Why should the rest of us have our demands managed so their demands can be met? If the Labour Party wants a cause to

Why should the rest of us have our demands managed so their demands can be met? If the Labour Party wants a cause to champion, that might be a better one than Frank Dobson's recent crusade against leaking pipes.Leakage in Britain is high, but is being reduced. Large organisations can request a "non-return to sewer" allowance, but that option is unlikely to be available for the Smiths' herbaceous borders. Since that water does not have to be taken away and treated, it means the avid gardener is paying about twice as much for each litre put on the garden as for each litre used for washing up. For most domestic use this is a reasonable assumption, but it falls down when a lot of water is used in the garden. It is assumed that every litre of water supplied to the property is also taken away as sewage.

Water does not have to be generated; although there is a unit cost associated with pumping and treating each litre, much of the cost is associated with the provision and maintenance of the system that brings water to each property - and that cost is the same whether the property is occupied by one person or six. So a fair system of charging for water would have a very high standing charge, and a relatively low unit charge. This is unlikely to reduce consumption, since it means in essence that the water becomes proportionally cheaper as more is used. People in large mansions use a lot, and may not be deterred either by the extra cost or by appeals for conservation.Another problem with metering is that, for properties served by mains sewerage, it forms the basis for the sewage charge as well as the water charge. Now that it is supplied by private companies whose charges and profits have been hitting the headlines, appeals seem less effective. Is metering the answer? The NRA and Ofwat tend to believe it is; the water companies are not so sure.

True, it would answer the complaints of people living alone, who object to paying as much for their water as a large family in the same size of house. But water is not like electricity, for which much of the production cost comes from the fuel used in its generation. In essence, the NRA is telling water companies that they cannot expect approval to construct new water sources until they show they have done what they can to reduce demand for water and have done all they reasonably can to reduce water wasted from leaking mains.In the days when water was usually supplied by a local water board, with the cost "lost" in the rates, appeals for less use of water would likely have been heeded. Last year, the National Rivers Authority introduced demand "management".

Partly because of this, and the resultant cries of anguish from anglers, there has been a change in philosophy in the British water establishment.In the past, the water industry was "demand led". The policy was to meet demand, sinking new boreholes or building new reservoirs and pipelines as necessary. These levels are falling rapidly, but are not yet a cause for concern. As they fall the flow of a few streams and smaller rivers will be reduced. As the dry weather has pushed up demand, some companies - especially those relying on reservoirs - now face a resources problem, and are also imposing hosepipe bans.In the east, where groundwater is the main supply source, the wet winter brought exceptional replenishment to aquifers, leaving groundwater levels at or near record highs.