View Single Post
Old 21-02-2012, 22:23   #39
Chris
Trollsplatter
Cable Forum Team
 
Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North of Watford
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,870
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Re: Drought summit as rivers in England dry up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ View Post
I think you're missing the point - using an extreme example, let's say WW didn't refuse the water (not that they could of course) but did not offer any help with the transportation. They did not deny access to the water but did not participate in getting the water to England. Would it not then be the English water authorities receiving the water who would be paying for the transportation?
No, it would be private companies, some (but not all) of which are in English ownership. Water and sewage services were privatised in England and Wales a long time ago and in England they remain in the hands of PLCs.

The point I'm making is, drawing 'English' and 'Welsh' into the debate in any sense whatsoever is just not relevant. For the purposes of supplying water, there is no border. There are simply different companies serving different areas. Welsh Water serves most of Wales and also some of England (around Gloucester and Hereford for example). An English company, Severn-Trent, serves areas of Wales in the Severn catchment.

If water is exchanged between any two companies, then of course that is a commercial operation and the buyer will pay the seller. That goes without saying. But for Plaid Cymru to call for England to pay Wales, simply because the water is crossing the border, is to propose an entirely different layer of costs onto the situation.

Quote:
I stress again that's an extreme but the point I'm making is a company which does not serve England (or any other location) should not have to pay for the processing and transportation. I'm not saying they should profit from it, just that their costs should be met. I'd expect the same in return if it was the other way around.
Nobody is asking for charity. One company sells, another buys and that's the end of it. The border between England and Wales is not relevant.

Quote:
That's Plaid Cymru for you, although the discussion was set up by the England-based Radio 2
I'm not sure who it was that chose to frame the question that way on R2 this lunchtime, but listening to Elfyn Llwyd it was quite apparent he agreed with the proposition. Either he made it, or he wishes he had.

Quote:
Not all Wales has oversupplies of water - some of the country is also prone to drought. But I can't ever see any villages in England flooded to dealt with it.
Probably because wherever in Wales has a drought, there is a more easily exploited source of water somewhere else in Wales that would be first in line for a reservoir. I don't believe there's anywhere within practical distance in England that might qualify for a scheme on the scale of Capel Celyn.

And on the subject of Capel Celyn, let's put to bed the tawdry nationalist myth that the reservoir was built there because it was in Wales and its inhabitants were therefore somehow less important.

It was built where it was because it was in the right place in relation to the city that needed the water and because official attitudes towards projects of this sort were rather different back then. Things have changed a lot for the better and it's highly unlikely such a thing would be proposed in the here and now, regardless of whether or not the water was proposed to be piped over the border.
Chris is offline   Reply With Quote