Water is critical to life, but neoliberal economics is threatening water supplies for differing reasons in many parts of the globe, including in London. That type of economic thinking has no answer as to what happens next, and neither have our politicians so far. When will they realise they have to act?
The audio version is here:
The transcript is:
What happens when the water runs out? It's an important question because it looks likely that it might.
There are two scenarios where this question is relevant. One is who's going to be supplying water to London very soon if Thames Water fails, as some are now seriously talking about.
New investigations into Thames Water suggest that it is running the company on the basis of software first written in 1989. I wouldn't put too much bet on the fact that that is in great order. And there's a lot of equipment inside Thames Water, £23 billion worth apparently, which has not been properly physically maintained as well, where there is a backlog of repairs to do, which means that at any point in time, the water supply in parts of London could fail.
This report may be wrong. It may be that Thames Water has, in fact, got totally robust IT systems. But it seems unlikely because clearly somebody's been doing quite a lot of digging to come up with this information. And it is apparent that Thames Water has not, because of its desire to maximise profits at cost to the consumer, been undertaking the sorts of repairs that are necessary to its kit. We, therefore, face the real prospect that Thames Water could financially fail but simultaneously fail to deliver water to our capital city.
How do we manage that? I genuinely have no idea. But maybe the sheer challenge of dealing with that is something that we have to face. We have to come to terms with the fact that a world in which financialisation has been more important than the delivery of goods or services, at least as far as the City of London is concerned, has brought us to the point where something so absolutely critical to human life may not be available in the largest financial services centre in the world. The paradox is almost unbelievable and yet it could happen.
There is another way in which this crisis might become apparent. And that is around the world, many parts of the world are getting hotter. Very much hotter. And we know that water is disappearing.
We know that that is true in many areas in the Middle East, where lakes and whole rivers are just drying up.
We know that there are regions where there was once agriculture where there is no more.
We know that people can't live in those areas for much longer if they are now. We know that the ability to find water underground is disappearing.
Therefore, there are millions and maybe billions of people who, at some time, are going to have to move because of a lack of water in this world.
This may be an immediate crisis for London if it happens in a way that is quite different from the way it is a crisis for the people of the Middle East and elsewhere where the water's literally disappearing. But the net effect is much the same. There won't be water to sustain life, and without that ability to sustain life, people are going to have to move.
I have no idea whether London will have to literally be evacuated so that people can move to areas where there will be sufficient water if it is not essential that they stay in the city.
I have no idea whether we can lay on extra resources quickly.
But what I do know is that there is no way that we can solve the problems of water supplies in places where it is too hot for that water to now exist, at least on the surface where people can access it. And if that's the case, people will move. And we have to manage that.
And so far, neither of these crises appear to be on the agendas of our governments or international organisations. And yet they are so fundamental that all we can conclude is that they are sticking their heads in the sand, almost quite literally in some cases, because they're so frightened of the consequences of what is happening.
When will governments take water seriously is my question? If we don't, we face crises of scales that we have not imagined since time began because as far as we are concerned, time began when we could access water. We have always needed it, and yet we may be denied it, and that is the result of financialisation and a failed neoliberal economic system that has created this outcome.
If you want a definition of failure, nothing could be stronger than that, but still these politicians are dedicated to the perpetuation of what has caused this problem. And that, in itself, is the crisis that we face.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
“It actually points to the need for more public ownership and/or better regulation or state intervention.”
I was going to write something else and then I came across this.
“The British government is drawing up contingency plans to bring privately-owned Thames Water, the country’s biggest water company, into temporary state ownership in case it collapses under its debt pile, Sky News reported.”
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-working-contingency-plan-indebted-thames-water-sky-news-2023-06-28/?rpc=401&
Temporary state ownership! The case for public ownership has never been stronger.
No to another Tory state temporary bailout that benefits a minority. Yes to a basic need being brought back into public ownership. Labour need to wake up and smell the coffee, but I suspect they won’t.
Much to agree with
Unfortunately, this is an old article. The current Government said last month, when Thames Water’s issues were almost universally known, that they preferred additional investment over renationalisation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c704wzx38p1o
In any event, I find it both particularly striking and particularly alarming that Rishi Sunak – a man who repeatedly invoked the name of Margaret Thatcher during his first 2022 leadership campaign – was more willing to renationalise Thames Water than Keir Starmer and Steve Reed ever will be.
The Guardian helpfully reminds us that Ofwat’s power to compel shareholders, rather than customers, to fund the bonuses of underperforming water company leaders was also introduced by Sunak’s Government – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/21/ofwat-forces-shareholders-to-pay-for-undeserved-bonuses-at-three-water-firms – although the current Government is also trying to ensure that it can prevent the award of such bonuses altogether.
