UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: Dingdong on February 02, 2024, 09:40:54 am
-
So who’s got the contract? Is it Mone again? Why would a small footbridge cost £180k, someone please enlighten me!
https://www.instagram.com/p/C21m3QuM2OZ/?igsh=MTBjcWQ2OWJzcTF5
-
https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/learning-about/news/current-news/replacing-the-footbridge-at-cragx-mill
Some more context. I'll dismantle the existing one for 20k...
-
Anyone want to join Remus Bridge Building Ltd? £100k bid, £1k materials from b&q, £99k profit.
-
https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/learning-about/news/current-news/replacing-the-footbridge-at-cragx-mill
Some more context. I'll dismantle the existing one for 20k...
Link is broken due to the UKB auto-correcter, working version here https://shorturl.at/gPW26
-
So who’s got the contract? Is it Mone again? Why would a small footbridge cost £180k, someone please enlighten me!
https://www.instagram.com/p/C21m3QuM2OZ/?igsh=MTBjcWQ2OWJzcTF5
With the way litigation culture is going I imagine it will be hopelessly over engineered, and some of the money would be for liability insurance and maintenance contracts
-
So who’s got the contract? Is it Mone again? Why would a small footbridge cost £180k, someone please enlighten me!
https://www.instagram.com/p/C21m3QuM2OZ/?igsh=MTBjcWQ2OWJzcTF5
With the way litigation culture is going I imagine it will be hopelessly over engineered, and some of the money would be for liability insurance and maintenance contracts
I imagine they’ll go bowderstone way and put up some hideous metal contraption. I still don’t get where the £180k is going because they reckon it’ll require minimal maintenance afterwards…
I think someone’s getting paid well from this…
-
Are any of you structural engineers?
I love a good pile on, but why the scepticism?
It's a fairly long footbridge, in an area extremely prone to flooding, across an active, steep water course with limited vehicular access, which needs to be sufficiently resilient to withstand all the abuse of a changing climate with minimal ongoing maintenance requirement, all in an area of outstanding natural beauty that has to be preserved during construction.
Similarly the existing one needs to be dismantled in a careful manner which avoids damage to the surrounding area.
Unfortunately, nice things cost money. Sure the army could knock another one up, but there's a reason the current one only lasted 30-odd years.
-
Probably pays for a series of risk assessments prior to demolition, rather than a bunch of climbers turning up at midnight with chainsaws and waders
https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/learning-about/news/current-news/replacing-the-footbridge-at-cragx-mill
Some more context. I'll dismantle the existing one for 20k...
-
But also what Bradders says...
-
Just the time getting the appropriate permits from the EA and Natural England for working near the watercourse and within a SSSI will prob run to £10k or more.
Is there a road down to the bridge location or will they need to build one, or use a big crane with an associated road closure to get the materials in?
Lots to consider for such a small project, things have moved on quite a bit since the army hoiked a couple of RSJs and some wood down there 40 years ago.
-
What Bradders said. I'm sure Paul will be along to tell us more but £180k is fuck all when it comes to a capital project. You've got to pay some engineers to design it, planning permission, environmental licensing, access is difficult, working in water, in a National Park, materials, plant, building something that won't just wash away in 20 years time and not be a pain in the arse to maintain for those 20 years, making sure that nobody dies while you're building it. It all costs money and yes, there will be an amount of profit for the engineering firm that takes it on, otherwise they wouldn't be in business (see how the razor-thin-margins business model worked out for Carillion). The amount of profit is controlled by market competition.
:tumble:
-
I am joking really, obviously these things can't be done on a shoestring. It does feel a little frustrating that there is quite so much paperwork to do though. Similar to my frustrations with planning for houses I guess.
Separate point but short term is not in and of itself necessarily bad. Its a null point because the various permissions required preclude it, but say it was possible to whack another wooden one in for 40k that would last 40 years...I'd do that and then do it again in 2064.
-
Just the time getting the appropriate permits from the EA and Natural England for working near the watercourse and within a SSSI will prob run to £10k or more.
I expect every design, procedure and plan will be subject to 3rd party review, resubmission and revision by or on behalf of everyone involved. This consumes time and cost at an alarming rate.
-
Are any of you structural engineers?
I love a good pile on, but why the scepticism?
It's a fairly long footbridge, in an area extremely prone to flooding, across an active, steep water course with limited vehicular access, which needs to be sufficiently resilient to withstand all the abuse of a changing climate with minimal ongoing maintenance requirement, all in an area of outstanding natural beauty that has to be preserved during construction.
Similarly the existing one needs to be dismantled in a careful manner which avoids damage to the surrounding area.
Unfortunately, nice things cost money. Sure the army could knock another one up, but there's a reason the current one only lasted 30-odd years.
As much as all that makes sense, my skepticism comes from the government and local councils splooshing money away on super expensive contracts to firms their mates own, so excuse me for being skeptical about this kind of stuff.
I understand that there’s a lot of work entailed, but even the fact that an initial survey costs 10 grand is insane to me.
Glad to see they’re getting some funding from multiple sources at least. Like I said, I just hope it’s not money spaffed up the wall for some cunts to get richer as is the norm.
-
I am joking really, obviously these things can't be done on a shoestring. It does feel a little frustrating that there is quite so much paperwork to do though. Similar to my frustrations with planning for houses I guess.
The planning process can seem frustrating until you look at all the stories of where the process hasn’t been followed, and you end up with houses on top of landfills without gas protection that blow up, or houses built on floodplains that no one wants to live in, or chicken farms directly next to rivers, or massive fish kills on rivers next to construction sites because they don’t have appropriate run off management.
Hopefully we can stay away from ‘elfin safety gawn maaaad’ commentary!
-
Of course; its not unreasonable to want to plot a middle ground between what you describe and development being blocked simply because it spoils some boomers views though! For the record I'm not advocating a return to the days of navvies working in abysmal conditions.
-
The comedy of a thread by climbers whinging about actual money being stumped up to fix (rebuild) a bridge heavily used by climbers.
-
The comedy of a thread by climbers whinging about actual money being stumped up to fix (rebuild) a bridge heavily used by climbers.
£20k is being stumped up, they're asking for donations to cover the rest.
-
To be fair, thats not quite right.
'The overall estimated cost of a replacement bridge is expected to be around £180,00 - £200,000. The PDNPA is committing £20,000 to cover the costs of removing the old bridge. The Peak District National Park Foundation has given a £20,000 grant towards the project, and the Access and Conservation Trust, the charity of the British Mountaineering Council an additional grant of £10,000. This leaves a shortfall of potentially up to £150,000.
We now have the opportunity to apply for a significant project grant from the Farming in Protected Landscapes fund which would make the project possible in 2024. However, the application will be much stronger with additional donations from the community and make it more likely to be funded.'
https://peakdistrict.enthuse.com/cf/cragx-mill-bridge
This link wont work either but you can click through to it from the previous link.
-
Are any of you structural engineers?
I love a good pile on, but why the scepticism?
It's a fairly long footbridge, in an area extremely prone to flooding, across an active, steep water course with limited vehicular access, which needs to be sufficiently resilient to withstand all the abuse of a changing climate with minimal ongoing maintenance requirement, all in an area of outstanding natural beauty that has to be preserved during construction.
Similarly the existing one needs to be dismantled in a careful manner which avoids damage to the surrounding area.
Unfortunately, nice things cost money. Sure the army could knock another one up, but there's a reason the current one only lasted 30-odd years.
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask whether it is value for money. From my perspective as a lay-person, the main structure of the bridge (two big I-beams and the concrete it sits on) look to be in reasonable condition with a rotting wooden structure built on top. Hypothetically, why is it not possible to replace the wooden structure on top of the I-beams? It might only last another 30 years, but if that costs £10k instead of £180k then redoing that work every few decades seems a cost efficient solution.
Of course Im almost certainly missing much of the complication and expense here (maybe the foundations are shit and the whole thing needs redoing, maybe the I beams are completely rusted through, all the access considerations mentioned up thread etc.), but it would be good if there was some attempt at justifying the cost.
-
To be fair, thats not quite right.
'The overall estimated cost of a replacement bridge is expected to be around £180,00 - £200,000. The PDNPA is committing £20,000 to cover the costs of removing the old bridge. The Peak District National Park Foundation has given a £20,000 grant towards the project, and the Access and Conservation Trust, the charity of the British Mountaineering Council an additional grant of £10,000. This leaves a shortfall of potentially up to £150,000.
We now have the opportunity to apply for a significant project grant from the Farming in Protected Landscapes fund which would make the project possible in 2024. However, the application will be much stronger with additional donations from the community and make it more likely to be funded.'
https://peakdistrict.enthuse.com/cf/cragx-mill-bridge
This link wont work either but you can click through to it from the previous link.
My mistake, thanks for the added detail.
-
As its part of my day job organising and managing installs of similar bridges the estimate doesn't seem too far off market rate, the costs of bridges regardless of material goes up steeply with longer spans, up to around 12m prices seem reasonable but after that..... Access and hire of special plant etc for getting materials to and from site also isn't cheap.
Stubly also made a good point Re the Environment Agency and conservation areas etc can add a lot of paperwork and cost and influence how and what is done on site.
-
Some more detail in Bonjoy's updates here: https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,33744.msg682610.html#msg682610
Sounds like the whole structure has been condemned by civil engineers, which I might cynically suggest is unsurprising :worms:
But seriously I get where Tony S is coming from, it is good there is action being taken to replace it.
-
The planning process can seem frustrating until you look at all the stories of where the process hasn’t been followed, and you end up with houses on top of landfills without gas protection that blow up, or houses built on floodplains that no one wants to live in, or chicken farms directly next to rivers, or massive fish kills on rivers next to construction sites because they don’t have appropriate run off management.
Hopefully we can stay away from ‘elfin safety gawn maaaad’ commentary!
Incoming! Clear madness. We're not talking about chicken farms, construction sites, houses here. We're talking about a little footbridge over a little stream.
-
I don't think it is unreasonable to ask whether it is value for money. From my perspective as a lay-person, the main structure of the bridge (two big I-beams and the concrete it sits on) look to be in reasonable condition with a rotting wooden structure built on top. Hypothetically, why is it not possible to replace the wooden structure on top of the I-beams? It might only last another 30 years, but if that costs £10k instead of £180k then redoing that work every few decades seems a cost efficient solution.
Perhaps, you could ask for these details in a more constructive fashion from the body commissioning the work. Or search through the minutes of their meetings to save them some staff time (which costs money by the way).
Your previous self seemed quite keen on the idea:
Good shout. Accessing that side of the river is a pain with the bridge closed.
It’s blatantly obvious that it is a fairly niche project: a very difficult site (SSSI, steep terrain, difficult access, watercourse, ancient weir) with a lot of sensitivities. 180k does not buy you a lot these days. Quite frankly, it’s a drop in the ocean.
Quit whinging and send your money to: PDNP Foundation (https://shorturl.at/cesz8)
-
Incoming! Clear madness. We're not talking about chicken farms, construction sites, houses here. We're talking about a little footbridge over a little stream.
I think you’ve got the wrong bridge. And self-evidently it would be a “construction site”.
-
Incoming! Clear madness. We're not talking about chicken farms, construction sites, houses here. We're talking about a little footbridge over a little stream.
Ah yea not surprised that’s your opinion on this, this post stuck with me!
My own pet theory for why we might see progress locally slowing in developed economies/countries is due to too many laws/over-regulation, risk aversion and total obsession with ensuring physical safety at any cost with the upshot that innovation in most areas is completely hamstrung and we just generally can't get anything done, especially anything 'real world'.
-
Thats a good potential thread, if SteveR replies in a new one!
-
People really do have little idea of how much things cost. We are not bridge builders per se but could do so if asked and i can have a decent guess that 180k will not cover the cost of that bridge.
Good luck if you take it at that and expect to make money on it.
-
If you'd like to contribute to a - conservatively priced - new bridge at Cress.brook Mill (i.e. to access Moat Buttress) you can donate to the PDNP Foundation's fundraiser for this at: https://shorturl.at/cesz8
[PS: Could the mods please delete the irritating auto-replace of Cress.brook with Cragx?]
-
Tony, you seem pretty highly strung. What’s up? This thread was just questioning the cost, not the need, health and safety required to build it etc.
I think people are just weary of costs due to past mismanagement from various organisations up and down the country.
Excuse us for thinking this is pricey for a bridge but from what people have explained that sounds about right I guess. I’ll happily donate some money towards it, just wanted to make sure the money isn’t going into some tories pocket.
-
I’ll happily donate some money towards it, just wanted to make sure the money isn’t going into some tories pocket.
Glad to hear you’ll be contributing, Dong. My work is done.
-
I’ll happily donate some money towards it, just wanted to make sure the money isn’t going into some tories pocket.
Would it be ok if the embezzlement was being carried out by a Labour Party member instead?
-
I’ll happily donate some money towards it, just wanted to make sure the money isn’t going into some tories pocket.
Would it be ok if the embezzlement was being carried out by a Labour Party member instead?
Labour ain’t been in charge for 14 years or ruined the country :lol:
-
Incoming! Clear madness. We're not talking about chicken farms, construction sites, houses here. We're talking about a little footbridge over a little stream.
I think you’ve got the wrong bridge. And self-evidently it would be a “construction site”.
Ah fair enough, yeah wrong bridge. Probably a bargain then.
-
John Fullwood previously posted that he had costed up repairs to the bridge (that were never carried out) a few years ago. I wonder whether it would have been much cheaper to have done that then instead of this now.
-
I'm a bit out of the loop having never been. I'm not local to the peak and there's limited info about it.
As I understand it there isn't any access... But the BMC is giving a £10k grant for a bridge to access a place that shouldn't be accessed?
-
John Fullwood previously posted that he had costed up repairs to the bridge (that were never carried out) a few years ago. I wonder whether it would have been much cheaper to have done that then instead of this now.
It sounds like the engineering report condemed the entire structure so I don't think that would have made any difference.
-
When I was disgruntled at how long a bridge replacement was taking I googled and these came up as what appeared (to my ignorant perusal) a quick cheap solution. https://www.creativecompositesgroup.com/products/pedestrian-bridges-boardwalks/pedestrian-bridges (https://www.creativecompositesgroup.com/products/pedestrian-bridges-boardwalks/pedestrian-bridges)
-
I'm a bit out of the loop having never been. I'm not local to the peak and there's limited info about it.
As I understand it there isn't any access... But the BMC is giving a £10k grant for a bridge to access a place that shouldn't be accessed?
It isn't actually for that famous "secret" bouldering venue but rather for getting from Rubicon to Moat and WCJ Cornice and the Monsal Trail
-
I'm a bit out of the loop having never been. I'm not local to the peak and there's limited info about it.
As I understand it there isn't any access... But the BMC is giving a £10k grant for a bridge to access a place that shouldn't be accessed?
