Sewage in the rivers

[popegregory]

So what’s the other side of the story behind this, other than the line that the private water companies gave out £57bn in dividends and therefore can’t afford the infrastructure to clean the water that the papers are going with? Or is that about the size of it?

[gazapc]

Here are some non-labour party views on what actually happened.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1452562351329271...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-sewage-is-...

In short, an all round cock up on optics, but have water companies been given a free for all to dump sewage - absolutely not.

[Evanivitch]

popegregory said:

So what’s the other side of the story behind this, other than the line that the private water companies gave out £57bn in dividends and therefore can’t afford the infrastructure to clean the water that the papers are going with? Or is that about the size of it?

Welsh water, Dwr Cymru, are non-profit and always have been. And yet, they are also dependent on the same flawed combined-sewer system that the rest of the UK is.

If the water companies are forced to not release any storm water, there are two outcomes. Firstly, the companies will have to build massive water attenuation ponds across the network for storm conditions. Secondly, they'll have to block the overflows which will eventually lead to your toilets getting backed up...

So what's the fix? Well the issue is up-stream, it's the rainwater off the driveways, the patios, the garages, the roofs... It's all going into the drains. We need more soakaways, we need more rainwater attenuation.

Oh and it was never illegal to dump sewage during rain events.

And the new air pollution limits were released by the UN a month ago. We already have legislation in place for PM2.5 from diesels and we already have legislation in place for wood burners, for PM2.5 reasons.

[Ian Geary]

I've got some Facebook acquaintances who paddle board, and there's a lot of stuff they put up about river sewage. Rowers and free swimmers have been on about it for ages too, but up until lockdown they were a tiny tiny demographic.


As ever, the govenrment seem to stumble along hoping no-one spots what they're doing, but as soon as social media start calling them out en masse, you just know a u turn us coming.

It would be useful to hear both sides of the argument clearly and simply, but the government's view was it would cost hundreds of billions to replace the entire county's sewage systems so it could cope with flood water
This would all be passed onto water customers, or to the wider economy in some way.

Social media's view was " how can putting sewage into rivers not be awful", and something about chalk streams too.

A middle ground would be for water companies to start on the worst bits, but do it over time.

I wouldn't want to wild swim in sewage (or anywhere in fact) but where have humans been putting sewage for the last 800,000 years?


Ian

[Gooose]

It’s a example of the bad side of social media and media in general, I work for a water company, you could in theory treat every bit of waste water in the sewage network if you wanted but it would mean a total rebuild of the entire network accross the country. The amount of water that goes through a sewage system in storm events is staggering.

Do you want to pay for the whole sewage pipe system to be dug up, do people really understand the cost and logistical impossibility of this?? It’s a non story really

[Pastor Of Muppets]

Gooose said:

It’s a example of the bad side of social media and media in general, I work for a water company, you could in theory treat every bit of waste water in the sewage network if you wanted but it would mean a total rebuild of the entire network accross the country. The amount of water that goes through a sewage system in storm events is staggering.

Do you want to pay for the whole sewage pipe system to be dug up, do people really understand the cost and logistical impossibility of this?? It’s a non story really

Not a 'non story' for the wildlife and habitat it impacts though is it.

[Murph7355]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

Gooose said:

It’s a example of the bad side of social media and media in general, I work for a water company, you could in theory treat every bit of waste water in the sewage network if you wanted but it would mean a total rebuild of the entire network accross the country. The amount of water that goes through a sewage system in storm events is staggering.

Do you want to pay for the whole sewage pipe system to be dug up, do people really understand the cost and logistical impossibility of this?? It’s a non story really

Not a 'non story' for the wildlife and habitat it impacts though is it.

I think what Gooose is meaning is that it has been like this forever/a long time so it's "nothing new".

People impact the environment in all sorts of ways. That people might not have been aware of all of them for a long time doesn't change that.

What I'd be interested to know is how much money the privatised companies are sinking back into the "network", not just in "repairs" but also in "improvement". This may be a massive task, but if absolutely nothing gets done it will only get bigger.

Privatising the water network was stupid IMO (and I am a big fan of small government). But if we've done so and the private companies are not on the hook to a degree for improving things, then that was more than just stupid.

[Evanivitch]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

Not a 'non story' for the wildlife and habitat it impacts though is it.

So what have you done to reduce rain water run-off from your property?

That's where the issue starts, but too many people are pointing their finger in the wrong direction.

[gazza285]

Pastor Of Muppets said:

Not a 'non story' for the wildlife and habitat it impacts though is it.

The wildlife sts where it lives.

[menousername]

Evanivitch said:

So what have you done to reduce rain water run-off from your property?

That's where the issue starts, but too many people are pointing their finger in the wrong direction.

When I win the lottery and have 100 acres I will look into it

For now most of the rain water falling onto my modestly sized property goes on to the garden. Negligible even in a storm.

If it does run off it will be irrigating the farm behind it

[Evanivitch]

menousername said:

When I win the lottery and have 100 acres I will look into it

For now most of the rain water falling onto my modestly sized property goes on to the garden. Negligible even in a storm.

