Not a single prosecution or fine since privatisation, yet we're expected to think that a new threat of it will make a difference...well, will it...hmm
LINKY POO™ https://news.sky.com/story/public-failed-by-water-regulators-and-government-as-bills-rise-spending-watchdog-says-13354889
LINKY POO™ https://news.sky.com/story/public-failed-by-water-regulators-and-government-as-bills-rise-spending-watchdog-says-13354889
Take a gander at this lot:
https://takebackwater.uk/
I fully agree, water is a right and a necessity, not, as new WEF Bond villain and ex Nestle CEO famously stated peoples 'right' to clean water is "extreme".
https://takebackwater.uk/
I fully agree, water is a right and a necessity, not, as new WEF Bond villain and ex Nestle CEO famously stated peoples 'right' to clean water is "extreme".
It's about bloomin time!
It's absolutely disgusting what they've gotten away with for so long.
It's absolutely disgusting what they've gotten away with for so long.
In reply to Post #1
Unfortunately there is next to no hope of significant improvement for the foreseeable future, and highly unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted. Despite the water companies being privately owned, ultimately it is governmental failure that has led to this situation, including the regulators. Water has been heavily undervalued in financial terms since privatisation, i.e. it's been way too cheap, subsequently the cost of replacement of fundamental infrastructure is prohibitive, and allied to the lack of space available for increasing capacity at the treatment works in major cities points to a no win situation.
Unfortunately there is next to no hope of significant improvement for the foreseeable future, and highly unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted. Despite the water companies being privately owned, ultimately it is governmental failure that has led to this situation, including the regulators. Water has been heavily undervalued in financial terms since privatisation, i.e. it's been way too cheap, subsequently the cost of replacement of fundamental infrastructure is prohibitive, and allied to the lack of space available for increasing capacity at the treatment works in major cities points to a no win situation.
Good start though.
We were literally just accepting it. Typical British.
Now there's a chance we can start to change things.
We were literally just accepting it. Typical British.
Now there's a chance we can start to change things.
In reply to Post #4
Add to this that housing developments normally don't contribute towards upgrading the capacity of treatment works or off site infrastructure, leaving it all on the water company to fund. It's no wonder the systems can't cope.
It really surprises me that the full picture isn't portrayed. The water companies will have a rough figure on the costs and timescales to fix the problem. It'll be near 100yrs no doubt. Not to mention the numbers of workers required to do the work which doesn't exist, and inconvenience of digging up roads, gardens, etc to get to pipework.
This isn't to say there hasn't been underinvestment for years but there is no magic click your fingers and it's fixed solution. No matter how much anyone will tell you there is. A fine or prosecution doesn't fix the issue. Maybe the water companies will shut off there overflows with temporary solutions and everyone can enjoy their toilets backing up and overflowing instead until they can get round to fixing the issue. This is the quickest way to fix it and is plausible to implement for water companies.
I'm not defending water companies, merely highlighting the reality of the situation.
Add to this that housing developments normally don't contribute towards upgrading the capacity of treatment works or off site infrastructure, leaving it all on the water company to fund. It's no wonder the systems can't cope.
It really surprises me that the full picture isn't portrayed. The water companies will have a rough figure on the costs and timescales to fix the problem. It'll be near 100yrs no doubt. Not to mention the numbers of workers required to do the work which doesn't exist, and inconvenience of digging up roads, gardens, etc to get to pipework.
This isn't to say there hasn't been underinvestment for years but there is no magic click your fingers and it's fixed solution. No matter how much anyone will tell you there is. A fine or prosecution doesn't fix the issue. Maybe the water companies will shut off there overflows with temporary solutions and everyone can enjoy their toilets backing up and overflowing instead until they can get round to fixing the issue. This is the quickest way to fix it and is plausible to implement for water companies.
I'm not defending water companies, merely highlighting the reality of the situation.
In reply to Post #6
Absolutely, and the point regarding the new housing development is a major issue with the government policy to build 300k ( iirc) new homes per year with the developer not being required to contribute a single penny to the water company as you rightly say.
Absolutely, and the point regarding the new housing development is a major issue with the government policy to build 300k ( iirc) new homes per year with the developer not being required to contribute a single penny to the water company as you rightly say.
In reply to Post #6
"It really surprises me that the full picture isn't portrayed"
Perhaps it's because they don't want the full picture portrayed?
The water companies have had plenty of time to upgrade aging systems & put cases forward to what's been mentioned - urbanisation isn't a new thing.
Instead they've been skimming the cream, covering up, lying & polluting our waterways.
They are responsible for our water (& health) at the end of the day. If there's genuine issues with infrastructure (which I agree there is) or anything else, then they should have been campaigning & lobbying for solutions & change, yet we don't seem to have seen it.
"It really surprises me that the full picture isn't portrayed"
Perhaps it's because they don't want the full picture portrayed?
The water companies have had plenty of time to upgrade aging systems & put cases forward to what's been mentioned - urbanisation isn't a new thing.
Instead they've been skimming the cream, covering up, lying & polluting our waterways.
