Response from the [EA] Chair to The Times' article "Filthy Business"

[Jennifer McM]

Interesting response... 

 

Quote

Your editorial (“Filthy Business”, 3 August) and coverage of the state of England’s rivers is wrong on most counts except one. Let me give you the facts.

 

Water quality in our rivers is now better than at any time since the start of the Industrial Revolution. All over the country, salmon and otter have returned to waters that until recently were biologically dead. That has happened because of the work of the Environment Agency, alongside that of the water companies, environmental non-governmental organisations and local communities.

 

Rivers in England are not currently certified as safe for swimmers because there is no current system of certification. But the bathing waters off our beaches are, and last year 388 of them (97.9%) passed the minimum standards. In 1995 over half would have failed those standards. The Environment Agency has led these improvements.

 

Water companies are not “free to pollute”. They have to meet tough standards set by the law and the Environment Agency, which they do meet in almost all cases. If they fail to do so we take action against them, up to and including criminal prosecution. In 2017, Thames Water rightly received the highest ever fine, over £20 million, for discharging raw sewage into the Thames............

For the rest of the article, link below...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/letter-to-the-times-from-emma-howard-boyd-chair-of-environment-agency

[Chewbacka]

Maybe she should have written 

 

Dear sir,

Unlike our rivers, you are full of shit.

 

yours sincerely 

 

[Jennifer McM]

15 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Maybe she should have written 

 

Dear sir,

Unlike our rivers, you are full of shit.

 

yours sincerely 

 

Succinct! ? ?

[Murflynn]

however, I believe that the last resort fall-back situation when the foul sewers are overloaded (often because surface water gets into the system during heavy rainfall) is to dump the excess into the outfalls (intended to carry treated water) that discharge into rivers.  I hope someone can prove me wrong.

[matty40s]

19 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

however, I believe that the last resort fall-back situation when the foul sewers are overloaded (often because surface water gets into the system during heavy rainfall) is to dump the excess into the outfalls (intended to carry treated water) that discharge into rivers.  I hope someone can prove me wrong.

This still happens in the London catchment area.

[Iain_S]

5 hours ago, Murflynn said:

however, I believe that the last resort fall-back situation when the foul sewers are overloaded (often because surface water gets into the system during heavy rainfall) is to dump the excess into the outfalls (intended to carry treated water) that discharge into rivers.  I hope someone can prove me wrong.

It is very much the last resort, coming after discharge of partially treated sewage diluted with rainwater. The problem is that many surface water drains feed into the sewage system, so that in prolonged heavy rainfall, the rate of flow through the sewage treatment plant is vastly increased.

[Chewbacka]

27 minutes ago, Iain_S said:

It is very much the last resort, coming after discharge of partially treated sewage diluted with rainwater. The problem is that many surface water drains feed into the sewage system, so that in prolonged heavy rainfall, the rate of flow through the sewage treatment plant is vastly increased.

That’s the problem of being one of the first cities to have sewers, 150 years later the system just does not meet modern requirements.  

[Tim Lewis]

7 hours ago, matty40s said:

This still happens in the London catchment area.

Which is why 4 billion ponds is currently being spent on the Tideway tunnel to sort it out