I don’t disagree with you about water but I chuckled at your “horror” that the IT was of 1989 vintage. Please don’t look at the vintage of some of the software that drives our money transmission system…. you might never recover!
I am aware that it is very old
Many banks run systems that are creaking, and at their limits
Thank you, both.
Just to add that some systems are older than their users and even some IT teams and many banks use legacy systems developed by other banks, so there’s some detachment from what goes on.
If you want to see ‘old’ in I.T. terms, try working on Homes England’s Investment Management System where one administrates one’s paltry Affordable Housing Grant from our wonderful government – it dates from the 1980’s, is full of gremlins and frequently crashes.
@ Colonel Smithers,
Wasn’t it the case that some systems were so ancient that they needed subroutines to convert Sterling to Sterling; £sd to decimal? I believe that was true for quite some time after decimalisation.
I live in the Severn Trent water area. There was a catastrophic failure of the water supply when the Tewkesbury treatment plant was flooded and large parts of Gloucestershire were without water for days. The army were called in. The root cause was management incompetence and underinvestment. The flood risk was well known.
Wind forward and we see the ongoing incompetence and greed of water companies. They pump sewage into rivers routinely and directors pay themselves hugely inflated salaries and bonuses and prioritise dividends ahead of essential investment.Your report highlighted and predicted the crisis Richard.
A different ownership model will be required to secure essential water supplies in the UK. Unlike some countries we most likely will have enough water however better storage and distribution will be needed which in turn will need long term strategic planning.
In an exchange with the CEO of Severn Trent’s CEO, who remuneration is circa £4m per annum, I pointed out that Severn Trent sources much of its water from Wales and the Peak District two of the wettest areas in the UK. This was in response to the smug claim that there has not been a hosepipe bann!
1. Bogs. Too much high quality water is flushed away.
2. Use roofs to catch rainwater, cisterns to store it and then use (untreated) for (see above).
3. Most new housing in Belgium in late 1950s through to +/- now installed cisterns using rainwater. I recently fixed one such failed (cistern to bog) system.
4. Most apartment blocks could mod their rainwater catchment & put the cisterns – under the parking.
Any of the above actions would reduce the amount of rainwater that causes sweage treatment plants to divert untreated sewage into river/sea at times of heavy rain. None of the above is a silver bullet but would address two problems (water shortage/sewage treatment). From the point of view of cost, it is capex light – apart from labour. Which means that if it was actioned, it would provide jobs.
I am very confident that none of the above will happen, for a range of political/organisational reasons.
Much to agree with
Oh & a PS – this is so trivial.
There has been a rise in people concreting tarmacing their front gardens to park cars.
That’s fine.
Planing should be linked to: underground cistern (2x3x2? mtrs) – collect roof-top rainwater – link to household toilets.
Some practical water saving suggestions
– composting toilets
– low flush toilets eg. Roca 2/4 litres or Arumloo 2/2litres or Wostman Eco Flush urine separating 0.3/2.5Litres .
Note ok with regulation plumbing waste pipes with the correct slope/ length.
– vacuum toilets lower flush but use electricity
– delayed inlet valve in the cistern (saves ~ 1 litre/ flush)
– no leak cistern valves – the siphon valve or tipping bucket see Eco-Neves WaterFlush
– reduced flow showers at 6L/min
– enclosed “draft proof” shower cubicles with a ceiling allow lower water temperatures/energy use ~38 degrees C water
– shower hot water thermostatic valve (Thermal Valve TSV 2A) diverts the “cold” hot water to a tank until the good temperature is reached
– polybutylene micro-bore dia internal 6.5mm cold and hot water radial distribution (pipes to each fitting from a manifold – low standing heat loss as very low volume of water in pipe)
– bathroom taps with low flow aerators eg. Neopearl Mikado 1.3 L/min or dual flow , see Ikea Åbäcken mist nozzle 0,25 /1,9L/min (pressurised hot water systems only)
– kitchen taps dual flow aerators eg. Neopearl Dual Flow 0.2/4.5 L/min (pressurised hot water systems only)
see AECB Water standards https://aecb.net/aecb-water-standard/
Thanks
One obvious answer to me (other than re-nationalising Thames) going forward is investment in desalination plants – if the sea is going to rise, then it will be a source of fresh de-salted water in the future in the hotter areas if we are unable to manage excessive rain or to little rain in other areas.
But who will make the investment? States or the private sector?
This might help to deal with mass migration, but where is the vision, and who is to say that such a move turns into just another rentier project by capital who use desalinated water as another cash-cow and pauperise their users?
