Monday 12 December 2022: Feelings about now and the immediate future

Monday 12 December 2022: 
Feelings about now and the immediate future 

Over the course of the past year, have you come to feel any differently about the challenges future generations may have to face? If so, in what ways? 

No, I do not feel significantly differently compared with this time last year regarding the challenges to be faced by future generations. I felt very pessimistic then, and I feel somewhat more pessimistic now. It seemed then, and seems clear to me now, that the system of government in the UK, and the systems of government throughout the world, as well as at the international level, are nowhere near sufficient to address the environmental and geopolitical challenges the UK and the world faces. Specifically, the world is dominated by commerce, the values of which are entirely at odds with the massive reduction in consumption required, and by nationalism. For example, the world was warned before the new millennium that burning fossil fuels had to stop. Instead, the fossil fuel companies and countries have lobbied, sown disinformation, threatened and obstructed in order to increase the burning of coal, oil and gas. Twenty years before that it was predicted that there would be mass migrations of people around the world due to environmental degradation and climate change, and the UK response has been to increase hostility to immigration and refugees.

We expect younger generations i.e., Gen Z and those born after 2010, are likely to be more financially stretched, and are likely to have responsibility for supporting a larger older population who may not be financially secure. 

What are your feelings toward this idea? Why?

The notion that one generation is required financially to support another seems to me to be simplistic or unhelpful on several levels. First, parents bring children into the world with the expectation of caring for their needs at least until their progeny is ready to leave home. This applies the world over. In much of the world, there is an unambiguous social expectation that progeny will care for their parents' needs once the parents become too old or infirm to look after their own needs. This latter is a principal reason why families outside the economically-developed world tend to be large. This relationship has been partly or substantially broken in the economically-developed world. Older people have been commodified and packaged into care homes, providing 751,851 jobs in the UK, and 18,400 jobs in Northern Ireland, and thereby costing upwards of £100 million per annum in wages alone.

Second, I remain to be convinced that there is such a thing as a 'generation' outside catastrophic events such as a major war (such as the First World War, in the former Yugoslavia, and currently in Ukraine). Mostly, I consider references to 'generations' to be marketing (such as the invention of the teenager in the 1950s, phrases such as 'the grey pound', and Saga holidays) or political rhetoric (such as "a land fit for heroes" after the First World War, and that of the, admittedly much-to-be-admired, Atlee administration in the economic wasteland following the Second World War attempting to engender a sense of optimism in younger adults). Younger people in economically-developed countries typically like to differentiate themselves from their parents, in ways that are, at root, superficial such as musical taste, clothing fashion and dialect, but largely retain their parent's values.

Third, the idea that one generation is required financially to support another is predicated on the concept of paid employment being the only mechanism by which people can support themselves, and the primary mechanism by which the government can raise money through taxation. Whilst this has been the case in Britain only over the past few centuries, it is not the case the world over. There are other ways by which people can, do and have to support themselves, at much lower cost to the environment, as well as other ways by which government can raise money to pay for services and welfare, such as corporation tax, import duties and VAT. In the absence of income tax and National Insurance, it can hardly be said that one generation is being required to support another.

Fourth, specifically in the UK, when I was a child, municipally-owned social housing was the largest of the housing sectors. Privately-rented accommodation was either for rich people, or the subject of discussion regarding Rachmanism. Housing associations, such as the Peabody Trust were charities, and run as such. Owner-occupied housing was for those who were well-to-do, was an out-of-reach aspiration for many, and an inspiration for some to work hard. Then the Thatcher administration sold off a great many 'council houses', almost overnight creating her "property-owning democracy" (who would be more likely to vote for the Conservative Party). However, almost all of these 'council houses' are now owned by buy-to-let private landlords. All that has happened, therefore, is that municipally-owned social housing has been sold at considerably-reduced prices into the privately-rented housing sector. Whereas local councils had charged rents that allowed them to maintain their properties, private landlords operate their housing portfolios for profit. Consequently, the same people who would have been in 'council housing' fifty years ago, paying affordable rents, are now having to pay rents that include a profit for the landlord, over and above the cost of the landlord's buy-to-let mortgage. The massive house-buying spree from the 1980s to 2008, initiated by the Thatcher administration, caused house prices to spiral. This served as a positive feedback loop to the conversion to using housing as investment rather than primarily as personal accommodation. Younger people may now be feeling hard-done-by because they are having to pay proportionately more of their income in rent than had social housing still been in the hands of local councils, but for thirty of the past forty three years, and despite the obvious inequities and hardship caused, they have voted for MPs wedded to this housing policy.

Fifth, compared with when I was a young adult, young people have much higher material expectations. I frequently hear radio vox pops in which young people complain that they cannot afford to buy their own house. My father was 30 before he was able to buy a house, having worked hard, scrimped and saved. My personal story is very similar. I furnished my house with gifts, with hand-me-downs, with goods bought from sale rooms, and with items from classified advertisements. It took fourteen years before I could afford to buy a new sofa. Now young people expect to have £1,000 smartphones with £50 per month data contracts. Many of them expect to have a car. They expect to attend music festivals (Glastonbury: £350), to go on holiday to Ibiza, to eat out regularly and to have take-away food delivered to their door. They have subscription music, sport, drama and reality television streamed to their smartphones. This was all futuristic science fiction when I was their age, not least in terms of cost. For reasons I cannot understand, young people are willing to take on upwards of £30,000 of unsecured debt, something I could never have contemplated doing, in order to attend university.

When people born this century reach adulthood, they will live in a Britain that is less, not more, equal than it was when I was their age, and that is because their parents repeatedly voted for it to be this way. Throughout my life I have worked, mostly as a volunteer, to make the world in general, and UK society, a better place in which to live. Whilst I have attended my fair share of noisy demonstrations and silent vigils, I have mostly engaged in practical efforts to improve things, and have intentionally not sought primarily to benefit myself. I am unclear that, apart from making a noise about things, young people / young adults are doing that much to improve the society in which they live.

When you pay for your water bill, the charge may also include a proportion of investments made in water provision for the future. 

What are your feelings about this idea? Have your views have changed over the past year.

