Water companies are to be given new powers to force meters on millions of families amid claims it is necessary to cope with future droughts. The controversial plan, which will add more than £1 billion to water bills over the next decade, was given the green light by the government on Thursday. Ministers claim that despite the floods of this summer, the country is likely to see more droughts in future years, which will create a need to conserve water. They argue that imposing meters generally leads to a reduction in household use of some 10 per cent. New powers to adopt compulsory water metering are to be given to those companies who can show they are in so-called “water stress” areas. However, the government plans to direct every water company in the country to consider imposing meters on customers to solve water shortage problems. The most immediate impact is likely to be felt across southern Britain, where as many as eight million homes, housing 18.9 million people, could be required to have meters within 10 years. Compulsory metering is highly controversial for the cost of installation, which is likely to be more than £1.3 billion, will be passed on to householders in the form of higher bills. While there are fears that metering is a particular burden for poorer families who have a large number of children and some disabled groups, who are heavy water users. To date the introduction of water meters has been sold to consumers on the promise that they can save money compared to the traditional payment system linked to a property’s rateable value. However, this is only a temporary benefit, for the net effect of metering in the long term will be higher bills for all, because customers will have to meet the costs of fitting the devices. While most homes in the country already face inflation-busting increases in water bills for at least the next decade as firms raise money to replace ageing pipes and sewers. Before Labour came to power in 1997, the party vociferously campaigned against compulsory water metering suggesting it would be a particular burden to poor families. Environment minister, Phil Woolas, announced the U-turn, saying: “Metering saves water - around 10 per cent per household - and it seems right to me that in seriously water-stressed areas the costs and benefits of compulsory metering are given consideration alongside other options.” Industry critics argue that companies should be forced to do much more to stop the appalling waste of water through leaky pipes, before expecting customers to use less. Recent figures show water companies are wasting 3.42 billion litres every day through leaking pipes, or the equivalent of two full baths for every household in the country. Mr Woolas tried to head off criticism by saying the decision “in no way absolves companies from their responsibility to deliver on leakage targets”. The minister said water companies will have to make a “strong case” if they want to impose metering. This would involve demonstrating it is a cheaper option for ensuring there is enough water for customers than, for example, building new reservoirs. Currently, some 30 per cent of homes have a water meter and the figure is increasing by around 2per cent a year. The government gave the small Folkestone & Dover water company permission to install water meters on a compulsory basis in March last year. Some 11 other companies are in so-called water stress areas and will find it easier to force meters on customers. These include Thames Water, Southern Water, Mid Kent Water, South East Water, Sutton & East Surrey, Essex & Suffolk. The government claims the proposals have the support of the industry and its green advisers at the Environment Agency. Both the National Consumer Council and the Consumer Council for Water have highlighted concerns that vulnerable groups could suffer big increases in their bills under metering. A consultation document published by the environment department, DEFRA, admits some groups “did not agree with the consultation proposal”. It said: “Either they argued that metered charging hits large families and people with illnesses that use a lot of water hardest or that companies could do more to provide resources and reduce leakage, and that companies should do this first, before metering customers.” However, these concerns have been dismissed. The Government said: “There will be winners and losers in any change to charging. However, we believe that metering is the fairest way of charging for water. It is the norm elsewhere in Europe and for other utilities. “We believe that the potential benefits in terms of water saving in areas of serious water stress make this an appropriate measure to the scale of the problem.”

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

You must be logged in to post a comment.