 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
This website has been created using the best information available to GARD at the time of its compilation. The opinions expressed are based on GARD’s perception of the issues involved and the stance taken by Thames Water with regard to their proposal to build an Abingdon Reservoir. The views expressed in this website, which GARD reserves the right to change ahead of the Inquiry, cannot necessarily be taken, therefore, in whole or in part to represent GARD’s position at that Inquiry. |
||||||||||||||||
WATER RESOURCESAt water privatisation, our small island was divided into over 20 regional water providers, each a separate monopoly business entity focussing on maximising profits from customers' bills for their shareholders. 
For example, because Thames Water’s owners make more profit from building a massive Abingdon reservoir, paid for by their customers, than by transferring water from the Severn, there is no incentive for Thames Water to opt for this better, cheaper, more sustainable alternative. Water is, however, a national resource for the benefit of all users. The South East of England, including London, is officially described as being “water stressed”. But, examined nationally (and not from the standpoint of a regional monopoly supplier such as Thames Water), the South East need not be short of water. The map of Britain’s annual rainfall (right) clearly shows that the wetter West could supplement supplies to the dryer South East. If you would like a printable version of this map, download a PDF here. Water customers expect DEFRA itself and its two key agencies, Ofwat (the water regulator) and the Environment Agency, supported by the Consumers Council for Water, to use their muscle to ensure the optimum national water resource solutions are reached to meet the growth in demand mainly from London. Thames Water’s determination to build a massive Abingdon reservoir without proper and transparent consideration of the better options for consumers proposed by GARD, should be rejected by DEFRA, Ofwat and the Environment Agency. It is GARD's view that our opinions have not been given the full consideration we believe the public would expect by the appropriate agencies. AN ABINGDON RESERVOIR IS NEITHER NEEDED NOR JUSTIFIABLE |
||