When the water companies were privatised in 1989, it was explicitly so that they would invest in infrastructure. This was because the Thatcher administration had intentionally strangled the ability of the regional water authorities to borrow money. The Thatcher administration was ideologically committed to privatising the provision of fresh water and sewage removal, and knew clearly that the general public was overwhelmingly opposed to it, as they still are. In 2017, "research by the University of Greenwich suggested that consumers in England were paying £2.3 billion more every year for their water and sewerage bills than they would if the water companies had remained under state ownership." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatisation_in_England_and_Wales)

In the twenty years following privatisation, "the privatised water companies paid more than £57bn in dividends, at the same time as running up large amounts of debt, the interest on which is effectively paid for by customers." (Jonathan Portes, The Guardian, 16 August 2022).

Over the past 33 years, the private water companies have extracted a considerable amount of money from their customers, and paid a lot of that money to money lenders, to overseas entities and to shareholders. The amount of of money invested in infrastructure does not equal the sum of borrowing and the additional money taken by water companies from their customers.

Rhetorically, I should like to ask why the water companies wish to charge even more - "for future investment". However, I know the answer: because they can - they are private monopolies.

Have my views changed over the past year? Yes. I have read much more about the privatisation, the financial affairs of the water companies, and the extent of regulatory failure. I was happier in my erstwhile ignorance.  

Tuesday 20 September 2022: Sources of Fresh Water

Tuesday 20 September 2022: Sources of Fresh Water

1.What water sources are you aware of?​

2. Where do you think your water currently comes from?​

​3. What other water sources do you think Affinity Water can use to source more water for their customers?

Water sources: rivers, from run-off; reservoirs, mostly from run-off, although also partly from groundwater, and from pumped water; groundwater in aquifers. My tap water is pumped from the local aquifer. Whilst locally (south eastern Kent), the aquifer is the best form of natural storage, further west in Kent there is a need for greater reservoir capacity, although this is outside the area allocated to Affinity Water to manage.

The following four options increase water supply. What are your first impressions of each option. Is there anything in particular that concerns you about it? What would you want to know of see proven to feel entirely comfortable with this water source?

Desalination

My first impression regarding desalination is that it is completely unnecessary in the UK, when there is both abundant supply, and so much that could be done to manage and reduce demand, e.g. fixing the mains water leak that has been running in Elham for at least the past ten days, giving households the wherewithal to store grey water for further use. I see the need for desalination in areas of the world where there little precipitation. However, the UK has plenty of rainfall - it is simply managed remarkably badly.

I used to be much more in favour of desalination, until I found out how greedy it is for power, with all the environmental consequences that brings. Now that I recognise there are also further negative environmental consequences of desalination, I am significantly opposed to it in the UK. Part of the problem is that water companies operating in the commercial sector have no responsibility to reduce demand for water. Neither is there any joined-up-ness with building regulations. New houses could be built to much more demanding standards that reduced water demand, and housing estates built only where there is sufficient supply to sustain them. It seems to me that desalination plants are a technological fix for failing to address a wide range of shortcomings in the system of water supply and use in the UK.

Water Transfer

My first impression is that this is such an obvious solution that I assume the reason why new schemes happen so little is due to the artificial borders created by a privatised water supply system, as well as the sums of money involved. I grew up on the edge of North Wales, where there can be few people unaware of the transfer of fresh water from Lake Vyrnwy to Liverpool, and fresh water being transferred from the Lake District to Manchester. I then lived in north eastern England where there can be few people unaware of the transfer of fresh water from Kielder Water into the rivers Tyne, Wear and Tees to supply fresh water to much of north eastern England. These schemes were built before the water supply system was privatised. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Major_water_transfer_schemes_in_England_and_Wales_map.svg I note that your third 'benefit' suggests that water transfer only 'may' give benefit to water flow in rivers - this was one of the very purposes of Kielder Water. It also seems to me that the 'costs' you list of transferring water mostly appear to be trying quite hard to make it sound problematic and undesirable: a) almost any water tastes better than water in London, and so transferring water to London would be a blessing; b) I am mystified why you suggest that the volume of transfer is limited. It is limited only by the diameter of the pipe one is willing to lay between reservoir and river/canal, and the number of pipes. The diameter of the concrete water pipe that runs southwards from Kielder Water is huge; c) Drinking water was contaminated at Camelford - transporting water does not, in itself contaminate water - the issue is how the water is managed; d) Whilst your statement about potentially-invasive species may be theoretically true, in practice there seems little reason why this should be hard to manage when the water is travelling through pipes. I recall plenty of evidence of invasive species of plants (e.g. Himalayan balsam and giant hogweed) along the River Wear that had nothing to do with Kielder, and everything to do with the failings of the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency. The only 'cost' that you list which seems significant to me is the energy required to move the water. I believe that the amount of energy required per unit volume to be a small fraction of the energy required to desalinate sea water. Therefore, much better to do everything to reduce demand first.

Reservoir to Store Water

My first impression is that this option is entirely obvious. Its use (combined with water transfer to lower rainfall areas) is relevant to geographies both that lend themselves to reservoirs, such as hilly topography, and are not underlain by aquifers (the most desirable water storage solution). There is little that concerns me about reservoirs. Even Kielder Water, which is 11 km in length actually occupies an infinitesimal proportion of the land area of the UK. The Kielder dam generates hydroelectricity. If there were rare plant species (a hangover from the end of the last ice age) there in the north Pennines, then moving those plants to similar habits nearby will not have been rocket science. Kielder was chosen because it was sparsely populated, and few people had to be relocated. The amenity value of a large reservoir is considerable - I used to sail on Derwent Reservoir (western County Durham) and I know that there are watersports on Bewl Water on the Kent/East Sussex border. I should like to see more reservoirs built, large and small. The last major public water supply reservoir to be constructed in the UK for water supply purposes was Carsington in 1991, and this was only finished subsequent to privatisation of the water companies because of the dam collapse (q.v.).

Recycled Water

My first impression is that this is a desirable option, but possibly not for producing potable water. It is not that I am especially squeamish, so much as: a) to clean water to a lower quality may require less energy b) to clean water to a lower quality may require fewer chemicals, and therefore less risk of contamination Cleaned non-potable water can be introduced to rivers (to improve flow rates), used for agriculture and supplied to factories. I very much like the idea of recycling water, but am less keen on the ongoing costs (both financial and to the environment - energy and pollution).

Wednesday 14 September 2022: Call Centres

Wednesday 14 September 2022: Call Centres

1. What are your thoughts and expectations of a contact centre?

• Is there anything in particular that annoys or frustrates you about contact centres?
• When it comes to contact centre wait times, would you say you are more, the same or less patient than before the pandemic?