It isn't actually for that famous "secret" bouldering venue but rather for getting from Rubicon to Moat and WCJ Cornice and the Monsal Trail
Got it thanks!
-
Just trying to decide where to allocate £180k. Terrace house in an unfashionable part of Sheffield or small footbridge with a troll underneath ?
-
If you'd like to contribute to a - conservatively priced - new bridge at Cress.brook Mill (i.e. to access Moat Buttress) you can donate to the PDNP Foundation's fundraiser for this at: https://shorturl.at/cesz8
[PS: Could the mods please delete the irritating auto-replace of Cress.brook with Cragx?]
Conservative my arse, and seeing as it’s you…
(What’s happened to you? When and why did you become so establishment? )
-
Conservative my arse, and seeing as it’s you…
Don’t take my word for it, bitey, see:
People really do have little idea of how much things cost. We are not bridge builders per se but could do so if asked and i can have a decent guess that 180k will not cover the cost of that bridge.
and
As its part of my day job organising and managing installs of similar bridges the estimate doesn't seem too far off market rate, the costs of bridges regardless of material goes up steeply with longer spans, up to around 12m prices seem reasonable but after that..... Access and hire of special plant etc for getting materials to and from site also isn't cheap.
Stubly also made a good point Re the Environment Agency and conservation areas etc can add a lot of paperwork and cost and influence how and what is done on site.
So when considering,
where to allocate £180k. Terrace house in unfashionable part of Sheffield (With a decent rental yield) or small footbridge with a troll underneath ?
Why don’t you take the profits from your inter-generational inequality generating (until recently) tax-dodging investment in property and put some money into something useful and used by a great many (frequently, it would appear, cheapskate) climbers?
Here’s a link, again, to the PDNP Foundation's fundraiser for this at: https://shorturl.at/cesz8
PS: Nice one to all those charitable folks who have already contributed :beer2:
-
I totally agree that buy-to-let Landlordism utterly sucks.
I also agree that it is staggering that it takes six annual median wages to replace a footbridge. The £10k figure to do the paperwork needed seems to me emblematic of a screwed up system. But not as emblematic as the fact that the handling charge on donations is almost 10%. Or that the bridge has been closed and tatty for four years now. Many people (me included) have continued using it, but that just emphasises the bullshit of it all.
-
Just trying to decide where to allocate £180k. Terrace house in an unfashionable part of Sheffield or small footbridge with a troll underneath ?
Pay me half the 180k and I'll volunteer to be the troll.
I'll even throw in unhelpful beta for anyone trip trapping across it.
-
Stone and others, if you're confident that you know more about designing and building bridges than people who design and build bridges for a living, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own engineering firm, outbidding the competition, and becoming phenomenally successful.
That is, unless you don't actually know more about designing and building bridges than people who design and build bridges for a living :-\
-
Just trying to decide where to allocate £180k. Terrace house in an unfashionable part of Sheffield or small footbridge with a troll underneath ?
Why don't you build the bridge and charge climbers £10/crossing? Say there's an average of 10 climbers per week from May to September, 20 weeks, £2k per year. ROI of 1.1% minus upkeep, so maybe 0.0%.
Deal of the century Shark, buy buy buy!
-
Stone and others, if you're confident that you know more about designing and building bridges than people who design and build bridges for a living, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own engineering firm, outbidding the competition, and becoming phenomenally successful.
That is, unless you don't actually know more about designing and building bridges than people who design and build bridges for a living :-\
I'm too busy ineptly trying to do the job I'm supposed to be able to do.
I still think that a lot of the planning etc could be stripped back and a generic design footbridge installed.
I'm going along with how it is though. I've reposted the link in a few places and donated.
-
Stone and others, if you're confident that you know more about designing and building bridges than people who design and build bridges for a living, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own engineering firm, outbidding the competition, and becoming phenomenally successful.
That is, unless you don't actually know more about designing and building bridges than people who design and build bridges for a living :-\
I don't work in civils, but I did have to manage an access bridge reinstatement project to a wind turbine that's a bit offshore. I'm surprised it can't be done a bit cheaper than £180k. We had excavators in for a week or two, fixing of sheet piles, backloading and compacting the ground, full site team with welfare cabins etc. and, from memory (I'm and engineer, not a bean counter) it was in that ballpark.
But as Will says, there are people on here that actually do it for a living so I'm inclined to go with them.... :lol:
Could we crowd-source the engineering? ;-) I'm sure there are enough climbers that are project managers, civil engineers, planners that it could be cobbled together. Just need Shark to fund the material costs and cranes. ;)
Is 20 metres too big for a Gluelam bridge? a 30' (10m) one seems to be around €18k delivered, so say $50k, or £40k.
-
But not as emblematic as the fact that the handling charge on donations is almost 10%.
Have I understood this right... the platform being used to receive donations takes a 10% cut of those donations? I had a quick look but couldn't see that. Have I misunderstood?
-
I clicked to make a donation, the payment details then said the amount charged would be almost 10% more to account for the handling charge of the platform.
PS, I just checked the email:
Donation amount: £50
Donor Fee Cover Amount: £4.28
Gift Aid amount: £12.50
Payment Type: Single Credit/ Debit Cards
Charity Name: Peak District National Park Foundation
-
Does anyone know how they got the stands down and into place when the existing bridge was built?
-
I clicked to make a donation, the payment details then said the amount charged would be almost 10% more to account for the handling charge of the platform.
PS, I just checked the email:
Donation amount: £50
Donor Fee Cover Amount: £4.28
Gift Aid amount: £12.50
Payment Type: Single Credit/ Debit Cards
Charity Name: Peak District National Park Foundation
Thanks Stone. I know as much about raising funds as I do about building bridges, but the idea that I've got to pay a middleman ~10% to be able to donate is quite off-putting for me. That doesn't happen with any charities I donate to, for example. Should it really cost Shark £20k to donate enough to cover the full amount?!
Obviously I'm grateful to those who have already donated despite this!
-
This discussion bought to mind the footbridge shenanigans here:
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/28/norfolk-marsh-bridge-national-trust
-
This discussion bought to mind the footbridge shenanigans here:
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/28/norfolk-marsh-bridge-national-trust
Except that it is PDNPA commissioning a new bridge…. (and about every other aspect)
-
I know as much about raising funds as I do about building bridges, but the idea that I've got to pay a middleman ~10% to be able to donate is quite off-putting for me. That doesn't happen with any charities I donate to, for example. Should it really cost Shark £20k to donate enough to cover the full amount?!
Obviously I'm grateful to those who have already donated despite this!
Why don’t you write to PDNP Foundation offering to do their accounting for free?
The collection of Gift Aid and payment processing and records keeping for all this will cost all charities. In this case it’s 7%. Standard payment processing charges are around 2%, Gift Aid administration is a bit more and record keeping is a moveable feast.
Not donating because you disagree that a charity doesn’t have accountants and payment processors working for them for free is a cop out.
-
Stone and others, if you're confident that you know more about designing and building bridges than people who design and build bridges for a living, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from starting your own engineering firm, outbidding the competition, and becoming phenomenally successful.
That is, unless you don't actually know more about designing and building bridges than people who design and build bridges for a living :-\
I don't work in civils, but I did have to manage an access bridge reinstatement project to a wind turbine that's a bit offshore. I'm surprised it can't be done a bit cheaper than £180k. We had excavators in for a week or two, fixing of sheet piles, backloading and compacting the ground, full site team with welfare cabins etc. and, from memory (I'm and engineer, not a bean counter) it was in that ballpark.
But as Will says, there are people on here that actually do it for a living so I'm inclined to go with them.... :lol:
Could we crowd-source the engineering? ;-) I'm sure there are enough climbers that are project managers, civil engineers, planners that it could be cobbled together. Just need Shark to fund the material costs and cranes. ;)
Is 20 metres too big for a Gluelam bridge? a 30' (10m) one seems to be around €18k delivered, so say $50k, or £40k.
Deflection increases with L^4. Stiffness increases with h^3 so the beam depth would have to go up by 2.5x for a 2x span. So doesn't seem unreasonable that a bridge 2x the span would be 5x the cost. I've not worked as an engineer so don't trust this.
-
I know as much about raising funds as I do about building bridges, but the idea that I've got to pay a middleman ~10% to be able to donate is quite off-putting for me. That doesn't happen with any charities I donate to, for example. Should it really cost Shark £20k to donate enough to cover the full amount?!
Obviously I'm grateful to those who have already donated despite this!
Why don’t you write to PDNP Foundation offering to do their accounting for free?
The collection of Gift Aid and payment processing and records keeping for all this will cost all charities. In this case it’s 7%. Standard payment processing charges are around 2%, Gift Aid administration is a bit more and record keeping is a moveable feast.
Not donating because you disagree that a charity doesn’t have accountants and payment processors working for them for free is a cop out.
Come on, it's really not unreasonable to complain about a 10% fee here. £20k would cover the salary for a juniour Deloitte accountant to work on this full time for 6 months!
-
it's really not unreasonable to complain about a 10% fee here.
Except that, as so highlighted, it’s not 10%, it’s 7% and that includes a card processing fee of ~2%. So it’s about 5%.
If you want to investigate how much various charities spend on their fundraising and operational costs why don’t you look up their reports on the Charity Commission’s website.
It’s an amusing situation in that this charity being transparent about its costs is causing such a fuss.
This adds to my impression that climbers seem particularly unaware of how much stuff costs (including staff time) and really are tight.
Nice one to those that continue to give to the PDNP Foundation's fundraiser for this at: https://shorturl.at/cesz8
-
If you want to investigate how much various charities spend on their fundraising and operational costs why don’t you look up their reports on the Charity Commission’s website.
There’s a difference between fundraising costs and the transactional costs we’re talking about here. 5% on top of the ~2% usually payment processing fee is a lot. It’s more than justgiving charge and more than things like Etsy, shopify etc.
It is perfectly possible to question the value of things without being tight, it’s also possible that things can be the market rate and still be a rip off.
Anyway, next time your looking for some work that needs doing hit me up and and I’ll give you a quote!
-
It is perfectly possible to question the value of things without being tight, it’s also possible that things can be the market rate and still be a rip off.
Etsy is comparable and you can’t claim GiftAid, Shopify, again, no gift aid. JustGiving is cheaper, but that is not the platform this charity has chosen.
Remember this is not your cost (so you can’t be ripped off): you are donating. (although you can take the hit on the charity’s behalf).
If you want cost-effective donation then I would suggest investing in malaria prevention. But that’s another matter…
-
JustGiving is cheaper, but that is not the platform this charity has chosen.
Remember this is not your cost (so you can’t be ripped off): you are donating. (although you can take the hit on the charity’s behalf).
Well, that's the point. PDNP didn't choose the best value system and so is wasting our money, which is what we are complaining about.
https://help.justgiving.com/hc/en-us/articles/200670421-How-can-I-donate-and-what-fee-do-you-take
-
Well, that's the point. PDNP didn't choose the best value system and so is wasting our money
No Stone. You donated what you saw fit.
They may be wasting their own money but they may have chosen the platform on other grounds / for other functionality. However, from the moment you donated (nice one, by the way) it was their money.
Apart from big charities, most don’t have lots of full time specialists for making optimal decisions across all areas in which they operate at all times. But, as I wrote above, there may have been other (reasonable) reasons for choosing that platform - you could ask them?
That they received 93% of the money that resulted from your donation is considerably better than “gaining” 100% from someone donating nothing.
Look at their Charity Commission reports if you want to investigate their overall charitable activity vs operational costs.
Once again, I’d encourage any potential user of this crossing to consider supporting the cost of a new bridge by donating via the PDNP Foundation's fundraiser for this at: https://shorturl.at/cesz8
-
If anyone fancies a little light reading there's an overview of the proposed works available here https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/system/download/f/4c456962555a645a32753732666c65384b4263644a413d3d
You can also view the planning application here https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/10231299 and the bid that went out for tender here https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W43/809500781
Stone, you'll be interested to know they're proposing a GRP bridge like the ones you were looking at!
ed: the structural report on the condition of the current bridge is available via the planning application here https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/system/download/f/6469616b67746b373233396c612f42417a6841594e413d3d
-
Thanks Remus, I'll check those out.
I was just this minute chatting on zoom about this with my sister who works for Transport for Scotland. She said £200k for a footbridge didn't surprise her at all.
-
Some heated debate here, but just to check, we are all agreed that this is the best start to proceedings:
a bunch of climbers turning up at midnight with chainsaws and waders
:yes:
-
If anyone fancies a little light reading there's an overview of the proposed works available here https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/system/download/f/4c456962555a645a32753732666c65384b4263644a413d3d
You can also view the planning application here https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/10231299 and the bid that went out for tender here https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2023/W43/809500781
Stone, you'll be interested to know they're proposing a GRP bridge like the ones you were looking at!
ed: the structural report on the condition of the current bridge is available via the planning application here https://portal.peakdistrict.gov.uk/system/download/f/6469616b67746b373233396c612f42417a6841594e413d3d
Thanks Remus, that's really useful.
Spidermonkey, Stone - are you going to have a read of that and perhaps row back on your stance/cynicism? Essentially, the arrangement was suitable and shock horror, considering sectional loss (once the protection system has failed) means the structural capacity of the bridge is now less than designed (N.B. when you design stuff like this it needs to perform as designed on the last day of its life as it did on day one).
If people on this thread knew WTF they were talking about they'd realise that statement pretty much disproves over-design! If you want to argue 5kPa isn't ever going to happen then just ensure that nobody organises a group walk / run or whatever over the bridge, for the next 60 years without fail. The same people bleating on about over-design would no doubt be the first ones blaming engineers whenever a particularly windy day caused some form of failure (ULS failure) or they went into their local bank (do people still have these?) and noticed the ceiling was deflecting to an amount that made them uncomfortable (SLS failure).
TLDR: Bridge in asset life expired as a result of it not being maintained to extend that life shocker.
I can comment more on the issues in civil engineering in terms of contracts and cost (and sunk cost) but if you think the industry works on huge margins you're vastly mistaken. Yes, it can be efficient. Yes, there's a lot of paperwork and process but that stuff has been developed for a reason, usually something bad having happened.
In terms of liability etc. I'm quite glad I live in a society where my life has a value that means others try and protect it; the DfT put a number on each of our lives BTW (after one of the rail disasters) and that was £1.7 million in 2017 (so around £2.2M today). This is used in risk based asset management all the time to determine proportionality of works vs. risk.
-
I've always been very clear that I don't know what I'm talking about and I found it interesting reading through those docs. It sounds like its in the ballpark, so fair dos. I may be old before my time but there is a slight regret that there is no way of doing things like this any cheaper, ie without the reams of paperwork, surveys, hoops to jump through etc. I have no idea what the original cost but I bet it wasn't much and its lasted 30 years according that last doc without any issues until now. Thats just me though, and thats an opinion born of frustration with planning systems. Others hold different views and thats fine. But as I've said, the bottom line is its good something is being done and if the FIPL are happy to fund the majority of it then great.
