[ali k]

Fuck it, you’re right Paul. It’s basically beyond the wit of man to stop dumping shit into the rivers. Best focus on mining the moon or whatever. Lol.

Anyway I’ve got a NZ passport so I’m laughing 

[Tony]

Anyway I’ve got a NZ passport so I’m laughing 

Err, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/04/poo-tracker-new-zealand-website-reveals-sewage-on-beaches

Fuck it, you’re right Paul. It’s basically beyond the wit of man to stop dumping shit into the rivers.

As someone who enjoys being a contrarian and taking the p!ss, even I think this juvenile riposte was rather uncalled for.

I think the issue being highlighted was that things are not so simple as one might wish them to be. That is different to expressing resignation. However, to effect sustained, meaningful change one usually needs to do more than simply shout in the streets (or online fora).

[Tony]

Stop stirring the sh1t, help rebuild the bridge at Cress-brook Mill by donating to the PDNP Foundation's fundraiser for this at: https://shorturl.at/cesz8

You can also donate by:

Bank transfer to ‘Peak District National Park Foundation’, sort code 20-10-71, account 63364895, Barclays Bank, quoting Cress-brook Bridge
Cheque made payable to Peak District National Park  Foundation with your contact details and marked Cress-brook Bridge to Aldern House, Baslow Road, Bakewell, Derbyshire, DE45 1AE

However, if you want to add gift aid (giving them an additional 25%), you’ll need to email them for a gift aid form to complete if you use bank transfer or cheque.

Nice one to all those people who have already donated

[remus]

The issue is surely more around people moving from the regulator to the water companies? There's is a clear conflict of interest there.

What's your solution there though; people only move in one direction e.g. from the regulated to the regulators? I don't think this is realistically achievable (people wouldn't risk the move without a SERIOUS financial incentive). I've worked for a consultant and then for a client who gave work to that consultant. This is unavoidable if people move freely within the industry.

I don't know. Maybe a ban on senior people at regulators working for the companies they regulate? Together with competitive salaries for those roles in the regulator? I feel like having strong, independent regulatory bodies is pretty important.

[Tony]

The issue is surely more around people moving from the regulator to the water companies? There's is a clear conflict of interest there.

What's your solution there though; people only move in one direction e.g. from the regulated to the regulators? I don't think this is realistically achievable (people wouldn't risk the move without a SERIOUS financial incentive). I've worked for a consultant and then for a client who gave work to that consultant. This is unavoidable if people move freely within the industry.

I don't know. Maybe a ban on senior people at regulators working for the companies they regulate? Together with competitive salaries for those roles in the regulator? I feel like having strong, independent regulatory bodies is pretty important.

Ah, so just completely change the pay structure of the civil service. Simples!

[Paul B]

The solution is at the upstream end, put less in, attenuate (stop making everything impervious) alongside proper maintenance and investment where it's needed. Chasing more storage at the point of discharge or nearby (IMO) isn't (you're never going to have enough and you can't ('cos hydraulics) just stick it anywhere).

If you want to get rid of every bit of Victorian infrastructure that's design life expired in the civils sector then get ready to pay an absolute fortune and be unable to travel anywhere for the foreseeable future. This would include a lot of the dams that actually capture your raw water.

If anyone actually gives a shit, take a look at the water saving pages of your water company as they usually give out free stuff to reduce your consumption. You may see this as 'victim blaming' but it's actually useful and could save you money. Rainwater butts with an extra tap installed half way and part open is also useful.

None of this excuses some of the accusations levelled at water companies with respect to dry weather discharges, incident reporting or switching off works to avoid sampling. If true, that's all dodgy shit, I'm just highlighting the engineering challenges and the pitfalls of referring to Victorian engineering in a way that implies it should've been replaced.

[ali k]

You’re right, apologies if it sounded petty. It was said in jest.

to effect sustained, meaningful change one usually needs to do more than simply shout in the streets (or online fora).

My point was that surely this is the job of the regulator? It shouldn’t rely on Surfers Against Sewage and other volunteer organisations and campaign groups to highlight the issue sufficiently that it gets political traction which then forces the water companies into finally doing something about it. If that’s what it takes, then what’s the point in the regulators?

[Paul B]

You’re right, apologies if it sounded petty. It was said in jest.

It was taken in jest. Can people please remember this next time I write something that comes across the same? 

[teestub]

I don't know. Maybe a ban on senior people at regulators working for the companies they regulate? Together with competitive salaries for those roles in the regulator? I feel like having strong, independent regulatory bodies is pretty important.

I hate to bring this vaguely around to some of Carlos’ original posts on this topic re: government, but the EA have had their enforcement budget fucked over for the last decade or more, they can’t even think about taking someone to court unless they have an iron clad case, as they couldn’t afford to lose and pay the defendants fees.

