The Carbon Footprint of Water Companies

 The Carbon Footprint of Water Companies

Water is a medium through which we feel the negative impacts of climate change - drought, storms, flooding and sea level rise. At the same time, water companies continue to add greenhouse gas emissions through our day-to-day operations (such as pumping water) and the infrastructure we build.

Water UK states that the water sector emits 2.4 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. The water sector has committed to achieving net zero operational emissions targets by 2030, and affinity water is working towards that goal.

1. What thoughts come to mind when you think about this goal?

2. What are the meanings and messages you take away from this explanation?

I feel neutral about the statement that affinity water is working towards the goal of net zero operational emissions by 2030, because, for me, it conflates two opposing issues.

I understand that it is vitally important that emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere should be not simply reduced, but eliminated wherever possible. I also understand that everything needs to be done to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere: tree-planting schemes, bog-restoration projects and so on. I understand all of these things to be necessary, not optional. Adoption of "net zero" targets is primarily a ruse for big emitters of carbon dioxide to continue emitting carbon dioxide by so-called "off-setting" their emissions. Everything means everything. Logic and rationality make it clear that if everything is already being done to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere and sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then so-called "off-setting" is meaningless greenwash.

1. Overall, how achievable do you think this goal is? Why?

2. How do you think Affinity Water can achieve this goal? Why?

3. What do you think the potential barriers are going to be that water companies need to consider? Why?

For reasons explained above, I consider "net zero" to be the wrong goal, a sham goal: it is an excuse to avoid doing everything possible to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Doing everything possible should be the goal.

Could Affinity Water set a target of doing everything possible, yet still deliver water and process waste water? Yes, of course it could. Perhaps a 'carbon dioxide emissions tax' might help to focus attention. On the other hand, such a tax would probably be simply passed on to consumers, and so would make little or no difference to the company.

It would be so much more straightforward to deal with the issue were water supply and disposal in public, not private, ownership.

I have little doubt that water companies in general will propose to plant lots of trees on land that they own in order to offset their carbon dioxide emissions. They will probably also pay opportunist companies lots of money for planting trees elsewhere. In my opinion, all of these trees should be planted (and properly managed) anyway, regardless of so-called "offsetting". There may be new carbon dioxide sequestering technology that allows water reservoirs somehow or other to sequester carbon dioxide. Such technology, if it exists now or at some point in the future, should be applied anyway, and not simply used by water companies to avoid cutting carbon dioxide emissions.

I doubt that there is anything that the water companies can do to convince me that offsetting is an activity that will produce the amount of change necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change. The time for 'Net zero' has long passed. The time for that was thirty or forty years ago when there was still 'room for manoeuvre'. It is now too late, and 'everything possible' is the only hope.

Affinity Water will look at various ways to achieve Net Zero operational emissions by 2030. Below are 5 different ways - please read each one and rank them from most (1st place) to least (5th place) preferred:

1.      Reducing our carbon footprint (reducing energy use by 7.5% in our operations, reducing demand for water, and working towards a fully electric fleet by 2030)

2.      Using 10% self-generated renewable energy (I.e. we generate our own solar and wind power)

3.      Planting Trees (110,000 by 2030, improving catchments, and also seagrass restoration)

4.      Purchasing ‘green electricity’ tariffs (i.e. using electricity generated by others, from renewables such as wind or solar)

5.      Buying Carbon Offset (investing in green schemes in other places to balance our own use of carbon)

In order to achieve this goal, Affinity Water will be required to invest in their infrastructure. These costs may potentially impact your water prices as a customer.

Below are a couple of scenarios around how your water bill may be impacted. Thinking about the Net Zero Policy that water companies are committed to achieve, what would you prefer?

Please select your preferred option and explain why in the comment box below.

Gradually over time (cheaper now, but more expensive later)

As fast as possible before 2030 (expensive now, but cheaper later) - why

It seems that you just don't get it. It is already too late. It was already too late many years ago. Nothing short of everything possible as soon as possible needs to be done immediately to mitigate the disaster the world is facing. The front edge of the disaster is clearly already upon us, and it gets worse from here on in. I find your complacency breath-taking.

By the way, the so-called 'green energy tariffs' of most (although not all) energy companies achieve their green credentials through the purchase of offsets, not as a result of additional renewable energy generation.

