You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Did anyone else see this?
Some water companies don't help themselves eh 🤨
Article says that it was activated legitimately? That means the storm water has exceeded the capacity of the sewage system.
Its not great obviously but this isn't the same as a non licencsed discharge.
If they had just stopped at the statement that it was within permit conditions it wouldn't be quite as bad, but the corporate press office just couldn't resist embellishing it:
"serious about tackling storm overflows" and "change of this scale takes time, ambition, and increased investment".
"We are working hard to actively reduce our use of storm overflows across the region as part of our £3.2bm investment programme,"
Bollocks you are.
Article says that it was activated legitimately
Oh well that's different then. Stand down everyone 😆
Sorry Josh but you've missed the point!
No i haven't.
Its shitty (lol) but its not the same thing as a low flow discharge due to poor maintenance or bad management*.
Now putting aside the corporate speak for a second. On which i completely agree with robola on. I'm absolutely not a fan of water companies and shareholders but it is important to make distinction. Its not in this case a company "getting away with it" its just really unfortunate timing.
In an ideal world you would remove surface water drainage from the foul sewer network over night, disconnect downpipes, disconnect road gullies, But that is a huge undertaking. You could provide storage to contain excess flows but depending on the system it could cost an absolute fortune but across the whole network that a massive and complex puzzle to prioritise. So which one do you propose the pick first?
That means the storm water has exceeded the capacity of the sewage system.
No, it means circumstances allow them to discharge. Whether it was genuinely needed, or they were just taking the opportunity to discharge because it was "within the rules" requires investigation to be known. Retrospective checks in recent years have found that water companies have been discharging far more often than required, because it was "within the rules" so they had the excuse/leeway to do so (which saves them money).
If you get the safer seas app and check it anytime it rains you’ll be gobsmacked and how often they’re discharging. Last week after one day of rain most of South Devon was red flagged. It’s a national disgrace that an app is even necessary to protect water users. As an example Widemouth currently has a raw sewage warning… Prioritising shareholder profits over everything else.
No doubt a daft question, but is it possible to Syphon this water off, clean it (however that is done) and make it available for agricultural use i.e. spraying crops?
I'm clearly showing my ignorance of this, but we have plenty areas with very low water levels, so surely we should be trying to capture as much rain water as possible so it can be put to use somewhere to help reduce pressure on resources.
Suspect it isn't just a case of how to capture and treat the water but also how.the various water companies interact (and no doubt how to minimse loss to shareholders).
I used to work on the bathing water directive monitoring between 82 and 87 among other things with Welsh Water. There was programme of investments aimed at cutting inflitration, separating surface and foul systems, increasing storage for storm events and providing minimalist treatment even of even long sea outflows. But then things were privatised, the toothless environment agency created and not a fat lot happened.
@dickbarton - usually, untreated sewage is "siphoned off" as it were, into a waste water treatment works (WWTW) for cleaning. However, when there's a storm our ancient systems overload the WWTWs and the excess untreated sewage is then discharged. So, as things are, no, the untreated stuff can't be diverted as the facilities to do the cleaning are unable to handle the extra.
In addition, any sewage products sprayed onto crops have to be tested to make sure they meet certain standards (you don't want to contaminate land, crops and groundwater with sewage that might contain, for example, lots of hydrocarbons from road run-off or zinc/lead from roof run-off). This is a bit different to discharging it to rivers and the sea, where the contaminants are quickly diluted and concentrations return to normal after 24 hours or so - soil and crops will retain contaminants for years/the lifespan of the crop.
The problem definitely is a lack of investment, though. Our sewer system is too old for modern purposes. In many European countries now sewage from your house (foul sewage) is put into a different sewer to sewage from roof and road run-off (surface sewage). The foul sewage goes off to a WWTW, while the surface discharges into rivers/the sea. It's foul sewage that's most contaminated and so that's the stuff that needs treating most. The WWTW doesn't get overloaded because only the foul sewage goes to it. In the UK, both foul and surface sewage often go to the same sewer pipes (combined sewers) and the same WWTW and during a storm there's LOADS more surface sewage going into that single system. So water companies discharge more. It's a system that's not fit for purpose anymore.
Ta...so it was a daft question...
No if we did what some other countries do and segregated the waste water streams then we could do as you say - or probably more simply, by discharging to rivers and allowing farmers to abstract from those rivers achieve similar effects.Ta...so it was a daft question...
No if we did what some other countries do and segregated the waste water streams then we could do as you say - or probably more simply, by discharging to rivers and allowing farmers to abstract from those rivers achieve similar effects.Ta...so it was a daft question...
This is a weird one. Its true but the reason loads of countries do it but we don't is... We did something about sewage much much earlier than most countries and subsequently we've inherited the old system. We do not used combined sewers in new construction.... Ish.
Yep, all new developments (commercial, industrial and residential) have been designed with seperate systems since, well, definitely 25 years ago...
Theres also a thing in planning called the 'hierarchy of surface water disposal', which goes 1. infiltration, 2. watercourse, 3. public sewer as a last resort. So where possible, surface water systems are designed to discharge to ground or a watercourse. Unfortunately, thats not always possible, especially in towns and cities. So even though the new development is designed with seperate foul and surface water systems they still end up discharging to existing public sewer networks that are probably combined systems....albeit at a controlled rate.
This is where the problems occur and where water companies should have been spending money upgrading and seperating systems a long time ago, but unlike developers that have to follow planning laws, nobody seems to be telling the water companies to get on with it and holding them to account....
We did something about sewage much much earlier than most countries and subsequently we've inherited the old system.
Rome had sewers over 2500 years ago, Paris in the 14th Century and most cities developed significant networks in the 19th Century. Combined foul and surface water sewers dominated most everywhere pre WWII. There's one serving my house in Pau from which I've so far diverted about half the roof water to soak away but half still goes in. There is still no surface water system I can connect to.
In my travels I've observed the main differences around Europe have occured since the 1960s or more precisely as countries have joined the EU and got to grips with bringing all aspects of water quality up to EU norms - especially bathing water. Britain embarked on that process in the 1970s but rather than taking it seriously and making the investments necessary slowly lost interest in even doing the minimum.
France spent £1.4bn trying to clean up the Seine in time for the 2024 Olympics and it wasn't enough - planned Olympics events had to be moved because the pollution was still so bad. You can imagine what it's like elsewhere. Not a cheap problem to fix and certainly not one that's exclusive to the UK.