In terms of cynicism, I suppose the counter question is are you really arguing that overengineering isnt a thing? Obviously sometimes it may be prudent, but surely sometimes it isn't and amounts to a waste. Im not an engineer and am 100% ignorant, but we were only allowed opinions on stuff we were experts in this discussion forum wouldn't be very populated! I was interested in the last section of that report, 5.4 and 5.5, where they appear to suggest that remediation of the bridge could be an option at a cost of £50-80,000. It wasn't specified, unless I missed it, how long this might extend the lifespan of the bridge. Obviously if this only bought the bridge 10 years it wouldn't be worth it. In 5.5, they estimate the budget costs of the new bridge to be £80-120,000, quite a lot less than the £180k now quoted, which might grow further. So ultimately, even reading the structural assessment survey, I don't think its unreasonable to have queries, even as a lay person, about how the cost was arrived at, and even some cycnicism about whether remediation might have been better than replacement, especially given that that survey suggests that the bridge abutments/piers were too difficult to inspect and could only be inspected after the initial bridge was removed.
Ultimately though, I'm in favour of something being done, and too often that gets lost in months of talking about doing something, so I'm ultimately happy that there is a proposal to replace out there which sounds like it has a good chance of getting funded. Its been reasonably efficient given them bridge was first closed a few years ago I think.
-
I can't answer the above post easily from a phone but I can do later when I'm at a keyboard.
Sounds like the whole structure has been condemned by civil engineers, which I might cynically suggest is unsurprising :worms:
But seriously I get where Tony S is coming from, it is good there is action being taken to replace it.
The fact is, this pushed my buttons as someone that's been in this position before. I guess I agree (for very different reasons) in that it's not unsurprising based on my TL;Dr above!
-
That was meant as light hearted pisstake of the stereotype of engineers as incredibly risk averse people for whom nothing is ever safe enough. No different to the frequent pisstakes of eg builders as teeth sucking "thats gonna cost you" merchants, mains dealer mechanics as "string along for months fixing the wrong things until they stumble upon the right thing", or academics as ivory tower dwelling pontificators who know nothing of the real world. :2thumbsup:
-
This is UKB’s very own “£350m on the side of a bus” moment. Working out what counts as “a lot” in the context of public spending is just really hard for most people. My personal preference is for thinking in terms of cost per capita, cost per household or cost per taxpayer. There are roughly 30m income tax payers in the U.K. so any national level government spending under £30m is change lost in the sofa/rounding error territory.
Obviously this is complicated by a small local project whose impact is less clear. How many potential users of a bridge in the Peak are there? And over how long a timescale?
I feel this kind of thread is really an artefact of living in a very low investment country. We don’t invest much, publicly or privately, so it all looks horribly expensive. Ultimately a bit depressing.
-
I feel this kind of thread is really an artefact of living in a very low investment country. We don’t invest much, publicly or privately, so it all looks horribly expensive. Ultimately a bit depressing.
Definitely!
-
My guess is that perhaps 50 people a day (averaged over a year) used that bridge and perhaps there are 200 people who cross it >50x per year. So £200k is pricy per person. I really like the walk that includes that bridge but I'd baulk at paying say £500 towards it. As a frequent user, I ought to be comfortable paying that sort of amount if it were to be paid for by the users. So I don't think shock at the £200k is misplaced.
Evidently bridges are extremely expensive, even when so small.
There are a bunch of footbridges all along that river. It would really start to become a pain if more of them got inspected and condemned in that way.
-
But it’s a project of the Peak District National Park, right? Which has 13m annual visitors and effectively each one of those is a consumer of “national park services” even if they don’t use each and every individual part of that service.
I guess it’s alway possible to pick numbers to reinforce one’s original view rather than look at it in context.
-
There are a bunch of footbridges all along that river. It would really start to become a pain if more of them got inspected and condemned in that way.
You mean based on the industry standard, derived from a boat load of analysis to derive the Euronorms (Eurocodes; BS EN)?
Let people not forget that these codes produce far leaner designs than their predecessors (BS) at the cost of being more complex for the designer.
Let me ask you this, as someone with a duty of "reasonable skill and care" which I would need to demonstrate if something went wrong, how would you suggest someone looks at a structure if not in a way which is industry recognised?
Are people genuinely surprised that the timber elements need replacing?
-
I suppose, back in 2019, I was hoping that all the timber could have been stripped out and replaced with eg plastic fake timber like https://plastecowood.com/product/decking-support/.
I fully accept now that the steel is also rotten and so the situation is as it is. It is nevertheless a bad situation. We don't know at this stage whether there ever will be a replacement bridge.
Like I said I have reposted the donation link in several places so I'm hardly the arch naysayer.
I'm a bit aghast that the new bridge will include timber though.
I fully appreciate that civil engineers have very onerous responsibilities to not mess up and potentially kill people.
-
In terms of cynicism, I suppose the counter question is are you really arguing that overengineering isnt a thing? Obviously sometimes it may be prudent, but surely sometimes it isn't and amounts to a waste. Im not an engineer and am 100% ignorant, but we were only allowed opinions on stuff we were experts in this discussion forum wouldn't be very populated!
I'm currently abroad, so I'll keep this relatively brief but using the example we have here of an engineer looking at an existing structure and applying standard practice then no, I don't think they're being overly conservative. The simple fact is if such an outfit were to waltz around condemning structures all day every day as they didn't want any risk themselves then they'd soon be out of business. Reports such as the one Remus linked often end up in the public domain but also, are given to people like Peewee (or a TAA; Technical Approval Authority where the client doesn't have that expertise) that'd go back and challenge wildly risk averse behaviour. In terms of the Eurocodes, they work based on characteristic values which should be 'moderately conservative'. For steel these are well documented and they are what they are, whereas for things like soils they're via testing and interpretation.
Now if we take the replacement bridge itself, the answer is again, no. Again, the simple fact is that if it was vastly over-engineered then there'd be someone coming in at a lesser price applying the standards correctly and the consultant/contractor would again find themselves losing out to others. Lose enough work that isn't fee-earning and you'll go out of business. Civil Engineers design to standards and they don't go around throwing in extra bunts to make themselves more comfortable. There are exceptions here where clients demand more than the standard. A quick example on a temporary condition is that one large infrastructure asset owner requires cranes operated on their sites to be at 90% of their duty (capacity) or less. They do this because many of the cranes used for BIG LIFTS are very very old and it protects against age related concerns. When I do a design for the contractor using that item of plant then I do it to the client's internal standards because if I don't then the lift isn't happening. Fitting a similar example to the bridge in question, you can deviate from 5kPa live loading via a formula in the DMRB but again, some clients state in their contracts / asset standards that they don't want you to do so. Things like this are their call so they don't have to give it a second thought when someone routes a running event over their bridges.
Where things get more complex is the palming around of risk and programmes that are a stretch to meet. I've sat in a few meetings rather smugly with a cup of tea watching a Geotech engineer who had their investigations stripped to the bone early in a contract show a chart based on the cost of investigation to a project vs. time in that project's life. The basics of this are people don't like doing Geo Investigation (GI) upfront to the correct level because it appears expensive. However, the expense is a fraction of the cost of learning the hard way when you're on site burning through cash. In this instance you might end up doing something expensive or on the face of it over the top to get out of a difficult situation because that's actually cheaper than sitting around designing the leaner solution.
More on this would be where information is lacking. As an example, the same infrastructure owner requires bridge abutments to be assessed for their stability when replacing the deck. This is because over time, abutments can move and the deck acts as a nice prop, until someone removes it (they learnt this the hard way). If there's no GI, then when I do such an assessment I need to use conservative assumptions. The end solution may be over the top compared to what's there but depending on programme (let's say you need to shut a portion of a rail network to do it) it's the least bad option. What I'm essentially arguing here is that when you have 'over-design' or overly conservative design it's because of unknowns that require a conservative approach or more often than not poorly managed risk. If there's something specific regarding civils work that you think looks wildly over-designed I'd be interested to know what it is although perhaps this thread isn't the place.
I could go on with this and obviously like all things in life, there are people who are good at their jobs and then there are others.
-
I was interested in the last section of that report, 5.4 and 5.5, where they appear to suggest that remediation of the bridge could be an option at a cost of £50-80,000. It wasn't specified, unless I missed it, how long this might extend the lifespan of the bridge. Obviously if this only bought the bridge 10 years it wouldn't be worth it. In 5.5, they estimate the budget costs of the new bridge to be £80-120,000, quite a lot less than the £180k now quoted, which might grow further.
I've run out of time before it's time to hit the buffet again (how times change) but this made me chuckle. Again, the DfT looked into budget estimates and concluded that even people who know what they talk about have what they termed optimism bias, they suggested that reality was 1.6x the budget estimate and that was before material prices went mad.
For a quick thought on your whole life cost comparison, timber elements are usually stated to have a design life of 7-10 years in the framework agreements I've worked under. The design life for civil structures under the same frameworks is almost always 60 years (if not sometimes 100). Note that design life isn't asset life with the latter being extendable via appropriate and timely maintenance (the clause usually states "time to first major maintenance" or similar wording). Oh, and you'd end up doing a lot of the same consenting paperwork for working in/near a watercourse.
If I've been a bit crabby in my responses today it's because I'm on holiday and I'm being messed about by a prospective employer.
-
Not at all, interesting answers! Enjoy the buffet!
-
Now that everyone (even those tossers who don’t wish to admit it) agree that 180k for this new bridge is a completely reasonable estimate…
Please -especially those that may wish to climb at Moat Buttress- continue to donate to the PDNP Foundation's fundraiser for this at: https://shorturl.at/cesz8
If the 5% fee that the charity’s chosen donation platform extracts from the charity offends you so much,
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. So just donate online it’s probably easier for everyone, you cheap f*cks. I bet you don’t donate anything anyway…
-
GB Climbing spent £320,000 in 12 months sending some self-important managers swanning off to some conferences and failing to send some young competition climbers to climbing competitions.
On that metric, £180k to build a footbridge that will actually deliver climbers to their aspired-to destination (for at least the next 60 years) seems reasonable in comparison. :shrug:
Also everything PaulB said.
edit so as not to trigger Tony: added 'for at least 60years'.
-
The engineer's report did say the original design passed checks, so if the climbers with chainsaws turned up and brought 2no 406x174x54 UBs that would work.
A quick search found they only go up to 15.5m which would fit the main span. So just make sure you can lift the 837kg beam. They're only £2.5k+vat each.
-
The swiss build great bridges....
https://salbitbruecke.ch/
Was 280k chf in 2010
-
Again, the DfT looked into budget estimates and concluded that even people who know what they talk about have what they termed optimism bias, they suggested that reality was 1.6x the budget estimate and that was before material prices went mad.
This is why I hated working as an estimator in the rope access industry. On big projects you were always pricing competitively against other estimators. It was a lose lose situation with two types of estimator. The bad estimators who priced in everything and therefore lost the work on price, and the other bad estimators who knowingly or otherwise didn't price in everything and therefore put in the lowest bid and won, at a price where the company made a loss. There were no good estimators. Only bad estimators good at blaming project managers for the loss.
-
Again, the DfT looked into budget estimates and concluded that even people who know what they talk about have what they termed optimism bias, they suggested that reality was 1.6x the budget estimate and that was before material prices went mad.
This is why I hated working as an estimator in the rope access industry. On big projects you were always pricing competitively against other estimators. It was a lose lose situation with two types of estimator. The bad estimators who priced in everything and therefore lost the work on price, and the other bad estimators who knowingly or otherwise didn't price in everything and therefore put in the lowest bid and won, at a price where the company made a loss. There were no good estimators. Only bad estimators good at blaming project managers for the loss.
Bid low and squeeze the variations. That's the way to win work... (repeat work less so)
Makes me wonder if "3 competitive tenders" actually gets you good value for money... In my old place we didn't win a single competitive tender, all of our work coming from existing clients or word of mouth/enquiries for proposals. If I never have to submit a tender again I'll be a happy man!
-
It seems like a huge issue in public sector projects too. Government puts huge contract out for tender, ridiculous low bid wins (government: "Look how much money we've saved!"), contractor fails to provide basic levels of service and either government shells out a load more cash so basic service can be provided or government is back in the same place it started, having to do the work at the original cost, but with a big bill for the contractor too.
-
Again, I'm at the buffet so this reply will be brief. That's what you see as the public, but what underlies that issue is poor risk management on the client side (and probably a poorly written contract/works information).
Change or variations or compensation events or whatever you want to call it, as Fultonious suggests is another issue but people can't get away with it if risk is managed correctly and the contract is sufficiently robust. Plus, choose your contractor wisely. They aren't all the same in their behaviours.
-
This is why I hated working as an estimator in the rope access industry. On big projects you were always pricing competitively against other estimators. It was a lose lose situation with two types of estimator. The bad estimators who priced in everything and therefore lost the work on price, and the other bad estimators who knowingly or otherwise didn't price in everything and therefore put in the lowest bid and won, at a price where the company made a loss. There were no good estimators. Only bad estimators good at blaming project managers for the loss.
You just summed up my day job nicely. Although I think i am one of the better of a bad bunch.
-
Again, I'm at the buffet so this reply will be brief. That's what you see as the public, but what underlies that issue is poor risk management on the client side (and probably a poorly written contract/works information).
Change or variations or compensation events or whatever you want to call it, as Fultonious suggests is another issue but people can't get away with it if risk is managed correctly and the contract is sufficiently robust. Plus, choose your contractor wisely. They aren't all the same in their behaviours.
In your experience Paul, are there clients who do these things well? I guess the examples that I see are where things don't go well, but is that common? How hard is it writing a tight contract?
-
It seems like a huge issue in public sector projects too. Government puts huge contract out for tender, ridiculous low bid wins (government: "Look how much money we've saved!"), contractor fails to provide basic levels of service and either government shells out a load more cash so basic service can be provided or government is back in the same place it started, having to do the work at the original cost, but with a big bill for the contractor too.
These things often work on pain/gain contracts. Meaning that if the job is delivered under the quoted price the contractor keeps x% of the "gain"; if over-budget the contractor covers x% of the "pain". Becomes a bit academic (there might be limitations in the contract) if the pain is so huge that it becomes unviable for the contractor, as you might find on really big jobs.
-
In your experience Paul, are there clients who do these things well? I guess the examples that I see are where things don't go well, but is that common? How hard is it writing a tight contract?
