4 ms·

Based on "a third of customer bills go on interest payments", I'd guess the original comment was about Thames Water. In 2023 their interest payments were 28% o

Based on "a third of customer bills go on interest payments", I'd guess the original comment was about Thames Water. In 2023 their interest payments were 28% of revenue. They also made the news for dumping particularly large volumes of sewage into rivers. https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/dec/18/water-firms-use-up-to-28-percent-of-bill-payments-to-service-debt-in-areas-of-england https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/dec/18/water-firms-us... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67357566 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67357566

krona 1y ago
> they also made the news for dumping particularly large volumes of sewage into rivers Yes and they have been fined for doing so, thus proving my point. These companies have statutory obligations. See the Water Industry Act 1991 and subsequent legislation.
- tomrod 1y ago
  So sewage wasn't dumped, because the law prevented it? Or sewage was dumped, and it was against the law? I'm having a hard time reconciling the theoretical claims made in the thread with the blinding light of what actually happened.
  - krona 1y ago
    Well sewage has to be dumped (especially in storm conditions), and the water companies have licences to do so. However Thames was found to be in breach of the license, so were fined. Many people claim these things happen because "shareholders" however it was completely widespread practice to dump sewage before privatisation and the system is literally designed to do so. This doesn't make it OK, however.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      Sewage doesn't have to be dumped. Simply separate your black water and grey water. Storm drains can go to rivers (if the rivers have capacity – if not, it's sometimes easier to give the river more capacity than to build more sewers), and the amount of water in sewage pipes will be independent of the amount of rain. Sure, the sewers might not currently be designed that way, but that can be changed. (It's a logistical challenge, but it needs to be done.)
      - MichaelZuo 1y ago
        This is such a pedantic point. How does it add anything to the conversation?
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        If a sewer system can be designed such that dumping sewage need never occur, you can earmark some of the budget for gradually introducing this property into your sewer system. The more such improvements you make, the less often you'll have to dump sewage, until you never have to. Thames Water could have done this.
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        We already know that more things can be done, in a better way, etc., if given more resources, more time, better decision makers, etc. That’s true for all organizations.
      - jamiejquinn 1y ago
        Aye, the fact that the WHOLE system would cost trillions to upgrade doesn't stop anyone from upgrading it slowly in this way. The problem will still exist in 50 years, any progress is better than none.
- thelastgallon 1y ago
  They were fined. That must have hurt. They must have made a pinky promise to never do it again.
- xico 1y ago
  Subsequent legislations are EU directives (and associated EU fines), which are not as corrupted as local legislations, and forced the UK to start building the Thames Tideway for instance. The population chose Brexit though.

krona 1y ago

> they also made the news for dumping particularly large volumes of sewage into rivers Yes and they have been fined for doing so, thus proving my point. These companies have statutory obligations. See the Water Industry Act 1991 and subsequent legislation.

tomrod 1y ago
So sewage wasn't dumped, because the law prevented it? Or sewage was dumped, and it was against the law? I'm having a hard time reconciling the theoretical claims made in the thread with the blinding light of what actually happened.
- krona 1y ago
  Well sewage has to be dumped (especially in storm conditions), and the water companies have licences to do so. However Thames was found to be in breach of the license, so were fined. Many people claim these things happen because "shareholders" however it was completely widespread practice to dump sewage before privatisation and the system is literally designed to do so. This doesn't make it OK, however.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    Sewage doesn't have to be dumped. Simply separate your black water and grey water. Storm drains can go to rivers (if the rivers have capacity – if not, it's sometimes easier to give the river more capacity than to build more sewers), and the amount of water in sewage pipes will be independent of the amount of rain. Sure, the sewers might not currently be designed that way, but that can be changed. (It's a logistical challenge, but it needs to be done.)
    - MichaelZuo 1y ago
      This is such a pedantic point. How does it add anything to the conversation?
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        If a sewer system can be designed such that dumping sewage need never occur, you can earmark some of the budget for gradually introducing this property into your sewer system. The more such improvements you make, the less often you'll have to dump sewage, until you never have to. Thames Water could have done this.
        MichaelZuo 1y ago
        We already know that more things can be done, in a better way, etc., if given more resources, more time, better decision makers, etc. That’s true for all organizations.
    - jamiejquinn 1y ago
      Aye, the fact that the WHOLE system would cost trillions to upgrade doesn't stop anyone from upgrading it slowly in this way. The problem will still exist in 50 years, any progress is better than none.
thelastgallon 1y ago
They were fined. That must have hurt. They must have made a pinky promise to never do it again.
xico 1y ago
Subsequent legislations are EU directives (and associated EU fines), which are not as corrupted as local legislations, and forced the UK to start building the Thames Tideway for instance. The population chose Brexit though.