Forum Topic

Our filthy Thames

Testing carried out along the route of the boat race has found E coli levels that are three times above the threshold for poor bathing water status.  I'm not especially concerned about the boat race, but what this report emphasises, yet again, is the rotten behaviour of Thames Water, who are an absolute disgrace.https://riveractionuk.com/dont-throw-the-cox-in-sir-steve-river-action-slam-thames-pollution-before-boat-race/

Richard Carter ● 112d18 Comments

An SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) as opposed to a Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle!

Philippa Bond ● 102d

Peter,the Super Sewer was delivered by Tideway a completely different company. We will have an additional cost on the Water bill specifically for it.A separate company was created because the water companies didn't have the investment needed."Bazalgette Tunnel Limited (BTL) is the licensed infrastructure provider for its finance, building, maintenance and operation. It has as investors: Allianz, Amber Infrastructure, Dalmore Capital and DIF. Since the licence award, it also trades as Tideway. On 3 November 2015, the award was made by Ofwat, ensuring the start of the project.[6]"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Tunnel

Ed Robinson ● 102d

Our older buildings have combined drainage for sewage and rainwater and this increases the amount of dirty water leaving our homes.  Newer buildings will be required to put in other ways to dispose of rainwater eg soakaways and attentuation tanks - only it appears that some of them avoid doing this presumably because of increased cost to the developer or client.Just think of all the ensuite bathrooms, shower rooms, inside loos, washing machines, dishwashers etc that people want and use nowadays that have been added to so many homes since they were originally built.  In older homes this will often mean that some dirty water is disposed of directly via rainwater downpipes as that is the easiest connection to make.I read recently that we have the highest per capita water use in Europe, probably because we have some of the oldest homes! All of our incoming tapwater is treated to drinking water standards and this is why some effort on the part of users -where they can - to reduce the amount of drinking standard water they use for watering gardens etc has long been promoted and certainly used to be far more usual than it seems now.  Universities have trialled installing water butts to houses along one side of a road to see what difference it would make and it has been proven to make a large difference.Privatisation or part privatisation of Building Control has also changed the relationship of developers and those charged with inspecting any works and perhaps also their understanding of how local buildings were built, historical events and topography of local areas.https://www.cibsejournal.com/news/privatisation-eroded-building-control-rigour-inquiry-told/(CIBSE = The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers)  The link above was written re Grenfell but that horrendous event highlighted the problems caused all over the construction industry by deregulation.   

Philippa Bond ● 103d

Before constantly bashing the water companies it might be best first to come up with some properly thought out alternatives. They exist primarily to keep the massive capital investment required in our water system off the national balance sheet. We are too heavily indebted to take on directly the burden.Given this is where we are, I am struggling to see why Thames is being singled out as the bad guy. They have delivered the Super Sewer and it appears to be working. The ongoing pollution of the Thames appears to be caused mainly by two things - misconnected sewers and the pumping of treated sewage back into the river. The former should be the responsibility of the local authority to stop through building inspections. The latter is part of Thames is contract with the government. If we wanted pristine water to emerge from sewage works it can be done but we would have to pay for it. It is not primarily down to Thames to sort either of these problems.

Peter Higgins ● 103d

British rail,  British steel, The water board etcUnless my memory fails me none of these were well run when previously nationalised.

Andy Pike ● 105d

Perhaps a government backed adverts could explain:"Tell Sid it's not safe to go in the water"Perhaps if we had Trump as PM:"Australia/France etc - we want our money back!"

Ed Robinson ● 105d

https://www.discovereconomics.co.uk/post/has-privatisation-failedWasn't it the second ownership of Thames Water that borrowed heavily using the company as collateral as any company who had control of a monopoly with a guaranteed increasing consumer base would be able to do?  This left them with huge debt caused by high interest rates.Ofwat in the past has refused to increase the price of water.  The Environment Agency was heavily reduced in strength due to austerity measures and was not regularly testing water.  All rivers in the UK were considered heavily polluted and unfit to swim in and there are just parts of some now which after a lot of work - much by charities and concerned users and lovers of those rivers many of whom want to swim in them are now at times tested and found fit to swim in.  Surfers Against Sewage have maps showing where the latest sewage spills and discharges have taken/are taking place which  make it dangerous to swim in the water.https://datahq.sas.org.uk/sewage-data-hq/is-it-safe-to-swim/

Philippa Bond ● 105d

Is water a vital infrastructure?Could a foreign:  government/governments/state owned/state regulated entities/entities or just private entities - just buy it up and turn it into a financial and operating disaster?The answer appears to be yes.Of course if the Chinese had bought it then I'm sure people would be screaming for it to be nationalised.Another Thatcher disaster that will cost billions of bill payers money to right.It looks like the bill payer has to throw more money down the drain until this government, like the previous accepts that Thames Water has hit the fan!

Ed Robinson ● 109d

As I understand it, if Thames Water had not got the loan to bail it out then if it had gone into administration the government could have taken it over without compensation; now it is effectively a going concern shareholders et al would have to be compensated. If British Steel is no longer a viable company according to its Chinese owners then presumably it will effectively go into administration and can be acquired by the government. I suppose they may agree to pay a 'peppercorn' amount to acquire it to avoid the complexity of an administrator? One would need advice from a mergers and acquisition specialist for that - not an IT person who's just watched M&S from the sidelines.

Michael Ixer ● 109d

' I'm not especially concerned about the boat race, but what this report emphasises, yet again, is the rotten behaviour of Thames Water, who are an absolute disgrace'.Quite right not to concern yourself with the H&S of a few public school toffs.But surely the answer is for the Labour Government to nationalise and run it itself as I understand it plans to do with British (sic) Steel.

John Hawkes ● 109d

This account of misconnections is interesting as their discovery may come back to to bite the current owners.The trouble is the misconnections may only be discovered after the buildings or flats have changed hands several times:https://www.londoncentric.media/p/revealed-the-london-flats-pushing

Philippa Bond ● 110d

How disgusting that needs reporting to the RSPCA, people throwing their animals in the river, so cruel.

Barbara Stevens ● 111d

Flea prevention treatment for pets is finding its way into our rivers and polluting them.https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/243875/toxic-flea-tick-treatments-polluting-uk/

Philippa Bond ● 111d

There is a big problem with misconnections to pipework.  Much of London has combined rainwater and sewage connections.  Too many new connections for new developments are made to the wrong pipes and it's too easy to pass the buck.https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conmisconntectedsewers001.htm

Philippa Bond ● 111d

thanks Richard.Worth watching the 3 part iplayer documentary if you get a chance.

Michael Brigo ● 112d

According to Thames themselves (https://www.thameswater.co.uk/about-us/projects/thames-tideway-tunnel), it has a number of purposes, including:*  to reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in a typical year by 95%. *  to collect sewage so it can be treated before entering the river.*  to decrease over fifty sewage spills a year to around five. These will mostly contain surface water runoff after heavy stormsConsidering the lack of rainfall this month (so far none, compared with the normal  average of 42mm), the tunnel isn't relevant to this so its down, as usual, to Thames Water's incompetence/heedlessness.

Richard Carter ● 112d

Isn't the tideway tunnel supposed to have fixed that? or is it not fully open yet?

Michael Brigo ● 112d

Why do you think last year at Chiswick they were not allowed to throw them in the water at the end of the race, this is nothing new.

Barbara Stevens ● 112d