Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Southern California Water Agency Votes to Keep Funding State Tunnel Plans

News Feed
Wednesday, December 11, 2024

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Southern California water agency has approved key funding needed to support plans for a giant underground tunnel that would reroute a big part of the state’s water supply.The board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which along with local agencies provides water to 19 million people, voted Tuesday to allocate about $142 million for pre-construction and planning costs for the Delta Conveyance Project. State officials say the project is critical to help shore up water supplies in the nation's most populous state due to aging infrastructure and climate-change induced shifts in precipitation. “After careful consideration, our board took this step because it allows us to gather critical information about the project’s benefits and costs that will allow us to evaluate whether we will participate in the full construction of the project,” said Metropolitan board Chair Adán Ortega, Jr. said in a statement.Metropolitan is the largest of a dozen water agencies that have voted to continue funding for preconstruction and planning of the 45-mile (72 kilometer) long tunnel. A key vote is expected in 2027 on whether it should move forward. Gov. Gavin Newsom has been advocating for water agencies to continue providing funding for what he has called “the most important climate adaptation project” in the country. “Nothing else comes close because nothing is more important,” he said earlier this week. “Because this impacts 27 million Californians.”California officials want to build the tunnel over concerns about the reliability of existing water infrastructure and say it will help capture more water during massive storms and move it from the northern part of the state to the south, where most of the state’s people live. But critics say the project’s $20 billion price tag is too high and there are other ways to strengthen the state’s water system with less impact to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta’s fragile ecosystem.Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, said the tunnel aims to transport too much water to farm operations that should be scaling back on water use as the state faces a potentially drier future. California grows much of the country's fresh produce.“There are certain elements that just want to build things for the sake of building things rather than doing the analysis of building the right things,” she said. The tunnel has been proposed — and disputed — for many years, earning widespread opposition from Central Valley communities that say it would harm their economies and the delta. Last year, the state completed a key environmental review for the project, but it still must pass additional review and obtain various state and federal permits.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

A Southern California water agency has approved key funding needed to push forward plans for a giant underground tunnel that would reroute a big part of the state’s water supply

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Southern California water agency has approved key funding needed to support plans for a giant underground tunnel that would reroute a big part of the state’s water supply.

The board of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which along with local agencies provides water to 19 million people, voted Tuesday to allocate about $142 million for pre-construction and planning costs for the Delta Conveyance Project. State officials say the project is critical to help shore up water supplies in the nation's most populous state due to aging infrastructure and climate-change induced shifts in precipitation.

“After careful consideration, our board took this step because it allows us to gather critical information about the project’s benefits and costs that will allow us to evaluate whether we will participate in the full construction of the project,” said Metropolitan board Chair Adán Ortega, Jr. said in a statement.

Metropolitan is the largest of a dozen water agencies that have voted to continue funding for preconstruction and planning of the 45-mile (72 kilometer) long tunnel. A key vote is expected in 2027 on whether it should move forward.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has been advocating for water agencies to continue providing funding for what he has called “the most important climate adaptation project” in the country.

“Nothing else comes close because nothing is more important,” he said earlier this week. “Because this impacts 27 million Californians.”

California officials want to build the tunnel over concerns about the reliability of existing water infrastructure and say it will help capture more water during massive storms and move it from the northern part of the state to the south, where most of the state’s people live. But critics say the project’s $20 billion price tag is too high and there are other ways to strengthen the state’s water system with less impact to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta’s fragile ecosystem.

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, said the tunnel aims to transport too much water to farm operations that should be scaling back on water use as the state faces a potentially drier future. California grows much of the country's fresh produce.

“There are certain elements that just want to build things for the sake of building things rather than doing the analysis of building the right things,” she said.

