That's hilarious - almost the same reply I got!
One thing is for sure, we can't rely on the political system to do anything about it.
I wholeheartedly share....
...blah blah blah, bullshit bullshit bullshit, blah blah blah
.... clean and healthy waterways.
Despicable, two-faced shitwagons, the lot of them.
I just wanted to reply specifically to a point near the start of this thread regarding chemical supply issues and current discharge quality dispensations. As others have suggested this should not be used as a smoke screen for the long established pollution issues. Specifically that Ferric Sulphate is only used to address phosphorus discharges in sewage treatment and has nothing to do with the storm discharges.
Please don't anyone be fooled that Brexit has anything to do with the sorry state of our sewage treatment infrastructure.
Average water bill around £390, dividend payout around £85 per household!
I am glad that this issue has risen to the top of the agenda but there is a colossal amount of misinformation circulating on social media about this.
It is not a new problem. It has been happening for years and indeed in many places the number of storm spills has reduced significantly in recent years.
People are more interested now due to the fact that the Water companies are now measuring and publishing the number duration of spills, the environmental/angling orgs are using the data and upping the pressure, there is a rise in ‘wild swimming’ and other pollution issues (eg agriculture) are increasingly impacting on water quality and so making water quality problems more obvious.
Eliminating storm spills will be very difficult and costly. Resources for improvements have been always prioritised where the problem is greatest and where there are ‘drivers’ for improvement such as failing bathing waters or water bodies that are doing very badly in terms of the water framework directive. Many overflows have yet to be prioritised and continue spilling excessively.
It is important to remember that the legislation only pushes for improvements in terms of the microbiological (health related) quality in places where there are designated bathing waters. That means that you could have a river which meets all the current (and fairly stringent) environmental criteria but would still represent a risk if you were to swim in it during storm conditions. In other words, it is in good ecological condition but would not meet the bathing water standards.
The main reason for the number of storm spills is the amount of storm water and infiltration that enters the sewer. Reducing the volume of storm water in the sewer means significant re-engineering of the sewer system. This would take years and £billions
One of the issues is that the water companies are constrained in what they can spend by OFWAT. Money for improvements comes from water bills and the amount they can charge for water is capped by the regulator and watched closely by the consumer council for water.
In many cases that excess water originates from our houses and our private drains so we all have a part to play.
I hope this whole kerfuffle means that more cash is released to reduce storm spills, that the regulators get more staff to do what is a very difficult and complex regulatory task.
Yes the issue of privatisation is also relevant as are shareholder dividends and exec salaries. I would nationalise the English water companies or make them do the same as Dwr Cymru Welsh Water…. But the situation in Scotland, as far as I understand, is no better. They need more cash too.
Re. The response from the tories- why would it be government spending to upgrade the assets of a private company?
Huh, Manchester is apparently the biggest shit show in England and Wales
I'm an ex-Civil Engineer. I spent most of my career working in water and sewerage (yes sometimes literally). I did a spell with Manchester City Council before privatisation and a great deal of effort and money was being spent on replacement of Victorian sewerage infrastructure, including the removal or reconstruction of inadequate storm overflows (which unfortunately have to exist as not all the flow can be passed to Davyhulme sewage treatment works in times of storm). Bear in mind that large storm events are getting more intense and more regular.
The "rules" put in place to enable privatisation to take place allowed the new water companies to limit repairs in order to avoid increased bills to consumers, whilst ensuring good returns to shareholders. In my view privatisation should not have happened.
Apparantly it will cost $600bn to update all the victorian sewers to prevent this – surely there must be an easier way..
Not really. Oh and the chemicals bit is nonsense. Storm overflow discharges to rivers are not treated anyway.
The main reason for the number of storm spills is the amount of storm water and infiltration that enters the sewer. Reducing the volume of storm water in the sewer means significant re-engineering of the sewer system. This would take years and £billions
Or rather, some decent and affordable catchment management, including re-wetting uplands and revegetating or reforesting slopes (both to increase absorbtion capacity and slow the release after significant rainfall) which 1) doesn't need to cost that much (passive restoration), 2) has huge carbon benefits (both reducing the emission of dried soil and active sequestration in new vegetation) 3) biodiversity benefits (more good and complex habitats), 4) more social benefits (more varied landscapes, rewilding creates jobs).
