Lifted from the BBC Website:

England's largest lake is on the verge of "catastrophe" unless urgent action is taken to improve its water quality, a conservationist has warned.
Blue-green algae blooms, which make humans ill and can be fatal to animals, are increasing on Windermere, zoologist Matt Staniek said.
The blooms also reduce aquatic oxygen levels, which affects fish numbers.
Organisations responsible for the lake's water quality say their long-term plan is tackling the issue.
Algal blooms feed on nutrients from phosphate, and Mr Staniek says about 40% of the phosphate in Windermere, in the Lake District, comes from sewage from waste treatment sites owned by United Utilities.
A further 30% is from septic tanks belonging to homeowners and holiday lets with agricultural sources, such as run-off from farming land and animals entering the water, responsible for another 30%.

Full article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-61897192

And it would be a catastrophe. Hopefully if it’s kept in the spotlight action will be taken. It is concerning to read what’s actually being deposited in the lake, I thought we’d stopped things like this happening.

Blue-green algae comes and goes in all the lakes. They are checked regularly, and to be fair notices go up as soon as it is detected, so that people know not to let their dogs swim in it.

The Tories voted to let water companies keep dumping sewage in rivers and lakes. Not one is fit to swim in after being tested.

Maybe the biggest Lake in England and massive tourist destination being out of bounds can change it for the better?

Further down in the article it would appear that UU are doing their bit and it’s farmers and the number of visitors that need to be looked at.

Never realised that sewage is dumped in lakes. How does it make its way out??

Alanstevensonsgloves wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:27 pm

Never realised that sewage is dumped in lakes. How does it make its way out??

Windermere is fed by rivers.

Quickenthetempo wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:41 pm

Windermere is fed by rivers.

And emptied by one too, The River Leven into Morecambe Bay

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:25 pm

Further down in the article it would appear that UU are doing their bit and it’s farmers and the number of visitors that need to be looked at.

Doing their bit by dumping raw sewage into the lake you mean?

There needs to be much higher level of debate held in this country. This very important issue is a case in point.

The idea of sewerage companies being like evil Mr Burns figures "dumping" sewage into the water is only going to hamper the debate and hinder what all right-minded people want: massive reductions (and outright elimination) of untreated waste in our water systems.

deanothedino wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 12:54 pm

Doing their bit by dumping raw sewage into the lake you mean?

Have you read the article?

Windermere ceased to have any use when they put a speed limit on it and effectively stopped water skiing!

Rowls wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:13 pm

There needs to be much higher level of debate held in this country. This very important issue is a case in point.

The idea of sewerage companies being like evil Mr Burns figures "dumping" sewage into the water is only going to hamper the debate and hinder what all right-minded people want: massive reductions (and outright elimination) of untreated waste in our water systems.

When its cheaper to pay the fines than actually build the infrastructure so it doesn't do this then that is not going to happen

Will someone not think of the share price?

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:28 pm

When its cheaper to pay the fines than actually build the infrastructure so it doesn't do this then that is not going to happen

Will someone not think of the share price?

Share price or utility bill price?

They're linked, you see.

And you've demonstrated perfectly what I mentioned earlier about the standard of debate we are capable of in this country these days.

We could stop ALL sewage getting into our water systems virtually overnight - but what we need to discuss very sensibly is the cost/benefit analysis and what we are prepared to pay.

Our water sytems are generally healthier than they have been since we became an industrial nation but we need to work tirelessly to improve them and make them cleaner.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:13 pm

There needs to be much higher level of debate held in this country. This very important issue is a case in point.

The idea of sewerage companies being like evil Mr Burns figures "dumping" sewage into the water is only going to hamper the debate and hinder what all right-minded people want: massive reductions (and outright elimination) of untreated waste in our water systems.

When it happens hundreds of thousands of times in a year it's a little difficult to describe it as anything else.

aggi wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:33 pm

When it happens hundreds of thousands of times in a year it's a little difficult to describe it as anything else.

Don't agree with your definition of dumping there aggi. It doesn't have anything to do with frequency.

The word connotes a kind of deliberate action when the truth is that it is allowed to happen because there aren't many other options in time of high rainfall.

Here's an article from the Guardian (who never miss an opportunity to make a political point) and they deserve a lot of credit for this article for avoiding the excesses of partisanship and not using misleading descriptions like "dumping":

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ater-firms

Here's a link to the government plan to continue dealing with the problem:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/larg ... discharges

Some interesting points.

