|
Viewing 6 to (45 Total) |
|
Frank,
For clarification, the AT receives NO government money, it is member funded. To claim it is ‘in bed with EA’ could only be true to the extent that and gets it some ring fenced money from the EA to support its voluntary bailiffing scheme. It has no powers re discharge enforcement but does (and is) campaigning widely on this issue. Its legal arm (Fish Legal) provides help to angling clubs in bringing prosecutions where pollution occurs.
To claim it is doing nothing is not true. It is doing what it can, seeking information and highlighting
issues and pushing those with the power to act to do so. The recent press coverage of this national issue is down to the efforts of individuals such as Feargal Sharkey, FOI requests, and campaigning by AT and other interest and voluntary groups.
The wider points you make about the need for an organisation like the BAA to take the lead are
absolutely right. It will be more effective if it builds an alliance with other interested parties, other
clubs, conservation groups etc. Denial of the problem and shoulder shrugging achieve nothing, and of course no action is a green light for more of the same.
OLC also makes a good point, that maybe BAA are doing something; it would be good to know.
Posted on November 29, 2021 at 8:39 AM
|
|
Reg,
Interesting post but as you’ll realise from the sources you’ve cited there are 3 separate strands to
the problem:
1. Run off from chemical fertiliser – which is a product of current UK farming practices and the unintended consequences of which are deemed the ‘acceptable’ price we pay for ‘efficient’ food
production. The impact of this is monitored by citizen scientists and investigated by the EA where the impacts are apparent. There is no routine monitoring of the daily impact of this that I am aware of.
2. Discharges from animal husbandry – which are legally dealt with in various ways, stored in slurry pits (seepage and leakage issues) and then supplement chemical fertilisers (muck spreading) or otherwise processed (anaerobic digesters). Not all such units (e.g those with under 30000 birds) are subject to the regular inspection regime by the EA resources are such that ‘regular inspection’ can have 2 or more year intervals.
3. Human sewage disposal, which has been discussed earlier.
Whilst it is true that all of the above are subject to the EA inspection and enforcement regime, the
implication that the EA effectively monitors (and therefore safeguards) the position is not the case.
There are a host of reasons for this (again mentioned in earlier posts) and the environmental data
source you cite; whilst long on aspirations is largely deficient in up to date data. You might eventually be obtain this under FOI, but be prepared for a long wait. For the most part, up to data information on particular waterway s does not exist.
However the data source you do cite does generally classify the chemical measurement of surface water. It shows that in every single source of surface water in England ‘fails’ under chemical status, for groundwater 60% is classed poor or worse and for ecological status 80%+ is moderate to bad. This confirms the scope of the problem, which like climate change can only be addressed by massive changes in prevailing practices and vast investment, the effects of which are effectively monitored.
If you are a member of the Angling Trust (and if we care about the future of angling we all should be) on p76-77 of the latest free magazine ‘The Angler’, there is a very informative article about the River Wey, which has been blighted by persistent sewage discharges and other phosphate sources in recent years. The implications and detail of what happened at Fladbury is almost certainly explained in this article.
Posted on November 27, 2021 at 9:49 AM
|
|
River Novice, it IS worth a read and thanks for bringing it to our attention. For those without the
time or interest to plough through it, what does it tell us?
1. There are lots of contributory factors at work here (non-porous road and driveways, building regs which permit mixing waste water with rainfall, lack of record keeping about septic tank locations and also poultry units of up to 30k birds on the Wye catchment) all of which point to lack of joined government and inadequate public records. However the main cause remains the water companies and weak enforcement.
2. Lack of investment in infrastructure (but nearly £60bn taken out of the sector for shareholders
since privatisation which could have been better used for investment if the companies had never been privatised or returned to public ownership AT NO EXTRA COST.)
3. Nothing new is being permitted in the Environment Act. We retain the existing legal framework
which does not permit sewage discharges except in 'exceptional' circumstances. the problem is that the regulator appears powerless/unwilling to take action - Brexit induced chemical shortages triggered the EA ‘relaxing’ the permitted thresholds for discharges in the last year.
4. 11 EA prosecutions of water companies for illegal discharges in 4 years (yet over 400.000 self-
reported illegal discharges in 2020 alone). 4 of these resulted in fines of under £50k which to
multinational institutions does not even register. Half the longest illegal discharges in 2002 came
from United Utilities which has not faced a prosecution since 2018.
5. Robust independent research suggests that water companies under report discharges by up to
10x.
All this is wholly consistent with the information on this thread and others on the forum. This
evidence was presented on 15 November. An arttcle from the Guardian dated 19.11.21
takes matters further because as soon as the reality of a tougher stance by regulators and tighter
reporting becomes a reality suddenly water companies report they can’t comply. (I tried to upload a copy but the forum won't take it!)
