Water quality on the South Coast

[Rum Run]

I note that Southern Water have been prosecuted for discharging untreated sewage into the sea for years. Not accidentally, but for the purpose of increased profits.
Southern Water dumped raw sewage into sea for years
Filthy rich !
The sea is an amenity for boaters and a source of food for all. The idea that it takes so long to identify and stop this disgusting abuse of our environment for profit seems unworthy of a first world civilised nation in the 21st century.

 

[Stemar]

I hope the fines are swingeing, enough to really hurt - say double the bonuses paid to directors over the last several years.

OTOH, as an involuntary customer, that's cutting off my nose to spite my face, because the buggers will only put my bills up to cover them, Heaven forfend that those guilty should be out of pocket ?

 

[WoodyP]

I read the report. It's not the fact that it was storm overflow but that they allowed storm tanks to become septic rather than treatment after a flood, so the next storm flushed out the previous untreated effluent. Most water companies are either foreign owned or in the hands of venture capitalists. Load the company with debt even more to pay fines. The owners won't feel any pain, and are isolated from feeling any shame. Coupled with the reduction in Environment Agency funding so the perpetrators can mark their own homework and keep getting away with causing damage to the environment. DEFRA, and the government let this happen.

 

[Deleted member 36384]

The CEO should be jailed for overseeing an organisation that deliberately polluted waters. It's about time individuals were held to account by losing their liberty; it won't happen, it very rarely does and executives will continue to reap all the benefits.

The pursuit of profit, defending and improving share price is held in higher regard than protecting people, the environment and society. The financial penalty should at least be at a level that demonstrates that fixing the issue would have been a more productive solution for the water company.

How many water users have been ill as a result of their policy, what businesses have been damaged as a result of their sewage discharge, perhaps like Macondo, businesses and water users should take a so called class action against Southern Water for losses as a result of their mistreatment of the environment.

“It was known about and permitted at at a high level in the company, was brought about deliberately, by a deliberate lack of control and investment and ... has caused very considerable environmental damage by the release of raw sewage into coastal waters,” he said.

Southern Water, whose operating profit in the year 2019/20, the court heard, was £213m, has pleaded guilty to 51 counts of knowingly permitting entry to coastal waters of poisonous, noxious or polluting matter and/or waste matter and/or sewage effluent, namely untreated sewage otherwise than as authorised by an environmental permit.

Another executive that does not give a damn NPR Cookie Consent and Choices

 

[Rum Run]

The CEO should be jailed for overseeing an organisation that deliberately polluted waters. It's about time individuals were held to account by losing their liberty; it won't happen, it very rarely does and executives will continue to reap all the benefits.

The pursuit of profit, defending and improving share price is held in higher regard than protecting people, the environment and society. The financial penalty should at least be at a level that demonstrates that fixing the issue would have been a more productive solution for the water company.

How many water users have been ill as a result of their policy, what businesses have been damaged as a result of their sewage discharge, perhaps like Macondo, businesses and water users should take a so called class action against Southern Water for losses as a result of their mistreatment of the environment.



Another executive that does not give a damn NPR Cookie Consent and Choices

I do wonder if the shellfish industry in the area, or adjacent areas, would have a case against SW

 

[Moodysailor]

It makes me angry to hear about this, mainly because we are powerless to act against it. I have a particular dislike for huge profit making companies that have monopolies.

IMO, It's high time that our water was treated the same way as our energy or phone lines and opened up for competition. Healthy competition usually benefits the consumer with better services, greater innovation, more options, and occasionally lower prices.

 

[Stemar]

IMO, It's high time that our water was treated the same way as our energy or phone lines and opened up for competition. Healthy competition usually benefits the consumer with better services, greater innovation, more options, and occasionally lower prices.

In theory, yes, but there's only one set of extremely expensive infrastructure to cover any given area, so you aren't going to get effective competition in any particular area.

Far better for the conditions to holding a local monopoly which, ISTM is what our water supply is, to include renationalisation without compensation for egregious breaches of the regulations. and bring them back into public ownership. when they blow it badly. Flogging off our infrastructure was supposed to have made everything work better and I suppose that, compared with the 60s, when the unions were trying to run everything, it did at a bit. at least to begin with, but then the greedy got in control.

 

[Moodysailor]

In theory, yes, but there's only one set of extremely expensive infrastructure to cover any given area, so you aren't going to get effective competition in any particular area.

