Tories allowing water companies to dump shit in rivers

[flashbac]

What is going on here? The Tories voted AGAINST restrictions on water companies dumping shit in rivers.
We are no longer protected by EU law on this so it's really bad for us and the environment. Remember water companies are private for-profit entities. Its cheaper to discharge raw sewage than to treat it properly.

Have any water companies actually implemented the derogation for reduced chemical usage?
CSO discharges have been happening for years, and the gov & water companies work on multi year funding & investment cycles, discussing what improvements will happen where & when, which system will get multi million pound investment, how much that is allowed to add to our bills.
In the meantime, new housing that goes up can just plug into the existing overloaded sewer network without the water company having a say, nor with the local planning authority enforcing SUDS, rainwater harvesting etc.
Yes its a disgrace but its a hideously complicated disgrace years in the making that no amount of petitions or votes will fix.

@babblingbumblingbandofbaboons

Just to show the other side of this argument - sewer overflows are often a necessary and regulated part of a combined sewer network. The reality is that the majority of the Victorian infrastructure all companies have to run is a combined network, meaning sewage and road drainage, surface water, roof drainage etc flow through the one pipe to treatment. This has a number of disadvantages, the main two being that a lot of clean water is taken to treatment and where the system gets overwhelmed in times of heavy rain, the overflows legally operate and discharge dilute but yes, untreated, sewage.

The rain can’t be controlled, and building bigger pipes only takes you so far. Imagine a tank being filled up, eventually there will be a storm that beats that tank and makes it overflow. The only way to remove overflows completely is to separate foul sewage and surface water, meaning that all your waste water goes in one pipe, and all the surface water, road and roof drainage goes into another. This already happens in new developments and has been happening for decades, but the reality of replacing all current sewers with this is hundreds of billions of pounds of investment, not to mention never ending roadworks and construction, rising bills and in some very congested cities a total inability to do so as the underground pipe and utility network is already majorly congested. Without overflows in networks like this, that discharge can end up in people’s homes and gardens.

There are of course situations where overflows operate when they shouldn’t - due to blockages, bad practice, lack of maintenance. I’d much rather see legislation to help with that side of things - putting more responsibility on companies (and customers!) to protect the environment. I’m not for a second saying that overflows are a good thing - in an ideal world we wouldn’t need them. But we are so very very far from that ideal it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

This all sounds very reasonable (if we ignore the huge profits water companies make that should have been pumped back into improving infrastructure) but why has there been an increase in sewage discharge since Brexit?

*I think I can help, here, with a little explainer. Sewage has become a powerful symbol of a number of things at once. First, all those Brexit promises – that nothing would change, except to improve; that our environmental protections without the EU would be, if anything, better. The boot is on the other foot in this rift that won’t heal – it used to be remainers making detailed, boring, practical arguments, while Brexiters sang their full-throated freedom shanties. Now, it’s leavers trying to make the case for complexity – “We think you’ll find this is actually about heavy rainfall and Victorian sewerage” – while remainers are making the simple, emotional case: “Things used to be better and now they’re shit.”

...the downsides of privatisation are often palpable but opaque, hard to prove and speculative. Not in this case. Water companies pump out raw sewage because they can’t afford the infrastructure improvements it would take not to do so; they have also paid out £57bn in dividends over the past 30 years.*

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/26/what-does-a-stream-of-raw-sewage-symbolise-broken-brexit-promises-for-one

This has been going on for years. Nothing has been done with rivers because they are not designated as bathing waters. That is starting to change as Surfers against Sewage map & people swim outdoors more inland.

Scotland still has nationalised water, Wales is not-for-profit & both still have problems. But having dealt with Thames Water recently, yep, some better oversight is required.

Of course, to wash down all the shit sandwiches they’ve been feeding us.

@flashbac privatisation in England (as a previous poster mentioned, the system in Scotland, Wales and NI is different) undoubtedly brought profit into the equation.£57 billion in dividends over 30 years would arguably still leave a deficit of hundreds of billions in the fight to deal with the infrastructure I outlined above. In the same timeframe around £150 billion has been spent by those same companies improving infrastructure and the problem still exists. As a previous poster noted, investment is also determined by regulators, who discuss with govt and water companies what investment is required, where and by when, set priorities and limits to what can be added to bills etc. It’s a very very complex picture. Again, I am not for a second suggesting that overflows can’t and shouldn’t be managed better, just providing some context.

Have any water companies actually implemented the derogation for reduced chemical usage?

