In his weekly press article (see below) Simon Jupp says he wants to see action after he claims the Government has introduced the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills.

By crackdown he means the 2022 plan described by the Rivers Trust as ”Too little too late”:

“ Far from revolutionising the sewer system, as the plan claims, this plan aims to claw its way back to what should have already been ‘business as usual’ by 2050 – with sewer overflows operating only during exceptional rainfall events by that time. This should be the current situation, and yet we are living with 2.6 million hours of overspills in England.”

[Remember In October 2021 Simon Jupp voted against the Lords  amendment designed to stop private water companies from dumping raw sewage into the UK’s waterways.]

Simon also says he firmly believes that long-overdue water company investment should not disproportionately affect bills. 

[ Remember In March this year Simon said:…”Of course, in a perfect world, we would stop sewage spills completely and immediately. Sadly, that is virtually impossible in the short term; because of the pressure on our water infrastructure, we would risk the collapse of the entire water network, and the eye-watering costs involved mean we would need not just a magic money tree, but a whole forest.” ]

Simon refers to the government multi-million-pound plans to reduce spills from Sidmouth and Tipton St John’s sewage system and reduce nutrient pollution from the Axminster-Kilmington water treatment site. These are the local “oven ready” schemes in the Ofwat/Defra “accelerated infrastructure delivery project for English Water companies”. Owl has already discussed the lack of clarity of who foots the bills under the heading: This raises the $64,000 question, who is paying for this: SWW; the consumer or the Tax Payer? 

Is Simon “on a journey”? [More to the point where might it end?] – Owl

‘We all want action taken now to clean up rivers and seas’

Simon Jupp www.exmouthjournal.co.uk

The water industry has finally apologised for not acting quickly enough on sewage spills, pledging an additional £10 billion to clean up their act.

An apology and more investment is welcome. But as many in East Devon have been heading outside to enjoy the warm weather, we all want to see action taken right now to clean up our rivers and sea.

Back in February, I led a debate in Parliament on the performance of South West Water. I live close to the sea in Sidmouth and have been relentlessly campaigning for investment in our water infrastructure.

Recently, I was pleased to see the government unveil multi-million-pound plans to reduce spills from Sidmouth and Tipton St John’s sewage system and reduce nutrient pollution from the Axminster-Kilmington water treatment site. At the request of the government and regulator Ofwat, South West Water is now spending their money on these projects.

I also want to see action in Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton. In Exmouth, South West Water say they are working to improve Maer Road and Phear Park pumping stations’ storm overflows performance. In Budleigh Salterton, South West Water say they are working to clean the 7km sewer pipe from Lime Kilns pumping station to Maer Lane sewage treatment works. I’m monitoring their progress closely.

I firmly believe that long-overdue water company investment should not disproportionately affect bills. Water companies simply cannot spend money to clean up their mess, expect customers – you and I – to pay for it by hiking up bills, and continue to pay hefty bonuses.

This Conservative government has brought in the toughest ever crackdown on sewage spills through the Environment Act and Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan. I recently met with the Environment Agency in Exeter to discuss South West Water’s performance.

I’m also sitting down with South West Water bosses to scrutinise their latest full year results after they revealed shareholders are going to receive 10.9% increases in their payouts. It’s completely perverse to reward failure.

I won’t stop my calls for real change until South West Water put customers and our environment first.

Thames Water accused of “flimsy PR stunt” when it previously said she would give up bonuses and performance-related executive payouts.

Robert Lea www.thetimes.co.uk 

Thames Water has confirmed that its chief executive Sarah Bentley will receive pay and perks topping £1.6 million this year despite the company indicating last month that she will forgo her bonus during the sewage and leakage crisis.

News of the Bentley’s payout was condemned by trade unions, who said Thames had conducted a “flimsy PR stunt” when it previously said she would give up bonuses and performance-related executive payouts. She said she was giving up the cash because the company had not yet delivered on “a customer service and environmental performance” turnaround.

Thames confirmed that Bentley’s remuneration for the last year would include no performance-related bonus for 2023, but would still total about £1.6 million. It said all components of her pay during 2022-23 had been previously disclosed.

When Thames publishes its annual report and accounts early next month it will show that Bentley, 51, received £750,000 basic pay, pension payments of another £90,000 and other travel, car and medical benefits expected to be a further £32,000.

On top of that she received in the last year a payment of £548,000, the latest tranche of a “golden hello” compensation package for shares and bonuses she had to give up from her time working at Severn Trent, the Midlands water group from where she was poached by Thames three years ago.

In addition, Bentley has also received £178,000 as a bonus related to Thames Water’s “performance” during her first two years’ service. It is uncertain how much in bonuses and performance-related pay she has actually given up in the last financial year.

The £1.6 million she will receive for 2022-23 is not too far off the £2 million she received in the prior year — which included a £496,000 bonus — and is more than the £1.2 million she received in her first year’s service.