Interesting that you talk about water bills being impacted, but say nothing about dividend payments to shareholders.

For this final task, please let us know your final thoughts:

What other ways Affinity Water can help to reduce their carbon footprint? What is your idea?

Why would this idea help reduce their carbon footprint?

Earlier, we asked if you’d prefer water prices to be impacted gradually over time (cheaper now but more expensive later) or as fast as possible before 2030 (expensive now but cheaper later). How else could Affinity Water structure water prices so it better suits customers’ needs? Why?

First point: you have not provided a breakdown of Affinity Water's carbon footprint. I have no idea whether pumping water emits more or less carbon dioxide than, say, treating waste water or driving your vans around. What is the carbon footprint of your head office? What is the carbon footprint of mains water leaks? Admittedly, from my perspective, everything needs to be addressed, and reductions sought wherever they can be found. However, your question is partly about timing, and it seems obvious to me that you should prioritise making the most rapid reductions in carbon dioxide emissions achievable.

Second point: inviting focus-group participation to test out ideas is good, but I have no idea whether you have contracted to working with environmental organisations who are committed to constructive action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to increase carbon dioxide sequestering, such as, say, Friends of the Earth. Significantly, any such organisation needs to be sceptical about arguments focusing on protecting your 'bottom line', otherwise it is simply back to greenwash. My guess, however, is that you have, instead, contracted with a consultancy company (that charges a lot of money for glossy brochures and 'executive reports', and knows all the current management jargon) whose primary purpose is to retain you as a long-term client.

Third point: I have no doubt that many of your customers use/waste a lot more water than they really need to. Metering all water use, supplying water for essential use free of charge, and then charging customers for water use beyond what is essential, is likely to decrease water use substantially (I have this from your own figures regarding customer water use and your long-term targets). Reducing *overall* water use should reduce your variable costs. Reducing *their own* water use ought to cost customers less (with the right pricing structure), which then gives you freedom to increase the unit price you charge in order to pay for offsets you wish to buy, or to carry out actual carbon dioxide emission reduction work.

"Zero emissions is a great target to reduce climate change."

Net zero and zero emissions are not the same thing.

"To me Zero is Zero. If you are making a point well done you.".

"According to Peter G Hughes I am not making a point. Best if you ask him he seems to be the expert."

No, I am very far from being any kind of expert. I am, however, wary about weasel words (and terminology).

"Net zero refers to the balance between the amount of greenhouse gas produced and the amount removed from the atmosphere. We reach net zero when the amount we add is no more than the amount taken away."

However, my contention is that "net zero" is 'playing games' in order to try to justify emissions, and that EVERYTHING must be done to reduce and eliminate carbon dioxide emissions, and EVERYTHING must be done to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and even then it cannot be enough or fast enough because climate change is already well underway. The time for playing games with "carbon offsets" and "net zero" was decades ago. Any government or business talking about "carbon offsets" and "net zero" is simply trying to avoid doing EVERYTHING necessary.

You may wonder why I am referring to "net zero" as a game. Although as a target it looks kind of attractive, it is in fact purely arbitrary. For example, put at its most extreme, it is not possible to make cement without removing the 'carbonate' from 'calcium carbonate'. Either cement is made, with its substantial carbon dioxide emissions, or cement is not made. There is no "net zero". 

Taking a wider perspective, all economically-developed societies are based on consumer capitalism. Consumer capitalism is all about generating receipts (and taxes) from consumption. It is the production and distribution of the goods that are consumed that generates the very substantial carbon emissions that are heating up the world. Thirty or forty years ago, there may have been the opportunity to begin to turn the juggernaut around, to get off carbon. Yet neither the fossil fuel companies, nor governments, nor the big manufacturers, nor the transport lobby, nor the consumers (us) were prepared to do anything about it. The first electric vehicle was invented at the same time as the internal combustion engine, yet what proportion of vehicles you see on the road today are electric? (Multiply that around the world.) Yet still everyone plays games with numbers (buying carbon offsets, for their holiday travel or their business travel or to claim that their electricity is 'green' or carbon neutral; and net zero, as though it is alright to generate emissions as long as something is done in  balanced mitigation). We are like people who have been having a whale of a time gambling, and still refuse to accept that we have already pawned our last shirt.

Water Trivia – or not so trivial

Water Trivia – or not so trivial

Q1. As a percentage, how much of our oceans have been explored?

