You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Not everyone will be pleased by the government's apparent u-turn on this issue.
[img] 
[/img]
What definitely isn’t a panacea is privatisation. The irreconcilability of the conflicting interests of shareholders and consumers and the environment, with regards to the water industry, guarantees that.
We have a mixed model in the UK, Scotland and NI are public sector, DCWW are a hybrid, rest are either FTSE or privately owned.
What hasn't been happening is effective regulation by OFWAT, it's soft policies have allowed deterioration of assets and "phantom" assets to continue to be claimed on the RAV. This allows WICS to be soft on Scottish Water because the comparator is so poor.
What no-one seems to want to say is that the industry has been allowing itself to put a veneer of shininess over a deteriorating asset base. Every year in all water companies the average age of the water and sewer network goes up. Every year.
Add in environmental regulation where they don't take routine samples at weekends and you get pumps and dosing rigs turned off to save opex. Etc etc
I don’t know how Welsh Water fare with regards to dumping raw sewerage though.
It isnt great. There was a bit of a controversy recently when turds and paper were seen floating down the Dee at Llangollen. It turned out it wasnt campers, who were the first target group, but the houses that line the river. Some of them have never been connected to the public sewer supply, so their waste water goes straight into the river.
Yep, 2021, and that still happens.
Apparently, there are many more 1000's of places that do not have sewer access all over Wales, but that doesnt always meanthey all do a river discharge, they could have their own septic tank etc.
The bigger issue in South Wales is the Wye, with farming discharge and run off slowly suffocating the river. Its chemical analysis this year has been the worst for 60+ years, whereas most rivers are a lot cleaner than even 20 years ago.
There was a bit of a controversy recently when turds and paper were seen floating down the Dee at Llangollen. It turned out it wasnt campers, who were the first target group, but the houses that line the river. Some of them have never been connected to the public sewer supply, so their waste water goes straight into the river.
Direct discharges to a water course are illegal. They usually occur as a result of a misconnection. When these are discovered they are usually sorted out with advice/notices/enforcement from the council and/or regulator or by the water company if their surface water sewer is involved. More info here: http://www.connectright.org.uk/
Oh, here’s a thing…
Have they even said where that ridiculous number came from? It seems pretty obviously just chosen to seem big (and no coincidence that it's usefully bigger than the figures for privatized profits). I mean, if your estimate has a range of half a trillion pounds it's obviously a worthless estimate in the first place but I'm more assuming that it's made up.
The upper estimate was the cost envisaged to replace the entire sewerage network from scratch and at the same time completely separate rainwater and sewage networks. This was literally all of it whether it needed doign or not. There's a report the government have been sitting on that lays it out and specifically recommends that the nuclear option is not needed and a scheme costing about £6/household/month would be just as effective.
This is nothing new TBH and is small scale compared to what used to happen prior to the 90s.
The urban waste water directive really made a difference and it needed to because it was bloody horrendous.
Enforcement is now the problem.
I don’t know how Welsh Water fare with regards to dumping raw sewerage though.
Post heavy rain raw sewage contamination along the coast is not uncommon in Scotland. To the point where the advice is heavy rain means stay out of the water. Theres a couple of rivers nearby that always stink of sewage after heavy rain.
I've certainly seen enough "stuff" (whilst in a boat) after heavy rain to take a hard pass on being in the water. I dont know if it's better or worse than Wales/England/N Ireland.
Direct discharges to a water course are illegal.
There has been little action on this, plenty of them into SAC's in the lakes
Post heavy rain raw sewage contamination along the coast is not uncommon in Scotland. To the point where the advice is heavy rain means stay out of the water.
I was about to take my daughter paddle boarding down the Tawe a few weeks ago, and by chance my wife noticed an announcement on social media warning about a discharge just below where we were planning to launch. The advice was to stay out of the river AND bay - that's about 4-5 miles. There had been rain the night before, but not particularly heavy.
(The Tawe isn't a particularly clean river at the best of times..)
There’s a program on itv at 7.30 this evening about this.
Jon- I think the Tawe issue was a broken sewage pipe so not rainfall related, it was just spilling the whole time. I believe that’s been fixed though.
The issue is in the UK it rains a lot so staying out of the water after rain means never going in!
