Water supply in England and Wales was privatised four years ago. CATHERINE BROWN reports on the result.
The European Court of Justice ruled on November 25 that the British government had failed to bring drinking water up to the European Community standard for nitrates. This followed a six-year campaign by Friends of the Earth and marked the first conviction of the British government in the ECJ for an environmental offence.
The high level of nitrate in drinking water is due to fertilisers used in agriculture. Nitrate leaches from farming land into drinking water sources (both surface water and ground water).
Three months earlier, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint against the Water Services Association. WSA had launched an advertising campaign in response to the ECJ hearing, claiming that British water was the best in Europe and met World Health Organisation standards. The ASA said neither claim could be proved.
Since the privatisation of the water industry in England and Wales in 1989, the government has consistently shielded the industry from prosecution for not meeting EC standards. The Water Act 1989 allows water companies, in specified zones, not to comply with legal EC directives. In 1991, 124 specified (read, substandard) water supply zones existed.
Greenpeace and FoE have run campaigns to highlight the government's notorious record of allowing pollution of the rivers and the seas, which leads not only to substandard drinking and bathing water but also to devastating environmental damage.
There has been a marked deterioration in river quality. In 1980, 3900 kilometres of rivers were classified as badly polluted; by 1990 it was 4680 km. In 1981 there were 12,600 reported water pollution incidents in England and Wales; 10 years later there
were 28,143, but only 282 resulted in prosecution.
The National Rivers Authority river quality assessments don't measure the toxic materials that accumulate in fish and marine life, just the amount of oxygen in the water.
In August 1992, a Greenpeace report revealed that 5046 tonnes of toxic pollutants a year flow from factories into the seas through more than 12,000 government-
licensed discharge pipes. In 1990 a government environment white paper stated that "the rivers have to be used for waste disposal by industry".
The government's own figures show that 40% of toxic metals entering the north-east Atlantic come from British rivers and discharges, along with 84% of PCBs, threatening marine life.
The image of a waste pipe spewing toxic effluent into a river is a powerful symbol of industrial pollution, but "it doesn't tell the whole story", says Liana Stupples, water campaigner at FoE. "In Britain, the bulk of liquid industrial waste is discharged behind the scenes — straight into the sewers. This is the story of the secret polluters."
Many industries discharge industrial waste directly into the sewer system. "There is no tell-tale external waste pipe. This waste often contains high concentrations of dangerous toxic chemicals."
Stupples explains that treatment works are designed to break down sewage, not treat toxic waste. Hence many of the poisons enter rivers through storm sewage overflows or sewage effluent. The toxins don't break down; they build up in the food chain, contaminating fish and putting fish eaters, such as otters and herons, at risk. Eventually, the pollution will be washed out to sea to contaminate marine life.
The cost to the European water industry of meeting EC environmental directives on clean water has led to pressure to lower its standards. The EC environmental directorate announced in March that it would review almost all of its water directives this year in response to the charge that some were set more by "environmental enthusiasm than by science".
Last year Ofwat, the water industry regulator, announced a £1 billion bill to clean up drinking water. Stupples argues that this represent the failure of the government to protect ground water from pollution. Because the clean-up bill is to be footed by the consumer, there is no pressure on polluters to stop polluting. Make the polluters pay, says Stupples.
In its "The Cost of Quality" paper, Ofwat attempts to justify price rises. Stupples counters, "It is fair to say that much of the increased expenditure in the water industry is not related to the setting of 'new' environmental standards but has been incurred because of the past neglect of essential infrastructure or government attempts to delay meeting legal binding water quality standards."
The dirtiest water flows through the pipes in London. Eighty per cent of Thames water supply areas failed to reach statutory requirements at some time in 1991.
The 10 British water companies have carried out extensive surveys to see how much customers are prepared to pay for cleaner water. Under the guise of concern over rising prices, the industry is saying it may have to delay improvements because most customers would rather have lower prices.
The water industry has one of the highest rates of profit, but profits have not been fed back into improving water standards and lowering prices.
"Using Water Wisely — a consultation paper", released by the government in July 1992, was criticised by Friends of the Earth, who argued that the privatised water companies should have a legal duty to conserve water and use it efficiently. FoE added that the proposed introduction of metered domestic water is neither a solution nor socially acceptable.
The question of supply is more far-reaching than the ability of water companies to meet a growing demand by domestic and industrial consumers. Some rivers in England and Wales have been reduced to a trickle by the water industry taking too much water. The National Rivers Authority has identified 92 locations where rivers' flow is dangerously low.
Reduced river flows impact on the environment, causing a loss of wildlife habitats, reduced ability to dilute pollution and increased risk of algal blooms — such as those that recently disfigured the Venetian and Baltic coasts — killing river life by stripping oxygen out of the water.
With the water industry based on profit, there's little motivation to reduce the demand for water. In contrast, in some states in the United States, water companies can face fines if per capita consumption is not reduced to the legal limit.
In the Netherlands, VEWIN, the water supply company, has a program to reduce consumption of drinking water by 10% by the year 2000.
Half the public supply of water in Britain is for domestic consumption. Toilet flushing, alone, accounts for 32% of domestic water use. FoE recommends regulations prescribing a reduction in the maximum volume of water that may be delivered by a toilet flush. Water-efficient shower heads and water-
efficient taps should be introduced, along with mandatory standards for washing machines and dishwashers.
The government's proposal of domestic water meters places the responsibility for conservation on the consumer rather than on the water companies. But according to Ofwat, water "not delivered" accounts for 23.7% of water taken by the industry. Of this, the majority is lost through leaking pipes.
The Scottish National Party and FoE Scotland are running a "Save Scotland's water" campaign: since the re-election of the Conservative Party last April, the Tories have been openly discussing the privatisation of Scotland's water.
The SNP points to the "unhappy experience" south of the border to show what water privatisation would mean for Scotland. On average, non-metered household bills have increased by 43% since 1989, with further big rises already scheduled. Currently, water bills in Scotland are over a third lower.
Prices aren't all that's rising. The salaries of the water companies' chairpersons have risen by 166%.
Despite Thames Water supplying the dirtiest water in England and Wales, its chief executive is paid a record £350,000, reflecting the high profits of the industry.
The total public cost of water privatisation in the south was £7000 million. The massive government handout was to make the industry more saleable.
Since privatisation, disconnections have more than doubled, with over 22,000 homes in England and Wales having their water cut off. The SNP points out that the risk of disconnection is real for many families in Scotland, where a third of full-time workers and over 75% of part time workers earn less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold.
Public anger in Scotland over the prospect of water privatisation may force the Tories to back off. An opinion poll in the Scotsman paper in early March showed 86%, and 72% of Tories, opposed to privatisation. John Young, one of the few Tories on the Glasgow District Council, claims, "I have yet to find a justice of the peace willing to sign a disconnection warrant in respect of water because of the moral aspect. Water is a basic necessity of life."