Reserves may close

[Wild-Woman]

As you know I live in North Kent. My nearest RSPB reserve is Northward Hill on the Hoo peninsula. I've just read some alarming news. The drought that we have here in the South East is threatening to close reserves. The occurence of lapwings,redshank, snipe have plummeted by as much as 80%. There are only 6 breeding pairs of lapwings.
The huge amount of water consumption here in the SE is also blamed. Apparently reservoirs have only half of what is needed. The RSPB have had to do manual pumping of water onto the wetlands to try to keep the damp meadows where the birds nest, damp enough for nesting and feeding.
The rediculous thing here in the SE is the enormous house building programme that the government have given the go-ahead to- the so called Thames Gateway project is only going to make the problem worse. Thousands of houses, businesses, shops, the list goes on, are going to need water.
I don't think there's anyone in this government that really gives two hoots about our wildlife here, so long as they are making money. Not so long ago, and still not dead and buried, was the threat of Cliffe airport being built right where the bird reserve is.
Sorry to go on but I'm spitting chips over this at the moment and I needed my wildlife mates to rant at. Cheers. A VERY Wild-Woman

[carlj]

Aside to that, is that some water companies are looking at upping their prices to match their counterparts in the south-east, even though there is no shortage of water. Seeing as the reasons for the shortage are inevitably the 19th century infrastructure, why the hell didn't the government insist on the companies make good the pipes that lose millions of gallons every week? Oh, I forgot, profit.

Sad if it forces a single reserve to close, even temporarily.

[Alan]

Looks like water meters are on the way then. Probably for everyone! The Saudi's have technology - which I believe we helped to build!, that de-salinates sea water. Wonder if in future years we might need this!

[cherrybee]

Originally Posted by carlj

Aside to that, is that some water companies are looking at upping their prices to match their counterparts in the south-east, even though there is no shortage of water. Seeing as the reasons for the shortage are inevitably the 19th century infrastructure, why the hell didn't the government insist on the companies make good the pipes that lose millions of gallons every week? Oh, I forgot, profit.

Sad if it forces a single reserve to close, even temporarily.

Water prices in the South West are already some of the highest prices in England already yet our wages are low and a lot of jobs are seasonal especially the area where I live.At the moment I think our water levels are quite good if the resevoir I often go to on the commons is anything to go by so hopefully our Reserves will not suffer.

[Mark43]

Interesting read re water shortage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5019846.stm

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Mark43

Interesting read re water shortage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5019846.stm

Thanks for that Mark. Nothing changes does it! Seems spin is weaved into all government and company policy these days!

[eeyore]

The really silly thing is that three valleys are alledged to lose 40% of their water through leaks (thames is slightly less).

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by Mark43

Interesting read re water shortage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5019846.stm

Reading this article a few things struck me, the first is that there is no mention of temperature in relation to drought. Temperature is increasing steadily and with it evaporation rates (which I think may get lumped under 'leakage' in many reports as it is an uncontrollable/unmeasurable loss.) Leakage rates are high, but are they actually any higher than a decade ago or more? If not then why is there a shortage?

I also note that areas of the country, particularly the south have been experiencing the driest years since 'xx', and also the fact that it is probably worse news if xx is shorter as that points to a series of dry years occuring close together, personally I'd prefer a drier year than 1880, say, than 2006 being the driest since 2005, which was the driest since 2004 etc...

Yes the water companies will be spinning for all they are worth-that is what their press officers are payed to do-it does not change the fact that their warnings coincide with climate change warnings from the past few years-warmer, drier winters with wetter spring and summer, neither being very good for native British wildlife.

One final point I'd like to make is that this guy may be an eminent researcher, or he may be an individual with a bee in his bonnet and a couple of web-sites, the report doesn't make it clear which and could well be another case of the media using an independent voice to spin the news the way they want it, in which case who is right?

Just my 2p's worth...

