5 ms·

Does that mean they are dumping raw sewage directly into the river? Treatment plants usually remove all solids before releasing effluent into bodies of water.

eesmith 4y ago
As I understand it, these come from overflow pipes. That it, sewer is normally treated, but the same sewer system also include storm sewers. The treatment capacity isn't high enough to handle big storms, so when there's too much rain, yes, they dump raw sewage directly into the water. They could improve this, but that would cost money, which means rich people would make less profit or pay more taxes. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56590219 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56590219 adds "It's believed that wet wipes make up at least 90% of the material causing sewers to block." That would lessen with a ban on selling plastic-based wet wipes.
- scotty79 4y ago
  That's terrible setup that should be updated.
  - orobinson 4y ago
    A huge tunnel is being dug under the Thames for sewage overflow to prevent this from happening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Scheme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Scheme
- bequanna 4y ago
  > They could improve this, but that would cost money, which means rich people would make less profit or pay more taxes. Not sure how the English handle this kind of taxation but in the US most municipalities would spread the cost of a project like this over all users or add as some assessment to property taxes. In other words, not just “rich people” would pay for it. There are still quite a few otherwise modern cities in the US that also have this legacy problem (shared sewer + storm drain). My guess is that the cost is considered to be far too high to rip up and rebuild these systems.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I didn't say that only rich people would pay for it. I said the taxes aren't raised because rich people don't want them raised. (And rich people have more say in what government does than poor people.) If the costs are high, then raise taxes - progressively - to rebuild these systems.
    - kmlx 4y ago
      > I said the taxes aren't raised because rich people don't want them raised. no one wants taxes to raise. poor, middle, rich, you name it. because it just means less money at the end of the month.
      - eesmith 4y ago
        I think the current taxes in the US are too regressive, and I'm not alone. Warren Buffett famously pointed out his total tax rate was 17.7%, while the average tax rate for people in his office was 32.9%. If my taxes go up 1% while those making $1M+/year go up by 10%, in order to get improved sewage treatment systems and more, then I'm all for it. While rich people tend to use their free time for something beside going to the local English beach for a swim. Universal single-payer health care is cheaper and with better overall health benefits than the current US system has. I would gladly pay higher taxes than pay for my own health insurance as it means more money at the end of the month. How much money should you get at the end of the month for letting the water be more polluted with untreated sewage?
    - Rebelgecko 4y ago
      If rich people have more say, I'm surprised more municipalities aren't using flat or regressive taxes.
      - eesmith 4y ago
        You think they aren't? Promoting single-family homes, prohibiting detached housing, zoning laws that require parking and minimum lawn sizes, etc. all drive up the cost of housing for people who don't have as much money. It's also cheaper to maintain infrastructure (streets, water, sewer, etc.) in older more densely packed (and also less expensive / poorer) neighborhoods than in more expansive suburbia. As https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-build-the-poorer-we-get https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-bui... puts it "The poorest neighborhoods are, in essence, subsidizing the rich ones."
pasabagi 4y ago
Essentially, yes. It's been a slow-burning controversy for some months now.

eesmith 4y ago

As I understand it, these come from overflow pipes. That it, sewer is normally treated, but the same sewer system also include storm sewers. The treatment capacity isn't high enough to handle big storms, so when there's too much rain, yes, they dump raw sewage directly into the water. They could improve this, but that would cost money, which means rich people would make less profit or pay more taxes. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56590219 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56590219 adds "It's believed that wet wipes make up at least 90% of the material causing sewers to block." That would lessen with a ban on selling plastic-based wet wipes.

scotty79 4y ago
That's terrible setup that should be updated.
- orobinson 4y ago
  A huge tunnel is being dug under the Thames for sewage overflow to prevent this from happening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Scheme https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Scheme
bequanna 4y ago
> They could improve this, but that would cost money, which means rich people would make less profit or pay more taxes. Not sure how the English handle this kind of taxation but in the US most municipalities would spread the cost of a project like this over all users or add as some assessment to property taxes. In other words, not just “rich people” would pay for it. There are still quite a few otherwise modern cities in the US that also have this legacy problem (shared sewer + storm drain). My guess is that the cost is considered to be far too high to rip up and rebuild these systems.
- eesmith 4y ago
  I didn't say that only rich people would pay for it. I said the taxes aren't raised because rich people don't want them raised. (And rich people have more say in what government does than poor people.) If the costs are high, then raise taxes - progressively - to rebuild these systems.
  - kmlx 4y ago
    > I said the taxes aren't raised because rich people don't want them raised. no one wants taxes to raise. poor, middle, rich, you name it. because it just means less money at the end of the month.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      I think the current taxes in the US are too regressive, and I'm not alone. Warren Buffett famously pointed out his total tax rate was 17.7%, while the average tax rate for people in his office was 32.9%. If my taxes go up 1% while those making $1M+/year go up by 10%, in order to get improved sewage treatment systems and more, then I'm all for it. While rich people tend to use their free time for something beside going to the local English beach for a swim. Universal single-payer health care is cheaper and with better overall health benefits than the current US system has. I would gladly pay higher taxes than pay for my own health insurance as it means more money at the end of the month. How much money should you get at the end of the month for letting the water be more polluted with untreated sewage?
  - Rebelgecko 4y ago
    If rich people have more say, I'm surprised more municipalities aren't using flat or regressive taxes.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      You think they aren't? Promoting single-family homes, prohibiting detached housing, zoning laws that require parking and minimum lawn sizes, etc. all drive up the cost of housing for people who don't have as much money. It's also cheaper to maintain infrastructure (streets, water, sewer, etc.) in older more densely packed (and also less expensive / poorer) neighborhoods than in more expansive suburbia. As https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-build-the-poorer-we-get https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/5/7/the-more-we-bui... puts it "The poorest neighborhoods are, in essence, subsidizing the rich ones."

pasabagi 4y ago

Essentially, yes. It's been a slow-burning controversy for some months now.