water supply

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Mike Poole on 16/06/2019 10:43:12:

Luckily I live at the source end of the Thames and so get first use, London are pretty much last to use the Thames water

Mike

Thames Water (the supplier, not the river) is jointly owned by the Australians and Chinese, both evil regimes intent on World Domination. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Dr Strangelove apart, I believe Thames Water are still the UK's worst offender in terms of unfixed leaks. They prefer to pay shareholder dividends rather than mend pipes. UK Government doesn't exactly take a hard-line:

'We require the water companies to fix leaks, as long as the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not fixing the leak.'

So that's all right then.

Dave

[Ian Johnson 1Participant @ianjohnson1]

No problem with water harvesting in NW England, we went to the southport flower show last year and came back with a 300 litre water butt, free gratis from United Utilities! Who also supply our water which is the best in country, coming from lake vrynwy and the river Dee.

Ian

[J HancockParticipant @jhancock95746]

To Bikepete et al.

Yes, Anglian Water and I'm sure all the others.

Note, I did say 'constructively' use, interpret that as you will.

However, in Belgium , most owners are actively encouraged to store rainwater which can be used for toilet flushing, washing machines,etc which discharge into the foul effluent system at no cost.

[RMAParticipant @rma]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 16/06/2019 13:33:44:

Posted by Mike Poole on 16/06/2019 10:43:12:

Luckily I live at the source end of the Thames and so get first use, London are pretty much last to use the Thames water

Mike

Thames Water (the supplier, not the river) is jointly owned by the Australians and Chinese, both evil regimes intent on World Domination. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Dr Strangelove apart, I believe Thames Water are still the UK's worst offender in terms of unfixed leaks. They prefer to pay shareholder dividends rather than mend pipes. UK Government doesn't exactly take a hard-line:

'We require the water companies to fix leaks, as long as the cost of doing so is less than the cost of not fixing the leak.'

So that's all right then.

Dave

Yes, I'm afraid we are reaping where Thatcher sowed. Can anyone on here tell me which companies are still totally British owned? Shouldn't take long

[BikepeteParticipant @bikepete]

Just like you report from Belgium, Anglian Water actively encourage rainwater re-use:

**LINK**

Their latest charging T&Cs are here:

**LINK**

Click the " Customer charges 2019-2020 " link to get the full PDF.

The only relevant mention of rain or rainwater is to do with foul water sewerage charging on page 21 – if rainwater harvesting results in greater than expected inflows to the waste water sewer (because otherwise the rain would likely soak away) then they would charge for this. Which seems perfectly reasonable.

But it provides no confirmation at all that "what falls from the sky belongs to the water company"

Re the original quote which you refer to:

"And, to really turn the screw, you will find that if you try to collect rainwater to use it more 'constructively', you will be charged for it !"

"Note, I did say 'constructively' use, interpret that as you will. "

Rather than make people guess/interpret, why not just say what specific uses you believe you would be charged for?

Then it will be easy to fact check that against Anglia's website.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

The Water Act 2003 is a total bore but if I read it correctly, it says everybody is right:

Subject to the following provisions of this Chapter and to any drought order or drought permit under Chapter 3 of this Part, no person shall—

(a)begin, or cause or permit any other person to begin, to construct or alter any impounding works at any point in any inland waters which are not discrete waters; or

(b)cause or permit the flow of any inland waters which are not discrete waters to be obstructed or impeded at any point by means of impounding works,

In other words a Water Butt is potentially illegal, except:

The restriction on abstraction shall not apply to any abstraction of a quantity of water not exceeding twenty cubic metres in any period of twenty-four hours, if the abstraction does not form part of a continuous operation, or of a series of operations, by which a quantity of water which, in aggregate, is more than twenty cubic metres is abstracted during the period.

If more than 20 tons a day is required, a license is needed.

Except, this can be varied by order of the Secretary of State. (Usually to deal with droughts.)

So, in the UK, although you do not own the water that lands on your roof, you have rights to it provided you don't go bonkers and take more than 20 tons a day. The legislation is aimed at large land-holders who might interfere with public water supply, not water butts in a small garden, unless the Secretary of State has reason to interfere, which is unlikely. The Secretary of State can also limit the amount of water a house-holder can take from the tap, even if it is metered. I remember a garden-proud pensioner from Devon going to jail in 1976 for repeatedly using a hose during a ban.