Gary Carter, a national officer at the GMB union, told The Guardian, which first reported on the payout: “The UK water industry is in a complete mess, with creaking infrastructure, a disgruntled workforce and effluent allowed to flow freely into our beautiful waterways. To see those responsible for this carnage pocket a king’s ransom is particularly galling.

“Ms Bentley’s announcement she won’t take a bonus, while at the same time trousering a huge total pay package, shows it was nothing more than a flimsy PR stunt.”

Thames insisted that it stood by its announcement last month that Bentley would “forgo any bonus or long-term incentive payments for the financial year 2022-23”.

It said that announcement had been accompanied by “notes to editors” which said: “Separately, in July 2022, Ms Bentley received the final compensation payment for shares in Severn Trent she relinquished on joining Thames Water.”

The performance payment relating to Bentley’s service for 2020-21 and 2021-22 had been disclosed, the company said, in its annual report last year in a footnote on page 104.

Thames, the UK’s largest water company, has been a magnet for criticism of the industry’s poor record on river pollution and leakage — in Thames’s case, nearly one litre in every four flowing through its mains pipes is lost.

A Thames Water spokesman said: “As announced in May, Sarah Bentley has decided to forgo any performance-related bonuses for 2023 financial year. As disclosed at the time and in last year’s annual report, she received a final compensation payment in July 2022 for shares in Severn Trent she relinquished on joining Thames Water.

“The decision to forgo a performance-related payment was a personal one. Ms Bentley felt it would not have been right to take a performance-related bonus given the significant headwinds the company faced last year, which impacted performance.”

Thousands of emergency overflows are not monitored for raw sewage discharge with information taken from only 10% of the total in England, a freedom of information (FOI) request has revealed.

[So multiply discharge figures quoted below ten times to get an estimate of true totals – Owl]

Danny Halpin www.standard.co.uk 

There are 7,016 emergency overflows which, unlike storm overflows, are only permitted to be used in extreme situations such as electrical power failure, a mechanical breakdown of pumps, rising main failure or blockage of the downstream sewer.

Water companies are only required to monitor emergency overflows that discharge into shellfish waters, so only 686 emergency overflows recorded data in the last two years.

Of those, 102 discharged into shellfish waters 635 times in 2021 while the following year, 86 discharged 491 times.

It’s not clear why, after the first incident, measures aren’t being taken to prevent another emergency overflow discharge

More than 60% of the emergency overflows that discharged did so on multiple occasions, raising concerns among campaigners that water companies are breaching the terms of their permits without punishment.

Dr Laura Foster of the Marine Conservation Society, who submitted the FOI request to the Environment Agency, said: “Emergency overflows are designed to be used as a last resort.

“Yet, from the tiny amount of data we do have, we can see that these discharges aren’t an uncommon occurrence, and there are repeat offences.

“It’s not clear why, after the first incident, measures aren’t being taken to prevent another emergency overflow discharge.

“Water companies are paid to treat our sewage and they need to be fulfilling this duty. The failure to put procedures in place, which they’re required to do, is putting marine life, and people, at risk.”

Last month the Guardian reported that 11 shellfish farms in Cornwall were forced to close because they were found to contain extremely high levels of E coli – a poisonous bacteria that grows in faeces.

Shellfish waters are considered to be highly sensitive, along with bathing waters, still or slow-moving water bodies, sustainable fisheries, public parks and water used for sports.

Emergency overflow permits only operate in urgent circumstances to prevent environmental damage or harm to the public and action is taken to ensure these are allocated appropriately

Water companies must demonstrate that the emergency was beyond their control and not because of a lack of maintenance and they are supposed to take all reasonable steps to prevent it happening again.

A spokesperson from Water UK said “urgent action is needed” and that water companies are putting in plans to track and reduce emergency overflow use but did not give further details.

They said: “We fully appreciate the strength of feeling about the health our rivers and seas. We get it and we are taking action to put it right. This includes investing £56 billion in the biggest modernisation of sewers since the Victorian era.

“Emergency overflows are a last resort for companies to relieve pressure on sewage pumping stations or treatment works when something goes wrong. It’s clear that urgent action is needed, which is why every water and sewerage company is putting in place plans to track and reduce their use.”

An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “Emergency overflow permits only operate in urgent circumstances to prevent environmental damage or harm to the public and action is taken to ensure these are allocated appropriately.

“We require water companies to monitor emergency overflows associated with designated shellfish waters as advised by Government.

“In 2022, emergency overflows in these locations operated at an average rate of 1.5 times per overflow a year, while over 70% were not even used. We will continue to investigate and act against permit non-compliance.”

The Marine Conservation Society said it is taking the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which oversees the Environment Agency, to court over its “inadequate” plan to tackle sewage pollution, saying its Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan should have tighter deadlines for water companies and include coastal waters.

Emma Dearnaley, legal director at the Good Law Project, said, “These extraordinary figures suggest that the true scale of the sewage dumping crisis is even more shocking and devastating than we knew.

“Good Law Project is playing its part to end this environment scandal by supporting the Marine Conservation Society and others in a High Court challenge next month which seeks to compel the Government to impose much more robust and urgent targets upon water companies to clean up their act.”