David Levy – The Water Industry is muddying the waters for amendment of the Environment Bill – Aug 21

I had a sense of expectation when the BBC’s south-west regional health correspondent, Matthew Hill, arranged an ‘on-air dialogue’ between ourselves and Matt Wheeldon, Director of Wastewater Services at Wessex Water; and this sense of expectation grew when Matt Wheeldon publicly praised Marinet for its campaigning amendments in the House of Lords.

Marinet then took up a further offer to speak online to Wessex Water in order to ascertain whether the water industry is genuinely prepared to back the Duke of Wellington’s Amendment to Clause 79.

This amendment creates a legal obligation on the water companies to progressively improve, year on year, the quality of their wastewater discharges going into English rivers, and also to separate the foul water sewers away from the drainage of rainwater run-off so as to lessen the pressure on the already over-stretched sewage works.

Wessex Water is responsible for almost 29,000 unauthorised sewage discharges to the environment last year, and so one would expect their representative to apologise for this from the outset. Not so.

Matt discussed the difficulty of making decisions without detailed background data on river water quality, arguing that this data is needed to determine the direction in which they spend their money. He sees the collection of this data as being the primary focus of the industry as of now.

Not once did he acknowledge the concerns of the public for urgent action to remedy the existing faults in the system. Not once did he apologise for the position we are now in on his watch.

The defence which he relies upon is the need for more information on the minutiae and complexity of the problem. On that basis he is prepared to expose the public to the abysmal service which they are currently delivering — and into to the next decade whilst he awaits information and data.

We repeatedly pressed the case for an obligation in law now — the present Environment Bill (Act) — to trigger the debate for change at Government level. Although he backed us 90% of the way, he was not prepared to give his endorsement or that of the water industry and thus support the amendment to the Bill which we see as being the tool to force change on Government, and from there on OFWAT and the issues of finance.

His 10% reservation, i.e. the lack of data, was his excuse to avoid the urgent issues which require taking action now. He said he wanted 100% action, however he was prepared to wait for the moment of change. In other words the water industry wants to ‘kick the can down the road’.

I saw little here to encourage hope. Despite this, I have kept the window of opportunity open by arranging a follow-up meeting.

What I would like to suggest to Matthew Hill is his own follow-up meeting with Matt Wheeldon in the light of the fact that Matt and the water industry is not endorsing Marinet’s and the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, with the industry content only to muddy the already murky waters further.

As an appendix to this blog, I attach the letter we have sent to the Duke of Wellington about the meeting we have had with Matt Wheeldon, Wessex Water. And also, a copy of the letter we have recently sent to the Environment Agency about the very worrying levels of bacteriological contamination that river bathers are experiencing at Ilkley on the River Wharfe – England’s newly created and only inland bathing water site. If these levels existed at a marine bathing site, urgent action would be taken.

Advice to the Duke of Wellington, 7th August 2021

Meeting with the Director of Waste Water Services, Wessex Water

Dear Duke of Wellington,

David Levy and I had a zoom meeting with Matt Wheeldon yesterday, Friday 6th August. He is the director of Wastewater Services (sewerage and drainage) at Wessex Water and he serves as the water industry’s representative on the DEFRA Storm Sewage Overflows Taskforce. He has a great deal of knowledge of the industry.

We held this meeting with him, at his invitation, because in a recent programme by BBC Somerset and BBC One TV’s Points West he stated that he believed that the national sewage treatment network does need to be upgraded and that the need to separate the drainage of surface water (rainfall) from entering the foul sewer is exactly right.

We therefore began our meeting on this positive basis and he further stated that he is 90% in favour of the amendment you and you co-sponsors are proposing to Clause 79. He then qualified this by saying that his 10% reservation meant that he was unable to support the amendment.

We had been hoping that he will communicate his 90% support to the Government and within the industry as a whole. However as our discussion developed this prospect looks unlikely. The reasons for this are as follows.

1. The water industry has agreed with DEFRA that the way forward in the immediate term, probably at least the next 5 to 10 years, is increased monitoring of water quality in rivers.

Mr. Wheeldon states that this knowledge, which would normally exist as a result of the Environment Agency performing its responsibilities, does not exist at present due to the difficulties that the EA has faced over funding and staffing during the last 10 years, i.e. a 60% reduction in the EA’s budget from government. Hence Mr. Wheeldon and the industry want to first put this monitoring data deficiency right, asserting that this will then better inform and direct future action This of course is the Government’s new Clause 80, 141A, introduced at Committee Stage.

2. Although we pointed out that this approach defers all remedial action to the national sewerage and drainage network to an unknown date, it is clear that the water industry collectively is not prepared to shift on the position agreed at the DEFRA Taskforce, i.e. they are content with just increased data collection.

