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.

Water bosses could be jailed if they cover up sewage dumping under new law

News Feed
Wednesday, September 4, 2024

Water bosses in England and Wales could be jailed for up to two years if they cover up sewage dumping, under legislation proposed by the Labour government.At the moment, CEOs of water companies face fines for failing to comply with investigations by the Environment Agency (EA) and the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), but there have been just three such fines since privatisation three decades ago.Civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told journalists on Wednesday that they planned to tighten compliance rules to force companies to hand over sewage data quickly, and that the maximum sentence for covering up this information or failing to release it would be two years.Ministers also plan to pass legislation that would force water companies to pay the EA and DWI’s enforcement costs if they are under investigation. The EA has found it hard to inspect polluters owing to funding cuts, so ministers hope this would provide the money to increase the number of prosecutions. Defra has been looking for savings after the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, asked it for £1bn in spending reductions.The new legislation being introduced to parliament on Thursday will also give the regulators powers to ban bonuses for water company CEOs who fail to meet environmental and consumer standards, and if their company is not financially resilient. Journalists were briefed that these environmental standards had not yet been decided by the regulator, Ofwat.Last year, Liv Garfield of Severn Trent took a £584,000 bonus despite her company having been fined £2m for dumping sewage, and the firm scored highly on the EA’s environment rankings despite taking this human waste spillage into account.The environment secretary, Steve Reed, said: “Under this government, water executives will no longer line their own pockets whilst pumping out this filth. If they refuse to comply, they could end up in the dock and face prison time.“This bill is a major step forward in our wider reform to fix the broken water system. We will outline further legislation to fundamentally transform how the water industry is run and speed up the delivery of upgrades to our sewage infrastructure to clean up our waterways for good.”Campaigners and experts said the announcement did not go far enough, and that the whole system needed to change as it had “failed”.The sewage campaigner and former Undertones frontman Feargal Sharkey said he was still planning to march on parliament next month because he viewed the measures as inadequate.He said: “I have called for a mass protest for a coalition of the concerned to ensure clean, healthy rivers. We need transformational information and action. I see none of that before me. We will still be marching on 26 October to demand clean rivers and strong action.”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 promotionGuy Linley-Adams, a solicitor for the WildFish charity, said the government was not using existing powers to force the regulators to crack down on polluting water companies.For example, he said that without any new legislation, ministers could remove the “growth duty” from regulators, which prioritises economic growth over the environment.He said: “If the new government really means what it says, that it will not tolerate poor performance across the water sector, then it can start now by issuing new and unambiguous policy steers to Ofwat and the EA right now that force a much tougher financial and environmental regulatory approach, one that prioritises investment in the environment.“The government should also disapply the regulators’ code and the statutory growth duty that currently shackle both the EA and Ofwat’s regulation of the water companies.“And they should direct the EA to stop using soft-touch enforcement undertakings for water company offending and always prosecute water companies aggressively for causing pollution. None of the above requires new law. It can all be done right now.”Charles Watson, the chair and founder of the campaign group River Action, said: “If the secretary of state believes that the few one-off actions announced today, such as curtailing bosses’ bonuses – however appealing they may sound – are going to fix the underlying causes of our poisoned waterways, then he needs to think again.“Only a comprehensive and holistic review focusing on all sources of pollution and that delivers a transformational action plan, with tangible targets and milestones, can reform our failed regulatory system and end the daily polluting of our rivers, lakes and seas.”The Tories claimed that Labour were “attempting to pass off measures implemented under the Conservatives” as their own, pointing to a ban on bonuses for water company bosses whose companies commit serious breaches as an example.The shadow environment minister, Robbie Moore, said: “It was the Conservatives that introduced 100% monitoring for storm overflows and set out a plan to transform our infrastructure to ensure safer, cleaner waters.”

CEOs in England and Wales could face two years in prison under proposals to force firms to supply data quicklyWater bosses in England and Wales could be jailed for up to two years if they cover up sewage dumping, under legislation proposed by the Labour government.At the moment, CEOs of water companies face fines for failing to comply with investigations by the Environment Agency (EA) and the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), but there have been just three such fines since privatisation three decades ago. Continue reading...

