A jolly little piece by the BBC's "environment analyst" Roger Harrabin has a new report "blaming the government for leaving the UK's water resources at the mercy of the weather".

The document, we are told, is produced by "16 leading environmental organisations" and says it took the wettest ever summer to avert serious drought". It then warns "that another series of dry winters would put Britain back on drought alert".

All very harmless, you might say, as you pass on to more interesting stuff, although experience warns that nothing Harrabin ever does is ever without an agenda. That is the case here.

View full article here

I really don't know why I cannot have simple bipartite contractual relationship with my supplier, be it of water, gas or electricity. I don't understand whyy I as a customer must look on as government conspires with monopoly to restrict my access to any commodirty, especially those vital to life. Nor that if they do, they expect me to go on paying at prohibitive rates to get a worse service. That is why I want a straightforward contract with my supplier, and if he fails in providing the service he ought to be giving me a rebate, not a lecture on how evil and wasteful I am. This goes most of all in the case of water, where I don't USE UP any of it, I just borrow it and give it back. All they have to do is clean it up and pipe me some more. If that is not sustainable enough, I know where there is a lot more of it.

As you know, I have a particular interest in this area.

One of the items to fall out of last spring's round of drought-related shouting was a reply I got from DEFRA confirming that they place no specific requirement, or even guidelines, on the water industry to maintain a minimum figure of water storage/abstraction capability per capita. I would have thought that should be a basic figure guiding the entire service. And it's not.

Instead, the general principle governing water provision is that the infrastructure will remain fixed, and demand will be altered to ensure that the supply can cope. There is a general view that 'water is in short supply, and must be conserved'. In my attempts to get various civil servants to admit that the supply could be increased to any credible amount without impacting the total amount of water in the world by one drop I was met with blank incredulity, and a careful explanation that the 'only' water that could be used was that in the aquifers and existing reservoirs.

All my attempts to ask why the reservoir storage was not being expanded and why the well-understood techniques for artificial aquifer recharge from permeable floor reservoirs were just not answered...

Along with Amphibian and Reptile Conservation,Buglife and Pond Conservation.... I did note that not one seemed concerned with Humans, who as always will be paying for all this.Polluter pays, eh?...aye if they catch them, otherwise it's you and me.

Edited by user 06 November 2012 17:18:28(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

We are the "polluters" ... in greenie terms, we are pollution.

This is of course all of a piece, as in the "energy supply", do not build infrastructure, ration everything. This seems to be the aim everwhere you look. And just why is our puppet government listening to the "greenie terrorists", they do not listen to us, the People whose vote they will be asking for....perhaps! Bring on the Harrogate Agenda!

Oh yes, I totally agree with Mr. Welsh, it is "chairman", where "man" is the generic term for the human race, men or women.

Good question ... they sit on their hands and do nothing, from what I can see ...

http://www.guardian.co.u...s-cut-leaks-2015-drought

I would like to post this on my Facebook to let my friends (yes real people I know!) about how we are being ripped off. But as has happened in the past, there will be little or no interest in reading it. I suspect that the media would not be interested in telling the whole truth and neither would most of the population. The media and the population will only start complaining when their bill go up.

Dr. North says: "Creating vast networks of influence was the way the Communist Party used to work, from which model the Greens have learned their trade well. And, on the top of the heap, is the BBC's Roger Harrabin, an "agent of influence", always ready to give them aid and sustenance." So this is "Common Purpose" at work then?

Edited by user 06 November 2012 18:44:19(UTC)  | Reason: Additional comment

RAENorth said:-

OK, is there any way we can start to be represented...?
Is it only via the Harrogate Agenda or is it the old fashioned way, purely by word of mouth and leaflets?

How would one start a Water Consumers Association..?

That is because it is their policy to tell bare-faced lies.
Honest people have difficulty in coping with that.
See "Dupes" by Prof. Paul Kengor for many examples.