@fenlander is right to some extent, catchment management would help a great deal. However there is the issue of ever increasing impermeable areas, hardstandings, roads, etc. and as I mentioned above storm intensities are increasing and becoming more regular. Semi permeable pavings and catchment tanks high up in catchments do help but at the end of the day there is a capacity problem.
Yes we need to change how we manage catchments for a whole range of reasons. But improved catchments will not solve the problem of high flows in foul sewers. Of more relevance would be an increase in the use sustainable urban drainage systems and the water companies know this. But whatever you do you will have to reengineer the sewers, eliminating storm, surface and groundwater inputs and dealing with the storm water separately; using SUDS where possible
all this talk of 'storm' conditions. take a look at that map from the rivers trust.
this is happening routinely, not just under storm conditions. take a look at your local area, I'll bet fairly quickly you can find a CSO that discharged for 1000's of hours in 2020.
were there 1000's of hours of storm conditions in 2020? (note there are only 8760hrs in a year)
Is my river fit to play in? (arcgis.com)
THis person seems to suggest there's 7 lines to the amendment
https://twitter.com/tonys2009/status/1452463105972310016
£57 Bn in dividend payments to shareholders, but is there anyway of finding out how much the water companies have donated to the Tory party and individual politicians?
Why else would the Conservatives unanimously vote for a watering down of the regulations when some of their constituencies are so adversely effected.
Who mentioned compensation?
Nationalising without compensation to shareholders will mean a massive court action the government will lose
The answer is to stop the the blind eye the regulators have on the deterioration of asset condition, the poor decisions by directors, and to do a thorough audit of is claimed to work and demand it does or write off the value. That way they either invest or hand back the keys for free or even a cost.
Water companies have assets that will never operate again but won't write them off as the regulatory accounting model punishes them for it. WTAF.
There are systematic issues, water supply; drought assets that essentially don't work without six months of refurb as parts have been scavenged or left to rot, sewage treatment; where degritting doesn't work so gets carried forward to the sludge and then to the anaerobic digester which it builds up in reducing treatment capacity and reduces biogas output etc etc
And we have the completely unjoined up bit. Why are we investing millions in phosphate removal instead of removing the main source, phosphate in detergents?
But whatever you do you will have to reengineer the sewers, eliminating storm, surface and groundwater inputs and dealing with the storm water separately; using SUDS where possible
This, note that a lot of storm run off isn't a water company responsibility, highway's, land drainage etc are outside their remit.
A lot of issues are due to the lack of investment in keeping surface water out and the fateful decision to create/allow combined sewers. One thing people don't understand is that premises are never disconnected from the sewer even when demolished, yet another bonkers bit of the water industry
The fines (Southern water £90m ) are paid by the bill payer anyway. The shareholders might not get quite as much but it will still be huge divvys.
New builds, new roads, more housing , more people all add load to an overloaded infrastructure
No thought/ investement is put in sewerage when a new estate is built . Just wang in a 500mm sewer pipe to the existing. Councils get millions more council tax to spend on oaps , care , pensions etc. We get to swim in macerated shite.
Huge break tanks or ponds are needed , filled with bullrushes , as they help to clean the water and slow the load onto the sewer plants
The directors need to be brought to account. With personal fines, and community based punishments . I would love to see directors on £200kpa walking the beach in a high viz picking up syringes , tampons , cotton buds, wet wipes etc. Wont happen but that is what needs to happen.
Otherwise this will simply continue. The video I linked to at Budds Farm is typical , The problem there is land. but a 1million ltr retention pool could very easily be constructed in the harbour using concrete poured into shuttering to create a bund . And it wouldnt cost 65billion ££. Then on rainy days this could be used as a brink to hold back the rain water and poo till the plant has a chance to catch up. Cost? dunno £600K for some Steel piles and a pumped concrete ,plus pile driver hire
Singletrackmind I think you are wrong in your criticism of new build developments. Nowadays Surface Water run off rates are restricted to the sites existing run off rates or better through the use of on site surface water storage and hydorbrakes. Also the surface water discharge is not allowed to mix with the Foul water.
