Skip to content or view screen version

Cost of Water to Double!

Ad Nauseum | 29.08.2003 15:29 | Health | Social Struggles | Liverpool

THE cost of water to Merseyside householders will soar to £10 a week, if the Government's regulator sanctions a £3.8bn spending programme.

THE cost of water to Merseyside householders will soar to £10 a week, if the Government's regulator sanctions a £3.8bn spending programme, the Daily Post can reveal today.

United Utilities is to submit its biggestever investment programme to Ofwat, the industry regulator.

The Warrington-based company says it needs to spend up to £3.8bn to meet higher drinking water and environmental standards demanded by both the British Government and Europe - with domestic and business users footing the bill.

For householders, it would see the year's average bill climbing from the current average of £245 to an estimated £550 - or £1.51 a day - by 2010.

People currently paying bigger water bills will be hit even harder, making Merseyside's water among the most expensive in the UK. Ofwat last night said it wanted water bills to rise by no more than single digits nationally.

But the regulator will not make a final decision on United Utilities' plans until November of next year when a figure for what it can charge customers will be announced.

United Utilities' managing director for customer sales, Bob Armstrong, said last night: "There will now be a long consultation process before Ofwat makes its decision in November, 2004. We will enter a period when people can influence the outcome."

Mr Armstrong admitted that the impact will be on customers, who will ultimately have to fund what is required.

"It will be a lot for people to pay and clearly significant in terms of possible increases.

"Arguably we pay the lowest in Europe for water and treatment services, and some people say we underpay and undervalue the resource."

Currently, the North West has the fifth highest water bills but Mr Armstrong admitted that the region could climb higher up the table under the proposed moves.

Ad Nauseum
- Homepage: http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/content_objectid=13345625_method=full_siteid=50061_headline=-%2D10%2Da%2Dweek%2Dfor%2Dwater-name_pa

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

To pay for improvements, you fool

29.08.2003 18:19

Price of water to double! Shock! Horror! Capitalist outrage! Urm, the price is going up to raise money so they can "spend up to £3.8bn to meet higher drinking water and environmental standards demanded by both the British Government and Europe". Water-users are going to be paying for cleaner water and environmental loveliness. Cleaner water and environmental loveliness are good things, yes? But they ain't free. So if people want them, and pass laws to insist on them, then they've got to pay for them.

Glug


You're missing the point...

30.08.2003 13:16

Speaking personally, water quality in the UK isn't one of my biggest concerns, and I don't think many people are that concerned about it. So in fact it hasn't come from "the people", but of course, if improvements are genuinely going to be made to water quality and "environmental loveliness", then that's a good thing.

And of course, within the capitalist system, as you rightly said, such changes have to be paid for. And oh, we'll pay alright. But then my post wasn't so much an attack on United Utilities or anyone in particular, but the capitalist system in general. Water is essential for survival - our bodies are mostly made-up of it - yet we not only have to pay for it, we will soon have to pay twice as much. People who are already struggling to make ends meet will have to struggle that little bit harder.

That's all.

Ad Nauseum


We have to pay?

01.09.2003 11:25

I live in a Thames Water area. They loose one third of all our water through their pipes, and they always have. Maybe the directors pay could plug the leak? Why should we have to pay more, when they could just sort out these problems and use (and process) one third less water, saving them lots of money. Fuck them.
Environmental loveliness? Give us a break.

AndyO'C


Yes, you have to pay

01.09.2003 19:32

Andy o'C, I entirely agree that the amount lost to leaks should be reduced. But to do that even just in one waer company's area requires thousands (tens of thousands?) of miles of pipes to be inspected, and then the broken pipes have to be repaired or replaced. None of that is cheap, and it isn't just expensive because of the capitalist system. It's expensive because it involves a lot of skilled people working for several years - that's expensive no matter which way you cut it. It's far more expensive than the grand total of the directors' pay. And obviously the money spent fixing the leaks will be charged to the end-user: why shouldn't it be?
Of course, if the water market were totally deregulated and opened to unfettered competition (instead of the current regional monopolies) then prices would fall as different suppliers try to attract your business: let's hear it for free market competion!

Glug


Three Letters: PFI

03.09.2003 15:59

PFI (Public Finance Initiatives)/PPP (Public-Private Partnerships)
Basicly, Privatisation....... you could call it Austerity, like what the World Bank and IMF (&smartass economists) order 3rd-world Govts. to do

You see, United Utilities -Which baught North West Water- keeps getting done for dumping raw sewerage into the Mersey on the sly; providing water 'unfit for human consumption' and things like that: Now has the cheek to try a price-hike on us!
A price-hike for 'improvements' ( to Bechtel -which makes pipelines-, United Utilities' Owners/Shareholders &Execs' finances-profits-salery)
Oh -they have tried that shit before already:
United Utilities (U.U) and U.S-based giant Bechtel jointly ran 'International Water'(I.W) (corporate headquarters also in Warrington). I.W, got this deal (through corporate lobbying, -and the fact that the IMF pushes 3rd world for cuts &/or privatization-'Or-Else')...they got this deal to take over the public water supply of (a city:) Copachabamba, Bolivia -which, after ------massive price-hikes------, caused mass demonstrations which eventually forced the privatization to be REVERSED!!!!

(U.U works closely with Bechtel -you know- the massive company that makes power stations, secret military bases, chemical(+weapons)factories, oil pipelines etc-'infrastructure' and wants to take over Iraq's 'infrastructure'-read OIL: Pipelines, Power stations... OIL INDUSTRY -at least mainly)

U.U as the earlier commentry so succinctly put it -can fuck-off,
And furthermore -Lets force the issue, because it isn't likely to be improvements; more like Pillage. And we've got to stop them, just like in Copachabamba.

Jamy


Water improvements mean fluoridation!

07.09.2003 01:51

Isn't it a rather odd co-incidence that a rise in water prices is announced just as the government is about to vote on fluoridation, that is adding hexaflourosilicic acid, a waste product of the fertiliser industry, to our water supply? Well, someone has to pay for the addition of this hazardous chemical to our water supply! And by the way, not only is there no evidence that fluoride prevents tooth decay, it has been shown to be very detrimental to human health (cancer, brittle bones, etc). But the health minister says we can drink bottled water if we don't like the taste of flouride. Yes, we'll use it to wash down the cake we are eating because the bread has run out! Feeling uneasy? Then call you water supplier and tell them so!

christina hespe
mail e-mail: christinahespe@breathemail.net