My take: I remember the 70’s and the state of our waterways… it was filthy. A hell of a lot of money was spent bringing them up to the levels we now expect. However, how much attention is being paid to maintaining these standards through COVID and now air pollution being more fashionable among politicians?

We are slipping backwards and its not good. I think it was the early 80’s the last time Windermere was off limits because of pollution levels… that would be very very bad news for the Cumbrian economy.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:32 pm

Share price or utility bill price?

They're linked, you see.

And you've demonstrated perfectly what I mentioned earlier about the standard of debate we are capable of in this country these days.

We could stop ALL sewage getting into our water systems virtually overnight - but what we need to discuss very sensibly is the cost/benefit analysis and what we are prepared to pay.

Our water sytems are generally healthier than they have been since we became an industrial nation but we need to work tirelessly to improve them and make them cleaner.

Better than they were in the 19th century?

Yes

Good enough for a country in the 21st century?

Not a chance

Come on mate, how much dividends have been taken out by the utilities companies since privatisation?

I wonder what you could do to the Victorian era infrastructure with that?

But no, apparently the problem is the "calibre of the debate"

Never change Rowls, never change!

Rowls wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:43 pm

Don't agree with your definition of dumping there aggi. It doesn't have anything to do with frequency.

The word connotes a kind of deliberate action when the truth is that it is allowed to happen because there aren't many other options in time of high rainfall.

Here's an article from the Guardian (who never miss an opportunity to make a political point) and they deserve a lot of credit for this article for avoiding the excesses of partisanship and not using misleading descriptions like "dumping":

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ater-firms

Here's a link to the government plan to continue dealing with the problem:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/larg ... discharges

Do you not think that if something is happening hundreds of thousands of times in a year that it is deliberate?

If it isn't deliberate then it must be incredibly incompetent.

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:54 pm

Better than they were in the 19th century?

Yes

Good enough for a country in the 21st century?

Not a chance

Come on mate, how much dividends have been taken out by the utilities companies since privatisation?

I wonder what you could do to the Victorian era infrastructure with that?

But no, apparently the problem is the "calibre of the debate"

Never change Rowls, never change!

From the "Drought" page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... _by_volume

There's very little that is Victorian about our water management system these days.

Having clean waterways is one of those aspects of life that can always be done better. I'm not inclined to turn it into a silly political point scoring opportunity.

aggi wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:56 pm

Do you not think that if something is happening hundreds of thousands of times in a year that it is deliberate?

If it isn't deliberate then it must be incredibly incompetent.

You mean to say it is raining deliberately?

Increased urbanisation has led to a big increase in "flash flooding" and this is overloading many of our sewerage systems. The choice then is stark - allow it overflow in our towns, cities and in the streets or allow it to overflow into rivers that run into the sea.

They're both bad choices but you have to choose.

Sadly, with rampant inflation and the economic downturn we're facing after putting the world economy into lockdown (and paying people to sit on their behinds for over a year) I fear there will be little appetite for the solution to the sewage problem which is massive public spending.

It's one of the most important things a government can do but it's also one of the most expensive.

Jel wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:25 pm

Windermere ceased to have any use when they put a speed limit on it and effectively stopped water skiing!

The boat wakes would create a flow to the banks that would keep the algae down. A terrible decision to ban speed boats from every ‘mere.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:57 pm

From the "Drought" page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... _by_volume

There's very little that is Victorian about our water management system these days.

Having clean waterways is one of those aspects of life that can always be done better. I'm not inclined to turn it into a silly political point scoring opportunity.

You know he's struggling when

- He uses wikipedia as a source

- He decides to use the "I'm not inclined to turn it into a silly political point scoring opportunity"

Anyone who wants to can find out exactly how much in dividends have been taken out by the utiltities companies, and as you can imagine, if that had been invested in infrastructure then we wouldn't be having this conversation

If anyone is really interested (rather than just trying to make cheap political points that blow up in your face), then follow Fergal Sharkey on twitter (yes, that one, but he's also a huge campaigner on the damage being done to the waterways of this country)

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:04 pm

You know he's struggling when

- He uses wikipedia as a source

- He decides to use the "I'm not inclined to turn it into a silly political point scoring opportunity"

Anyone who wants to can find out exactly how much in dividends have been taken out by the utiltities companies, and as you can imagine, if that had been invested in infrastructure then we wouldn't be having this conversation

If anyone is really interested (rather than just trying to make cheap political points that blow up in your face), then follow Fergal Sharkey on twitter (yes, that one, but he's also a huge campaigner on the damage being done to the waterways of this country)

Yes, there's every chance that list of reservoirs is entirely made up....