Such discharges explain illness reports amongst swimmers and paddleboarders, degradation of ecosystems resulting in loss of fish, their food sources and other wildlife and a loss of amenity. It also helps provide an additional £1.4bn p.a. for water company shareholders. (Illness, loss of habitat, wildlife and fish do not show on company accounts).
I stand by my analysis made in earlier posts. The biggest cause is water company behaviour and lack of enforcement. Relying on marking your own homework and under-resourced timidity from regulators only feeds increased illegal activity. Without some ‘body’ taking specific matters up and using the law to ensure compliance we cannot rely on the those tasked to protect our interests to do so.
A final thought. If fines imposed by the courts went back to the EA (as the body responsible for policing in the public interest rather than direct to the Treasury) it would provide both a renewed incentive to prosecute and finance adequate resource for effective enforcement.
Posted on November 23, 2021 at 5:32 PM
|
|
River Novice you may have point about Brexit and leaving the EU but the UK had a habit of ignoring EU directives for many years (the clean air directive is a good example). I think that this is an unproductive cul de sac. It's not what is allowed to be discharged into our rivers, sewage discharges except in exceptional emergencies are NOT allowed and haven't been since pre WW2. It's allowing (through neglect of responsibility and lack of action) bodies who have control over what goes into rivers to do so unencumbered by failing to enforce the law.
The more frequent the unchallenged events, the greater the frequency, because it is cheap, largely ignored and history suggests, has no evidence of (financial) consequence. You are right about who water companies answer to - their shareholders and delivering shareholder value - which is why unless someone introduces an effective counter balance - government, alliances of interest groups or even well organised individuals - nothing will change.
My point is that the mechanism exists, through the legislative framework to compel change but unless some 'body' picks up the the challenge and follows through, nothing will disturb the status quo.
Posted on November 22, 2021 at 5:21 PM
|
|
As I've noted before, we have the legislative framework to stop this, but it needs policing effectively. The EA is the body charged with enforcement, but is a hamstrung by inadequate resourcing, a flawed threshold of (financial) cost benefit analysis to trigger action, and management either crisis-managing or browbeaten into atrophy by a combination of growing problems and no means to respond effectively. The Southern Water prosecution this summer was an outlier brought about by the tenacity of an EA employee who 'went rogue' as far as the EA approach was concerned.
We allow water companies to self-report, and as Frank notes 6 of the 8 sewage outlets impacting the section do not belong to water companies but are private. Who reports on these and who monitors the reports? We know that the EA are not set up to police this data effectively and sample selectively. They rarely if ever challenge what they are told (Southern Water eventually being the exception); it’s a product of the under-resourcing and a sign that as a society we are not seen to value what they are tasked to do.
We live in a ‘day to day’ age where our political masters (who allocate resources and in effect determine approaches) work on the react principle as measured by polling. Where there is no significant immediate impact they leave things as they are. Only when there are signs of mass concern do they come out with the 'we take this matter very seriously' homily and are seen to 'do something'. The 'something' (or somethin if its Priti Patel) is knee jerk, one off, non-strategic and designed for maximum immediate impact with little thought (or care) for longer term effects. That Frank is the is ‘the control’.
Its easy to blame the EA Johnny Care and yes they could do more but the real culprit is (lack of) government. If you pursue a small government, deregulation, low tax agenda, its an inevitable and predictable consequence. As The Chief Exec of the EA noted to the parliamentary select committee 12 or so months ago, we get the environment we are prepared to pay for.
So what can we (as anglers, angling clubs and those who understand and care about such matters) do? We can make a fuss; in the press, social media, write to our MPs and be a nuisance. We can and should collect evidence, as Glyn Marshall has done and note that 3 weeks after the effects were noticed (and therefore had been diluted) the phosphate levels were 3x the norm. We need to seek information through FOI as Frank has highlighted the 511 hours of (reported) sewage discharge in 2020 from a quarter of the known outlets affecting the area, and link this to readings and reports of concern. A causal link has to be established to satisfy legal tests. We may deduce that the causes match up with reported effects but it is not enough; we need to demonstrate cause and effect to a legal standard.
If and when we have this we can think about mounting a private prosecution against the offenders. This takes leadership, commitment, organisation and money. It could come either from a combination of dedicated individuals with some financial backing or perhaps an interested organisation such as BAA or an alliance of angling clubs and other conservation and environmental groups. Its neither quick nor cheap but it is the only way that the issue is going to be effectively tackled unless or until we have a government that once again is prepared to take responsibility for matters.
So BAA are you prepared to begin the process.......? There are 4 BAA members here who feel moved to comment, and I guess many more that are concerned including 2 from Girling AC and Worcester AA, that's a start. Why not see what the appetite is amongst BAA members and take sounding from other Midlands clubs? All it would take to start with is a few calls, emails and a post on the forum to see who would support this approach. Its got to be better than moaning and reluctantly accepting....
Posted on November 22, 2021 at 10:22 AM
|