A1. 5%. Interestingly, my reaction to this figure is that it seems surprisingly large. Considering that there are parts of western Europe that went unmapped until the twentieth century, and there are parts of the Pacific Ocean with no exposed land for a thousand miles (Point Nemo, between New Zealand and Chile: 48°52.6′S 123°23.6′W), 5% sounds like quite a lot to me. However, no definition is offered about what 'explored' actually means.

Q2. What is the average water use of a washing machine cycle?

A2. Officially, 90 litres. I also know this from my own measurements. The amount does not sound unreasonable. On the other hand, the standalone rinse cycle uses a considerable amount of water. By way of contrast, the dishwasher is remarkably frugal. 

Q3. Is it true that a million tonnes of plastic enters the oceans every year.

A3. No. The figure is between 8 - 13 million tonnes per annum.

Q4. The daily drinking water requirement per person is 2 - 4 litres. According to the UN, how many litres of water, on average, does it take to produce one person's daily food?

A4. 1,000 - 5,000 litres. Of course, this has to vary between economically-developed and economically-developing countries. It puts into the shade the 150 litres people in the UK each use purely domestically every day.

Q5. How many litres of water does it take to produce 2 slices of bread?

A5. 109 litres. Whilst I do not doubt this figure, I should be interested to see a breakdown of how that water is consumed: farming, transport, milling, baking.

Future Generations and Water

Future Generations and Water

As new generations are born, the world changes...

In your lifetime, how has day-to-day life changed over the years? For example, you may have been born and raised in a non-digital world? TV and media channels were different, electric cars/ scooters etc were non-existent!

I was born in the 1950s, when computers were taking their first very tentative steps outside laboratories, and Sputnik 1 had spooked the United States. There is now barely a day when I do not spend hours in front of a computer monitor, and barely a week when I do not watch a movie or two on Freesat. I was born at the height of the ‘cold war’, when the threat of nuclear annihilation haunted the lives of everyone who paid attention to world events. That fear for me dissipated only on the collapse of the Soviet Union. For ten years we thought that the world had become much safer, and that the dark cloud of threat no longer hung over our lives, although it was a few more years before the IRA bombing stopped … until the World Trade Centre in New York City was attacked by Islamic terrorists, followed by a now-endless succession of terrorist attacks, and the fear has returned. I was born before the first scheduled transatlantic passenger jet service was launched, and now I watch the con-trails of countless aircraft growling across the sky between continental Europe and North America. I was born when it was necessary to walk to the Post Office to make a telephone call, whereas now most people have a telephone in their pocket. I was born when many shops had an early-closing day, and supermarkets were still a new idea in Britain. Now my family and I receive weekly grocery deliveries from Tesco or Sainsburys at a time of our choosing. I was born when the coinage mostly showed the heads of high-status men, whereas the only such coins I see today are those that I dig up in the garden. I was born shortly after tobacco smoking among men in Britain reached a peak of 82%, but long before tobacco smoking among women reached its peak of 45%, and as a child I would suffer from bronchitis every year. Today, less than 15% of UK adults smoke tobacco (and 3.3% smoke marijuana). I was born when Francis Crick and James Watson had just announced that every cell in my body was determined by a double-helix of DNA, and now my entire genome could be sequenced, should I wish it. I was born when thalidomide was a drug prescribed to alleviate ‘morning sickness’, and not the medical tragedy for which it later became known – as a result of which greater drug regulation and monitoring were introduced. But for the post-war development of a very wide range of pharmaceuticals, including vaccines against the ‘flu and coronavirus, it is unlikely that I would still be alive, as I take daily medication for high blood pressure, low bone density (diagnosed using an MRI body scanner) and a hiatus hernia. I was born in London smog, and now the air quality has improved in parts of that city that are not choked with traffic. I was born when many rivers in Britain were toxic with industrial chemicals, whereas now they are just contaminated with sewage effluent and agricultural run-off. I was born when an accident at Windscale contaminated Britain’s milk with radioactive strontium 90, and there was a major nuclear explosion at Kyshtym in the Soviet Union; but long before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident; and also long before a disaster at Chernobyl led to radioactive rain falling on much of Britain; and even longer before the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Now the UK government is discussing the construction of many more nuclear reactors. I guess that some things don’t change, and I live with a constant, albeit low, level of fear of the next nuclear disaster. I was born at a time when winters were cold, wet and windy, and summers were pleasant, although sometimes wet and windy – it was easy to distinguish between the seasons. There is now a long period of drought every summer, where I live, and the mid-November weather is as mild as late September used to be – the seasons are less well defined, and the trees in my orchard no longer know when to blossom to attract pollinating insects.

