Website Directory

New

Christmas is a time where you get to make memories with those who mean theŔhe post 20 Best-Ever Christmas Eve Side Dishes appeared first on Eat This Not That source http://hub.page/lifestyle/20-bestever-christmas-eve-side-dishes via Hub Page
Back in 2017, the effects of Brexit were yet to be seen. In our previous blog about thewater industry and Brexit, we talked about the possible changes to come. Previously, the UKҳ membership of the European Union had a significant impact on the water industry, from environmental standards to water quality legislation. Over the course of the UKҳ relationship with the EU, weҶe seen huge improvements to environmental standards relating to water. So where are we now that weҶe left the EU? First, letҳ look a little closer at what being in the EU meant for water. The EU Water Directive One of the European Unionҳ environmental aims was to stop the deterioration of water bodies. The EU Water Directive was set out in 2000 and its mission was to have all EU bodies of water achieve чood Ecological StatusҠby 2015. While this was indeed a substantial and admirable mission, it unfortunatelydid not play out exactly as planned. Many bodies of water deteriorated and, in 2018 ֠3 years after the ѤeadlineҠ֠only 40% of European surface water bodies achieved чood Ecological StatusҮ Despite some of the failings of the EU Water Directive, many great things did come of being in the EU for the UKҳ water. For one, the UKҳ beaches are much better off for having been in the EU. When the UK joined the EU in the 70s, it was known for its dirty beaches. But by 2016,96.5% of UK beaches met EU standards. At the time of the referendum, then, many environmentalists were worried that all the good that had been done here would reverse with Brexit. Where would we be without EU water quality standards, without theBathing Water Directive, theMarine Strategy Framework Directive, and other renewedwater quality directives? Post-Brexit Water Regulation Since Brexit, the governmentҳ actions relating to water quality have been somewhat inconsistent. For example, in the summer of 2021, both Covid and Brexit causeddisruptions to normal water treatment. This lack of access to the necessary treatment chemicals led to an Environment Agency announcement that companies it impacted could Ӥischarge effluent without meeting the conditionsԠof their permits. This unfortunate occurrence was of course a result of a range of new challenges, but this large-scale dumping of raw sewage was a real setback for UK water and the governmentҳ commitments to clean water. On a positive note, though, we have recently seen renewed investment in cleaner waters. Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP) The Government, theEnvironment Agency, andOfwat set out in July of 2021 toreform and review the WINEP. New reforms to the WINEP set out to improve the water industryҳ impacts on the environment. Goals include: Reduction of sewage discharges from storm overflows Producing a more resilient water sector that plans to tackle drought, flooding, and pollution Addressing water quality and efficiency issues. 25 Year Environment Plan In 2018, the UK government set out an environmental manifesto with significant goals to be met by 2042. They aim to achieve cleaner, more plentiful water by: Exceeding objectives for bodies of water that are specially protected, as part of theRiver Basin Management Plans Minimising harmful bacteria in bathing waters Reducing impacts of wastewater Introducing new farming rules relating to water Reforming water abstraction methods so that groundwater supplies donҴ become depleted You can read the entire25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment here. The reasons for the EUҳ relative lack of success with the Water Framework Directive could be debated until the cows come home, but many could claim that it was due to the complex nature and bureaucracy that exists within the EU itself. With more autonomy, thereҳ now no excuse for the UK to get in gear. On the other hand, the overarching authority of the EU did put its members under pressure (and rightly so) to improve their environmental efforts relating to water ֠and that can only be a good thing. The UK, then, should not lose sight of this pressure and continue to take water policy seriously. As much as 25 year plans are encouraging, they are no good without action. Hereҳ to moving towards a bright future forwater quality! The postBrexit and the Water Industry: Where Are We Now? appeared first onAquaread.

