The Great Water Rip-Off Has Been Obvious for Decades

Good heavens. Lots of heat and noise in the news this week about our useless, predatory, leaking, sewage-spewing water companies. Apparently a damning report has just found out that the water companies have been ripping us off for decades and that the supposed regulator, Ofwat, has been worse than useless.

But hold on a minute. In my 2008 book SQUANDERED: How Gordon Brown is wasting over one trillion pounds of our money I had a chapter titled ‘Regulators without Regulation‘. In this chapter I exposed the water industry for its shameless profiteering and extortion and Ofwat for its mind-boggling utter uselessness. That was 17 years ago.

I wrote:

The case of Thames Water gives some idea of the billions that could be made in a short time by grabbing a UK utility company. In 2000 Thames Water was bought by the German company RWE for £6.8 billion (£4.3 billion cash plus taking on debt of £2.5 billion). In 2006, after having siphoned off over £1 billion in dividends, RWE sold Thames Water to a consortium led by an Australian bank for £8 billion (£4.8 billion cash plus £3.2 billion debt). Thus, RWE made more than £2.2 billion from its relatively brief six-year ownership of the water company. …

Ofwat is responsible for setting the prices that water companies can charge us and claims, “The price limits we set companies are based on demanding efficiency assumptions.” However, this seems to be contradicted by the staggering level of profits made by the water companies. In 2004-5 the industry made profits of 29% (£2.195 billion on a turnover of £7.520 billion). In 2005-6 this rose to 31% (£2.577 billion on a turnover of £8.228 billion). Some of the foreign water companies regularly make profits of 30-40% on their UK operations, while exactly the same companies are only permitted to make profits of 5-10% on their operations in other countries, especially in their home territories. This would seem to suggest that Ofwat’s price controls are not quite as rigorous as those in other European countries. …

Ofwat also claims that it actively controls how much water companies lose through leakage: “We monitor the level of water that leaks from each company’s network and take action where the leakage is unsatisfactory.” About a quarter of the water that is purified for our use is lost due to leakage – 894 million litres a day – equivalent to each household having another three full baths a day or flushing the toilet unnecessarily 30 times every day. Thames Water loses a third of its supplies through leakage. For six years Thames Water failed to meet Ofwat’s extremely modest targets for reducing its levels of leakage and Ofwat did nothing – no enforcement orders and no fines. Finally, embarrassed by the 2006 drought, subsequent hosepipe bans and public outrage at the level of leakage, Ofwat started to talk tough: “We view as very serious Thames Water’s significant failure to achieve its leakage target.” At first, Ofwat threatened Thames with a fine that could go as high as £66 million. However, Thames managed to avoid any fine by promising to increase its spending on repairing leaks by an extra £150 million over five years. At the new rate of pipe replacement agreed between Thames and Ofwat, it would now take about 128 years to fix London’s leaking pipes. Ofwat’s boss seemed pleased with his firm action: “This will directly address the issue of London leakage and achieve more secure supplies.” This £30 million a year extra investment represented just 2% of Thames’s turnover. At the same time, Thames Water was allowed to raise its prices by 21% and a month later it announced it was going to improve profits even more by sacking a quarter of its 6,000 employees, which would give annual savings of about £45 million. One could have suspected that giving the boot to one in four of its staff might actually slow down the rate at which Thames Water could repair its leaking pipes. However, Ofwat does not seem to have noticed this possibility. Anyway, Thames Water’s owners, RWE, hardly seemed to care – in that year the chairman earned £6.3 million in salary and bonuses and he could wash his hands of Thames and its leaky pipes as he was selling off the company for over £2 billion more than he paid for it. When asked about why RWE had been allowed to extract so much money from Thames while doing so little to run the company properly, the Ofwat spokesman seemed to feel that Ofwat was not responsible, perhaps forgetting Ofwat’s duty to pressure water companies to invest some of their massive profits to reduce leakage: “We don’t have any control over their dividends because we don’t manage the companies. The companies’ profits are a matter for them.” …

In spite of there being so many regulators, they seldom seem to be hauled in front of Parliamentary committees to explain what they have been doing with our money. Unfortunately for Ofwat, their performance was so utterly dismal that even the normally supine National Audit Office (NAO) could not help wondering what on earth, if anything, the water regulator had been up to for the previous 18 or so years. Following an unusually critical NAO report, Ofwat bosses had to appear before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in mid-2007 to justify their existence. They did not seem to impress the PAC. When asked why they had not acted against Thames Water earlier, Ofwat’s chairman replied, “We have contemplated an enforcement order in every year since Thames first started failing.” This prompted the response from the PAC, “We are not interested in contemplation; we are interested in action.”