How do you feel about these changes?

I consider the developments in medical technology during my lifetime to be highly desirable, which almost eclipses everything else. I am less in awe of electronic technological developments than I used to be. I am happy to have been part of campaigning to improve the quality of the environment, but frustrated that our efforts have been too little, too late, and that global warming is already burning and flooding its way round the world. As I did when I was younger, I find it hard not to fear for the future, and I am disappointed that some of our elected politicians appear repeatedly to sink to the lowest common denominators of nationalism and lining their own pockets, not least because they inspire in me no confidence at all.

Given the changes over time, what do you think are the opportunities and challenges for future generations? It could be your children, your grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc.

The world is run by national and international corporate businesses. The digital world that they have created is one in which we, and our descendants, may run around like mice in a maze. It no longer feels like elected governments are in control, but perhaps they never really were. The opportunities for ordinary people of future generations will probably be much the same as they always have been: to find a gravy-train that you are willing to jump on and hang on as tightly as possible until it is time to jump off. (Despite repeated SWOT analyses, I found doing so almost impossible, and have spent too much of my life trying to ‘save the world’.) The principal challenges for future generations will be for conscientious individuals to find a place in a world dominated by corporate giants, and to work out how to effect meaningful change; for ordinary people to find work that does not have to be subsidised by the government; and for everyone to accept that in order to slow global warming, some serious lifestyle sacrifices are going to have to be made by everyone in Britain, including by the corporate giants.

What opportunities/ benefits do the future generations gain that you may have had or was not present before? Why?

Future generations will have better health care (even if it requires waiting for eight hours in an ambulance before receiving it), and better communication technology.

Similarly, what do you think are the challenges, drawbacks for future generations? Why?

Without wishing to be overly partisan, political leadership in Britain is poor, and many people respond with greater enthusiasm to the enticements of Mark Zuckerberg, Geoff Bezos and Elon Musk. Until people see that the quality of governance depends on who they elect to political office then the future belongs to those who control social media and online commerce websites, who view individuals as service users and customers.

What worries (if any) do you have for future generations? Why?

My principal worry is the next pandemic, or maybe the one after that. Commercial exploitation of the planet has destabilised too many natural systems and undermined the resilience of the whole. I have no sense either that politicians have understood this, nor that the corporate sector cares. Future pandemics are inevitable. Beyond that, population movement of refugees from climate change (watch northern India and western China when the Himalayan glaciers have largely melted away) will be the largest the world has ever seen, and it is hard to imagine that it will be peaceful.

 

If we said: 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 thoughts and feelings toward this idea? Why?

Of course there should be financial investment for future infrastructure. I am very happy that you are thinking about future infrastructure.

However, you have, for me, a significant hurdle to overcome: you operate in a commercial environment. How do I know you are not simply going to pocket the money, pay your executives even more than they currently get paid (they are remunerated about five times more than were they to work in the Civil Service), and pay dividends to your share-holders to drive up the share price? I should prefer were you owned by the taxpayer and not by shareholders, and that your executives were civil servants. I have nothing personal against your executives, and have little doubt that they are very fine people, but they are operating in a commercial environment that, until I can be convinced otherwise, I view as part of the problem, not the solution.

To what extent do you feel it is important to only pay for what you use, and not include a proportion for future investment in water provision. Please explain your reasons behind your answer.

Your question could be improved. The issue is not about whether or not I pay for what I use, it is how much I pay for what I use. I have no choice but to pay for what I use, and the charges you make include a portion for future infrastructure investment. Of course there should be financial investment for future infrastructure, and I am willing to pay for it. I am very happy that you should be thinking about future infrastructure.

What if we said: 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. How does this change your perspective and why?

I have absolutely no wish for you to engage in social engineering, and even less wish for you to be charging me for it. In my view you should be doing now what is required to provide water from now into the future, not trying to guess whether future generations can afford your charges.

What, if anything, could convince you to take on higher bills now to support future generations?