Where there is insufficient existing foul capacity developers pay the Water Companies to upgrade sewers and sewage treatment plants or again store on site with controlled release at times of lower discharge rates (in the middle of the night)
This, note that a lot of storm run off isn’t a water company responsibility, highway’s, land drainage etc are outside their remit.
It's always someone else's problem. Which why it's ultimately down to the government, either through all encompassing and enforced regulation and/or direct public control/ownership.
Meanwhile, let's get building more houses to add to them....
COP26 when we don't even have the 'basics' sorted....
What a shambles of a country...
Nationalising without compensation to shareholders will mean a massive court action the government will lose
No one mentioned anything about compensation or what it should be
However what was mentioned though was "the shareholders will be laughing all the way to the bank", by you BnD.
If a failed industry is taken public ownership because it is unable to fulfill such a basic human requirement as the disposal of urine and faecal waste in a safe and environmentally acceptable manner, then there is absolutely no way whatsoever that its shareholders should be laughing all the way to the bank.
I know that we now live in a society where failure, massive failure, is very generously rewarded, but there is absolutely no reason why this should be simply accepted.
Fair compensation is one thing, laughing all the way to the bank is another thing. If laws need to be changed to guarantee that the will of the electorate is respected then so be it.
Privatisating profit whilst nationalising loss is not acceptable. Money-grubbing shareholders need to do their research if they don't want to catch a cold, instead of relying on the nanny state to protect them.
Are .Gov /Torry donors majority share holders in these Water Companies?
It's just as likely to be the Ontario teachers pension fund.
https://www.benefitscanada.com/news/bencan/teachers-scolded-for-private-water-investments/
Edit : In the case of serial polluter Southern Water it appears to be an Australian bank.
https://www.gmb.org.uk/news/private-ownership-not-answer-clean-southern-water
The bill is being changed.
Partially.....
My understanding is that OFWAT caps the bills for us which should not stop the water companies from borrowing money to upgrade the facilities. It's SOP in some businesses to load on the debt whilst hollowing out the balance sheet. Have we found an industry that doesn't think this is a good idea?
The fines (Southern water £90m ) are paid by the bill payer anyway.
That £90m fine Southern Water had to pay had to come from their operating profit.
The environment minister Rebecca Pow said the case was shocking. “This fine, the largest ever imposed on a water company, is absolutely appropriate and welcomed. It will rightly be paid solely from the company’s operating profits, rather than customer bills.”
And none said
Brexit means brexshit
Given the water companies are to a large extent debt funded these days (IIRC) then nationalisation should be cheap. It’s just we’d have to take in the debts.
Sounds like the government have partially backtracked but the lords have re-inserted the whole amendment so will be interesting to see what happens. I think commons vote on Thursday.
No thought/ investment is put in sewerage when a new estate is built .
As stated above there is. Water companies often object at the planning stage, place constraints etc.
The bill is being changed.
It shouldn't need changing if current legislation was enforced, the hollowing out of the EA coupled with their organisational culture has led to the current position. The EA official who pushed until SW were prosecuted should get a knighthood and promotion to lead a national unit looking for the same issues elsewhere.
For those claiming nationalising is the panacea I suggest a swim in the sea off Ayr
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ayrshire/ayr-bathing-water-no-concern-24440051
I bet that SEPA (if they are able to after the hack) are going to rate it "good" this year and then there will be four more years of "poor" otherwise it's closed in 2022.
Even the bathing water season is shorter in Scotland "The official bathing water season in Scotland ran from 1st June to 15 September. The 2021 season is now closed."
For those claiming nationalising is the panacea......
I have yet to see anyone make that case.
All nationalised industries are wracked with problems, just look at the NHS.