Water Damage Cleanup Pflugerville Tx

Software sewage backflow cleanup pflugerville tx , sewage cleanup pflugerville texas , toilet overflow https://anotepad.com/notes/k3p3wp8j
Sewage Backflow Cleanup in Pflugerville TX
What is dredging and desilting? Dredging and desilting are methods that we use to remove an accumulation of silt material, such as fine gravels or soils that have been washed into rivers from surrounding land in the catchment, from the bottom of rivers to temporarily increase the flow. Desilting is usually undertaken more frequently to remove recent deposits of silt to the bed level of a river. We use dredging to describe removing a range of materials or for making the channel larger by removing the bed and channel side material. It is undertaken less frequently and is a bigger exercise. In the UK, dredging and desilting have historically been carried out for a broad range of reasons: to drain land, maintain flows to mills, abstract sand or gravel for construction or to improve navigation, in addition to preventing flooding. In the past this has sometimes come with unintended consequences including increasing flooding downstream. Dredging and desilting are not as effective at reducing flood risk as other options, are often expensive and can be harmful to the environment. Therefore the level of dredging and desilting has decreased in the UK over recent decades. Does dredging and desilting prevent flooding? When used with other flood risk management measures as part of a catchment based approach dredging and desilting can be effective and justified. In the majority of cases, they are not the most efficient or sustainable ways of reducing flood risk and may actually increase flood risk to downstream communities. . Natural processes in many rivers means silt will return and accumulate in the same places very quickly, sometimes only weeks after dredging and desilting is carried out, therefore any increase in channel capacity will be short-lived. This is particularly evident in tidal rivers with each tide bringing in new accumulations of silt. Why doesnҴ the Environment Agency do more dredging? Dredging and desilting are an important part of our river maintenance programme, which is why we spent around 㵠million on these activities in 2019/20. This is in addition to the approximately 㴰 million we spend on other works in channels such as weed clearance and blockage removal to keep them flowing. We consider each location carefully and dredge where we know it will make a difference to reduce flood risk. We assess each situation individually to understand the effectiveness, sustainability, environmental impact and value for money that dredging and desilting will provide. Where we conclude that dredging and desilting is economically viable, will not harm the environment and will reduce flood risk, then we will undertake it What is the impact on the environment? Dredging and desilting can have serious and long lasting negative impacts on the environment. For example, it can damage or destroy fish spawning grounds and make river banks unstable. Silt can become suspended in the water, lowering oxygen levels, potentially releasing harmful chemicals that may be present. This, in turn, impacts on wildlife, and water quality downstream. The silt that has been removed from rivers can be difficult to dispose of, particularly where it is contaminated due to the historic industrial activity on the lower catchments of our rivers. Before we undertake dredging and desilting activities we make sure the work will not have any negative impacts on the environment, water quality or flood risk elsewhere in the catchment. We also design and undertake the work in a way that improves the river habitat or if that is not possible, minimise any impact as far as we can. How does the Environment Agency reduce flood risk in places where it doesnҴ dredge? Taking action across entire river catchments is a much more effective and efficient way to protect communities and increase their resilience to flooding. The most visible measures include flood walls, embankments, and demountable and temporary barriers, which help to contain water within river channels. Our strong track record on delivering new defences means that 314,000 homes are better protected since 2015, and the delivery of a record 㵮2 billion investment in around 2,000 new schemes across the country will see a further 336,000 properties better protected over this current funding period. Communities are also protected by other flood risk measures such as storing water upstream and slowing the flow through natural flood management measures such as leaky dams. We create flood storage areas to temporarily store flood water on land that will more readily recover from flooding (such as parkland) to prevent flood water moving downstream too quickly and flooding communities. Working with partners, we also carry out activity in the upper catchments of rivers, restoring peatlands, planting trees, and building leaky dams, all of which contribute to slowing the flow of water into communities further downstream. In urban areas, we work with local authorities and other partners to promote sustainable drainage systems, which can include the creation of ponds and green spaces to help soak up rainwater, rather than it flowing quickly into drains and rivers. Across the country we work closely with other Risk Management Authorities such as local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards to manage flood risk. However, even with these measures and the Environment Agencyҳ strong track record, we cannot prevent flooding all of the time. Thatҳ why we need people to know their risk. So we encourage everyone tocheck online if they are at risk of flooding,sign up for flood warnings, and, if they are at risk,know what to do when flooding hits. Householders and business owners can also take other action to protect their property, such as installingProperty Flood Resilience (PFR) measures. These can include flood doors, airbrick covers, and flood-resistant coatings on walls, helping to either keep water out of properties, or allow a quicker return to normality after flooding.