No. Not according to the Government's answer on Newsnight last night - no companies had applied for a waiver on chemical usage.

rrhuth
You got the briefing note from Tory HQ

She probably read the link in the op's second post. Perhaps you didn't bother?

@Tempusfudgeit

This particular amendment hadn't been costed, and was likely to run into many millions/billions. You can't upgrade Victorian sewage systems overnight, nor compel people to pay double/triple water rates to cover the upgrades. Sorry if that rains on anyone's 'Tories are scum' parade. Nuance, anyone?

The nuance is that the Tories privatised water companies on the basis that they were not investing in maintenance and upgrade of the water sewage systems way back in the days of thatcher.

And that the fabulous private sector would sort this out.

When were water companies privatised? How many decades ago?

The nuance you’ve missed is that previously, the publicly owned companies were restricted by the government in being able to raise funds to invest. So it paved the way for privatisation.

It’s a common trick.

So the Tories have fucked up massively and are fucking up again. Privatisation does not avoid the costs - we always have to pay either as taxpayers or water rate payers. It’s unavoidable!

And they say the Tories are the strong ones on the economy. They’re idiots.

This will come back to bite us and we will have to pick up the bill eventually.

The longer this is left, the more it will cost. They could raise funds through borrowing and some upfront now and spread the cost. But doing nothing will be more expensive in the end.

Iggly
But doing nothing will be more expensive in the end.

They are not doing 'nothing':

Defra response to Environment Bill storm overflows amendment coverage.

deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/25/defra-response-to-environment-bill-storm-overflows-amendment-coverage/

They could raise funds through borrowing and some upfront now and spread the cost.

Tony Blair not keen to borrow the money then?

www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/blair-to-cut-water-cleanup-plan-a1146811.html

Blair didn't go ahead with the cuts but I thought Labour were in government for 13 years - why didn't they dig up the Victorian sewerage system?

15 years later - 2019:
Commenting on the inclusion of water nationalisation in the Labour Party’s election manifesto, Water UK Chief Executive Michael Roberts said:

“It’s incredible that Labour haven’t even bothered to set out a price for nationalisation. You can’t take over a major industry for free – one way or another, taxpayers and pensioners will have to fund the eyewatering, multi-billion pound cost.

www.water.org.uk/news-item/bad-for-the-environment-bad-for-customers-and-bad-for-the-economy-water-uk-chief-executive-michael-roberts-on-labours-manifesto-nationalisation-pledge/

How will Starmer raise the money?

Labour activists and left-wing MPs accused Starmer of breaking his own promises after he pledged during last year’s leadership campaign to “support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water”.

Diane Abbott, shadow home secretary under Corbyn, said: “Campaigning for the leadership, Keir Starmer said he was in favour of common ownership. It was one of his ten pledges.”

Owen Jones accused Starmer of “saying things to get elected he doesn’t really mean”, adding: “He’s violated the explicit promises he made to get elected leader. This is dishonesty – and it destroys faith in democracy”.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-labour-nationalisation-energy-companies-b1927267.html

@Tempusfudgeit

This particular amendment hadn't been costed, and was likely to run into many millions/billions. You can't upgrade Victorian sewage systems overnight, nor compel people to pay double/triple water rates to cover the upgrades. Sorry if that rains on anyone's 'Tories are scum' parade. Nuance, anyone?

This. I've never voted Tory in my life, I'm a card carrying member of the Labour Party, but OP is being, at best, ingenuous about this, and at worst, outright lying.

The amendment being voted on was to block ANY sewage going into rivers, which would automatically mean sewage flooding back into the homes of those closest to the river.

Yes, it is utterly shit that successive Labour and Tory governments have done fuck-all to upgrade the nation's Victorian sewer system, despite being repeatedly warned of the consequences, but it's a long-term failing - all major parties are to blame for their short-termism.

@MrsColon no that's wrong. The amendment would have made it illegal for any shit to be dumped into the river, meaning any company doing so could be prosecuted /fined.

In the short term this is exactly what would happen. Of course the shit wasn't going to be backflowed into people's homes, the system doesnt work like that. But it would have been a hell of an incentive for the companies to tackle the issue rather than to carrying on ignoring it and kicking the can down the road yet again.

Have they just started doing it?

[quote Clavinova]Iggly
But doing nothing will be more expensive in the end.

They are not doing 'nothing':

Defra response to Environment Bill storm overflows amendment coverage.

deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/25/defra-response-to-environment-bill-storm-overflows-amendment-coverage/

They could raise funds through borrowing and some upfront now and spread the cost.