If we were the ancient Chinese using their Guanzi principles, market monopolies would be subject to intervention from the state in order to reduce population discontent which can give rise to all sorts of trouble in the form of opportunities for miscreants to ride on and make their fortunes. This is why Trump is doing well in the states and why the Farages and Johnson’s of this world become possible.
Meanwhile with the appointment and variation (NAV) system in our water & sewage system – designed to open a market for water supply to new suppliers and ran by OFWAT- you wonder how many of those are working in the Thames water system, thus complicating it and making something like renationalisation extremely difficult and adding to the list of rentiers expecting some sort of compensation from the State. It makes NAVs actually look like a way of locking in the private sector – making things more complicated to put off a sensible policy of renationalisation – its almost defensive in nature.
Privatisation was used as a way in which to bring in more resources to these utilities. Put simply, this has not worked. The privatisation at best has been asset stripping or asset sweating and at worst just been used as an income stream for management and investors.
We are as said here many times before looking at a complete failure created by our parliament who will not face up to this failure and put it right. Usually a failure of this magnitude would end with in the creator of it being sanctioned.
It just so happens that those in parliament might have had political donations from the privateers who have presided over all this, so that corruption cannot be counted out either.
The whole thing is a disgrace.
But zombie economics marches on it seems, a corrupted, cannibalistic, unthinking form of life.
“Privatisation was used as a way in which to bring in more resources to these utilities”
I think it was the other way around.
The promise of more resources was used as the excuse for privatisation, the real purpose of which was to create a passive income stream for the 1%.
As we know as readers of this blog, resources could easily have been provided by the state, with jobs that would have benefited some of the 99%.
Absolutely right. Privatisation didn’t even attempt to solve the monopoly problem, but it gave the private sector the opportunity to buy a monopoly, often make inadequate investment, raise prices, receive subsidies and sweat old assets to milk monopoly profits from them, while working hardest to ensure the regulator was the creature of the industry it was supposed to regulate. The dustbin of history is littered with the forgotten remains of regulators governments were obliged to dump, only because the regulatory failure was so egregious it couldn’t be ignored (worst of all in banking, but doesn’t end with banking).
To be clear, access to more resources was the excuse at the time, the way privatisation was sold – people like Alan Budd advocated it and then later changed their minds when they realised that they had not factored in ‘greed’ – that the resources went OUT – not in.
Please don’t think I believed this for one minute or that I ever advocated it. But it was part of the rationale as to how it came about – false and hopelessly optimistic as it was.
Thank you.
Not just the ancient Chinese either – the ancient Scot Adam Smith argued in Theory of Moral Sentiments that intervention was justified if damage to the populace was caused by a capitalist/business – the common good prevailed.
By 2030-35, according to some estimates I have seen, there’ll be *too much* water in the City… In a world of heightened sea-level and extreme climate events, the Thames Barrier will not be enough to stop a storm surge overflowing the riverside lower down the estuary, and the floodwater will simply bypass the Barrier.
I worry more about the Middle East, though, when I read about details of the water management – and then consider the actors in the region.
1a. 70% of Israel’s population lives on the coastal strip. The water supply to the coastal towns and cities, such as Tel Aviv, is pumped from wells drilled into the aquifer. The water extraction rate is already greater than the replenishment rate. 97% of well water in Gaza is/was unfit for human consumption.
1b. The sea level of the Mediterranean is expected to rise by between 50cm and 1 metre by 2100. The coastal aquifer will receive an influx of salt water, contaminating the wells, without increased refill from inland water sources needed to maintain the hydrostatic pressure differential.
2a. The climate predictions for the River Jordan expect a decrease in natural flow of 25% by the end of the century. An increased risk of flood events, due to climate-driven changes in rainfall patterns, will increase sediment runoff, which in turn will decrease the storage capacity of the Sea of Galilee, which is Israel’s main reservoir, and which is currently shared with Jordan. Nutrient runoff will affect the water quality too. Jordan is the most water-poor country in the Middle East.
2b. Changing rainfall patterns are already felt in Israel with more-frequent flash-floods in the South, in the Negev. The winter of 2021 saw the Air Force’s main fighter planes sitting in flooded hangars. Floods create run-off into the Dead Sea, damaging the banks and causing subsidence problems for industrial and tourist complexes in the area and affecting the local economy.
2c. Turkey is already planning 22 new dams on the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.
3. One-quarter of Egypt’s population, and one-quarter of its grain fields are found in the Nile delta. The Nile delta is threatened by a 50cm-1m sea level rise which will flood the delta. The headwaters of the Nile itself are already receiving less rain due to climate-caused changes in precipitation, with failure of the annual flooding in some recent years.
