|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #28
100% 
As I see it, the only real driver for improvement will come from the growing number of people participating in open water swimming demanding better water quality, the government don't give a flying **** about angling, the water quality or the environment in general 
Privatization = cost cutting and invested interests and comes at a cost and the cost is neglect and in this case its water quality. Some truly shocking practices gone / going off 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #30
I think this is a very overlooked part of the industry. Water companies are obligated to provide clean water for consumption and treat waste water to a level it is pretty much drinkable. They input pollute the water 0% and have to remove everyone else’s pollution.
We pay them to do it but keep adding to the pollutants and volumes of pollution in the water. From chemicals, hormones, wipes, ear buds, fats, etc.
Why does no one ever point the finger at the people creating the pollution, us? We could all do better and ease the strain on water treatment and consumption could we not?
It’d certainly keep the bills down if as a population we consumed less water and didn’t pollute it that’s for sure!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #28
Metering would be fare if every user was metered and paid by usage but a vast amount still do not have meters. As has already been said local authorities don't know what the future hold in terms of demand for supply and waste treatment as new developments get pushed forward or put back. Even the hotels that were only forty percent average occupancy for years can suddenly become full on government contracts massively increasing demand on both supply and waste treatment. Today I received an invitation from British water to attend a conference being held next month on micro pollutants,this is potentially a massive issue that will require massive investment and I can see the water companies looking for financial support from the government.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #28
I'm glad someone else thinks like that.
|
|
|
|
The utility companies which everyone rely on in their daily lives should not be Public or privately owned or run!
I’ve said for years that they should be run on an Independent basis to provide the service required on a strictly none profit basis, with zero Government involvement.
It’s not rocket science, it’s very easy to work out the exact daily cost per end user, and how much extra to add to the bill to cover the cost for planned up-grades.
No profit, no shareholders, no Government parasites, just run to provide the service – that’s how it should be.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #26
It's a fact that since privatization the water companies have not invested enough in modernization and increasing capacity
No surprise there, same with all the industry they sold down the rivers pardon the pun, washed their hands of them. Government are a shower of ****, all of them
Some level headed thinking required instead of invested interests, its the environment ffs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #11
I think people need to do a lot more reading around it all so they can get the full picture.
As a retired engineer and still a member of British water I get emails regularly on what's going on in various locations and can attend meetings and vote on certain things within the industry. It's a fact that since privatisation the water companies have not invested enough in modernization and increasing capacity. You could argue that ofwat price caps have restricted growth but I believe if any industry should never be private it's the water .
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #24
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #21
To be fair Greekskii has a more nuanced view of the situation, and as I said in an earlier post, yes, the water companies share a significant proportion of being responsible for the state of our rivers, but Ofwat, the EA, and the government are clearly seen to be responsible for letting the WA's get away with it by setting fines that are simply more cost effective for them to settle, than to pay for the required upgrade works, which in many cases, they decline to proceed after substantial design efforts have been made, on the grounds that they do not have the budget. 80% of the upgrade schemes either get cut down to the bare minimum, or do not get approved for construction at all.
Privatisation was clearly a huge mistake for the environmental reasons alone, which no one is arguing against, but the real problem runs far deeper than water company executive's.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #22
"Why is that not acceptable to you?"
I said that I find it odd. I respect your opinions, I just don't fully agree or understand.
"Not sure why you keep telling me I’m against the problems being fixed?"
Did I say this?
"You clearly don’t want to listen to what I have to say, because at no point have you indicated that you’ve taken it on board"
That's my bad. It's obviously something I need to work on.
"I’m not going to waste my Sunday on your seeming need to villainise someone that’s providing the full picture."
That's a little over the top. I don't think your a villain & I doubt anyone else does on here. That wasn't my intention & I'm sorry you feel that way, my apologies. It may well turn out to be me that's the villain, I don't know, my opinions are my own & I'm not speaking for anyone else.
"I’ve provided anyone reading the thread a wider knowledge of the issues so they can make informed views of it all".
& Thank you for your contribution.
Enjoy your Sunday & I genuinely hope you come back to share more.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #21
It’s not one sided. Just showing the side that no one campaigning for change is willing to talk about. Which provides a fully informed conversation and not a one sided one.
Why is that not acceptable to you?
Not sure why you keep telling me I’m against the problems being fixed? Because I’ve clearly said I do, just I have realistic expectations because of the knowledge I have. Which I am sharing.
Multiply it up and it doesn’t touch the sides on what’s required. Hence it’s a long term fix which is my point.
You clearly don’t want to listen to what I have to say, because at no point have you indicated that you’ve taken it on board, as they are all facts as to why this isn’t as simple an issue it’s made out to be. That’s your prerogative, but you can’t come to the conclusion someone who is providing the full picture is somehow against sorting the issue. I won’t go in to who you sound like by doing that.
I’m not going to waste my Sunday on your seeming need to villainise someone that’s providing the full picture. I’ve provided anyone reading the thread a wider knowledge of the issues so they can make informed views of it all.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #20
"I’ve spent most of my career in river conservation"
Then your particular one sided stance seems odd to me.
"If you’d rather not know, don’t engage?"
Where have I indicated this in my posts? Is your opinion the only one that's valid?
"Ignorance is bliss as they say."
My Spidey Senses tell me that you're trying to draw me into an argument..
"your annual bill barely covers 2 days labour for a construction worker."
& Then multiply this by how many million in each region?
"Be prepared to pay your water company a hell of a lot more in the future."
If it means that our rivers & lakes will be preserved then it's a price I'd be willing to pay.
What angler wouldn't want this?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #19
Explaining the realism of the situation is not defending them. It’s to show that not everything is as simple as is made out.
I don’t mean you directly, but the general consensus of those that want to shoot the water companies is that it will just be fixed tomorrow. I’m explaining why that’s impossible. People need realistic expectations.
I’ve spent most of my career in river conservation, so I know the issues inside out. Hence why I can explain it all to people that won’t know. If you’d rather not know, don’t engage? Ignorance is bliss as they say.
Be prepared to pay your water company a hell of a lot more in the future. Like I said, your annual bill barely covers 2 days labour for a construction worker.
I think water should not be privatised, not that it’ll solve anything unless the entire regulatory system is revamped.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #15
"So you think it’s reasonable to expect water companies to magically fix the entire water network in a matter of hours? Days? Weeks?"
"There are so many complexities to it, but if you believe there is a quick and easy way then I’m sure water companies would want to hear it."
Where in my posts have I demanded a quick fix? You're the person who keeps bringing it up because I suspect that it fits your narrative. It gives you the opportunity to reiterate & deflect the blame. You say that you're not defending the companies however this is what you're consistently doing. Your emotional investment & knowledge suggests that you may have some kind of connection to the industry?
There is no quick fix but having the companies accountable for their actions may be a good start. I'm in support of the law change & this will hopefully kick start plans to solve the issues.
As I've already said, I don't know the answers & I don't need to because I pay my water company for this. I like to think that these are the people who would be best suited to finding the solutions.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #17
Hi Winkler, yes, a combination of Snivil Service ineptitude, corporate greed and government laziness. Utilities should never have been sold off, many to overseas interests.
This is what we reap for their failings. These outfits knew what they were getting into, knew what they could siphon off and knew there would be little consequence for their actions.
|
|
General Carp Discussion