Early this year a Marlborough resident, well known to marlborough.news and whose garden backs on to the River Kennet slipped on wet stones when the river was high and fell into the river. He was injured in the fall, hitting stones on the way down, but it wasn’t the physical injuries that made his condition worse (and more serious). It was the need for all the drugs – antibiotics by the wagon load that were required to deal with the infection he developed from being immersed in the toxic flow of what has long been regarded as one of the UK’s clean chalk streams.
He was – in the end – very lucky. Ambulances and the Air Ambulance made sure that he was given excellent immediate care and transported quickly and safely to GWH in Swindon where his condition could be assessed and addressed.
Yes, this was The River Kennet. And the rate of flow that day was such that it coincided with a raw sewage discharge into the river, likely from the Fyfield plant as where he fell was upstream of the Elcot Lane sewage works.
We, marlborough.news have raised this issue before, not the first time we have bought the issue of excessive raw sewage discharge into The River Kennet by Thames Water
ARK, Action for The River Kennet have been very vocal about this. On the one hand bringing this real issue directly to the attention of the residents of the area who value the presence, safety and integrity of The River Kennet, but also to the lawmakers, these to whom we give our votes and put in place as our representatives in Government.
In our earlier story we highlighted that the plant mentioned above at Fyfield discharged raw sewage directly into the River Kennet for more than 1,700 hours in 2020, a threefold increase over the previous year (583 hours in 2019). That equates to more than ten weeks continuous. Did it rain, overall for as much as ten weeks in 2020?
So, basically, whenever it rains, even moderately, the Kennet is turned toxic.
Westminster have been trying to address this. The House of Lords introduced an amendment to the Environment Bill that would have placed a legal duty on Water Companies (ours is Thames Water – essentially foreign owned – or rather the ‘holding’ company of their immediate ‘holding’ company is significantly owned by investors based elsewhere than in the UK – which is relevant as the profit that should be put back into investment to sort the decaying infrastructure of the industry goes to the foreign investors abroad as dividends). OK, this is a world occupied by Corporate Accountants, obscure and impenetrable to us lesser mortals but a place revered as heaven by the international investment community.
The House of Lords have done their bit and their best. Many Government (Conservative) MPs agreed and rebelled against the Party line that voted this amendment down, i.e. looking to maintain the status quo and keep the responsibility for raw sewage discharge into our once-clean rivers in the UK away from the Water Companies, who make these rivers toxic. (One question – who bears this responsibility if not the Water Companies who actually create the problem?)
Our local MP, Danny Kruger, what did he do? He toed the party line and voted against the House of Lords amendment, adding a rather different note to that highlighted by Charlotte Hitchmough, chair of ARK back in March where she noted “We are delighted that our local MPs Danny Kruger and Laura Farris have listened to the concerns of their constituents and supported the sewage bill in parliament, and we look forward to their commitment turning into investment and into action to clean up our rivers.”
Charlotte Hitchmough, Director of ARK told marlborough.news: “We know that both Laura and Danny have been working hard to protect chalk streams, so we are disappointed that our MPs have voted not to support the amendment which puts a legal duty on water companies to stop pumping raw sewage into rivers. However, we look forward to continuing to work with them to find a solution that they can support.”
But Danny, on his website defends his action. His argument centres on cost. Estimating that it would cost around £10,000 per home if we – the taxpayer – had to underwrite all of this. But this ignores the private ownership element – that the ‘investment’ being put in is against a relatively hidden backdrop of dividends being siphoned off abroad, whereas sewage is being siphoned into our rivers – to our cost. And do we pay any less in bills now than we did before? No. This is not an issue of privatisation v. nationalisation, it’s about management, responsibility, and the health of the nation. A system of private water companies could work well to the benefit of the community overall, if only the Government would allow that to happen. Maybe we should all dust off the great Brexit one liner and ‘Take Back Control’.
And the Kennet could be a clean and sparkling chalk stream again. Well, maybe it will be for the next generation, or the one beyond that.
ARK yesterday issued a strong statement reproduced in full below), expressing the ‘Disappointment’ shared by many “as MPs reject new rules to reduce sewage pollution”.
Last week, the amendment approved by the House of Lords to place a legal duty on water companies to reduce the harm caused by storm overflows, was stripped out of the Environment Bill following a tight Commons vote, 268 to 204. This happened in spite of widespread public support for the amendment. 22 backbench conservative MPs voted in support of the environment, including 9 former ministers and 6 current select committee chairs (notable backers include Environment Audit Committee chair Phillip Dunne MP, Father of the House Sir Peter Bottomley and Liaison Committee Chair Sir Bernard Jenkin). Laura Farris and Danny Kruger, MPs for the Kennet Catchment both voted against the proposal. We have contacted them to express our disappointment and allow them to comment.
ARK and many other eNGOs are extremely disappointed by this result, as the government’s current plans, such as Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans (DWMPs), to address the issue do not compel water companies to take immediate action to tackle sewage pollution, meaning the state of our rivers could continue to decline indefinitely. DWMPs do not explicitly require the improvement of sewage infrastructure, nor do they require a reduction in the harm caused by sewage pollution. DWMP’s are also temporary. Whilst the current Ministers and Water Companies have the shared goal of eliminating the harm caused by storm overflows, there is nothing to say future incumbents will have the same view. Placing this duty on the face of the Environment Bill through this amendment will put it beyond legal doubt that it is responsibility of all stakeholders to tackle sewage pollution. We are hopeful that the amendment will once again receive support from the House of Lords this week, and we urge all MPs to vote in its favour if it returns to the House of Commons. Alongside other eNGOs, we strongly encourage members to contact their local MP and ask for their commitment to protecting rivers from the scourge of sewage pollution, using the Rivers Trust automated emailing tool
Museum of the Moon wows visitors
