Will there be enough water?

Ten years ago, the people of the East Bay area, near San Francisco, were hit by a drought like the one now facing Britain. Half as much snow as usual had fallen in the Sierra Nevada. The authorities tried exhortation and threats to try to persuade the public to conserve water. Consumption fell only marginally, leaving them on the brink of disaster.

The next winter was as dry and the desperate authorities had to change tack. They had to cut water use fast without leaving families high and dry or penalising the poor. So they put up prices for industry and agriculture - and for watering gardens and filling swimming pools - but not for normal household use. And they sent families - free - tens of thousands of low-flow shower heads and water bags for cisterns. Consumption dropped by a third, the reservoirs filled up, and the savings continued into the next year, even though the snows were better.

At the same time water bosses in Massachusetts were getting worried about the cost of quenching Boston's increasing thirst. They decided instead to try to save water, concentrating on repairing leaks and, as in California, putting in new shower heads and reducing cistern capacity. Demand dropped by a quarter, bringing it back to the level of 20 years earlier.

These two successes - and many more from around the world - suggest that the British government and water industry have had their priorities upside- down. They have concentrated predominantly on trying to meet rising demand, rather than proper strategies to reduce it. And now they are deep in crisis.

The past two years, the Institute of Hydrology said last week, have been the driest in England and Wales since reliable records began more than 200 years ago. Eighteen of the past 24 months have had below average rainfall: January was the fourth driest on record and, though February was wet, March was three times drier than usual.

At the very time when they should be fullest, all but one of the 35 major rivers monitored by the Environment Agency are abnormally low. Nine have less than a third as much water as normal, 19 less than half. Underground aquifers are running dry and London, East Anglia and the South-East, which particularly rely on them, face shortages this summer.

Last December, Ray Tennant, chairman of the Water Companies Association, said: "It is possible that, unless we get enough rainfall, rivers will have to be sacrificed in order to satisfy customers."

The country has long been drying out as more and more water is taken for public use. The Environment Agency has repeatedly sounded the alarm on the devastating effects on chalk streams such as the Kennet, Lambourne and the Hampshire Avon.

It will get worse. The industry expects the number of households in the south and east of England, the driest parts of the country, to increase by over a quarter over the next 20 years. The Government predicts that the use of water by British families will rise by anything between 13 and 38 per cent by 2021. Global warming would also increase demand.

Traditionally, the water industry reacts by building more reservoirs and taking more water from rivers and underground aquifers. It suits them to go on like this. They sell more water, and pass on the huge engineering costs to customers. But it doesn't suit an angry public which does not want to pay even more for water, or countenance more environmental damage. Bowing to the public mood, both the Environment Agency and Ofwat, the water regulator, now insist that waste must be cut first.

There is certainly scope. Friends of the Earth estimates that 40 per cent of Britain's supplies are wasted. But the industry's recent threats and exhortations to consumers have had even less success here than in California, in contrast to the drought of 1975-76 when Britons cheerfully responded to appeals to "bath with a friend". A lot has changed in 20 years - particularly ownership.

When water was publicly owned, people felt a responsibility towards its use and conservation. After privatisation they naturally decided that they were in a commercial relationship: if they had paid for water they could use it as they wanted. And consumers do not like private companies making vast profits, and industry bosses pocketing fat salaries, telling them to stop being "greedy".

The industry's extraordinary practice of blaming its customers for using its product is often plain wrong. The first hosepipe restrictions of this drought - and the first accusations of "inconsiderate use" - came in July 1995, only months after the wettest winter for 126 years. Last year's independent inquiry into the grossly mismanaged Yorkshire Water found that it - and its publicly owned predecessor - had imposed drought orders that were not justified by lack of rainfall four times in the previous 12 years. And though water use has soared since the 1950s it has risen relatively little over the last decade: the fastest growing "usage" is leakage from the companies' own pipes.

Ah, leakage! The water companies, which reacted furiously when the subject was first raised by the Independent on Sunday at the start of this drought, now "accept 100 per cent" that it must be cut. So they should. Typically, companies lose more than a quarter of their water (comparable figures from Dutch and German companies are 2-5 per cent) before it ever reaches their customers. Thames Water loses some 50 gallons for each of its households every day. Companies are being forced to do more now, but the industry insists it will not go beyond what it considers "economic".

Earlier this year, the Round Table on sustainable development - with representatives from government and environmental groups - called for "widespread" water metering. But it is not clear that this would work: studies suggest that meters bring an immediate saving, but that this may not long continue. About 80 to 90 per cent of each water bill pays fixed capital charges, so using less water does not reduce the balance much and may not even cover the cost of installing meters. Poor families in old houses with leaky pipes are hit disproportionately, while the industry has an incentive to sell more water. Selective metering - for example for families who use garden sprinklers - would be effective, however.

Simple changes in equipment can also effect major savings. One-third of household water is flushed down lavatories: installing low-flush loos, or simply putting bags in cisterns, could, the House of Commons environment committee reported last year, cut Britain's water use enough to offset the effects of global warming.

Some 10,000 gallons of rain fall, on average, on each roof a year, more than enough for the garden: collecting it in water butts would reduce the need for hoses. Consumption standards for washing machines or dishwashers would help, while audits have shown that businesses can profitably save a third of their water.

Why shouldn't wealthy water companies provide conservation equipment and services free? Studies show this would save more water and cost much less than installing meters or building reservoirs.

Some are moving in this direction. Yorkshire Water provides water butts at knockdown prices. Thames Water gives free bags for cisterns. North West Water repairs leaky pipes free. And Severn Trent insists on water meters for users of sprinklers.

This is piecemeal, however. What of the broader picture? The House of Commons environment committee urged the Government to set up a trust to encourage conservation measures and provide grants, as it has for energy saving. It was rejected by the Secretary of State for the Environment, John Gummer. So it was satisfying to see him hoist by his own petard last week when a burst pipe forced the evacuation of the new, supposedly eco-friendly Environment Department. Labour had repeatedly called for higher standards for water pipes in buildings: Mr Gummer has failed to implement them.