Absolutely. When people are doing things like replacing a rail bridge over a Christmas line block there isn't scope for things to get delayed and because of that things tend to be better managed. However, even within client organisations you get better/worse teams and a lot of it comes down to the overall 'mood' in the framework if one exists and personal relationships (contractors may be softer with clients in the early days of a framework and absolute b*stards nearing the end if they haven't won an extension). This swings both ways as well, not all clients are well behaved. Some clients have been burnt so badly that their modified contracts are absolutely unreasonably biased towards themselves.
Writing a tight contract is incredibly tricky. The contract law course I went on last started with "imagine your perfect date". The presenter then went around the room asking each person, one describing a nice restaurant and lots of wine, the other quite liking the 25/12 as Christmas meant family, and then finally he said he quite liked a plump medjool himself. Different people read the same thing and think something different. Personally this is why I really enjoy the contractual side of things but most engineers don't.
Will has summed up a common mechanism for driving cost savings / innovation etc. (usually there's pain and gain shoulders to prevent the process being manipulated). When client's are truly collaborative, in design & build frameworks with a fair allocation of risk (i.e. the person who can or should have managed a risk gets to own it) then things work very well. This can be as trusting as the contract saying "a footbridge at X has insufficient structural capacity" and little else apart from the standard contract options for things such as payment mechanisms.
If we use ground risk as an example again, the gov asks for let's say a new HS rail link, they don't have suitable GI so ask the contractor to give them a price. The contractor bundles a load of risk in their price (if they don't immediately say "no thanks" instead) and the gov b0rks at the price they're given. To 'reduce' the costs, the gov accept the ground risk themselves and that goes in as an additional employer's risk. A sensible person then puts the £ difference in a risk pot for a rainy day, a less sensible one pretends it isn't a real risk. The contractor then gets a fair way through designing and building said thing and realises that risk, submit a notice (early warning) and stick in a request for more money (compensation event). Outwardly all the public see is cost increasing and delay. This paragraph assumes a fair amount of things and is wildly simplistic but covers off why project costs always go up unless scope is reduced (negative comp event).
-
I wonder if this is what happened to new university building opposite Weston Park hospital.
They were well into construction before having to completely demolish it and build a slightly different building
-
I wonder if this is what happened to new university building opposite Weston Park hospital.
They were well into construction before having to completely demolish it and build a slightly different building
Off topic, but I think the design of the foundations was inadequate to support the building. There had been a reservoir on that site in the dim and distant past and the piling was maybe not deep enough. Not sure if this had been missed at the design stage and who ended up footing the bill.
-
Yes, once the steel was up and the floors were going in the surveyors picked up that it was subsiding. Perfect example of how spending a little more money earlier on would have saved a huge sum later.
-
Back on topic.
If I remember correctly, there’s another way access to Moat Buttress & environs I appreciate this access isn’t as convenient, but climbing & walking is an outdoor pursuit?
Why not leave the bridge as it is?
-
You can walk in from Upperdale parking which adds 1km each way. Obvs no big deal if you have the time but I guess a lot of people going to the Cornice in particular warm up at Rubicon.
-
I've climbed at moat quite a bit and walked in from the Litton mill side, it doesn't make that much difference time wise imo, but there's not much parking there so having the bridge is good for spreading cars out a bit.
-
Alternatively install a discrete single 8mm stainless wire between trees a little downstream? Harnesses on at the car park...
-
A rope swing is the only way! I've used the cable bridge in Boulder Canyon near Boulder, and with a pack on it feels scary, even with a harness..
-
An appropriate way to get to Moat Buttress would be via being shot out of a cannon.
-
:lol:
-
A rope swing is the only way! I've used the cable bridge in Boulder Canyon near Boulder, and with a pack on it feels scary, even with a harness..
Bring a pulley for yourself and put the pack on a trailing sling clipped directly. What is this, amateur hour!??
Surely at least some of you have climbed on the other side of the Verdon or one of several Spanish crags where this is the approach.
-
Indeed, at Collegats. Piece of piss with a pulley.
-
Bring a pulley for yourself and put the pack on a trailing sling clipped directly. What is this, amateur hour!??
Surely at least some of you have climbed on the other side of the Verdon or one of several Spanish crags where this is the approach.
Well, I was at the end of a ski season and, funnily enough, those things were not high on my packing list. I barely had room for a harness and shoes. Never needed to do anything like that elsewhere. Steall Bridge doesn't count.
-
Alternatively install a discrete single 8mm stainless wire between trees a little downstream? Harnesses on at the car park...
Isn't the island opposite Moat actually accessible from the other bank? It is a fairly short span from Moat to that island.
-
Isn't the island opposite Moat actually accessible from the other bank? It is a fairly short span from Moat to that island.
Possibly, but its an absolute wildlife haven, and I doubt the fishermen will be very happy either.
-
Isn't the island opposite Moat actually accessible from the other bank? It is a fairly short span from Moat to that island.
Possibly, but its an absolute wildlife haven, and I doubt the fishermen will be very happy either.
I love that, walking is bad for the wildlife but fishing, which kills the wildlife and definitely disturbs the habitat more is absolutely fine. FYI I hate fisherman.
-
The fishermen put the fish back anyway. They are defenders of water quality etc. Quite different from the moor-burning, hen-harrier-killing grouse shooters!
-
The fishermen put the fish back anyway. They are defenders of water quality etc. Quite different from the moor-burning, hen-harrier-killing grouse shooters!
No one here is ever going to convince me that fishing is positive. I’m vegan so to me disturbing animals for the sake of personal gratification is pretty much as low as a it gets. You shouldn’t need fisherman to keep water quality high either, that’s such a cop out. Swear this country is going down the drain (no pun intended) all our waterways full of shite pumped out by corporations that lobby the bastard tories to turn a blind eye and dismantle regulation. Disgusting.
-
corporations that lobby the bastard tories to turn a blind eye and dismantle regulation
Could we have a citation for this? There is a trade body for the water industry (Water UK) but I've never heard of them lobbying to "turn a blind eye" to sewage overflows or "dismantle regulation".
-
corporations that lobby the bastard tories to turn a blind eye and dismantle regulation
Could we have a citation for this? There is a trade body for the water industry (Water UK) but I've never heard of them lobbying to "turn a blind eye" to sewage overflows or "dismantle regulation".
Let’s be honest, you don’t want citations you just want to argue and debate as is almost always the case on this forum.. I could give you them and it wouldn’t make a difference. If you don’t believe think tanks spend time and money lobbying the government to deregulate stuff so they can turn bigger profits then you can live in La la land all you want. I can’t be bothered to send you links.
-
Stand down Will it's OK - there's an unwritten rule, that Dingdong broke, that when someone says or types the words 'country's going down the drain' it triggers a clause that means everything that follows can be written off as uninformed ranting.
-
Re the fishermen, its nowt really to do with their effect on wildlife.. its more the fact that they own each river bank, and are notoriously sniffy about climbers there. Access in that dale is probably quite fragile, with Derbyshire wildlife trust being sensitive about the Lamergayer/pingpong etc on one side, fishermen/baliffs being sensitive about the river banks. You probably don't remember the times when to access rubicon wall you had to swing round the great big spikey iron turnstyle gate.
There's no public right of way to these crags, so was just putting it out there that tyroleans, makeshift bridges etc etc might not go down to well with land owners and its probably not worth poking the hornets nest. :worms:
-
Realistically, if bridge at the weir fully dissappears, the only way to access Cornice/Moat will be from the railway line, accessed from either Litton Mill end, or from the monsal direction. Bikes from Litton/Millers dale would probably be my preference.
-
Anyone who thinks that the water industry has not completely degraded the water quality of the UKs fresh and saltwater areas while also been paying out huge shareholder dividends seems remarkably uninformed I must say. There was a lot of news about it of late with a lot of science to back it up and a lot of political discontent over it as well? This is hardly a controversial or partisan statement, although if you want to look at who privatised them, and who has crippled the EA in the last decade, well that is rather partisan
-
you just want to argue and debate as is almost always the case on this forum
That is absolutely what the forum is for. If you want to sound off with extreme opinions about how fishermen are scum (a more low impact hobby I struggle to conceive of, its literally blokes sitting in silence in one spot catching a fish if they're lucky, then throwing it back) thats up to you but people aren't compelled to just agree with it unquestioningly.
Also what sam said, obviously
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkFMJ4-ai1I
"When I grow up, I want to be....One of those harvesters of the sea."
"I think before my days are done.... I want to be a fisherman."
#justsayin'
-
corporations that lobby the bastard tories to turn a blind eye and dismantle regulation
Could we have a citation for this? There is a trade body for the water industry (Water UK) but I've never heard of them lobbying to "turn a blind eye" to sewage overflows or "dismantle regulation".
Let’s be honest, you don’t want citations you just want to argue and debate as is almost always the case on this forum.. I could give you them and it wouldn’t make a difference. If you don’t believe think tanks spend time and money lobbying the government to deregulate stuff so they can turn bigger profits then you can live in La la land all you want. I can’t be bothered to send you links.
Wow, you're right. It was so wrong of me to ask you to ask you to evidence your world view and educate me at the same time. I apologise unreservedly.
Anyone who thinks that the water industry has not completely degraded the water quality of the UKs fresh and saltwater areas while also been paying out huge shareholder dividends seems remarkably uninformed I must say. There was a lot of news about it of late with a lot of science to back it up and a lot of political discontent over it as well? This is hardly a controversial or partisan statement, although if you want to look at who privatised them, and who has crippled the EA in the last decade, well that is rather partisan
Putting privatisation and dividends to one side, I think your assertion that the water industry has "completely degraded" water quality across the UK is wrong. Water quality has improved markedly since privatisation, not least because of billions of pounds of investment driven by EU legislation. As much as I might dislike the Tories, and think that the Conservative's Environment Act is a flawed piece of legislation with regards water quality, it will drive an absolutely astronomical amount of investment that will go some way to further improving water quality.
-
corporations that lobby the bastard tories to turn a blind eye and dismantle regulation
Could we have a citation for this? There is a trade body for the water industry (Water UK) but I've never heard of them lobbying to "turn a blind eye" to sewage overflows or "dismantle regulation".
Let’s be honest, you don’t want citations you just want to argue and debate as is almost always the case on this forum.. I could give you them and it wouldn’t make a difference. If you don’t believe think tanks spend time and money lobbying the government to deregulate stuff so they can turn bigger profits then you can live in La la land all you want. I can’t be bothered to send you links.
Wow, you're right. It was so wrong of me to ask you to ask you to evidence your world view and educate me at the same time. I apologise unreservedly.
Anyone who thinks that the water industry has not completely degraded the water quality of the UKs fresh and saltwater areas while also been paying out huge shareholder dividends seems remarkably uninformed I must say. There was a lot of news about it of late with a lot of science to back it up and a lot of political discontent over it as well? This is hardly a controversial or partisan statement, although if you want to look at who privatised them, and who has crippled the EA in the last decade, well that is rather partisan
Putting privatisation and dividends to one side, I think your assertion that the water industry has "completely degraded" water quality across the UK is wrong. Water quality has improved markedly since privatisation, not least because of billions of pounds of investment driven by EU legislation. As much as I might dislike the Tories, and think that the Conservative's Environment Act is a flawed piece of legislation with regards water quality, it will drive an absolutely astronomical amount of investment that will go some way to further improving water quality.
You quoted Water UK who are literally known for closed door events with MPs and lobbying Will :lol: I cba to go ten pages deep arguing with people on here. Truth is water quality has degraded in the UK with only 14% of rivers being “good quality” - not exactly a shining bastion of water quality. Not sure what you’re trying to defend here really… the tories have done an excellent job at fucking up beaches, rivers, lakes in the UK.
Everyone knows since brexit the water quality has dropped in the UK due to not needing to adhere to EU regs too, going from doing chemical and ecological testing annually to every three years. Add to that the fact that sewage systems in the UK are essentially falling apart and not able to handle the capacity of extra rainwater, we get insane amounts of sewage discharge, and why is that? Because the water companies are privatised and have no reason to spend their shareholders profits on upgrading their systems.
-
Add to that the fact that sewage systems in the UK are essentially falling apart and not able to handle the capacity of extra rainwater, we get insane amounts of sewage discharge, and why is that? Because the water companies are privatised and have no reason to spend their shareholders profits on upgrading their systems.
Do you think a changing climate has anything to do with this?
-
Since we’ve made it to yet aaanother page, especially if you’re a despicable lazy Moat user who wants to stay dry
Please consider helping to fund a replacement 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.
Nice one to all those people who have already donated.
-
Add to that the fact that sewage systems in the UK are essentially falling apart and not able to handle the capacity of extra rainwater, we get insane amounts of sewage discharge, and why is that? Because the water companies are privatised and have no reason to spend their shareholders profits on upgrading their systems.
Do you think a changing climate has anything to do with this?
Annual rainfall in the UK is fairly static since the 90s…
https://www.statista.com/statistics/610664/annual-rainfall-uk/#:~:text=The%20United%20Kingdom%20recorded%20an,178.5%20raindays%20across%20the%20nation.
-
Which has absolutely no relevance to a system that responds to 'events' whereby a discharge is made from a CSO when 'capacity' is exceeded (in simplistic terms). It doesn't give a :shit: about that averaging out over a year.
I'm not a fan of the split tool but in this instance, I think it's worthwhile for Tony's sanity.
-
I'm not a fan of the split tool but in this instance, I think it's worthwhile for Tony's sanity.
No, no, keep going. The longer this topic stays at the top of the list, the more that donation link gets clicked (conversions are somewhat disappointing but still some!)
-
Water quality has improved markedly since privatisation
Do you have evidence for this claim? Has the quality remained good in very recent years? I don't not believe you (I know someone on this forum works in river conservation, but I have forgotten who), I'm just curious as the sewage leak stories have put me off surfing at a lot of the spots on the east coast.
-
Water quality has improved markedly since privatisation
Do you have evidence for this claim? Has the quality remained good in very recent years?
Will is -unsurprisingly in this non-grade-related topic- correct but has in/deliberately hinted at a conflation between correlation and causation.
Water privatisation in UK was 1989 after historically low investment by the state for over a decade (austerity wasn't an original idea from Cameron/Osborne). Further, earlier EU directives on water quality started to become problematic for the UK Govs around then.
-
This again:
Since we’ve made it to yet aaanother page, especially if you don’t wanna wade through poo to get to Moat
Please consider helping to fund a replacement 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.
Nice one to all those people who have already donated.
-
Oof, there's a lot to unpack here.
You quoted Water UK who are literally known for closed door events with MPs and lobbying Will
I'm genuinely interested. I'd really like to see some evidence of what Water UK has lobbied for and how this amounts to dismantling regulation.
Truth is water quality has degraded in the UK with only 14% of rivers being “good quality” - not exactly a shining bastion of water quality.