Note: Citation from 2021, before Israel held a security conference on climate change. I draw no conclusions.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/is-israel-burying-its-head-in-sand-as-climate-change-makes-mideast-a-hot-mess/
And from 2023:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/17/how-israel-uses-water-to-control-west-bank-palestine
I agree
There can be too little water and too much of the wrong sort at the same time
In the late 1840s it took cholera outbreaks to galvanise a laissez-faire, commercial-industrial society to build the water infrastructure that we still largely rely on. We have built very little. What was the 1840s problem? Market competition in water supply, provided by companies that could not resolve their interests to provide an adequate service. The hard-nosed Victorian businessmen running our cities provided a remarkable insight into themselves; faced with a potential threat to the health of their own families, and their cities. Glasgow is illustrative. It took cholera to concentrate the mind, but it did so wonderfully. Glasgow Corporation ran Glasgow. The City had the influence and capacity to bring legislation to the floor of the House of Commons. Legislation was passed that Glasgow used to solve the problem. Glasgow took over water supply as a pure public service. They took up the brilliant mathematician, physicist and engineer, William John Macquorn Rankine’s (1820-1872) proposals to provide an ingenious outline plan to use Loch Katrine (almost 30 miles from Glasgow) to provide ample, clean, fresh water to serve both industry and the urgent domestic requirements of the populace for clean water. Glasgow raised the money, and delivered an extraordinary Victorian engineering achievement, executed in the 1850s by Frederick Bateman (24 miles of pipeline from Lock Katrine to Milngavie, moving by gravity feed at 1mph). This was also the beginning of Glasgow Corporation’s major move into the direct provision of large-scale public services, from gas to transport; in a recognition that well being had to be a public-private partnership; and the supposed ‘competitive’ private sector simply could not do everything well; and did some crucial things very, very badly. Unfortunately, too often, once the crisis is over; the wisdom is soon forgotten, for the malignancy of greed.
Thanks
Where has that spirit of local public enterprise gone?
Nobody does anything. All we we have now are hedge fund managers and lawyers shuffling money around in order to extract most of it as profit, or glib PR execs and digital algorithms plundering you and your life, without you even noticing. Nothing is built or manufactured any more (so last century for sophisticated Brits). And we have to rely on Victorian engineering. Behind that, if it fails or collapses from decay? Nothing. A politician, selling you snake oil.
Come and work with me for a bit Richard.
I could do with a good numbers man.
You’ll see us doing our best, I promise.
But it’s hard, so, so hard.
Thanks, but I have enough to do
Quite. I think another point thats missed by government is that the obsession with growth including population growth ignored the fact that water is a constraint in the UK, particularly England and I am not aware of lots of empty areas out there for new reservoirs!!!
Thee is enerv an empty area for a resevoir – people are always displaced
Thank you, Richard.
Two of my dearest friends relocated from London to their native Chicago early this year. They have talked about the Great Lakes region and its water resources and how, as the south west of the USA dries up, that could cause tension with the Upper Midwest. It’s the same between northern and southern California.
Complicated by private ownership and the demands of agriculture, funded by big money (viz California and almond groves).
Thank you, John.
Hot off the press:
https://apnews.com/article/new-york-city-drought-warning-6f61ab90093bf8917b637a63a1687996
https://coloradosun.com/2024/11/20/federal-officials-draft-rules-colorado-river-future-management/
Will they do anything?
Not likely, I suspect. It will always be someone else’s problem until it is too late.
I’m afraid the problems go back much further – In the early 1980s HMG were advised water resources in the south of England would begin to run out in 30 years – The recommendations were to begin phased construction of IIRC 60 desalination plants (RO), scale up leak detection and repair, introduce metering and charging, and commence an information campaign on reducing water consumption…
HMG solved their problem, privatisation….
To date one RO was built at Beckton, the south of England still has the highest consumption of water per head of pop in all Europe, and London is now predicted to be out of water inside 20 years.
Thames Water’s woes are the least of the problems…
I expect some or the other minister will advise us not to worry, because it can all be fixed by the white heat of AI, on which:
https://open.substack.com/pub/fivebyfivetimes/p/u-is-for-uncool
This is a deeply thought-provoking post, especially as it connects water scarcity with broader societal and economic issues. The emphasis on planning and systemic change is timely, given how foundational water is to everything from agriculture to public health.
One aspect that resonated with me was the potential strain on wastewater and sewer systems as water becomes scarcer. Many sewer systems rely on a consistent flow of water for proper function, and reduced water use might lead to blockages, higher concentrations of pollutants, or increased maintenance needs. Do you think municipalities are prepared to adapt their infrastructure to these changing water patterns? Are there any policy examples you’ve come across where sewer system upgrades have been successfully tied to water conservation initiatives?
No, in a word