[Misc] Sewage in the sea

[Mental Lental]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62670623

 

[Guy Fawkes]

1. One of the issues with keeping surface water and sewage separate is that the sewage needs decent level of surface water to keep it 'moving along'.

Would waste water from Showers and baths be adequate to achieve that? or is rainwater collected by gutters on roofs and roadway drainage the only means to provide enough water for it to work?

2. Some new builds now have rainwater storage tanks under the garden or house - which is used as 'grey water' for the toilets, outside taps for garden and so on. Trouble with this is that it's difficult to retro-fit, as it needs two sets of piping.

Sounds like a start, but does highlight it's not a simple and cheap fix. Hopefully a culmination of a lot of different schemes will have the desired affect

3. Yes - I well remember swimming off Southwick Beach in the early/mid 1980s, then the next day's Daily Mirror had a front page aerial photo showing polluted beaches - clearly showing the outflow pipe and a sort of horrid colour spreading out from it back towards the very beach where I had spent the day bathing and listening to Malcolm Marshall ripping through our batting once again.

Shows there has been a case of rose tinted glasses and selective memories when it comes to this tricky issue. So many (including some media reporting) seem to portray it as a new issue and need to be more realistic in how it's solved (what is / will be acceptable (EA Approved permitted spills??) and just how long it will take to change infrastructure in a way where it will be able to cope

good questions, people dont ask just read the lastest twitter rant. often reported numbers since 1991 are £57bn dividends and capital investment £123bn. investment pre-privatisation was ~£2bn a year, compared with £4.5bn based on those numbers. so 57bn to shareholders that could have gone into investment or reduced bills (about £69 household/year), while over doubling of the investment.

Very interesting and useful response.

So there is higher investment that before privatisation, and yet that amount invested (plus dividends) would still have been dwarfed by the estimated costs it would have taken to meet of the recently defeated bill looking to ban all raw sewage discharges (estimated at between £350bn and £600bn and therefore added between £595 and £999 to household bills per year)

Therefore is it simply a case of them having the money and deciding against it, or that the true cost makes it impractical and other solutions will have to be found? and help explain why so many voted against the bill?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62670623

So why is this only suddenly now an issue to them if the practice has been going on for decades (if not centuries) including when the UK was part of the EU?

 

[The Clamp]

So why is this only suddenly now an issue to them if the practice has been going on for decades (if not centuries) including when the UK was part of the EU?

You have answered your own question there.

It isn’t just “suddenly” an issue. The EU has taken the U.K. to court over it’s waste and sewage practices on several occasions. While we were still a member of the EU we could be monitored and forced to change our practices, fined etc. Now water companies answer only to shareholders. The French are understandably concerned.

When governments in the U.K. are allowed to do what they want, unchecked, they act solely in the interests of themselves and their pals. It’s why Tory Ltd wanted us out to the EU, to clear away regulation and drive up profit. Consequences be damned.

 

[beorhthelm]

...So there is higher investment that before privatisation, and yet that amount invested (plus dividends) would still have been dwarfed by the estimated costs it would have taken to meet of the recently defeated bill looking to ban all raw sewage discharges (estimated at between £350bn and £600bn and therefore added between £595 and £999 to household bills per year)

Therefore is it simply a case of them having the money and deciding against it, or that the true cost makes it impractical and other solutions will have to be found? and help explain why so many voted against the bill?

i infer zero discharge requires a complete retrospective rebuild of the sewerage system to implement seperate surface water drainage. much larger than some investment at treatment plants, imagine every road having to be dug up to put in a new pipes. some alternative needed like larger capacities at treatment to meet requirement to reduce discharges, which did go into the legislation.

 

[zefarelly]

i think it's important to gain as much knowledge and to try to develop an understanding of an issue then judge it but that goes against the norm nowadays where a lot just read a headline and have already make their minds up and are quick to anger[/QUOTE]

I take great issue with the way modern builds just pump it all away and expect someone else to deal with it, I also greatly dislike the way people pave their plot and let it all run away, causing local flooding. When we extended our house, and had a driveway put in, we re-dug two large soakaways and fitted water butts ( this was nearly 20 years ago ) It's served us well, and when it rains there is little to no run off into the street/road . . . The recent rear paved area/path was carefully planned to run off onto the lawn and borders although its soft brick and doesn't puddle like concrete type pavers . . . There are trees vines and plenty of plants to drink it.