Back in 2017, the effects of Brexit were yet to be seen. In our previous blog about thewater industry and Brexit, we talked about the possible changes to come. Previously, the UKҳ membership of the European Union had a significant impact on the water industry, from environmental standards to water quality legislation. Over the course of the UKҳ relationship with the EU, weҶe seen huge improvements to environmental standards relating to water. So where are we now that weҶe left the EU? First, letҳ look a little closer at what being in the EU meant for water. The EU Water Directive One of the European Unionҳ environmental aims was to stop the deterioration of water bodies. The EU Water Directive was set out in 2000 and its mission was to have all EU bodies of water achieve чood Ecological StatusҠby 2015. While this was indeed a substantial and admirable mission, it unfortunatelydid not play out exactly as planned. Many bodies of water deteriorated and, in 2018 ֠3 years after the ѤeadlineҠ֠only 40% of European surface water bodies achieved чood Ecological StatusҮ Despite some of the failings of the EU Water Directive, many great things did come of being in the EU for the UKҳ water. For one, the UKҳ beaches are much better off for having been in the EU. When the UK joined the EU in the 70s, it was known for its dirty beaches. But by 2016,96.5% of UK beaches met EU standards. At the time of the referendum, then, many environmentalists were worried that all the good that had been done here would reverse with Brexit. Where would we be without EU water quality standards, without theBathing Water Directive, theMarine Strategy Framework Directive, and other renewedwater quality directives? Post-Brexit Water Regulation Since Brexit, the governmentҳ actions relating to water quality have been somewhat inconsistent. For example, in the summer of 2021, both Covid and Brexit causeddisruptions to normal water treatment. This lack of access to the necessary treatment chemicals led to an Environment Agency announcement that companies it impacted could Ӥischarge effluent without meeting the conditionsԠof their permits. This unfortunate occurrence was of course a result of a range of new challenges, but this large-scale dumping of raw sewage was a real setback for UK water and the governmentҳ commitments to clean water. On a positive note, though, we have recently seen renewed investment in cleaner waters. Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP) The Government, theEnvironment Agency, andOfwat set out in July of 2021 toreform and review the WINEP. New reforms to the WINEP set out to improve the water industryҳ impacts on the environment. Goals include: Reduction of sewage discharges from storm overflows Producing a more resilient water sector that plans to tackle drought, flooding, and pollution Addressing water quality and efficiency issues. 25 Year Environment Plan In 2018, the UK government set out an environmental manifesto with significant goals to be met by 2042. They aim to achieve cleaner, more plentiful water by: Exceeding objectives for bodies of water that are specially protected, as part of theRiver Basin Management Plans Minimising harmful bacteria in bathing waters Reducing impacts of wastewater Introducing new farming rules relating to water Reforming water abstraction methods so that groundwater supplies donҴ become depleted You can read the entire25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment here. The reasons for the EUҳ relative lack of success with the Water Framework Directive could be debated until the cows come home, but many could claim that it was due to the complex nature and bureaucracy that exists within the EU itself. With more autonomy, thereҳ now no excuse for the UK to get in gear. On the other hand, the overarching authority of the EU did put its members under pressure (and rightly so) to improve their environmental efforts relating to water ֠and that can only be a good thing. The UK, then, should not lose sight of this pressure and continue to take water policy seriously. As much as 25 year plans are encouraging, they are no good without action. Hereҳ to moving towards a bright future forwater quality! The postBrexit and the Water Industry: Where Are We Now? appeared first onAquaread.