They are responsible for our water (& health) at the end of the day. If there's genuine issues with infrastructure (which I agree there is) or anything else, then they should have been campaigning & lobbying for solutions & change, yet we don't seem to have seen it.
In reply to Post #8
Don't disagree but maybe looking back across time to see the investment from water companies in tackling pollution from agriculture and other sources would be a good bit of research for people. Been doing it for decades to try keep certain chemicals from entering water supplies.
I'll go back to it. No quick fix and fines end back up with treasury to fund something entirely different. Enforcement undertakings are stipulated by the EA, considerably less than a fine would be but it's directed to the location that suffered a pollution incident. They've been used for many years to keep the fine money disappearing to treasury to pay for MP expenses or something unrelated to the pollution incident.
My question would be, what do you expect to see to solve the issue? Is it realistic in terms of time, resource, complexity? Let's be real about it and not pretend it can be solved tomorrow.
P.s. the “they” you refer to not showing the full picture would be the campaigners against the water companies that have no realistic view on what the problem actually is and the drivers for it.
Don't disagree but maybe looking back across time to see the investment from water companies in tackling pollution from agriculture and other sources would be a good bit of research for people. Been doing it for decades to try keep certain chemicals from entering water supplies.
I'll go back to it. No quick fix and fines end back up with treasury to fund something entirely different. Enforcement undertakings are stipulated by the EA, considerably less than a fine would be but it's directed to the location that suffered a pollution incident. They've been used for many years to keep the fine money disappearing to treasury to pay for MP expenses or something unrelated to the pollution incident.
My question would be, what do you expect to see to solve the issue? Is it realistic in terms of time, resource, complexity? Let's be real about it and not pretend it can be solved tomorrow.
P.s. the “they” you refer to not showing the full picture would be the campaigners against the water companies that have no realistic view on what the problem actually is and the drivers for it.
In reply to Post #6
Not true.
Developers often pay connection fees and other infrastructure charges to water companies to cover the costs of extending the water supply and sewerage networks to new developments. These payments can be significant, with estimates suggesting that developers have contributed over £1 billion in the past three years, according to the Home Builders Federation (HBF).
This doesn't mean the water companies use it to improve or expand the infrastructure though as they seem to pay shareholders big dividends.
The tax paying public lost out when the water companies were sold off and will no doubt end up paying for new and upgraded infrastructure when it is re nationalised. Oh and don't expect any government to just take it back as they will compensate the shareholders handsomely at the tax payers expense.
Not true.
Developers often pay connection fees and other infrastructure charges to water companies to cover the costs of extending the water supply and sewerage networks to new developments. These payments can be significant, with estimates suggesting that developers have contributed over £1 billion in the past three years, according to the Home Builders Federation (HBF).
This doesn't mean the water companies use it to improve or expand the infrastructure though as they seem to pay shareholders big dividends.
The tax paying public lost out when the water companies were sold off and will no doubt end up paying for new and upgraded infrastructure when it is re nationalised. Oh and don't expect any government to just take it back as they will compensate the shareholders handsomely at the tax payers expense.
In reply to Post #10
The money does not cover increasing capacity of treatment works to deal with the increased loads. It pays for connections to the network and likely the cost of moving existing infrastructure.
As I said I'm not defending them, just looking at the reality of it all. Under investment is not the sole cause of the issue of water pollution. Nor is it the sole cause of water supply issue either. It's one of, but no one wants to talk about the rest.
When a water company is told “we need 3000 houses connected to the network” and they've had no say in the planning process, the system is wrong. The houses are built before the network is upgraded. This doesn't happen in any other utility. Maybe a change in this would help solve the problem. You can't sell until the capacity exists to take all the waste and meet supply demand.
Wouldn't be popular economically as it would delay sales, increase house prices and ultimately reduce housing growth.
I think people need to do a lot more reading around it all so they can get the full picture.
The money does not cover increasing capacity of treatment works to deal with the increased loads. It pays for connections to the network and likely the cost of moving existing infrastructure.
As I said I'm not defending them, just looking at the reality of it all. Under investment is not the sole cause of the issue of water pollution. Nor is it the sole cause of water supply issue either. It's one of, but no one wants to talk about the rest.
When a water company is told “we need 3000 houses connected to the network” and they've had no say in the planning process, the system is wrong. The houses are built before the network is upgraded. This doesn't happen in any other utility. Maybe a change in this would help solve the problem. You can't sell until the capacity exists to take all the waste and meet supply demand.
Wouldn't be popular economically as it would delay sales, increase house prices and ultimately reduce housing growth.
I think people need to do a lot more reading around it all so they can get the full picture.
In reply to Post #10
The fee the developers pay is for connection to, and not expansion to account for additional capacity created by such developments.
The ability of the treatment works decreases with each new connection effectively.
The shareholders dividends are not great btw, and arguably not a particularly wise investment, especially now.. But you're right, the long and slow procedure of improving it will cost everyone a lot more in the future.
Sorry, I hadn't seen Greekski's post below before replying..
The fee the developers pay is for connection to, and not expansion to account for additional capacity created by such developments.
The ability of the treatment works decreases with each new connection effectively.
