Thames poluted again

[argyll]

Just so long as it doesnt get all the way upstream to Henley, they won't do a bloody thing.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

Phil Hackett said;

 

“Given this has happened again! Shouldn’t London Anglers now be asking some questions of the EA about what they propose to do about this continued flouting of river pollution?

 

Or has a deal been struck between the two parties and they are playing politics with the Govt. about the interceptor tunnel under London?

 

On the plague front if this continues the House will have to be having 12 months holiday because the smells to bad, instead of the three months it now takes off for that historic reason.

 

On the other hand, some might say politicians should be off permanently for all the use they are, but I couldn’t possibly comment on that though!”

 

Then Steve Burke said;

 

“In a statement, the Department for Environment said: "While the proposed interceptor tunnel might still emerge as the most appropriate long-term solution, the government has since decided that, bearing in mind the scale, the costs and the long implementation timescale, further consideration is necessary before decisions are reached."

 

Is this double talk meaning the Government won't allow water bills to go up in an election year?

 

Politicians seem to be more concerned with feathering their own nests than doing what's right for the electorate.”

 

Interesting comments from Phil and Steve that understandably laid the blame at politician’s doors.

 

Other interesting facts emerged from the “Inquirer” reporting on Thames sewerage pollution. Apparently, Ofwat published its “levels of service” for England and Wales. One of the companies; Three Valleys-failed to answer a staggering 750,000 calls made within the survey period. But that’s ok folks because this mind blowing figure is apparently a vast improvement on last year’s figures of one million failed calls!!

 

One of the “inquirer’s” readers wrote to London’s Lord Mayor and received this reply from the Lord Mayor’s office;

 

“"The recent serious pollution of the River Thames was clearly unpleasant, environmentally damaging and potentially dangerous. It was caused by the heavy rainfall overflowing the sewerage system in extensive areas of London. The problem arises because much of London has a "combined" sewer system, i.e. a system that carries both rain water and foul water to sewage treatment works. At times of heavy rainfall it is possible for the sewers to overflow. These overflows discharge into the River Thames and this is what caused the problem".

 

He continued: "Given that this is the way that the sewerage system is designed, it is not appropriate to point to the failure of anyone or to blame anyone. Work has been underway over the past 4 years to determine a long term solution to this problem. No decision has yet been reached but it is clear that any workable solution will be expensive and technically complex."

 

"It would take several years to implement and the final cost will ultimately be borne by Londoners through their water bills".

 

A sad reality in that reply perhaps but one that does carry more than a grain of truth.

 

 

So are our politicians to blame for the absolute disgrace that is London’s sewerage system now? Depends on how long the pointed fingers of blame are really.

 

In its Victorian day, the construction of London’s sewerage system could have been considered an engineering marvel? Dual systems are extremely bad news but the Victorians didn’t know that in their day. But time crept on and London’s sewerage disposal requirements grew out of all proportion with the spread of the city and the populace that lived there. In simple terms, the citizens of London outgrew its sewerage system. And the real problem was, successive governments of all political persuasion’s constantly failed to take on board the catastrophic long term effects of doing too little too late.

 

In my opinion, the present administrations failure to take this issue far more seriously than they appear to do merely reflects the previous steps all their predecessors took. Yes, there has been a lot of talking via numerous committees set up to look at this problem. But with what ultimate outcome??

 

Recently the London Assembly’s Health Committee asked Thames Water why it pumped one million tonnes of sewerage into the Thames during the August storms. The firm said the solution is a £1.5bn tunnel under the Thames but added it would take 10 years to build.

 

Might I reasonably deduce that the £1.5bn figure quoted, like a lot of other projected costs, run the risk of spiralling out of control? Especially when such a project is estimated to run over a ten year period?? This problem is massive.

 

What concerns me as well is the question of exactly where the proposed tunnels millions of tons of sewerage will end up??? Will any proposals for the construction of such a tunnel serve to shift London’s environmental disaster onto someone else’s environment?

 

We cannot continue to use our waterways for sewerage disposal because as we as a nation grow, the risk of a catastrophic ecological disaster grows as well.

 

What I’d like to see happen is decent funding made available so our nations brightest engineers can come up with new and inventive sewerage re-cycling proposals instead of using our rivers for extended toilet flushing systems.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Leon Roskilly]

As the population is soon to be dramatically reduced by a bird 'flu pandemic (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/frontiers.shtml ), and the amount of sewage produced cut considerably, it is probably good sense not to spend the money on this.

 

It will also solve road congestion etc., which is probably why the government aren't too bothered about taking the steps that just might save many of us.

 

Of course no one is going to admit to planning ahead with such cynical foresight!