The farming industry is absolutely laughing (well, keeping their heads well down) about the furore over sewage and water companies. The stats show that it's agri runoff that is the biggest problem, biodiversity trashed. But poos are emotive I guess.
The farming industry is absolutely laughing (well, keeping their heads well down) about the furore over sewage and water companies. The stats show that it’s agri runoff that is the biggest problem, biodiversity trashed. But poos are emotive I guess
The EA have been recruiting to start to tackle this. A long way to go.
Yes, I’m pretty sure diffuse and other agricultural pollution is also in the bill? A lot of it, things like buffer zones to reduce surface run-off, are also linked to flooding etc. I guess it’s comparatively easy to do compared to re-plumbing the sewer network too!
The boards of these big water companies are probably on performance related bonuses
Big ftse100 companies also set up share options for the board.
The guys at the top would be hit financially if the government took charge, accepted that the system was flawed and mandated change that will cost each compamy say £ 1 billion a year.
Even then it would never get finished
The problem with the EA is the funding in the departments keeps getting cut and people are leaving as they can earn more money elsewhere and because the pay is no longer competitive they struggle to get people in and if they do it takes a couple of years to fully train an EM officer and once trained they often move on.
Kuco - exactly. I left the EA last year, pay was abysmal. I wasn’t replaced, I was an Environment Officer.
From speaking to people still there it seems numbers of staff are reducing still.
Takes 18 months to get an EO up to speed and able to take on case files. And once you are there you can never get another pay rise, so despite me being chartered and having a huge amount of experience they won’t do anything to pursuade you to stay. Probably can’t.
I think it’s £29k now for someone fully qualified? Start on £24k as a trainee? Ridiculously low for such a responsible and complex job when there were so many middle managers making no difference to the environment at all.
My new job in a water company pays me a lot more and is a lot easier!!
My new job in a water company pays me a lot more and is a lot easier!!
It's now all your fault
Just a few points
I We were sold privitisation on the basis it would improve matters by allowing much needed infrastructure upgrades. [The Victorians however considered water to be an unsuitable candidate for privitisation.] That's verifiable by checking Hansard.
2 Brexit is a factor since it has made it more difficult/ expensive for the water companies to access certain chemicals.
3 Now that we are no longer in Europe we can forget about having to hold to certain standards, however poor they were, so Brexit again. Brexit has enabled the Severn Barrage to rear it's ugly head for a third time. This utterly failed to comply with European environmental standards the last time round, and it was going to be very very expensive: but in the manner of the rail link fiasco, that won't stop companies looking to cash in on Government projects. Personally, with the amount of sediment the Severn Estuary carries, I wonder how long it would take to silt up. Parts of Herefordshire are said to have about another 100 years of topsoil cover at the present rate of denudation.
Direct Sewage Discharges are not illegal. I got payed to survey one Welsh River for sutability for White Water canoeing. Apart from crossing and recrossing sewage pipes decapitating participants it just happened that the proposed egress site was a CSO [Combined Sewage Outfall]. CSO's are allowed to spew raw sewage during white water conditions.....
Kuco
Full MemberThe problem with the EA is the funding in the departments keeps getting cut and people are leaving as they can earn more money elsewhere and because the pay is no longer competitive they struggle to get people in and if they do it takes a couple of years to fully train an EM officer and once trained they often move on.
Yup, and all very intentional of course- one thing modern Tories are amazing at is failing in the direction they want to go. Theresa May's entire time in the home office was full of this, austerity was almost entirely about it, it's the sure and safe way to attack the NHS, and it works great for regulation as well. Hard to convince people to vote for relaxing regulations. Incredibly easy to leave the same regulations in place and just destroy the process that's supposed to enforce it- easier in fact than doing it properly.
f230ftw it's still the same, if anything it's getting worse. I'm in a different department and not EM but spoke to someone only last week who is a TL in EM and they are getting fed up. But it's the same across all departments rather sadly.
“ Yup, and all very intentional of course- one thing modern Tories are amazing at is failing in the direction they want to go.”
To be fair it’s got nothing to do with what government is in power. The money in the EA does not do a good job of getting to the “coal face”.
