Are you paying twice for sewage spilling?
We are on a ship, heading towards an iceberg, and the captain and crew have no interest in changing course. This is the trajectory that Steve Reed, OFWAT, and DEFRA are on, despite the public's overwhelming desire to overhaul England’s failing water industry.
The biggest scandals set to impact you, and more specifically your wallet, in the coming months is their plan to make you pay to fix the crumbling sewage infrastructure—despite the billions of pounds you've already paid to prevent this very situation.
As always, we want to use Windermere, England’s most iconic freshwater lake, to illustrate the broader issue unfolding across the country. We simply do not accept United Utilities' current proposals for managing the Windermere catchment area during the upcoming asset management planning (AMP) period (2025-2030). These concerns have driven us to reach out directly to David Black, the Chief Executive of OFWAT, urging a thorough reconsideration of these plans before they are implemented.
Illegal Spills and the Cost to Consumers
The most alarming issue is the evidence of illegal spills from untreated outfalls around Windermere, as documented by Professor Peter Hammond. His analysis of illegal spills within the water industry has been instrumental in raising awareness about non-compliant discharges, and was recently cited when OFWAT announced its proposed fines for the industry. OFWAT, the Environment Agency (EA), and the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) recognise Professor Hammond's analysis as credible and deserving of serious consideration.
CSO Spilling is considered illegal when the flow to full treatment [FTFT] limit specified in the permit has not been met, or when it occurs in dry weather, with no rainfall.
Firstly, environmental permits specify the conditions that water companies must meet to be allowed to spill raw sewage through CSOs. One of these conditions is known as the “overflow setting”, which specifies a minimum volume to pass through full treatment while a CSO is in use. Failing to treat the required amount of sewage is known as ‘early spilling’.
Secondly, spilling when it is not raining, a practice, known as ‘dry spilling’, is banned because it can lead to higher concentrations of sewage in waterways.
‘Early spilling’ is the main focus of Professor Hammond analysis in Windermere and is reflective of lack of capacity at the sewage works.
So how does this relate to Windermere and the next level of investment? United Utilities has proposed a £41 million investment to reduce the number of spills around Windermere. However, Professor Hammond’s analysis raises a fundamental question: Can consumers be expected to foot the bill for bringing facilities up to compliance with existing permits? He has demonstrated illegal spilling at all four sites earmarked for investment over the next five years in Windermere: Ambleside Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW), Hawkshead Pumping Station, Near Sawrey WwTW, and Elterwater Pumping Station. And OFWAT's guidance is clear that costs related to compliance should not result in increased customer bills. In fact, they have explicitly stated this to us and our partners:
“In summary, we do not expect customers to pay to regain compliance with existing permit conditions. Before providing additional enhancement expenditure allowances for growth at Sewage Treatment Works or improvements at storm overflow sites, companies must evidence that the additional funding is to enhance the functioning of the asset beyond existing permit compliance. This includes demonstrating that: the company is operating the assets in compliance with its permits, the funding is for enhancing functioning beyond the current permit level or to treat increased flows and loads due to population growth, and relevant outcomes should not have been already delivered through funding for previous enhancement schemes. This test for "compliance" is for the purposes of setting the price review only.”
Ok, so surely the customer shouldn’t foot the bill for these proposed investments? Despite the compelling evidence, it appears that the EA and OFWAT are turning a blind eye, whilst we believe that United Utilities are attempting to classify these necessary investments as ‘enhancements', to justify bill increases. We believe that these investments are instead covering the costs of historic non-compliance, and we don’t believe that United Utilities has provided OFWAT or the EA with sufficient evidence to the contrary.
This approach is not only unjust but also directly contradicts OFWAT's own policies, yet the regulators don’t seem to be scrutinising the situation themselves. The funds required to rectify illegal activities should be covered by United Utilities, not passed on to the public. We urgently need OFWAT and the EA to thoroughly investigate the evidence provided by Professor Hammond and hold United Utilities accountable for their failures, rather than allowing the burden to fall on consumers for services that should have been delivered under previous investment plans.
But why is this happening? One explanation might be that the Environment Agency lacks the resources or expertise to analyse data with the same level of granularity as Professor Hammond. But even more concerning is the fact that they have not even requested the data necessary to conduct a full breakdown of illegal activities, as confirmed by our Environmental Information Regulation (EIR) requests.
For instance, when we requested an internal review of the EA’s decision to withhold Flow To Full Treatment (FTFT) data for the Windermere catchment in 2023, the response we received on August 12, 2024, stated: “The internal review concludes that the decision made to withhold information was correct as we do not hold full to flow treatment data for 2023.” This data is absolutely crucial in determining illegal spilling at sites.