Water bosses in England and Wales could be jailed for up to two years if they cover up sewage dumping, under legislation proposed by the Labour government.

At the moment, CEOs of water companies face fines for failing to comply with investigations by the Environment Agency (EA) and the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), but there have been just three such fines since privatisation three decades ago.

Civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) told journalists on Wednesday that they planned to tighten compliance rules to force companies to hand over sewage data quickly, and that the maximum sentence for covering up this information or failing to release it would be two years.

Ministers also plan to pass legislation that would force water companies to pay the EA and DWI’s enforcement costs if they are under investigation. The EA has found it hard to inspect polluters owing to funding cuts, so ministers hope this would provide the money to increase the number of prosecutions. Defra has been looking for savings after the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, asked it for £1bn in spending reductions.

The new legislation being introduced to parliament on Thursday will also give the regulators powers to ban bonuses for water company CEOs who fail to meet environmental and consumer standards, and if their company is not financially resilient. Journalists were briefed that these environmental standards had not yet been decided by the regulator, Ofwat.

Last year, Liv Garfield of Severn Trent took a £584,000 bonus despite her company having been fined £2m for dumping sewage, and the firm scored highly on the EA’s environment rankings despite taking this human waste spillage into account.

The environment secretary, Steve Reed, said: “Under this government, water executives will no longer line their own pockets whilst pumping out this filth. If they refuse to comply, they could end up in the dock and face prison time.

“This bill is a major step forward in our wider reform to fix the broken water system. We will outline further legislation to fundamentally transform how the water industry is run and speed up the delivery of upgrades to our sewage infrastructure to clean up our waterways for good.”

Campaigners and experts said the announcement did not go far enough, and that the whole system needed to change as it had “failed”.

The sewage campaigner and former Undertones frontman Feargal Sharkey said he was still planning to march on parliament next month because he viewed the measures as inadequate.

He said: “I have called for a mass protest for a coalition of the concerned to ensure clean, healthy rivers. We need transformational information and action. I see none of that before me. We will still be marching on 26 October to demand clean rivers and strong action.”

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Guy Linley-Adams, a solicitor for the WildFish charity, said the government was not using existing powers to force the regulators to crack down on polluting water companies.

For example, he said that without any new legislation, ministers could remove the “growth duty” from regulators, which prioritises economic growth over the environment.

He said: “If the new government really means what it says, that it will not tolerate poor performance across the water sector, then it can start now by issuing new and unambiguous policy steers to Ofwat and the EA right now that force a much tougher financial and environmental regulatory approach, one that prioritises investment in the environment.

“The government should also disapply the regulators’ code and the statutory growth duty that currently shackle both the EA and Ofwat’s regulation of the water companies.

“And they should direct the EA to stop using soft-touch enforcement undertakings for water company offending and always prosecute water companies aggressively for causing pollution. None of the above requires new law. It can all be done right now.”

Charles Watson, the chair and founder of the campaign group River Action, said: “If the secretary of state believes that the few one-off actions announced today, such as curtailing bosses’ bonuses – however appealing they may sound – are going to fix the underlying causes of our poisoned waterways, then he needs to think again.

“Only a comprehensive and holistic review focusing on all sources of pollution and that delivers a transformational action plan, with tangible targets and milestones, can reform our failed regulatory system and end the daily polluting of our rivers, lakes and seas.”

The Tories claimed that Labour were “attempting to pass off measures implemented under the Conservatives” as their own, pointing to a ban on bonuses for water company bosses whose companies commit serious breaches as an example.

The shadow environment minister, Robbie Moore, said: “It was the Conservatives that introduced 100% monitoring for storm overflows and set out a plan to transform our infrastructure to ensure safer, cleaner waters.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The mayflies are sending us a warning about urban wildfires

The story told by these streams and their tiny inhabitants is clear: Urban wildfires pose a serious threat to water quality and aquatic life.