[canonman]

Great report Wild Woman
It will be a sad day if reserves have to close through lack of water,
Don’t think putting water meters in homes will solve the problem, we will still have old pipe work leaking gallons of water, that I suppose the water company’s will pass onto us.
My guess is that lack of rain will be put down to more global warming, seems to be the answer for everything nowadays.
Why can’t they have a national pipe work from all over the country and then move water when one place has an abundance of it, or is this just a silly idea.
As for the government they all talk about conservation and being more green, but that’s just a vote grabber, like you said they don’t give a hoot
By the way you can have a go on here any time you like.
Mick

[Mark43]

Originally Posted by canonman

Great report Wild Woman
It will be a sad day if reserves have to close through lack of water,
Don’t think putting water meters in homes will solve the problem, we will still have old pipe work leaking gallons of water, that I suppose the water company’s will pass onto us.
My guess is that lack of rain will be put down to more global warming, seems to be the answer for everything nowadays.
Why can’t they have a national pipe work from all over the country and then move water when one place has an abundance of it, or is this just a silly idea.
As for the government they all talk about conservation and being more green, but that’s just a vote grabber, like you said they don’t give a hoot
By the way you can have a go on here any time you like.
Mick

They won't have a national pipework system because,presumably,this would be extremely expensive.Then the shareholders won't have any profits and we can't have that now can we.

Shareholder first........customer second remember.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Imaginos

Reading this article a few things struck me, the first is that there is no mention of temperature in relation to drought. Temperature is increasing steadily and with it evaporation rates (which I think may get lumped under 'leakage' in many reports as it is an uncontrollable/unmeasurable loss.) Leakage rates are high, but are they actually any higher than a decade ago or more? If not then why is there a shortage?

I also note that areas of the country, particularly the south have been experiencing the driest years since 'xx', and also the fact that it is probably worse news if xx is shorter as that points to a series of dry years occuring close together, personally I'd prefer a drier year than 1880, say, than 2006 being the driest since 2005, which was the driest since 2004 etc...

Yes the water companies will be spinning for all they are worth-that is what their press officers are payed to do-it does not change the fact that their warnings coincide with climate change warnings from the past few years-warmer, drier winters with wetter spring and summer, neither being very good for native British wildlife.

One final point I'd like to make is that this guy may be an eminent researcher, or he may be an individual with a bee in his bonnet and a couple of web-sites, the report doesn't make it clear which and could well be another case of the media using an independent voice to spin the news the way they want it, in which case who is right?

Just my 2p's worth...

You could have a point about this guys point of view being biased, after all isnt everyones ?
however you are inacurate on your first point

a) yes an increase in temperature will lead to increased evaporation, but an increase in evaporation leads to more water in the atmosphere, and thus increased precipitation. Rising global temperatures also lead to more storms as there is more energy in the atmosphere.

b) Even setting this aside loss by evaporation from reservoirs is not lumped in with leakage, because leakage is measured by the difference between the throughput from the treatment works (which comes after the reservoir), and the water consumption billed for at the consumers end. Ergo the measured loss must occur from the water main or from the consumers piping. There is a certain degree of error in the estimate because the measurement of consumption by consumers without water metres is itself estimated but there is no way that this accounts for a 40% difference. ( I used to work for a large national water company, so I know whereof I speak)

Leakage should finds its way back into the water table but in urban areas it may instead wind up going via storm drains into rivers and out to sea instead.

[Wild-Woman]

I'm glad my thread has been resurrected again as it shows concern for our ailing wildlife and the situation we have all had a part in creating i.e energy use-carbon emissions-global warming-climate change.
The trouble is getting people to listen, especially governments.They are only concerned with prosperity and a few years time when the world is beyond help, prosperity will mean nothing. I've just read a book called The Long Emergency (sorry, can't think of authors name presently and book is on loan now) which was probably one of the most depressing insights into the future I have ever read.
With all it's scientific evidence and calculations it doesn't look rosy. I
know you shouldn't say that this is definitely what will happen but I wish that governments would try to 'risk assess ' the future and act now.
Building nearly a million new homes in the Thames gateway will devastate the SE and it's wildlife. We can't cope now.
Sorry to go on but I live here and I am seeing this all happen and it's sad.ww

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by eeyore

You could have a point about this guys point of view being biased, after all isnt everyones ?
however you are inacurate on your first point

a) yes an increase in temperature will lead to increased evaporation, but an increase in evaporation leads to more water in the atmosphere, and thus increased precipitation. Rising global temperatures also lead to more storms as there is more energy in the atmosphere..

Yes, but not necessarily at the point of evaporation, however this is a moot point as:

Originally Posted by eeyore

b) Even setting this aside loss by evaporation from reservoirs is not lumped in with leakage, ... ( I used to work for a large national water company, so I know whereof I speak)

Leakage should finds its way back into the water table but in urban areas it may instead wind up going via storm drains into rivers and out to sea instead.

