EU referendum, brexit and the aftermath

I'll believe it when I see it, if it is ever enacted.

And, given Tory propensity to work for business interests, rather than environmental, I fully expect the implementation to contain loopholes that lead to a far more permissive regime.

Yes, who could have predicted that setting up private monopolies would result in distant, unresponsive corporations?

Havng attended some meetings with Thames Water, in the last few years, it is astonishing how little Thames Water actually do.
In this area Lanes are the term contractor for routine sewer maintenance, (removal of blockages etc).
Cappagh are the guys who do any digging, (replacement of failed manholes etc),
Jacobs maintain an inventory of assets.

Thames Water seem to do little other than negotiate with OfWat and lobby Parliament.

A year to the publication of 'the Plan'.
No date for implementation.
No indication of better enforcement.

Maps of sewage pollution;

https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/e834e261b53740eba2fe6736e37bbc7b/page/home/?data_id=dataSource_4-1788e0d0481-layer-54%3A24864

I think this was always a worry for UK scientific research:

Prof James Wilsdon, who is the director of the Research on Research Institute at the University of Sheffield, points to estimates that uncertainties arising from Brexit have already led to the UK research to missing out on £1.5bn of research funding since 2016.

"This number is rising fast, as Horizon Europe, the world's largest and most successful co-funding scheme, gets into full swing, and the UK is stuck outside.

"Unless this is resolved soon, the fear must be that the UK drops out, or is locked out, by default rather than design, as the rest of Europe marches on without us. This would be a tragedy for both sides, and would leave the UK's ambitions to be a scientific superpower in tatters."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59041851

The bit that is missing from all the conversation is OFWAT, they set the amount of revenue that can be generated, the amount of profit that can be earned and how much funding is provided to run the business, between those levers there isn't much room left to do much. For some reason they don't ever want customers bills to go up, so things just fall further in to poor condition over time.

I think the view is that consumers would rather swim in shit than pay a higher water bill.

But really I suspect that one of the issues here is that central government could fund the work with borrowing at a cost far below commercial rates, and that this would be a great example of using borrowing to fund investment where the value would increase faster than the interest would accrue - but small gov/large private sector.

How does ofwat stop them investing into infrastructure?

They must make a certain amount of profit as percentage of outgoing?

I can't imagine they are all so strapped for cash they can't invest when forced to.

They invest but the investment needed after decades of underinvestment is huge, they aren't funded to deliver anything close to what's needed

The counter argument is that have been funded historically but have spent it badly, that doesn't fix funding gap now though

When first privatised they a) took on a load of debt and then b) did actually invest.

But that has run out of steam as they’ve run out of debt ceiling/willingness to take on more/ability to service more debt with the current pricing controls.

Also the environment agency has been gutted since Cameron and Osbourne brought us Austerity, so they are now close to powerless to monitor the situation.

The sector needs strong regulation (if not nationalisation) and it has neither.

I think the amount of debt carried by our privatised water companies is roughly equal to amount paid out in dividends and special one-off payments to shareholders.

Yeah, they need to be pushed- but Eternal Tory government

Eternal Tory government

This. Fuck sake

It doesn't make sense to me to have companies that run at a profit then as they cannot charge much more for water either, so doesn't it then come out of tax payer money either way?

It's definitely true the infrastructure needs more money, similar problems exist in NI. (With less turd dumping and higher fines)

We pay for water in our rates but that money been pissed away on other things and of course now they don't want to raise the rates too much.

But NI water is also a for profit company. (Actually no https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Water government owned! But still needs a lot more investment)

I'm happy to pay for investment in rates but not for companies running at a profit who then cannot go broke either as then we have no water.

But I guess I'm not sold on for profit models for essentials, it doesn't seem to actually save money or improve services.

So when ni water gets fined we pay for it, which is weird too.

Translink the local transport company is also a government owned company. There is always much complaining but it's not too bad mostly.

So when ni water gets fined we pay for it, which is weird too.

In England and Wales at least, if the water company is fined, they can't pass the cost on to the consumer

They cannot use any financial tricks?

Can you switch water like you switch phone provider or there not really any free competition?

they can't pass the cost on to the consumer

But do they have any other income stream apart from the consumer?

Can you switch water like you switch phone provider

No. I suppose a few people might have the option of a private supply.

Then it's not proper competition so what's the point?

I just found out hepatitis viruses in sewage can end up in shellfish. Yuck!!!

Yes they do put them in clean water before selling, and it's not the fault of the shellfish industry but you better cook them very well...

Retail users can switch, domestic customers can't

OFWAT are working towards opening up more competition in some areas in the future

It is also different from energy in that there isn't a National Grid type organisation or infrastructure

Although it perhaps seems 'obvious'... they haven't seen an increase in viruses in water translate into a big increase in transmissible viruses in shellfish (yet?).

Oysters/norovirus is the classic example, the water/environment/oysters contain low-level norovirus, but there's been no data to suggest the norovirus risk from oysters has actually increased (it's stable).

Retail/commercial customers provide a different revenue stream

Some have waste/energy/recycling businesses which provide other revenue streams within the larger parent group

But the fine lands up either coming from shareholders receiving less profits, borrowing or less investment being made