A tiny, vibrant world thrives along the rocky bottom of most streams. As sunlight filters through the water, mayfly nymphs, no larger than your fingernail, cling to algae-coated cobbles. Six spindly legs anchor them against the current, while feathery gills wave gently, drawing oxygen from the flowing water.Subscribe for unlimited access to The PostYou can cancel anytime.SubscribeThis scene is common in well-maintained creeks and streams that flow through populated areas. But when wildfires sweep through, the toxic materials left behind can devastate this ecosystem.When you think of urban wildfires, you might picture charred trees and houses. But beneath the surface of nearby streams, fires can also cause a silent upheaval — one that affects populations of creatures that are important indicators of the water’s health.Wildfires are a natural part of many ecosystems. They rejuvenate landscapes by clearing out dead brush and releasing nutrients from vegetation and soils.When fires move from nature into neighborhoods, however, they encounter a drastically different set of fuels. Urban conflagrations consume a mix of synthetic and natural materials, including homes, vehicles, electronics and household chemicals. This creates a unique set of problems that can have far-reaching consequences for waterways and the creatures that call them home.As an environmental engineer, I study how human actions on land affect the chemistry and ecology of surface water systems, including an important group of stream dwellers: benthic macroinvertebrates. These tiny creatures, which include mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies, are not only food sources for fish and other stream life but also serve as nature’s own water quality monitors.The author collects samples from a stream. (Adam King)The Camp Fire’s wake-up callIn November 2018, the Camp Fire devastated the town of Paradise, Calif., destroying over 14,000 homes and other structures. In the aftermath, my colleagues and I examined the effects of large-scale urban burning on the chemistry of nearby watersheds.The results were alarming: Metal concentrations in affected watersheds increased dramatically — up to 200-fold from pre-fire levels. Concentrations of these metals exceeded Environmental Protection Agency aquatic habitat acute criteria, recommended levels that indicate when a metal has reached the threshold of “toxic” for organisms in the water.For humans, contaminated watersheds can compromise drinking water sources by requiring extensive water treatment or even making some water supplies temporarily unusable.Wildlife, particularly sensitive aquatic species such as fish and amphibians, face immediate threats from these pollutants. The toxic metals can disrupt their reproductive cycles, impair growth and destabilize ecosystems.Silent witnessesIn their larval stages, benthic macroinvertebrates live on the benthos, or bottom, of streams, where they are constantly exposed to the water and sensitive to changes in stream chemistry.Fly-fishing enthusiasts might recognize these creatures as the inspiration for the flies they tie. They are food for other aquatic life, but their presence, diversity and abundance also provide insight into both short-term pollution events and long-term environmental changes that chemical tests alone might miss.Because many species have short life cycles, they allow scientists to observe changes quickly, and different species can provide a nuanced picture of water quality.Just as we were finishing up our analysis of the Camp Fire samples, on Dec. 30, 2021, the Marshall Fire devastated communities in my home state of Colorado, destroying over 1,000 homes in Boulder County’s Coal Creek watershed.For two years following the fire, I worked with a team at the University of Colorado at Boulder to monitor water chemistry, benthic macroinvertebrate populations and algae in Coal Creek. We found that the runoff from fire debris dramatically altered both water quality and the ecological balance at fire-affected sites.Our findings showed persistently elevated toxic metal levels and declines in sensitive aquatic species, indicating potential long-term risks to human activities, such as fishing and irrigation. They also showed that recovery would likely take many years.A toxic cocktail for streamsSimilar to after the Camp Fire, at Boulder County’s urban, fire-affected sites, we observed elevated concentrations of nutrients and metals, including copper, nickel, lead and zinc. By measuring stormwater, we showed that these pollutants were conveyed by concrete drainage systems that quickly funneled the water into the creek. We noted 84 instances where metal concentrations exceeded EPA aquatic life criteria limits in the first year.We also measured significant changes in the types and numbers of benthic macroinvertebrates present. One of the most striking findings was the impact on algae-eating mayflies, which are particularly sensitive to changes in water quality.In the burned urban stretch of the stream, we observed an interesting phenomenon: abundant algae growth but fewer algae-eating mayflies. This suggests that nutrients from burned vegetation are likely stimulating algae growth, while toxic metals from the urban fire debris are hurting sensitive organisms such as mayflies.The algae, while plentiful, may be accumulating toxic metals from the water. When other organisms consume this algae, they could ingest these metals as well. This process, known as bioaccumulation, can lead to increasing concentrations of toxic materials moving up the food chain.What does the evidence mean?It’s important to note that the full impacts of urban wildfires on stream life are still being studied. We can’t yet say definitively whether organism numbers are low because those organisms are dying or if they are experiencing subtler effects, such as reduced reproduction. The decrease in mayfly populations, however, is a concerning indicator of ecosystem stress.For humans, the implications are nuanced. While Coal Creek isn’t a drinking water source, it is used for irrigation and recreation. Metal-contaminated water could accumulate in stream sediments and continue to affect sensitive organisms long term.The creek’s overall health also affects its ability to filter water and support biodiversity.The story told by these streams and their tiny inhabitants is clear: Urban wildfires pose a serious threat to water quality and aquatic life. To protect streams, communities need to reduce fire risk and runoff afterward. Improving urban planning, management of stormwater and watershed monitoring can help safeguard water resources.The health of streams affects the health of communities. Everyone can benefit by listening to the mayflies’ warning.The writer is a researcher in environmental engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder.This article was produced in collaboration with theconversation.com.