Dave

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

As a historical point, in the Middle Ages when Valletta the capital of Malta was constructed, I think it was the first city laid out on a grid the fore runner of city planning, every dwelling had to be built on a cistern which collected the rainfall that fell on the dwelling. This was essential for survival when the city was under siege, the practice carried on and many properties even those built recently have cisterns under the property, the contents are used for toilet flushing and clothes laundering. We could learn a lot from this practice, if every new house built in UK had a rainwater harvesting system we could survive our frequent dry spells without the threat of water restrictions. Not sure how the utilities would view reduced sales/profits.

Dave W

[RMAParticipant @rma]

Totally agree. It should be in the Building regs just the same as smoke detectors etc. Common sense really but I'm afraid common sense isn't so common these days!

[BikepeteParticipant @bikepete]

Good find Dave (SOD). But I'm not sure that provision is relevant.

The definitions/interpretation of "inland waters" and "discrete waters" are given in the 1991 Water Resources Act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/57/section/221

It's possible a subsequent amendment changed these or they're defined elsewhere differently, but from that text they do not seem to me to include anything even vaguely interpretable as including rainwater collection.

“discrete waters” means inland waters so far as they comprise—
(a)a lake, pond or reservoir which does not discharge to any other inland waters; or
(b)one of a group of two or more lakes, ponds or reservoirs (whether near to or distant from each other) and of watercourses or mains connecting them, where none of the inland waters in the group discharges to any inland waters outside the group;

“inland waters” means the whole or any part of—
(a)any river, stream or other watercourse (within the meaning of Chapter II of Part II of this Act), whether natural or artificial and whether tidal or not;
(b)any lake or pond, whether natural or artificial, or any reservoir or dock, in so far as the lake, pond, reservoir or dock does not fall within paragraph (a) of this definition; and
(c)so much of any channel, creek, bay, estuary or arm of the sea as does not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) of this definition;

All you said applies to watercourses/ponds etc., but I don't see that it applies to rainwater collection. (I am not a lawyer!)

Edited By Bikepete on 16/06/2019 15:18:47

[Anthony KnightsParticipant @anthonyknights16741]

I have a total of 4 water butts on my property which gives me a reserve if about 160 gallons in the event of a drought. This will water my garden instead of using tap water, something the water company should be grateful for. If things got really bad, I suppose I could boil it before drinking it. The thing that really annoys me is that you still have to pay the water bill, even when they can't supply you, Where else does this happen ?

[Ian Johnson 1Participant @ianjohnson1]

I've got no problem with water companies charging for water that I use. And they make it perfectly clear that the water charges relate to fresh water supplied in their pipes and sewage water taken away in their pipes. If my house wasn't connected to their pipes and was off grid I wouldn't get any water Bills

[clogsParticipant @clogs]

I'd like to add that there are properties in Grand Caneria that also store rain water below houses collected from the roof….in the mountains it is ducted by open troughs to houses / farms for use and storage….

and soon to be a an ex Pat living in Crete, their water is snow melt, gathered and treated for consumption …

Last year they collected best bottled water in Europe cert….

and the last time I checked, untreated water for farms and Agri was 20cents per cub/m…also available for garden use…..

and this place is a mainly desert….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I've no problem either with being charged. After all you don't obtain anything from the shops for free! The charges are for sewerage as well as fresh water, and having a meter means I buy only the water I use.

The overflows from my three water-butts, one filled from the workshop roof, keep two ponds topped up and fresh. I've also fitted one with a micro-bore irrigation system for plants along the rain-shadow of the boundary wall.

I have wondered about running a low-volume dribble from the roof down-spout to the toilet-cistern, as much to reduce scaling as consumption, as I live in a hard-water area.

[Gordon AParticipant @gordona]

If I remember correctly, during the water shortage of 1976 the UK government issued the advice to "Save water and shower with a friend" !

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Posted by Gordon A on 16/06/2019 20:34:58:

If I remember correctly, during the water shortage of 1976 the UK government issued the advice to "Save water and shower with a friend" !

 

One of very few bits of governmental advice that was worth following.

Edited By V8Eng on 16/06/2019 21:16:14

[Former MemberParticipant @formermember32069]

[This posting has been removed]

[Anthony KnightsParticipant @anthonyknights16741]

I took great care in deciding where I would live. Close to, but not too near the A1,M1 & M62. Also near but not too close to 2 cities. I am about 4 miles from the nearest river and 60 miles from the coast. The land round here is flat and according to the guys that use the local airfield, 9 metres above sea level. They are hardly likely to build a reservoir here because they would have to dig an enormous hole. The biggest danger is that the surrounding farmland will be over run with new housing for the people who are unfortunate enough to live less than 2 metres above sea level.

Regarding overpopulation which has been mentioned in previous posts, I will offer the following facts.