As a great example the environmental permits for waste sites were changed recently and he charges were increased to “properly pay for the cost of regulation”. Which is fair enough but that didn’t mean more officers to regulate agains those permits. A TL in our office did the sums after getting some inside info from a very senior manager and we found that the local EM teams were getting less than 20% of the money we were taking in permit fees.
Another issue was the the flooding side was always getting more money and staff with the same expertise in that department as an EO were on the next pay grade up. Really really unfair.
If the EA got the amount of money at the front end they needed it would be very different.
I have a friend who’s a lawyer for NRW (essentially the EA in Wales) and after the recent Panarama episode about water companies and sewage I asked why wasn’t anyone prosecuted in Dwr Cymru when their releases into rivers were breaking the law. He said that the powers that be in government stop them doing it.
What’s the point eh?
Just another corrupt joke. Like HMRC tax lawyers targeting lowly individuals and leaving the big players alone.
What chance has the environment/COP26 got when we can’t/won’t even effectively target sewerage and tax.
Eliminating storm spills will be very difficult and costly.
Not just on the water companies, this one - increasing suburbanisation and e.g. tarmacking of front gardens to make driveways aren’t helping with run-off. Surely needs to be a big effort on reducing this and upstream slowing the flow, as well as improving sewerage?
Eliminating storm spills will be very difficult and costly.
if only it were just storm spills.
they are doing it all the time and the government just gave them mandate to keep doing it.
He said that the powers that be in government stop them doing it.
Devolution politics for you, nobody wants to be prosecuting their sacred cows as it will make them look bad.
You would have thought someone would whistle blow on it though
All those beaches in the South West getting the brown flag and yet they always return Tory MPs. Must be something in the water.
All those beaches in the South West getting the brown flag and yet they always return Tory MPs. Must be something in the water.
SW used to be even worse with no treatment and not very long outfalls.
Reminds me of visiting a Scottish castle which was lochside watching the toilet paper float away after hearing the flush of the visitor toilets
Ultimately it's a failure of regulation, the companies have been claiming returns based on maintaining assets, they haven't been maintaining them anywhere near enough and should take the pain to fix rather than loading customer bills. If they want to hand back to the state for free that's always open to them and then former directors can be criminally charged once the decisions are brought into the open.
I remember when SW Water had to cough up a £1m compo to Croyde Bay Holidays (1990?), surfing there meant you got the squits. Now it's back to where it was. Sold my longboard just before all this bubbled up, can't imagine demand would have been great now.
All those beaches in the South West getting the brown flag and yet they always return Tory MPs. Must be something in the water.
tories dont surf.
Maybe so but they own holiday lets, hotels, shops and pubs.
Water companies apologise:
Ruth Kelly, the chair of Water UK, said: “The message from the water and sewage industry today is clear: we are sorry. More should have been done to address the issue of spillages sooner and the public is right to be upset about the current quality of our rivers and beaches.
Although some people will be pleased with how they performed:
Privatised water and sewage companies in the UK paid £1.4bn in dividends in 2022, up from £540m the previous year. Annual bonuses paid to water company executives rose by 20% in 2021, as water bosses paid themselves £24.8m
Customers however might not be so pleased:
A £10bn investment from water companies to stop sewage spills will be paid for by customers through "modest increases to their bills".
Another case of common ownership of the loses and private ownership of the profits.
I wonder what percentage on that 1.4 billion they creamed off was paid to Tory MPs to vote through the deregulation required for them to just pump shit into anywhere they like, with no consequences?
I’m saying 0.00000000000001% as this lot can be payed off for next to nothing
As investments go, that’s quite some return
Foreign companies defiling our great British rivers and charging us for the honour.
Why these people aren't top of bravermans hit list I don't know.
We need to send the water companies boxes of shit or just go and smear it over their door handles and windows.
We could of course apologise afterwards and promise that we will spend £5 and not do it again.
Could a ban be be put in place on profit, bonus's and dividend payouts until they have sorted the issues?
Pay the money into a holding account - and once they've literally sorted their shit out the money then gets released.
All I can see from this latest announcement is them taking more money off us and they'll still be kicking the sewage problem down the road for the next twenty years 'due to logistically issues and increased costs'.
Withhold the money until the problems are sorted.