What is dredging and desilting? Dredging and desilting are methods that we use to remove an accumulation of silt material, such as fine gravels or soils that have been washed into rivers from surrounding land in the catchment, from the bottom of rivers to temporarily increase the flow. Desilting is usually undertaken more frequently to remove recent deposits of silt to the bed level of a river. We use dredging to describe removing a range of materials or for making the channel larger by removing the bed and channel side material. It is undertaken less frequently and is a bigger exercise. In the UK, dredging and desilting have historically been carried out for a broad range of reasons: to drain land, maintain flows to mills, abstract sand or gravel for construction or to improve navigation, in addition to preventing flooding. In the past this has sometimes come with unintended consequences including increasing flooding downstream. Dredging and desilting are not as effective at reducing flood risk as other options, are often expensive and can be harmful to the environment. Therefore the level of dredging and desilting has decreased in the UK over recent decades. Does dredging and desilting prevent flooding? When used with other flood risk management measures as part of a catchment based approach dredging and desilting can be effective and justified. In the majority of cases, they are not the most efficient or sustainable ways of reducing flood risk and may actually increase flood risk to downstream communities. . Natural processes in many rivers means silt will return and accumulate in the same places very quickly, sometimes only weeks after dredging and desilting is carried out, therefore any increase in channel capacity will be short-lived. This is particularly evident in tidal rivers with each tide bringing in new accumulations of silt. Why doesnҴ the Environment Agency do more dredging? Dredging and desilting are an important part of our river maintenance programme, which is why we spent around 㵠million on these activities in 2019/20. This is in addition to the approximately 㴰 million we spend on other works in channels such as weed clearance and blockage removal to keep them flowing. We consider each location carefully and dredge where we know it will make a difference to reduce flood risk. We assess each situation individually to understand the effectiveness, sustainability, environmental impact and value for money that dredging and desilting will provide. Where we conclude that dredging and desilting is economically viable, will not harm the environment and will reduce flood risk, then we will undertake it What is the impact on the environment? Dredging and desilting can have serious and long lasting negative impacts on the environment. For example, it can damage or destroy fish spawning grounds and make river banks unstable. Silt can become suspended in the water, lowering oxygen levels, potentially releasing harmful chemicals that may be present. This, in turn, impacts on wildlife, and water quality downstream. The silt that has been removed from rivers can be difficult to dispose of, particularly where it is contaminated due to the historic industrial activity on the lower catchments of our rivers. Before we undertake dredging and desilting activities we make sure the work will not have any negative impacts on the environment, water quality or flood risk elsewhere in the catchment. We also design and undertake the work in a way that improves the river habitat or if that is not possible, minimise any impact as far as we can. How does the Environment Agency reduce flood risk in places where it doesnҴ dredge? Taking action across entire river catchments is a much more effective and efficient way to protect communities and increase their resilience to flooding. The most visible measures include flood walls, embankments, and demountable and temporary barriers, which help to contain water within river channels. Our strong track record on delivering new defences means that 314,000 homes are better protected since 2015, and the delivery of a record 㵮2 billion investment in around 2,000 new schemes across the country will see a further 336,000 properties better protected over this current funding period. Communities are also protected by other flood risk measures such as storing water upstream and slowing the flow through natural flood management measures such as leaky dams. We create flood storage areas to temporarily store flood water on land that will more readily recover from flooding (such as parkland) to prevent flood water moving downstream too quickly and flooding communities. Working with partners, we also carry out activity in the upper catchments of rivers, restoring peatlands, planting trees, and building leaky dams, all of which contribute to slowing the flow of water into communities further downstream. In urban areas, we work with local authorities and other partners to promote sustainable drainage systems, which can include the creation of ponds and green spaces to help soak up rainwater, rather than it flowing quickly into drains and rivers. Across the country we work closely with other Risk Management Authorities such as local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards to manage flood risk. However, even with these measures and the Environment Agencyҳ strong track record, we cannot prevent flooding all of the time. Thatҳ why we need people to know their risk. So we encourage everyone tocheck online if they are at risk of flooding,sign up for flood warnings, and, if they are at risk,know what to do when flooding hits. Householders and business owners can also take other action to protect their property, such as installingProperty Flood Resilience (PFR) measures. These can include flood doors, airbrick covers, and flood-resistant coatings on walls, helping to either keep water out of properties, or allow a quicker return to normality after flooding.
