You might be surprised by the sheer number of water pollution incidents we see every single week in the UK. Sometimes it’s down to industrial accidents, sometimes leaks, industrial spills and floods. You might also be surprised how tough the punishments issued by The Environment Agency are, including fines, business closures, the removal of environmental permits and in the worst cases, imprisonment. Here’s the pick of this week’s crop.

Trump openly supports US water pollution loophole

Once again America’s president is making his lack of environmental credentials clear. This week the US Supreme Court agreed to look at limiting the scope of a law designed to prevent water pollution.

Hawaii’s Maui County is being accused by the Hawaii Wildlife Fund of violating the 1972 Clean Water Act by discharging polluted water from pipes, drains and other sources into the Pacific Ocean. Apparently several million gallons of treated wastewater from the Lahaina Wastewater Reclamation Facility ends up in the Pacific Ocean every day.

The Trump administration supports the polluters, saying that the Environmental Protection Agency is currently busy deciding whether the types of discharges being discussed are actually covered by the law. The question is this: does Maui County need a permit even though the waste ends up in the ocean via groundwater underneath a series of wells rather than being sent there directly, for example through a pipe?

A lawyer with the environmental group Earthjustice said they’re confident the Supreme Court will agree with the Appeals Court that, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act, they didn’t intend to provide a gaping loophole for polluters. The court will rule on the case some time between October 2019 and June 2020. If Maui County wins the case, it’ll limit the ability of groups like Earthjustice to sue under the Clean Water Act.

In the meantime Maui has provisionally agreed to to pay a $100,000 fine and invest in new infrastructure. While it’s better than nothing, $100,000 seems derisory given the vast amount of pollution still flooding into the ocean every day.

The ruling will affect other cases in the pipeline, pun intended! For example there’s a current case against the Texas-based pipeline firm Kinder Morgan Inc, which is desperate to avoid a lawsuit by environmental groups over a 2014 pipeline leak in South Carolina. The leak resulted in 370,000 gallons of gasoline and diesel leaking into the groundwater and eventually entering waterways.

Thames Water’s walk of shame

Thames Water has been forced to pay £80,000 plus just under £20,000 in costs to the environmental charity The South East Rivers Trust. The ruling follows a serious sewer pollution incident that affected ‘several miles’ of waterways in south east London during 2013.

When the sewer pipe in Chislehurst was blocked by tree roots, rubbish and a host of horrid fatberg ingredients, the build up led sewerage to flood a field and two streams. Then it flowed into the River Shuttle and kept flowing for several days, killing fish and invertebrates and leaving the water itself and precious riverside habitats severely affected.

The spill was down to a long term lack of maintenance by Thames Water, which let tree roots grow into the sewer,leading to a ‘significant’ problem. Thames Water then compounded things by leaving the sewer uncleared after the Environment Agency informed them about the incident. Now, at last, Thames Water has fitted special equipment to monitor sewerage levels in the network near the site of the blockage, and relined the sewer in question.

The £80,000 payment is a ‘civil sanction’ or ‘enforcement undertaking’, a system where people and businesses are allowed to make good the environmental damage they cause in several ways, including making a financial donation to a local project. At the same time the polluter must make sure a similar incident doesn’t happen again.

The South East Rivers Trust helps communities care for their rivers. They’re using the cash to build a special fish pass on the River Cray at Bexley, so all sorts of fish can swim upstream for the first time in generations.

Why fast fashion should fund a fresh recycling initiative

Everyone loves a bargain. But the trend for ‘fast fashion’, where you wear an item of clothing a couple of times then bin it, is a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and air pollution, as well as using up extraordinary amounts of water.

MPs say that clothing brands and retailers should pay a 1p surcharge on every garment they sell to fund a £35m-a-year clothing recycling scheme. They’re also keen to see the government forcing manufacturers to pay a fee towards collecting and recycling the waste they create.

Green campaigners, on the other hand, say these demands are far too tame. 1P, after all, isn’t much of a surcharge. While the fashion sector creates jobs and contributes a whopping £28bn to the British economy, it also emits just as much greenhouse gas as the world’s air travel industry. And that’s saying something, since the air travel sector is amongst the world’s worst air polluters.

Professional support with water pollution prevention

We pride ourselves on our uncanny ability to understand your situation and needs instantly, and provide good, solid solutions that don’t break the bank. If you have any concerns about causing water pollution, we’ll step in to help you make sure it doesn’t happen.