|
|
|
|
|
Yep inevitably we will all be paying for it 👎👎
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #34
Says it won’t be paid by the customer, but it will be one way or another!
Glad to see it though, every water company could be hit with similar fines, issue is where the fines go. If that goes to treasury and never funds river based environmental improvements by water based NGOs or whoever then what is the point in fining them?
That sort of money could be used for incredible environment projects across the region, or actually going towards fixing the problems that cause the pollution. Sadly it looks like it will end up with treasury and pay MP expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #32
They are c@@@s~ .They polluted the blackwater in yateley again on monday as the system couldnt cope with the rain fall apparently!, What f ing rain!!!!,
**** band paper with brown sludge all the way down. w@@@@@s
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #28
100% 
As I see it, the only real driver for improvement will come from the growing number of people participating in open water swimming demanding better water quality, the government don't give a flying **** about angling, the water quality or the environment in general 
Privatization = cost cutting and invested interests and comes at a cost and the cost is neglect and in this case its water quality. Some truly shocking practices gone / going off 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #30
I think this is a very overlooked part of the industry. Water companies are obligated to provide clean water for consumption and treat waste water to a level it is pretty much drinkable. They pollute the water 0% and have to remove everyone else’s pollution.
We pay them to do it but keep adding to the pollutants and volumes of pollution in the water. From chemicals, hormones, wipes, ear buds, fats, etc.
Why does no one ever point the finger at the people creating the pollution, us? We could all do better and ease the strain on water treatment and consumption could we not?
It’d certainly keep the bills down if as a population we consumed less water and didn’t pollute it that’s for sure!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #28
Metering would be fare if every user was metered and paid by usage but a vast amount still do not have meters. As has already been said local authorities don't know what the future hold in terms of demand for supply and waste treatment as new developments get pushed forward or put back. Even the hotels that were only forty percent average occupancy for years can suddenly become full on government contracts massively increasing demand on both supply and waste treatment. Today I received an invitation from British water to attend a conference being held next month on micro pollutants,this is potentially a massive issue that will require massive investment and I can see the water companies looking for financial support from the government.
|
|
| | | | Posts: 371 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #28
I'm glad someone else thinks like that.
|
|
|
|
The utility companies which everyone rely on in their daily lives should not be Public or privately owned or run!
I’ve said for years that they should be run on an Independent basis to provide the service required on a strictly none profit basis, with zero Government involvement.
It’s not rocket science, it’s very easy to work out the exact daily cost per end user, and how much extra to add to the bill to cover the cost for planned up-grades.
No profit, no shareholders, no Government parasites, just run to provide the service – that’s how it should be.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #26
It's a fact that since privatization the water companies have not invested enough in modernization and increasing capacity
No surprise there, same with all the industry they sold down the rivers pardon the pun, washed their hands of them. Government are a shower of ****, all of them
Some level headed thinking required instead of invested interests, its the environment ffs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #11
I think people need to do a lot more reading around it all so they can get the full picture.
As a retired engineer and still a member of British water I get emails regularly on what's going on in various locations and can attend meetings and vote on certain things within the industry. It's a fact that since privatisation the water companies have not invested enough in modernization and increasing capacity. You could argue that ofwat price caps have restricted growth but I believe if any industry should never be private it's the water .
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #24
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #21
To be fair Greekskii has a more nuanced view of the situation, and as I said in an earlier post, yes, the water companies share a significant proportion of being responsible for the state of our rivers, but Ofwat, the EA, and the government are clearly seen to be responsible for letting the WA's get away with it by setting fines that are simply more cost effective for them to settle, than to pay for the required upgrade works, which in many cases, they decline to proceed after substantial design efforts have been made, on the grounds that they do not have the budget. 80% of the upgrade schemes either get cut down to the bare minimum, or do not get approved for construction at all.
Privatisation was clearly a huge mistake for the environmental reasons alone, which no one is arguing against, but the real problem runs far deeper than water company executive's.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #22
"Why is that not acceptable to you?"
I said that I find it odd. I respect your opinions, I just don't fully agree or understand.
"Not sure why you keep telling me I’m against the problems being fixed?"
Did I say this?
"You clearly don’t want to listen to what I have to say, because at no point have you indicated that you’ve taken it on board"
That's my bad. It's obviously something I need to work on.
"I’m not going to waste my Sunday on your seeming need to villainise someone that’s providing the full picture."
That's a little over the top. I don't think your a villain & I doubt anyone else does on here. That wasn't my intention & I'm sorry you feel that way, my apologies. It may well turn out to be me that's the villain, I don't know, my opinions are my own & I'm not speaking for anyone else.
"I’ve provided anyone reading the thread a wider knowledge of the issues so they can make informed views of it all".
& Thank you for your contribution.
Enjoy your Sunday & I genuinely hope you come back to share more.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #21
It’s not one sided. Just showing the side that no one campaigning for change is willing to talk about. Which provides a fully informed conversation and not a one sided one.
Why is that not acceptable to you?
Not sure why you keep telling me I’m against the problems being fixed? Because I’ve clearly said I do, just I have realistic expectations because of the knowledge I have. Which I am sharing.
Multiply it up and it doesn’t touch the sides on what’s required. Hence it’s a long term fix which is my point.
