Raw sewage dumped into the sea increases by 2,500% since 2016

[papa smurf]

I never ague with an expert who's talking shyte

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

Yeah … that excuse really doesn’t hold water (geddit). Public sewage systems have been a thing in this country for 175 years. The engineering is well understood, including the design and maintenance of adequate storm water storage. If there isn’t adequate volume in the system to cope then that’s a failure to invest in a well understood and entirely predictable part of the system we’re paying for through our water/sewage bills.

Alledgedly that's supposed to be underway.

[1andrew1]

Who's up to her neck in the proverbial? Liz Truss

The Tory leadership frontrunner, Liz Truss, was responsible for cutting millions of pounds of funding earmarked for tackling water pollution during her time as environment secretary, the Guardian can reveal.

Truss, who was in charge at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) between 2014 and 2016, oversaw “efficiency” plans set out in the 2015 spending review to reduce Environment Agency funding by £235m.

This included a £24m cut from a government grant for environmental protection, including surveillance of water companies to prevent the dumping of raw sewage, between 2014-15 and 2016-17, according to the National Audit Office.

It represents almost a quarter of the funding cut from this area between 2010, when the grant stood at £120m, and 2020, by which time it had fallen to £40m.

Labour analysis of official figures shows that since 2016 raw sewage discharge in England and Wales has more than doubled, from 14.7 spill events per overflow to 29.3 in 2021. Greenpeace said the figures showed Truss had “sewage on her hands”.

The Environment Agency has called for the government to reverse the cuts but campaigners want the next prime minister to go further and also give the body the power to properly monitor water companies over sewage, rather than allowing them to self-report discharges.

It follows the finding that 24% of sewage overflow pipes at popular seaside resorts in England and Wales have monitors that are faulty or do not have monitors at all, meaning people could be swimming in human waste this summer without realising.

Last year the head of the Environment Agency, James Bevan, called on the government to reinstate the funds, saying that given the length of the country’s river systems, having “only a few hundred people to oversee them is a pretty tall ask”.

He told MPs: “It has had an effect on our capacity to monitor, to enforce the rules and to help improve the environment where we think it needs doing. Honestly, I would like to see that grant restored. I would like to get back to where we were 10 years ago, and I think it would make a massive difference.”

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...da9fb434286c7c

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62633559

The Downing Street spokesperson said since the industry was privatised in 1989, the equivalent of £5bn had been invested to upgrade water infrastructure.

In the same time period, water companies have paid out £72 billion in shareholder dividends., mostly paid for by debt.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...lt-leaks-fixed

[tweetiepooh]

Would help if we stopped building more houses which leave less land to soak up rain. Or people buying houses on flood plains/springs and then wanting help when they are flooded. Flood plains are meant to flood, the hint is in the name.


Also does 2,500% really mean anything in isolation? If initial levels are very low it doesn't take much increase for really high percentages.


None of this abrogates those responsible from properly doing their duty.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Who's up to her neck in the proverbial? Liz Truss

Ideology over ecology, mind you her ideals don't seem to get a look in when there's an opportunity to be grasped

[nomadking]

So is it being dumped just because they feel like it, or is it because there isn't enough water available to process it?

Originally Posted by nomadking

So is it being dumped just because they feel like it, or is it because there isn't enough water available to process it?

Or is it they haven’t built the appropriate infrastructure, storage, and processing plants to deal with it?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or is it they haven’t built the appropriate infrastructure, storage, and processing plants to deal with it?

You still need water to process it. People complain enough about bills, so how likely is they would pay more for those things to happen?

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You still need water to process it. People complain enough about bills, so how likely is they would pay more for those things to happen?

How about the shareholders cough up?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

How about the shareholders cough up?

Wash your mouth out with seawater!

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

You still need water to process it. People complain enough about bills, so how likely is they would pay more for those things to happen?

Maybe the privatised companies could have take it out of the £1.6 billion in dividends they pay out every year.

Water should never have been privatised, it'll be the air we breathe next.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe the privatised companies could have take it out of the £1.6 billion in dividends they pay out every year.

Water should never have been privatised, it'll be the air we breathe next.

Ofwat controls what profits they can make, and the prices they can charge.

Water and sewerage companies implement large-scale investment programmes to maintain their assets and meet their legal environmental and quality obligations. But the companies do not collect from customers all of the money they invest in the year in which they spend it.
So, companies must fund a large proportion of this investment from the competitive financial markets, either through borrowing (debt) or through investment from shareholders (equity).
Just as mortgage providers for homeowners expect a return on the finance (or capital) they lend, water companies must provide a reasonable return to providers of capital. This means that they must make a profit to reward their investors.
...
Do Ofwat control dividends?
We have no formal powers to control dividends. But each company’s licence requires it to declare or pay dividends only in accordance with a dividend policy which has been approved by its Board and which complies with both of the following principles.

• The dividends declared or paid will not impair the ability of the company to finance the regulated water and sewerage business.
• Under a system of incentive regulation, dividends reward efficiency and the management of economic risk.

How does it compare to other major European countries?

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Ofwat controls what profits they can make, and the prices they can charge.
How does it compare to other major European countries?

Maybe OFWAT, like OFGEM, isn't fit for purpose either.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Maybe OFWAT, like OFGEM, isn't fit for purpose either.

Without either of them prices would be HIGHER.