The statistic you're referring to here is the Water Framework Directive (WFD) classification of the waterbody which works on a one-out-all-out basis. A single sample point in a waterbody is tested for many different determinands and a failure of any one of those determinands will lead to a maximum classification of Moderate (i.e. less than Good; a fail). Not all of these determinands are associated with water industry discharges.
In 2020 the EA changed their method for analysis. They introduced new determinands and lowered the limit of detection on some of the things they were testing for. Basically, they looked harder at a wider variety of determinands and inevitably found more failures, so more waterbodies failed overall, even though many of them had actually improved and were actually supporting a healthy ecology (which is what the WFD is all about). There's an interesting blog by the Chair of the Aire Rivers Trust here which explains more about this:
https://geoffroberts.me/river-quality-what-has-gone-wrong/
You can find out more about a river and why it's failing on the EA's Catchment Data Explorer. Here's the first example I looked at, Porter Brook from source to the Sheaf in Sheffield.
https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/WaterBody/GB104027057760
The waterbody passes for all chemistry and ecological determinands except mercury and two forever chemicals (PFOS and PBDE). There is no wastewater treatment works discharging to this watercourse so there isn't anything that the water industry can do to improve this, the chemicals have to be controlled at source (and I don't know if we even can get rid of the forever chemicals). So despite the watercourse supporting a good ecology, it is listed as failing.
If you look at the ecology you will see a very real positive trend over the last 35 years in the UK's rivers.
Not sure what you’re trying to defend here really… the tories have done an excellent job at fucking up beaches, rivers, lakes in the UK.
The Tories haven't repealed or watered down any of the major legislation that governs water quality in the UK. We still have the WFD, the rBWD, the UWWTD etc. And we now have the Environment Act (which incorporates the governments response to public pressure about sewage overflows) which will drive a huge amount of investment for decades to come. What the Tories have done is reduce funding for the Environment Agency which is not a good thing and makes it harder to catch polluters (across all sectors). This is not a good thing but it's more likely to affect acute pollution incidents in a general trend of reducing chronic pollution.
Everyone knows since brexit the water quality has dropped in the UK due to not needing to adhere to EU regs too,
To my knowledge, the only relaxation made was specifically about not needing to carry out ferric dosing due to a shortage of truck drivers to move the stuff around. Ferric sulphate is dosed at wastewater treatment works to remove phosphorous from effluent before it is discharged and in the post-Brexit/Covid-19 supply chain shitshow there was concern that the water industry would not be able to get enough of the stuff to provide adequate treatment. The Agency released a Regulatory Position Statement (RPS) that allowed companies to apply for a permit relaxation allowing them to discharge at higher concentrations of phosphorous. Provided this was a short-term thing (and the RPS was time-limited, it is no longer available) it wouldn't cause significant environmental harm. Unlike unionised ammonia and the oxygen sags that can arise from high levels of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), phosphorous is not acutely harmful to fish, it is harmful when it is present in high levels over long periods of time, so a short term uplift in phosphorous would not cause harm provided that the situation was quickly rectified. This FOI request states that only Thames applied to use the RPS at three of its works and after the first application was rejected they withdrew the other two, so the RPS was never even used at any site across the UK. Treatment standards for ammonia, BOD, and suspended solids remained unaffected.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/license_to_release_untreated_sew
Everyone knows since brexit the water quality has dropped in the UK due to...going from doing chemical and ecological testing annually to every three years.
As above I don't think this is a good thing but it refers to how often the EA assesses a waterbody for its WFD status, so although it makes it harder for the EA to spot and respond to issues it's not necessarily reducing water quality. But do not fear, the water industry is riding to the rescue! If it's live data about water quality that you want then the Environment Act is bringing thousands upon thousands of water quality probes to a river near you soon, installed and maintained by the water industry. Watch this space!
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6436dc0dcc9980000cb89426/CWQM_programme_provisional_technical_guidance_for_sewerage_undertakers_April_2023.1.pdf
Add to that the fact that sewage systems in the UK are essentially falling apart and not able to handle the capacity of extra rainwater, we get insane amounts of sewage discharge, and why is that? Because the water companies are privatised and have no reason to spend their shareholders profits on upgrading their systems.
If I was in government in 1989 then I wouldn't have privatised the water industry. However, linking the amount of base maintenance that is carried out solely to dividends is overly simplistic. If you want to increase the capacity of the combined network to accommodate increased rainfall from climate change then you have to put legislation and funding in place to allow that to happen. As I said before, the Environment Act is flawed, but that is what it is going to do.
-
So in your reponse your citations include some random blokes blog, a government link that shows the river is full of hazardous substances, of which you dont state the source??? a link to whatdotheyknow which show a water company withdrawing 2 request for licenses after being questioned about their cotingency plans and a link to the EA program. Not really sure how any of that refutes my points. Money controls all, any other belief is pretty naive in my opinion.
My only response to all that is this raw sewage map, which by the way is still missing numerous discharges because like you said "probes are still not set up"
https://theriverstrust.org/sewage-map
Our waterways are disgusting, but if they're not as bad as you say, im sure you won't mind going for a dip.
-
Water quality has improved markedly since privatisation
Do you have evidence for this claim? Has the quality remained good in very recent years? I don't not believe you (I know someone on this forum works in river conservation, but I have forgotten who), I'm just curious as the sewage leak stories have put me off surfing at a lot of the spots on the east coast.
This is a fair challenge. To be honest, it would be a huge amount of work for me to go into the data to prove from first principles that this is correct. I'm going to be lazy and point you to Geoff Roberts' blog, which is his argument against nationalisation, but does give a pretty thorough history of the water industry pre and post privatisation.
https://geoffroberts.me/waterrenationalisation/
One thing that's important to mention is that when I talk about water quality I'm normally talking about things like ammonia, BOD, phosphorous and other things that affect ecology. This is separate to bathing water quality which is measured by E coli and Intestinal enterococci, which are just two of the hundreds of pathogenic bacteria that can be found in fresh and coastal waters. Fish and invertebrates don't really care about these bacteria, only humans who want to swim in rivers/the sea do.
The sources of these bacteria on the coast will be water industry discharges, agriculture, urban runoff, dogs shitting on the beach etc. In Yorkshire there was a very big round of capital work to disinfect effluent from WwTWs on the coast (normally by blasting the final effluent with UV - very carbon intensive and not the sort of thing you'd want to do at all of your WwTWs!) and reduce the number of discharges from storm overflows. You've still got to contend with the other inputs and a reduced amount of bacteria from the water industry.
You can find the EA's classification of each bathing beach here:
https://environment.data.gov.uk/bwq/profiles/
And if it's storm overflows you're interested in you can see where they discharge and how often a year they discharge in wet weather here:
https://yorkshirewater.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/c293a15e5d4d454ebe7c65f2aba35dac
Even if a beach is rated Excellent by the EA you could still become sick from swimming there. There are never 0 bacteria and it only takes a small amount and for you to be unlucky to become ill. If you want to reduce your risk then the best advice I could give would be to avoid swimming during heavy rainfall and in the days after when agricultural runoff will still be making its way down the rivers to the sea.
-
My only response to all that is this raw sewage map, which by the way is still missing numerous discharges because like you said "probes are still not set up"
https://theriverstrust.org/sewage-map
The probes I talked about in my previous post are different to the monitors you've linked to there. The Rivers Trust sewage map shows Event Duration Monitoring (EDM) data. This is a count of the number of times that a sewer overflow has discharged. To get technical, this is measured by monitoring the water level in the overflow chamber at 15 or 1 minute intervals (depending on the amenity of the receiving watercourse) to see whether it has exceeded the height of the weir that separates the continuation side of the chamber from the outfall side. I believe that map is not completely up to date as there is now 100% coverage of EDM in the UK (forgive me if there's one or two sites out of thousands that don't have coverage - if there are then it'll be because of some overwhelming engineering challenge).
The probes I mentioned in my last post are to go in the river to measure water quality (dissolved oxygen and ammonium) but haven't been installed yet because the requirement has only just been introduced and it can't all just happen as if by magic. I don't think there are currently enough sondes in existence in the entire world to satisfy the UK's future need under the Environment Act (Pete, if you're looking for an investment opportunity I think you're probably late to the party).
Our waterways are disgusting, but if they're not as bad as you say, im sure you won't mind going for a dip.
It is a tragedy that people think this because many of our watercourses are absolutely stunning. There are also many that are in need of investment. Are we doing something about this? Yes!
Indeed, I don't mind going for a dip. I like the Wharfe, though the designated bathing site in Ilkley is a bit like Club 18-30 on a warm summer's evening. You're much better off going up to Addingham above the weir where it's all pensioners. Some kids have nailed wooden rungs to a tree and you can jump in from a great height (quite scary the first time you do it as it's hard to tell where it might be deep enough). I don't swim in the days after rainfall as the river will be full of cow and sheep shit (there's still some in there during dry periods but not as much). It's also good if it's been really bright and sunny as the UV beating down on the river will help kill off any bacteria.
Here is a photo from a few years ago of the Wharfe. It's a lovely spot downstream of Addingham weir. We spent some time finding crayfish and watching the kingfishers buzzing up and down.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53512947325_f383ab6556_b.jpg)
-
You’re a lot younger than I imagined Will. Good effort refuting dingdong’s BS.
-
You’re a lot younger than I imagined Will. Good effort refuting dingdong’s BS.
Sorry pete but im quite confused, what bullshit unless i'm the only one whos read the hundreds of articles regarding the terrible sewage discharge across all the UKs waterways?
-
Intrigued by dd's "our". I will, and do, happily swim in just about any river in Scotland. Maybe not the Clyde...
-
So Will when I watched Paul Whitehouse in “Our troubled rivers” the bit where the guy was pulling out sanitary towels and condoms at Ilkley wasn’t true or that residents of Ilkley were protesting against Yorkshire water’s dumping of sewage in to the Wharfe for no reason
Who do work for Will.
-
Wow.. all escalated rather quickly :boxing:
Its like potholes innit. They're widely agreed to be a problem across the UK. But some roads are terrible for them, others are smooth as billiard cloth.
-
You’re a lot younger than I imagined Will. Good effort refuting dingdong’s BS.
Sorry pete but im quite confused, what bullshit unless i'm the only one whos read the hundreds of articles regarding the terrible sewage discharge across all the UKs waterways?
Are you prepared to concede that the three issues you raised:
- ‘water quality’
- ‘Water quality in the UK has declined’ (over what time? A month, a year, 5 years, a decade, 50 years? A hundred? Without this qualifier your claim is meaningless)
- and ‘water quality as it relates to privatisation and nationalisation of the UK water industry’
..are far more complex then suggested by your simplistic claims? As Will has tried to point out with, you know, actual facts rather than just beliefs.
If not, then that’s the BS.
-
‘Unacceptable’: how raw sewage has affected rivers in England and Wales – in maps
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2023/sep/12/unacceptable-how-raw-sewage-has-affected-rivers-in-england-and-wales-in-maps
Why is sewage released into rivers and the sea?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-62631320
New study finds that sewage release is worse for rivers than agriculture
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-09-22-new-study-finds-sewage-release-worse-rivers-agriculture
South West Water forced to apologise after sending hundreds of tanker loads of sewage to seaside resort
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/exmouth-sewage-south-west-water-b2476934.html
Water firms discharged raw sewage 300,000 times last year, court hears
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/thames-water-fined-33m-for-pumping-sewage-into-rivers
Sewage pollution: why the UK water industry is broken
https://theconversation.com/sewage-pollution-why-the-uk-water-industry-is-broken-186762
‘Genuine problem’ with sewage pollution, admits water industry chief
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/genuine-problem-with-sewage-pollution-admits-water-industry-chief-clean-it-up-r7d7vkq8t?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQiAzoeuBhDqARIsAMdH14Gc7YzGyUcpxCkeOkSfz6ceyv4PZMZBqUOXHouqL1NNj-fMwthaeK4aAuIvEALw_wcB
UK waters are too polluted to swim in – but European countries offer answers
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2023/april/uk-waters-too-polluted-to-swim/
Cleaning up failures in water and sewage regulation: Industry and Regulators Committee report
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/cleaning-up-failures-in-water-and-sewage-regulation-industry-and-regulators-committee-report/
The Environment Agency (EA) is conducting its largest ever criminal investigation into potential widespread breaches of environmental permit conditions at wastewater treatment works by all water and sewerage companies.
https://environmentagency.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/23/environment-agency-investigation-into-sewage-treatment-works-moves-to-next-phase/
Sewage overspills result from lack of infrastructure investment, research shows
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/242831/sewage-overspills-result-from-lack-infrastructure/
Fifty-seven swimmers fall sick and get diarrhoea at world triathlon championship in Sunderland
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/05/investigation-after-57-world-triathlon-championship-swimmers-fall-sick-and-get-diarrhoea-in-sunderland-race
England to diverge from EU water monitoring standards
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/27/england-to-diverge-from-eu-water-monitoring-standards
Brexit law change could restrict access to UK river pollution data
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2364782-brexit-law-change-could-restrict-access-to-uk-river-pollution-data/
Sewage-covered beaches risk turning England into the ‘dirty man of Europe’
https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uk-beaches-sewage-england/index.html
Sewage pollution: facts & figures
https://www.sas.org.uk/water-quality/water-quality-facts-and-figures/
‘An utter disgrace’: 90% of England’s most precious river habitats blighted by raw sewage and farming pollution
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/12/an-utter-disgrace-90-of-englands-most-precious-river-habitats-blighted-by-raw-sewage-and-farming-pollution
Water company fined £510,000 after sewage discharge in river
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/water-company-fined-560170-after-sewage-discharge-in-river
‘Chemical cocktail’ of sewage, slurry and plastic polluting English rivers puts public health and nature at risk
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/62/environmental-audit-committee/news/160246/chemical-cocktail-of-sewage-slurry-and-plastic-polluting-english-rivers-puts-public-health-and-nature-at-risk/
enjoy your swim
-
Also I cant help but have a disdain for water companies, especially Yorkshire Water who through underfunding and not bothering to upkeep their leaky pipes caused the whole gas network in Stannington to flood with water last year during the freeze causing us to be without gas, water or electricity for almost two weeks.
Glad they were able to pay almost $62m in dividends to their parent companies though.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/environment/yorkshire-water-pays-out-ps62m-in-dividends-after-sharp-rise-in-profits-4231949
BTW Will, who do you work for exactly?
-
Nobody’s reading all those, here’s an abstract:
Is water quality in British rivers “better than at any time since the end of the Industrial Revolution”?