The shareholders dividends are not great btw, and arguably not a particularly wise investment, especially now.. But you're right, the long and slow procedure of improving it will cost everyone a lot more in the future.
Sorry, I hadn't seen Greekski's post below before replying..
A simple search for water company CEO bonus will reveal where some money goes. Bonus for what, performance? If I dump crap in the river can I get a handout too, I'll go the extra mile and pee into it as well as throwing in a few sanitary pads. Trebles all round.
In reply to Post #9
"My question would be, what do you expect to see to solve the issue? Is it realistic in terms of time, resource, complexity? Let's be real about it and not pretend it can be solved tomorrow."
You appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject, so genuinely, why don't you take the opportunity to tell me?
I won't pretend to know the answers, I don't need to - that's what I pay my water company for.
The buck stops with them as far as I'm concerned & they should be held accountable for their actions, the same as you or me.
Considering they're breaking the law & destroying our rivers, lakes & potentially our health, I don't think it's all that unreasonable.
"My question would be, what do you expect to see to solve the issue? Is it realistic in terms of time, resource, complexity? Let's be real about it and not pretend it can be solved tomorrow."
You appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject, so genuinely, why don't you take the opportunity to tell me?
I won't pretend to know the answers, I don't need to - that's what I pay my water company for.
The buck stops with them as far as I'm concerned & they should be held accountable for their actions, the same as you or me.
Considering they're breaking the law & destroying our rivers, lakes & potentially our health, I don't think it's all that unreasonable.
In reply to Post #14
So you think it's reasonable to expect water companies to magically fix the entire water network in a matter of hours? Days? Weeks?
You're looking at 75-100yr turnaround minimum, providing planning applications go smoothly, no other hiccups exist, and the Labour force exists to carry out the work. All whilst not causing disruption to the customers. Not forgetting the trillions it will cost, other demands such as water scarcity, chemical and nutrient obligations, land availability and an ever increasing population. Oh and maintaining the existing assets too.
The simplistic view of “water companies have destroyed river ecosystems” whilst ignoring all the other influences really does baffle me. What about the increased oestrogen levels in rivers affecting invertebrate and fish genders and destroying recruitment levels? Oestrogen can't be stripped out the water during treatment. Why are you not blaming women for the decline in river health?
Why are you not blaming agriculture for the decline in river health? They cause plenty of damage with sediment inputs, nutrient loading, pollution of agricultural chemicals.
Why are you not blaming the population as a whole? We generate the waste and pay what, a couple hundred quid a year per household for sewerage fees? What does that cover? 1.5 days of a labourers time on a site if you include full on-costs?
There are so many complexities to it, but if you believe there is a quick and easy way then I'm sure water companies would want to hear it.
The way I see it, regardless of the underinvestment over the decades, as a population we have grown much faster than the water and sewage networks can upgrade. It's now at a point that it'll always be playing catch up. Plasters to solve problems scenario because shutting down an entire treatment works to upgrade it, well that takes years of planning of itself.
Now let's take a spin on it. How many water companies provide river support? Where they are asked (forced with an obligation date) by the EA to provide borehole water to keep river levels from getting too low. A system they pay for entirely for the installation and ongoing maintenance. Water companies keeping river ecosystems alive no? Totally ignored by all.
Like I said, the entire thing is so complex only a fool would believe it'll be fixed in the click of their fingers.
So you think it's reasonable to expect water companies to magically fix the entire water network in a matter of hours? Days? Weeks?
You're looking at 75-100yr turnaround minimum, providing planning applications go smoothly, no other hiccups exist, and the Labour force exists to carry out the work. All whilst not causing disruption to the customers. Not forgetting the trillions it will cost, other demands such as water scarcity, chemical and nutrient obligations, land availability and an ever increasing population. Oh and maintaining the existing assets too.
The simplistic view of “water companies have destroyed river ecosystems” whilst ignoring all the other influences really does baffle me. What about the increased oestrogen levels in rivers affecting invertebrate and fish genders and destroying recruitment levels? Oestrogen can't be stripped out the water during treatment. Why are you not blaming women for the decline in river health?
Why are you not blaming agriculture for the decline in river health? They cause plenty of damage with sediment inputs, nutrient loading, pollution of agricultural chemicals.
Why are you not blaming the population as a whole? We generate the waste and pay what, a couple hundred quid a year per household for sewerage fees? What does that cover? 1.5 days of a labourers time on a site if you include full on-costs?
There are so many complexities to it, but if you believe there is a quick and easy way then I'm sure water companies would want to hear it.
The way I see it, regardless of the underinvestment over the decades, as a population we have grown much faster than the water and sewage networks can upgrade. It's now at a point that it'll always be playing catch up. Plasters to solve problems scenario because shutting down an entire treatment works to upgrade it, well that takes years of planning of itself.
Now let's take a spin on it. How many water companies provide river support? Where they are asked (forced with an obligation date) by the EA to provide borehole water to keep river levels from getting too low. A system they pay for entirely for the installation and ongoing maintenance. Water companies keeping river ecosystems alive no? Totally ignored by all.
Like I said, the entire thing is so complex only a fool would believe it'll be fixed in the click of their fingers.