According to Cathryn Ross, Thames Water’s co-interim chief executive, householders with large gardens should be paying a higher price for their water than people with small or no gardens.
Actually, they already almost certainly do. If they have a metered supply, their bills will be proportional to how much water they use – and will be bearing the full cost of watering the lawn or the flowerbeds. If they are unmetered they will be charged a rate that reflects the size of their property.
If, on the other hand, Ross means that people who own large gardens should be paying a higher rate for each unit of water they use, it might make sense for monopolistic suppliers to suggest this, as it would raise more cash for them in the politically easiest way. But it is otherwise illogical. It isn’t people with large gardens who should be paying more; it is people who don’t have absorbent lawns, flowerbeds and trees.
The problem isn’t properties with large gardens in leafy suburbs
The biggest problem that water companies have right now is not with supplying water: it’s with preventing storm overflows.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in