It also means that government (DEFRA and the Treasury) and the guidance given to the EA and OFWAT will continue to allow the discharge of sewage overflows at current levels and similarly of poorly treated sewage from Treatment Works. Meaning that, as the population is growing and substantial new housing building targets are brought into effect, this level of pollution will continue to worsen.

We did address this matter to Mr. Wheeldon, but he avoided it in his replies, only reaffirming his and the water industry’s commitment to an enlarged monitoring and data collection programme.

3. It is clear to us that whilst the water industry has a clear perception of the issue (it is the author of it) and, importantly, is prepared to acknowledge that our analysis (the need for progressively improved sewage treatment standards and the separation of surface water drainage from the foul sewer) is entirely correct, the reality is that the industry with the support of government (DEFRA) has no desire whatsoever to take any action at the present time to improve their sewerage and drainage networks, other than in a ‘cosmetic’ sense by collecting increased data about its functioning.

In short, nothing will materially change over the next 10 years.

4. We emphasised in our discussion with Mr. Wheeldon how important it is that the new sewerage and drainage management plans contain an explicit legal obligation to progressively address this issue, with the necessity for any modifications in ancilliary law (planning and sewerage legislation) being considered within the delivery of these new management plans, thereby ensuring that any changes required in ancillary law should not be allowed to be a reason for not establishing this overarching legal obligation now (i.e. your amendment to Clause 79).

The key as far as Mr. Wheeldon (and the industry) is concerned, and we suspect the Government similarly, is that they do not want this legal obligation. They are prepared to act voluntarily wherever they can, to be aspirational, but they do not want a legal responsibility to progressively improve at the present time.

Hence their position on the amendment to Clause 79 – namely, that it is correct (their 90% support) but they cannot support it (their 10% reservation) because it imposes an explicit legal obligation, with all the consequential issues that follow involving funding, accountability, delivery targets and changes to ancillary legislation.

David Levy and I hope to meet Mr. Wheeldon soon at Wessex Water’s main office in Bath, but we doubt that this meeting will produce any advance on the position established by the zoom meeting.

5. Therefore it is clear to us that you and your co-sponsors’ amendment at Report Stage is absolutely essential if the nation is to secure real progress in this area.

If your amendment does not succeed, then the current reality will persist for at least another 10 years. Indeed that reality will likely worsen, as also will the requirements needed to solve it.

Both the water industry and government appear to be wedded to procrastination, i.e. ‘kicking the can down the road’. There is no other reasonable conclusion from our conversation with Mr. Wheeldon.

We imagine, given this conclusion, that the Minister and the Government will be most unlikely to yield to you in any prior discussion on your amendment to Clause 79 at Report Stage. This means that if the nation is to see real change, then your amendment to Clause 79 is more necessary than ever.

We also imagine, if this analysis is correct, that the Government will marshal its forces in order to defeat you and your co-sponsors’ amendment.

As we see it, this means it will be important to seek voting support amongst Peers for your amendment. We are very willing to assist you in this regard. But for this assistance to be really effective it ought to follow your advice on how it could best be delivered by us.

We hope you are having a most enjoyable summer break, and we look forward to your advice.

Footnote: The EA has commenced monitoring of bathing water quality in the River Wharfe at Ilkley, the first officially designated inland bathing water. The pollution levels are alarmingly high. If this were a sea bathing water site, bathing would be instantly prohibited. We attach a copy of a recent letter from us to the EA (ref. EA to H. Wakeham). This letter records the details and illustrates, in snapshot form, the scale of the problem nationwide.

Yours sincerely
David Levy and Stephen Eades
01249 653972
www.marinet.org.uk

Letter to the Environment Agency, Bathing Water Quality at Ilkley, River Wharfe

Helen Wakeham
Deputy Director, Water Quality
Environment Agency
Horizon House
Deanery Road
Bristol BS1 5AH

David Levy and Stephen Eades
Directors, Marinet Limited
Cedar Lodge
Allington
Chippenham
Wiltshire

2nd August 2021.

Bathing Water Quality at Wharfedale, Ilkley By email and Royal Mail.

Dear Ms. Wakeham,

As you will know, the Environment Agency has agreed to designate the River Wharfe at Ilkley as an inland Bathing Water regulated under the terms of the Bathing Water Regulations. The Intestinal enterococci and Escherichia coli standard for inland bathing waters are below:

BWD Quality Standard for Inland Waters

(1) 95% compliant (2) 90% compliant

We have viewed the Environment Agency’s Bathing Water monitoring records for 2021 to establish the level of compliance of the bathing waters at Ilkley, see the results recorded below. It is evident that not a single IE reading complies with the Bathing Water inland waters Sufficient standard, and the worst reading is over 23 times greater that the legal safe swimming standard against this parameter. It is also evident that not a single EC reading complies, and the worst reading over 33 times greater than this legal safe swimming standard.