Anglia Water trying to Stop Navigation on the Cam

[MtB]

7 minutes ago, matty40s said:

The main problem is Mike, the water companies are taking out billions of pounds in shareholder and directors bonuses and are not only investing nothing in improvements, but they are expecting the taxpayers to pay for those in increased bills whilst still increasing dividends,  and debts taken against the assets.

 

Totally agree. It's outrageous and a major reason not to vote conservative.

 

Labour will fix it obviously. But how?

 

 

[matty40s]

34 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Totally agree. It's outrageous and a major reason not to vote conservative.

 

Labour will fix it obviously. But how?

 

 

It's not who gets in, it's how many we get out, as it appears they all have their snouts in the trough.

The Teeside SEZ is apparently a model for the next 76 planned SEZs that will happen as the local councils go bankrupt due to reduced gov financing along with additional financial responsibilities.

The Teeside mayor and his mate with Micheal Goves blessing bought the revelopment land ( 100 acres) for £100, charged the Gov for clearing and making safe, and have made approx £240m so far in scrap sales, planning, various schemes and the Governement inquiry is led by Micheal Gove with people appointed by Micheal Gove and has its publication pushed back 3 times so far, and now after the next election...

 

[Scholar Gypsy]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Surely it isn't beyond the abilities of a designer to not reduce the river.  With a new treatment plant, they will have no reason to pump sewage into the river as they will have built for extreme conditions.  Won't they?

I don't quite understand the point you are making Once constructed, the new outfall will not impact on navigation at all - it will be on or behind the existing line of the river bank (continuing the line of piling under the A14 bridge), and at or below the existing bed of the river. 
There will be some modest and temporary impact (2-4 months) on navigation during construction, as temporary coffer dams are required (as for many other projects).  

1 hour ago, matty40s said:

The main problem is Mike, the water companies are taking out billions of pounds in shareholder and directors bonuses and are not only investing nothing in improvements, but they are expecting the taxpayers to pay for those in increased bills whilst still increasing dividends,  and debts taken against the assets.

Ofwat, the regulator, is in the pockets of the water companies, (79% of water company directors were part of OFWAT before being directors).

The self regulated outflow monitoring is a joke, most are hiding the figures, changing red to blue or green on the maps to hide the danger....the rest are shocking. 

I know Simon(Scholar Gipsy) has the best intentions, but this has gone beyond nice communications and agreeing things. 

For a start, why has the storm drain output got the same output capability as the final outlet when the sewage farm is not on the main Cambridge storm drain system any more.

A question that MUST be asked.

 

My understanding is that the new works will take everything that goes into the existing works - ie from the current combined sewers and storm drains. Hence it will need a storm overflow facility as now (but used less often).  Also, the new works and outfall are designed to cope with planned growth in Cambridge ie until 2080 or so. See section 1.6 here. 
 https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/WW010003/WW010003-000535-1.3 Guide to the Application.pdf 
 

Anyway, the planning inspector has already started his work, so your question needs to be directed to that process. The Cam Conservators have quite a narrow remit here, ie the impact on navigation.  

 

Edited January 26 by Scholar Gypsy

[matty40s]

Simon, I do not doubt your integrity, and trustworthiness, however, I do doubt the other party.

Why is there such a need for a massive storm drain outlet from a sewage works in a green belt area when they are no longer connected to Cambridges storm drains?

If I have no other outlet to try to swing you, just have a peep at an old Undertone with an attitude...

 

 

Dont forget, the present Environment Minister who has only appeared in public in Newark once since New Year, Steve Barclay , has a wife on the board of Anglian Water.

[MtB]

So getting back on topic as per the misleading thread title, I remain to be convinced there is any risk of navigation on the cam being stopped (other than possibly temporarily during actual construction of better sewage treatment plant).

 

[Scholar Gypsy]

34 minutes ago, MtB said:

So getting back on topic as per the misleading thread title, I remain to be convinced there is any risk of navigation on the cam being stopped (other than possibly temporarily during actual construction of better sewage treatment plant).

