• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

The bigger picture & the biggest problem

Craig Wood

Senior Member
Taxpayers fined for water firms’ beach pollution
Jon Ungoed-Thomas Published: 21 October 2012
PrintTAXPAYERS face fines of tens of millions of pounds because privatised water companies are blighting Britain’s beaches and rivers with raw sewage.

The European Court of Justice agreed with campaigners last week that Britain had breached a waste water directive because its sewerage system became overwhelmed in wet weather, polluting beaches and waterways.

There was anger that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the failures of the country’s water companies, which have made billions of pounds in profits since the directive was introduced in 1991. Their deadline to fix the problem was December 2000.

The court’s ruling comes after The Sunday Times exposed the pollution on some of the country’s finest beaches from overflows. A fine has yet to be decided.

Although the government is liable for the fines, it will want the water companies to invest in upgrading schemes to ensure the directive is met in future.

Andy Cummins, of Surfers Against Sewage, said: “This ruling will send shock waves around the UK water industry, highlighting the overuse of overflows as a means to discharge untreated sewage onto beaches and into rivers.â€

Judges ruled that Britain had breached the 1991 directive on treating waste water by dumping raw sewage into the River Thames and at Whitburn, South Tyneside.

The decision is a triumph for Bob Latimer, a Whitburn resident who has campaigned for years over sewage pollution on the seafront.

“Government agencies have refused to answer my questions but we have made sure the water companies have been held to account,†he said.

The companies involved, Thames Water and Northumbrian Water, say they are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in upgrading the sewer network. Thames is building a £4 billion “super sewer†to stop raw sewage polluting the Thames. About 39m tons a year enters the river from 57 overflows.

Robert Keirle, of the Marine Conservation Society, said: “UK taxpayers are going to have to pay for the mistakes of Thames Water and Northumbria Water. This is a wake-up call for the industry to check the state of their sewage overflows.â€

The ruling will be used to force other water companies to act. The Environment Agency says coastal overflows should, on average, operate only three times in each bathing season. They often operate more frequently.

Surfers Against Sewage said beaches hit by regular overflow included Weston-super-Mare in Somerset, Sandbanks in Dorset and Godrevy beach in north Cornwall.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said £18.5 billion had been spent on water quality since privatisation in 1989.

It makes you think then when we had those big floods years ago how much sewage and other chemicals went into the rivers, and more important what affect its had on all fish..The point is, it was surfers who found out what was going on, as this happened last year when we had all that rain, so how many other times has this been happening???..
 
Hi Tim,
Unfortunately it just goes to show that Angling does not have ANY organisation that were prepared to fight, out of the millions that fish..
It took a small group of surfers to bring the water companies to justice..
I think that says it all really..
 
Study Confirms Estrogen in Water from the Pill Devastating to Fish Populations
by LifeSiteNews.com
Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:15 EST Comments ()
By Hilary White

ST. JOHN, New Brunswick, February 18, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study by Dr. Karen Kidd, of the University of New Brunswick and the Canadian Rivers Institute, found that estrogen from birth control pills flooding into the water system through sewage adversely affects fish populations.

The researchers added estrogen to an experimental lake at a level commonly found in the treated wastewater from cities with about 200,000 people. The researchers discovered that one consequence is that exposed male fish become feminized, producing a protein normally found in females. Chronic exposure to estrogen led to the near extinction of the lake’s fathead minnow population, as well as significant declines in larger fish, such as pearl dace and lake trout.

"We’ve known for some time that estrogen can adversely affect the reproductive health of fish, but ours was the first study to show the long-term impact on the sustainability of wild fish populations," explains Kidd.

"What we demonstrated is that estrogen can wipe out entire populations of small fish - a key food source for larger fish whose survival could in turn be threatened over the longer term."

Kidd also noted that once the estrogen levels in the water were lowered, fish populations rebounded after three years. "Once you take the stressor out the system, we now have ample evidence that suggests affected fish populations will recover," she said.

Kidd is preparing a report for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) titled, "From Kitchen Sinks to Ocean Basins: Emerging Chemical Contaminants and Human Health".

In the 1980’s and 90’s, municipalities in Canada and elsewhere began stencilling pictures of fish next to storm drains to remind citizens that toxic chemicals - such as paint and motor oil - poured into the sewers would harm the environment and wildlife. In 1998, a trendy industrial designer in San Francisco won an award for creating storm drain grates shaped like fish.

Health authorities estimate that 100 million women worldwide take some form of hormonal contraceptives; but there is still little media attention given to the growing concerns of scientists about its environmental impact. However, studies are leaking out into the mainstream press more frequently as public interest in the environment grows.

The Pill, along with numerous other commonly used chemicals, end up in the water system as estrogen. At a conference on breast cancer in Toronto in 1998, author and cancer surgeon Dr. Susan Love said, "Pollutants are metabolized in our bodies as estrogen. And it is lifetime exposure to estrogen that has increased world cancer rates by 26% since 1980….We live in a toxic soup of chemicals".

Studies are also showing significant evidence for a link between environmental estrogens and estrogen-like chemical pollutants and the earlier onset of puberty in girls.