By all means follow Fergal - I'm very much in favour of campaigning to continually bring down these disgusting discharges but I haven't seen any sensible ideas put forward.

There is an "easy" answer to the problem and I've already explained what it is - massive public expenditure.

The better answer, for our overall prosperity, is to keep making our rivers cleaner and healthier - something we've been heading in the correct direction at doing for generations now. We can always do better on this.

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:04 pm

You know he's struggling when

- He uses wikipedia as a source

- He decides to use the "I'm not inclined to turn it into a silly political point scoring opportunity"

Anyone who wants to can find out exactly how much in dividends have been taken out by the utiltities companies, and as you can imagine, if that had been invested in infrastructure then we wouldn't be having this conversation

If anyone is really interested (rather than just trying to make cheap political points that blow up in your face), then follow Fergal Sharkey on twitter (yes, that one, but he's also a huge campaigner on the damage being done to the waterways of this country)

Spot the irony in criticising Wikipedia as a source, and recommending Twitter instead?

Rowls wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:09 pm

There is an "easy" answer to the problem and I've already explained what it is - massive public expenditure.

Yes, yes indeed.. Possibly the kind of cash that's been whacked out amongst utility company shareholders in the last 20 years.
In fact, why not that very same cash?

dsr wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:53 pm

Spot the irony in criticising Wikipedia as a source, and recommending Twitter instead?

Nothing Ironic - Wikipedia can be written by anyone. Twitter allows you to draw from named experts, organisations and other legitimate experts. In fact I’d say twitter is exceptional, you only get back what you ask for… I get none of the tittle tattle I hear so much about, because I don’t ask for it.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:16 pm

Yes, yes indeed.. Possibly the kind of cash that's been whacked out amongst utility company shareholders in the last 20 years.
In fact, why not that very same cash?

https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/you ... y/profits/

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:16 pm

Yes, yes indeed.. Possibly the kind of cash that's been whacked out amongst utility company shareholders in the last 20 years.
In fact, why not that very same cash?

There’s a bit of a theme here isn’t there? Privatise with the explanation that they’ll solve the problem. Billions get taken out as profit/dividends and when big money needs spending it has to come from the public purse.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:16 pm

Yes, yes indeed.. Possibly the kind of cash that's been whacked out amongst utility company shareholders in the last 20 years.
In fact, why not that very same cash?

Its basic isn't it?

But if you are completely ideologically driven, and ignore experts, then you just can't (or won't) see it

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:38 pm

Its basic isn't it?

But if you are completely ideologically driven, and ignore experts, then you just can't (or won't) see it

https://www.ofwat.gov.uk/households/you ... y/profits/

I don't recall seeing much from Labour on the problem that went down well with the public.

Jeremy Corbyn said he'd renationalize the water companies. The public weren't persuaded enough to buy into his ideas on how to run the country.

https://www.policyconnect.org.uk/news/l ... astructure

There are pros and cons each approach. One con to nationalization would be the upfront cost and also the added burden of putting investment costs back onto the taxpayer.

You've pointed out that dividends could be kept by the nationalized industries.

But has anyone ever come up with a fully costed plan of how much it would cost us to increase infrastructure to eliminate all cases of discharging sewage into our water system? Has a "serious" Labour leader ever put forward an alternative?

You tell me. I genuinely don't recall hearing any such proposition. Maybe it just wasn't particularly newsworthy?

Can’t remember it having this problem when speedboats were allowed on it. Went water skiing ( inc falling in) and swam in it loads of times then.

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:21 pm

Have you read the article?

Yes. United Utilities have pulled the wool over your eyes at least.

deanothedino wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:20 pm

Yes. United Utilities have pulled the wool over your eyes at least.

But not yours you smart cookie!

Anyone who considers that the situation would be any better under the " dead hand " of state control is deluded ...

It's ok to go on about political point scoring, but this government had a real chance to do something about this by supporting the recent bill. Instead, they were put under a whip to vote against it, and each MP received a text from central government to placate complaints from constituents. My local Conservative MP (not Burnley) was incensed and refused to offer the document (which he referred to as 'a fabrication') to his constituents.