 

 

That's our understanding too, after several months of work on the detail. Installing the coffer dam will create an obstruction for a few days, and then removing it ditto. For the 2-4 months inbetween there will be a slight narrowing of the channel, but nothing significant. It will be marked and signed: AW got the point when I said they needed to do better than the HS2 contractors at Denham, who got this wrong in so many ways .....

8 hours ago, matty40s said:

Simon, I do not doubt your integrity, and trustworthiness, however, I do doubt the other party.

Why is there such a need for a massive storm drain outlet from a sewage works in a green belt area when they are no longer connected to Cambridges storm drains?

 

As I said before,  my understanding is that the new STW will deal with everything that currently goes into the current STW, and that will include flow from the combined sewer and storm drain network (but not, as now, dedicated storm drains that presumably go straight into the river).  The new outfall is explicitly future proofed, and designed to cope with 2 cumecs of treated effluent and 5 cumecs of storm water overflow.

There are currently 912 documents on the website, I certainly haven't read them all, but this gives a flavour of the storage capacity that is currently in place. For short storms that don't fill up the tanks the water will be put through the STW. When storms exceed the storage capacity then the overflow is discharged to the river, to avoid the sewers backing up into homes etc.  It's probably a bit out of date as it refers to forthcoming discussions with the EA.

https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/WW010003/WW010003-000692-5.4.20.10 ES Volume 4 Chapter 20 Appendix 20.10 Storm model report.pdf

[magnetman]

11 hours ago, matty40s said:

The main problem is Mike, the water companies are taking out billions of pounds in shareholder and directors bonuses and are not only investing nothing in improvements, but they are expecting the taxpayers to pay for those in increased bills whilst still increasing dividends,  and debts taken against the assets.

Ofwat, the regulator, is in the pockets of the water companies, (79% of water company directors were part of OFWAT before being directors).

The self regulated outflow monitoring is a joke, most are hiding the figures, changing red to blue or green on the maps to hide the danger....the rest are shocking. 

I know Simon(Scholar Gipsy) has the best intentions, but this has gone beyond nice communications and agreeing things. 

For a start, why has the storm drain output got the same output capability as the final outlet when the sewage farm is not on the main Cambridge storm drain system any more.

A question that MUST be asked.

 

 

Its a bad situation. 

 

Some days the Thames is carrying a lot of direct effluent from the works. Even on nice summer days when there is no rain the outlets will be stinking like a pumpout station. 

 

Its corporate thuggery at the end of the day. 

 

A screwed system. 

 

 

Profit is the only driver. An obvious symptom of the actions of the privatisation thieves. 

[MtB]

28 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Profit is the only driver. An obvious symptom of the actions of the privatisation thieves. 

 

 

So what is the solution? 

 

Do you have one in mind?

 

Or are you tilting at windmills? (Always wanted to find a use for that term!!) 

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, MtB said:

So getting back on topic as per the misleading thread title, I remain to be convinced there is any risk of navigation on the cam being stopped (other than possibly temporarily during actual construction of better sewage treatment plant).

 

I looked through the documents when this thread first appeared. As far as I could see the permanent works have been designed to have no impact on the navigation width or depth. And in practice, post construction, nobody would be prevented from boating right in front of the outfall.

The problem arises not in the design, but in the legal powers sought as part of the consent. Essentially the lawyers who drafted the text were lazy, and just sought to stop up navigation rights permanently over the whole area required for construction. What they actually need are rights to restrict navigation temporarily during construction, and potentially during any future maintenance or repair. They probably took the view that it is easiest to ask for extensive powers first, then expect to draw back from that position in negotiation with objectors, with the extent to which they agree to curtail their powers being dependent on how hard the objectors push the point. Which is what Simon and the Cam Commissioners are now doing.

Having worked on the development of other infrastructure projects I have seen project promoters take this approach before.

[Jerra]

12 hours ago, BEngo said:

There should ot be any untreated output, but the treated sewage still needs somewhere to go.

N

Treated sewage is/should be clean water.  My grandfather was in charge of deciding on and overseeing a new filterbed for the town.  He visited an already installed one with a rep of the company.  The rep was so confident in the water coming out he drank some.  That was getting on for 100 years ago surely a newly installed treatment plant is as good.