What is dredging and desilting? Dredging and desilting are methods that we use to remove an accumulation of silt material, such as fine gravels or soils that have been washed into rivers from surrounding land in the catchment, from the bottom of rivers to temporarily increase the flow. Desilting is usually undertaken more frequently to remove recent deposits of silt to the bed level of a river. We use dredging to describe removing a range of materials or for making the channel larger by removing the bed and channel side material. It is undertaken less frequently and is a bigger exercise. In the UK, dredging and desilting have historically been carried out for a broad range of reasons: to drain land, maintain flows to mills, abstract sand or gravel for construction or to improve navigation, in addition to preventing flooding. In the past this has sometimes come with unintended consequences including increasing flooding downstream. Dredging and desilting are not as effective at reducing flood risk as other options, are often expensive and can be harmful to the environment. Therefore the level of dredging and desilting has decreased in the UK over recent decades. Does dredging and desilting prevent flooding? When used with other flood risk management measures as part of a catchment based approach dredging and desilting can be effective and justified. In the majority of cases, they are not the most efficient or sustainable ways of reducing flood risk and may actually increase flood risk to downstream communities. . Natural processes in many rivers means silt will return and accumulate in the same places very quickly, sometimes only weeks after dredging and desilting is carried out, therefore any increase in channel capacity will be short-lived. This is particularly evident in tidal rivers with each tide bringing in new accumulations of silt. Why doesnҴ the Environment Agency do more dredging? Dredging and desilting are an important part of our river maintenance programme, which is why we spent around 㵠million on these activities in 2019/20. This is in addition to the approximately 㴰 million we spend on other works in channels such as weed clearance and blockage removal to keep them flowing. We consider each location carefully and dredge where we know it will make a difference to reduce flood risk. We assess each situation individually to understand the effectiveness, sustainability, environmental impact and value for money that dredging and desilting will provide. Where we conclude that dredging and desilting is economically viable, will not harm the environment and will reduce flood risk, then we will undertake it What is the impact on the environment? Dredging and desilting can have serious and long lasting negative impacts on the environment. For example, it can damage or destroy fish spawning grounds and make river banks unstable. Silt can become suspended in the water, lowering oxygen levels, potentially releasing harmful chemicals that may be present. This, in turn, impacts on wildlife, and water quality downstream. The silt that has been removed from rivers can be difficult to dispose of, particularly where it is contaminated due to the historic industrial activity on the lower catchments of our rivers. Before we undertake dredging and desilting activities we make sure the work will not have any negative impacts on the environment, water quality or flood risk elsewhere in the catchment. We also design and undertake the work in a way that improves the river habitat or if that is not possible, minimise any impact as far as we can. How does the Environment Agency reduce flood risk in places where it doesnҴ dredge? Taking action across entire river catchments is a much more effective and efficient way to protect communities and increase their resilience to flooding. The most visible measures include flood walls, embankments, and demountable and temporary barriers, which help to contain water within river channels. Our strong track record on delivering new defences means that 314,000 homes are better protected since 2015, and the delivery of a record 㵮2 billion investment in around 2,000 new schemes across the country will see a further 336,000 properties better protected over this current funding period. Communities are also protected by other flood risk measures such as storing water upstream and slowing the flow through natural flood management measures such as leaky dams. We create flood storage areas to temporarily store flood water on land that will more readily recover from flooding (such as parkland) to prevent flood water moving downstream too quickly and flooding communities. Working with partners, we also carry out activity in the upper catchments of rivers, restoring peatlands, planting trees, and building leaky dams, all of which contribute to slowing the flow of water into communities further downstream. In urban areas, we work with local authorities and other partners to promote sustainable drainage systems, which can include the creation of ponds and green spaces to help soak up rainwater, rather than it flowing quickly into drains and rivers. Across the country we work closely with other Risk Management Authorities such as local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards to manage flood risk. However, even with these measures and the Environment Agencyҳ strong track record, we cannot prevent flooding all of the time. Thatҳ why we need people to know their risk. So we encourage everyone tocheck online if they are at risk of flooding,sign up for flood warnings, and, if they are at risk,know what to do when flooding hits. Householders and business owners can also take other action to protect their property, such as installingProperty Flood Resilience (PFR) measures. These can include flood doors, airbrick covers, and flood-resistant coatings on walls, helping to either keep water out of properties, or allow a quicker return to normality after flooding.