If it does run off it will be irrigating the farm behind it

You don't get it then.

Hundreds of homes point their rainwater straight into the drain. It wouldn't take a lot for things like water butts, living roofs in out buildings and soakaways to be added to properties to reduce the relatively-clean rain water that rushes into our sewage system.

Edited by Evanivitch on Wednesday 27th October 10:28

[boyse7en]

menousername said:

Evanivitch said:

So what have you done to reduce rain water run-off from your property?

That's where the issue starts, but too many people are pointing their finger in the wrong direction.

When I win the lottery and have 100 acres I will look into it

For now most of the rain water falling onto my modestly sized property goes on to the garden. Negligible even in a storm.

If it does run off it will be irrigating the farm behind it

But the problem is that, while your modestly sized property may have "negligible" water run off, times that by the 20 houses in your street, then by the 100 streets in your town, etc, etc and it becomes very not-negligible. And it won't irrigate the farmland either - in a storm event that land will be saturated so run-off from your property will simply run off of that too.

It's a problem that we all need to be aware of, but there are no easy solutions. But the upshot is that many beaches and rivers will become unusable, many already are.

[JagLover]

boyse7en said:

It's a problem that we all need to be aware of, but there are no easy solutions. But the upshot is that many beaches and rivers will become unusable, many already are.

If they are not unusable at present why will they become so in the future?

[Phud]

boyse7en said:

But the problem is that, while your modestly sized property may have "negligible" water run off, times that by the 20 houses in your street, then by the 100 streets in your town, etc, etc and it becomes very not-negligible. And it won't irrigate the farmland either - in a storm event that land will be saturated so run-off from your property will simply run off of that too.

It's a problem that we all need to be aware of, but there are no easy solutions. But the upshot is that many beaches and rivers will become unusable, many already are.

Yes it does boil down to the individual household but also there needs to be focus on the development, rather than just building houses. The wash off and impact needs to be dealt with, there has been a spectacular lack of infrastructure development with the population growth. It seems to me that the issue of concrete does not allow absorption is bypassed, the pressure increases on the land and it is expected to cope irrespective of what we as humans do to it.

Also tied into southwest water, new sewerage system with a clause allowing dumping into the sea when overloaded, hence the excuse is; "oh storm water" not the system is not capable of coping because the investment needed will impact dividends.

[menousername]

I get it and agree

But thats why we pay huge amounts of money to big companies to deal with it.

They need to improve processes and infrastructure? ok do it - thats what we already pay for.

I think the point i do not agree with is any notion we are primarily responsible for dealing with it. We have little choice in life but to access water via payment to these companies. There is no alternative. If we do not pay we find our services cut off pretty quickly. Hence if there is a modernisation/processing upgrade needed that is their side of the deal.

I am sure someone will say we currently only pay for abc and if we want xyz we need to pay more but I do not agree with that

[Eric Mc]

Murph7355 said:

I think what Gooose is meaning is that it has been like this forever/a long time so it's "nothing new".

And therefore there is nothing wrong with the practice?

[menousername]

Phud said:

Also tied into southwest water, new sewerage system with a clause allowing dumping into the sea when overloaded, hence the excuse is; "oh storm water" not the system is not capable of coping because the investment needed will impact dividends.

Said better than me

[JagLover]

Phud said:

Also tied into southwest water, new sewerage system with a clause allowing dumping into the sea when overloaded, hence the excuse is; "oh storm water" not the system is not capable of coping because the investment needed will impact dividends.

Lots of focus on "dividends". If we are relying on private companies to run our water networks they need to produce dividends for shareholders. This is not a growth industry so the main form of return is the dividends.

The private water companies have invested £130bn in the water network since privatisation. If they were still publicly owned then some of that may have needed to come from the taxpayer.

There is an argument that it shouldn't have been privatised in the first place but being in public ownership would not make the issue go away. Someone would need to pay whatever costs are required and that would likely be those paying water rates.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 27th October 10:56

[JagLover]

menousername said:

I am sure someone will say we currently only pay for abc and if we want xyz we need to pay more but I do not agree with that

Unless you think there is some magical source of revenue I am not sure how you can disagree with it. We pay for the water network as it is. If we want separate storm drains and these will cost tens of billions to build then the only people likely to be paying for them is water customers.

So you can support the proposal, on the understanding that you will be paying your share, or reject it on the same basis.

[Evanivitch]

menousername said:

I think the point i do not agree with is any notion we are primarily responsible for dealing with it. We have little choice in life but to access water via payment to these companies. There is no alternative. If we do not pay we find our services cut off pretty quickly. Hence if there is a modernisation/processing upgrade needed that is their side of the deal.

You're still not getting it. The choices everyone makes at home, from paving over their front garden, to expanding the back patio, or flushing "flushable" wet wipes.down the toilet, impacts this.

We could mitigate massive amounts of surface water run-off if we all made relatively simple choices.