I think it should be law that a percentage ( say25-30%?) of any freehold plot must remain green for a natural balance. Or as near as is proven/practical for natural drainage . . .pumping it somewhere else is most definitely not. However well engineered it aint right.

Developing flood plain and un natural areas with pumps like ropetackle and Ropetackle north should never have been a consideration in the first place . . . .Ropetackle north roadways are subsiding already.

Rainwater doesn't need treating, unless its been mixed with shit.

 

[Bakero]

So why is this only suddenly now an issue to them if the practice has been going on for decades (if not centuries) including when the UK was part of the EU?

We were frequently fined by the EU for failing to meet water standards. It seems that some improvements were made post-1990 but since 2016 the amount of raw sewage dumping has increased.

"The latest releases come on top of the more than nine million hours of raw sewage that new data has shown was released into Britain’s seas and rivers between 2016-2021. The figure is an increase of 2,553 per cent over five years – and also only accounts for the known amounts. The Environment Agency (EA) has revealed that sewage monitors installed at some popular beaches in England and Wales are faulty or uninstalled, resulting in a quarter of sewage discharges going unmonitored."
https://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2022/08/sewage-pumped-into-sea-suffocation-uk-waterways

This article gives a good insight into possible solutions https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-how-britain-spews-untreated-waste-rivers-sea

 

[Guy Fawkes]

You have answered your own question there.

It isn’t just “suddenly” an issue. The EU has taken the U.K. to court over it’s waste and sewage practices on several occasions. While we were still a member of the EU we could be monitored and forced to change our practices, fined etc. Now water companies answer only to shareholders. The French are understandably concerned.

When governments in the U.K. are allowed to do what they want, unchecked, they act solely in the interests of themselves and their pals. It’s why Tory Ltd wanted us out to the EU, to clear away regulation and drive up profit. Consequences be damned.

So how is it the Government to blame for a water company (Southern Water) taking a deliberate decision to ignore their responsibilities between 2010-2015?

Who fined them £90m? the EU or UK courts?

If water companies are unchecked, how come 6 water companies are being investigated for sewage discharges by the industry regulator Ofwat which only began after we've left the EU?

Raw sewage was pumped into rivers and seas about 375,000 times in 2021, according to the Environment Agency.

The practice has prompted a major investigation into sewage treatment works.

In 2022, Ofwat, the water regulator for England and Wales, which carried out the investigation, started enforcement cases against six water companies over discharging sewage into the environment at times when this should not have happened.

There clearly is a will there by the regulators, the public and the Government (hence their targets set for improvements by key dates) for this practice to be improved upon, so not sure why, if it didn't happen whilst in the EU, that it could only happen if we were still members?

Surely if it's an important subject to the people living in the UK, then it will become something taken seriously and tackled (whether we were in or out of the EU)

We were in the EU from 1973 to 2020, why wasn't it solved at any point, or by any of our previous Governments (both Tory, Labour and Coalition ones) during that time frame? and if our membership failed to force a solution, why would continued membership have resolved it?

 

[Bodian]

Shows there has been a case of rose tinted glasses and selective memories when it comes to this tricky issue. So many (including some media reporting) seem to portray it as a new issue and need to be more realistic in how it's solved (what is / will be acceptable (EA Approved permitted spills??) and just how long it will take to change infrastructure in a way where it will be able to cope

We were known as the dirty-man of Europe in relation to our water quality and beaches. Gradually, under various European regulations and laws, we cleaned up our waters tremendously - to the state where we had otters in the Thames and so on. And to be fair now - we have these huge sewage outputs at certain times, but overall, I think our water is far better than it used to be.

It's similar to air pollution in a way. There was a whole load of stuff about wood burners last year - and their particulates / emissions being x% of the total and therefore they were terrible and should be banned, and so on. Whilst the principle is sound, what is also important to remember is how clean our air is in comparison to how it used to be. It's not that woodburners have suddenly created loads of extra pollution, making the air dirty - but because we have cut back on so many other air pollutants it's a higher percentage of a smaller amount - and so that's the next thing to aim for.