[Tony Brooks]

13 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Treated sewage is/should be clean water.  My grandfather was in charge of deciding on and overseeing a new filterbed for the town.  He visited an already installed one with a rep of the company.  The rep was so confident in the water coming out he drank some.  That was getting on for 100 years ago surely a newly installed treatment plant is as good.

 

I would not be so sure, extensive filter beds seem to be a thing of the past, The land taken up is too ripe for development. It seems nowadays it is done by optimum conditions in tanks for microbial digestion and looking at the new Reading STW those tanks look small to cope with the likely throughput, especially during storms when it seems storm water gets into the treatment system. There is also the problem with groundwater seeping into the foul water sewers, again adding to the processing volume. This seems to be happening in both Thames and Southern Water areas, so I suspect it is widespread. 

 

It seems all down to lack of timely investment.

Edited January 27 by Tony Brooks

[MtB]

16 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

It seems all down to lack of timely investment.

 

No, its all down to the historical habit we in the UK had of combining foul sewage with surface water drainage.

 

If this hadn't been done routinely over the past 100 years or so of housebuilding, the excess storm water problem we have now would never have happened.

[Tony Brooks]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

No, its all down to the historical habit we in the UK had of combining foul sewage with surface water drainage.

 

If this hadn't been done routinely over the past 100 years or so of housebuilding, the excess storm water problem we have now would never have happened.

 

That would not stop groundwater leaking into the foul water sewers, though, would it.

[magnetman]

48 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

 

So what is the solution? 

 

Do you have one in mind?

 

Or are you tilting at windmills? (Always wanted to find a use for that term!!) 

Just tilting at windmills. 

 

It seems to me that something such as a municipal water distribution and cleaning system should belong to the state not private individuals but its probably a bit late now. 

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

No, its all down to the historical habit we in the UK had of combining foul sewage with surface water drainage.

 

If this hadn't been done routinely over the past 100 years or so of housebuilding, the excess storm water problem we have now would never have happened.

Actually we haven't been doing it for the past 100 years or so. For decades now new developments have had separate drainage system for foul and surface water, and in more recent years there has been more emphasis on sustainable drainage systems that aim to slow the flow of storm water to avoid the high peak flows that contribute to river flooding and overloading sewage treatment systems.

The issue with combined foul and surface water drains is much bigger in older urban areas, where the single combined system was the norm when these areas became built up. In an ideal world such areas would be retrofitted with separate systems, but the cost and disruption would be enormous. So practice is instead to build storage systems that at times of peak flow can store the sewage that exceeds treatment capacity, and to then treat it when flows are lower.

[MtB]

So if that is the case, how is it that so much heavy rain (storm water) is still getting into the sewage system?

 

Is Tony right and the main culprit is ground water entering fractured underground sewage pipes? I.e not by design? 

[Alan de Enfield]

35 minutes ago, David Mack said:

For decades now new developments have had separate drainage system for foul and surface water,

 

Indeed, when we had our house built (2005/6) there are separate drainage pipes for surface water (exits directly into the nearby dyke) and the foul' water that goes into out sewage treatment plant which then discharges into the same dyke.

 

The pipe line nearest the house is the 'foul' (sinks, toilets, showers) whilst the one the furthest from the house is the surface water.

 

 

[Tony Brooks]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

So if that is the case, how is it that so much heavy rain (storm water) is still getting into the sewage system?

 

Is Tony right and the main culprit is ground water entering fractured underground sewage pipes? I.e not by design? 

 

I did not say that, it is A (one) culprit among others. It is certainly happening along the Lambourne Valley and the local TV news said Southern Water are also suffering, so it seems very likely anywhere in a river valley could suffer in the same way once the pipes and joints start to leak. Remember, we can see leaks from the water mains when they break the surface, but that won't be the case with the sewers, except where it wells up out of consumers' gulleys.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

That would not stop groundwater leaking into the foul water sewers, though, would it.

Nor foul sewage leaking out and contaminating groundwater.

But it is inevitable that with older infrastructure under the ground, deterioration will be taking place and leaks arising. Water companies do have programmes in place to carry out sewer surveys, identify problems and carry out repairs, but it is a big task, and like all other infrastructure maintenance activities, tends to be underfunded (whatever the organisation/ownership arrangements).

