.... and will there be plenty to drink?

Following the dire warnings from the Water Industry over the past couple
of months, and repeated in the past week, I have looked at our local
rainfall totals and compared with the same period in 1974/75 (i.e. the
two years preceding the famous drought of 1976).

That drought was truly spectacular, and those of us who lived through it
will remember it - though not fondly.
(see, for example ...
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~ta...76_weather.htm
and
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.w.../1975_1999.htm

Figures below based on Bracknell (Beaufort Park for 74/75 and Tawfield
02/03)

Jan 1974 to Dec 1975 Jan 2002 to Dec 2003
Rainfall Rainfall
1463 mm 1595 mm
108% of LTA(71-00) 118% of LTA(71-00)

At face value then we are some 132mm better off as we start the New
Year.
However, the year 2003 was somewhat drier than the 'mirror' year of
1975, 603mm (2003) against 633mm (1975); the difference though hardly
great.

Looking at the 4 months September to December in each precursor period:
1975 = 219mm, or 82% of LTA
2003 = 269mm, or 101% of LTA

Again, we have had (courtesy of a very wet November 2003), significantly
more than at the same stage in 1975.

Looking at the wider EWP series:
Jan 1974 to Dec 1975 Jan 2002 to Dec 2003
Rainfall Rainfall
1787 mm (1879 mm: provisional)
96% of LTA(71-00) 101% of LTA(71-00)

Sep 1975 to Dec 1975 Jan 2003 to Dec 2003
Rainfall Rainfall
266 mm 320 mm
72% 86%

Now, it's certainly true that we have had a lack of rainfall over 2003,
though as noted above, over the two-year period (2002/03), the rainfall
has been somewhat healthier (However, regionally, the rainfall deficit
will be greater than the above figures suggest).

As shown above, for the past 4 months, we are in a slightly better
position than we were in 1975 - at the end of 2003, the cumulative
rainfall across the EWP domain for 24 months was 'normal'! And this
comes only a couple of years after some decidedly wet weather .... so,
where has it all gone?

We have to take the water companies warnings at face value, and without
the November total, we would be at the *same* or worse state as in 1975.
High evaporation rates during the 'summer-half' of 2003 and low rainfall
totals have led to rivers, reservoirs etc., running notably low - most
of us have seen this here in the south of England. We *do* need a lot of
rain.

In 1976, we grumbled and moaned at standpipes, non-availability of
hose-pipes, golf-courses not being watered etc.
In 2004, we have much more demand on water: the number of golf courses
alone must have increased remarkably; certainly the population has
increased:

The population of the UK (based on Office of National Statistics
figures):
1976: 56 mn.
2002: 59 mn.
(2003: probably 60 mn.)
Increase over this period (1976 - 2003) = 4 mn, or 7%.

We had a lot of earnest stuff in 1976 about how the 'future' was going
to be better: grandiose schemes about transferring water via canals
etc., and more efficient use of water in the home. I wonder if anything
has really changed?

Martin.

--
Martin Rowley: data via -
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.weather/metindex.htm
Bracknell (Wooden Hill/Tawfield), Berkshire
NGR: SU 854 667
Lat: 51DEG23MIN30SEC(N): Long: 00DEG46MIN28SEC(W)

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
... and will there be plenty to drink?

Following the dire warnings from the Water Industry over the past couple
of months, and repeated in the past week, I have looked at our local
rainfall totals and compared with the same period in 1974/75 (i.e. the
two years preceding the famous drought of 1976).

That drought was truly spectacular, and those of us who lived through it
will remember it - though not fondly.
(see, for example ...
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~ta...76_weather.htm
and
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.w.../1975_1999.htm

Figures below based on Bracknell (Beaufort Park for 74/75 and Tawfield
02/03)

Jan 1974 to Dec 1975 Jan 2002 to Dec 2003
Rainfall Rainfall
1463 mm 1595 mm
108% of LTA(71-00) 118% of LTA(71-00)

At face value then we are some 132mm better off as we start the New
Year.
However, the year 2003 was somewhat drier than the 'mirror' year of
1975, 603mm (2003) against 633mm (1975); the difference though hardly
great.

Looking at the 4 months September to December in each precursor period:
1975 = 219mm, or 82% of LTA
2003 = 269mm, or 101% of LTA

Again, we have had (courtesy of a very wet November 2003), significantly
more than at the same stage in 1975.