Abstract
We explore the oft-repeated claim that river water quality in Great Britain is “better now than at any time since the Industrial Revolution”. We review available data and ancillary evidence for seven different categories of water pollutants: (i) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and ammonia; (ii) heavy metals; (iii) sewage-associated organic pollutants (including hormone-like substances, personal care product and pharmaceutical compounds); (iv) macronutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus); (v) pesticides; (vi) acid deposition and (vii) other variables, including natural organic matter and pathogenic micro-organisms. With a few exceptions, observed data are scarce before 1970. However, we can speculate about some of the major water quality pressures which have existed before that. Point-source pollutants are likely to have increased with population growth, increased connection rates to sewerage and industrialisation, although the increased provision of wastewater treatment during the 20th century will have mitigated this to some extent. From 1940 to the 1990s, pressures from nutrients and pesticides associated with agricultural intensification have increased in many areas. In parallel, there was an increase in synthetic organic compounds with a “down-the-drain” disposal pathway. The 1990s saw general reductions in mean concentrations of metals, BOD and ammonia (driven by the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive), a levelling out of nitrate concentrations (driven by the EU Nitrate Directive), a decrease in phosphate loads from both point-and diffuse-sources and some recovery from catchment acidification. The current picture is mixed: water quality in many rivers downstream of urban centres has improved in sanitary terms but not with respect to emerging contaminants, while river quality in catchments with intensive agriculture is likely to remain worse now than before the 1960s. Water quality is still unacceptably poor in some water bodies. This is often a consequence of multiple stressors which need to be better-identified and prioritised to enable continued recovery.
——————
A significant amount of the pollutants seems to be from agricultural run-off, while another significant contributor is waste water. Others are industrial pollution.
Over the timescales used in the study some of these have fallen, some have remained level, some have increased.
Which isn’t exactly the simplistic picture as you’re trying to portray about water companies.
What’s clear is ‘could do much better’. What isn’t clear is the evidence for your specific claims.
-
Nobody’s reading all those, here’s an abstract:
Is water quality in British rivers “better than at any time since the end of the Industrial Revolution”?
Abstract
We explore the oft-repeated claim that river water quality in Great Britain is “better now than at any time since the Industrial Revolution”. We review available data and ancillary evidence for seven different categories of water pollutants: (i) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and ammonia; (ii) heavy metals; (iii) sewage-associated organic pollutants (including hormone-like substances, personal care product and pharmaceutical compounds); (iv) macronutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus); (v) pesticides; (vi) acid deposition and (vii) other variables, including natural organic matter and pathogenic micro-organisms. With a few exceptions, observed data are scarce before 1970. However, we can speculate about some of the major water quality pressures which have existed before that. Point-source pollutants are likely to have increased with population growth, increased connection rates to sewerage and industrialisation, although the increased provision of wastewater treatment during the 20th century will have mitigated this to some extent. From 1940 to the 1990s, pressures from nutrients and pesticides associated with agricultural intensification have increased in many areas. In parallel, there was an increase in synthetic organic compounds with a “down-the-drain” disposal pathway. The 1990s saw general reductions in mean concentrations of metals, BOD and ammonia (driven by the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive), a levelling out of nitrate concentrations (driven by the EU Nitrate Directive), a decrease in phosphate loads from both point-and diffuse-sources and some recovery from catchment acidification. The current picture is mixed: water quality in many rivers downstream of urban centres has improved in sanitary terms but not with respect to emerging contaminants, while river quality in catchments with intensive agriculture is likely to remain worse now than before the 1960s. Water quality is still unacceptably poor in some water bodies. This is often a consequence of multiple stressors which need to be better-identified and prioritised to enable continued recovery.
——————
A significant amount of the pollutants seems to be from agricultural run-off, while another significant contributor is waste water. Others are industrial pollution.
Over the timescales used in the study some of these have fallen, some have remained level, some have increased.
Which isn’t exactly the simplistic picture as you’re trying to portray about water companies.
What’s clear is ‘could do much better’. What isn’t clear is the evidence for your specific claims.
Those MULTIPLE STRESSORS, what exactly are they? Likely manufacturing, agriculture and also the terrible upkeep of sewage systems by the water companies which then can't handle overflow. All those industries have vested interests in keeping regulations out of the picture to maximise profits. Thus they are contributing factors to the degradation of water quality across british waterways.
-
So Will when I watched Paul Whitehouse in “Our troubled rivers” the bit where the guy was pulling out sanitary towels and condoms at Ilkley wasn’t true or that residents of Ilkley were protesting against Yorkshire water’s dumping of sewage in to the Wharfe for no reason
Who do work for Will.
Steve, I've not tried to claim that there aren't problems or things that can be improved. Carlos and Wellsy made a number of assertions which I either disagree with or are demonstrably untrue, so I've tried to explain why.
-
Now say you work for a water company in Yorkshire Will, to me that would seem like you have an incredible bias in what you're saying.
Also Water UKs members are comprised of the water companies, not exactly trustworthy source either.
Oh and funnily enough Ruth Kelly who chairs Water UK got a job working at policy exchange the year before starting her role at Water UK, a right wing think tank aka lobby group…
-
...Will, to me that would seem like you have an incredible bias in what you're saying.
Don't be that guy, outing someone's employer on a forum discussing a sensitive issue. :wank:
-
...Will, to me that would seem like you have an incredible bias in what you're saying.
Don't be that guy, outing someone's employer on a forum discussing a sensitive issue. :wank:
How am I outting his employer when all it takes is a two second google :lol: bro is shilling hard /thread
-
...Will, to me that would seem like you have an incredible bias in what you're saying.
Don't be that guy, outing someone's employer on a forum discussing a sensitive issue. :wank:
How am I outting his employer when all it takes is a two second google :lol: bro is shilling hard /thread
Dingdong take a chill pill :)
-
Bruh is shilling for water companies and I’m the bad guy, this is hilarious :lol: :lol:
-
Well I'd say that Will is posting with a background of industry knowledge. I will say that the media coverage seems to largely represent the water companies as mismanaging UK water and people like Monbiot are not uneducated fools on that front. If the UKs water areas are improving in quality then that is good, although the amount of sewage seems alarming and the water companies do appear to have significantly profited from an asset which I fully believe should be nationalised.
As for whether the industry body lobbies MPs, I would imagine they most certainly do. A quick Google shows that they are certainly accused of doing so by various people. I would also say that Southern Water states that lobbying is a key part of their strategy in their online policy on lobbying so... I'm pretty sure they're doing it at least
I think this is an emotive topic. Why are we one of the only countries in the world who privatised water? Has that succeded? In the opinion of this citizen, no it has not, it was a mistake, and our water is not fit for us as a society, it should be better. It is galling when private companies make money off pumping literal shit into the rivers and sea, anyone can appreciate that. But then I am rather pro nationalised services and utilities and not a fan of privatisation in general. Not that this makes me particularly alone in the UK population, mind you.
-
Shilling? Get a grip
-
Shilling? Get a grip
“A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with said person or organization.”
Literally what he’s done here.
-
Also Water UKs members are comprised of the water companies, not exactly trustworthy source either.
Water UK is a trade association for the water industry so it would be very odd if it wasn't comprised of water companies. A bit like the BMC is comprised of climbers and hillwalkers.
Oh and funnily enough Ruth Kelly who chairs Water UK got a job working at policy exchange the year before starting her role at Water UK, a right wing think tank aka lobby group…
That's interesting, I didn't know that. I'm still waiting on some evidence that Water UK has lobbied government to "dismantle regulation".
I can hardly say that I'm completely unbiased. We are all biased in some way, but in responding on this thread I have attempted to be as balanced as I can. Certain things in my posts are clearly my personal opinion ("the Environment Act is flawed") which isn't necessarily the opinion of any water company, though to say a piece of legislation is flawed is hardly earth-shattering as almost all legislation is flawed in some way. However, you should be able to see in my posts that a lot of what I've said is just statement of fact, drawing on an educational background in river ecology and over 10 years working in environmental regulation and river modelling. You can use your own faculties of critical thinking to see which is personal opinion and which is simple fact. I've provided you with lots of links to non-water company sources of data and information (the EA, the government, the Chair of the Aire Rivers Trust) so you can form your own view.
One thing I would say (and you can call me biased if you like because this is obviously a personal opinion) is that the general level of science reporting in the press has been pretty poor and I believe the ecological impact of storm overflows isn't well understood by the public. If you're interested in finding out what is to come in the future for UK water industry regulation you can google things like the Environment Act and the storm overflows discharges reduction plan. If you're interested in how the impact of storm overflows on river ecology has been assessed and improved over the last few decades you can google "Urban Pollution Management investigations" and you could have a look at the Fundamental Intermittent Standards described here (page 66):
https://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Environmental%20standards/UKTAG%20Environmental%20Standards%20Phase%203%20Final%20Report%2004112013.pdf.
Shill? :lol:
You might as well say that Paul B and Fultonius are shilling for Big Bridge.
-
If you give this blog a read rather than dismissing it as the work of some random bloke you might learn something.
https://geoffroberts.me/river-quality-what-has-gone-wrong/
I didn't know, for example, that the methodology used to measure water cleanliness was changed.
The published data shows that every single river in the country fails the chemical standards set for them. And it’s not that which makes me so angry. What makes me angry is that the failures are down to the EA changing their methodology ...
Our rivers may not have actually deteriorated, they just appear to have done so because of this quirk of the system! But we don’t actually know because we are being asked to compare apples with oranges.
-
I've wondered if there is much evidence to say that UK rivers are considerably more polluted than say 40 years ago, or just that media coverage has increased over the last couple of years (and that the pollution targets themselves are considerably more stringent). Would be interested if Will/Carlos has anything on that?
Interestingly there was an piece on the radio the other day about how surface run off from roads was one of the biggest polluters (after sewage, and agricultural runoff) and gone under the radar for a long time. Oils, microplastics from tyres etc.
I just had a quick look at my local Water company online and the first news item on their website is their achievement in relieving their sewer network (after much pressure by campaigners etc no doubt) by building a new surface water drain that takes highways drainage... straight into the river!
"the construction of a new surface water sewer running the full length of the village to remove highways drainage and surface water from some properties from the combined sewer. The surface water will be discharged straight to the watercourse, significantly reducing flows through the combined sewer, cutting discharges of wastewater to the [river]"
-
I've wondered if there is much evidence to say that UK rivers are considerably more polluted than say 40 years ago…
No. It’s broadly the opposite, as Pete’s earlier post highlighted (specifically relating to rivers). When it comes to coastal waters, it’s an even better picture, see various EU environmental reports on the topic.
But quality has many different metrics, they won’t all go in the same direction.
We should also be mindful that we should, to some degree, expect/wish for things to get better with time: that’s generally called progress.
-
Since we’ve made it to yet aaaanother page, especially if you don’t wanna read this thread any further
Please consider helping to fund a replacement 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.
-
I've wondered if there is much evidence to say that UK rivers are considerably more polluted than say 40 years ago…
No. It’s broadly the opposite, as Pete’s earlier post highlighted (specifically relating to rivers). When it comes to coastal waters, it’s an even better picture, see various EU environmental reports on the topic.
But quality has many different metrics, they won’t all go in the same direction.
We should also be mindful that we should, to some degree, expect/wish for things to get better with time: that’s generally called progress.
I wasn’t talking about since the industrial revolution or even 40 years. I’m talking timeframes of 5-10 years.
-
Facts then please. To back up your claim. Show us data that levels of pollutants have increased on average in UK watercourses and coast in the past '5-10 years'. Which pollutants, which rivers, and which areas of coastline. Not Monbiot articles preaching to his crowd, clever and well-intentioned as he no doubt is.
Also consider whether '5-10 years' is a particularly significant timescale either way (improvement or degradation) in the context of what you're discussing.
-
A couple of references to consider
The improvements in lowland river water quality shown here complement recent findings of an analysis of national-scale trends in the macroinvertebrate communities of English rivers from 1991 to 2019. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-water-environment-indicator-b3-supporting-evidence/state-of-the-water-environment-long-term-trends-in-river-quality-in-england#results-of-the-analysis)
In light of this overall assessment, our conclusion is that, while good progress has been made in reducing some pollutants over the past three decades, the picture is mixed and the scientific evidence does not comprehensively support claims that British rivers are “cleaner now than at any time since the Industrial Revolution”. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969722041110#s0105)
-
Facts then please. To back up your claim. Show us data that levels of pollutants have increased on average in UK watercourses and coast in the past '5-10 years'. Which pollutants, which rivers, and which areas of coastline. Not Monbiot articles preaching to his crowd, clever and well-intentioned as he no doubt is.
Also consider whether '5-10 years' is a particularly significant timescale either way (improvement or degradation) in the context of what you're discussing.
Nah I’m good
-
Facts then please. To back up your claim. Show us data that levels of pollutants have increased on average in UK watercourses and coast in the past '5-10 years'. Which pollutants, which rivers, and which areas of coastline. Not Monbiot articles preaching to his crowd, clever and well-intentioned as he no doubt is.
Also consider whether '5-10 years' is a particularly significant timescale either way (improvement or degradation) in the context of what you're discussing.
How could it be a reasonable timeframe. A couple of bad flooding seasons, consecutively would screw up that.
-
2022 report from the Parliament Environmental Audit Committee
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmenvaud/74/report.html
The summary below isn't my cup of tea style wise - but the report contains some useful tables/data findings if you want to have a look for yourself.
Summary
Getting a complete overview of the health of our rivers and the pollution affecting them is hampered by outdated, underfunded and inadequate monitoring regimes. It is clear, however, that rivers in England are in a mess. A ‘chemical cocktail’ of sewage, agricultural waste, and plastic is polluting the waters of many of the country’s rivers. Water companies appear to be dumping untreated or partially treated sewage in rivers on a regular basis, often breaching the terms of permits that on paper only allow them to do this in exceptional circumstances. Farm slurry and fertiliser run off is choking rivers with damaging algal blooms. Single use plastic sanitary products—often coated with chemicals that can harm aquatic life—are clogging up drains and sewage works and creating ‘wet wipe reefs’ in rivers. Revolting ‘fatbergs’ as big as blue whales are being removed from sewers, costing companies and their customers in the region of £100 million a year. Not a single river in England has received a clean bill of health for chemical contamination. Disturbing evidence suggests they are becoming breeding grounds for antimicrobial resistance.
Cleaning up our rivers is important for public health and vital to protect wildlife. The world is experiencing an extinction crisis and freshwater eco-systems are on the frontline. The build-up of excess nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen from animal waste and sewage is reducing oxygen levels in rivers and in severe cases can cause fish kills. Along with the stresses of plastic and synthetic chemical pollution and climate change this is creating multiple pressures undermining the health and resilience of these key ecosystems. It should ring alarm bells that wild Salmon are classed as ‘at risk’ or ‘probably at risk’ in almost every river they traverse. Rivers where we know important species such as the North Atlantic Salmon are in danger must be protected from pollution as a priority.