What definitely isn't a panacea is privatisation. The irreconcilability of the conflicting interests of shareholders and consumers and the environment, with regards to the water industry, guarantees that.
Some good news - it may be possible to sort out the worst of the problems for a relatively small amount of money - link
The Angling Trust said the report cites a range of lower-cost options for progressively dealing with the worst and most damaging sewage discharges ranging from £3.9bn to £62.7bn, with an impact on average water bills of between £19 and £58 a year.
The EA official who pushed until SW were prosecuted should get a knighthood and promotion to lead a national unit looking for the same issues elsewhere.
Not sure on the knighthood but the 2nd part has sort of happened.
Not everyone will be pleased by the government's apparent u-turn on this issue.
[img] 
[/img]
What definitely isn’t a panacea is privatisation. The irreconcilability of the conflicting interests of shareholders and consumers and the environment, with regards to the water industry, guarantees that.
We have a mixed model in the UK, Scotland and NI are public sector, DCWW are a hybrid, rest are either FTSE or privately owned.
What hasn't been happening is effective regulation by OFWAT, it's soft policies have allowed deterioration of assets and "phantom" assets to continue to be claimed on the RAV. This allows WICS to be soft on Scottish Water because the comparator is so poor.
What no-one seems to want to say is that the industry has been allowing itself to put a veneer of shininess over a deteriorating asset base. Every year in all water companies the average age of the water and sewer network goes up. Every year.
Add in environmental regulation where they don't take routine samples at weekends and you get pumps and dosing rigs turned off to save opex. Etc etc
I don’t know how Welsh Water fare with regards to dumping raw sewerage though.
It isnt great. There was a bit of a controversy recently when turds and paper were seen floating down the Dee at Llangollen. It turned out it wasnt campers, who were the first target group, but the houses that line the river. Some of them have never been connected to the public sewer supply, so their waste water goes straight into the river.
Yep, 2021, and that still happens.
Apparently, there are many more 1000's of places that do not have sewer access all over Wales, but that doesnt always meanthey all do a river discharge, they could have their own septic tank etc.
The bigger issue in South Wales is the Wye, with farming discharge and run off slowly suffocating the river. Its chemical analysis this year has been the worst for 60+ years, whereas most rivers are a lot cleaner than even 20 years ago.
There was a bit of a controversy recently when turds and paper were seen floating down the Dee at Llangollen. It turned out it wasnt campers, who were the first target group, but the houses that line the river. Some of them have never been connected to the public sewer supply, so their waste water goes straight into the river.
Direct discharges to a water course are illegal. They usually occur as a result of a misconnection. When these are discovered they are usually sorted out with advice/notices/enforcement from the council and/or regulator or by the water company if their surface water sewer is involved. More info here: http://www.connectright.org.uk/
Oh, here’s a thing…
Have they even said where that ridiculous number came from? It seems pretty obviously just chosen to seem big (and no coincidence that it's usefully bigger than the figures for privatized profits). I mean, if your estimate has a range of half a trillion pounds it's obviously a worthless estimate in the first place but I'm more assuming that it's made up.
The upper estimate was the cost envisaged to replace the entire sewerage network from scratch and at the same time completely separate rainwater and sewage networks. This was literally all of it whether it needed doign or not. There's a report the government have been sitting on that lays it out and specifically recommends that the nuclear option is not needed and a scheme costing about £6/household/month would be just as effective.
This is nothing new TBH and is small scale compared to what used to happen prior to the 90s.
The urban waste water directive really made a difference and it needed to because it was bloody horrendous.
Enforcement is now the problem.
I don’t know how Welsh Water fare with regards to dumping raw sewerage though.
Post heavy rain raw sewage contamination along the coast is not uncommon in Scotland. To the point where the advice is heavy rain means stay out of the water. Theres a couple of rivers nearby that always stink of sewage after heavy rain.
I've certainly seen enough "stuff" (whilst in a boat) after heavy rain to take a hard pass on being in the water. I dont know if it's better or worse than Wales/England/N Ireland.
Direct discharges to a water course are illegal.
There has been little action on this, plenty of them into SAC's in the lakes
