New sewage law will let Government spy on polluting water firms

25 comments

1. The Environment Agency will be given the power to access real-time raw data on sewage spills as part of a new bill designed to toughen the regulation of water companies, **i** understands.

   The move is part of a crackdown on water companies ‘marking their own homework’ on pollution incidents, although water industry insiders questioned the effectiveness of the policy.

   A new Water (Special Measures) Bill is set to bring in tougher regulations for water firms responsible for sewage pollution, the King confirmed today, as he set out the Government’s legislative plans for the next year.

   It will cover a number of pledges set out in Labour’s manifesto, including “severe and automatic” fines for polluting water companies and powers to pursue personal criminal liability charges against executives.

   Water companies will also be required to install real-time monitors at every sewage outlet and the data will be made available to regulators for scrutiny.

   The Environment Agency already receives information about the more than 14,000 ‘storm overflows’ across the country from which water companies are allowed to dump sewage during periods of extreme rainfall to prevent their systems from becoming overwhelmed.

   All of these outlets are already fitted with real-time monitors as a result of action taken by the previous government.

   However, water companies also discharge sewage from a further 7,000 ‘emergency overflows’ – used during periods of electrical or mechanical failure – and the majority of these are not monitored.

   The new Water (Special Measures) Bill will require water companies to fit monitors at all of these outlets.

2. Go one better, define a legal spill – set a threshold reason to allow sewage to be dumped in the water, force updates to technology to monitor this. Environment Agency given real time live feeds of all this data.

   Then, add a proper punishment to it, fines in the means of governmental controls over parts of the company in lieu of financial penalties (of course equal to what the financial penalty would have been). 

   See how quickly they stop dumping shit in the rivers when they think they may lose a massive cash cow.

3. Well that’s one way of handling the issue I suppose

4. Look, I’m not a trained economist, but what is the virtue of a market of one? For jeans, or toasters, or cars, I get it. I have choice, I’ll pick the best value for money in making purchases, and so a variety of companies will increase the value for money they offer in order to become my choice.

   How do I exercise consumer choice in water companies? And if I can’t, what’s the virtue of a private market when it isn’t a market at all?

5. It’s an interesting choice of word here

   Why is monitoring spillage to public waterway considered “spying”?

6. Absolutely crazy that we need a new law for this, all this data should be available to the government already.

7. I gather it’s mostly a matter of giving the Environment Agency which were pulled during the coalition government.

8. There needs to be some serious review of how we manage our water.
   Ideally I would want these assets brought back into public ownership for pennies on the pound.
   However if they are to remain in private hands, strict rules with material punishments put in place that bind the owners in investment levels and in the service standards.

9. That is all of them. Would it not just be easier to cut out the middleman and renationalise the water companies?

10. ‘spy’!?

    Yeah right nanny state and all that smh.

    Shouldn’t have to be spied on if we trusted you in the first place.

11. Why exactly is it being called spying in this headline?

12. You mean the oversight that should have been there since the start?
    It is national security risk for christ sake, the fact it is private is already baffling. Inherent monopolies should not be private companies imo, but I digress.

13. We already know they’re doing it look at the rivers ffs. Make them spend some money on infrastructure instead of dividends and bonuses.

14. It should let them seize a percentage of the company each time it happens.

15. I suspect that’s as far as it will go also…

    The govt will observe the pollution and then do fuck all about it.

16. Ah yes, because everyone can agree that a national government being able to monitor and regulate critical national infrasture is.. Spying..( /s just in case unclear)

17. But these firms work In tandem with the government they are basically all under the same umbrella being held by the same person.

18. I’m not an expert but why do they have to dump shit in the water at all? What are they supposed to be doing with it all?

19. So it’s not “monitoring” or “oversight” or even as plain as “making sure they aren’t being water-polluting bellends” it’s…..”spying”.

    Well gee-whiz, never realised we were trying to pretend the Government protecting it’s citizens best interests from firms as corrupt as sodding Emperor Palpatine is now somehow “spying”.

20. Wtf? Spy? What about writing fines and prosecuting them?!

21. Fucking good.

    This was nowhere near as bad when we was in the EU meaning water companies can manage it, they’ve just been encouraged and allowed not to.

    Fuck them, come down hard on them, our water should be clean.

22. Good. I don’t want my water filled with shit in order to make more money for shareholders. What’s the story here?

23. And fine them and make them clean it up and then qhat else

24. Just ban dividend payments if there’s any sewage spills, or failure to maintain infrastructure.

    Shareholders will be demanding fixes without the public having to bail out all the water companies.

25. But isnt the system overall designed to do this. I know dumping sewage is bad obviously, but this will take decades and tens of billions to redesign. London Victorian system is designed to do this by default is it?