How much rain will cure hosepipe issues/canal depth/reservoir levels?

[Boathook]

To my mind the majority of water that falls on the roofs should go into the ground via soakaways rather than into sewers. Hopefully this reaches the streams and rivers to keep giving them a gentle flow to maintain aquatic life.

 

[WilliamUK]

To my mind the majority of water that falls on the roofs should go into the ground via soakaways rather than into sewers. Hopefully this reaches the streams and rivers to keep giving them a gentle flow to maintain aquatic life.

Pretty much. In fact, that's why planning approvals now often require the use of water permeable materials, preventing runoff into sewers and instead putting rainwater into the ground.

As I see it, water that falls on a roof should be used in the house, most of that should then be put onto the land. Water that falls on the land should stay there.

Fast-tracking it to the sea is madness.

 

[DJE]

As I see it, water that falls on a roof should be used in the house,

The kit is available. For 60 days storage at your 87 litres per day figure (which is about one third of the total consumption of a typical 2 person household) you need a 5 cubic metre tank. First you have to find the space (2.2m Dia. 1.65m high) then you have to convince the householder to part with several thousand pounds and put up with the distruption of installing pumps and extra non-potable pipework. Then they have to fund on-going maintenance and operating costs.
For this they get 33% off their water bill and maybe a few less hosepipe bans. I don't see millions of people rushing to take you up on it. (Nothing personal just trying to be realistic here.)

 

[WilliamUK]

I agree.
First stop would be new builds and a change to building regulations.
Then would come renovations and so on from there.

Increased production of the systems and competition for installation work should bring prices down.

I think more people would cough up if we stopped pretending this was a "not enough rain" problem and faced facts, but since we culturally expect the government to "do something" about almost everything, telling the truth would be a sign of weakness I wouldn't be naive enough to expect the ruling class to show.

It was a very expensive job to bring mains water, gas, sewage and electricity to everyone who's on those grids and it'll be expensive to stop relying on them... but really I don't see that there's much alternative.

Start with new builds and renovations and go from there.

 

[DJE]

Start with new builds and renovations and go from there.

There are big ones going in on a couple of new Academy Schools that I've been working on in London recently.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Start with new builds and renovations and go from there.

UK housing stock, approx 25 million

UK new builds, approx 120,000 per annum.

 

[Greenheart]

Let me say in advance that I reckon any workable solution is better than doing nothing; and I don't wish to infuriate anyone...

...but I can't help thinking that every suggestion made here, is instantly shot down by other contributors citing inadequacy, cost or probable unpopularity with a country blithely, blindly accustomed to unlimited free drinking-quality tap water. This isn't progress.

Damming the Arun? Okay, that idea was only seconds old when I posted it. I'm not ashamed of it - I see why it oughtn't to be the road we go down, but I can imagine it being more popular than leaving rich agricultural land fallow, for lack of water.

Grey-water recycling schemes - if they're made required in all new-builds - will indeed only have a gradual benefit. But is that really any reason not to bother?

Can we agree that patching up the existing network is a vital task, being performed by too few engineers? I mean, even if it rains with traditional English summer-swamping consistency, collecting water in a bucket full of holes is a clownish policy to continue with.

How big, and how expensive a change of government policy would be needed, to fix the leaks in a way that will last?

 

[ghostlymoron]

When the government privatised the water industry, they effectively washed their hands (pun intended) of the whole issue. We are now faced with an approaching crisis that requires a national strategy and have a fragmented organisation, now largely owned by foreign companies, to deal with it. Only massive spending and ingeneous solutions will solve the problem. There's no shortage of ideas - as this thread has illustrated so well - but each needs to be evaluated to ascertain it's merit. I'm not sure which organisation is capable of carrying out such an evaluation - Ofwat?

 

[WilliamUK]

UK housing stock, approx 25 million

UK new builds, approx 120,000 per annum.

Hence: "start".
Then go on with the process by requiring it for certain classes of extension, renovation and conversion.

Proper insulation in loft conversions is expensive stuff, but it doesn't stop that being required in all work done to regs. That was all about energy conservation, I see no huge difference with water conservation.

Either way though, there's absolutely no excuse for building new housing based upon the prevailing model where 90% of drinking water is wasted and enough water to supply between 50% and 100% of a house's non-potable use is dumped off the roof into the sewers... no matter how few are built.

Conversion to parallel systems at grid or at domestic level is probably inevitable... or we can destroy habitat as a stop-gap... or just pretend it's not happening.

 

[Greenheart]

Any suggestions as to how, as consumers, might bully our regional water companies (whoever their private/foreign owners may be), into laying out more, on solving the leaks issue?

I'm picturing the impressive way in which, for instance in wartime or national emergency, amazing feats are often achieved by concentrated, concerted application of ideas, materials and the back-up required, to overcome normally insurmountable problems.

If, right now, we gear-up the resources being applied, the desperate day when our taps don't deliver, may never come.

Emergencies are so much easier to bear when we're properly prepared for them. If we work at this problem now, we may avert the worst.

 

[lw395]

The kit is available. For 60 days storage at your 87 litres per day figure (which is about one third of the total consumption of a typical 2 person household) you need a 5 cubic metre tank. First you have to find the space (2.2m Dia. 1.65m high) then you have to convince the householder to part with several thousand pounds and put up with the distruption of installing pumps and extra non-potable pipework. Then they have to fund on-going maintenance and operating costs.
For this they get 33% off their water bill and maybe a few less hosepipe bans. I don't see millions of people rushing to take you up on it. (Nothing personal just trying to be realistic here.)

