19.11.08 Water companies asked to step up infrastructure spending
Water companies in both England and Wales have been urged by the Environment Agency to increase the amount of money spent on infrastructure maintenance. The agency is keen for the companies to increase their spending in an effort to reduce pollution as well as the impact of flooding. This latter issue is a particular problem as many water treatment and sewage works are located within close proximity of major rivers. With regards to pollution, last year a fifth of the serious pollution incidents seen across the country were caused by neglect on behalf of water companies. Many of these incidents occurred as a result of poorly maintained sewage infrastructure.
The announcement from the Environment Agency came after water companies across England and Wales submitted their business plans for the five years following 2010. The plans were handed to Ofwat, the industry regulator in charge of determining the prices customers are charged for water and waste services, and the Environment Agency was subsequently informed of the contents.
Although the Environment Agency was pleased with the general content of the plans, officials believe that the companies need to work harder to reduce water demand. Furthermore, the water companies need to use their resources in a more efficient and appropriate manner. The director of water management at the Environment Agency, David King, believes that water companies will not be able to increase their spending to an adequate level within one pricing period, but instead a process of continued investment will need to take place.
13.11.08 Anglian Water Fined £150,000
The largest regional water company in England and Wales has been fined for failing to prevent damage to the local environment. Anglian Water allowed twice the recommended amount of ammonia to seep into the Soham Lode from an unattended sewage plant in Newmarket.
The company has been charged with the death of 1,200 fish and fined £150,000 (£125 per fish). An additional £28,973 has been paid to the Environmental Agency to cover court costs.
The company website asserts that every effort is usually made to limit the impact of permanent installations on the environment: “we have a moral duty to protect and, where possible, enhance the local catchment area.” In the wake of the recent court battle, Anglian Water’s pledge to protect the wetland landscape and the fifty Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the area seems a tad hypocritical.
Anglian Water is no stranger to the judicial system. Its owners have appeared in court over eighty times during the last eighteen years. Earlier this year, the company was criticised for allowing a rabbit into a water tank. This mistake resulted in the worst cryptosporidiosis outbreak the world has ever seen.
Cryptosporidium, a parasite, causes gastro-intestinal illness in humans and is an exceptionally rare condition. Anglian Water is responsible for over 94% of all known cases of cryptosporidiosis.
The prosecution blasted the company for failing to adhere to fundamental safety regulations and for attempting to falsify records. Judge John Holt pointed out that Anglian Water had failed to respond to automated alarms warning of the impending ammonia leak. The Newmarket plant had no back-up pumps (they had been ‘inadvertently’ turned off), and tons of sewage were diverted into the Soham waterway.
Anglian Water has apologised for the incident.
06.11.08 Leicestershire drying up
Severn-Trent Water has announced plans to build a £30 million pipeline across Leicestershire in an effort to put an end to growing concerns about the county’s long-term water supply. The new proposal includes plans to circumvent ‘bottlenecks’ in the existing plumbing whilst improving connections between Leicestershire and the reservoirs in the Peak District.
Leicester city council has approved plans to construct a number of new housing estates in the Oadby area, a move which Severn-Trent believes has compounded water supply issues by increasing overall demand. In the same report, the water company warned that it could face a total deficit of 29 million litres of water unless the existing piping was upgraded within the next ten years.
A spokesperson for Severn-Trent explained that climate change was a key factor in the impending drought but made no pledge to limit the company’s impact on the environment. Independent environmental group, Waterwise, believes that companies like Severn-Trent should concentrate on reducing the amount of water that their consumers waste rather than “building their way out of trouble.”
If Seven-Trent’s new pipeline is approved, water rates may need to increase to compensate for the extra cost of the 20-mile-long underground pipe. The industry regulator, OFWAT, will be consulted regarding the legality of the price rise and their decision will determine whether or not Severn-Trent is allowed to build the extra pipeline.
Severn-Trent is hoping to produce an additional 60 million litres of water per day. This figure would allow it to provide water for a further 100,000 people.
29.10.08 Fluoride to save nation's teeth
Health officials have called for an extension to water fluoridation schemes as part of a plan to help reduce tooth decay in young children. If successful, fluoride supplements could be added to water supplies in large parts of Southampton and Cumbria.
Critics of the scheme are afraid that adding fluoride to public water supplies could result in an increase of fluorosis (teeth discolouration), despite the fact that much of North and Central England has been drinking fluoridated water for some time with no ill effects.
The 'Hampshire against Fluoridation Group' believes that fluoride is a “vicious, nasty poison” that can bring about a plethora of health problems, including irritable bowel syndrome, rashes, and nausea. Principal on their list of gripes is a growing concern about whether fluoride accumulates in the body.
Public opinion of fluoridation schemes has been consistently good, with questionnaires often returning results of 65 - 75% in favour. The British Dental Association (BDA) has also been a vocal proponent of the plans but unless the government can produce conclusive evidence that fluoride has no harmful effects on the body, the scheme will continue to face opposition.
Unfortunately, the nay-sayers aren’t just worried; they’re terrified. Some groups believe that fluoridation schemes mark the start of a move towards clandestine medical operations whereby the government can medicate the population from behind closed doors. Brian Donohoe, a Labour MP for Central Ayrshire, is a vociferous opponent of the plans: “I don't think anything should be added to the water as a medicine because it's the beginning of the end. What's to stop the government adding other things as medicine?”
The British Fluoridation Society wants to add fluoride supplements to an additional 20% of UK water sources, bringing the total up to 30% overall.
15.10.08 Starbucks accused of wasting millions of litres of water
Starbucks, which prides itself on its green credentials, has been heavily criticised by environmentalists and customers alike for wasting 1.63 million litres of water each day in its UK outlets, the amount equivalent to that consumed by an average size town such as Matlock in Derbyshire.
If you want a more emotive comparison, the 23.4 million litres wasted worldwide in Starbucks outlets would be enough to satisfy the needs of the 2 million Namibians suffering drought conditions at the moment.
The reason behind this wastage seems to be a dubious health and safety regulation, designed to minimise the risk of bacteria building up in taps at the coffee shops. Staff are not allowed to turn off the taps in the sinks used to wash utensils, on the grounds that this would allow bacteria to breed in them.
Jacob Tompkins of Water Wise, an independent agency, has slammed the practice saying that the likelihood of a build-up of bacteria is remote if Starbucks are carrying out their cleaning procedures efficiently. Starbucks has defended the regime saying that they need to balance water conservation with customer safety.
There is no doubt, however, that the revelations will come as a great embarrassment to the company which trumpets its green credentials, stating in its corporate social responsibility report that it has “established high standards for environmental responsibility”.
Starbucks are no strangers to controversy, however, and managed to bounce back after the Guardian reported in 2006 that the company was using its corporate weight to stop Ethiopian farmers copyrighting their coffee beans. It will be interesting to see what steps the company takes to limit the damage done by this most recent embarrassment.