What is dredging and desilting? Dredging and desilting are methods that we use to remove an accumulation of silt material, such as fine gravels or soils that have been washed into rivers from surrounding land in the catchment, from the bottom of rivers to temporarily increase the flow. Desilting is usually undertaken more frequently to remove recent deposits of silt to the bed level of a river. We use dredging to describe removing a range of materials or for making the channel larger by removing the bed and channel side material. It is undertaken less frequently and is a bigger exercise. In the UK, dredging and desilting have historically been carried out for a broad range of reasons: to drain land, maintain flows to mills, abstract sand or gravel for construction or to improve navigation, in addition to preventing flooding. In the past this has sometimes come with unintended consequences including increasing flooding downstream. Dredging and desilting are not as effective at reducing flood risk as other options, are often expensive and can be harmful to the environment. Therefore the level of dredging and desilting has decreased in the UK over recent decades. Does dredging and desilting prevent flooding? When used with other flood risk management measures as part of a catchment based approach dredging and desilting can be effective and justified. In the majority of cases, they are not the most efficient or sustainable ways of reducing flood risk and may actually increase flood risk to downstream communities. . Natural processes in many rivers means silt will return and accumulate in the same places very quickly, sometimes only weeks after dredging and desilting is carried out, therefore any increase in channel capacity will be short-lived. This is particularly evident in tidal rivers with each tide bringing in new accumulations of silt. Why doesnҴ the Environment Agency do more dredging? Dredging and desilting are an important part of our river maintenance programme, which is why we spent around 㵠million on these activities in 2019/20. This is in addition to the approximately 㴰 million we spend on other works in channels such as weed clearance and blockage removal to keep them flowing. We consider each location carefully and dredge where we know it will make a difference to reduce flood risk. We assess each situation individually to understand the effectiveness, sustainability, environmental impact and value for money that dredging and desilting will provide. Where we conclude that dredging and desilting is economically viable, will not harm the environment and will reduce flood risk, then we will undertake it What is the impact on the environment? Dredging and desilting can have serious and long lasting negative impacts on the environment. For example, it can damage or destroy fish spawning grounds and make river banks unstable. Silt can become suspended in the water, lowering oxygen levels, potentially releasing harmful chemicals that may be present. This, in turn, impacts on wildlife, and water quality downstream. The silt that has been removed from rivers can be difficult to dispose of, particularly where it is contaminated due to the historic industrial activity on the lower catchments of our rivers. Before we undertake dredging and desilting activities we make sure the work will not have any negative impacts on the environment, water quality or flood risk elsewhere in the catchment. We also design and undertake the work in a way that improves the river habitat or if that is not possible, minimise any impact as far as we can. How does the Environment Agency reduce flood risk in places where it doesnҴ dredge? Taking action across entire river catchments is a much more effective and efficient way to protect communities and increase their resilience to flooding. The most visible measures include flood walls, embankments, and demountable and temporary barriers, which help to contain water within river channels. Our strong track record on delivering new defences means that 314,000 homes are better protected since 2015, and the delivery of a record 㵮2 billion investment in around 2,000 new schemes across the country will see a further 336,000 properties better protected over this current funding period. Communities are also protected by other flood risk measures such as storing water upstream and slowing the flow through natural flood management measures such as leaky dams. We create flood storage areas to temporarily store flood water on land that will more readily recover from flooding (such as parkland) to prevent flood water moving downstream too quickly and flooding communities. Working with partners, we also carry out activity in the upper catchments of rivers, restoring peatlands, planting trees, and building leaky dams, all of which contribute to slowing the flow of water into communities further downstream. In urban areas, we work with local authorities and other partners to promote sustainable drainage systems, which can include the creation of ponds and green spaces to help soak up rainwater, rather than it flowing quickly into drains and rivers. Across the country we work closely with other Risk Management Authorities such as local authorities and Internal Drainage Boards to manage flood risk. However, even with these measures and the Environment Agencyҳ strong track record, we cannot prevent flooding all of the time. Thatҳ why we need people to know their risk. So we encourage everyone tocheck online if they are at risk of flooding,sign up for flood warnings, and, if they are at risk,know what to do when flooding hits. Householders and business owners can also take other action to protect their property, such as installingProperty Flood Resilience (PFR) measures. These can include flood doors, airbrick covers, and flood-resistant coatings on walls, helping to either keep water out of properties, or allow a quicker return to normality after flooding.
