Cost of Water

[For want of a better word]

You forgot to mention a barrel, the one they've got you over!

If you work out your cost per cubic meter I expect you will be paying less.

South West Water is I believe the most expensive in the UK

Before I moved I had a system where I saved rainwater and used it for the washing machines and loo flushing... same sized family.. my meterage was 20 per quarter ... checked it ...over 12 weeks periods not 11!
Washing machine seems to be always on.......

Little one too big now to throw in the tub together!

Yes Andy they certainly have me over a barrel !

 

[porterswoods]

I can't see why a house that has 2 occupants should pay the same as as one with 4.

As has alredy been said it is convenient for water companies. It is an argument that can go on forever

 

[The Cumbrian]

Why should I be forced to have one.

You aren't forced to have one you can opt out if you like. The drawback is you won't get any mains water.

Just as with electricity you don't have to have a meter if you provide your own through a generator.

 

[JamezF]

I can't see why a house that has 2 occupants should pay the same as as one with 4.

There are so many ways you can extend that kind of argument.

Why, for example, should I pay as much for my water when I'm only five miles from the reservoir as someone one hundred miles away, when it clearly costs more to maintain the infrastructure for them than it does for me?

Why should two people living in a large property pay more via council tax to have their rubbish collected, their streets lit and so on than a couple in the next street in a small house who receive the same services?

Why should it cost the same for me to post a letter ten miles to the next town as my next-door neighbour pays to send one six hundred miles to the north of Scotland?

Why should people who have no children, or people who send their children to private schools, have to contribute via taxation to the cost of educating other people's children?

(I'm asking these questions as illustrations, btw. I neither expect nor desire answers

I think there's a case for accepting that in some ways some of us subsidise others use of services just as they sometimes subsidise ours and that in the long run it's better for the communities we live in and society as a whole that it happens that way than people constantly obsess and argue about only paying for their "fair share" of the services they use. Equally I realise that this idea runs somewhat counter to the self-centred "greed is good" philosophy that has evolved in this country over the last, say, thirty years, not to mention that it would put some newspapers known for their ranting right wing editorial bias out of business

James

 

[VEG]

You aren't forced to have one you can opt out if you like. The drawback is you won't get any mains water.

Just as with electricity you don't have to have a meter if you provide your own through a generator.

I meant the meter I have mains water but not metered.

 

[Nose Ma]

This interested me a little, so I had a quick look around at water company websites.

Unusually for highly profitable industries none of them have an easy-access link to their most recent Annual Reports. Anglian in particular had the report available, but it is useless as it’s just a holding company that shows no directors’ emoluments (wages, sort of) or indeed where income comes from.

So, I had a look at OFWAT, the regulator. It has some interesting stuff on its website, mostly about what good value for money it is. I was unable to find any data about Enforcement it had taken, so I assume that either to its mind all is well, or it sends Sternly Worded Letter should something bad happen, and then, well, maybe write another. OFWAT is the body that sets the prices the companies can charge, amongst other things.

I have, personally, a real issue with this. If I wish, I can dispense with a TV, a phone, electricity etc. I cannot do without water. It is necessary for life. I can’t really look around and say “oh, hang on, Portsmouth Water is the cheapest (£91 pa average) I’ll ask them to supply me, because that’s not how it works. Instead I get lumped with Severn Trent, which looks really poor, see below for the key performance areas it failed, per OFWAT.

Its report goes on about how much the water industry spends on infrastructure each year (£3 billion for the lot of them. ST’s profit alone is half a billion, and there are 10 big ones, and 24 others). At ST the average (statistical mean) employee (including directors) earned about £31,000 in 2011. Which is nice. The highest paid director is not named (just referenced to being the same as last year, and I cannot be bothered to check) and (s)he earned £878,100 excluding pension payments, which is really nice. Especially as Severn Trent failed the following tests: Supply Interruptions, Serviceability, Water Supply Security, and Leakage. So well done to him or her for running such a shocking business. Luckily it did manage to monitor its greenhouse emissions, which makes the £878k worthwhile I think. (see http://bit.ly/tzHLYt for how your company did).

Anyhow, my point is that water and sewerage provision is vital for life. I do not see why anyone should profit from it. It is a risk-free sector. Directors should be paid accordingly. No risk = no reward. There should be no profits. Excess moneys each year should be re-invested back into repairing leaks (I am looking at you, Tony Wray, Chief Exec) not have the majority of it paid away as dividends.

 

[Storm™]

water meters once installed will not be removed
sewage charge is only payable if connected to main sewer,
unless you have septic tank, which has over flow to water course.
outher wise no charge

My mum was offered (Cornwall so South West Water) a water meter for a year. If after that year she did not find it saved her money South West Water would remove the meter. She kept hers, her neighbour was better off on rates. He had a bit of land so he found it cheaper to keep the rates system.

Or a bore hole if you can for £2000.00 and a pump for about £200.00 or less. Way better and cheaper.

 

[Lindylou]

We are on a meter - not what I would have wished but it came with the bungalow. We pay £10 a month. However there are only 2 of us and we are very careful with our water usage. We have 6 water butts for garden use and find it works out really well.