Having worked for a water company do you know whether leakage rates have increased dramatically over the years? As much as consumption?



The trouble in this case, as I see it, does not just lay at the feet of government. If ordinary people were a bit more thoughtful over water usage then our consumption will drop. I have seen hosepipes left on full blast whilst workers at a building site ate their lunch (and once left on over night); stables being sluiced daily to the extent that the adjoining road is continually flooded; people running taps for five minutes whilst they go off and do something else so they can be sure of cold water. All small things, but combine that with other non-essential usage (flushing the toilet to get rid of a tissue, baths instead of showers, washing the car every weekend...) and you've got a lot of wastage. Why should the government take all the flak when the populace still has such a laissez-faire attitude?

[matt_xyz]

The article is very interesting and those of us who work with statistics on a daily basis know the validity of the point he makes (anyone read Lomborg's 'Skeptical Environmentalist'? Don't get me started on that one...). The author of this article may have an agenda, but the point he makes is legitimate enough - that claims of the driest year since xx depend very much on the start and finishing point. He doesn't deny that there have been many dry years recently and that this is a factor in water scarcity, particularly in certain areas.

Incidentally, I thought I had read somewhere that leakage rates were falling, but I might be wrong. Also, I'd be interested to know how sensitive evaporation rates are to changes in temperature. I wonder how much greater evaporation is compared to, say, 20 years ago.

Matt

[eeyore]

I agree with you on all the latter points, i remember working at a golf course ages ago where we were instructed to ignore the hosepipe ban as it was cheaper to pay the fines than to rebuild greens if they died - not an environmentally sound stance I agree.

With regard to the evaporation issue, as a maritime climate we are supposed to have a net gain in the precipitation vs evaporation equation.

As far as whether things are leaking more now, it is difficult to say for sure because a lot of preprivatisation data is missing.

It is reasonable to assume that they are however because the older the infrastructure gets the more the likelyhood of leaks increases. In theory the pipes are supposed to have a 20 year lifespan but be on a phased 15 yr replacement cycle. However IMHO since they went private the water companies have skimped on infrastucture investment in favour of shareholder dividends.

Leaks are most likely to occur where soil is stony or flinty, or in clay which is subject to a lot of movement as temperatures change, they are least likely in sandy areas. Water mains are supposed to be bedded in sand to protect them from damage but as time goes on frost heave, compaction by surface traffic, and disturbance by animals and or building work will degrade the performance and damage will occur. hence the replacement cycle.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Incidentally, I thought I had read somewhere that leakage rates were falling, but I might be wrong.

Matt

Leakage rates are falling nationally because some water companies including severn trent and anglian (which are two of the largest) have dramatically upgraded their infrastructure. It is said that Thames and three valleys are lagging behind with increased leakage from their aging infrastructure, principally due to the dificulty in digging up streets in london, and under investment in the pipe network.

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

The article is very interesting and those of us who work with statistics on a daily basis know the validity of the point he makes (anyone read Lomborg's 'Skeptical Environmentalist'? Don't get me started on that one...). The author of this article may have an agenda, but the point he makes is legitimate enough - that claims of the driest year since xx depend very much on the start and finishing point. He doesn't deny that there have been many dry years recently and that this is a factor in water scarcity, particularly in certain areas.


Matt

Grrr. Lombok!

You're right it does make interesting points on the creative use of statistics. However in one paragraph he destroys his whole point - 'For the period November 2004 to February 2005 xx equals 42...' The winter months are recognised as the most important months for topping up water levels as here supply will usually outweigh demand; for this period to be the driest in 42 years is quite alarming, even if you allow for a particularly wet February 16 years ago (next paragraph in the article), for it to be the driest since then is still cause for concern.

I'm currently looking at some climatic factors for some work I'm doing, they show a decline in total monthly rainfall of 4mm since 1972. As you would expect from a natural system there is a huge amount of variability in the data and two of the highest monthly rainfalls have fallen in the last 15 years, despite this the overall amount has gone down.
April 98 was the wettest month since Dec 80, which was the wettest since june 82, none of these were as wet as Sept 76. Taking one month in isolation; Dec 03 was the dryest since Dec 01, which was the dryest since Dec 97 which was the dryest since my records began. What does this tell us?
(This is data from one weather station in the West Midlands and I do not claim this pattern is replicated over the whole country.)
Quoting the highest/lowest/driest since... is fraught with difficulties when dealing with natural systems and it is more important to look at the overall trend.