Reporting a comment

Here's the annotation you're reporting. Please enter a brief reason why you think it should be deleted in the form beneath. Thanks for your help!

Barry Rydz
Posted on 17 Nov 2008 7:24 pm

Apart from proof of need Mr. Vaizey canvassed two main alternatives to the proposed Thames reservoir: Import of water fom storage in the Severn basin and reliance on recirculated effluents. The first was proposed and costed by the Water Resources Board many years ago. It appeared then and more recent studies have confirmed that the capital cost of storage at Longdon Marsh plus transfer to the Thames near Abingdon would be about half as much as for equivalent storage in Oxfordshire. More energy would be used and this deserves further study. But the main obstacle is the reluctance of companies to share resources,I believe, and the ineffectiveness of the Environment Agency. Recirculation of effluents is practised elsewhere and we increasingly rely on riverborne effluents to sustain supplies from the Thames. Nevertheless to rely wholly on this would be a political issue as well as a technical and economic one and I question whether we should do so as long as ample freshwater resources are available at reasonable cost as I believe they are.

Why should this annotation be deleted?
Check our House Rules and tell us why the annotation breaks them.