2. Imagine you called an Affinity Water contact centre:

• What would you say is a reasonable time to wait to get through to the right person, and why?
• What kind of service would you want to receive from the call agents? How would you define the ‘ideal experience’?
• Is there anything you feel you should be able to do online rather than having to call Affinity Water?

From my experience, I like it best when I am directed to the most appropriate method for contacting an organisation about my issue or concern:

1. telephone conversation;

2. online chat - which can be cumbersome, but has the merit of being able to save the text for reference;

3. online message application - which I dislike because the character limit is usually far too small, and the has the same disadvantages as e-mail without the advantages;

4. e-mail - which is best because it permits me to write precisely what it is that I wish, but has the disadvantages that I might not be sure that the e-mail was even received or read, and might never be acted on because of being asynchronous (whereas telephone conversations and online chat are in real-time).

Simple reporting, say regarding a water meter reading, is best handled by an application on the website.

If I telephone, then I prefer to speak directly with a call handler, and dislike having to navigate through multiple levels of branching in order to arrive at the correct (or incorrect) departmental call centre. 

I dislike being passed between different call handlers, although I also appreciate that my issue may be most competently dealt with a person who actually knows what they are talking about, rather than a call handler who knows nothing or who might as well be a robot. I am willing to wait for the right person to become available, but it is important for me to know roughly how long I shall be required to wait. I prefer it when the original call handler breaks into my waiting to tell me that the right person is still busy but knows that I am waiting. Ten minutes would be fine, half an hour would not be okay.

I like it best when the call handler takes their time and is obviously making notes about my issue or concern on a computer record. I like it when my issue can be dealt with during the space of one telephone conversation, although I appreciate that many issues require much more than that - such as further information, or decisions being made by other departments. I also like it when the call handler instructs me what I should do if what they have explained ought to happen doesn't actually happen.

I am not bothered about the call handler's name, because I know that I am extremely unlikely to speak with the same call handler twice. I greatly prefer the call handler to call me by my family name (Mr Hughes), and I dislike it when the call handler calls me by my given name (Peter), especially if they are easily young enough to be a great grandchild.

When my call is put on hold, I prefer to listen to some 'classical' music rather than silence, but this must be punctuated with an indication that the call remains live - such as the call handler occasionally breaking into the music (or silence) to say that they are still dealing with my issue. I hate it when, after half an hour of nothing I have to decide whether to end the call and start all over again. 

Have you ever had to contact customer services in any way (call/ email/ Twitter/ Instagram etc.)?

• If you have, please tell us about the experience, and how you think it could have been improved.
• What would you change to make Affinity Water’s overall customer service experience better?

I have been in contact with Affinity Water's customer services by telephone and by e-mail. I do not use social media.

As I recall, my experience was straightforward. I liked the fact that I received an automatic acknowledgement that my e-mail had been received. I was less enthusiastic about the length of time suggested before a response was likely to be forthcoming. Improvement? Speed up.

1. How likely are you to check Affinity Water’s website to find solutions before calling?

• Are there any topics where you prefer talking to a call agent rather than going online? If so, when and why?

2. What about if you reached out to Affinity Water via email/Twitter/Instagram:

• What kind of service would you want to receive? How would you describe the ‘ideal experience’?

3. Are there any key differences between your expectations for the contact centre vs email or other forms of communication? If yes, please tell us why!

It is my practice to scour a website before picking up a telephone. Partly, I need to know if the company concerned already recognises the kind of issue that is concerning me; partly I need to find out if there are already solutions to the issue; partly, if possible, I need to know if the company has a preferred route to engaging with my experience of the problem.

Every time I raise a problem with a call-handler it feels like my issue may be too complex for them to address, and I typically spend time and effort trying to get them on my side sufficiently to listen to my actual needs rather than simply than a clichéd, generalised need.

As I do not use social media, and do not have a smartphone, there is no possibility of me communicating using a smartphone application  I have already explained about my use of e-mail.

I should prefer to use videoconferencing. 

Imagine you contact Affinity Water and tell them about an issue you are having. How long would you expect to wait for the below issues to be resolved?

In each response below, please give us a sense of A) what you think a fair wait is before Affinity start working on the issue, and B) why you think this is a fair wait period…

1. A billing issue or query
2. A problem with low pressure
3. A leak in your property
4. A leak further down your street

My response to each of the examples is the same: Affinity Water should have a responsibility to begin addressing the issue, in whatever way is appropriate, immediately. This does not mean that the issues are of equal urgency: for example, a major leak (wherever) should be stopped as soon as possible. However, I see no reason why delay should be tolerated. More importantly, there should be a target time for resolution of the issue. A billing issue should be resolved within a fortnight. Low water pressure, if proving disruptive, should be resolved within 48 hours. Minor leaks (losing little water, and causing no damage) should be resolved within a fortnight, whereas major leaks should be resolved within 36 hours.

Monday 5 September 2022: Energy Efficiency Labelling

Monday 5 September 2022: Energy Efficiency Labelling

A1. When was the last time you purchased a kitchen appliance? What did you buy? 

I bought a Daewoo air fryer, about three years ago. I bought it to replace a failed Daewoo Airfryer, which I had bought to replace a failed Daewoo Airfryer.

My focus was strongly on trying to reduce my spending on electrical heating, and therefore consuming as little electricity as possible. I understood air fryers to cook food using much less electricity than a standard electric oven. 

When I bought the machine, there was no energy efficiency labelling on the appliance, nor on the packaging, nor in the documentation (I have just been to check). The same situation applies to the Morphy Richards breadmaker, of which I have now consecutively owned seven.

Besides, much of the value of efficiency labelling involves indicating the percentage of consumed electrical power devoted to the purpose of the appliance, rather than being wasted as heat. As heat for cooking was what I required of the air fryer, energy efficiency labelling seemed somewhat superfluous.

Regarding my purchase of the air fryer, the materials/resources (sometimes referred to as 'embodied carbon') used to make each flawed machine considerably outweighed any issues of energy efficiency. I require an appliance to last a long time and receive a lot of use. Whilst I should prefer that it did so energy efficiently, this is secondary to its usefulness and longevity. I accept that a breadmaker making 150-200 loaves a year for three years reaches the end of its life, and the embodied carbon in its manufacture (and transportation) must be factored in to total energy use - a balance may have to be struck between greater longevity (proportionately less embodied carbon) and greater energy efficiency (how little electrical energy it uses to do its job).