The tunnel has been proposed — and disputed — for many years, earning widespread opposition from Central Valley communities that say it would harm their economies and the delta. Last year, the state completed a key environmental review for the project, but it still must pass additional review and obtain various state and federal permits.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Thames Water faces court claim that £3bn bailout is ‘poor, short-term fix’

Campaigners to argue in court of appeal that plan is not in public interest and special administration is best optionEnvironmental campaigners will challenge the granting of a high-interest £3bn emergency loan to struggling Thames Water at an appeal on Tuesday, arguing the “eye-watering” costs for a short-term fix are not in the public interest.With protests planned outside the court of appeal, Charlie Maynard, a Liberal Democrat MP who represents the campaigners, will argue in a three-day hearing that the public and consumer interest is not served by the debt package, which comes with a bill of almost £1bn in interest payments and financial adviser fees. Continue reading...

Environmental campaigners will challenge the granting of a high-interest £3bn emergency loan to struggling Thames Water at an appeal on Tuesday, arguing the “eye-watering” costs for a short-term fix are not in the public interest.With protests planned outside the court of appeal, Charlie Maynard, a Liberal Democrat MP who represents the campaigners, will argue in a three-day hearing that the public and consumer interest is not served by the debt package, which comes with a bill of almost £1bn in interest payments and financial adviser fees.Thames, which has 16 million customers and 8,000 employees, has been on the verge of collapse for months with debts of about £19bn.The company was given approval for a £3bn debt package by the high court last month, but campaigners who have been fighting its plans won the right to take the decision to appeal.Represented by a legal team that is working for free, the groups, including Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, the Rivers Trust, the Angling Trust and We Own It, say the approved restructuring plan is a “poor, short-term fix” that “aggravates rather than mitigates the Thames Water doom loop”. Taking the company into special administration, which is a power contained in the 1991 Water Industry Act, would be cheaper and in the public interest, they say.Thames, Britain’s biggest water utility company, said the emergency loan was needed to stave off an imminent cash shortfall and as a bridge to attracting new equity for wider restructuring.But the loan carries a 9.75% annual interest rate and will cost £898m over six months in consultancy fees and servicing interest. This includes £210m Thames Water has paid financial advisers who helped draw up the bailout.These costs were described as “eye-watering” by Mr Justice Leech, and “deeply uncomfortable” when he approved the plan.Maynard, who is acting on behalf of more than 25 MPs, 34 charities and a number of individual Thames Water customers, will argue the judge was wrong to sanction the bailout.In court documents William Day, the lawyer representing Maynard, said the judge had accepted that the only alternative to the costly loan was to put Thames into special administration.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionDay will argue the cost of special administration would be less than half the costs of the bailout loan that has been approved. Day said Thames had offered no evidence that the emergency debt package would help it raise billions of pounds of additional equity to repair its finances over the longer term, and should not have been approved. “The company should not have been granted sanction simply by saying, ‘We will give it a go’, especially where the costs of taking a punt are so high,” Day said.Thames is raising average water bills by £31 a year, pushing the average household bill to £588 between now and 2030, to pay for £21bn investment into its treatment works and pipes, which the company admits are assets it has “sweated” for decades. But it is taking legal action to raise bills even higher than the 35% allowed by Ofwat, the industry regulator for England and Wales.The approved bailout would give Thames £1.5bn in cash, released monthly, plus up to £1.5bn more to see it through the fight to increase customer bills further.A Thames Water spokesperson: “The restructuring plan sanctioned by the high court is the best way to resolve the issues facing Thames Water. We remain confident in our plan and are focused on its delivery. It does not financially impact taxpayers across the UK or our customers, and it allows us to continue to invest in our network to improve critical infrastructure for our customers and the environment, without further delay. It is better than any other alternative course of action and we do not believe that the grounds for appeal meet the required thresholds.”

Utah Will Be the First State to Ban Fluoride in Drinking Water

Utah's governor intends to sign legislation making the state the first to ban fluoride in public water systems