From the BEEB:-
English water companies have handed more than £2bn a year on average to shareholders since they were privatised three decades ago
The concept that this it acceptable to generate and pass on that level of "profit" and yet not acknowledge that had even 50% of that been reinvested it would not have had a profound impact on is shit - literal shit- is beyond scandalous.
I'm a realist - our Victorian systems were designed to treat a fraction of what we now generate to a standard we now consider unacceptable - a massive level of investment is required. And that will require us collectively digging in our pockets I'm sure. But if dividends remain as they are whilst we are doing it heads need to roll.
A £10bn investment from water companies to stop sewage spills will be paid for by customers through “modest increases to their bills”.
This seems grossly wrong.
Glad they're doing something about it - but it should come from their profits - they can clearly afford it. It's disgusting.
Water companies apologise:
"Sorry we have been caught out" more like.
And I agree that the £10bn of dividends coming before investment and an environmental disaster is appalling.
Edit....
We need to send the water companies boxes of shit or just go and smear it over their door handles and windows.
We could of course apologise afterwards and promise that we willspendcharge them £5 and not do it again.
cheery toffees (anag)
My other question: seeing as the water companies, government and watchdog have let this happen, what needs to change to prevent it in future?
Clearly the private companies will ignore the 'planet and people before profit'.
The government couldn't give a floating jobby.
Make Directors personally responsible for sewage dischage. With fines, combined with community service, as a deterrent.
If they had to spend 40 hours picking tampons, cotton earbuds and wet wipes off a beach it might make them think abit harder about profit distribution.
Even down here the fines, althougj millions, are a small percentage of the annual profits, and again a small percentage of building capacity at the existing treatment plant. So its cheaper to dischage macerated turds than fix the problem.
But bring in criminal negligence charges, fines, community service that impacts the board and you will see improvement
This.
I couldn't agree more. It is criminal negligence.
Well water industry bosses have "voluntarily" decided to give up their bonuses this year, which presumably means that they have met all their targets. I don't think that you get a bonus if you fail to reach your target do you?
I have no idea what their basic pay is but if they haven't spunked all the more than half a £million they each received on average in bonuses last year a trip to the food bank might not be necessary.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/water-firm-bosses-pay-soars-27777154
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65615711
Water pollution: Tory MP says he swam in sewage as a child
well that's ok, we are all just being snowflakes..
although, part of me thinks they've always pumped this much shit into the rivers and sea, its just the reporting of it is better than it used to be.
although, part of me thinks they’ve always pumped this much shit into the rivers and sea, its just the reporting of it is better than it used to be.
+1
I used to live in Saltburn, which is that really picturesque beach in North Yorkshire / Teesside that always seems to be the background for the weather forecast (it's the one with the funicular railway or the distinctive shaped cliff depending on which picture they're using).
For the entire time I lived there, there was a very small notice at the bottom of the noticeboard in the car park saying not to go in the water which was either unseen or ignored by thousands of people.
Water companies have been promising the biggest infrastructure investment since Victorian times for years now, while they hand over billions to shareholders year on year.
Although Labour have apparently rowed back on re-nationalisation, there is still a lot of appetite for it in the party just under the surface, it could easily re-emerge if water quality turns into a leading election issue, and this performative bullshit apology is just a manoeuvre to try to reduce the risk to their shareholders.
Blaming wild birds, honestly I've heard and seen some written excuses in my time, but this really is the kind of rubbish that 'some' people might actually believe. I'm lost for words.
It is bonkers though. If I personally get caught polluting a waterway i would expect a fine and possibly criminal charges.
These water companies do it on, quite literally, an industrial scale. The bosses and shareholders then get paid for doing it.
All wrong.
Although the local sewage vo refused to hook up a new build of 20 houses to the maims as it is already overcapacity.
So the tin pot local council gave them planning permission. So now we have a procession of 20t toad tankers hauling the grey water awsy to the sewage works, where they macerate it and pump it out into a tidal estaury, where the ebb tide takes it the 5 miles back to where it came from. Fo real.
My other question: seeing as the water companies, government and watchdog have let this happen, what needs to change to prevent it in future?
Nationalisation. IMO there are certain essential services which should not be run for the financial benefit of shareholders.
Nationalisation. IMO there are certain essential services which should not be run for the financial benefit of shareholders.