When I can, I try to have appliances (washing machine, dishwasher, fridge, microwave oven) repaired. The microwave oven that I had had for twenty years had been repaired several times before it failed irreparably. When I bought a replacement microwave oven from Argos on 12 September 2019, energy efficiency was one of the criteria I tried to find out about, but failed. 

A2. Thinking about when you bought this appliance, what were the top three things you looked for? Why? This may include things like the model, cost, style/design, capacity, how energy efficient it was, good reviews, available in a shop near you etc

My purchasing criteria tend to be many, including (in this order) whether I actually require the appliance and how much I am likely to use it, how reliable it is reputed to be (which may or may not include brand), bad customer reviews on websites, price/affordability, how easily it can be returned if faulty. I have little interest in style. All other things being equal, I would choose a more energy efficient appliance over a less energy efficient appliance. I buy mostly online.

A3. To what extent do you consider energy labels to be important?

I consider energy labels to have a modest level of importance, but mostly in terms of pushing manufacturers to make their appliances more energy efficient regardless of whether the customer takes much notice of them. Public-facing organisations (such as the Consumer Association) promote good practice and expose short-comings, thus indirectly influencing customer decisions.

B1. What type of information would you expect to gain from water efficiency labelling. What should the label tell you/measure? Do you consider that the water efficiency label should include how much water the appliance uses per cycle, and how much water is used to manufacture the item?

As indicated above, I consider that the value of water efficiency labelling would mostly lie in the pressure on manufacturers to reduce the amount of water used by the appliances they manufacture, and during the manufacturing process, rather than directly influencing the buying decisions of customers. I could imagine, however, that environmental pressure groups might attempt to influence regulators to bring about, or tighten, regulations regarding the maximum amount of water an appliance should use.

For my own interest, I find it valuable to know the volume of water used by a cycle of each programme of an appliance.  However, I would not expect to find this information on a sticky label. Neither would I be adequately equipped to interpret the data without appropriate context (requiring more information and a computer). I suppose what I might find useful would be the kind of energy ratings regarding lightbulbs (until they started adding plusses). This would tell me that an appliance has been rated (by someone, but by whom?) as being less or more water efficient.

2. How much impact do you think water efficiency labelling would have on you? Why?

• Thinking about your friends and family, how beneficial do you feel these would be to them? Why? 
• When it comes to trust, what level of trust would you have in these labels? Why? 

The most water-efficient appliance is often the one not bought in the first place. Is it really necessary to have the appliance?

Would I choose to buy an appliance that I knew to be a little less water efficient than another? Yes, if it had other benefits. How about very much less water efficient than another model? No, possibly not ... and yet ... if an appliance's water efficiency rating was based on a singe 'Eco' setting, and the water efficiency of other programme settings was no different from that of any other similar appliance, then I hope that I would not be suckered into buying the greenwash.

I would not trust a manufacturer's own water efficiency rating, no more than I would trust car manufacturers to tell the truth about fuel economy and exhaust emissions.  

3. Which would be more important to you, an energy or water efficiency label? Why?

As indicated above, I consider the value of efficiency labelling appliances lies in the pressure it can exert on manufacturers to improve the efficiency (water or energy) of the appliances they manufacture, and to reduce water/energy use during the manufacturing process, rather than informing customers to help them choose between two similar appliances. Given all the qualifications about which I have written above, I consider both water efficiency and energy efficiency to be equally important.  

Friday 26 August 2022: Three Affinity Water Articles

Friday 26 August 2022: Three Affinity Water Articles

Where our water comes from

We take the majority (65%) of our supply from groundwater sources and the remainder from surface water sources, including from the River Thames and from reservoirs located outside of our supply area. We also receive water from and provide water to neighbouring water companies (known as bulk supplies or transfers).

Groundwater makes up an important part of our water supply, and this is the area we focus on most when assessing our water resource situation and the risks of drought. Please see our Drought Plan for more information about how we monitor our water resources and how we plan for when these are affected by low rainfall. 

The groundwater we abstract is stored naturally underground in bodies of rock known as aquifers. These aquifers also contribute to flow in the globally rare Chalk streams in our area. 

We work hard to ensure we monitor and mitigate the impacts of our abstractions on the local environment. This includes reducing certain abstractions, both temporarily during times of stress and in the longer term through our sustainability reductions programme. We also provide river support or augmentation during times of low river flows in some rivers. Our programme of river restoration, which aims to deliver significant habitat enhancements on rivers across our supply area is helping to improve our rivers for local wildlife. For more information about these programmes please see our Drought Plan. We face many challenges including population growth and climate change and are actively planning to create a secure and environmentally sustainable water supply in the future. For more information about the plans we are putting in place to meet these challenges, please see our Water Resources Management Plan.

In summary, what was this article telling you?​

How easy or challenging was it to read and understand?​

What would you change, if anything, about this article, and why?

This article offers a cursory overview of how Affinity Water obtains its fresh water.

I did not find it remotely challenging. However, I considered it to be written for well-educated people, not for the general public. It uses technical words, such as groundwater and abstraction, with which the general public is unlikely to be familiar and may feel as though they are being made to appear stupid. It uses terms, such as mitigate and enhancement, which whilst entirely familiar to educated people, whose use of language involves 'elaborated code', will be much less familiar to less-well-educated people who spend their lives immersed in a local or sectoral 'restricted code'. The sentence construction is also intended for an educated readership. The thrust and flow of the article feels disjointed. I would wish to rewrite the entire article.

Why winter rain is important

Due to the nature of groundwater and how it functions, the most important factor is rainfall during autumn and winter, when groundwater levels are effectively topped up by the rainfall that percolates down through the soil. This process is known as recharge. The ground needs to be wet for water to seep through and for recharge to happen, and we measure this through a metric called soil moisture deficit, or 'SMD'. The higher the SMD, the drier the soil is and the less likely it is that rainfall will permeate down to contribute to recharge of our aquifers. Conversely the lower SMD is, the more likely it is that a higher proportion of rainfall will contribute to recharge.

Summer rainfall has little impact on Chalk groundwater levels because the ground is hard and dry, which makes it difficult for water to get through, and a large proportion of it runs off into rivers or the drainage network. Water falling during warmer months is also more likely to be used by plants/vegetation or evaporate.

1. In summary, what was this article telling you?​
2. How easy or challenging was it to read and understand?​
3. What would you change, if anything, about this article, and why?

