How anguished anglers stop us hosing the roses
A change in the philosophy of water management has led to the current hosepipe ban.
By the end of this week, hosepipe bans are
likely to have been imposed on more than 18 million people, nearly a
third of Britain's population, as a result of the worsening drought.
According to the meteorologists' definition of drought - at least 15
consecutive days with rainfall less than one-hundredth of an inch, or
0.25mm - most of Britain is certainly experiencing drought. Many areas
have had the longest, hottest spell of weather since 1976. But water
shortages are not generally caused by dry summers, but by dry winters.
From April to September plants are growing most actively, and their
growth uses a lot of water; a typical figure for south-east England
would be the equivalent of a depth of water of about 100mm per month, or
twice the average monthly rainfall. Since all the water cannot come
from the rain, it comes from the soil, which dries out. Any rain that
does fall during this time, instead of being shed to flow to rivers, or
trickling on down through the soil to replenish the aquifers, is
absorbed.
So "drought" in summer makes little difference to the amount of water
available for us to use. Demand increases through garden watering and
spray irrigation but thisusually represents a relatively small
proportion of our annual national consumption.
One problem is what water companies call the garden-centre syndrome.
This occurs in May, when gardeners rush out to buy plants, shove them in
the ground and water them copiously. At that time we may pose a problem
to the water companies, not because they are short of water, but
because the water-mains cannot cope with carrying all that extra water.
The pipes are too narrow to carry enough water quickly enough. This
year, the "garden- centre" effect started late and seems to be carrying
on.
The first bans on hosepipes and sprinklers were imposed not because
of a resources problem (the quantity of water available) but because of
distribution problems: in some areas so many people were using hoses and
sprinklers that those living on high ground were without water because
of the fall in mains pressure. As the dry weather has pushed up demand,
some companies - especially those relying on reservoirs - now face a
resources problem, and are also imposing hosepipe bans.
In the east, where groundwater is the main supply source, the wet
winter brought exceptional replenishment to aquifers, leaving
groundwater levels at or near record highs. These levels are falling
rapidly, but are not yet a cause for concern. As they fall the flow of a
few streams and smaller rivers will be reduced. Partly because of this,
and the resultant cries of anguish from anglers, there has been a
change in philosophy in the British water establishment.
In the past, the water industry was "demand led". The policy was to
meet demand, sinking new boreholes or building new reservoirs and
pipelines as necessary. Last year, the National Rivers Authority
introduced demand "management". In essence, the NRA is telling water
companies that they cannot expect approval to construct new water
sources until they show they have done what they can to reduce demand
for water and have done all they reasonably can to reduce water wasted
from leaking mains.
In the days when water was usually supplied by a local water board,
with the cost "lost" in the rates, appeals for less use of water would
likely have been heeded. Now that it is supplied by private companies
whose charges and profits have been hitting the headlines, appeals seem
less effective. Is metering the answer? The NRA and Ofwat tend to
believe it is; the water companies are not so sure. True, it would
answer the complaints of people living alone, who object to paying as
much for their water as a large family in the same size of house. But
water is not like electricity, for which much of the production cost
comes from the fuel used in its generation. Water does not have to be
generated; although there is a unit cost associated with pumping and
treating each litre, much of the cost is associated with the provision
and maintenance of the system that brings water to each property - and
that cost is the same whether the property is occupied by one person or
six. So a fair system of charging for water would have a very high
standing charge, and a relatively low unit charge. This is unlikely to
reduce consumption, since it means in essence that the water becomes
proportionally cheaper as more is used. People in large mansions use a
lot, and may not be deterred either by the extra cost or by appeals for
conservation.
Another problem with metering is that, for properties served by mains
sewerage, it forms the basis for the sewage charge as well as the water
charge. It is assumed that every litre of water supplied to the
property is also taken away as sewage. For most domestic use this is a
reasonable assumption, but it falls down when a lot of water is used in
the garden. Since that water does not have to be taken away and treated,
it means the avid gardener is paying about twice as much for each litre
put on the garden as for each litre used for washing up. Large
organisations can request a "non-return to sewer" allowance, but that
option is unlikely to be available for the Smiths' herbaceous borders.
And much of the insistence on use reduction arises from well-off people
who want their village streams and fishing rights safeguarded. Why
should the rest of us have our demands managed so their demands can be
met? If the Labour Party wants a cause to champion, that might be a
better one than Frank Dobson's recent crusade against leaking pipes.
Leakage in Britain is high, but is being reduced. Treating and
pumping water which then leaks from the mains is a waste of money, but
there comes a point where it is more economic to do that than to repair
every minor leak. Most water engineers say that point comes when leakage
is down to around 10-15 per cent, depending on the area. Britain still
has some way to go to achieve that figure, but it is hard to be certain.
Ironically, one of the least-stated benefits of water-metering would be
that it would help to identify just where the leaks are - and many
small leaks may well turn out to be on the customer's side of the water
meter. Very often the water that leaks is not "lost": it often forms
unintentional recharge to aquifers or supplements low river flows.
Comparisons are now being made with 1976. But 1976 came after a dry
winter and the hot dry summer of 1975. This summer has followed an
exceptionally wet winter, just as 1975 did. If dry conditions persist
into the autumn, as they did in 1975, and are followed by a dry winter,
the comparisons will begin to mean something. Then the debate over water
may really hot up.