 

TL - leon

 

[ 20. December 2004, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Steve Burke]

One of the problems with our current system of government is that no party is office likes the idea of spending money now to benefit a future government, possibly of a different party. As a result governments don't plan nearly enough beyond the next election.

 

Wouldn't it be great if politicians agreed to put a certain proportion of national income into long term funding?

 

It might even be something that the House of Lords could deal with. After all they're pretty toothless now! No, come to think of it that wouldn't work, too many of them are failed MPs anyway!

 

Me, a policital cynic? Whatever gave you that idea?

[poledark]

Not to worry anyway, cos London will be under water soon enough...so why waste money on new sewers. Now that IS long term planning

 

Den

[Peter Waller]

Steve Burke:

Wouldn't it be great if politicians agreed to put a certain proportion of national income into long term funding?

No, its London's problem, let the City pay for it. The developers are making a killing, 'bout time they put a few pence back into the infrastucture that they have overloaded.

[beezer]

What we need is proportional representation.

[Leon Roskilly]

Brussels, 12 January 2005

 

Urban waste water treatment: Commission sends final warning to UK over inadequate implementation

 

The European Commission is sending a final written warning to the United Kingdom asking it to comply with the 1991 Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.

 

Under this Directive,[1] sewage and other wastewater from all agglomerations with populations of over 15,000 is required to undergo secondary-level (ie biological) treatment before being discharged into rivers and other water bodies. The necessary treatment plants to achieve this should have been operational by 31 December 2000, but in the UK this has not yet been done for 14 agglomerations.

 

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: “By not fully complying with this EU law, the UK is not delivering the level of protection against pollution from waste water that it signed up to and that British citizens deserve.

 

I intend to give priority to ensuring that Member States live up to their commitments.”

 

Nine of the agglomerations are in Northern Ireland: Bangor, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Londonderry, Larne, Newtownabbey, Omagh, Portrush and Donaghdee.

 

Moreover, the situation in Northern Ireland risks being exacerbated by a decision to allow substantial new development to go ahead in some of the areas where no appropriate wastewater treatment is in place.

 

This appears to be happening despite the authorities’ own assessment that the developments pose a medium to high risk of having negative environmental impacts.

 

Four agglomerations are in England, at Broadstairs and Margate in Kent, Brighton on the south coast and Bideford/Northam in Devon, and Lerwick is in Scotland.

 

Legal Process

 

Article 226 of the Treaty gives the Commission powers to take legal action against a Member State that is not respecting its obligations.

 

If the Commission considers that there may be an infringement of EU law that warrants the opening of an infringement procedure, it addresses a "Letter of Formal Notice" (first written warning) to the Member State concerned, requesting it to submit its observations by a specified date, usually two months.

 

In the light of the reply or absence of a reply from the Member State concerned, the Commission may decide to address a "Reasoned Opinion" (final written warning) to the Member State. This clearly and definitively sets out the reasons why it considers there to have been an infringement of EU law and calls upon the Member State to comply within a specified period, normally two months.

 

If the Member State fails to comply with the Reasoned Opinion, the Commission may decide to bring the case before the European Court of Justice. The Court can make a judgement confirming that the Member State is in breach of its obligations. The Member State must take steps to comply with the judgement as soon as possible.

 

Article 228 of the Treaty gives the Commission power to act against a Member State that does not comply with a previous judgement of the European Court of Justice. Such action also involves the stages of a “Letter of Formal Notice” and “Reasoned Opinion”. The article also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on the Member State concerned.

For current statistics on infringements in general, please visit the following web-site:

 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_gene...htm#infractions

[Alan Stubbs]

Steve Burke:

In a statement, the Department for Environment said: "While the proposed interceptor tunnel might still emerge as the most appropriate long-term solution, the government has since decided that, bearing in mind the scale, the costs and the long implementation timescale, further consideration is necessary before decisions are reached."

 

Is this double talk meaning the Government won't allow water bills to go up in an election year?

 

Politicians seem to be more concerned with feathering their own nests than doing what's right for the electorate. :mad:

Got it in one Steve.

[waterman1013]

The real problem is that Thames Water already have the land they need for the development of the bypass. OFWAT will not allow the funding under the price review and the land will be lost to Thames water if they cannot develop it during the next cycle, because of Exchequer rules. Thames Water continue to export "profits", i.e. government subsidy for the provision of services, overseas and that is the excuse given by OFWAT for not permitting better than 19% price increase over the next five years.

 

Water is a strategic resource and should be in public ownership.

 

Peter, it is not just London's problem. It is a national disgrace that our prime water through our capital continues to be polluted in this way. If the work is not started under the next round of price increases it probably will not be started until 2021 at the earliest, that means we will not have a solution to this probably until 2030. I guess I won't be here then to witness the opening!

 

The present discharges are covered by a discharge consent from the EA, which they have no power to withdraw.

 

Mike