Absolutely. The argument for privatisation was that the private sector would run this stuff more efficiently. Turns out that's horseshit, apparently, and was the justification for the effective asset stripping of our networks to give money to shareholders.
although, part of me thinks they’ve always pumped this much shit into the rivers and sea, its just the reporting of it is better than it used to be.
I don't think it is because the reporting is better now, it's because as the Tory MP says it was considered more acceptable in previous times. His suggestion that it didn't really cause any harm is nonsense though.
You can't justify poor public health standards today by claiming that standards were worst in the past.
The reason that the Victorians built an efficient sewage system for London (a public sector project carried out by the local council and paid for with public money) was because the Great Stink of 1858 offended the noses and sensibilities of parliamentarians as they sat in the Palace of Westminster.
You've got to rub their nose in it.
I keep reading about beaches losing blue flag status, which, while not a definitive indicator, is certainly not a sign of progress.
The problem with going straight for nationalisation is that we'll have to pay the shareholders.
Privatisation should have been done like the railways (still not good but better). You get the "franchise" with conditions. If you don't meet the conditions, you don't get the "franchise" renewed.
That didn't happen so the fines need to go up to a point that the companies either meet their obligations or the value of the company goes down to something sensible for nationalisation.
The problem with going straight for nationalisation is that we’ll have to pay the shareholders.
You have to assume that shareholders have only invested in the water industry because they see it as a sound investment, whatever the cost of the shares. Therefore it would also suggest a sound investment for the government.
Although I'm liking your suggestion of fining the industry to the point where the companies become worthless. Unfortunately they would pass the cost of the fines onto their customers, as they intend to do with the cost of the necessary investment.
Straightforward nationalisation is needed, as occurred under the Victorians. Margaret Thatcher claimed to have admired Victorian values and in turn the current UK Prime Minister claims to admire Margret Thatcher, so there should be a wide consensus.
I don’t think it is because the reporting is better now, it’s because as the Tory MP says it was considered more acceptable in previous times. His suggestion that it didn’t really cause any harm is nonsense though.
You can’t justify poor public health standards today by claiming that standards were worst in the past.
i'm not trying to excuse the behaviour. I've been surfing and kayaking in the sea and rivers for the best part of 30yrs. I don't think water quality has got significantly worse in that time but the public awareness of it has increased massively. this is a good thing.
it should have got significantly better but chronic underinvestment means it hasn't, and there is no motivation for the water companies to invest. as above, they need to feel the fear of losing the franchise if they don't measure up.
although, part of me thinks they’ve always pumped this much shit into the rivers and sea, its just the reporting of it is better than it used to be.
Its definitely increased. You probably all already know this but one of the problems is how CSO's (combined sewer overflows) are/have been used. Traditionally the sewerage systems in the UK have been designed based on long duration, low insensity rain fall, so CSO's didn't get used that much, as large flood events were not that frequent.
Nowadyas we have lots more short duration, high intenensity rain fall events which means the CSO's end up being used more often. As time goes on and we continue to remove surface water from combined/foul water networks this will improve, but that will take major investment and freakin years to do it!!
I agree with all the above and Water companies should not be shoving this back on us.
That didn’t happen so the fines need to go up to a point that the companies either meet their obligations or the value of the company goes down to something sensible for nationalisation.
+1
Although it is slightly more complicated in reality as the companies are limited in what they are allowed to charge and thus spend on repairs and upgrades. If you want to undertake a project that's beyond the normal budget for repairs and maintenance you have to to go to Ofwat and get permission as it will impact on peoples bills.
Secondly, a lot of the water companies are massively in debt. Between bonds and bank loans Thames Water has about £12Billion in debt on it's accounts. That's 10x it's turnover.
Thirdly, Thames Water hasn't paid external dividends for 5 years, although it has made payments to it's parent company circa £3-£33million a year.
Fourthly, Thames Water's record profit last year wasn't down to water bills apparently, but down to "financial instruments". I'd have to dig into the accounts beyond the summaries to see what that actually means but I'd guess either it's either to do with the debt or to do with the energy prices either they've benefited from what they generate or they had long term contracts with suppliers that meant they had energy below the market rate.
The problem with going straight for nationalisation is that we’ll have to pay the shareholders.