[Naughty Cal]

On 27/01/2024 at 11:33, MtB said:

So if that is the case, how is it that so much heavy rain (storm water) is still getting into the sewage system?

 

Is Tony right and the main culprit is ground water entering fractured underground sewage pipes? I.e not by design? 

No the main culprit is older estates (both residential, commercial and industrial) which have no way to separate foul water from surface water and have no way of attenuating storm flows on site. From older sites it all just flows together to the treatment works. Then if course you have the people building extensions who just tap into the nearest sewer.

 

It was probably late 90's when the idea of attenuating surface water on site and releasing at a controlled rate became accepted practice. Although again older sites only attenuated for a 1:30 year design period.

 

Modern developments attenuate for storm periods up to 1:100 year plus 50% climate change allowance plus a 10% allowance for urban creep. They store far more water on site. The downside of course is the need for either large under ground tanks or larger areas of land take for above ground storage.

 

In theory if the water authority is aware of ground water entering their foul sewers through broken joints or pipes then they should repair them. Of course knowing that the water is entering the pipes is another matter.

 

The surface water from the development where we live which was started in 2019 drains into the open attenuation basin before being released at a controlled rate into the adjacent watercourse via a flow control device. Added bonus we don't pay Severn Trent a surface water treatment charge as part of our bill.

 

Edited January 29 by Naughty Cal

[Alan de Enfield]

3 hours ago, Naughty Cal said:

Added bonus we don't pay Severn Trent a surface water treatment charge as part of our bill.

 

 

Neither do we, and as an added, added, bonus if you get a water leak (on your supply) the water company will credit you for the lost water as it is not being fed into the drainage system and overloading the water treatment plant.

 

I didn't believe it when I was told, but it turns out to be true.

[Tony Brooks]

Piece on Southern Lunchtime BBC news - Southern Water have installed pumps and filters ready to start discharging foul water into the river Test in the Longparish area. The reason given was high groundwater levels. The same reason that Thames Water gave for the problems in the Lambourne Valley. It seems it makes more business sense to use fleets of tankers to pump the liquid out of the sewers and take it away and to discharge sewerage (filtered) into chalk streams than fix the pipes.

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, Tony Brooks said:

Piece on Southern Lunchtime BBC news - Southern Water have installed pumps and filters ready to start discharging foul water into the river Test in the Longparish area. The reason given was high groundwater levels. The same reason that Thames Water gave for the problems in the Lambourne Valley. It seems it makes more business sense to use fleets of tankers to pump the liquid out of the sewers and take it away and to discharge sewerage (filtered) into chalk streams than fix the pipes.

Fixing all the pipes will take years, even if the will and the money to do it are there. But groundwater infiltration is happening now, as a result of the wet weather we have had recently. My guess is that the treatment works are already at capacity as are the holding tanks. So there really is no short term alternative to discharging untreated (other than being filtered) effluent to watercourses. The only question then is which watercourse?

[Tony Brooks]

9 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Fixing all the pipes will take years, even if the will and the money to do it are there. But groundwater infiltration is happening now, as a result of the wet weather we have had recently. My guess is that the treatment works are already at capacity as are the holding tanks. So there really is no short term alternative to discharging untreated (other than being filtered) effluent to watercourses. The only question then is which watercourse?

I don't question any of that, but I don't see how this is a sudden problem. There have been problems around Newbury for years. It is convenient to try to blame the weather for the problems, but that is to simply excuse the lack of maintenance and investment.

 

Also be worth noting that in times of high river flows, Thames water has low levels in its Farmoor reservoir because the Thames was so poluted by their discharges they could not fill it. Wait until summer, and there is a fair chance we will suddenly have water shortages,

[David Mack]

It isn't a sudden problem. It is a result of years of underfunding of infrastructure construction, renewal and maintenance, combined with the impacts of climate change. And allowing overloaded sewers to discharge to water courses at times of peak load has long been part of standard operating practice, although it seems to have increased in recent years. What has changed is that the public is now more aware of the issue, which regularly features in the media, which in turn is putting pressure on the water companies and politicians. Time will tell how much that changes things.