Billpayers in England and Wales tricked into ‘stealth bailout’ of water companies

Campaign group challenges industry regulator over price rises for customers that will pay to upgrade infrastructureThe water industry regulator has been accused of overseeing a “stealth bailout of water companies” over proposals to increase bills by up to 44% over the next five years.Campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (Wasp), which exposed suspected illegal discharges of sewage across England and Wales, has challenged Ofwat, the industry regulator, over the proposed price rises. The final determinations are due to be announced in December. Continue reading...

The water industry regulator has been accused of overseeing a “stealth bailout of water companies” over proposals to increase bills by up to 44% over the next five years.Campaign group Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (Wasp), which exposed suspected illegal discharges of sewage across England and Wales, has challenged Ofwat, the industry regulator, over the proposed price rises. The final determinations are due to be announced in December.In a submission to the regulator, Wasp says the review should not be finalised until ongoing investigations into the industry are concluded, including a wide-ranging review of the industry announced by environment secretary Steve Reed.It also says the regulator has failed to provide key data on how much shareholders in water firms have paid in upgrading infrastructure since privatisation, warning that billpayers have footed the bulk of the bill.The citizen science organisation believes that it forced environmental watchdogs into action after it deployed AI to detect previously untracked sewage discharges, publishing a paper in March 2021.Eight months later, the Environment Agency announced its largest ever criminal investigation into potential breaches of environmental conditions at wastewater treatment works.Ashley Smith, founder of Wasp, said water firms had built “illegal operation” into their business models, presiding over sewage pollution in rivers and along the coastline in England and Wales while taking billions of pounds in dividends. Consumers were now expected to pay for the clean-up operation.He said: “If the price review carries on as planned, customers are going to be forced to pay higher bills to conduct a stealth bailout of water companies. We think Ofwat is tricking the public into funding it.”Ofwat’s 2024 price review sets the price controls for water and sewage companies for 2025-30. It published a draft determination in July, proposing to increase total spending by the water industry in England and Wales from £59bn over 2020-25 to £88bn over 2025-30. The water firms requested investment and expenditure of £105bn.On average, household bills from water and wastewater companies will rise by £19 a year over the five years, before inflation.Average bills at Thames Water, the UK’s biggest water and sewage company, will rise more than £99 over the five-year period, from £436 to £535. The biggest increase is for customers of Southern Water –its proposed bills will rise by £183 (44%), from £420 to £603.From left: minister for water and flooding Emma Hardy, environment secretary Steve Reed and financial secretary to the Treasury Spencer Livermore at a water industry roundtable meeting this week. Photograph: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs/PAOfwat says its regulatory framework has “enabled £200bn of investment since privatisation” but has not provided, on request from Wasp, the proportion of this investment that was paid for by shareholders in water firms. Wasp also alleges that Ofwat has not adequately tracked how this money has been spent and its impact on water quality in the environment.Since privatisation, water companies have paid out £53bn in dividends, according to Ofwat’s figures.A report in May by David Hall, a visiting professor in the Public Services International Research Unit at the University of Greenwich, claimed that shareholders had “invested less than nothing of their own money” in water companies in England and Wales. Ofwat said in response at the time that it “strongly refuted” the figures.