Republican Gov. Spencer Cox said he would sign legislation that bars cities and communities from deciding whether to add the mineral to their water systems.Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.“We’ve got tried and true evidence of the safety and efficacy of this public health initiative,” said American Dental Association President Brad Kessler, of Denver. Cavities could start emerging in children within months or years of Utah stopping fluoridation, Kessler said.“It's not a bill I care that much about,” Cox added, “but it's a bill I will sign.”Utah lawmakers who pushed for a ban said putting fluoride in water was too expensive. Its Republican sponsor, Rep. Stephanie Gricius, acknowledged fluoride has benefits, but said it was an issue of “individual choice” to not have it in the water. Cox said that like many people in Utah, he grew up and raised his own children in a community that doesn’t have fluoridated water — or what he called a “natural experiment.”“You would think you would see drastically different outcomes with half the state not getting it. We haven’t seen that,” Cox said in a weekend interview with ABC4 in Salt Lake City. “So it’s got to be a really high bar for me if we’re going to require people to be medicated by their government.”Already, some cities across the country have gotten rid of fluoride from their water, and other municipalities are considering doing the same. A few months ago, a federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to kids’ intellectual development. A Utah teenager who urged lawmakers to pass the bill described suffering a medical emergency when the fluoride pump in Sandy, Utah, malfunctioned in 2019, releasing an excessive amount of the mineral into the drinking water. The fluoride sickened hundreds of residents and led many in Utah to push for its removal.It’s rare to find high levels of fluoridation in water, according to the National Institutes of Health. The agency said it’s “virtually impossible” to get a toxic dose of fluoride from water with standard levels of the mineral.Kessler said the amounts of fluoride added to drinking water have been reduced over time and are below levels considered problematic. “The science proves that it is effective at reducing cavities with little to no risk of other problems,” he said.He added that a ban in Utah could have a domino effect with other legislatures being encouraged to follow suit with fluoride bans in their states.Opponents warned it would disproportionately affect low-income residents who may rely on public drinking water having fluoride as their only source of preventative dental care. Low-income families may not be able to afford regular dentist visits or the fluoride tablets some people buy as a supplement in cities without fluoridation.Fluoridation is the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay on a large scale, said Lorna Koci, who chairs the Utah Oral Health Coalition.Utah in 2022 ranked 44th in the nation for the percentage of residents that receive fluoridated water, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About two in five Utah residents served by community water systems received fluoridated water.In February, the city council in Riverton, a Salt Lake City suburb, unanimously passed a resolution to remove fluoride from the city’s public water systems. Voters in Brigham City, 59 miles (95 kilometers) north of the capital city, struck down by a large margin a measure in 2023 that would have removed the mineral from its public water supply.Out of the 484 Utah water systems that reported data to the CDC in 2024, only 66 fluoridated their water, an Associated Press analysis showed. The largest was the state’s biggest city, Salt Lake City.Rodney Thornell, president of the Utah Dental Association, began practicing dentistry in a Salt Lake City suburb before the city added fluoride to its water. His adult patients who grew up locally continue to get lots of cavities but younger patients who grew up with fluoride in the water get fewer, he said. “If we’re going to keep eating sugar, we need fluoride.” Thornell said, noting that Utah residents consume more than the national average of candy and sugary drinks.Brown reported from Billings, Montana.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

L.A. fires put new drinking-water safety measures to the test

When scientists found a carcinogen in Santa Rosa's drinking water after the Tubbs fire, it triggered a race to develop measures to keep residents safe. The L.A. fires put them to the test.

