Interesting items covering this on the radio over the last couple of days while the bill was pinging back and forth between the Houses. As ever it's more complex than the headlines would have us believe.

The water companies are allowed to divert stuff into watercourses or the sea in certain conditions.

In large areas, if not the whole of the UK, rainwater finds its way into the same main sewers as foul water from our toilets etc. Because of development and other factors, of which paving over gardens for car parking is one, quantities of run off water are increasing. Without getting into a debate about causation what we used to call cloudbursts and longer periods of very heavy rain are increasing.

There comes a point where the waste water plants are at risk of being overwhelmed. If that happens then not only do settlement tanks etc overflow but also the excess water can destroy the biological process by which foul waste is broken down. Under those circumstances then 'force majeure' means that to save the plants the operators need to divert the incoming flow into by pass pipes/weirs so that raw sewage - complete with poo, condoms and tampons - goes into watercourses or the sea.

Putting that right, and the systems are legacies from Victoria onwards, will be a long term project costing billions. It's not just a tap that can be turned off.

But, the water companies, sometimes at a junior level and driven by 'targets' are opening the by pass channels too often and without due cause. Southern Water were recently fined millions for incidents of that nature along the South Coast around the Chichester area.

Legislation should be incentivising the companies to invest in systems that don't overflow but also to ensure they plan better to avoid careless overflows.

fining in my opinion is taking money from them that should be used to improve the system though even then I doubt the volume of water/rain we get can be cleared as quick as we would like, rainfall around the country tells us imo we need more than an upgrade in water clearing, and doubt it will improve, so now they should concentrate on stopping building on flood plains which I doubt will happen?

There may be something in the argument that the generality of regulator fines moves money away from investment. The reality however is that they probably only invest where required to do so - see the ongoing saga of Thames Water and leaks. The regulator should ensure that fines hit the company where it hurts; on the bottom line.

The Southern Water case involved egregious and cynical behaviour and followed conviction:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Southe...f