I've seen the text and apart from anything else, it is factually incorrect.

Clarets4me wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:15 pm

Anyone who considers that the situation would be any better under the " dead hand " of state control is deluded ...

You’ve no idea as to whether it would be better or not. What is being discussed is what’s happening NOW under private ownership.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:01 pm

Sadly, with rampant inflation and the economic downturn we're facing after putting the world economy into lockdown (and paying people to sit on their behinds for over a year) I fear there will be little appetite for the solution to the sewage problem which is massive public spending.

Inflation, economic downturn and the need to squeeze a profit out of absolutely everything, including shyte

As is the norm, there’s some real agenda driven tosh on this thread.

RMutt wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:44 pm

You’ve no idea as to whether it would be better or not. What is being discussed is what’s happening NOW under private ownership.

What is happening is that United Utilities are having to repair/maintain/improve a system that suffered from decades of under investment and negligence from successive Governments of all stripes ....

Blue green Algae is pretty cyclical, I've noticed a fair bit this year. Even in my garden pond.

And it's actually nowhere near as toxic as generally advertised.

Clarets4me wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:31 pm

What is happening is that United Utilities are having to repair/maintain/improve a system that suffered from decades of under investment and negligence from successive Governments of all stripes ....

Isn't that exactly what they should be expected to do?
They've bought it, presumably knowing what they needed to do. Get on and sort it.

Clarets4me wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:31 pm

What is happening is that United Utilities are having to repair/maintain/improve a system that suffered from decades of under investment and negligence from successive Governments of all stripes ....

United Utilities have taken too much money out and not put enough money back in

I do take your point that successive governments have not forced them to do more

There is no long term vision for anything in this country, and there is no sign of that changing anytime soon

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:31 pm

United Utilities have taken too much money out and not put enough money back in. I do take your point that successive governments have not forced them to do more.
There is no long term vision for anything in this country, and there is no sign of that changing anytime soon

I think United Utilities are doing a decent job considering that they also have a fiduciary duty to Shareholders. They inherited 7m customers and two huge housing conurbations in Manchester/Liverpool with old infrastructure. The one thing to their advantage is that, being in the North West, they are seldom short of their raw material .... water ! Even after this dry spell, United Utilities reservoirs are at over 70% of capacity.

I do agree with you on the long term vision thing ....

Clarets4me wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:42 pm

I think United Utilities are doing a decent job considering that they also have a fiduciary duty to Shareholders. They inherited 7m customers and two huge housing conurbations in Manchester/Liverpool with old infrastructure. The one thing to their advantage is that, being in the North West, they are seldom short of their raw material .... water ! Even after this dry spell, United Utilities reservoirs are at over 70% of capacity.

I do agree with you on the long term vision thing ....

You see, that is where I have a real issue

I don't think fiduciary duty to shareholders should come before dumping raw sewage into our waterways

Call me weird like!

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:50 pm

I don't think fiduciary duty to shareholders should come before dumping raw sewage into our waterways

We completely agree on the desire to keep sewage out of our water, Lancs. But how best to do that?

That's the thing that you're (almost deliberately) failing to understand. Nobody wants to discharge sewage into the water, it's just that sometimes the cost of keeping sewage out of the water is prohibitively high. Are you saying you would set zero upper limit on the taxpayer cost?

Clarets4me wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:42 pm

The one thing to their advantage is that, being in the North West, they are seldom short of their raw material .... water ! Even after this dry spell, United Utilities reservoirs are at over 70% of capacity.

When it comes to overflowing systems, the fact that there is such an ambundance of water in the UK is more of a hindrence than a help.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:29 am

We completely agree on the desire to keep sewage out of our water, Lancs. But how best to do that?

That's the thing that you're (almost deliberately) failing to understand. Nobody wants to discharge sewage into the water, it's just that sometimes the cost of keeping sewage out of the water is prohibitively high. Are you saying you would set zero upper limit on the taxpayer cost?

And the other question being: Are you prepared for the alternative?

That's having turds floating down our high streets BTW

Sorry to be graphic but that IS the alternative.

Lancasterclaret wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:50 pm

You see, that is where I have a real issue

I don't think fiduciary duty to shareholders should come before dumping raw sewage into our waterways

Call me weird like!

Weird like.