A month after the 2017 Tubbs fire, a Santa Rosa resident finally returned home to one of the handful of houses still standing amid a field of destruction. They turned on their kitchen faucet and smelled gasoline.It was an immediate red flag for Santa Rosa Water, which quickly sent over technicians to test the tap. In the water, they found benzene, a known carcinogen — a discovery that sent shockwaves through the scientific and water safety world.In Santa Rosa, the contamination investigation would expand from a single household to the entire burn area. The neighborhood of Coffey Park is leveled in October 2017 after the Tubbs fire swept through Santa Rosa. (Marcio Jose Sanchez / Associated Press) As devastating urban wildfires continued to increase in frequency in the American West, the problem would reappear — in Paradise, Calif.; in Colorado; in Hawaii; and finally in L.A.’s Pacific Palisades and Altadena. All the while, scientists, regulators and local utilities raced to figure out what was happening and how to keep residents safe.By the time the Eaton and Palisades fires broke out, scientists and the state could hand the affected utilities a playbook on how to restore safe water for their customers. The lessons learned helped the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which serves the Pacific Palisades, restore safe drinking water to all its customers just two months after the fires erupted — compared to an entire year in Santa Rosa.Yet, the Altadena utilities are still fighting to restore safe water. And, as with the Tubbs fire, the recovery has still been tinged with persisting scientific debates and uncomfortable unknowns.“We are in a sort of brave new world as we shift into this reality of increasingly more urban wildfires,” said Edith de Guzman, who researches water equity and climate adaptation policy at UCLA. “We have impacts that we’re not really even sure how to measure or monitor.”Benzene wasn’t the only contaminant in Santa Rosa’s and L.A.’s postfire water. Scientists are still debating which chemicals utilities ought to test for and which, given the costly and timely process of analyzing for dozens of chemicals, can go unchecked.And, while scientists have studied the danger of long-term exposure to trace amounts of contaminants like benzene in drinking water, less is known about the short-term risks of high exposures through day-to-day activities like showering and running the dish washer.The dangers of benzeneAfter the smoke settled in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades, the local water utilities quickly issued “do not drink” and “do not boil” orders, under the advice of the state regulator — the State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water. Workers with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers clear debris from a house in Altadena after the Eaton fire. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times) The orders are designed to limit dangerous exposures to benzene, found in everything from plastic to treated construction wood to wildfire smoke. Over decades, drinking or breathing it in can increase the risk of developing leukemia and other blood cancers.While boiling water can kill off the typical non-fire contamination suspects, pathogens, it doesn’t work for benzene. And, with a lower boiling point than water, benzene can easily enter the air when water is heated up.Consequently, the state has developed best practices to keep residents safe, including not only avoiding drinking or boiling the water, but also avoiding hot showers, hot tubs and clothes dryers.However, scientists warn that these recommendations are not yet based on any comprehensive science. Reams of research link long-term small exposures of the contaminant to cancer risk. Few studies explore the potentials of short, intense household exposures.“Right now, there’s no chemical modeling, mathematical modeling or any exposure assessments that have been conducted to determine the answers to [these] questions,” said Andrew Whelton, a professor of civil environmental engineering at Purdue University and a leading researcher in the field of postfire water safety.In California, while the maximum allowed level of benzene in drinking water is 1 part per billion, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment says the concentration needs to be as low as 0.15 ppb to confidently say there will be no long-term chronic health effects. For the short-term, the Environmental Protection Agency deems exposure to over 200 ppb for longer than one day dangerous.In the aftermath of the recent fires, utilities in L.A. County have found levels as high as 190 ppb in Altadena and 71.3 ppb in the Palisades. However, after the Tubbs fire, Santa Rosa found levels as high as 40,000 ppb.After Santa Rosa Water first tested its customer’s kitchen faucet, the utility, along with the Division of Drinking Water and the EPA, launched a full investigation into the contamination of the drinking water of the affected area, and the results were unlike anything that had been seen before. A fire hose lies abandonded in Santa Rosa after the Tubbs fire in October 2017. (Jonathan Copper / Associated Press) “We did a lot of research in the start to see if any other agency had experienced this,” said Jennifer Burke, director of Santa Rosa Water. “We did not find anything anywhere.”What Santa Rosa Water found — not in the literature, but in its own backyard — was that a whole range of potentially dangerous chemicals lurked in the water. The discovery has helped guide post-wildfire recovery since.The other toxinsSanta Rosa Water first tried to figure out how a contaminant like benzene could’ve entered the water. The utility looked into whether nearby underground gasoline storage facilities could’ve been compromised, or if benzene was present in the soil, but found no compelling evidence. Then, a hypothesis emerged that would later be borne out in the lab and testing data from water systems postfire across the West.Parts of Santa Rosa’s water system had lost pressure during the blaze as firefighters tapped into hydrants, residents ran hoses to protect their properties and damaged connections spewed water into the street. As the water level dropped, leaving higher elevations dry, it created a void in the system. To fill the pressure void, experts theorized, the open connections began to suck toxic ash, soot and smoke into the pipes.It meant the contamination had the potential to quickly spread far beyond one home. And wildfire smoke carries much more than just benzene. In it is every household toxic chemical that could’ve burned. It’s a reality that poses a daunting task for scientists and utilities.