The phenomenon of early-onset puberty in American girls is so pervasive, that the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society urged changing the definition of abnormal development. Ten years ago, breast development at age 8 was considered abnormally early, but a study in 1997 said that among 17,000 girls in North Carolina, almost half of blacks and 15 percent of whites had begun breast development by age 8. Studies from the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand have shown similar results.

The new definition for abnormally early breast development ought to be, the society says, 7 for white girls and 6 for black girls. Marcia Herman-Giddens, adjunct professor at the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, said, "My fear is that medical groups could take the data and say ‘This is normal. We don’t have to worry about it.’ My feeling is that it is not normal. It’s a response to an abnormal environment."

Conclusive studies are difficult to conduct, however, because of the all-pervasive nature of the environmental contamination. With all the estrogen-like elements in the environment, Herman-Giddens said, "it’s virtually impossible to study. There’s no place to find an unexposed population."

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Hormonal Contraceptives Pollute Drinking Water - Environmentalists Turn a Blind Eye
http://www.lifesite


This might explain why Barbel are not reproducing properly as this is linked to the above mentioned post.
 
craig if you know so much and feel so strongly why not get a job with the angling trust where you can do something about it.
 
Large organisation

I made myself a member of Surfers years ago partly because they protect one of our national treasures which is our coastline whilst being more than willing to stand up for rivers as well. They are very well funded and have a LOT of support. Go and look at their website to see what the SAS are about.

I had a quick look on the Angling Trust website to see how they measured up on the sewerage/pollution front against the Surfers.

Regards,

Lee.
 
Hi Lee,
Yes your absulutely right , SAS have great support and are an example to Anglers as to what can be achieved if you act as one..
 
Ray Walton has been banging his head against the wall for twenty odd years about this sort of thing, battling tirelessly and making a nuisance of himself wherever he could all that time. He has also fought against the ravages imposed on his beloved Hampshire Avon, the harm done by a divisive EA and all the the other bodies that have used and abused it for many years for their own ends. All he has got out of that is abuse from everyone, including many anglers who have been squawking and scrabbling around the ankles of whatever body is in power of a given area, hoping for the crumbs and favours they might glean if seen to be fighting him.

Ask him for some of his experiences over the years, he has a lot to contribute to anybody wishing to set out on the long, hard, and lonely world of fighting the criminals who have devastated half the world in the quest for the holy grail, otherwise known as the mighty dollar, required in ever greater numbers to appease the world cancer known as shareholders.

Cheers, Dave,
 
I am affraid that when someone challenges these organisations and try to tell people the TRUTH, well, they get labelled a trouble maker because the vast anount of people dont want to believe that the EA and the water authorities are very firmly in bed with each other and have been covering up the damage and pollution that they are causing..
The EA are not fit for purpose and DO NOT REPRESENT ANGLING.
Take a look at just how much of your licence money actually goes towards Angling..

" THERES NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE "

When ive read these E-Petitions calling for culls, well its embarrasing to be honest, awfully written and not even asking the correct questions, no wonder we Anglers are not being taken seriously..

What would happen if there were enough signatures asking for a motion of VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE WITH THE EA.?
 
the EA are an ENVIRONMENT AGENCY craig not FISHING agency, sorry i find your comments very misguided, most rivers are in a better state than 30 years ago just look at the river don, yes the EA have their failings but they also do some good work which you fail to acknowledge as you say yourself " THERES NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE ".
 
Hi Mark,
Perhaps then, you would like to enlighten myself and others why we pay for a EA fishing licence.?..
Also can you tell me why they have been covering up for YEARS the fact UNTREATED SEWAGE is going into river systems.?.
Can you also tell me why as little as 17% is being spent on Angling.?.After all its a FISHING licence..
What have flood defences and creating Otter runs and holts got to do with Fishing.?..
I suggest you do your research Mark before replying..
As you have said ITS AN ENVIROMENT LICENCE NOT JUST FOR FISHING...
So why on earth are ONLY Anglers paying this licence, when like you say its not to do with fishing.?..
I look forward to your reply..
 
Last edited:
As Craig says, if the EA are so much more far reaching than fishing, why do only anglers have to pay a license fee? If only 17% of our money is going on angling, why are we propping up other projects? Some anglers clearly love them, but I am not too happy about sponsoring otter holts myself :(
 
the EA are an ENVIRONMENT AGENCY craig not FISHING agency, sorry i find your comments very misguided, most rivers are in a better state than 30 years ago just look at the river don, yes the EA have their failings but they also do some good work which you fail to acknowledge as you say yourself " THERES NONE SO BLIND AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE ".

