Low water

I'm reading with increasing disbelief the ongoing debate about the impending drought in the south-east.

British Waterways says it's feasible to transfer water from one side of the country to the other.

The water firms say it's not.

I did a story on this, with the EA confirming they'd been asked to look at the potential costs.

Elliott Morley, the Environment Minister, wrote to the paper saying it wasn't true.

We know demand is increasing faster than supplies, as our climate changes.

Yet today, I read we aren't building houses fast enough and the East alone needs hundreds of thousands more.

Then there are the huge new towns they're set to build in what are being called things like the Thames Gateway, Stanstead Corridor etc.

Meanwhile, they're just about to demolish thousands of houses in the north because no-one wants to live in them.

Mad or what..?

I agree its time we stopped building houses and stopped increasing the population by inviting every tom **** and harry to come and live here.

When are we going to realise that this little planet of ours as not got unlimited resorces.

Mad - there is no "what".

Canals can't do it. The surge of water necessary would render them useless to any boat traffic.

You only have to look at current estimates of 800,000,000 gallons per day in leakages in Thames Water region. To make that up it's like an Autumn flush of the middle Thames, ie. 42 cumecs. Take a look at a Thames weir when 42 cumecs are going through and imagine anything like that on a canal. Not possible.

Yet Mr Prescott seems insistant that these house in the Thames Gateway are built, but hasn't considered where their water supply will come from. TW say they could use a desalination plant for some of it and it would only be twice as expensive as normal water if they extracted water on an outgoing tide.

Along comes Mr Livingstone and says that's too expensive and you can't do it. So who's fighting who?