The sewerage system is overloaded and unable to cope with the increasing pressures of housing development, the impact of heavier rainfall, and a profusion of plastic and other non-biodegradable waste clogging up the system. Successive governments, water companies and regulators have grown complacent and seem resigned to maintaining pre-Victorian practices of dumping sewage in rivers. There has been investment in the network since privatisation, but underlying problems have not been resolved and capital investment has not kept pace with housing and other development pressures on the drainage and treatment network. Biodiversity has not been priced adequately into economic decision making. The water regulator Ofwat has hitherto focused on security of water supply and on keeping bills down with insufficient emphasis on facilitating the investment necessary to ensure that the sewerage system in England is fit for the 21st century.
A step change in regulatory action, water company investment, and cross-catchment collaboration with farmers and drainage authorities is urgently required to restore rivers to good ecological health, protect biodiversity and adapt to a changing climate. Investment must be accelerated so that damaging discharges from water treatment assets including storm overflows cease and that any spills occur only in genuinely exceptional circumstances. Financial penalties for pollution incidents and misreporting must be set at a level that puts the issue on the agenda in water company board rooms. Ofwat should examine the powers it may have to limit the payment of bonuses to water company executives while companies persistently breach their permits.
Intensive livestock and poultry farming is putting enormous pressure on particular catchments, such as the one feeding the River Wye. As many as twenty million chickens are being reared there and their waste may be raising the river’s phosphorus levels. Planning permission seems to be granted for individual units without any cumulative assessment being made of the overall impact of all the intensive farms in the area. Each catchment should have a nutrient budget calculated. Pollution from all sources in the catchment must then be progressively reduced or mitigated until it does not exceed the capacity of the river to handle the nutrients. New poultry farms should not be granted planning permission in catchments exceeding their nutrient budgets.
National Highways must accelerate its efforts to eliminate toxic chemical and plastic pollution from the most polluting outfalls on the Strategic Roads Network by 2030 in line with the Government’s commitments to halt species decline. We expect to see far more assertive regulation and enforcement from Ofwat and the Environment Agency to restore our rivers to their natural glory.
My view: Establishing a time line of how quality has changed is difficult, as there has been a widespread decline in monitoring and you need a long time series of the relevant (an issue itself) metrics for WQ at multiple (hundreds really) of locations. WQ is also highly spatially and temporally variable - for example a pollution incident might only last an hour and be swept away in a matter of hours but have a widespread long lasting impact on the river. If you only sample the river once a day/week/month/year (etc..) then you will likely miss it. Continuous monitoring is expensive and will only pick up certain pollutants or indicators of WQ. Therefore its very difficult to answer Petes question - as 'facts' are in short supply - have been taken sporadically in different locations mostly over periods less than 40 years. However, what data we have has declined considerably in the last 5 years with widespread cuts to the EA's monitoring budget.
Speaking qualitatively, as someone who doesn't work on WQ but works with plenty of people who do, WQ is probably on average better than it was 40 years ago. But considerably worse than it was 10 years ago. In the mid-late 90's and onwards there was considerable effort and expenditure to improve river water quality to meet the EU water framework directive. Sewage discharges into rivers and the the sea were dramatically reduced (almost eliminated) over this period to a zenith somewhere around 2010-2015. Since then its all sadly got worse.
-
I wonder if I can work out a possible correlation here. Were the Tories IC by any chance?
-
for example a pollution incident might only last an hour and be swept away in a matter of hours but have a widespread long lasting impact on the river. If you only sample the river once a day/week/month/year (etc..) then you will likely miss it.
Yep, this is a very significant limitation of the EA's spot sampling regime for water chemistry. If you're only going out once a year or even every three years then it's unlikely that you'd catch an intermittent problem. That's why it's so important to look at the ecological indicators (the fish and invertebrates classifications in the Catchment Data Explorer I linked to earlier). An intermittent pollution problem will leave a lasting impression on the ecology of the river. Macroinvertebrates are particularly useful as they have varying tolerances to pollution. The EA will do a kick sample in the river and count up how many of each species they find. There's a metric that then allows you to classify the health of the river (the WHPT: https://wfduk.org/sites/default/files/River%20Invertebrates%20WHPT%20UKTAG%20Method%20Statement%20-%20updated%20May%202021.pdf). The TL;DR is that if you're finding only pollution-tolerant organisms like worms, leeches, and water hoglouse (among others) then you've got a pollution problem, even if your chemistry sampling on the same day seems OK. If you're finding healthy populations of stonefly and mayfly larvae, which are very intolerant of pollution, then it means things are looking good.
As an excuse to post a photo of my kid again, here we are during lockdown investigating a local watercourse using equipment that I had left over from when I did some voluntary sampling for the Rivers Trust.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53514468918_b3d2c2c4c8_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53514468898_db43b60f87_b.jpg)
I'm a bit rusty so forgive me if I get this wrong but I'm certain that's a stonefly larva. You can just about see some little fronds sticking out from its side. Those are its gills. Pretty cool!
WQ is probably on average better than it was 40 years ago. But considerably worse than it was 10 years ago. In the mid-late 90's and onwards there was considerable effort and expenditure to improve river water quality to meet the EU water framework directive. Sewage discharges into rivers and the the sea were dramatically reduced (almost eliminated) over this period to a zenith somewhere around 2010-2015. Since then its all sadly got worse.
I'm intrigued by this, Tom, because it doesn't chime with my understanding. The WFD came into force at the very end of 2000, superseding things like the Freshwater Fish Directive. This brought about programmes of investment to reduce the concentration of ammonia, BOD, and more latterly phosphorous discharged from wastewater treatment works, which helps to continue the trends in the graphs linked to by Jonathan upthread. Caveat: its possible your colleagues are referring to a worsening of pollution from emerging pollutants (such as pesticides, pharmaceuticals etc). This isn't my area so I can't really offer too much information with confidence - I'm mainly talking about things like ammonia and BOD.
The WFD also drove programmes of investment in water quality investigations - these are the UPM studies that I mentioned earlier. The aim of these investigations is to find storm overflows that are causing environmental harm and develop capital solutions that will eliminate that harm. What there hasn't ever been before is a push to reduce storm discharges across the whole country even where those storm discharges are not causing environmental harm - there hasn't been the legislation, funding, or the will from government (of all parties) or regulators to do it, so I don't think it can be true to say that storm discharges were almost eliminated.
This is where the paradigm shift comes in with the Environment Act. Whereas the aim of the WFD was to eliminate environmental harm, the Environment Act (among other things) requires companies to reduce each storm overflow to an average of 10 spills per year (regardless of whether the overflow is causing environmental harm) AND if at 10 spills you'd still cause environmental harm then you must go further to ensure there is no harm. It's difficult to overstate how massive this is. It's the beginning of a mind-boggling amount of work to completely overhaul urban drainage requiring £billions of investment.
To try and aid people's understanding of why this is such a big challenge, this is a photo of a storm overflow chamber (taken by some silly sod urban explorer. Please do not venture into the sewer network. It is a phenomenally dangerous place).
(https://www.28dayslater.co.uk/attachments/img_3208-jpg.140326/)
What you see there is sewage running along a central channel. This is a combined sewer so takes effluent from homes and businesses but also runoff from streets and other impermeable surfaces. When it rains heavily and the system reaches capacity, flow will back up into this chamber, the level will rise, and flow will pass through the two circular tubes on either side. These are mechanically-cleaned screens which prevent solid matter larger than 6mm in 2 dimensions from escaping into the environment (basically a big sieve that scrapes itself clean). The little blue thing you can see above the channel is the ultrasonic level sensor which records the flow level in the chamber for Event Duration Monitoring. It's the same as your bathroom sink: you have an inlet and an outlet, and if the inlet beats the outlet then the water level in the sink will rise until it find its way out of the high-level relief slot. The alternative is water all over your bathroom floor or, in the case of sewers, sewage backing up out of your toilet and onto the bathroom floor, or sewage surcharging out of manholes and running down the road.
In order to reduce the number of times this spills you have a few options and to meet the requirements of the Environment Act the water industry will need to deploy a range of these on a massive scale. The traditional way is to build a neighbouring tank into which storm sewage can pass. Once this tank is filled it might still spill to the environment, but if you've sized it properly then you can dramatically reduce the number of discharges. The other thing you can do (and the reality is that to meet the requirements of the Environment Act we'll need concrete tanks AND these "blue-green" solutions) is to separate out the rainfall from the sewer. To avoid flooding you still need to attenuate that rainfall and you'd do this by reducing the impermeable area in the catchment using Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS. Loads of info out there about these). We live in towns and cities which have sprawling impermeable areas and not a lot of room to build whopping great storm tanks and SuDs, and climate change will drive more intense rainfall, so it's going to be quite challenging!
-
Will, re your last paragraph, is that what this is referring to:
https://www.unitedutilities.com/corporate/newsroom/latest-news/united-utilities-invite-ramsbottom-residents-to-find-out-about-irwell-improvement-project/#:~:text=The%20new%20storm%20tank%20will,quality%20of%20the%20River%20Irwell.
-
I think Mark20 once said that it might help if all buildings had a waterbutt with a trickle out-outflow so that rain on roofs didn't all go into the sewers at once. Instead it would trickle in over a much more extended period.
-
Will, re your last paragraph, is that what this is referring to:
https://www.unitedutilities.com/corporate/newsroom/latest-news/united-utilities-invite-ramsbottom-residents-to-find-out-about-irwell-improvement-project/#:~:text=The%20new%20storm%20tank%20will,quality%20of%20the%20River%20Irwell.
Exactly. 3500m3. The cost will be somewhere in the region of £7m.
This isn't a great picture but the only one I can find that shows how big these things can get. This is one of the storm tanks on the east coast when it was about a third dug (total depth about 30m).
(https://i.prcdn.co/img?regionKey=WJZajaT9TU5hXZB2WkDw9g%3D%3D)
I think Mark20 once said that it might help if all buildings had a waterbutt with a trickle out-outflow so that rain on roofs didn't all go into the sewers at once. Instead it would trickle in over a much more extended period.
Smart water butts are a nice thing and can definitely go some way to helping, but we're talking about an engineering problem that dwarfs what you can achieve with them alone.
I recently heard a presentation from someone in Southern Water where they'd given out a load of smart water butts in a particular catchment. The butts retain water in their bottom half that people can then use on their garden; the top half fills up then drains down slowly to make room for more water next time it rains. They had to go out after a few months and fit anti-tamper devices to stop people removing the separation between the two halves (so that they would have a permanently full water butt for their garden, offering no attenuation while full).
-
To avoid flooding you still need to attenuate that rainfall and you'd do this by reducing the impermeable area in the catchment using Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS. Loads of info out there about these). We live in towns and cities which have sprawling impermeable areas and not a lot of room to build whopping great storm tanks and SuDs, and climate change will drive more intense rainfall, so it's going to be quite challenging!
Or in the case of Ilkley (and I'm sure other places) reroute the culverts bringing streams off the moor from entering the WTW!
-
Can't really comment on that specifically as I don't know enough about it but, yes, that sort of thing is one intervention among many that is necessary to meet the new requirements.
Stuff like this, for example:
https://www.yorkshirewater.com/news-media/news-articles/2023/second-tunnel-completed-on-new-ilkley-sewer/
-
Will - I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat, but just thinking about the combined sewers and storm surges/discharges. Is there any justification/explanation for sewage being dumped through these in low flow times? Or is it literally just a cost saving exercise to avoid having to treat it? I gather people have cross-referenced rainfall data with discharges and found this to be the case on a huge number of occasions.
[not meant in an antagonistic way - just trying to understand]
-
Will - I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat, but just thinking about the combined sewers and storm surges/discharges. Is there any justification/explanation for sewage being dumped through these in low flow times? Or is it literally just a cost saving exercise to avoid having to treat it? I gather people have cross-referenced rainfall data with discharges and found this to be the case on a huge number of occasions.
[not meant in an antagonistic way - just trying to understand]
Storm overflows definitely shouldn't be operating in dry weather. If they are then it could be because, for instance, there's a blockage in the network that's causing flow to back up (normally due to nappies, wipes, fats/oils/greases, Christmas trees [really]) that people have put down the sewer. In this event the company should be able to detect that by looking at their EDM data, but if you see something like this then definitely report it to the company so they can get out and fix it ASAP. If you're concerned about environmental impact then you can also report to the Environment Agency (info here: https://www.gov.uk/report-an-environmental-incident).
Worth bearing in mind that not all pipes that go into rivers are storm overflows and it's not always easy to tell by sight if something is discharging storm sewage or just surface water (which may still discharge in dry weather due to groundwater infiltration of the pipes), but if in any doubt then get it reported.
-
As I understood it they were cross-referencing rainfall data with the water companies’ own discharge data rather than just observing pipes, but I could be wrong on that.
-
Surfers Against Sewage did some work on it https://www.sas.org.uk/waterquality2022/dry-spills/dumping-sewage-when-its-dry/
-
Hmmm. Difficult to comment without understanding the analysis and how it's been done.
A likely explanation is that there's a limited network of rain gauges (you can find EA rain gauges here: https://environment.data.gov.uk/hydrology/explore) to draw data from. If you click that link and look at the map it looks like there's loads of them but rainfall is actually far more spatially variable than you might think. Even in one small or medium sized sewer catchment you can have really intense rainfall in one area and light/no rainfall in another. So your rain gauges at Chesterton, Etton, and (wait for it) Dog-in-a-Doublet might show that it isn't raining, but that doesn't mean that it isn't battering down in Peterborough town centre and causing storm discharges.
The picture gets even more complicated in large, sprawling urban sewer catchments with a high degree of hydrological complexity, where what is happening in one or more parts of the network can combine to have a knock-on affect on another part of the catchment.
But as I said, not really possible to comment with certainty without getting into the detail and understanding where the data has come from and how it's been analysed.
-
Just googled to see if I could find where I’d read about it. Not sure if this article was it. There’s an explanation as to how they (the BBC) analysed it at the bottom of the article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66670132
Think what I’d read was more just a couple of campaigners who’d done their own analysis but had essentially done and found the same thing.
-
I can't offer an explanation for all the occasions where data suggests that storm overflows are operating in dry weather. I can only use what insight I have to suggest where the analysis might be limited and say that if there are any overflows that are spilling in dry weather then it must be fixed as soon as possible.
One potential source of error is the data used. The ultrasonic level monitors used for the EDM are not infallible and can fall victim at times to such things as condensation on the lens which can result in over reporting. Rain gauges are normally pretty reliable but, as explained above, even fairly small gaps in your network (I don't know how dense the Met Office's network is) can result in missing significant rainfall.
-
I can't offer an explanation for all the occasions where data suggests that storm overflows are operating in dry weather. I can only use what insight I have to suggest where the analysis might be limited and say that if there are any overflows that are spilling in dry weather then it must be fixed as soon as possible.