In summary, the article explains why winter rain is important to water companies

As with the first article, I found the material easy to understand. As with the first article, I consider it poorly suited to a less-well-educated readership, for exactly the same reasons. Is it your intention to inform, or do you really wish to teach? ".. we measure this through a metric called soil moisture deficit, ..." This kind of language can make less-well-educated people angry - I speak from experience. I also note that the verbs percolate and permeate are used as if interchangeably, whereas they mean different things, which is relevant in the context of this article. As with the first article, it reads clumsily.

How droughts affect our water supply

Droughts vary from region to region in England. Neighbouring water companies will take the actions that are necessary in their region to protect water supplies and this can mean that our actions may differ according to the particular circumstances.

The reasons why water companies may have to react differently in terms of restrictions, and the timing of implementation, are explained below.

Droughts can vary in severity across a region, depending on rainfall patterns, with some areas experiencing more rainfall than others, and therefore causing different levels of water shortages across the region.

Drought can also impact water companies differently depending on how their water supply systems are made up. Water companies divide their supply regions into smaller areas known as Water Resource Zones (WRZs). WRZs can be divided into those dependent upon: 

• Groundwater abstraction
• Surface water - river abstraction
• Surface water - reservoirs filled by abstracting local river water or by impounding river water 
• Combinations of the above.

Each of these types of water sources undergoes a different risk at different times during a drought event. This mix of WRZ types means that even if there were not a significant difference in drought severity across the region, WRZs will tend to react differently to the same drought. That means in similar drought conditions, rivers, groundwater sources and reservoirs across the region can respond differently in terms of risk to supply.

For example, a WRZ dependent on combined river abstraction and reservoir storage for supply may have a different level of risk to one based on groundwater abstraction. This difference in WRZ vulnerability has an impact both at the company level and regional level. This means that we could apply temporary use restrictions across some areas of our supply, but does not necessarily mean this will cover our whole supply area. Equally the need to impose restrictions for one company may not equally apply to another. For more information about how droughts can affect us as a predominantly groundwater-based company, please see our Drought Plan.

1. In summary, what was this article telling you?​
2. How easy or challenging was it to read and understand?​
3. What would you change, if anything, about this article, and why?

In summary, the article addresses why water company responses to drought conditions vary between water companies and between different areas within the same catchment.

The language in this article is, as the other two, intended for an educated readership "... us as a predominantly groundwater-based company." (Do you seriously imagine that a customer who has a few mediocre GCSEs will make meaningful sense of that terminology?). How are people supposed to know and understand the difference between "a drought event" and "drought conditions"? However, in contrast to the other two, it is better written and more coherent. It still has some conceptual problems, including determining whether the article is intended for a textbook or a public information sheet.

I have responded honestly to what I have read. Part of my job used to involve copy-editing PhD theses and textbooks for publication. Please forgive the hubris: I would willingly edit these three articles.

---

Here is my attempt to rewrite these passages:

How water companies get fresh water

When rain falls onto the ground, it starts to wet the soil. Soil acts like a sponge, and can fill with water. Plants growing in the soil take up water through their roots. Once the surface of the soil becomes wet, the rainwater starts to sink deeper into the soil. Below the soil is rock. Some kinds of rock, such as chalk and sandstone, allow water to pass into and through the rock. Other kinds of rock, such as granite, do not allow water to pass into rock. As with soil, chalk and sandstone act like a sponge and can fill with water.

When it rains, water sinks through the soil only slowly. Where there is a rock such as chalk or sandstone beneath the soil, the water sinks ever deeper into the rock, but only very slowly. After months of rain, the rock gradually fills with water. A water well is a hole dug deep into the rock that has filled with water - water that has seeped out of the rock into the well.

Chalk and sandstone are excellent at gathering water that has sunk into the ground. Water companies, such as Affinity Water, drill deep holes into the chalk and sandstone. Water in the rock seeps into these holes. This water is then pumped out of the holes, cleaned and put into the mains water pipes. Affinity Water gets two thirds of its fresh water from water stored in rock.

When a lot of rain falls onto the ground very fast, instead of only sinking into the soil, much of the rain runs off the soil and forms streams. Instead of sinking into the rock beneath the soil, much of the water in the soil trickles into the streams. Streams meet, join together, and become rivers. Water in rivers flows to the sea. Water in rivers is fresh water, and can be cleaned for people to use. Water in the sea is very salty, and cannot be used. Water companies take water from rivers, clean it and put it into the mains water pipes. A river has to be big for much water to be taken from it.

One way to gather a lot of water in one place is to dam a river and create a reservoir. A reservoir usually looks like a lake, and can hold a lot of water. Reservoirs are especially useful in places where there is no chalk or sandstone beneath the soil, such as places where the rock is granite instead. Reservoirs are very expensive to build, and often destroy the homes of wildlife. In the past, entire villages have been swallowed up by a new reservoir. On the other hand, larger reservoirs often offer the opportunity for water sports. Affinity Water obtains one third of its fresh water from rivers, such as the River Thames, and from reservoirs.

Drought

Drought is when there is persistent lack of water. Mostly, we think of drought as being a lack of rain over a long period of time. River water flow slows, and parts of the river might even dry up until it rains again. The level of water in reservoirs gets lower, and the reservoir risks becoming empty. Drought can also occur when the water stored in rock, such as chalk or sandstone, becomes used up. Weeks or months with little or no rain can become a problem when fresh water is mostly drawn from rivers and reservoirs. This is because rivers and reservoirs mostly rely on rain that has recently fallen on the ground or sunk only into the soil. Water stored in rock may have been there for years, and is less vulnerable to periods of low rainfall. There may be less of a problem when fresh water is mostly drawn from deep holes in water-storing rock. 

Weather in Britain often involves a dry summer and a wet winter. Rainy winters recharge water-storing rock with water. This means that, as long as there has been good rainfall in the winter, there will be plenty of water to draw out of the ground even during a dry summer. A dry winter followed by a dry summer can become a problem. Hot, dry summers are the worst. High temperatures bake the soil, forming a kind of crust. This makes it more difficult for the water to wet the soil, and so sink down. Instead, the water simply runs off the very dry ground straight into streams and rivers, sometimes causing flooding. Summer rainfall rarely reaches the underlying rock.