Tony Blair not keen to borrow the money then?

www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/blair-to-cut-water-cleanup-plan-a1146811.html

Blair didn't go ahead with the cuts but I thought Labour were in government for 13 years - why didn't they dig up the Victorian sewerage system?

15 years later - 2019:
Commenting on the inclusion of water nationalisation in the Labour Party’s election manifesto, Water UK Chief Executive Michael Roberts said:

“It’s incredible that Labour haven’t even bothered to set out a price for nationalisation. You can’t take over a major industry for free – one way or another, taxpayers and pensioners will have to fund the eyewatering, multi-billion pound cost.

www.water.org.uk/news-item/bad-for-the-environment-bad-for-customers-and-bad-for-the-economy-water-uk-chief-executive-michael-roberts-on-labours-manifesto-nationalisation-pledge/

How will Starmer raise the money?

Labour activists and left-wing MPs accused Starmer of breaking his own promises after he pledged during last year’s leadership campaign to “support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water”.

Diane Abbott, shadow home secretary under Corbyn, said: “Campaigning for the leadership, Keir Starmer said he was in favour of common ownership. It was one of his ten pledges.”

Owen Jones accused Starmer of “saying things to get elected he doesn’t really mean”, adding: “He’s violated the explicit promises he made to get elected leader. This is dishonesty – and it destroys faith in democracy”.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-labour-nationalisation-energy-companies-b1927267.html[/quote]
Why are you trying to deflect this on to Labour?

The Tories brought in privatisation as a
Magic golden unicorn.

They need to own this problem instead of trying to palm it off as “too complex”.

And the Tories are the ones in power now.

We need sustainable long term solutions, not short term approaches which ultimately seek to protect the profits of the water companies.

@mumda

Have they just started doing it?

No its been going on for years and years. Things improved when the Water Framework Directive came out of Europe and we had to comply but the problem was never eradicated.

Is anyone surprised?? Surely this is just what Tories are all about. Private profit over everything and minimal public spending to clean up the mess.

I'm disgusted with our MP for voting to do this! Why would they? Are they getting some financial incentive?

My area has got a lot of shit being pumped into the river and honestly, I can smell it! (I know it’s mucking season but I’m used to that)

Surely this will contribute to all sorts of nasty diseases, especially with the trend for open water swimming

@flashbac has there been an increase in unlawful discharge hours since Brexit? Compared to the last few decades? Independent of changes in rainfall?

Infrastructure upgrades are gradually being delivered, in line with funding & price setting cycles. It IS too slow, but this vote wouldn't change the fundamental broken system of privatised companies, lack of enforcement and out-dated underground infrastructure.
I live in an area with combined sewers. When the periods of very intense rainfall combine with high tides so the CSOs aren't as effective, the sewage surcharges into my garden and some neighbours houses. It can't just magically disappear.

Nice to see CutAndPasteANova earning their fee from CCHQ on subjects other than Brexit.

Not to mention how dangerous it is for people who eat the filter shellfish along our coastline

Whitstables main industry is their oyster shores. There’s so many reports joe of people getting seriously ill after eating them that’s been linked to sewage

has there been an increase in unlawful discharge hours since Brexit?
I think we only have data from 2020 - we were still following EU rules in 2020.

The Environment Agency has increased the number of storm overflows it monitors;

In 2020, monitoring was placed on 12,092 storm overflows, compared with 8,276 in 2019, a 46% increase. The EA said average spill numbers remained similar to last year.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/31/water-firms-discharged-raw-sewage-into-english-waters-400000-times-last-year

Of course the sh.t wasn't going to be backflowed into people's homes, the system doesn't work like that. But it would have been a hell of an incentive for the companies to tackle the issue rather than to carrying on ignoring it and kicking the can down the road yet again.

Wessex Water -
Storm overflows are used during heavy rainstorms to protect properties from flooding and to prevent sewage from overflowing into streets and homes.

They are part of an older type of sewer system called a combined sewer system.

www.wessexwater.co.uk/services/sewerage/storm-overflows

Southern Water were fined £90 million in July 2021 - for historic breaches 2010-2015;

The case, which is the largest criminal investigation in the Environment Agency’s 25-year history...

www.gov.uk/government/news/record-90m-fine-for-southern-water-following-ea-prosecution

DGRossetti
Nice to see CutAndPasteANova earning their fee from CCHQ on subjects other than Brexit.

I don't have an "earning fee" or instructions from CCHQ. Not everyone on Mumsnet is a remain voting Labour supporter like you.