Experts: Reducing sewage spills could be much cheaper than UK ministers expect

[ad_1]

Government claims that cutting millions of hours annually from raw sewage discharged into rivers by water companies would cost up to £660 billion have been challenged by experts.

On Tuesday night, peers continued to pressure the government to enshrine a legal duty on water companies to limit the discharge of raw sewage into rivers and seas.

The House of Lords, by 213 votes to 60, supported a proposal to impose a new statutory duty on water companies to “take all reasonable steps” to prevent sewage discharges.

It came after an 11-hour shift by ministers who promised they would introduce their own amendment to the environment law to impose a legal duty on businesses.

Zach Goldsmith emphasized that the government would include in the Environmental Code “a direct legal duty on water companies to gradually reduce the negative effects of storm floods.”

But controversy has been brewing over ministerial claims that the cost of reducing wastewater discharge could reach £660 billion.

Water companies released raw sewage into rivers more than 400,000 times last year through storm surge floods, totaling more than 3.1 million hours. Their use is only allowed in exceptional circumstances, such as after heavy rain.

The environment minister, Rebecca Bow, told MPs that reducing these leaks could cost between £150 billion and £660 billion, but she did not say how she came up with those figures.

Conservative MPs quoted the same numbers last week to voters, telling them it would be irresponsible for any government to spend an estimated initial cost of between £150 billion and £650 billion to transform the entire sewage system.

But it is understood that in an analysis by the Storm Flood Task Force, made up of the Environment Agency, the Water Industry and Ofwat, which has yet to be published, more modest costs were estimated to treat the raw sewage discharge blight.

Sources say the £660bn figure does not appear anywhere in the report. The Angling Trust said the report cites a range of low-cost options to gradually deal with the worst and most dangerous wastewater discharges ranging from £3.9 billion to £62.7 billion, with an impact on average water bills between £19 and £58. general.

It is also understood that an overall plan to reduce storm flood spills to an average of 10 per year in sensitive areas would cost between £13.5 billion and £21.7 billion.

Christine Colvin, of the Rivers Trust, said the sheer range of government figures – between £150bn and £650bn – suggested a low level of confidence in them.

She said that the real costs could be much lower, and that treating the volume of raw sewage pollution does not require a complete disconnection of the sewage systems, because some of the system is already operational. “No one is suggesting digging up the entire sewage system and starting from scratch,” Colvin said.

“We know that nature-based solutions are more difficult to cost, but in some places they can be cheaper. They also bring multiple benefits – they help nature recover, they can provide new green and blue spaces and absorb carbon rather than emit it.

“These things need to be seriously considered by water companies, developers, and local governments as primary solutions… We also need to consider the cost of pollution in our rivers and not act. Right now this is externalizing to the environment and the next generation. This is not something we should justify or continue. “.

Hugo Tagholm of the campaign group Surfers Against Sewage said putting the £660bn figure in the public domain was misinformation intended to frighten the public.

The numbers are somewhere in the region between £3.7 billion and £62. billion to deal with the worst sewage pollution. This is well within the earnings and profits of these companies and if it is passed on to the bill payer, it can be done at a reasonable level.”

Analysis published by the Guardian last year showed that nine English water companies paid out £57bn in profits over the three decades after privatization.

A government spokesman said the report of a working group weathering the storm would be released soon. They said the environment bill would return to the House of Commons next week.

[ad_2]