Water & Wastewater Treatment

6 | FEBRUARY 2016 | WWT | www.wwtonline.co.uk Comment A n unwelcome milestone was passed this month when Thames Water was fined £1M for polluting the Grand Union Canal in Hertfordshire with sewage – the first time a water company has faced a seven-figure penalty following a prosecution by the Environment Agency. The judge in the case le- little doubt that he was intending to send a message with such a large fine, commenting: "The time has now come for the courts to make clear that very large organisations such as Thames Water really must bring about the reforms and improvements for which they say they are striving, because if they do not, the sentences passed upon them for environmental offences will be sufficiently severe to have a significant impact on their finances." While the magnitude of the fine for A fine mess the pollution incident (which dates from 2012-3) might surprise, Thames is far from alone. South West Water, Severn Trent and Southern Water have been slapped with six-figure penalties in the last three months, and there has been a huge increase in the level of fines imposed since a change to the Sentencing Council guidelines for Environmental Offences was introduced in 2014. In many cases large fines can be justified by the extent of the clean- up costs required for any individual incident, but the key factor that has changed in the determination of these burgeoning fines is greater consideration of companies' ability to pay. Because water and sewerage companies in England are without exception large organisations, high penalties are now the order of the day - with the extra unwelcome ingredient that with so much money at stake, companies will spend more time contesting and appealing the cases and sentences, adding to legal costs. There is a contrast here with the agricultural sector, which was responsible for more serious pollution incidents (97) in 2014 than the water James brockett eDItor JamesBrockett@fav-house.com Twitter: @wwtmag sector (61). Since farms are invariably smaller concerns than water companies they received nothing like the level of penalties for similar level offences. This inequality becomes even more marked when lower level pollution is taken into account. Unpermitted pollution of rivers by pesticides is a significant problem which o-en ends up at the door of the water company which is abstracting water lower down the catchment. Yet o-en the solution to this revolves around carrots rather than sticks, with catchment management techniques incentivising the farmer to make changes, sometimes at the water company's expense. Few hearts will bleed among the general public at this disparity or the plight of water companies having to stump up a fine, but there has to be some doubt about whether spiralling penalties will actually have the desired effect. At a time when water companies are striving to become more customer-focused, it is questionable whether super-fines – which go straight to the Treasury rather than being put to any beneficial use – will hit the right target.

• Cover