Can you believe this? The government has privately asked water companies to explore saving money on future water supplies by assuming unrealistically low levels of climate change.

On sewage: the Environment Agency appears to ask companies [in a letter] to stick to the bare legal minimum on environmental efforts to save money. “You are expected to explore opportunities to phase non-statutory commitments including net zero to future price review periods where appropriate.”

Angling and river groups, including the Rivers Trust, warn the government that pushing back schemes to 2030 would “delay essential environmental action and, ultimately, increase costs to consumers”.

Separately, the Liberal Democrats accused water firms of a “scandalous cover-up”, after the companies said they either did not know or would not hand over data on how much sewage they were spilling into rivers and seas.

(And can you believe this? Regulators do not instruct water companies to monitor volume of sewage, only the duration and number of times it is discharged. Last year there were more than 300,000 spills.)

So how many gallons of poo (or Olympic sized swimming pools) were discharged, for example, in the 3,252 hours of spillage from Honiton and Gitisham into the Otter, or from the 1,077 hours from Woodbury into the Exe in 2022?

Not forgetting the direct discharges from all the coastal towns directly into the sea. – Owl

Water Firms can assume “climate change will be low” to cut costs

Adam Vaughan www.thetimes.co.uk 

Water firms are required to publish “water resources management plans” every five years for how they will ensure the water supply for the next 25 years, including new reservoirs and transfers from wet to dry parts of the country.

Amid rising government concern about how environmental targets will push up consumer water bills, the Environment Agency wrote to water companies in July to ask them to ensure their plans “protect your customers from adverse bill impacts”.

The agency said Thérèse Coffey, the environment secretary, had asked it to “investigate the scale of investment needed” in the context of “many families and individuals struggling to pay their utility bills”.

The regulator said companies should see how they could minimise costs from 2030 onwards, while meeting legal requirements. One option given was to see if money could be saved by assuming a “low climate change scenario”.

In the scenario, countries around the world would act dramatically to cut carbon emissions and ensure the global average temperature rose by only 1.6C above pre-industrial levels.

However, such a low level is considered unlikely. The United Nations has said countries’ climate plans put the world on track for 2.4C of warming at best and 2.8C at worst.

Earth has already warmed by 1.2C above the 1850-1900 average due to climate change and July was the hottest month on record.

“With hot tub temperatures at sea and many rivers still recovering from drought, the climate and nature crisis is clearly upon us. Yet the government is steering water companies toward the most optimistic warming scenarios,” said Eleanor Ward, policy officer at Wildlife and Countryside Link, an alliance of environmental groups including the National Trust and RSPB.

Climate change is expected to bring hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters to Britain, putting pressure on water supplies. Even with an “exceptionally wet” July, parts of southwest England remain in drought. Devon and Cornwall remain under a hosepipe ban dating back to last summer.

The latest water supply plans include £14 billion of investment that would create seven new reservoirs, including at Havant Thicket near Portsmouth. Together they would provide an extra two billion litres of water a day, more than the 2.6 billion that the UK’s biggest water firm, Thames Water, provides today.

The Environment Agency asked water companies whether the “basic climate change scenario” would risk their water supply plans or if it might leave the firms “vulnerable to climate change”.

A spokesman for trade group Water UK said: “We strongly oppose the watering down of any plans that will help to safeguard water supplies in a changing climate. Last year’s record-breaking temperatures and the ongoing droughts across Europe are a reminder that investment in water resources must be a priority.”

In a separate letter to water companies, about the industry’s “national environment programme”, the Environment Agency appears to ask companies to stick to the bare legal minimum on environmental efforts to save money.

In one passage, companies are told: “You are expected to explore opportunities to phase non-statutory commitments including net zero to future price review periods where appropriate.” That implies ways of reducing carbon emissions — such as treating sewage with reedbeds rather than more carbon-intensive infrastructure at treatment works — could be delayed to 2030 and beyond.

Water industry figures think the government has realised how much its pledges on sewage pollution will push up water bills, and is now asking companies what they can cut to keep bills down. Normally, suggestions for what should be cut would come from the Environment Agency itself, but in this case firms are being told to look again at their plans for savings.

In a letter to Coffey’s department, environment, angling and river groups, including the Rivers Trust, warn the government that pushing back schemes to 2030 would “delay essential environmental action and, ultimately, increase costs to consumers”.

They added it put nature goals at risk. “This requirement on companies is out of step with the government’s commitment to halt and reverse the decline of nature by 2030,” the groups said.

Separately, the Liberal Democrats accused water firms of a “scandalous cover-up”, after the companies said they either did not know or would not hand over data on how much sewage they were spilling into rivers and seas.

However, regulators do not instruct water companies to monitor volume of sewage, only the duration and number of times it is discharged. Last year there were more than 300,000 spills.

The government was contacted for comment.