Probably nothing.

Climate Change

Climate Change

I have been giving further thought (also written about elsewhere) to the kinds of practical and political actions that I would like to see taken in order to impact on climate change. One action is an emphasis on re-wilding parts of the UK. The intention would be to create areas where there is little pollution and no industrial activity. Re-wilding would require significant contiguous areas to allow biodiversity to develop. Roads would be taken up to prevent vehicle traffic. People would be encouraged to concentrate increasingly in towns and cities. Concentrating people in urban areas both limits the hinterland of pollution and environmental degradation, and also offers the opportunity to achieve significant economies regarding processes that impact negatively on climate change (particularly transport - of people and goods).

In every town and city (population of at least 100,000) in Britain, I would build mid-rise buildings of no more than 12 storeys to accommodate between 1000 and 1200 people. Each building would amount to a vertical village. Each building would have a range of unit sizes so as to offer accommodation for single people up to a family of two or more adults with children. The building would be owned by the local authority, and the tenants would pay rent. Some of the rents would be heavily subsidised, other rents partly subsidised, and the rest of the rents set at a level to maintain the subsidised rents. There would be an expectation both that units for smaller numbers of people would be smaller, and cheaper units would be smaller. Whilst the first buildings constructed in an area would be aimed specifically at the social housing end of the spectrum, subsequent buildings would be built for people with greater wealth, especially young professionals. As they could afford to pay more, the specifications for each unit would be somewhat higher. Any individual building would be built for people drawn from a specific wealth/income range. Tenants would be referred to as ‘residents’, and individual accommodation units referred to as ‘apartments’.

The building would not be served by natural gas. The building would be powered solely by electricity. There would be solar panels on the outside of the building to generate electricity, and batteries in the basement to store electricity. Consequently, the building would be protected by an interruptible power supply: were there a power cut the building would continue to operate. The building, and all the apartments, would be heated by a single heating plant. Being 12 storeys in height, compared with low-rise developments, the building would require less heating, and thereby save energy. In order to prevent the spread of fire, the building would be equipped with a sprinkler system. Every apartment in the building would have fibre-optic cable. The building would be served by a single satellite dish.

There would be stairwells around the building, both inside and outside the building, offering egress when an elevator is not functioning. They would be elevators from the ground floor to specific groups or floors. For example, an elevator between the ground floor and the first three other floors, the ground floor and the next three upper floors, and so on.

On the roof, there would be an open space, shared with the other residents to be able to relax in private away from the world in general. Rainwater would be collected from the roof and the land surrounding the building, and this would be used as greywater for the toilets.

On the ground floor there would be a health clinic, including rooms for hire by professionals to offer psychotherapy, physiotherapy, podiatry, chiropractic and massage. There would be a Village Office, used by local government, including Social Services and Post Office Counters, so that governmental administration could be dealt with locally. This would also serve as the village rent office, with the opportunity to report faults. Also on the ground floor should be a creche and childcare centre. There is no reason why part of the village facilities cannot be used for study, both for children and adults, perhaps including a library and resources centre. This need not require paid staff, and simply be managed by Village volunteers.

Maybe there could also be a Village Shop. If the building is to act as a village, there would need to space designated as a Village Hall, which might, alternatively be in the basement, along with a chapel or worship space.

In the basement there would be a gym, waste recycling, and some limited car parking. An underground car parking space would be pricey. This would discourage car ownership. Living in an urban area, a car should be less necessary.

The building would be connected with elsewhere by a bus service and by cycle paths and foot paths. A no-through road leading to the building would offer access for deliveries, service vehicles and blue light services.

Around the building, there would be allotments for people to grow their own food, and be out working in the fresh air. It would be permitted to keep chickens on one's allotment.

Dogs, requiring exercise, would not be permitted. Cats would be permitted only as house cats. Other pets would need to be kept in cages. The Village would require pet owners to pay for and maintain a licence to keep a pet. Infringement of pet regulations would entail the withdrawal of the licence.

Residents would be permitted to carry out business in their apartment, but not to receive clients in person in their apartment. In person sexual services would not be permitted.

The spectre of Grenfell Tower (24 storeys) necessarily looms over anything any building that is higher than a few storeys. There would need to be a lot of work done both to ensure safety and to reassure the residents. The fact that the building and its apartments would be owned by the local council, and not owned by the residents, means that the legal liability of the residents is limited (in a way that does not apply to the many unfortunate people who have been required to buy their flats and apartments, and thereby take financial responsibility for them.)