I don't think you can say "most rivers are in a better shape than 30 years ago" unless you have evidence of "most rivers" Mark!
The Thames, Cherwell, Windrush, Evenlode etc are in a worse shape than they've been for decades, never mind 30 years ago. I can't speak for rivers like the Great Ouse, Kennet, Bristol Avon, Stour, Hampshire Avon, Teme, Severn etc. but from fishing reports a lot of these are not doing so great either.
Maybe the EA do some good work unappreciated by most. But do we get value for money if only 17% of our license fees go towards angling? Who or what benefits from the other 83%?
A few years ago at the three counties show I asked an EA rep what their stand on signal crayfish was. He said the EA have no policy on signals. So one of the most destructive foreigners in our river systems is being afforded the good fortune of being ignored by the body we pay our license money to. :mad:
 
This is worth a read to get the bigger picture of where the money goes, worth noting the size of the GIA that fisheries get.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Full_annual_report_-_final.pdf

Going back to an original point, there are licenced discharges on most rivers, many of these will be from water companies and are often CSO's (combined sewage overflows). The default position has always been to discharge into our rivers and it is very historical. What we have now is the ability to get information on any river by using a FOI, very handy indeed and you will be surprised what you find out. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/list/all

Personally I deal with EA fisheries almost on a daily basis and fully support what they do, never had a problem. But the EA is a very big organisation and fisheries is just a small cog in a very big wheel. How for example can one part of the EA be promoting the use of damaging Hydropower, whilst another part is trying to improve fisheries.
 
Last edited:
Another reason why we get nowhere in all our battles with the EA and related bodies is that we cannot stick together to show them a united front. It is noticeable that whenever a discussion on this subject comes up, a certain Mark P Smith steps in firmly defending the EA, while telling us that we are all ill informed idiots who basically should keep quiet. I wonder why that should be :rolleyes:

Cheers, Dave.
 
This is worth a read to get the bigger picture of where the money goes, worth noting the size of the GIA that fisheries get.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Full_annual_report_-_final.pdf

Going back to an original point, there are licenced discharges on most rivers, many of these will be from water companies and are often CSO's (combined sewage overflows). The default position has always been to discharge into our rivers and it is very historical. What we have now is the ability to get information on any river by using a FOI, very handy indeed and you will be surprised what you find out. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/list/all

Personally I deal with EA fisheries almost on a daily basis and fully support what they do, never had a problem. But the EA is a very big organisation and fisheries is just a small cog in a very big wheel. How for example can one part of the EA be promoting the use of damaging Hydropower, whilst another part is trying to improve fisheries.

Dave, you are quite right, there is a lot the EA do that really is admirable....but sadly there is an awful lot more that is directly damaging and contrary to the wellbeing of fish and fisheries. The weird Hydropower support you mention is but the tip of the iceberg, as no doubt you are well aware. The Flood relief section is in constant battle with the fisheries section of the EA, with much of what they do so damaging to the habitat, and so many times proven to be exactly the reverse of what should have been done, it can only be labeled as criminal vandalism. There is enough proof out there to demonstrate the EA's complicity with big business to the cost of the environment, not just fisheries, that they should hang their head in shame.

The point is though, it has NOTHING to do with the foot soldiers on the front line. There are some very fine, dedicated, plain good men working for the EA, often working long hours well past what they are payed for, in selfless determination to make fisheries a better place for all, and there have been several outstanding examples of the success of that fierce dedication over the years. Sadly, even they are at times mystified and dismayed by some of the directives from above...the politics that rules the direction that the EA takes....and it is mostly to make sure big business runs smoothly, whatever the consequences to the environment may be.
Cheers, Dave .
 
Last edited:
having written a long reply to you questions then finding it had timed out and wanted me log back in i`ll answer them quickly.
1. why do we pay a fishing licence ? answers itself.
2. where do i get my info ? same place as you.
3. estrogen in the water ? canadian study on north american rivers, interesting.
4. dave no i dont work for the EA
5.if you feel strongly about the rivers join a body with he clout to do something.
6. ouse fisherman should help karen twine with her study to prove if the problems are true.
7. dont want this to spiral out of control as we are all anglers so your right i`m wrong.but some people say things and some DO things.
 
Some say things and some DO things is true Mark, but don't assume anyone whos says anything does nothing! This is a forum, for discussion, to exchange views and opinions, irrespective of who does what. Everyone has differing circumsatnces, some barely have time for fishing let alone being active in water quality control. Does that mean they should be denied an opinion?

Also your first point; why do we pay a fishing licence ? answers itself. How does it, other than as a legal obligation?

Maybe the question should be re-phrased "what value do we get for our money spent in license fees?" Because that certainly doesn't answer itself!
 
Last edited:
hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply..I lookforward to seeing the results from your research..I certainly support what your doing and wish you every success..Theres a chap in my fishing club who does the same as you Mark, and i always enjoy reading what he writes..
I have been researching and gathering information for nearly 2 years now about the pollution that is being discharged into our rivers, after a good friend of mine showed me some info they had collected from Sandbanks beach..My friend is a active member of SAS..It is shocking to say the least..
The info that was gatherd from Canada Mark is relevant to all countries..
I fully intend to speak to my MP once i can make a appointment, because the EA and the water authorities WILL NOT GIVE YOU ANY INFO or indeed recognise the facts that are given to them which is why they have been found guilty in the EU law courts which pretty much amounts to a huge cover up by all concerned..
I do fully intend to challenge the EA as to why ONLY ANGLERS are paying for a Enviroment licence and more important why the money is being spent on projects that have no benefit to Angling..
Again can i just say, the best of luck with your research Mark, we have infact got something in common..WE CARE...
 
Back
Top