Since privatisation Britain’s water companies have played us for fools. They have borrowed billions which they have used to pay a fortune to their management and shareholders while bleating that they didn’t have any money to upgrade our water infrastructure. And the executives at the worse-than-pointless Ofwat have let them get away with this while also pocketing handsome salaries for doing less than nothing. But given that I warned readers about the complete disaster in our water sector 17 years ago, I’m somewhat surprised to see that our rulers and mainstream media only seem to have discovered this now.

David Craig is the author of There is No Climate Crisis, available as an e-book or paperback from Amazon.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
EppingBlogger
8 months ago

The practice of loading up UK businesses with debt and transferring control to an offshore tax haven has been highly damaging. Swathes of our utilities and property ownership in the UK has been transferred that way so all income and gains are recognised offshore.

It could be stopped.

One solution, for property, was used by the USA called Foreign owned Real Property Taxes Act (FiRPTA).

pjar
8 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

Just to be that guy…

Why do they call the Foreign owned Real Property Taxes Act, FiRPTA? When it clearly ought to be FoRPTA… 🤷

Spiritof_GFawkes
8 months ago
Reply to  pjar

Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act
The Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act of 1980, enacted as Subtitle C of Title XI of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-499, 94 Stat. 2599, 2682, is a United States tax law that imposes income tax on foreign persons disposing of US real property interests.
Source:
Wikipedia

JXB
JXB
8 months ago
Reply to  EppingBlogger

“…so all income and gains are recognised offshore.” So consuming the good/service is not a gain on-shore? If you cut off outside investors, you significantly reduce the capital available for investment domestically. This pushes up the cost of capital pushes up expected returns on investment, pushes prices up and restricts economic investment. Anyone with a mortgage has a large part of their house “foreign owned”, if you bought a fridge on your credit card, it’s probably “foreign owned”. Where do you think the money comes from to run the ghastly NHS – money from foreign bond purchasers who get part of your taxes as yields (interest payment) and enjoy the gains off-shore while you stand at the end if a queue 7 million long waiting to get a hernia repair, or whatever. What has happened is Equity Funds finance purchase of utilities, then use the assets as collateral to get bank loans. These loans are distributed. This leaves the target company with huge debt, and a large part of its revenue services that debt rather than being used to improve service output to consumers. In fact this is exactly the way Governments operate. They use the national assets and ability… Read more »

huxleypiggles
8 months ago

https://x.com/nickbuckleymbe/status/1947711033004724586?s=48

Is your town or city on this list?

Did you know your councillors had signed up your home town as a “City of Sanctuary?”

Matt Dalby
Matt Dalby
8 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Inverness isn’t on the list although it is a Fair Trade City, whatever this means. It certainly doesn’t mean that only fair trade products are on sale in local shops/supermarkets. Obviously being a Fair Trade City is just pointless virtue signalling, being a City of Sanctuary is probably also just virtue signalling as it’ll be central government who decides how many economic migrants are dumped on each council.

Orgo
Orgo
8 months ago

I agree with the article above. I don’t want to defend the water companies. I work for one of them. I won’t give away who it is but it’s in the south west. They are appallingly run from the perspective of the decision making and money wasted. But (and I know I said I didn’t want to defend them) in their defence they are run no more appallingly than the NHS, local councils, Westminster and any pretty much any big organisation that’s spread out and has layers of bureaucracy in the decision making process. I won’t bore you with the many stories of millions wasted on projects that do no good or make things worse, because the person deciding to spend the money doesn’t know the site and doesn’t speak to the people who do. So ends up spending it on the wrong things. The asset stripping and debt building which I think is unethical and immoral. But is probably just part of modern big business. And I can’t argue with David Craig’s analysis of it However the reason for this post is that the main reason they’re getting a bad press lately is the sewage spills. When the news… Read more »

Gezza England
Gezza England
8 months ago
Reply to  Orgo

Could you explain why the Great Satan – aka Thames Water – has removed storage pens for storm flows that I saw on a visit to the Beddington Lane sewage works in Croydon as a child? It was clearly explained that they stored storm inflows so they could be processed once it had subsided and if you look on Google satellite they are no longer there.

I have made some good money from water companies over the years and think it is wrong that only a few water companies are publically listed such as Thames, Southern, SES etc.

Orgo
Orgo
8 months ago
Reply to  Gezza England

I can’t speak for Thames water or that site but I can give you an overview of what needs to be treated. The EA decides, based on how many house/businesses are feeding a particular works what the dry weather flow (DWF) should be. We then have to treat up to 3x DWF with the full process. After that we have to treat up to 6x DWF with what’s called storm storage or storm settlement. Basically a tank that allows for a bit more settlement before the top water is discharged. Above 6x DWF goes straight to the river/sea/estuary. Very small sites have a different set of rules. For instance a septic tank that’s only feed by a handful of houses doesn’t get anything like the storm issues of a larger site. It maybe that Beddington is treating all of the flow through the works. Or they’ve built an under ground tank. Or the the EA have given them a specific consent for some reason. It could also be that they are just illegally discharging when it rains, I really don’t know. To give you an example of how much rainfall effects some works. We have sites that treat about a… Read more »

JXB
JXB
8 months ago
Reply to  Orgo

The EA decides, based on how many house/businesses are feeding a particular works what the dry weather flow (DWF) should be.”