One of the myths surrounding nationalisation is that the government would have to pay market value for the shares, or even a premium.
Truth is, the government could legislate to acquire these companies for a penny. It wouldn't do this, but it can still pay what it thinks is reasonable. Given the level of debt it would be acquiring, the share price probably massively overvalues the asset, as it is propped up by the fact that the only thing these companies do consistently is take the money you're paying them to provide the service, and hand far too much of it out in dividends.
Even if the government was considering paying 'market value', the suggestion that it might not should be enough to bring that market value down significantly...
Truth is, the government could legislate to acquire these companies for a penny.
There is a credible case that the government doesn't need to legislate at all and that it can nationalise, whilst offering zero compensation, under existing legislation:
Supporters of nationalisation cite rulings from the high court, court of appeal and European court of human rights (ECHR) on shareholders’ general rights to compensation in a nationalisation.
The rulings were made in cases involving Northern Rock shareholders, who were paid zero compensation when the bank was taken into public ownership during the 2008 financial crisis.
The court of appeal ruled against the shareholders, saying: “The court would only interfere if it were to conclude that the state’s judgment as to what is in the public interest is manifestly without reasonable foundation.”
I think that would still be subject to a messy challenge in the courts based on whether the crisis facing the water industry is as existential as the one facing NR in 2008. Emergency measures vs prudent stewardship.
the sale/control of single use wipes would be a big help. 30 years back as an apprentice sewage fitter, wipes were really not an issue (just the std jam rags, johnny's, cotton buddies, fat and hair) - rarely saw wet wipes, now they dominate.
I think that would still be subject to a messy challenge in the courts
The wording used by the court of appeal is interesting though : "what is in the public interest is manifestly without reasonable foundation.”
'Manifestly without reasonable foundation' sets the bar incredibly low. It should be very easy indeed to prove that there is a public interest case for water nationalisation, even if some might claim that it is flimsy.
I'm not opposed to the idea, but probably the government has to limit the extent to which it rides roughshod over private investors because it needs to maintain confidence in those industries that will remain in private hands. Doesn't mean that water shareholders should get full value though, I don't mind them getting a bit of a haircut.
So have the companies not be fined over the last few years to not adhering to regulation on dumping waste, or was that the problem that waste wasnt regulated tight enough?
Also if you nationalise the companies again, doesnt that wipe big values off pension pots?
Also if you nationalise the companies again, doesnt that wipe big values off pension pots?
Debatable:
Either - everyone pays in through their water bills, improvements get made, those with assets get richer.
Or - everyone pays through taxation, improvements get made, everyone is better off*.
*just not as better off as the asset owners would have been if they owned the asset, but they wouldn't get dysentery from swimming in the river/sea in which case they'd probably agree that being not-dead trumps not making money from public services.
I don't know what the answer is, the water companies were terrible when they were state run, poor service levels and no investment, been the same since privatisation, maybe a bit better. Even if they could be renationalised without paying the shareholders there would be massive costs and upheaval to effect the transfer which would just kick improvements further down the road.
Either way the state (government) failed to have a strategic vision for upgrading and renewing our water systems and some way of funding it. Until that is addressed nothing will change regardless of whether it's privatised or not. This was why they were privatised in the first place, give the public a bogeyman to blame and get the government off the hook.
If you are joe public, you go to prison for damaging the waterways. Water companies are doing far worse on a far greater scale and there is very little repercussion.
I don’t know what the answer is, the water companies were terrible when they were state run
No they weren't, for a start water was essentially seen as a "free" and unlimited as there was no such thing as a "water bill", until Margaret Thatcher came along.
The cost was included as part of the council rates in the same way as road maintenance, education, policing, etc was. It wasn't even listed as a separate item on the ratepayers bill until Thatcher insisted that it was, despite it being a tiny amount.
The council rates system was incomparably cheaper and more affordable than council taxes are today.
The idea of privatisation of water was not sold to the public on the basis that the service was "terrible", no one at the time thought it was. It was sold to the public on the basis that it would be more efficient and therefore reduce the cost to customers.
So have the companies not be fined over the last few years to not adhering to regulation on dumping waste, or was that the problem that waste wasnt regulated tight enough?