Water companies have Drought Plans that describe what they will do when there is a drought. The best-known action is to ban the use of hose-pipes in order to reduce water use by customers. However, there are many other actions that can be, and are, taken. Affinity Water's Drought Plan can be read in detail online. A water company that obtains its fresh water from rivers and reservoirs might need to implement its Drought Plan sooner than a water company that obtains its fresh water from water stored in underlying rocks. On the other hand, Kielder Water in Northumberland holds so much water that it would be hard for it to run dry. 

Southern and eastern Britain tend to experience less rainfall than northern and western Britain. This means that water companies in south-eastern England may have to activate their Drought Plan sooner than water companies further north or west. Low rainfall during 2022 has meant that South West Water reservoirs, whilst almost full to capacity in March, had fallen to 40% capacity by the end of August. Unlike Affinity Water, South West Water obtains 90% of its fresh water from rivers and reservoirs, and have had to impose a ban on the use of hosepipes. Different circumstances mean that different water companies activate their Drought Plans at different times. 

Protecting the water supply

Water companies do not only supply fresh water. They are also required to protect the water resources. They look after rivers, reservoirs and water stored in the rock. Rivers are places where wildlife can flourish. If too much water is taken out of a river, wildlife suffers. Sometimes water is pumped into rivers to protect the wildlife. Reservoirs are also places where wildlife can flourish, and are often used for recreation, too. Drought can be bad for a reservoir. Water stored in rock can be threatened, especially by ever-increasing demands from new housing estates and from industry. Over the years, winter rains may be insufficient to recharge the rock with water, until it eventually dries up. On the other hand, when there is plenty of winter rain, the level of water in the ground may be high enough to to allow winter streams to flow, and to keep chalk streams flowing along their full course.

Technical terms used in the water industry

Run-off: water from rainfall that runs over the ground into streams and rivers.

Groundwater: water that sinks into rocks such as chalk, limestone and sandstone.

Aquifer: a body of rock that holds water and can be used for water storage.

Borehole: a hole drilled down deep into the rock, and can be used for pumping water out of the rock.

Abstraction: taking water from rivers, reservoirs and aquifers to use for fresh water supply.

Water table: the exact depth below which the water-holding rock is filled with water. Additional rain will raise the level of the water table. Lack of rain will lower the level of the water table.

Chalk stream: a stream that is mostly fed by water seeping out of the underlying chalk rock. With little run-off water, the water in chalk streams tends to be very clear. They offer a special environment to wildlife, and require protection from pollution and modern developments. There are 210 chalk streams in the world, and 160 of them are in England.

Winterbourne: a seasonal stream fed solely by water, mostly from winter rainfall, seeping out of water-holding rock. Another way of saying this is that the water table rises to a level higher than the stream bed. 

Wednesday 17 August 2022: E-mail to Southern Water

Wednesday 17 August 2022: E-mail to Southern Water

Dear sirs,

Customer Number: xxxx

I pay Southern Water for waste water removal, whereas I pay Affinity Water for fresh water supply.

In the year from April 2020 until March 2021, a mains water leak lost 988 cubic metres of water, about which I alerted Southern Water.

Thank you for your e-mail of 2 May 2022. I was very happy to read that I would not be charged on the basis of the water that was lost before the leak was repaired. I was also happy to read that my account was to be rebilled based on my ordinary use of water.

Sadly, the calculation sheets referenced in the sentence “I have enclosed the calculation sheets for your reference” were not attached to the e-mail I was sent, otherwise I would have attached them to this e-mail. Lazily, and perhaps unwisely, I simply waited to see the results of the recalculation in my water bills and consequent monthly direct debits. Perhaps, had I followed up the matter immediately, I would not need to be writing now.

I regret that my sense is that I have been paying Southern Water by direct debit too much. Before the water leak, I was paying £9.50 per month, which covered the bills sent to me by Southern Water. Since March 2022 I have been paying £50.00 per month. I am unclear why, but maybe it was explained in the calculation sheets that I did not receive. However, as a result, my account is now £223.45 in credit (considerably in excess of my annual bill charged by Southern Water).

I recently received online correspondence from Southern Water informing me that, from September 2022, my direct debit payments will reduce to £22.11 per month, to remain in force for six months (£132.66). As my fresh water usage, on which your calculations are based, consistently averages about 160 litres per day (58.44 cubic metres per year), I do not understand how the credit in my account is to reduce.

I am unhappy both that my account is now £223.45 in credit (which seems excessive to me), and that the payments Southern Water intends to take over the next six months will do little to reduce this balance. It may be that there is a good explanation for why Southern Water has chosen to build up and maintain such a large credit balance, but I have not been given this information. I should like to understand the basis on which an appropriate credit balance is determined. I should also prefer that Southern Water substantially reduced my credit balance.

I should be most grateful were you to look into the matter, and then let me know by e-mail your findings.

With best wishes,

Tuesday 16 August 2022: Hosepipe ban

Tuesday 16 August 2022: Hosepipe use ban

1. What are your thoughts and understanding of the recent hosepipe ban? ​
2. In your view, how necessary is it for water companies to issue a hosepipe ban and why?​
3. Affinity Water are not planning to issue this ban but we’re curious to know, how would you feel if this did happen to you?

First, let me say that I have read carefully Affinity Water's drought action plans. I like the fact that there is a detailed plan in place, and that are several stages of action depending on the severity (longevity) of the drought. However, I also sense a deep reluctance to engage the plan, which is responsive rather than anticipatory and pre-emptive. My preference would be for Affinity Water to take pre-emptive action in order to reduce the likelihood of the drought progressing to a more severe stage. If this coming autumn and winter's rains are insufficient to recharge the underlying aquifer, then we shall enter next year's growing season with serious water stress. If next summer proves to be as rainless as this year, then the drought stage will inevitably progress, and more demanding action will be required. I consider it to be very much more preferable to take mild action now.

Towards the end of July 2022, during the exceptionally hot weather, two nearby villages, Challock and Molash, served by South East Water, had no mains water for a full week, due to the drought. Even the stocks of bottled water that were delivered in lieu were exhausted. In my view this situation was wholly unacceptable, and should never have been allowed to get anywhere close to such a calamity. I hope that Affinity Water have greater foresight, common sense and some level of empathy for their customers.

My preference for pre-emptive action certainly applies to a hosepipe use ban (which is an early stage action). Indeed, since we grow a significant proportion of our fruit and vegetables, but have had almost no rain at all for the past four months, and I have therefore had to water the plants daily, I have conscientiously chosen to use watering cans instead of a hose pipe. This also allows me to re-use grey water, thus also 'saving water'. Similarly, I wash the car using a sponge and bucket, not a hose pipe.