“We’re chasing after a growing and an increasingly complex reality of living in the modern world, where we’re creating all of these new chemicals all the time,” de Guzman said.Among the complex sea of chemicals scattered through postfire burn areas, water safety experts have settled on a few groups of the most concerning contaminants based on their risks to humans and their presence in the Tubbs and Camp fires in California, the Marshall fire in Colorado and the Maui fires in Hawaii. The remains of a home destroyed by the Marshall fire in Louisville, Colo., in 2022. (Jack Dempsey / Associated Press) During previous fires, some experts argued testing for benzene alone is sufficient, saying the chemical, which time and time again has exceeded safe levels most often in postfire systems, acts as a good “indicator” for whether other chemicals may be present.However, with mounting evidence of other contaminants lurking in water systems postfire, even without benzene present, it’s an increasingly rare position.Most now argue that utilities ought to test not only for benzene, but at least the rest of its immediate family, called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. Others say they should also test for VOCs’ less-aggressive cousins, semi-volatile organic compounds, or SVOCs.With higher boiling points than VOCs, SVOCs are less likely to evaporate, but still pose an inhalation and ingestion risk. SVOCs are not necessarily less toxic to humans.Some VOCs and SVOCs — like the chemical responsible for the smell of pine in trees and car fresheners — are essentially harmless. Others, like benzene, are toxic to humans.“I don’t think [benzene] should be viewed as a perfect, comprehensive indicator, but it’s very much a good start,” said Chad Seidel, an environmental engineering research affiliate at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and president of Corona Environmental Consulting, which assisted in the Marshall fire recovery. “I will say this: It is dramatically better than what the responses have been, say, not that long ago — maybe more than five years ago, where nobody was doing any of this.” Homes are left in ruins by the Camp fire in Paradise, Calif., in 2018. (Noah Berger / Associated Press) In practice, many postfire water safety experts argue that to confidently say the water is safe for customers, utilities cannot rely on benzene alone.“There is no evidence that benzene is an indicator of contamination. … It simply isn’t,” Whelton said. “Unfortunately, that misinformation has traveled and continues to travel into decision-makers’ opinions.”In 2023, the California state Legislature codified postfire testing for benzene into law. While only benzene testing is required, the state’s Division of Drinking Water recommends that utilities test for the full range of VOCs — and the state, at times, has called benzene an “indicator” for other contaminants.For the Paradise Irrigation District, although testing for the full suite of VOCs can take slightly longer and cost a fair bit more, it was a pretty obvious choice (even amid pushback from the Division of Drinking Water and the EPA, at the time).“We decided to go above and beyond,” said Kevin Phillips, district manager with the Paradise Irrigation District, “because we wanted to give … our customers the utmost confidence that there were no other VOCs present in there.”Yet, many customers, living with cold showers and bottled water for months on end, remain frustrated with the lengthy process and uncertain if their water is safe. It’s why many water safety experts and utilities that have experienced postfire recovery have urged the L.A. utilities to remain as transparent as possible.“The last thing any water system wants is … to create some urban myth that the water in this certain water system is not safe,” said Kurt Kowar, director of public works for Louisville, Colo., which was devastated by the Marshall fire. “That can always stick with you, and if you can’t be transparent and generate trust through recovery, I think that would be a disservice to the community — if they don’t trust their water provided for the rest of their life.”The Paradise Irrigation District created an interactive online map of its entire system and the location of every test taken. And the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power created an online dashboard a month and a half after the fires listing the number of VOC detections in each of its zones in the Palisades fire burn area and the levels detected.Meanwhile, the smaller Altadena utilities, with limited personnel and resources, have been regularly posting joint updates to their websites outlining their recent testing, affected streets and the highest benzene levels found.But none of the L.A. utilities have posted the full testing data with exact locations. Part of the communication problem is a lack of guidance and assistance from the state, said Gregory Pierce, director of the UCLA Water Resources Group.That said, thanks to their much better understanding of the water contamination problem than in previous fires, the L.A. utilities have been optimistic about returning service far faster than they would have been a decade ago.How water systems recoverOnce Santa Rosa Water understood the problem it had on its hands, it started by aggressively flushing its system — opening up hydrants and valves to purge water through the entire network of pipes, hoping the released water would take the contaminants with it. While it worked for many areas within the burn area, the hardest-hit region proved difficult. By the time the city had gotten to flushing, benzene had bound itself to the pipes.Santa Rosa was forced to replace not only service lines to individual homes, but some of the main lines along the street as well. State water engineers are shown damaged equipment in Altadena on Feb. 12. (Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times) The L.A. utilities have been betting on flushing alone. It’s a strategy that seems to have worked — in part because they knew what steps to take earlier than utility companies in previous wildfires.In the Palisades, full service has already been restored. The Altadena utilities have made significant progress and remain hopeful they’ll be able to restore safe water much faster than the year it took Santa Rosa and the eight months it took Paradise.On the one-month anniversary of the fires, LADWP hesitantly and optimistically said it hoped to restore safe drinking water to the Palisades by the end of February. It succeeded in doing so on the two-month anniversary — only one week later than the estimate.“How you can get your customers back to their homes with the utilities they need? It is a heroic effort to pull those things off,” Seidel said. “I applaud those people that are willing to step up and pull off what it takes to do those things. It’s not easy.”

