Environmental news round up - 18 August 2023
United Utilities Strategic Shift: Could its Recent Decision to end Grouse Shooting on its Uplands Also Help Tackle Climate Change and Water Conservation at Source
United Utilities recent decision to withdraw licences for grouse shooting on its land has sent ripples across the UK’s sporting community. The decision which directly impacts vast stretches of moorland used for many years for the sport comes amidst growing environmental and conservation concerns.
Shooting organisations have been quick to express their dismay at the move with the decision being labelled as (amongst others) ‘detrimental’ claiming that grouse shooting is deeply intertwined with rural economies and traditional British countryside heritage.
Conservationists have unsurprisingly welcomed the decision by United Utilities. Some of the reasons cited are that grouse populations require a specific type of heather habitat to survive which results in land management practices like controlled burning or ‘swailing’ of the heather. These burns can damage the underlying peat and release stored carbon and disrupt the natural ecology of the moorland. Predation control of foxes, stoats and birds of prey can disrupt the natural balance of the ecosystem and has led to much controversy especially when protected species are illegally persecuted.
United Utilities as communicated in a recent press release has stated that its focus is on “restoration for nature, climate and people” and that by not renewing these licences the land can be better managed for ecological preservation, carbon sequestration and the wider benefits of the people they serve.
The decision of United Utilities in particular to carbon sequestration and ecological preservation it could be argued also indirectly assist in efforts related to climate change mitigation and more efficient water use. Moorlands often consist of peat bogs which are powerful carbon sinks when maintained properly. Large amounts of carbon stored by peat bogs are released into the atmosphere when they become degraded. Healthier moorlands can result in cleaner water at source which can reduce the need for intensive treatment processes. This in turn reduces energy consumption and carbon emissions associated with water treatment. Properly managed moorlands act like sponges, holding onto rainwater and releasing it gradually which can help in maintaining more consistent water levels in reservoirs and reducing rapid run-off. This water retention capacity might become increasingly crucial as climate change brings about more frequent and severe droughts.
However it is worth noting that the decision to end grouse shooting on its moorlands could have unintended consequences. The shooting community often argues (although disputed by many conservationists as referred to above) that it plays an important role in managing the moorland, controlling predator populations and funding certain conservation activities. If these roles are not replaced or managed differently it could have unknown implications for the ecosystem and by extension water quality. In addition grouse shooting provides economic benefits to rural communities.
As the debate continues what is evident is that the decision of United Utilities is a reflection of a broader shift in land management priorities. The argument I have added in relation to the withdrawal of grouse shooting licences’ impact on water conservation may be viewed by some as not a strong one. However in my view there is potential that if coupled with robust conversation practices the decision taken by United Utilities could indeed have the benefit of conserving water at its source with the added environmental benefits that flow (pun intended) from that, including tackling climate change.
The leak of the week: Thérèse Coffey urged water companies to delay climate change investments
Last week, leaked letters were revealed showing that in July the Environment Agency had quietly requested water companies to “explore opportunities to phase non-statutory commitments including net zero to future price review periods where appropriate”, which in simple terms means asking these companies to kick down the road the implementation of its climate change investments.
This “suggestion” was given because of the government’s concerns that the implementation of investments to comply with the new environmental targets will increase the water bills of the consumers. This motivation was pretty clear as the letters asked the water companies to “protect your customers from adverse bill impacts”.
The letters also steer the water companies to defer activities relating to their Water Resource Management Plans (WRMPs) and their plans regarding the Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP).
Three scenarios were given to the water companies to see if they could reduce costs from 2030 onwards while still meeting the statutory commitments.
The first of these scenarios was to consider how Ofwat’s “basic low climate change scenario [...] beyond 2030 [would] change your supply demand balance”. This is worrying because the levels of warming in this scenario are much lower than the ones estimated by international bodies. Ofwat’s low climate change scenario assumes that the average temperature would only rise by 1.6C, an assumption based on the premise that all countries would substantially reduce their carbon emissions. The United Nation’s estimation is that the temperature will rise from 2.4C to 2.8C.
The second scenario relates to use the figures of the Office of National Statistics instead of the Local Authority figures to project local economic and population growth after 2030.
The third scenario consists of outlining whether phasing the 1 in 500 resilience from the 2024 price review would ease any cost pressures for consumers.
Several ‘green groups’ have raised their voices against this government’s “steer” to defer important investments relating to climate change.
Wessex Water spending £3 million a month to tackle sewer capacity
This week, Wessex Water have completed an £800,000 project to increase sewer capacity near Chesil Beach, in Dorset. The works have included building a mile-long replacement rising main sewer, improvement works to upgrade pumps, and renovation of sewers locally. This is only part of their £3 million a month works to tackle sewage overflows in their region.
The hope is the works near Chesil Beach will result in a 50% reduction in the number of times a nearby storm overflow operates. Storm overflows operate automatically when old fashioned combined sewers, which carry both surface water and foul water, are overwhelmed due to heavy rainfall. During such an event they discharge excess water into our rivers and seas to prevent the sewer from flooding.
Public interest in the impact of storm overflows has increased over recent years as there has been much more discussion about the quality of our rivers and seas. This has been greatly helped by charities such as Surfers Against Sewage and their apps tracking overflows and consequential discharges. A poll published this year by Savanta for the Liberal Democrats showed almost a quarter of UK sea swimmers may avoid the ocean this year because of sewage dumping.
Sewage monitors in bathing waters broken
It’s been reported that over 100 monitors to measure sewage in bathing waters are broken. This is a decrease of 10% since the 2022 figures, but an increase of over 10% from the 2021 figures. A significant number of monitors have been found to be faulty for more than one year (i.e. faulty in both 2021 and 2022, or 2022 and 2023). This means the level of sewage pumped into those areas remains unknown, posing a potential risk to swimmers.
Ongoing investigation into sickness following World Triathlon Championship in Sunderland finds Novovirus likely cause
As reported in our round up last week, a significant number of athletes who competed at the World Triathlon Championship in Sunderland in July reported symptoms of sickness and diarrhoea following the event. It’s now been reported that the UKHSA collected faecal samples from 31 of the 88 competitors complaining of the symptoms. 19 of those samples showed the presence of Novovirus, while 4 showed the presence of E.coli. Due to the natural presence of E.coli in the gut, the agency confirmed it would not be possible to ascertain whether the sickness came as a result of competing in the event or not. The UKHSA went on to suggest that Novovirus seems the most likely cause for the sickness of the athletes. British Triathlon separately reported that it had conducted several quality tests on the water, which came back as ‘excellent’ under EU bathing water guidelines, contradicting earlier reports that the area saw the presence of dangerous levels of E.coli. British Triathlon also confirmed that the area tested by the Environment Agency and showing high levels of E.coli was outside of the swim area.