Looking at the wider EWP series:
Jan 1974 to Dec 1975 Jan 2002 to Dec 2003
Rainfall Rainfall
1787 mm (1879 mm: provisional)
96% of LTA(71-00) 101% of LTA(71-00)

Sep 1975 to Dec 1975 Jan 2003 to Dec 2003
Rainfall Rainfall
266 mm 320 mm
72% 86%

Now, it's certainly true that we have had a lack of rainfall over 2003,
though as noted above, over the two-year period (2002/03), the rainfall
has been somewhat healthier (However, regionally, the rainfall deficit
will be greater than the above figures suggest).

As shown above, for the past 4 months, we are in a slightly better
position than we were in 1975 - at the end of 2003, the cumulative
rainfall across the EWP domain for 24 months was 'normal'! And this
comes only a couple of years after some decidedly wet weather .... so,
where has it all gone?

We have to take the water companies warnings at face value, and without
the November total, we would be at the *same* or worse state as in 1975.
High evaporation rates during the 'summer-half' of 2003 and low rainfall
totals have led to rivers, reservoirs etc., running notably low - most
of us have seen this here in the south of England. We *do* need a lot of
rain.

In 1976, we grumbled and moaned at standpipes, non-availability of
hose-pipes, golf-courses not being watered etc.
In 2004, we have much more demand on water: the number of golf courses
alone must have increased remarkably; certainly the population has
increased:

The population of the UK (based on Office of National Statistics
figures):
1976: 56 mn.
2002: 59 mn.
(2003: probably 60 mn.)
Increase over this period (1976 - 2003) = 4 mn, or 7%.

We had a lot of earnest stuff in 1976 about how the 'future' was going
to be better: grandiose schemes about transferring water via canals
etc., and more efficient use of water in the home. I wonder if anything
has really changed?

Martin.

Interesting analysis Martin,

isnt another factor in the "water cycle" not so much the amount of rain, but
the type? Just because we had 101% of rainfall if it all falls in two days
rather than 200 then it runs off rather than filling the aquifers and water
table?

Are there any figures which show comparable amounts of rainfall based on
duration (have I got the right description there?)

Si

"simonk" wrote in message
...
snip
isnt another factor in the "water cycle" not so much the amount of
rain, but
the type? Just because we had 101% of rainfall if it all falls in two
days
rather than 200 then it runs off rather than filling the aquifers and
water
table?

Are there any figures which show comparable amounts of rainfall based
on
duration (have I got the right description there?)


.... you are quite right to focus on the intensity of rainfall - though
the November & December rainfall this time around was not excessively
concentrated, at least locally - and the problems of 'bursty' rainfall
has always been with us. My central point is that it is water management
as much as water falling out of the sky that is at the heart of the
problem.

Martin.

We had a lot of earnest stuff in 1976 about how the 'future' was going
to be better: grandiose schemes about transferring water via canals
etc., and more efficient use of water in the home. I wonder if anything
has really changed?

Martin.

In London, certainly, the London Ring Main was a grandiose and successful
scheme and has helped enabling mass transfer between water resources. Offset
to some extent by ageing pipework and ground movement leading to a losing
battle in the fight against leakage.

Dave.

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...

. My central point is that it is water management
as much as water falling out of the sky that is at the heart of the
problem.

Yes, one of those useless bits of information that I carry
around in my head is that one inch of rain over the UK is
the equivalent of 23,000 gallons per person - a gallon a
day for 63 years. There's plenty of water there.

Philip Eden

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...

"simonk" wrote in message
...
snip
isnt another factor in the "water cycle" not so much the amount of
rain, but
the type? Just because we had 101% of rainfall if it all falls in two
days
rather than 200 then it runs off rather than filling the aquifers and
water
table?

Are there any figures which show comparable amounts of rainfall based
on
duration (have I got the right description there?)


... you are quite right to focus on the intensity of rainfall - though
the November & December rainfall this time around was not excessively
concentrated, at least locally - and the problems of 'bursty' rainfall
has always been with us. My central point is that it is water management
as much as water falling out of the sky that is at the heart of the
problem.

Martin.