 

[BrightonCottager]

To answer some of the points by Guy Fawkes and others:
1) the environmental regulator (EA) has had its budget for environmental protection slashed since 2010 forcing it to adopt a 'light touch' approach (also a stated ideological stance of the Conservatives - esp Liz Truss) allowing water companies to self report - in the case of Southern - lie, pollute, cover up and take the bonuses for false good environmental performance.
2. Retrofitting our towns and cities to separate rainwater from wastewater will be a massive project but there are practical interim solutions like diverting surface water into rain Gardens (there's a demo project on Carden Avenue), Council's enforcing current law requiring hardstandings to be porous or drain to rain Gardens, water companies build more storage at wastewater plants, developers prevented from connecting to the sewer (Wealden and Lewes Council's are already blocking new housing until Southern Water can confirm that they can treat wastewater without increasing storm discharges).
3. I too remember surfing in undiluted raw sewage near the Palace Pier in the 80s and 90s. The Stormwater Tunnel was supposed to store the wastewater before it could be pumped to Peacehaven but that system is clearly not working as intended. There doesn't seem to be a process for reviewing the licence to use storm outfalls issued by the EA in 2005.

 

[Happy Exile]

The economist Guy Standing does some interesting stuff on the need for a Charter of the Commons which I think ascribes economic value to nature as a means of reflecting it's worth to the population properly. Among a gazillion other things this would help resolve he explicitly gives pollution of rivers and seas from sewage as an example : the fines are nothing compared to the profits and are cheaper than doing things properly. If the sea was valued as a resource and had a proper monetary value put on it then fines would be far higher. One thing that needs though is an acceptance that commonly owned things, like the sea, are exactly that and commonly owned by us all. The air too, which is a bit of a shift.

 

[BrightonCottager]

The economist Guy Standing does some interesting stuff on the need for a Charter of the Commons which I think ascribes economic value to nature as a means of reflecting it's worth to the population properly. Among a gazillion other things this would help resolve he explicitly gives pollution of rivers and seas from sewage as an example : the fines are nothing compared to the profits and are cheaper than doing things properly. If the sea was valued as a resource and had a proper monetary value put on it then fines would be far higher. One thing that needs though is an acceptance that commonly owned things, like the sea, are exactly that and commonly owned by us all. The air too, which is a bit of a shift.

This. 100%. Many economists argue that water companies are just behaving like the capitalist companies they are - maximising profits for shareholders and externalising costs as much (polluting and not fixing leaks). When advising Michael Gove as Defra Secretary, Prof Dieter Helm started a project to put an economic value on a lot of the environment but its stalled with changes of Ministers and other priorities.
Private companies cannot be trusted to safeguard the environment without effective and well funded regulation and there's a strong argument that they shouldn't be doing it at all.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

To answer some of the points by Guy Fawkes and others:
1) the environmental regulator (EA) has had its budget for environmental protection slashed since 2010 forcing it to adopt a 'light touch' approach (also a stated ideological stance of the Conservatives - esp Liz Truss) allowing water companies to self report - in the case of Southern - lie, pollute, cover up and take the bonuses for false good environmental performance.

As the political landscape changes, and the publics priorities change, then subject like this become more important and therefore political parties are more likely to state their stance and aims for areas like this, and then voters can use that to judge the aims and whether or not to vote for them.

For many years green policy and environmental protection weren't seen as a big issue, but times have changed due to climate change, so political parties will know they have to move with the times and either change or state their stance for voters to judge them on. Those standing for election who feel the status quo is fine will find it harder to secure votes and less likely to reach a position where they can implement their stance.

It hasn't been a major topic before, but since the dodgy practices in the industry have come to light, and public opinion has revealed that the public expect far higher standards that he industry currently provide, there will be more focus on delivering solutions and companies are less likely to be able to get away with the practice that Southern Water had between 2010 and 2015.

My previous comments have been about tempering public expectations in what can reasonably be delivered and in what sort of time scale. There seem to be a lot of comments that imply the industry has still decided to take the fines and not invest or act to try to solve this issue that is at the forefront of public consciousness which i very much doubt to be the case.

2. Retrofitting our towns and cities to separate rainwater from wastewater will be a massive project but there are practical interim solutions like diverting surface water into rain Gardens (there's a demo project on Carden Avenue), Council's enforcing current law requiring hardstandings to be porous or drain to rain Gardens, water companies build more storage at wastewater plants, developers prevented from connecting to the sewer (Wealden and Lewes Council's are already blocking new housing until Southern Water can confirm that they can treat wastewater without increasing storm discharges).
3. I too remember surfing in undiluted raw sewage near the Palace Pier in the 80s and 90s. The Stormwater Tunnel was supposed to store the wastewater before it could be pumped to Peacehaven but that system is clearly not working as intended. There doesn't seem to be a process for reviewing the licence to use storm outfalls issued by the EA in 2005.