That 5 cubic metre tank costs £1500 and holds less than a fiver's worth of water.
It will also take up a couple of grands worth of basement space or require re-design of the house and a stronger structure to accommodate it. Bearing in mind the number of new-build places that are flats, this really isn't going to be cost effective.

 

[WilliamUK]

I'm not sure which organisation is capable of carrying out such an evaluation - Ofwat?

For legislation - government. Force the issue.
They could pass legislation to force utilities companies to stop leaks in a timely manner. They passed legislation (smoking bans, for example) to force other private businesses to behave differently, there's no impediment to doing the same with the state-implemented water monopolies.
They could pass legislation to force new-builds to use parallel potable/non-potable/grey systems.
They could pass legislation to force works coming under the scope of building regulations to have parallel systems installed.

More locally - none needed.
It doesn't need any legislation for people to do it themselves... though I'll be the first in line to argue that will have minimal takeup until things are so bad that people just see the sense in converting. I'm a big fan of the free market model though.


If the water monopolies were forced to fix things prices would increase.
Increasing prices (to reflect the true price of the water and network upkeep) would force people to consider their options, from metering to voluntarily installing parallel and collection systems.
Just like rising petrol prices have put more people onto public transport, car-sharing and bicycles, rising prices could do the same with a free-market solution to water. Individual action to remedy/avoid the problem.

 

[DJE]

If you want people to use less water put the prices up. If you want people to use less energy put the prices up. Then see how many people vote for you.

 

[WilliamUK]

That 5 cubic metre tank costs £1500 and holds less than a fiver's worth of water.
It will also take up a couple of grands worth of basement space or require re-design of the house and a stronger structure to accommodate it. Bearing in mind the number of new-build places that are flats, this really isn't going to be cost effective.

Or... you could use a 1000 litre IBC tank, obtainable used for about £100 a pop (quite a few quid less in reality). £500 for the same capacity... or 15m³ of capacity for the same price.
At normal daily use of 150 litres per person assuming the aforementioned 90% not needing to be potable, that holds a 6 to 7 day supply.
2 years to break even on each tank assuming £1/m³.

Compare that to the break-even time (about 20 years) on double glazing.

Flats may need a different system proposing, but there's still no excuse for ploughing ahead as we have been, using potable water for flushing toilets and washing dishes when there's absolutely no need to do so.

And again - new builds are only the beginning of my proposed roll-out.

 

[WilliamUK]

If you want people to use less water put the prices up. If you want people to use less energy put the prices up. Then see how many people vote for you.

Who'd be putting the prices up? That's a typically myopic politician's approach to things.

Require the water monopolies to fix their leaks. If that has an effect on prices, so be it... but it's not government increasing prices... it's requiring monopolies to be responsible for the infrastructure they've been granted a monopoly over.

It would be entirely trivial for the kind of spin doctors these scumbags in power employ to make it look like they were doing this for the good of the country. What paper is going to turn around and cry about the government getting leaks stopped when leaks are the current scapegoat for the water shortage?

 

[Greenheart]

If you want people to use less water put the prices up. If you want people to use less energy put the prices up. Then see how many people vote for you.

Perhaps if, at government level, water is very publicly acknowledged to be a calamity-in-waiting;

...and, if it is clearly understood that rising prices only reflect the cost of repairing the tatty old neglected system;

...if, critically, it is understood that bill-increases will only pay for the chaps in the tunnels fixing the problem for our short and longterm benefit...

...then who would grudge increased water-bills? Because, it's vital, and obviously so. Why would there be any opposition?

 

[WilliamUK]

Perhaps if, at government level, water is very publicly acknowledged to be a calamity-in-waiting;

...and, if it is clearly understood that rising prices only reflect the cost of repairing the tatty old neglected system;

...and if, critically, it is understood that bill-increases will pay for the chaps in the tunnels fixing the problem for our short and longterm benefit...

...then who would grudge increased water-bills? Because, it's vital, and obviously so. Why would there be any opposition?

....and there's already a national call for leaks to be stopped. How would responding to that call reflect badly on the incumbents?

 

[yesod]

There are hundreds of engineers working on the water supply system in the UK. If it was simple as deciding to dam the Arun don't you think we would have done it by now?

thats what i love about dancrane's posts - he's like a new puppy, full of excitement and no problem is too large that he can't solve it with ideas no-one else will ever have thought of before....

 

[Greenheart]

thats what i love about dancrane's posts - he's like a new puppy, full of excitement and no problem is too large that he can't solve it with ideas no-one else will ever have thought of before....

Thanks...I think? I'm not sure how being enthusiastic about possibilities, is less covetable an outlook than being stuck in the turgid, cyclical unproductivity of policy, about which we're collectively so dissatisfied on this thread!

On which subject:

Once established, wouldn't the efficiencies of scale reduce the costs of tanks/pipes/pumps required for grey-water reuse?

 

[duncanmack]

That 5 cubic metre tank costs £1500 and holds less than a fiver's worth of water.
It will also take up a couple of grands worth of basement space or require re-design of the house and a stronger structure to accommodate it. Bearing in mind the number of new-build places that are flats, this really isn't going to be cost effective.

You could use the tank as a ground source heatpump reservoir too...