109 He who pays the polluter

There is an interesting report on public attitudes to the UK water sector called Building a societal licence, published by Copper Consultancy and Future Water.

Some of the polling questions as reported are somewhat ambiguous but I assume that this is a feature of how they are reported and that there was greater clarity in the questions as actually asked by the pollsters.

There are interesting results from the demographics of the 18% of people who think that bottled water is better value than tap water.  Unfortunately the quoted demographics do not seem to include IQ.  I will leave discussion of that to the water resources specialists.

On a drainage and wastewater theme, only 28% of people would be prepared to pay a higher water bill for a better environment but 35% would be willing to pay more tax.  So government is more trusted to deliver than the water companies.  Conversely higher numbers - 40% and 36% - would not be prepared to pay more for a better environment.

The result that really interested me was that 69% of people say that those who use water for leisure purposes should pay more with only 10% disagreeing.

The polluter pays

The Environmental principles policy statement published by Defra and last updated in 31 January 2023 sets out a definition of the polluter pays principle.  This states that:

Where possible, the costs of pollution should be borne by those causing it, rather than the person who suffers the effects of the resulting environmental damage, or the wider community.

However, this does not create an obligation to create a tax in response to the polluter pays principle. If it is decided it would be appropriate for the consumer to pay, the costs of environmental damage (such as pollution control and remediation) would be reflected in the cost of goods and services.

So that is really clear.  The polluter pays unless this would require a new tax, in which case the consumer should pay. 

It depends a bit on your definition of “tax”.  Water and wastewater charges have to be paid by everyone (unless you can go off-grid) so are they in effect a general tax and so come under the exclusion.  The alternative of actually paying for pollution control through tax (which the survey above shows the public would prefer) would definitely come under the exclusion to the polluter pays principle.

Microbial pollution of rivers and lakes

A recent report from the National Engineering Policy Centre looked at the issues of mitigating health risks from wastewater pollution.  This had a forward by Professor Chris Whitty the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) for England.  It was widely reported as, “Chris Whitty says all treated sewage effluent discharges should be disinfected”.  In fact neither he nor the report said any such thing.

The report did set out two key issues:

• The growing popularity of open water recreation activities across the UK (including swimming, water sports, and angling) has increased the exposure of the public to pollution.
• In addition to these short-term public health risks, the wastewater system is also a source of antimicrobial resistance. The exposure of recreational water users to human faecal organisms resistant to known antibiotics poses a longer-term risk to public health.

The report set out some proposed actions to reduce the risk.  These included:

• Water service providers and environmental regulators should assess the need for the wider deployment of disinfection processes at priority sites as part of a public health risk-based approach to improving the UK’s wastewater infrastructure.
• Extend the scope of continuous water monitoring of treated effluent to include microbiological quality and making this data available to the public in near real-time.

The report focussed on human derived organisms and did not consider the problem of animal derived organisms.  I think that covid should have taught us that organisms transmitted from animals can also be a problem.  The recent outbreak of cryptosporidium in Brixham in Devon that infected over 100 people was traced to contamination from farm animals.

Paying for bathing waters

So who should pay for disinfecting discharges so that all of our lakes and rivers are safe for swimming and other water contact activities?  Should that cost be borne by the general public or by the roughly 10% of the general public who go swimming in inland waters.

One argument is that being able to swim in our lakes and rivers is a human right that all should be able to enjoy for free.  You could also argue the same for our special landscapes and cultural history; but more people pay for access to that through membership of the National Trust than go wild swimming. 

Some people are prepared to pay for open air swimming with swimming lakes and lidos charging up to £10 an hour.  However they generally include other facilities as well as healthy water that free swimming spots do not provide.

There are also practical issues in charging for wild swimming, even if only in designated bathing waters, including how to enforce payment. 

I don’t know who should pay, but it is interesting that the report mentioned at the top of this blog seemed to show that the public thought it should be those using the water for recreation rather than water customers or taxpayers.