Back in 2017, the effects of Brexit were yet to be seen. In our previous blog about thewater industry and Brexit, we talked about the possible changes to come. Previously, the UKҳ membership of the European Union had a significant impact on the water industry, from environmental standards to water quality legislation. Over the course of the UKҳ relationship with the EU, weҶe seen huge improvements to environmental standards relating to water. So where are we now that weҶe left the EU? First, letҳ look a little closer at what being in the EU meant for water. The EU Water Directive One of the European Unionҳ environmental aims was to stop the deterioration of water bodies. The EU Water Directive was set out in 2000 and its mission was to have all EU bodies of water achieve чood Ecological StatusҠby 2015. While this was indeed a substantial and admirable mission, it unfortunatelydid not play out exactly as planned. Many bodies of water deteriorated and, in 2018 ֠3 years after the ѤeadlineҠ֠only 40% of European surface water bodies achieved чood Ecological StatusҮ Despite some of the failings of the EU Water Directive, many great things did come of being in the EU for the UKҳ water. For one, the UKҳ beaches are much better off for having been in the EU. When the UK joined the EU in the 70s, it was known for its dirty beaches. But by 2016,96.5% of UK beaches met EU standards. At the time of the referendum, then, many environmentalists were worried that all the good that had been done here would reverse with Brexit. Where would we be without EU water quality standards, without theBathing Water Directive, theMarine Strategy Framework Directive, and other renewedwater quality directives? Post-Brexit Water Regulation Since Brexit, the governmentҳ actions relating to water quality have been somewhat inconsistent. For example, in the summer of 2021, both Covid and Brexit causeddisruptions to normal water treatment. This lack of access to the necessary treatment chemicals led to an Environment Agency announcement that companies it impacted could Ӥischarge effluent without meeting the conditionsԠof their permits. This unfortunate occurrence was of course a result of a range of new challenges, but this large-scale dumping of raw sewage was a real setback for UK water and the governmentҳ commitments to clean water. On a positive note, though, we have recently seen renewed investment in cleaner waters. Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP) The Government, theEnvironment Agency, andOfwat set out in July of 2021 toreform and review the WINEP. New reforms to the WINEP set out to improve the water industryҳ impacts on the environment. Goals include: Reduction of sewage discharges from storm overflows Producing a more resilient water sector that plans to tackle drought, flooding, and pollution Addressing water quality and efficiency issues. 25 Year Environment Plan In 2018, the UK government set out an environmental manifesto with significant goals to be met by 2042. They aim to achieve cleaner, more plentiful water by: Exceeding objectives for bodies of water that are specially protected, as part of theRiver Basin Management Plans Minimising harmful bacteria in bathing waters Reducing impacts of wastewater Introducing new farming rules relating to water Reforming water abstraction methods so that groundwater supplies donҴ become depleted You can read the entire25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment here. The reasons for the EUҳ relative lack of success with the Water Framework Directive could be debated until the cows come home, but many could claim that it was due to the complex nature and bureaucracy that exists within the EU itself. With more autonomy, thereҳ now no excuse for the UK to get in gear. On the other hand, the overarching authority of the EU did put its members under pressure (and rightly so) to improve their environmental efforts relating to water ֠and that can only be a good thing. The UK, then, should not lose sight of this pressure and continue to take water policy seriously. As much as 25 year plans are encouraging, they are no good without action. Hereҳ to moving towards a bright future forwater quality! The postBrexit and the Water Industry: Where Are We Now? appeared first onAquaread.