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Wasp submission says: “It appears that the information underpinning Ofwat’s assertions regarding £200bn investment does not include reportable analysis of how much of that money came from shareholders. Not even a broad figure of percentage.“We accept the urgency of the need to resolve the infrastructure ‘black hole’, but that urgency should not be an excuse for exploiting the captive billpayer.”In 2022, the government’s Office for Environmental Protection announced that it would carry out an investigation into Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs over the regulation of combined sewer overflows in England. That is ongoing, and Wasp says a price review cannot be conducted in the usual way until this inquiry and others have reported.An Ofwat spokesperson said: “We have received responses to our consultation from many organisations, including environmental and consumer organisations, water companies, customers and investors.“Inevitably these reflect a diverse range of views on the proposals we have made. We will consider all of these responses carefully and set out our final decisions on 19 December.”A Water UK spokesperson said: “Water companies want to invest £105bn to support economic growth, build more homes, secure our water supplies and end sewage entering our rivers. Ofwat wants to cut that investment by £17bn – a record amount.“We cannot delay upgrading and expanding vital infrastructure any longer. Ofwat needs to reconsider its approach and approve these plans in full so we can get on with it.”

Judge sides with Illinois attorney general in lawsuit over Chicago Trump Tower's water use

A Chicago court ruled this week that the Windy City’s Trump Tower violated the Illinois environmental protection law with its use of water from the Chicago River. In his ruling, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Thaddeus L. Wilson sided with a 2018 lawsuit from Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D) and a coalition of environmental...

A Chicago court ruled this week that the Windy City’s Trump Tower violated the Illinois environmental protection law with its use of water from the Chicago River. In his ruling, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Thaddeus L. Wilson sided with a 2018 lawsuit from Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (D) and a coalition of environmental groups. Raoul’s office filed the suit based on a referral from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), which accused the building of neglecting to obtain necessary Clean Water Act permits for its cooling water intake system. Later that same year, Raoul’s office, Trump International, as well as the Sierra Club and Friends of the Chicago River, agreed to join an interim order requiring the building to abide by expired National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and report its daily discharges of heated water. Last year, Raoul amended the suit to further accuse Trump Tower of violating both state law and state pollution control board rules, alleging it underreported discharge figures for several years. Structures of the tower’s size are required under federal law to conduct studies of their water intake due to the amount of marine life affected by the process. In the summary judgment, Wilson ruled the Trump Organization “liable on all counts.” Raoul’s office said in a statement that it intended to seek an injunction and civil penalties at a future hearing, which has not yet been scheduled. “The recovery of the Chicago River into the healthy heart of our downtown is a major accomplishment for the people of Chicago and the Clean Water Act,” said Sierra Club Illinois Director Jack Darin. “Trump Tower openly violated the Clean Water Act for years, putting the river and the wildlife that call it home at risk. We’re proud to hold these scofflaws accountable, and applaud our pro bono attorneys and the Attorney General for stepping up to protect our river and its recovery.” When the lawsuit was initially filed, during the Trump presidency, the organization alleged it was politically motivated. The Hill has reached out to the Trump Organization for comment on this week’s ruling.

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.