One potential source of error is the data used. The ultrasonic level monitors used for the EDM are not infallible and can fall victim at times to such things as condensation on the lens which can result in over reporting. Rain gauges are normally pretty reliable but, as explained above, even fairly small gaps in your network (I don't know how dense the Met Office's network is) can result in missing significant rainfall.
It was suggested on the Paul Whitehouse programme they were doing it because they could get away with it and there was very little likelihood of prosecution. They also had a Professor from Manchester university who was looking in to this and suddenly the water companies stopped sharing the data.
Call me an old cynic but this stuff doesn’t look good Will.
-
Will - I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if this is a repeat, but just thinking about the combined sewers and storm surges/discharges. Is there any justification/explanation for sewage being dumped through these in low flow times? Or is it literally just a cost saving exercise to avoid having to treat it?
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong but CSOs are generally passive as Will described. I'm not sure if it's just your wording and what you mean is "having to avoid upgrading the network's capacity to prevent spills"?
As a general point, you might think that water companies fully understand their foul network. This isn't correct and a business was created by a Sheffield university graduate (who then cherry picked people from the hydraulics course) to build models and then verify them with measurements.
Exactly. 3500m3. The cost will be somewhere in the region of £7m.
This isn't a great picture but the only one I can find that shows how big these things can get. This is one of the storm tanks on the east coast when it was about a third dug (total depth about 30m)
This is what I was referring to in my initial reply to Dingdong. Adding extra capacity to store stormwater is a massive massive (and expensive) undertaking.
Will mentioned data dropouts and I suspect there will be some scepticism; in another application where there's a legal duty to measure something if someone important under a piece of legislation says so, you automatically become non-compliant due to such dropouts which means in my application there's still people going out and lifting chamber lids daily to record a level or flow. It is a real problem (as in the dropouts but also moving with the times and not requiring someone to be out in whatever weather sometimes in remote areas lifting heavy concrete lids).
Edit: typed in parallel to Webbo's post.
-
It was suggested on the Paul Whitehouse programme they were doing it because they could get away with it and there was very little likelihood of prosecution.
I watched this. I can't quite remember what in particular made me think it but my memory is that it wasn't the best programme although it did make me raise my eyebrows a few times. I might try and watch it again. Dry weather spills were definitely an eyebrows up moment.
-
I suggest having a scroll through the twitter feeds of Feargal Starkey and Project Jamie Woodward. Dry weather discharges of sewage are not unusual and on some rivers routine. Not all rivers are affected, but some have declined markedly in recent years.
An additional problem (mainly in the south east) is borehole abstraction causing some rivers to dry up entirely at times, with catastrophic effects on the ecology, and exacerbating dry weather sewage discharge and agricultural pollution due to the reduced dilution.
-
Bringing this topic back on course:
Avoid the slurry and 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
:beer2:
-
Found them both (although your post has a few typos). As I said, the dry weather spills did sound concerning. Likewise the reclassification of pollution incidents and failing works pausing output to game the testing (there was an employee stating this was happening).
In terms of BH abstraction, I've got no experience beyond some work to bring a few abandoned ones back into service during a period of dry weather which was obviously canned the second it rained. I assume that unlike a reservoir with a very easily monitored compensation abstraction is a lot trickier to regulate as it'll be based on taking an amount rather than ensuring an amount regardless?
Tony ;D
-
In terms of BH abstraction, I've got no experience beyond some work to bring a few abandoned ones back into service during a period of dry weather which was obviously canned the second it rained. I assume that unlike a reservoir with a very easily monitored compensation abstraction is a lot trickier to regulate as it'll be based on taking an amount rather than ensuring an amount regardless?
The water companies have limits on their abstraction licenses based on hydrogeology calcs to protect groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems etc. but often just ignore them because the regulation isn’t terrestrial. UU got what looked to be a decent fine last year but probably worked out quit cheap per litre! https://www.gov.uk/government/news/united-utilities-water-limited-fined-800000-for-taking-too-much-water-from-the-environment
This was a good news story about wetland protection https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/07/environment-agency-told-to-protect-wetlands-in-landmark-court-case
-
For those who think shock at bridge costs is unique to cheapskate climbers: https://www.facebook.com/groups/derbyshireandpeakdistrictwalks/posts/1493212277910858/
-
Found them both (although your post has a few typos)
Apologies on behalf of autocorrect. Should have read Feargal *Sharkey* and *Prof.* not project. Assuming a few means more than two, what else did I/ Ai fuck up?
-
No need to apologise, my attention to detail is hardly better currently. Links are probably easier for all:
https://twitter.com/Feargal_Sharkey
https://twitter.com/Jamie_Woodward_
Interesting (to me at least) to see the flowchart and the use of proportionality checks in Feargal's pinned tweet:
https://x.com/Feargal_Sharkey/status/1738154935248626051?s=20
-
For those who think shock at bridge costs is unique to cheapskate climbers: https://www.facebook.com/groups/derbyshireandpeakdistrictwalks/posts/1493212277910858/
Strangely I had higher hopes for the UKB (cheapskate and otherwise) climbing community than the average Derbyshire cretin posting on FB. However, at least they don’t seem to be whinging about charity platform fees…
-
Strangely I had higher hopes for the UKB (cheapskate and otherwise) climbing community than the average Derbyshire cretin posting on FB. However, at least they don’t seem to be whinging about charity platform fees…
Perhaps they hadn't donated and so were still blissfully unaware of those.
-
Perhaps they hadn't donated and so were still blissfully unaware of those.
So you’re saying there’s still time for UKB to be better than the Derbyshire FB cretins?
Aim high!
-
Tonight at 9pm on C4: Joe Lycett vs Sewage:
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/joe-lycett-vs-sewage
Obviously I haven't watched it yet but will make an effort to do so.
Tony, you can plug your bridge again now... :tumble:
-
Tonight at 9pm on C4: Joe Lycett vs Sewage:
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/joe-lycett-vs-sewage
Watched this last night. Thought it was a bit weak overall and his trademark stunt was a flop compared with others he’s done.
The most interesting part was how much of a revolving door it is between water companies and the regulators Ofwat and the Environment Agency with all the conflicts of interest that go along with it.
-
The most interesting part was how much of a revolving door it is between water companies and the regulators Ofwat and the Environment Agency with all the conflicts of interest that go along with it.
I’ve seen this flagged up as a criticism in new articles on this topic before, but without any evidence this is actually causing issues, did this doc flag any up? To me it seems like an in depth knowledge of the water industry would be a prerequisite for working in a regulatory position, and you’re only going to get that working for a water company. Maybe it’s just because in my field it’s very normal for people to move between consultancy and regulatory roles.
-
I’ve seen this flagged up as a criticism in new articles on this topic before, but without any evidence this is actually causing issues, did this doc flag any up? To me it seems like an in depth knowledge of the water industry would be a prerequisite for working in a regulatory position, and you’re only going to get that working for a water company. Maybe it’s just because in my field it’s very normal for people to move between consultancy and regulatory roles.
I agree regarding the engineering side of things -but it would be good to say have a sprinkling of regulators from eg other countries to give an outside perspective.
My main beef with the water countries is the "financial engineering" side of things. They were founded debt free. They have a guaranteed revenue stream from customer payments. That money ought to be going to investment with a small % creamed off to pay owners. Instead the water companies have borrowed massively and paid out what they borrowed to owners and now say that the money customers pay is swallowed up by debt servicing costs. The regulator's job was to call bullshit on that scam. It is just a re-run of the classic scam that oligarchs pulled in the former Soviet countries. It was being called out by accounting experts etc but the lobbying effort prevailed. For privatisation to work, it would be necessary to also have such people as regulators. That is the root cause of all the rest of it.
https://dieterhelm.co.uk/regulation-utilities-infrastructure/time-to-pull-the-plug-on-the-water-privatisation-model/
-
I’ve seen this flagged up as a criticism in new articles on this topic before, but without any evidence this is actually causing issues, did this doc flag any up?
No, it didn't, and yes, what you said; people with the expertise would've been working in that part of the water industry.
I agree it was very weak. It was very disappointing that the cost of improving network storage was simply put forward as a number without any context or discussion of the engineering (and sustainability) challenges.
The Whitehouse documentary for its flaws was better and raised more insidious issues IMO.
-
what you said; people with the expertise would've been working in that part of the water industry.
The problem with just saying “that’s what you’d expect and is what happens in other industries” IMO is that this is maybe ok if things are ticking along fine. If the water companies are doing what they’re supposed to be doing (i.e. treating waste water) and the regulators just have to occasionally intervene to keep them in check.
But the whole system is comprehensively borked if so many water companies are spilling untreated sewage on the scale they have been.
I can’t imagine if bridges or buildings were regularly failing on this scale that people would just accept a revolving door between engineering firms and their regulators as being ‘just what happens’.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but whoever regulates bridge construction must be doing an ok job given that we don’t have bridge collapses on this scale?!
-
I have no idea whether you work on bridges but insert whatever’s applicable.
-
So, I'd love to go into this in more detail but my visa has just come through for Aus late Fri night and I'm expected to be on a flight on Fri AM with nothing booked, packed and currently having my parents' nightmare dogs until Sun evening, thus this will be brief.
There needs to be a distinction here in terms of 'failing'. In civils, there's two types of failure, SLS and ULS (quotes hastily grabbed from Google but they make the point):
"The Serviceability Limit State (SLS) is defined as the state of design beyond which a structural system loses operationally its serviceability for the actual service load that the structure is subjected to."
"What is the definition of the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of a floor? Philipp Guirguis, area sales manager Dramix central Europe, UK and Nordics, describes it as the design state to cover the governing load case scenario, a design state prior to ultimate collapse, to assure structural stability"
When these systems are failing, it's SLS not ULS so in terms of a structure such as a building or bridge it's not equivalent to structural collapse which is what you're imagining.
It's also not a fair comparison. If we take a bridge (Tony's bridge we'll call it) that's a pedestrian footbridge it'll be designed for 5kPa to represent pedestrian loading and designed accordingly. This isn't increasing, it isn't going to be 6kPa in a few years as the population fattens, 5kPa is it. A combined sewage system is under increasing load from population growth (and is designed accordingly) and secondary to that, the stormwater component. As the climate changes and the nature of those storms changes (a 1:50yr event for instance happens more frequently) and the intensity of the rainfall increases, that pushes the limits of the system.
There may be a valid argument that companies aren't investing enough to tackle growth, but every wastewater job I've been involved in (I try and avoid it for obvious reasons) accounted for population growth and a changing climate with the design life of the system/structures. However, the point is, regardless of that being correct, at some point it will reach that design limit.
In terms of other structures failing in SLS I think you're just probably not aware of it. An example would be a retaining wall that's moved; Peewee will tell you, there are plenty of those all over the place.
-
Sorry for wasting your time in replying to what was probably a flawed comparison with bridges.
The point I’m trying to make is that surely it’s the job of the regulator in whatever industry to identify and investigate current failings, but also identify and flag up any potential future failings (e.g. due to lack of much-needed investment in critical infrastructure).
The water companies and regulators have known since long before privatisation that huge investment would be needed to keep up with changing circumstances. Indeed that was one of the arguments for privatisation in the first place. So the fact we’re still stuck with victorian infrastructure in 2024 and regularly dumping untreated sewage into rivers and the sea 35yrs post-privatisation shows that something’s gone catastrophically wrong and the regulators have failed. Why haven’t they been sounding the alarm for the last 35yrs that water companies weren’t investing enough to avoid this situation? Could one reason be that the people in charge of Ofwat are eyeing up a cushty job at one of the water companies to retire into so don’t want to jeapordise that? I have no idea, but it’s certainly an accusation they open themselves up to when they’ve failed so dismally in their primary function.
-
I’ve seen this flagged up as a criticism in new articles on this topic before, but without any evidence this is actually causing issues, did this doc flag any up? To me it seems like an in depth knowledge of the water industry would be a prerequisite for working in a regulatory position, and you’re only going to get that working for a water company. Maybe it’s just because in my field it’s very normal for people to move between consultancy and regulatory roles.
The issue is surely more around people moving from the regulator to the water companies? There's is a clear conflict of interest there.
Say you're a big bod at ofwat/EA and you know there's a regular stream of people leaving the regulators for roles at water companies. Say you need to get down and dirty and start holding the water companies to account for some wrong doing, your judgement will be clouded by the fact you're not going to get a job at a water company after you slap a massive fine on them.
-
The only person wasting my time is me being on a forum rather than sorting stuff out.
we’re still stuck with victorian infrastructure in 2024 and regularly dumping untreated sewage into rivers and the sea 35yrs post-privatisation shows that something’s gone catastrophically wrong and the regulators have failed. Why haven’t they been sounding the alarm for the last 35yrs that water companies weren’t investing enough to avoid this situation? Could one reason be that the people in charge of Ofwat are eyeing up a cushty job at one of the water companies to retire into so don’t want to jeapordise that? I have no idea, but it’s certainly an accusation they open themselves up to when they’ve failed so dismally in their primary function.
We're still 'stuck' with Victorian infrastructure in loads of places, the railways for instance have old tunnels, bridges and marginally stable retaining walls that have subsequently been developed around. People aren't understanding the scale of the challenge if you expect that entails replacing/upgrading all of the buried infrastructure from that era. Look at stuff like HARP (https://harpinformation.co.uk/) in the NW to see the massive challenge/cost associated with such things.
Hopefully Will might step in here to talk about how OFWAT and business planning works for the AMP period and the previous areas of focus (which followed some of the floods, sorry, I forget the year); the result was an awful lot of small, two-pump pumping stations.
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.
-
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 :dance1:
-
Anyway I’ve got a NZ passport so I’m laughing :dance1:
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).
-
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
:beer2:
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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? :chair:
-
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.
-
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).
-
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”.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68665335
-
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.
(https://gillianswalks.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/steallfalls5-20230629-131701.jpg)
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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!
-
Yorkshire Water continues to make headlines from dumping more raw sewage in our waterways… published today :whistle:
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
-
Bit more hard work and dedication we can supplant those southerners for the number 1 spot
-
Yorkshire Water continues to make headlines from dumping more raw sewage in our waterways… published today :whistle:
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.
-
I’m trying to work out what point you are trying to make?
-
Cheaper to pay fines than stay within the legally permitted limits.
-
Pay hundreds of thousands is sadly cheaper than spending tens of millions improving infrastructure.
-
Whilst paying their shareholders 70 million in dividends :worms:
-
Over a thousand times more actually, 78 billion.
-
Whilst paying their shareholders 70 million in dividends :worms:
It is so important that we include all payments to capital rather than being blinkered into only seeing dividends. Yorkshire water paid £360.9m in interest to creditors in 2022/23.
It is such BS when a regulated company does an equity to debt conversion (as the water companies have done), and then claim that they subsequently aren't extracting much as dividends. Of course they aren't because they now take it out by way of interest payments.