Water Torture: Privatization Leaves Us High And Dry

Posted on Monday, March 27 at 09:55 by Ed Deak
Here in the UK the government spent most of the last 150 years (and loads of taxpayer cash) buying up the water companies, convinced that private corporations are not the best organisations to deliver such an essential service. All that changed in 1989 when the Thatcher government flogged off the lot under the 1988 Water Act. And in case no one was interested in picking up a monopoly or two, the firesale came with some additional incentives; £5 billion worth of debts owed by the water authorities would be written off and a £1.6 billion subsidy would be given up front. Monopoly, debt write-off and a cash incentive still not enough for you? Well, how about having the companies at a bargain basement 22% discount too?! Unsurprisingly pre-tax profits of the 10 water companies then rose by almost 150% in the first 9 years of privatisation. OFWAT, the sector's regulatory body, identified three main components of customers' bills: operating costs, capital charges (for investment and renewals), and operating profits. Over the period since privatisation, operating expenditure as a proportion of bills has shrunk; the capital charges have risen; but operating profits, which have more than doubled, account for virtually the entire increase in customers' bills. And the tide shows no signs of turning. In the week when Thames Water announced that there would be a hosepipe ban in London, the company's shareholders also enjoyed a 10% profit. No "cash drought" on the horizon then? Although it's raining cash for investors it's more like a golden-shower for the less fortunate customers. Not only has OFWAT agreed to further massive price hikes, but Thames Water also manages to lose over a third of the water through the antiquated Victorian pipe system that they just can't seem to afford to fix (pissing away 1 billion litres a year, enough to fully supply Birmingham). The company had agreed an investment plan with the regulator, but then curiously spent £350 million less on it than planned, the equivalent of 10% off every customer's bill. So where did that 10% end up? Drained away down the profit plug hole perhaps? _ http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news536.htm [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on March 27, 2006]

Note: http://www.schnews.org....

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:57 pm
    In August 1995, I was in London during their prologed heat wave
    and drought. The impact of Margaret Thatcher's water privatization
    was beginning to make itself apparent.

    As the ancient stone city absorbed heat throughout the days, and
    the water levels in the neglected reservoirs dropped lower
    and lower, people were forced to wonder how long they'd find
    water in their taps. There was no back-up source, as the private
    companies had been so focused on turning a profit for their
    shareholders, they hadn't invested in improving the water supply.

    I'll never forget the terrible sensation, bordering on panic, of being
    baking and thirsty in a dirty old city with no option but the filthy
    brown Thames River.

  2. Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:07 am
    There are so many imporant issues to apply ones self to and water rates as one of the highest.
    I had hope for more responses here



    ---
    Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
    Ezra Pound



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news