Sunday 14 August 2022: Comment 'below the line' in The Guardian newspaper

Sunday 14 August 2022: 

Comment 'below the line' in The Guardian newspaper 

I rarely write 'below the line' comments regarding articles printed in the online version of The Guardian newspaper. Partly, this is because I am not one of the commenters whose comments are welcomed. When I have written a comment, the comment usually receives few (if any) likes. Sometimes, on contentious issues, my comment attracts the attention of commenters vehemently opposed to what I have written. I never engage in arguments or spats, aware that some of these commenters may be paid trolls whose work is to sow antagonism. "Don't feed the trolls." I have little interest in what they think about an issue. Partly, also, the window of opportunity to comment usually closes after only a few hours, and, before now, I have spent a long time writing and carefully honing a comment only to find, once I am ready to post it, the discussion window has closed. I neither enjoy writing 'on the fly', nor am I competent at doing so. I much prefer to think, to write, to edit, think some more, write some more, and so on. Unless I do so, then I have a tendency to miss out key points, I express ideas clumsily, I realise that what I have written could be taken with a different meaning, perhaps even a contrary meaning (written English can be treacherous), and so on. When I am in a position to write how I prefer, then what I have to say is better balanced, more nuanced, and communicates, more or less, what I intended. Maybe I ought, now, to rewrite this piece, perhaps to illustrate my point. (This I have now done, but not with the purpose of illustration, but simply to communicate both more accurately and with greater precision.)

The text below is the gist of what I wrote in a comment regarding a click-bait piece in The Guardian. My comment attracted no 'likes', but some unpleasantness from commenters who have a visceral dislike of veganism. Although substantively the same, the text is now better written, and better expresses something of the complexity and tension in attempting to live a principled life.    

My family (wife, daughter and I) are vegetarians, and have been so inclined for decades. I have lived as a strict vegan for nearly thirty years. It is a truism to say that there are almost as many types of vegan as there are vegans, an issue I might take up for another post. My veganism is of the whole lifestyle variety. I do not use leather (especially relevant to footwear), silk (ties in particular) or wool (clothing). Floor coverings are tile, vinyl and man-made fibres. Medication and toiletries are animal-free. I go to lengths that many people might consider extraordinary so as to ensure that I avoid animal-derived products. In the garden, I relocate, to a neighbouring field, a great many slugs and snails so that they can no longer much on our lettuces and brassicas. When I am digging, I move earthworms out of harm's way. The other day I rescued a lizard from a bonfire (and, amazingly, saw it again the next day). As the autumn advances and the days and nights become colder, mice come into the house from the garden and surrounding fields, seeking shelter, warmth and food. We use humane, small mammal traps to capture these unhygienic animals, and I can sometimes be found around midnight traipsing up a hill, torch in hand, with the purpose of depositing the unfortunate creature in a wood a quarter of a mile away (mice simply return to the house is they are not transported far enough away).

In some considerable contrast, cats require taurine in their diet, which means that they can never be naturally be vegan. That's just how the universe is. The same applies to lions, tigers and other carnivores. Seals and dolphins did not evolve to graze on seaweed. We have two pet cats. We live in the countryside, surrounded by fields. Both cats hunt. Mostly they catch mice, rabbits, pigeons and occasionally rats. Mostly, they eat what they kill, moles and toads being notable exceptions. I should not be sad were the cats were the cats to catch more mice so that they (the mice) do not make it into the house. There were rats in the house for a while after we first moved in, but the predatory behaviour of the cats seems to have cleared rats from living near the house. The idea of rats in the house still makes my blood run cold.

However, apart from the issue of blood and entrails being left of the floor of the utility room, I am also satisfied that the cats catch and eat wild rabbits Obviously, wild rabbits do not invade the house. Their dispatch is a convenience to me, because the rabbits are a terrible nuisance. They attack my vegetables, gnaw the bark off my many fruit trees, and readily build warrens in which the breed scores more rabbits. The presence in the village of a local horse and hound hunt, and the near complete absence of foxes in the area, may be mere coincidence. However, apart from a family of buzzards, there is little to predate on the rabbits. It cost me £1,700 to have a rabbit-proof fence erected around my allotment garden, which makes the cost of growing beetroot and chard, carrots and brassicas, rather expensive. I bought a humane rabbit trap, but have managed to date to trap only one rabbit and an extremely cross badger. Further, but on a different point, fresh rabbit flesh may be better quality food than the canned food on which I feed the cats twice every day. Indeed, if I knew how to do so (which I do not), I would encourage the cats to catch even more rabbits. However, the cats are sleepy in the summer heat, and so the rabbits often get killed on the road instead, which, from the perspective both of cat nutrition and of their behavioural enrichment, seems like a waste (and can't make much difference to the doomed rabbits).

Despite any amount of netting, on which we have spent a fortune, the pigeons still manage to devastate the brassicas, turning their leaves into green filigree. Again, when there are too many pigeons, they end up as road-kill. If the cats manage to catch the occasional pigeon, they are, unbeknown to themselves, performing a minor service, other than the horrendous riot of feathers, and the entrails, they leave.  

In summary, we keep cats for the reason why cats have lived, symbiotically, among humans for millennia: to prey on vermin, which is part of the natural algorithm of their DNA. If the natural diet of cats included cans of industrially-processed animal parts, then surely they would have evolved claws to open steel cans.    

The boundaries of my veganism lie distant, but they do not involve a total denial of the natural world.   

Thursday 11 August 2022: Affinity Water annual report video

Thursday 11 August 2022: Affinity Water annual report video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtkREw_gb1c

As a corporate video, it was exactly as one might expect. I imagine that it will allow company executives to feel good about themselves, and potentially strengthen the value of Affinity Water's share price (which has been in decline for the past 18 months). Here is a 1960 parody of the corporate video: https://archive.org/details/YourName1960

The message of the Affinity Water annual report video is that the water industry appears to have no serious structural or infrastructure problems, and Affinity Water is doing everything right. What makes me say this? The video focused a) only on achievements; b) gave absolutely no objective perspective on those achievements (e.g. year-on-year reduction of water lost to leakage measured against total annual leakage; c) gave absolutely no context regarding the enormous practical and environmental challenges facing both water supply (to domestic users, agriculture and industry), and waste water treatment in the UK. 