You clearly don’t want to listen to what I have to say, because at no point have you indicated that you’ve taken it on board, as they are all facts as to why this isn’t as simple an issue it’s made out to be. That’s your prerogative, but you can’t come to the conclusion someone who is providing the full picture is somehow against sorting the issue. I won’t go in to who you sound like by doing that.
I’m not going to waste my Sunday on your seeming need to villainise someone that’s providing the full picture. I’ve provided anyone reading the thread a wider knowledge of the issues so they can make informed views of it all.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #20
"I’ve spent most of my career in river conservation"
Then your particular one sided stance seems odd to me.
"If you’d rather not know, don’t engage?"
Where have I indicated this in my posts? Is your opinion the only one that's valid?
"Ignorance is bliss as they say."
My Spidey Senses tell me that you're trying to draw me into an argument..
"your annual bill barely covers 2 days labour for a construction worker."
& Then multiply this by how many million in each region?
"Be prepared to pay your water company a hell of a lot more in the future."
If it means that our rivers & lakes will be preserved then it's a price I'd be willing to pay.
What angler wouldn't want this?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #19
Explaining the realism of the situation is not defending them. It’s to show that not everything is as simple as is made out.
I don’t mean you directly, but the general consensus of those that want to shoot the water companies is that it will just be fixed tomorrow. I’m explaining why that’s impossible. People need realistic expectations.
I’ve spent most of my career in river conservation, so I know the issues inside out. Hence why I can explain it all to people that won’t know. If you’d rather not know, don’t engage? Ignorance is bliss as they say.
Be prepared to pay your water company a hell of a lot more in the future. Like I said, your annual bill barely covers 2 days labour for a construction worker.
I think water should not be privatised, not that it’ll solve anything unless the entire regulatory system is revamped.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #15
"So you think it’s reasonable to expect water companies to magically fix the entire water network in a matter of hours? Days? Weeks?"
"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."
Where in my posts have I demanded a quick fix? You're the person who keeps bringing it up because I suspect that it fits your narrative. It gives you the opportunity to reiterate & deflect the blame. You say that you're not defending the companies however this is what you're consistently doing. Your emotional investment & knowledge suggests that you may have some kind of connection to the industry?
There is no quick fix but having the companies accountable for their actions may be a good start. I'm in support of the law change & this will hopefully kick start plans to solve the issues.
As I've already said, I don't know the answers & I don't need to because I pay my water company for this. I like to think that these are the people who would be best suited to finding the solutions.
|
|
| | | | Posts: 371 | | |
|
In reply to Post #17
Hi Winkler, yes, a combination of Snivil Service ineptitude, corporate greed and government laziness. Utilities should never have been sold off, many to overseas interests.
This is what we reap for their failings. These outfits knew what they were getting into, knew what they could siphon off and knew there would be little consequence for their actions.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #16
Thanks for the ciwem link Paul, I'd not seen the article before.
To re iterate my point about it also being a governmental failing, below is a short quote from the article:
"But the ineffectiveness of Ofwat is another failed aspect of the system. Companies have been able to repeatedly game the price-regulation formulae to boost profits and extract dividends without critical scrutiny. They rely on Ofwat to act publicly as their defender – rather than a protector of consumer rights."
One could be forgiven for thinking that 40 years of corruption has led to this sorry state, of which our children, grand children and great grandchildren will be paying for.
|
|
| | | | Posts: 371 | | |
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatisation_in_England_and_Wales
From the section titled "Impact" :
" England and Wales became the only countries in the world to have a fully privatised water and sewage disposal system.[1][17] In Scotland and Northern Ireland, water and sewerage services remained in public ownership. Since 2001, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water, the company which supplies drinking water and wastewater services to most of Wales and parts of western England, has operated as a single-purpose, not-for-profit company with no shareholders, "run solely for the benefit of customers".[18] According to The Independent, the English WSCs are now mostly owned "by private equity firms with controversial tax-avoidance strategies".[19] Public opinion polling carried out in 2017 indicated that 83% of the British public favoured renationalisation of all water services.[20]
In the same year, research by the University of Greenwich suggested that consumers in England were paying £2.3 billion more every year for their water and sewerage bills than they would if the water companies had remained under state ownership.[17]
By 2024, the rise in inflation and interest rates left several water companies with unsustainable debt loads.[21] Water companies sharply increased bills,[22] with several proposed increases being rejected by Ofwat despite claims that they were necessary to keep companies solvent.[23] In response, academics have criticised the privatisation of water for allowing too much debt to be taken on by companies that have significant amounts of private equity among their investors.[24] "
Water was sold off cheap to a profit orientated business, profits before people. I'm the opposite of a Lefty but water is essential to life, it should never be a proposition for private investment firms. As a nation we're good at wringing our hands and then avoiding the problems altogether.
Here is another article with balanced opinions from all angles but again, we see no action, it's worth a read:
https://www.ciwem.org/the-environment/how-should-water-and-environmental-management-firms-tap,-retain-and-promote-female-talent
It's interesting to see those rotters from Liebour waffle on, yet here we are.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | | | Posts: 371 | | |
|
|
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 #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..
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Good start though.
We were literally just accepting it. Typical British.
Now there's a chance we can start to change things.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
It's about bloomin time!
It's absolutely disgusting what they've gotten away with for so long.
|
|
| | | | Posts: 371 | | |
|
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".
|
|
|
|
|
