Water supply and floods

Yesterday I met Thames Water and reaffirmed the need  for  more action to be  taken to ensure adequate water supplies for the south-east by adding to reservoir capacity. I also urged more retention of water in reservoirs or areas where it can be stored during periods of heavy rainfall and swollen rivers to reduce the flood risk.


  1. Lifelogic
    March 7, 2017

    They find it cheaper to ration water most summers instead.

  2. alan jutson
    March 7, 2017

    Did they actually outline where they were going to site/expand water storage and waste treatment, by how much, and whom would it serve.

    If the Governments target of a minimum of 250,000 new houses a year are to be built, that is an awful lot of drinking water and sewerage capacity that needs to be provided.

    How much is already been given Planning permission, and how much more will require Planning ?

    1. Cliff. Wokingham.
      March 8, 2017

      It strikes me that rather large water storage facilities could be sited beneath the new developments.
      Perhaps pricey to build in the first place but, no long term blight on the views and, being deep underground, very little ongoing maintenance. Perhaps some of the costs could be provided via the statutory bribe developers now have to pay.

      1. rose
        March 9, 2017

        Less likely to be sabotaged too.

  3. Chris
    March 7, 2017

    Once we leave the EU, they may be willing to do something, but not before. We are tightly constrained by the European Water Framework Directive which places the onus on the water authorities to implement water efficiency measures including metering, education, reducing leakage, stand pipes, before any large scale project e.g. reservoirs, and pipelines from water surplus to water deficit regions can be embarked upon. Viewed superficially this may sound reasonable (except for the stand pipes), but as with other EU directed legislation we seems to apply it to the extreme. This is of course not helped by the profit motives of water authorities. It means costs are saved for water authorities, by not embarking on large scale costly schemes, and instead the onus (both financially and physical) is entirely on the customer, where I fear the authorities would rather it were placed. I personally feel that the water industry should be in public ownership, instead of separate private profit seeking entities.

  4. CdBrux
    March 7, 2017

    Note: I am not a constituent.
    Nothing against the comments, however surely better (though not always Thames Water responsibility) to avoid the issues in the first place? For example:

    Demand & waste: half flush toilets, water efficienct showers (can use 50% less for just as good outcome),…

    Run-off limitation in rainfall: soak through roads in cul-de-sacs with a few houses, soak-aways for house roofs (a benefit to the householder as their water bill is reduced) and new housing developments to incorporate water balancing ponds

  5. agricola
    March 7, 2017

    How about a pipeline from Kielder in Northumberland down the North Sea to the southeast.
    Remember Pluto and increase the diameter.

Comments are closed.