That’s really all you needed to say, but you should have clarified “EA” = the Environment Agency (the one responsible for the catastrophic flooding if the Somerset Levels q few years back, and most other floods), the Government mob of incompetents who worship the sacred EU scrolls on the environment.

Orgo
Orgo
8 months ago
Reply to  JXB

My bad. Given my job we talk about the EA without thinking so I made the assumption that everyone knows what it means.
Don’t get me started on the incompetence of the EA. They are no better than the utilities they police.
It’s all a game.

VAX FREE IanC
8 months ago
Reply to  Orgo

Wessex Water perchance?

Orgo
Orgo
8 months ago
Reply to  VAX FREE IanC

South West Water.

JXB
JXB
8 months ago
Reply to  Orgo

I don’t know how old you are, but when I was born and for the first 30 years of my life the water companies and everything else just about was nationalised.

As a result by 1979, the UK economy was near finished.

There is no evidence that State control is any better than private ownership – in fact worse.

The NHS is a nationalised industry. That’s what you get when the State funds and runs things.

People overlook that capital for State-run industry can only come out of the taxpayers’ pocket, that and absent profit motive there is no incentive for fiscal prudence, or efficiency, it cannot go bankrupt, its workers are public sector workers, unionised, big pay rises, strikes, no competition so like it or lump it, and the entities are run to meet political objectives not to serve consumer requirements.

But apart from that…

Orgo
Orgo
8 months ago
Reply to  JXB

I agree.

I was born a long long while ago. And I’m aware how worthless our government are. And I’m aware how bad the sewage pollutions where when it was under government control. We just measure everything now. Back then we didn’t.

I don’t know what the answers are to this dilemma. But I know that if government where in charge it would be more or less the same people running it, with the same incompetence.

We have an incompetence crisis right now in this country. And not just in the water industry.

Monro
8 months ago

The model was rubbish, the regulator was rubbish, the water companies were rubbish None of these could have been so rubbish if the politicians had not been so rubbish. Democracy: the least worst form of government: ‘In 1974 the service was reorganised. 10 unitary regional water authorities (RWAs) were created, each covering a river basin area, each responsible for water quality, water supply and sanitation throughout the area. The authorities were appointed by the government, not by municipalities, and so were not accountable to local government any more.’ That, precisely, is where the water started to go off, Yorkshire Water a classic case in point. The water table has been lowered by over-extraction while reservoirs in times of plenty shed water because they are overfull, use the shedding of water for canoeing events! ‘The local Yorkshire newspaper, the Northern Echo, said in a leader: “Yorkshire Water has amassed colossal debts, the core water supply business is struggling to make profit and the share price is depressed. The directors’ answer to the mess they have created is to give the business back to the public. Having milked it dry with excessive dividends and excessive wages and share options for themselves, they… Read more »

Jack the dog
Jack the dog
8 months ago

Excellent book “squandered”.

I remember the economist always singing the praises of privatised water, but because the consumer has no choice, there can be no competition and the capitalist approach fails completely.

These should be run as municipal services, answerable to the public.

Jaguar
Jaguar
8 months ago

Ofwat is an example of an “independent” government agency, which means unaccountable. It ignored the most blatant asset-stripping for years because it could.
Having done jury service in the past, I suggest that a random collection of 12 people could have done a much better job of watching the water companies.

JXB
JXB
8 months ago

“Ofwat is responsible for setting the prices that water companies can charge us and claims…” And that ladies and gentlemen explains the whole problem in a nutshell. Cap prices below market rate = shortage. Cap prices above market rate = get excess profit taking. Leave prices alone = market determined correct price. You can huff and puff as much as you like about “greedy” corporations but the facts are: The State nationalised the water industry (along with everything else) cutting it off from outside private investment, so a hundred year plus system did not get the capital inflow it needed to modernise it. Privatisation meant companies inherited a decrepit system with Government regulating them on how much they could charge, how much they could invest – investment to meet sacred EU regulation comes first, clean beaches before clean tap water. Surface drainage rubs into main sewers, so as our water use, more hard-standing, roofs on buildings have increased, surface water run-off has increased and at time together with heavy or prolonged rain overcharges sewage stations which means release into rivers and the sea. Environmentalism = no new reservoirs. The problem is we have been indoctrinated to be a collective in… Read more »