Monday 25 July 2022: How I am billed for the water I use

Monday 25 July 2022: How I am billed for the water I use

How would you describe how billing for water currently works and how do you feel about it?

1. The fact that two different water companies are involved, Affinity Water to supply me with fresh water, and Southern Water to process (or not) my waste water, is a situation that I have still not yet got used to. Consequently, I receive two water bills, one from Affinity Water and the other from Southern Water. My water bill from Southern Water is determined by how much fresh water Affinity Water has billed me for. Therefore, the only way I am able to impact on my bill from Southern Water is by changing how much fresh water Affinity Water bills me for. In practice, especially during the months of the growing season, I recycle a lot of water for use in the garden, and, as a consequence, I am paying for a greater volume of waste water processing than I am generating. 

2. Tedious though it may sound, I remain entirely unreconciled to having to buy fresh water from, (and having to pay for my waste water to be processed by) a commercial company. I believe that all public utilities should be in 'public' ownership, and can remember the time when they were. I should very much rather be paying my water bill directly to the local municipality. Moreover, it is not as if, as a result of paying a commercial company, I am able to choose to be supplied with better quality water or  more reliable service (or, in the case of Southern Water, to pay a company that does not pollute the waterways and coastal waters). Notwithstanding the sterling efforts of Affinity Water to "reach out" to its customers, Affinity Water remains primarily accountable to its shareholders.

3. A principal reason for my belief that water should be in public ownership is that the supply of safe, fresh water and the processing of waste water, is a key component for the maintenance of public health. Both historically in Britain, and currently in many parts of the economically-under-developed world, public health is of poor quality because of the absence of safe, fresh water and the processing of waste water. John Snow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow). I believe that everyone should have a legal right to sufficient fresh water (and to have their waste water processed) to allow them to remain healthy and to maintain the public health. (Note, there is no reason to extend this legal right to owners of golf courses, or to car valeting services.) As it is, I am charged at a full rate for all the water that I use, regardless of whether it is for reasons of personal/public health or merely for recreation.

4. I consider the fixed charge (20% of my bill: my most recent bill: £14.46 out of £73.57) to be disproportionately high.

Water is currently charged at a flat rate, so the first litre costs as much as the ten thousandth. How do you feel about this flat rate charging?

I have already explained above that basic water use is about personal and public health. To charge customers at the same rate for water used to maintain personal and public health, and water used for recreation is unfair, albeit slightly differently, both on those people who cannot afford more than the bare minimum, and also on those people who choose to be economical in their use of water in order, say, better to protect the environment, and not consume fresh water for recreational purposes (instead, viewing water as a matter of personal and public health).

Imagine you are part of Affinity’s leadership team and have to decide the best way to price water. Please explain how you think people should be charged for the water they use and tell us why.

1. Ensure that every property is metered.

2. Eliminate the fixed charge.

3. Using electoral rolls, establish how many people the water bill covers. Establish whether this number includes any people with additional health needs, such as new-borns, and people who need to bathe/be bathed more frequently.

4. Allocate every person a water allowance, with a higher allowance for people with additional health needs.

5. Deduct water allowances from water usage. Bill accordingly.

In this way, people would be paying for discretionary use of fresh water, not for personal and public health use. 

Affinity Water is exploring an alternative way of billing – what’s called a Rising Block Tariff. This means that households pay more per unit of water as their water consumption increases, so using a high volume of water would lead to a higher bill than today. Using a low volume of water would lead to a lower bill.    

In other words – the more you use, the higher the rate you pay. 

For example:  

• In a month, the first 10,000 litres (about 120 baths worth) are charged at e.g., 0.4 pence a litre.  
• But any consumption above 10,000 litres would cost more, say 0.6 pence a litre.  
• For context, a typical family of four might use around 14,000 litres a month. In this case, the first 10,000 litres would be charged at 0.4 pence per litre and the remaining 4,000 litres at 0.6 pence 

• For the very highest of users, an ultra-high use block could be introduced, e.g., every litre used after the first 20,000 might cost 1.0 pence per litre 

Affinity Water has no current plans to change to this progressive tariff – it’s purely exploratory at this stage. Thus, they want to know: 

What are your thoughts on this type of billing? How do you think progressive tariffs would impact you and your wider family?

1. As a matter of principle, I consider the Rising Block Tariff to be superior to the fixed rate tariff. For this reason, I would prefer the Rising Block Tariff.

2. However, by not taking into account how many people are living in the property, an extended family (of say, two parents, two children, an adult dependent and a grandparent) will soon be into paying the 'standard rate'. In contrast, a single professional person might be hard-pressed to consume anywhere near 10,000 litres/month, even though a greater proportion of their water use might be discretionary.

3. For reasons I have stated above, I should prefer it were the 'basic rate' also more differentiated from the 'standard rate'.

4. I have no objection to there being a 'ultra-high rate', and indeed, with the caveats given above, would consider the use of differential rates to be a valuable instrument for encouraging greater water economy.

How effective do you think progressive tariffs would be in reducing water consumption?  Please explain your answer.

Somewhat effective:

1. By setting expectations about water consumption, Affinity Water can encourage customers towards conforming to those expectations.

2. By providing a financial incentive to conform to water consumption expectations, customers will have a motivation to do so.

3. On the other hand, wealthy people appear to behave as though they believe that if they have the money with which to do so, then their wealth entitles them to do as they choose, with less regard for the environment.

In terms of your own bill, what impact do you think this is likely to have, and why do you think this? 

I think that I shall end up paying the same. I find it hard to believe that Affinity Water would set the block boundaries and the different water consumption rates such that there would end up being much difference in bills for the average family.

Would you ever consider switching to this sort of billing by choice?  

Please tell us why you chose that answer. If you wouldn’t consider switching, is there any extra information or incentives that might encourage you to do so? 

Yes. I approve of a charging mechanism that makes some attempt to differentiate between basic needs and discretionary needs.

Taking all things into consideration, do you think a rising block tariff is a fairer way of charging for water than the current flat charge per litre? 

A lot fairer.

Have you any concerns or issues with the progressive tariff, or have anything else you want to say about it?

I have ticked "A lot fairer", although I might have ticked "A little fairer" - it all depends on the details. The closer to a charging mechanism that recognises the importance of personal and public health to basic need for water, and charges for discretionary use, the fairer I would consider a progressive tariff to be. This would include a basic water allowance per person, not per household.