Hacker News Reader

Comment by seanalltogether | Hacker News Reader

The concept of reservoirs and emergency supply seems to be completely at odds with privatisation. What private company is going to spend loads of money to build deep reservoirs that are stressed only once every 5 or 10 years. None. They're going to reach for an immediate supply like a river or aquifer and then raise prices if those sources run low. It's insane to plan out infrastructure on the belief that private companies are capable of building such large buffers.

View on HN

I'm inclined to agree that privatisation is bad for long term planning, but the history of the Abingdon Reservoir proposal seems to be counter evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abingdon_Reservoir

Looks like Thames Water (a private company) proposed the development nearly 20 years ago, but it was turned down by the Environment Agency, a government body.

> Plans for a £1bn reservoir in Oxfordshire to supply more than eight million people over the next 25 years have been rejected by the government.

> Thames Water wants to build a site on four square miles of land near Abingdon to help ensure future demand is met.

> The bid went to a public inquiry but the secretary of state said there was "no immediate need" for such a site.

"Abingdon £1bn reservoir plan rejected by government"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-12651131

> Thames Water's computer-generated image of how the reservoir would look

We have come a long way in computer generated images in 14 years.

Good find, I admit I had jumped on the Thames Water is Evil bandwagon, and for the record they are evil, but in this case they have been out-eviled by that other driver of British societal regression:

> Campaigners had fought the plan, claiming there was no need for such a large reservoir and that it would damage the environment.

> Leader of the Vale of White Horse Council Tony de Vere said: "We are delighted with this decision.

> "Local residents were very worried about the impact of such a large reservoir and we share their relief that the plan has been axed."

> Local residents were very worried about the impact of such a large reservoir

Was it the crocodiles or the immigrants in small boats in the reservoir they worried about most?

Snarkiness aside, this is Oxfordshire. One of 'the' most unlikely areas to have been concerned about that as the primary opinion driver.

I have friends in the Abingdon area and the primary objection, from what they've told me, is that locals objected to a reservoir that would mainly be used to supply London. Little Englanders at their worst.

And that's when parliament should step in and pass it as standalone infrastructure under its own bill.

Yeah but don’t forget all the eminent domain shit that happened in the 70s and destroyed neighbourhoods left and right. The power structure set up to make sure that doesn’t happen again are now impeding important progress.

Thanks I'm going to have to look this up. Sounds interesting.

They don't object to London subsidising their "rural" lifestyle and paying their pensions though. I despise these people.

Reservoirs are nice, aren't they? Nice to look at, swim in, kayak on, walk around etc. Unless your house is going to be flooded, of course.

Agreed! I have a few around me, and to be honest I didn't even realise they were there for a few years until I really started exploring the area on foot. They are lovely.

So I don't know what the objections were about. You can easily ignore them, and just as easily enjoy them. But they are hardly going to "destroy the environment".

That said, they would of course destroy "some" environment. I'm not aware of the specific objections in this case. So I'll leave an open mind until I do.

The Oxford Clarion has had several posts about the proposed Abingdon damn:

https://oxfordclarion.uk/water-why-abingdons-mega-reservoir-...

https://oxfordclarion.uk/abingdon-reservoir-is-there-an-alte...

https://oxfordclarion.uk/abingdon-reservoir-what-are-the-ris...

https://oxfordclarion.uk/abingdon-reservoir-how-much-will-it...

Ah but this is an argument against private ownership.

The ultimate power, including violence, lies with the federal government. Thames water can't shoot dead protesters or council members but the government definitely can and will.

Privatisation should be accompanied with legal responsibility to build/maintain infrastructure for the future. If a government agency blocks the development, this liability should shift to them, to disincentivise unnecessarily blocking development.

But for something like water supply, there should be more competition via legally mandated unbundling, like with Internet service providers and energy suppliers who use the same delivery infrastructure while competing with each other.

Not surprised by this since the parent comments "30 years" in general seem to coincide with the timeframe when we stopped building in the west in general.

> It's insane to plan out infrastructure on the belief that private companies are capable of building such large buffers

You can make this a requirement by law.

Or create an economic incentive for it and let the market do the rest.

I tend to favor that approach instead because it allows more room for innovation and makes it much easier to quantify exactly how much you're spending by distorting the market in that way.

We're talking about the industry that just finished Thames Tideway, fully privately financed? A project that will last for at least 100 years and probably longer? A project that was needed for decades but was ignored by government and only got built thanks to the private sector?

The idea private companies don't invest is just Labour propaganda. Another commenter has already pointed out your belief about reservoirs is wrong, as is the idea they wouldn't make other forms of investment.

And all this has happened despite the government imposing socialist price controls on the industry, a move usually guaranteed to kill investment!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com