In the movie of George Orwell's novel 1984, the apartment blocks are shown as decrepit and extremely shabby. There would need to be a legally-binding long-term commitment for the council to maintain the building and its decor. For people to want to relocate to the building, they would need to be reassured that the place is going to be looked after. This would mean that funding for maintenance and decoration could not be withdrawn until a fixed date a long time in the future.

 

 

Split Water Tariffs

Split Water Tariffs

The water companies and the UK government have an ambition to reduce average household water consumption across the UK to 110 litres per person per day by 2050. The average customer in Affinity Water’s region uses 152 litres per person per day, in comparison with a rest-of-the-UK average of 141 litres per person per day.

In response, Affinity Water is thinking of introducing a split tariff with a differential rate between each of two types of water use: a lower rate for essential use, and a higher rate for discretionary use.

• Essential use would include water for drinking, cooking, washing clothes and personal hygiene.
• Discretionary use would include watering the garden, washing the car and filling paddling pools / hot tubs / swimming pools.

There is also currently a ‘low income fixed tariff’ (LIFT) which “supports customers who might struggle to pay for use of large amounts of water due to medical reasons, or those in large families.”

• What benefits can you see in a rate like this?
• What challenges can you see around implementing and using such tariffs?
• Do you think Affinity Water should introduce a tariff like this? Why / why not?
• How does it compare to electricity companies which have high and low peak rates for example?

I assume that almost everyone has a water meter these days. Maybe I am wrong. For any customer without the use of a water meter, the exercise would be futile because nothing they did to change their water use would be measurable. However, customers with a water meter would have the opportunity both to benefit financially, and to use water conscientiously. I like the idea of a 'smart water meter' that can be read digitally from inside the house. In the context of a split tariff, customers would be easily able to see how much water they are using daily, weekly and monthly. Our (on-street) water meter is formally read only twice each year, on the basis of which our bills are calculated. However, ever since the major mains pipe burst (which cost me an absolute fortune) I have read the meter daily.

My family (me, my wife and our severely disabled daughter - a lot of extra clothes washing) use 158 litres of water per day between us. We use all the water we need, and I work hard to ensure that we waste as little water as possible. I consider our usage to be well within any essential use targets. I should be enthusiastic to pay a lower tariff.

I consider the proposal for a split tariff to be an excellent idea. There are several reasons why I support this idea, but I also have a significant reservation:

There should be consultations about: 

• what uses should be considered essential use
• how much water per person is considered to be essential
• setting the tariffs for essential use and for discretionary use.

In my view, essential use is a vital part of public health. I should prefer it were the essential use tariff to be zero-rated. Discretionary use should include not only the activities mentioned above, but also wasteful use - such as leaving a tap running, or not fixing leaks – of both of which I have been guilty.

Dividing between the two uses should be an excellent tool to help customers to focus on their actual water use. Instead of simply being required to respond to pleas to "use less water", customers will have a clear metric. I believe the very division will be instrumental in Affinity Water saving water.

The idea of essential use / discretionary use does not match split electricity tariffs. Split electricity tariffs involve the electricity companies trying to 'spread the load', not reduce electricity consumption. We have Economy 7, which means doing our best to use electricity at off-peak times. Your idea, on the other hand, is about trying to limit consumption - I do not imagine that you care what time of day people draw water from the pipes.

My reservation, and it is very important for me, is that my garden is not a recreation area, it is my family's pantry: my wife and I grow a lot of our family's fruit and vegetables. Every summer now there is a serious drought in the North Downs of Kent, and irrigation is required. I would like there to be a 'horticultural tariff' or a “horticultural allowance” so that I am not required to choose between essential water use for my family or saving the potatoes and brassicas from death by aridity. This would probably involve the installation of a separate water meter. Either that, or provide me with the means with which to store winter rainfall.

More broadly, however, there are two questions that should be answered:

• How much water does Affinity Water waste every year by failing to mend burst water mains in a timely fashion? Is this volume of water comparable to reducing domestic water use?
• How much more money will shareholders receive in dividends by Affinity Water not having to supply (collect, store, extract, clean and distribute) as much water to customers?