Far better for the conditions to holding a local monopoly which, ISTM is what our water supply is, to include renationalisation without compensation for egregious breaches of the regulations. and bring them back into public ownership. when they blow it badly. Flogging off our infrastructure was supposed to have made everything work better and I suppose that, compared with the 60s, when the unions were trying to run everything, it did at a bit. at least to begin with, but then the greedy got in control.

Great thought and view, thank you. I agree that the infrastructure is too large, costly and expensive to have duplicated.

Personally, I'm not in huge favour of re-nationalising too many aspects as I believe the private sector can provide a better customer experience at a lower cost - if done properly. My view would be to run a system similar to fibre broadband rollout, where the infrastructure side is separated from the supply side. By doing that, the suppliers of the water/sewerage would have a vested interest in ensuring the infrastructure companies are following the rules, and the government can regulate the wholesale price. I think that works better than the energy companies, where the production & supply are kept within a very small group of companies, which (however much anti-competition laws says otherwise) means that we have a vested interest from a small group of companies to maintain the "status-quo".

All good thoughts, thanks for yours.

 

[wombat88]

Nothing new.

As I understand it the following happened as a result of 'new and improved ' town drains during the Victorian period...

Disaster struck the Emsworth oyster trade in November 1902. Oysters served at banquets in Winchester and Southampton caused several guests to fall ill, including the Dean of Winchester (who had been at both events) who died. Tests showed that the oysters had been contaminated with typhoid, which poisoned the guests. The sale of oysters from Emsworth Harbour was banned and the local trade collapsed. Between the two World Wars the oyster trade began to pick up, but the outbreak of the 2nd World War meant the oyster pits were not able to be tended. Following the war the industry did not really recover and was virtually closed by the 1960s. There was an attempt in the 1980s to revive the industry and in 1985 over 33 tons of oysters were dredged from Emsworth Harbour and sold for £56,000. However, the increase of pleasure craft in the harbour meant that pollutants from anti-fouling paint affected the oysters and the trade finally died.

 

[Daydream believer]

However, the increase of pleasure craft in the harbour meant that pollutants from anti-fouling paint affected the oysters and the trade finally died.

So after 2 world wars & the Southern water pumping s..t into the sea it really turns out it is OUR fault.
Oh! Thanks

 

[Stemar]

That would have been tetrabutyl tin. Since we don't use it anymore and the copper is pretty harmless (including to the ecology that establishes itself on my boat), oyster production could start again, but it's a lot of investment and hard work, and you'll never be rich.

 

[Boathook]

Great thought and view, thank you. I agree that the infrastructure is too large, costly and expensive to have duplicated.

Personally, I'm not in huge favour of re-nationalising too many aspects as I believe the private sector can provide a better customer experience at a lower cost - if done properly. My view would be to run a system similar to fibre broadband rollout, where the infrastructure side is separated from the supply side. By doing that, the suppliers of the water/sewerage would have a vested interest in ensuring the infrastructure companies are following the rules, and the government can regulate the wholesale price. I think that works better than the energy companies, where the production & supply are kept within a very small group of companies, which (however much anti-competition laws says otherwise) means that we have a vested interest from a small group of companies to maintain the "status-quo".

All good thoughts, thanks for yours.

Assuming that the supply side is clean drinking water and sewerage pipework, does this means that the treatment plants will be owned by others? I can just see the controversy when someone wants to build a new treatment works to compete with existing companies.
Best way is to fine the companies and when they can't pay they are declared bankrupt and then run as a not for profit company. The shares being worthless will affect a few individuals but that is the way it goes. My mum had carillon shares and they became worthless nearly overnight.

 

[DJE]

I read the report. It's not the fact that it was storm overflow but that they allowed storm tanks to become septic rather than treatment after a flood, so the next storm flushed out the previous untreated effluent. Most water companies are either foreign owned or in the hands of venture capitalists. Load the company with debt even more to pay fines. The owners won't feel any pain, and are isolated from feeling any shame. Coupled with the reduction in Environment Agency funding so the perpetrators can mark their own homework and keep getting away with causing damage to the environment. DEFRA, and the government let this happen.

Yes that is shocking. There are defences of storm overflows to do with the largely Victorian combined sewer systems that the companies inherited but gross mismanagement of treatment works like that is inexcusable. And the septic sewage will start to produce sulphuric acid which will damage the concrete pipes and other structures.

 

[robertj]

Their fines will be minimal, in my opinion what will happen is that all boaters won’t be allowed to discharge their waste inside three miles.
advice is buy shares in holding tank companies.
They blame eel grass depleting on anchored boats so why stop there, the cash cow is still to be exploited.

 

[lenten]

---