 

[JamezF]

Anyhow, my point is that water and sewerage provision is vital for life. I do not see why anyone should profit from it. It is a risk-free sector. Directors should be paid accordingly. No risk = no reward. There should be no profits. Excess moneys each year should be re-invested back into repairing leaks (I am looking at you, Tony Wray, Chief Exec) not have the majority of it paid away as dividends.

This is another hobby horse I like to take out for a bit of a canter now and then

Is it right that services such as water supply (and electricity and gas as well as others I'm sure might be included) where it could be argued that proper maintenance and investment are vital to the well-being of individuals or to communities and society as a whole, should be controlled by a very small number of companies who answer to their shareholders rather than the people to whom those services are supplied? It has been argued that privatisation reduces waste and perhaps that's true in a market where there's sufficient competition, but equally it might be seen that paying someone the thick end of a million quid a year to do a job that plenty of people would probably do just as well for far less is no less wasteful.

James

 

[The Cumbrian]

I meant the meter I have mains water but not metered.

Because that is how the suppliers have decided to deliver their product in future. You either take as they deliver it or find another source.

Incidentally the business I was a partner in back in the late 90s had a meter put in and costs fell to 1/4 of what they had been.

 

[The Cumbrian]

This is another hobby horse I like to take out for a bit of a canter now and then

Is it right that services such as water supply (and electricity and gas as well as others I'm sure might be included) where it could be argued that proper maintenance and investment are vital to the well-being of individuals or to communities and society as a whole, should be controlled by a very small number of companies who answer to their shareholders rather than the people to whom those services are supplied? It has been argued that privatisation reduces waste and perhaps that's true in a market where there's sufficient competition, but equally it might be seen that paying someone the thick end of a million quid a year to do a job that plenty of people would probably do just as well for far less is no less wasteful.

James

I exercise this hobby horse as well. Nobody has ever explained to me how a system which requires a profit be made can produce a cheaper product. Yet they seem to apply it to everything even schools these days.

 

[Nose Ma]

This is another hobby horse I like to take out for a bit of a canter now and then

Is it right that services such as water supply (and electricity and gas as well as others I'm sure might be included) where it could be argued that proper maintenance and investment are vital to the well-being of individuals or to communities and society as a whole, should be controlled by a very small number of companies who answer to their shareholders rather than the people to whom those services are supplied? It has been argued that privatisation reduces waste and perhaps that's true in a market where there's sufficient competition, but equally it might be seen that paying someone the thick end of a million quid a year to do a job that plenty of people would probably do just as well for far less is no less wasteful.

James

There seems to be some bizarre belief that a if you pay someone enough they will make their business efficient. Its not true. Pay this guy £100,000 a year and he would do the same job just as well. This is a risk free market with no competition, impossible barriers to entry.

There are 6,000 people making the business what it is - he is simply caught along in the current of regulation and what his staff want to do. Dragging things on topic, much like a queen bee - she is at the mercy of the colony, it can survive if she goes, important though she is.
Very few CEOs effect any real change or direction on the business. (IMHO)

Run as utilities in public ownership leads to other problems - see National Rail for an example of that...

 

[For want of a better word]

Would love to set up a poll of how much water COST are per cubic meter across the Uk

That would be you TOTAL charge per meter cubed.. inc sewage etc

not within my limited pc ABILITIES !?????

 

[For want of a better word]

FIFTY QUID OFF... WHOOPEE !

A mere drop in the ocean I am afraid Mr Osbourne... We would not want to upset your SWW shareholders too much would we now!


Do not think that Thornies will be getting an order for any new kit on the back of this HUGE price reduction... still paying FAR MORE for water than the rest of the UK !!!!!

 

[johnandyrob]

People in the Northumbria water area paid more for water for years so that several reservoir be built and maintained. Currently their is more water than can be used Keilder reservoir is not used to supply water. There is now talk of us having to pay more so that similar schemes can be constructed in other water authority areas. How does that work?

 

[Queens59]

5 in a bungalow - all water in butts etc...bill?? £1000 per annum...almost worth moving back to Gloucestershire!!

 

[For want of a better word]

When a student studying for a degree in Environmental Science I had the opportunity to corner the then CEO of South West Water and ask some very awkward questions.... he was more slippery than most of the most right wing politicians we have in government at these dark and economically depressed days.
His answer to everything was that SWW needed to invest in the future and had the longest coastline of any water company, and therefore HAD to charge its customers more to fund the future costs.
My interpretation was that SWW customers were funding future developments and part of that big lump of future investments cash was being given to shareholders as dividends!

If I wanted to invest in my own future ( business enterprise, house etc)I would have to go cap in hand to a bank or building society and borrow it.

Public utilities should be run on a not for profit basis... look to Seattle on the shores of Lake Washington to be seen what could be achieved... even solved the eutrophication and pollution of the lake... and that in one of the most capitalised countries the planet has seen!

 

[roche]

The advantage of a water meter is that it allows you to manage your usage. If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.
If you pay for what you use, you no longer subsidise (to the same extent) the people and companies that waste....

 

[Appinpiper]

It still bugs me that living in Wild WET Wales we not only supply water to others who need it but we do not get any reductions and at the end of the day it is us that has the extra expense of brollies and waterproofs lol

 

[greatbritishhoney]

I'm on a private water supply and drainage so I pay.....£0.00.......now, where's that smug g*t smilie?

Of course, I have to pay to maintain everything myself (although haven't ever had to do anything yet), and I pay to have the water analysed every year.