If a reporter said to me that the pipe was on (and the source was from a bore hole), I'd have replied with a: 'So what, it is from a bore-hole, now get of my land or I'll release the hounds on you peasant journalist you!"

It depends, but probably not. Aquifers are really big, like many tens of miles across, but the water in them is not terribly mobile, so drawing down the water table in one location doesn't greatly influence the water table in other locations (though it depends on what kind of ground it is) unless you're creating a really big gradient by pumping out millions of gallons. Mostly the ground water is just moving down the water table gradient until it emerges in a stream, and that journey can take many years (I know rivers rise when it rains, but that actual water might have fallen ten years ago and was effectively squeezed out of the aquifer by the weight of the rain joining the queue in the uplands) so to some degree if you don't use the ground water it isn't saved for someone else to use, it just flows out to sea.

Just heard that the drought / ban may go on until Christmas.


No Ho-Ho-Hose this year then.

In his comments on the 'story', Mr B had said he banned the use of hosepipes on the estate (even though there is a borehole) because he recognised the source was the same aquifer (the newspaper quoted aqueduct, but I suspect that is a typo.....)

I post rubbish.
ce

Although apparently it's the "wrong sort"

Although apparently it's the "wrong sort"