(1) In 1950 the UK population was 50.38 million.

(2) 2019 figures show the population at 66.93 million ( and that's just the ones we know about )

(3) We now appear to have overtaken Holland as the most densely populated country in Europe.

(4) Lemmings seem to have a solution for over population.

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

For the record, it's a myth that lemmings fling themselves off cliffs. That misinformation originates with Disney.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Regarding overpopulation which has been mentioned in previous posts, I will offer the following facts.

(1) In 1950 the UK population was 50.38 million.

(2) 2019 figures show the population at 66.93 million ( and that's just the ones we know about )

That's hardly any increase at all. Rougly 16 million in 70 years. About half of one per cent a year? That's a dangerously low population growth rate, many economists say. (They must not have to queue in traffic on the way home, somehow.)

 

Edited By Hopper on 17/06/2019 06:49:54

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

Posted by Hopper on 17/06/2019 06:46:56:

Regarding overpopulation which has been mentioned in previous posts, I will offer the following facts.

(1) In 1950 the UK population was 50.38 million.

(2) 2019 figures show the population at 66.93 million ( and that's just the ones we know about )

That's hardly any increase at all. Rougly 16 million in 70 years. About half of one per cent a year? That's a dangerously low population growth rate, many economists say.

Edited By Hopper on 17/06/2019 06:48:46

These are the same economists who get bugger all right? in reality this country is becoming unpleasant to live in due to overpopulation! 

Tony

 

 

Edited By Tony Pratt 1 on 17/06/2019 06:51:39

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

LOL those would be the ones.

[RMAParticipant @rma]

Many year's ago when I was on one of my management courses, Economics was on the syllabus and was considered a complete waste of time. There was a saying " If you laid all the Economists in the world end to end, you'd never reach a conclusion". Unfortunately they get taken notice of, and important decisions are made on the basis of the the drivel they come up with.

Unfortunately Algorithms are set to take their place and the world and our lives will be determined by them. This is already happening in the insurance industry, and many others are set to follow.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Algorithms… algorithms… algorithms…..

A dancing craze invented by a former American politician of no great note?

I hate the word, not for itself but for its abusive and worship by journalists and politicians who like to repeat long words 'cos it makes journalists and politicians sound clever.

We're all engineers – we know where technical terms apply or are valuable; we also spot when non-engineers or non-scientists are using as metaphors, fancy words without comprehending them. (Actually a lot of people now do not even really understand quite ordinary words.)

We also know artificial things are made or written by people; 'ooman beings like thee and me.

An algoritms is nothing more than a calculating routine within a computer programme – and yes I do refuse the use the American spelling for the latter. On its own it is useless: just a string of code characters, or in the computer, of 1s and 0s, representing a string of algebra.

The algorithm and its host programme were designed written by people – even if the programme can adapt its own calculations to suit some change. And that programme was designed to perform a set of tasks within a system designed and run by people.

Don't blame the poor little "Algorithm". Blame the people – who include ivory-tower'd economists and insurers with the initiative of a gnu – who designed and operate the system, then the programme!

What we can blame is the "algorithm" being used blindly: "The computer says 'A = F' therefore A must equal F " when in reality A could be anything from B to P. That is the way of the system-using people using the system to avoid responsibility, intelligence and initiative. And such an abrogation does not need a computer programme: the database with its "algorithms" is a just a tool to make life easier for the abrogant.

[pgk pgkParticipant @pgkpgk17461]

You have to love statistics. Best stats i can find and guesstimate from give a mid-50's population around 53million a police force of 72,000 and crime figures of 500,000/year. Current population of 66mill, 122,000 police and 5.5million crimes. Interestingly back then one actually saw police out and about. Real crime figures now are likely way higher than 5.5 mill 'cos most people don't bother reporting them – unless it's something important like an insult on facebook. In the 50's car ownership was less than 15% of households but most folk now ate sliced bread. Now 60% households have at least one car.

From this we can assume that 15million people are responsible for 5million crimes from consuming too much bread and having too many cars and 50,000 police can't catch them.

pgk

[RMAParticipant @rma]

Nice assumption.

Interesting diversion into Police and crime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was a Crown Prosecution Service then. I also think respect was common, and the court system worked in favour of the victim!!

The current Police force are now in a complete 'no win' situation! Complete lack of respect from most of the scum they have to deal with; not much back up from the CPS, and courts which deal out a 'slap on the wrist'! Police involvement is now filmed on phones and put on the internet, so they have to think through any consequencies of their action before they do anything

How can the Police cope with the pressure they are under?

[Author]

Posts