It's clearly a problem that is going to take more than just water companies to solve, and it's good to hear that councils are involved and helping to ensure that solutions are being included in new builds and that schemes like rain gardens are being brought in.

These are measures you don't hear about in the usual rants about a spill (whether it was a permitted one by the EA or not, and i doubt they have checked first to find out which it was before posting) and shows that steps are being taken, but clearly there is still a very long way to go and far more to be done.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

We were known as the dirty-man of Europe in relation to our water quality and beaches. Gradually, under various European regulations and laws, we cleaned up our waters tremendously - to the state where we had otters in the Thames and so on. And to be fair now - we have these huge sewage outputs at certain times, but overall, I think our water is far better than it used to be.

It's similar to air pollution in a way. There was a whole load of stuff about wood burners last year - and their particulates / emissions being x% of the total and therefore they were terrible and should be banned, and so on. Whilst the principle is sound, what is also important to remember is how clean our air is in comparison to how it used to be. It's not that woodburners have suddenly created loads of extra pollution, making the air dirty - but because we have cut back on so many other air pollutants it's a higher percentage of a smaller amount - and so that's the next thing to aim for.

Is there any reason why we would stop our progress following our departure from the EU, seeing as there is clearly strong public feeling that we want this issue resolved and for the practice of untreated sewage discharges to end, and that there is far more political will from all sides to try to tackle this and continue to push standards even higher?

Politicians are meant to be elected to deliver the will of the people, so that should be the major driver in change, rather than all being down to whether we are in or out of the EU

 

[The Clamp]

So how is it the Government to blame for a water company (Southern Water) taking a deliberate decision to ignore their responsibilities between 2010-2015?

Who fined them £90m? the EU or UK courts?

If water companies are unchecked, how come 6 water companies are being investigated for sewage discharges by the industry regulator Ofwat which only began after we've left the EU?



There clearly is a will there by the regulators, the public and the Government (hence their targets set for improvements by key dates) for this practice to be improved upon, so not sure why, if it didn't happen whilst in the EU, that it could only happen if we were still members?

Surely if it's an important subject to the people living in the UK, then it will become something taken seriously and tackled (whether we were in or out of the EU)

We were in the EU from 1973 to 2020, why wasn't it solved at any point, or by any of our previous Governments (both Tory, Labour and Coalition ones) during that time frame? and if our membership failed to force a solution, why would continued membership have resolved it?

Yet here we are with companies pumping shit into our waterways and seas.

 

[Pevenseagull]

This. 100%. Many economists argue that water companies are just behaving like the capitalist companies they are - maximising profits for shareholders and externalising costs as much (polluting and not fixing leaks). When advising Michael Gove as Defra Secretary, Prof Dieter Helm started a project to put an economic value on a lot of the environment but its stalled with changes of Ministers and other priorities.
Private companies cannot be trusted to safeguard the environment without effective and well funded regulation and there's a strong argument that they shouldn't be doing it at all.

Classic stuff:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Garrett_Hardin's_article

 

[Publius Ovidius]

So can we go and swim off hove lawns in the sea today?

 

[BrightonCottager]

So can we go and swim off hove lawns in the sea today?

This just popped up on my phone, so at your own risk!
Edit: I just checked Southern Water's Beachbuoy website and its showing as an unverified release so use all your senses before immersion.

 

[Bodian]

Is there any reason why we would stop our progress following our departure from the EU, seeing as there is clearly strong public feeling that we want this issue resolved and for the practice of untreated sewage discharges to end, and that there is far more political will from all sides to try to tackle this and continue to push standards even higher?

Politicians are meant to be elected to deliver the will of the people, so that should be the major driver in change, rather than all being down to whether we are in or out of the EU

Yes - wasn't meant to be anything about Brexit / EU. But the EU regulations were quite a driver, which will no longer be there. As you say, it's now down to the British public/political feeling and demands.

 

[dazzer6666]

Spent a couple of hours on Seaford Beach this morning….don’t think I’ve ever seen the water as clear as it was today. Beware the invisible nasties