Month: December 2021
CSO and water quality national media coverage
I am aware that not everyone will have seen some of the Times/Sunday Times articles relevant to bathing water and current CSO issues published in November. Here are three examples:
Other Broad broadsheet coverage of the Ofwat investigations includes:
A minor comment in the Times article of 8 November regarding Yorkshire Water’s discharges just below the UK’s first riverine bathing water is to my mind of particular note. It begs some potentially interesting questions about the purpose and effectiveness of riverine bathing waters but equally rather neatly illustrates the issues, problems, on both sides of the equation and the consequences of CSO discharges, in a way that is potentially far more easily illustrated to and understood by the public.
Blue Flag Applications in England
You should have been notified directly about the tight deadline for the 2022 Blue Flag Awards in England (and likely to be similar in elsewhere). Message from Tidy Britain reads:
As the bathing water classifications are now to be announced in January, it will mean quite a tight turnaround on applications for the 2022 award applications to ensure that they are submitted to the international jury in time. As such, here is the revised timeline for 2022 applications –
Application Window opens 1st December 2021
Beach Managers complete applications by 31st January 2022
Applications checked and prepared for national jury between 1st Feb and 14th Feb
National Jury review applications from 15th Feb with meeting taking place in w/c 21st Feb
Applications submitted to International Jury no later than 28th Feb
I would ask that you complete as much of your application as possible before the classifications are released, so that on the day of the announcement we can update the system and then submit.
We will also only invoice for your applications after the classifications have been announced. The 2022 application fees are –
Seaside Award – £545.00 (plus VAT)
Blue Flag – £749.00 (plus VAT)
Combined Blue Flag and Seaside Award – £799.00 (plus VAT)
Please do get in touch with Lynsey.Atherton@keepbritaintidy.org if you have any questions.
More on CSO discharges in England and Wales
I have been thinking about the implications of the recent Westminster Government announcements on major investigation by EA and Ofwat into CSO discharges in England and Wales: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/water-companies-could-face-legal-action-after-investigation-launched-into-sewage-treatment-works
Over a period of several years, we have seen Southern Water investigated by both Ofwat and EA and more recently heavily fined for serious, deliberate breaches. Earlier this year EA released a report showing evidence of wide spread failures and regular breaches of licenced discharge conditions elsewhere. Defra indicated in March its intent to investigate, in amongst a flurry of media (TV print and radio) investigations, some of which, like the Times’, doggedly continues. Some of the water companies themselves then responded by citing failures and the difficult of compliance, I had initially presumed by way of early mitigation of any future legal action?
More recently we then saw the Westminster Government blocking a Lords amendment to the Environment Bill that put a reasonably strong duty on Water Companies to bring about much needed improvements. Only then to see Government putting in its own watered-down amendment after a major and obviously embarrassing public outcry. To then announce a major investigation, so soon after the about face, seems at odds with the original resistance to forcing early and effective improvements? I and others, I suspect, may be a bit confused about all of this and, in particular, about just where the Westminster Government stands on waste water regulation and legal and/or moral compliance?
I am speculating but I now wonder if the unexpected rash of admissions of failure in the early summer was intended more to warn Government of the scale of the problem and therefore the potential costs, ultimately it is said to be carried by customers, rather than to mitigate any possible investigation and fines? That might help explain the resistance to the Lords’ amendment, the more weakly worded Government replacement and the dilemma they now face? It doesn’t fully answer the claim that on reflection perhaps more of these companies’ substantial past profits should have been going into infrastructure improvements? Nor does it counter the simplistic observation that in some cases the risk and cost of fines for breakings the regulations, are a lot less than potential profits to be made by successfully getting away with ignoring them. Hopefully the investigation and any consequential penalties and what they are directed into pay for, will provide answers and and address any imbalances in the current risk cost benefit calculations.
Regardless, events this year have left me feeling disappointed in the actions or inaction in a number of colleagues in different departments, agencies and especially companies. I had been persuaded that Southern Water’s failures were those of a rogue business, or even those of a few rogue employees? By default, I was also persuaded that the majority of Water Companies were doing all they could to drive up bathing water standards and that consequently the majority of residual issues were not of their making. Indeed, on reflection, this had been the view that has been actively nurtured by all major plays from well before the Southern Water investigation started.
Even in advance of the official, and doubtless long, investigation to come, the evidence already circulating suggests that most, if not all, Water Companies might have been doing only what they had to do. Or worse still, only what they erroneously thought they could get away with, given the limited, accurate automated measurement systems in place (only on 11% of c 21.5k CSOs in England and Wales) and an increasingly over worked and under resourced enforcement system. A system that is forced to assume by the limited resource and recourses available to them that all major companies will naturally abide by both the letter and spirit of regulations and the law and accurately report all and every CSO discharge. Southern Water’s proven actions, the EA’s own and others recent research and the subsequent belated admissions of several water companies shows that currently is far from the truth.
I really hope I am wrong and that this is a massive and overstated misunderstand but I doubt it. Sadly, an investigation on this scale may take several years, or longer to conduct and, while it is ongoing, neither Ofwat, EA or in all likelihood, the companies themselves are likely to comment, let alone explain what the actual situation was or is.
Notwithstanding those limitations during an ongoing investigations, I do hope that the water Industry now comes absolutely clean on any failures and does so quickly and without resistance. In addition, I also hope the companies do all they can to quickly rebuild potential shredded local and national relationships. Preferably doing it, well before Ofwat and EA formally report and any subsequent legal or regulatory processes are completed. Otherwise, this could be a very uncomfortable and awkward few, plus years for many hard won and, until now at least, seemingly effective local, regional and national, cooperative partnerships forums and working groups.
In closing I note that Tourism South East (TSE) is coordination coastal destination approach to Southern Water seeking answer and assurances. Essentially, as I understand it, they are doing it, so that from a tourism prospective at least, they get common answers and shared understanding of how Southern Water intends to address its now publicly known failings (and any still to emerge). There are already other groups in other water company areas (Turning Tides NW coast, for example) that could, if ongoing investigations eventually expose similar issues, be used as a useful platform for joint negotiation, common understanding and to ensure all destinations in a usually larger region area are treated fairly and with undue favour. This doesn’t necessarily address failing in rivers and inland waters. The vast majority of which don’t include a designated bathing water that in turn substantially raises the regulatory bar. But sadly, only at the point of testing and currently only in the May to September bathing season.
Although the investigations are going to take time, if you are not adequately engaged in or don’t have an effective regional platform to voice water quality concerns that overlaps your own water company’s area already, then now may be the time to start investigating engagement in or forming some appropriate vehicle to enable it. I should stress that due to Southern Water EA and Ofwat prosecutions TSE and its partners are in a far stronger position and more to complain about than most, at least for the time being. The letter can be accessed at:
UK Beach Management Forum 