Another thing which just popped back into my head is that in certain areas
that were heavily industrialised, water tables are an awful lot higher as
the rate of abstraction has diminished with the loss of heavy industry

I could be wrong about that one, but I'm sure I read that in London, the
amount pumped out of the underground system because of rising water tables
has increased year on year for at least the last 10 or so

Si

In article ,
simonk writes:
Another thing which just popped back into my head is that in certain areas
that were heavily industrialised, water tables are an awful lot higher as
the rate of abstraction has diminished with the loss of heavy industry

I could be wrong about that one, but I'm sure I read that in London, the
amount pumped out of the underground system because of rising water tables
has increased year on year for at least the last 10 or so

Yes, I remember reading that too.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

wrote reminiscently:

... and will there be plenty to drink?
.....
two years preceding the famous drought of 1976).

That drought was truly spectacular, and those of us who lived through it
will remember it - though not fondly.
(see, for example ...
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~ta...76_weather.htm
and
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/booty.w.../1975_1999.htm
....

Martin.


Ah, 1976! I remember it well ....
There was one city in britain, at least, that didn't suffer a
shortage of water that year: Manchester. Returning home tired,
thirsty and hot at around four each afternoon, I used to run a hose
out into the garden and sprinkle the lawn and things, then sit in a
deckchair supping tea and with the hose trickling alongside me to
cool the ground!
Then inside to watch with pity and horror scenes on the TV news of
less fortunate folk in other cities carrying buckets to standpipes.
The explanation is, of course, that Manchester got its water from
the Lake District via huge pipes running alongside the A6.
--
Ian
change mocker to rocker to Reply by email

Hello and Happy New Year.

Martin's comparisons with 1975 and 1976 here are interesting. The hot
summer and drought of 1976 made an impression on me as child. After
such a dry 2003; and anticyclonic weather persisting into the New Year
(in Hampshire), I am worried about 2004 being a repeat of 1976.

I found 2003's settled weather very unsettling, especially with the
dry weather persisting into the autumn. We got away with the hot dry
summer because the wet winter of 2002 filled groundwater and
reservoirs. These need regular, moderate rainfall over the autumn and
winter to refill.

Everytime last year's weather looked like it just might become more
normal, (changeable weather with mainly westerly winds), it switched
back to anticyclonic / blocking weather, even in November.

I have gathered the following facts from the Environment Agency's
website and BBC Online news reports. They point to the drought being
due to a combination of low rainfall and ever increasing demand for
water in the UK:

1.Despite being commonly perceived to have a wet climate, England and
Wales actually have less water available per person than some
countries in Africa and the Middle East. (EA 19/11/03)

2. On average in 2002/03 each person in England and Wales used 155
litres per day. (EA 19/11/03)

3. In England and Wales, companies are predicting that household
demand for water will increase by about 15 per cent by 2030.

4. Water leaked in London alone is enough to supply five million
people with fresh water (EA 19/11/03).

5. Overall rainfall total for UK, Feb – October 2003 is the second
lowest in 74 years, only 1959 was worse. (EA 19/11/03).

6. There is increasing evidence that our climate is changing and this
could affect both the demand for water and its availability. It is
predicted that variability of rainfall will increase from year to
year, with both more dry years and more wet years.

Martin also mentioned ideas about moving water around the country. I
believe British Waterways were able to move water around the canal
network to prevent water shortages for boaters last summer. However,
the dry autumn was just too much. The Basingstoke Canal near Woking
was looking almost dry until December. It also looked as if someone
has pulled the plug on part of the Tardebigge flight on the Worcester
& Birmingham Canal near Bromsgrove month. As there was nothing to
indicate any work going on here, I assumed the drought was the culprit


Joan Lee.

"Nigel Morgan" wrote in message
...
On 5 Jan 2004 02:15:35 -0800, (Joan Lee) inspired by
Deep
Thought wrote:

Hello and Happy New Year.

Martin's comparisons with 1975 and 1976 here are interesting. The hot
summer and drought of 1976 made an impression on me as child. After
such a dry 2003; and anticyclonic weather persisting into the New Year
(in Hampshire), I am worried about 2004 being a repeat of 1976.

My concern is that it will be significantly worse! Not because of
increased
water usage or lack of rainfall (the statistics above prove that we're in
a
slightly better position now than in 1976), but because there is one big
difference between 1976 and now: in 1976 the water industry was
nationalised and
as a result the prime directive was to supply a decent service to the
(paying)
customer. And as a result we had a decent supply and distribution system.

actually in this area Nationalisation was a nightmare because it just meant
that they could continue to use old polluting methods, tipping untreated
sewage into the sea etc. It was only when it was privatised and private
companies chased by the Environment Agency that things started to improve

Jim Webster