Based on OFWAT’s communications with us, and given that Professor Hammond has demonstrated instances of illegal spilling at Ambleside WwTW, Hawkshead Pumping Station, Near Sawrey WwTW, and Elterwater Pumping Station, we firmly believe that the £41 million earmarked for investment at these sites should not be funded by the customers and so not included in the AMP 8 investment round.
Wonderful Windermere: A Greenwashing Exercise
Another major issue is the proposed "Wonderful Windermere" (WW) initiative, which appears to be more of a greenwashing or offsetting exercise than a genuine effort to protect the lake. United Utilities' plan hinges on the SAGIS model, which we argue provides a misleading representation of what is actually happening on the ground. You may not have heard of SAGIS, but you have likely heard the United Utilities’ greenwashing machine regularly mention that they “only contribute to 40% of the phosphorous loading in Windermere” – a statistic that has been derived from the SAGIS model.
What is SAGIS? The SAGIS model is a tool used for source apportionment of nutrients in water bodies. It aims to identify and quantify the most significant sources of phosphorus and other nutrients, determining the contribution of each source to the total nutrient load in a given water body, such as a lake. This, in theory, helps in understanding which inputs are most influential in affecting water quality, and is intended to guide targeted interventions for nutrient management.
However, the model is fundamentally flawed, potentially rigged, and is being weaponised by United Utilities to justify the allocation of investments aimed at reducing phosphorus inputs into Windermere. Whilst the SAGIS model may appear to be built by the Environment Agency (EA), it was in fact originally developed by UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR), a private research organisation sponsored by the water industry. The current version of SAGIS has not undergone peer review or public analysis for over a decade, despite significant changes. Its proprietary nature means that the documentation needed to understand its workings, calibration, assumptions, and suitability is only available through expensive private research reports from UKWIR. It remains unclear what purchasing this would include, such as whether the source code is provided, which is essential for thoroughly stress-testing the model. Despite this lack of external scrutiny, the model has already been used to allocate billions of pounds to reduce chemical pressures in waterways. This lack of transparency violates the Government’s Technology Code of Practice, which advocates for the use of open-source software to ensure transparency and accountability.
The reliance on this model is deeply troubling, especially considering the critical role it plays in justifying the water industry’s proposed investments. The data sources used in this model are equally questionable, with significant concerns about the accuracy and reliability of inputs from United Utilities, non-main drainage and agricultural sources. One example is the use of operator self-monitoring data in this model, a highly controversial practice often criticised as the industry ‘marking their own homework’. The use of unverified and potentially manipulated data could lead to misguided investment decisions that fail to address the real issues affecting Windermere.
In their business plan, United Utilities has proposed a ‘Bespoke Performance Commitment’ (BPC) titled ‘Wonderful Windermere’. Tim Boden undertook an analysis of the business plan for Save Windermere and demonstrated that the BPC would see United Utilities assume the role of 'catchment convenor’, placing them in a position to coordinate the management of wider catchment phosphorus inputs. However, we believe this approach could allow United Utilities to sidestep their statutory duties, shifting focus instead to agricultural interventions that offer minimal environmental benefits while avoiding necessary investments in infrastructure. For instance, UU proposed to OFWAT in the first iteration of their business plan that new woodlands could be valued at £17,441 per hectare per year, and new wetlands and ponds at £7,052 per hectare per year—a cost they intend to pass directly onto the bill-payer. This strategy could lead to profits for United Utilities through low capital expenditure on land-based interventions that provide limited or no genuine improvements to nutrient loading in the lake, compared to the greater environmental returns that could be achieved through significant infrastructure investments.
What YOU Can Do
We believe that United Utilities' current proposals are fundamentally flawed and cannot be accepted in their present form. The reliance on unverified models, built on incomplete data, a focus on superficial interventions, and the unjustified costs to consumers all point to the need for a complete reevaluation or a halt to these plans until they have been appropriately scrutinised.
We have written to OFWAT and Steve Reed, urging them to reconsider the proposed investments for Windermere, ensuring that any future plans are based on accurate data, transparent processes, and a genuine commitment to protecting England's greatest natural asset. You can read our letter to Chief Executive David Black below, but we also need your help.
Plans of this nature are not only set to be implemented in Windermere, but across the entire country. The simplest way for all of us to fight this? Simply say no.
You can email David Black and Steve Reed right now to express that you do not accept United Utilities proposals here in Windermere, and that you reject the proposal to increase people’s bills across the country.
You have paid for a service that has clearly not been provided, and now is your moment to stand up and fight back.