Back in 2017, the effects of Brexit were yet to be seen. In our previous blog about thewater industry and Brexit, we talked about the possible changes to come. Previously, the UKҳ membership of the European Union had a significant impact on the water industry, from environmental standards to water quality legislation. Over the course of the UKҳ relationship with the EU, weҶe seen huge improvements to environmental standards relating to water. So where are we now that weҶe left the EU? First, letҳ look a little closer at what being in the EU meant for water. The EU Water Directive One of the European Unionҳ environmental aims was to stop the deterioration of water bodies. The EU Water Directive was set out in 2000 and its mission was to have all EU bodies of water achieve чood Ecological StatusҠby 2015. While this was indeed a substantial and admirable mission, it unfortunatelydid not play out exactly as planned. Many bodies of water deteriorated and, in 2018 ֠3 years after the ѤeadlineҠ֠only 40% of European surface water bodies achieved чood Ecological StatusҮ Despite some of the failings of the EU Water Directive, many great things did come of being in the EU for the UKҳ water. For one, the UKҳ beaches are much better off for having been in the EU. When the UK joined the EU in the 70s, it was known for its dirty beaches. But by 2016,96.5% of UK beaches met EU standards. At the time of the referendum, then, many environmentalists were worried that all the good that had been done here would reverse with Brexit. Where would we be without EU water quality standards, without theBathing Water Directive, theMarine Strategy Framework Directive, and other renewedwater quality directives? Post-Brexit Water Regulation Since Brexit, the governmentҳ actions relating to water quality have been somewhat inconsistent. For example, in the summer of 2021, both Covid and Brexit causeddisruptions to normal water treatment. This lack of access to the necessary treatment chemicals led to an Environment Agency announcement that companies it impacted could Ӥischarge effluent without meeting the conditionsԠof their permits. This unfortunate occurrence was of course a result of a range of new challenges, but this large-scale dumping of raw sewage was a real setback for UK water and the governmentҳ commitments to clean water. On a positive note, though, we have recently seen renewed investment in cleaner waters. Water Industry National Environment Programme (WINEP) The Government, theEnvironment Agency, andOfwat set out in July of 2021 toreform and review the WINEP. New reforms to the WINEP set out to improve the water industryҳ impacts on the environment. Goals include: Reduction of sewage discharges from storm overflows Producing a more resilient water sector that plans to tackle drought, flooding, and pollution Addressing water quality and efficiency issues. 25 Year Environment Plan In 2018, the UK government set out an environmental manifesto with significant goals to be met by 2042. They aim to achieve cleaner, more plentiful water by: Exceeding objectives for bodies of water that are specially protected, as part of theRiver Basin Management Plans Minimising harmful bacteria in bathing waters Reducing impacts of wastewater Introducing new farming rules relating to water Reforming water abstraction methods so that groundwater supplies donҴ become depleted You can read the entire25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment here. The reasons for the EUҳ relative lack of success with the Water Framework Directive could be debated until the cows come home, but many could claim that it was due to the complex nature and bureaucracy that exists within the EU itself. With more autonomy, thereҳ now no excuse for the UK to get in gear. On the other hand, the overarching authority of the EU did put its members under pressure (and rightly so) to improve their environmental efforts relating to water ֠and that can only be a good thing. The UK, then, should not lose sight of this pressure and continue to take water policy seriously. As much as 25 year plans are encouraging, they are no good without action. Hereҳ to moving towards a bright future forwater quality! The postBrexit and the Water Industry: Where Are We Now? appeared first onAquaread.