I know little or nothing about OFWAT and their funding, so maybe that picture is better, but it is the EA’s responsibility to enforce discharge permits and fine people for putting poop in the rivers and seas, and they just haven’t had the cash to do this.

[Will Hunt]

For anybody who cares about the issue I think you should take the time to read, as an absolute bare minimum, the executive summary of the Storm Overflows Evidence Project (4 sides of A4). For extra credit and understanding then read the Context section (6 pages).
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/storm-overflows-evidence-project

I don't think it would be too controversial to suggest that regulators up to this point have been focused on environmental outcomes (driven predominantly by the Water Framework Directive in recent years). The Environment Act goes much further than this and seeks to address what the SOEP refers to as "social impact" (as well as environmental impact).

[ali k]

The shocking thing about that document for me is that “the remit [of the SOEP] is to explore policy options that reduce the occurrence of storm overflow spills and any harm that is caused”.
It’s dated November 2021.
“It is the first assessment of its kind ever conducted”.

[Will Hunt]

I think what they mean by that is that it's the first time that somebody has tried to come up with figures for a national programme of overflow reduction, whether or not those discharges are causing environmental harm (i.e causing or significantly contributing to WFD failure).
Storm overflows have been assessed and targeted for improvement for decades, but this has been done on a catchment-by-catchment basis with different (environmental) objectives.

[Jacqusie]

I put some money in the fund as I like to use the bridge to cross the river. It's a wonderful part of the Peak, magical and special in fact. It makes life easier when using the trails and it's used by thousands of people each year.

I feel that we get an awful lot for free out of the Peak District, it's not much to ask to chip in £5.

So it makes me sad that there's so much divsion these days, even on issues such as a little old footbridge in a beautiful area.

But it warms the heart that the funding has been well coordinated. We often see these opportuntines in the Peak to create, build and allow access to these area's for people to enjoy. That's what the ACT was set up for in the BMC.

We can secure access across the river and head off to walk and climb round Water-Cum Jolly, as that's what we are all here for... isn't it?

[mrjonathanr]

I feel that we get an awful lot for free out of the Peak District, it's not much to ask to chip in £5.

We can secure access across the river and head off to walk and climb round Water-Cum Jolly, as that's what we are all here for... isn't it?

Yeah, that’s why I did the same. £5 is less than I’d spend on fuel to get there.

[Dingdong]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68665335

[stone]

I just saw that there is a wire bridge in Glen Nevis. I guess the current location of the cragx bridge would be a bit dodgy for someone falling but might there be somewhere else where it would be a perfect lower cost solution? Certainly better than no bridge -which seems a likely possibility now.

[SamT]

Like the idea. However the consquence of a fall from that Glen Nevis one looks relatively low impact.  Cre55brook one would be onto fast flowing rapids over hard bedrock limestone. Ouch.

[petejh]

If the fall onto bedrock or drowning in the rapids didn't get you, then the e-coli bacterial infection from falling into a river potentially full of shit would finish you off.. perhaps there should be a discussion about that somewhere..

[mrjonathanr]

Since this seems to be the water quality thread by default, George Monbiot’s recent article on flow trimming and water privatisation can go here:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/26/england-water-companies-shareholders-dividends-river-sea

Worth a read.

[SA Chris]

Like the idea. However the consquence of a fall from that Glen Nevis one looks relatively low impact. 

Water temp about 4 degrees even in midsummer, I've embarrassingly tried to take a dip there on a really hot day and failed dismally to get beyond thigh depth. And the water flows pretty fast in the middle esp during snowmelt!

[Dingdong]

Yorkshire Water continues to make headlines from dumping more raw sewage in our waterways… published today 

Yorkshire Water, the private water company that manages sewage across South Yorkshire, including all of the most polluted spots in Rotherham, has been ranked the second worst polluting water company in the UK in 2023. Earlier this month, the company paid £150,000 to Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust for “unauthorised sewage discharge”.

https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/environment/huge-spikes-in-raw-sewage-flowing-into-rotherham-rivers-4606033

[teestub]

Bit more hard work and dedication we can supplant those southerners for the number 1 spot

[mrjonathanr]

Yorkshire Water continues to make headlines from dumping more raw sewage in our waterways… published today 

Yorkshire Water, the private water company that manages sewage across South Yorkshire, including all of the most polluted spots in Rotherham, has been ranked the second worst polluting water company in the UK in 2023. Earlier this month, the company paid £150,000 to Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust for “unauthorised sewage discharge”.

https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/environment/huge-spikes-in-raw-sewage-flowing-into-rotherham-rivers-4606033

Perhaps that is cost effective compared with costs of preventing the discharges.

[Teaboy]

I’m trying to work out what point you are trying to make?

[mrjonathanr]

Cheaper to pay fines than stay within the legally permitted limits.