Yeah water companies have had massive fines over the years. The problem seems to be that they just see it as an occupational hazard, and that the cost of doing what they are supposed to do exceeds the fines they receive for not doing what they are supposed to do.
One of the issues like the railways, is that the investment plans that each water company has to submit to Ofwat are only for a short 5 year period, for each of the asset management plan periods - we are currently in AMP7 which is 2020-2025.
5 years is far too short a period for this type of infrastructure.
Ok Ernie youre right* there were no Victorian sewage systems over flowing into rivers, dumping raw effluent into the sea wasn't seen as normal practice (yet alone illegal) and there was already a national water grid in place to ensure security of future supply.
* you're not.
Whatever they may have told the public the truth was the system was completely screwed and needed massive investment, it was basically still a fundamentally Victorian system and on the verge of collapse.
Whatever they may have told the public the truth was the system was completely screwed and needed massive investment, it was basically still a fundamentally Victorian system and on the verge of collapse.
That had absolutely nothing to do with the reason for privatisation and everything to do with deliberate underinvestment by the Thatcher government. By the time water was privatised Thatcher had been prime minister for 10 years and investment was a fraction of what it had been 20 years earlier...... when people didn't even get bills from the water companies!
It is like the deliberate trashing of the NHS today and in 30 years time, when people are complaining of the failures of American-style healthcare, saying well the NHS was in a mess which proved that 'socialized medicine' didn't work.
Although in the case of the water industry at no time were the public told that the industry was in a mess which needed to be sorted out. If you want to claim that was a primary reason provide some evidence.
The reasons for privatisation were clear, a neoliberal ideological commitment, at least publicly claimed if not in reality, to a 'share owning democracy', to privatise profits, undermine trade unions, and to generate income to pay for the massive Tory government failures, such as mass unemployment.
One former, and rather successful Tory Prime Minister, very aptly described it as "selling off the family silver".
It was exactly that and designed to pay for the staggering economic failures caused by a severe recession, despite the UK at the time being one of the very few oil exporting countries in the world.
The public were told that privatisation would bring in greater efficiency and consequently their water bills, which didn't even exist before Thatcher became PM, would come down.
They were also told that it would help them to become rich.
This professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, and a former senior civil servant, explains it all here:
The reasons for privatisation were clear, a neoliberal ideological commitment, at least publicly claimed if not in reality, to a ‘share owning democracy’, to privatise profits, undermine trade unions, and to generate income to pay for the massive Tory government failures, such as mass unemployment.
I think there is something else too. Prior to privatisation the sewerage network down as far as treatment works was managed, maintained and paid for by local authorities not the water boards. By handing over these assets to private companies central government could reduce its financial support of local government.
During the time I spent as a civil engineer in Manchester City Council's main drainage department a great deal of time and money was being spent updating the Victorian era network. Much of it was over 140 years old at the time and yet a lot was in remarkably good condition but under capacity. That lack of capacity led to increased discharge to water courses from storm overflows. Part of our work was to improve/replace those old overflows.
As far as I can tell, that work stalled following privatisation and along with the increasing intensity of storms we are now in a situation worse than that prior to privatisation. Perhaps part of the issue is that Water Companies are not as responsible to local communities as the local councils were.
No they weren’t, for a start water was essentially seen as a “free” and unlimited as there was no such thing as a “water bill”, until Margaret Thatcher came along.
I am no fan of a privatised water industry at all but…
At the time of privatisation large volumes of sewage was discharged directly to the sea with nothing but rough screening and maybe basic settlement, we had no idea how many times CSOs were spilling and sludge from some of those discharges that were treated had only just stopped being dumped at sea.
In Wales at least, CSO discharge frequencies have been falling significantly over the last decade. It is only recently that we have had accurate measurements of the number and duration of spills so a lot of the current discussions have been sparked by the release of this information when in the past we lived in blissful ignorance.
I agree that shareholder dividends and senior manager bonuses are excessive and I would prefer a public owned industry. But nationalisation alone would not be a panacea. Large investment would still be needed and the savings made by ending excessive salaries and bonuses wouldn’t cover the cost of improvements. Remember that the industry is in public hands in Scotland and the situation there isn’t rosy. As far as I understand they don’t even have spill frequency monitoring on most of their intermittent discharges.