River campaigners to sue Ofwat over water bill rises

Group claims regulator signed off on ‘broken system’ making customers pay for industry’s neglect An environmental group is to take legal action against Ofwat, the water regulator, accusing it of unlawfully making customers pay for decades of neglect by the water industry.River Action will file the legal claim this month, arguing that bill rises for customers that have been approved by the regulator could be used to fix infrastructure failures that should have been addressed years ago. Continue reading...

An environmental group is to take legal action against Ofwat, the water regulator, accusing it of unlawfully making customers pay for decades of neglect by the water industry.River Action will file the legal claim this month, arguing that bill rises for customers that have been approved by the regulator could be used to fix infrastructure failures that should have been addressed years ago.The group argues customers could be forced to pay twice as a result. Under the rules, the public should not pay for investment to make water companies compliant with their permits to operate. This includes adhering to limits on discharges of raw sewage into rivers and a requirement to make sure treatment works are functioning properly.Water companies are under investigation by Ofwat for breaches to their permits, an inquiry that is being run alongside a criminal investigation by the Environment Agency.River Action’s legal challenge focuses on funding allocated for wastewater treatment works and pumping stations by United Utilities in and around Lake Windermere.The group will argue Ofwat has allowed United Utilities to divert funds meant for future projects to deal with past failures. It is not suggested that United Utilities has acted unlawfully.“We believe Ofwat has acted unlawfully by approving … funds without ensuring they are spent on genuine improvements to essential infrastructure,” said Emma Dearnaley, the head of legal at River Action. “Instead, this … funding is being allowed to be used to cover up years of failure.“Ofwat has signed off on a broken system where customers are being charged again for services they have already funded. The cost of fixing the UK’s crumbling water infrastructure should fall on the companies and their investors, not on the British public.”River Action believes that under PR24, the price review approved by Ofwat in January, the regulator has probably permitted other firms to operate in a similar way, leaving customers to pay for failings that should have been fixed with previous funding.Ricardo Gama, of Leigh Day, which is representing the campaign group, said: “Ofwat has said … it won’t let price rises be spent on fixing historic issues which are leading water companies to breach their permits.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“They’ve said in black-and-white terms that customers won’t be expected to pay twice. But in documents seen by River Action it looks like Ofwat hasn’t done its homework in checking whether the money it’s letting United Utilities take from customers will actually be used for that purpose.”An Ofwat spokesperson said: “We reject River Action’s claims. The PR24 process methodically scrutinised business plans to ensure that customers were getting fair value and investment was justified.“We agree that customers should not pay twice for companies to regain compliance with environmental permits, and have included appropriate safeguards in our PR24 determinations to ensure this, which we will monitor closely, taking action if required. We will respond to their letter in due course.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.