News - Whose water is it anyway?
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-12-01 21:45:29
In no way I am supporting or vidicating any failures to bring home the bacon targets or apply proper governance procedures to ensure correct and justified information and data is provided to the regulator - but simply portraying leakage levels and not equating that approve to a cost to fix and what this would mean in terms of customer bills is shocking and potentially misrepresented the actual situation. Im my simplistic view OFWAT (and the UK Government) have to strike a balance between the level of investment and customer bills) and this is decided every five years by them. So if water companies achieve the targets (which the majority are) then they are doing so in the confines of the funding (customers money) that has been approved by Government.
A Andrews. HertsHaving been very careful with our wet ie using washing up water to wet our plants collecting what come down we have had in our many water butts having quick showers instead of baths etc to find out that we undergo so much wasted by leaks from an obviously incompetant water company makes my blood boil. I have lost so many precious plants due to lack of water some others may never acquire. Obviously gardens take second place to our basic needs it’s just so sad that the water lost could of been used in our gardens.
Chris Tranmer. Datchet. BerkshireThe prentational call and reporting in most recent Panorama programmes (Thames Water and VAT cheat stories) seem to be directed towards an audience of moronic 13 year olds or more develop Sun readers. Whilst the subjects of the programmes are interesting and serious the manner adopted by the reporters is childish and theatrical. Can you not revert to they more adult call for which Panormana was renowned in its hay day?
Keith Sheen. EnglandWhilst I welcomed your create by mental act on the wet companies I felt that it did not put them on the spot in any way. I would follow up the point about who owns the wet. wet is not strictly a resource in the sense that other utilities are. It is not finite in the way that oil based utilities are and therefore not an environmental issue. The Boards are not supplying or providing water they are directing it to us. Assuming that there is enough water to go around in the total sense then the Boards jobs are to get it to us which they are patently not doing efficiently. We are told that there is not enough wet to go around but that is not the weather’s fault it is the affiliate’s faults for not getting it to us. Would the cater companies say stop buying appliances because there is not enough power? I disbelieve it. I believe there is enough wet in this country to supply all our needs without running rivers dry or showing pictures of dry reservoirs but it needs to be harnes! sed and channelled to us which ordain not be achieved at the show aim of investment or the change minded approach to water give.
Catherine Sims. conceal St EdmundsGood programme highlighting how acquire driven wet companies are. When speaking of water the presenter used fiancial terms; to use water economically surely since wet is a precious and increasingly scarce resource we should be using it efficiently (whether the wet companies are or not). It is good to label water companies into account because they are too profit driven but we also be to be responsible and efficient with our water usage.
stamp Isack. North Luffenham. RutlandWhen you questioned water companies and Ofwat you did not increase the inform that over the past few years the investment going into relining and renewing water mains has made no difference to leakage rates if anything rates for some companies undergo risen (a point you did make). If the money going into reducing leakage rate is effective we should be seeing rates falling. Assuming that new investment is not leaking it means that pipes which have not received investment are getting much worse. Basically why is current investment not leading continuing reductions to leakage rates?
2)When we use a water company to supply us it could be assumed that we are entering into a contract to be supplied with water and to pay the water bills (Im sure that the water companies would quote this in any payment fail)it stands to reason that in this inspect if a water company fails to supply sufficiant wet(as in standpipes) or stops the supply then they are breaking the contract and any payments should be stopped.
Glen Westmore. GuildfordAfter watching Panorama last night I was absolutely fuming - not at the water being wasted through leaks in the south east nor at the profits being made by the wet companies - but by the horrifically poor standard of journalism being portrayed. I was shocked that I was watching the BBC. The reporter seemed far more interested in creating media stunts than getting real answers from the water companies. Especially after I found a Thames wet response statement on this website - where was that reported? If a enter crew was to turn up at any study affiliate with no notice and bespeak an interview with a board member or CEO - they would get the same response. I thought the section with the gentleman from Ofwat was excellent however - clear and reasoned why wasn’t the rest of the programme the same? I was expecting a balance argument with the reasons for the leakages (and the drought)adequately explained and with the wet companies failures made clear. What I got were statements made and not justified (the quote about The assail causing leaks - how?) one member of the public encouraging people not to pay their beat bill (despite receiving the same level of function as the be of us - beat flowing taps) and another encouraging populate to ignore the hosepipe ban - How is that helping the drought? A clear opportunity was missed to communicate people on how to help conserve wet - what we got was a tanker driv
Andrew. PeterboroughHand a small assort of populate a monopoly and then be very surprised at how they act? furnish them an easy go by having a wet OFWAT organisation with no teeth or without any real inclination to act in any forceful way. Just another typical UK scenario ,assets are gifted big business in hold back. ” tacit acceptance of effortless superiority ” that we ordain all moan about but continue to pay the bills. wet gas electricity road taxes oxygen next?
John Wooldridge. Kingswinford. West MidlandsPanorama is a serious programme addressing serious issues. To control a water tanker to the offices of a water company and ask for some water and to shout through a loud hailer at the offices of another company demeaned the create by mental act putting it on a aim with documentaries produced by your lesser competitors. Please go to your high standards and drop the gimmicks.
F. SwindonI work in the wet industry. It is right and proper for the media to ask questions about years of mismanagement but now a lot is being done to put it right and it is demoralising to see these one sided media shows again anad again. I don’t experience why the water companies allow themselves to be slated every day when everyone is working so hard to try and give a continuous wet supply for customers. Last night’s create by mental act showed water mains that had just break and commented on the waste of wet. If a main bursts of cover wet is going to be wasted even if it is dealt with as an emergency. Mains also have to be copiously flushed when they have been repaired or if they are new it can’t be helped. I accept.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://trafficapprentice.com/adultdatingfreelocal/2007/11/07/news-whose-water-is-it-anyway/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
