvements/repairs initially, the fact is that ultimately the customer has to pay for it, because they are the only source of revenue. Yes the water companies can borrow money from private finance (and probably do), but those investors require a) interest and b) repayment of capital, so where does that money come from? The customer eventually of course. If the customer demands improvements (or the State demands them because the voters keep voting for 'green' stuff) then the customer has to pay.
And whats the alternative? The State pays? And who is the State but all of us tax payers, who would then have to pay higher taxes to fund it. Water is a very good example of the fantasy that 'someone else' can always pay for stuff we use - every single one of us uses water and sewage services, in pretty much similar amounts per head. There are no people who don't drink water and don't use the toilet, and there are no people who can drink far more than others or make more bathroom visits. So its equal across society, and as such we all have to pay for those services, whatever they cost, if we want clean water out of the taps and someone to dispose of our sh*t for us. 'Government' can't pay for it, nor 'Big Business' because ultimately those legal fictions are just us, the 70m water users and sewage creators that make us the UK. The bill for it all ends with us, every one of us.
@Sobers: OTOH Anglia should not be giving £92 million in dividends to shareholders when it's failing to fix the massive leaks problem: https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2012-04-04/nearly-a-fifth-of-our-water-supply-is-lost-through-leaks
@Sackerson - Because today, only the big investors matter. Look what just happened with Silicon Valley Bank.
Here is something to think about, our water district in San Diego, asked us to reduce our water usage. We did and guess what happened. They congratulated us and then told us that they had to raise our rates, the reduction in revenue collected was not enough to pay the fixed costs for the utility.
Post a Comment