World running dry

[screener]

Richard, are you suggesting that it is going to cost the public and individuals less if we have private industry manage our water utilities? I don't think so. Private companies are prone to the same sort of bureaucratic problems as publicly owned corporations. Mistakes are made just as often. Work is done and then re-done from the need to raise money more than in public ones. Even if the actual costs to the companies were the same then you have to factor in the profit level needed by the private company.

It all adds up to more expense in an increasingly touchy area of life.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by screener

Richard, are you suggesting that it is going to cost the public and individuals less if we have private industry manage our water utilities? I don't think so. Private companies are prone to the same sort of bureaucratic problems as publicly owned corporations. Mistakes are made just as often. Work is done and then re-done from the need to raise money more than in public ones. Even if the actual costs to the companies were the same then you have to factor in the profit level needed by the private company.

It all adds up to more expense in an increasingly touchy area of life.

The English and Welsh water utilities have invested billions of pounds in existing and new infrastructure which wouldn't have recieved anything like that level of funding if the utilities had remained under public ownership...the investments were needed but water supply and sewerage isn't particularly interesting from the public's point of view (at least until water stops coming out of the taps) and so politically it was difficult to justify raising the tax money needed to invest. As a result much of England and Wales supply and sewerage infrastucture was badly maintained and not many new facilities were been built. Also planning tended to be on a short-term basis, usually in line with the time between general election years (Asset Management Plans for the water sector tended to run on 5-yearly cycles).

Since privitisation there has been a large influx of investment money, resulting in much better maintainance of existing infrastructure and construction of new infrastructure, or upgrading that which already exists. This would likely not have happened if the water utilities remained in public hands. Compare the situation in England and Wales with that of Scotland, which has retained public ownership of the water supply and sewerage assets. Here there is little new investment and as a result water quality has started to suffer and future supplies are far from guaranteed.

The profits of the English and Welsh water utilities are not excessive, generally return on investment is around 5%, which is actually relatively low.

Privitisation also allows the utilities to make longer term plans. All water utilities now produce regular water resource management plans which look at least 25 years into the future and spell out how they intend to continue to supply their regions with a safe, adequate and cost effective water and sewerage service. That type of long-term planning did not occur when the utilities were publically owned since there was no political reason to look that far into the future.

Prices have risen under privatisation but that's largely because people are now paying closer to the true cost of water, whereas before it was difficult to raise prices for political reasons. Costs should actually be higher than they currently are, if all environmental costs were taken into account. At an average cost of about £1.50 for 1,000 litres it's hardly extortionate. In any case, prices are still heavily regulared by Ofwat (government water regulator) so costs are unlikely to spiral out of control whilst they have the final say on price setting. Ofwat also enables the Goverment to step in when the water utilities are clearly not pulling their weight, e.g. as with Thames water and the amount of water they lose through leaks.

[gerrit]

Originally Posted by Richard

Which countries are you referring to? I know the UK water industry quite well and it operates nothing like that.

I don't care how the U.K. water system is run. It's not what I'm talking about.

I'm trying to call attention to the fact that there's too much money involved in our governments. Governments legally oblige themselves to the World Bank because they regularly borrow from it. Politicians are obliged to corporations because that's where they get their campaign funds, and lobbyists are predominately hired by corporations. Corporations are also too involved in government affairs (ie. the S.P.P).

For these reasons, I think that there's a lack of political will to address our environmental problems; whether it concerns water management or something else.

[Richard]

Environmental problems won't be tackled seriously until they start to noticably impact the majority of people in the rich western nations. Then stuff will start to happen, but not until then.

[gerrit]

Originally Posted by Richard

Environmental problems won't be tackled seriously until they start to noticably impact the majority of people in the rich western nations. Then stuff will start to happen, but not until then.

Maybe that's because news of the global water crisis is generally well-hidden from the mainstream public.

Let's review shall we.

[gerrit]

Originally Posted by Richard

My hamster died yesterday. It's the fault of evil corporations if you ask me!

Richard, a guy with a Phd, makes light of the corporate corruption responsible for robbing the world of much of our vital, natural water supply.

[gerrit]

Originally Posted by gerrit

It's okay for the private sector to run things, but governments need to gain much more control over their decision-making. Politicians are sponsored by corporations. The media is sponsored by corporations. Who's interests do you think are being addressed?

( see the first post on the "Corporate Dictatorship" thread for an example of why the democratic system isn't working right now.)

Later, I write this post.

[gerrit]

Originally Posted by Richard

Which countries are you referring to? I know the UK water industry quite well and it operates nothing like that.

Richard replies by attempting to change the subject with a misleading question about the U.K. water industry. My post had nothing to do with the U.K. water industry.

[gerrit]

[quote=screener;249734]It seems to me that there is plenty of water in the great lakes, what is the difference between that and any other body of water?

QUOTE]


Screener deceives viewers in an earlier post.

Even though most of us, who are somewhat knowledgeable about environmental water concerns know that the Great Lakes basin is losing billions of gallons of water a day, Screener writes that there is lots of water in the Great Lakes.

Historically, "lots of" are famous last words.

[gerrit]

Originally Posted by Richard

The English and Welsh water utilities have invested billions of pounds in existing and new infrastructure which wouldn't have recieved anything like that level of funding if the utilities had remained under public ownership...the investments were needed but water supply and sewerage isn't particularly interesting from the public's point of view (at least until water stops coming out of the taps) and so politically it was difficult to justify raising the tax money needed to invest. As a result much of England and Wales supply and sewerage infrastucture was badly maintained and not many new facilities were been built. Also planning tended to be on a short-term basis, usually in line with the time between general election years (Asset Management Plans for the water sector tended to run on 5-yearly cycles).

Since privitisation there has been a large influx of investment money, resulting in much better maintainance of existing infrastructure and construction of new infrastructure, or upgrading that which already exists. This would likely not have happened if the water utilities remained in public hands. Compare the situation in England and Wales with that of Scotland, which has retained public ownership of the water supply and sewerage assets. Here there is little new investment and as a result water quality has started to suffer and future supplies are far from guaranteed.

The profits of the English and Welsh water utilities are not excessive, generally return on investment is around 5%, which is actually relatively low.

Privitisation also allows the utilities to make longer term plans. All water utilities now produce regular water resource management plans which look at least 25 years into the future and spell out how they intend to continue to supply their regions with a safe, adequate and cost effective water and sewerage service. That type of long-term planning did not occur when the utilities were publically owned since there was no political reason to look that far into the future.

Prices have risen under privatisation but that's largely because people are now paying closer to the true cost of water, whereas before it was difficult to raise prices for political reasons. Costs should actually be higher than they currently are, if all environmental costs were taken into account. At an average cost of about £1.50 for 1,000 litres it's hardly extortionate. In any case, prices are still heavily regulared by Ofwat (government water regulator) so costs are unlikely to spiral out of control whilst they have the final say on price setting. Ofwat also enables the Goverment to step in when the water utilities are clearly not pulling their weight, e.g. as with Thames water and the amount of water they lose through leaks.

Here, Richard continues to babble on and on about the U.K. water industry. It's impressive to say the least, but has nothing to do with any of the urgent and relevant concerns which were commented on by others on this thread.

Richard seems to have an agenda of his own.

I question if he is at all concerned about the environment.