River quality improvement

[STYRBJORN]

As some may have noted, I am always ready to have a go at Ther Guvmint. Credit where due though. I have just read that Caroline "log flogger" Spelman has announced a program to spend £100 million over the next four years on improving waterway quality for wildlife. The money will go to the Environment Agency, Natural England, and various River Trusts. A further £18m will go to measures to reduce agro-chemical over spillage into rivers.

There's many a slip twixt cup and saucer, but sounds good so far. Report in the Independent.

Ric

[ForestPaul]

Call me a cynic, but there's something fishy about this (sorry about the pun).

In these times of cut-backs the treasury has suddenly found £100 million of new cash to spend on the environment ? I'd be very surprised if that were the case - if Paul's being paid then there's a pretty good chance that, somewhere, Peter's being robbed.

I imagine the impetus behind this is the EU Water Framework Directive which suggests that such funding would come from water pricing

The need to conserve adequate supplies of a resource for which demand is continuously increasing is also one of the drivers behind what is arguably one of the Directives's most important innovations - the introduction of pricing. Adequate water pricing acts as an incentive for the sustainable use of water resources and thus helps to achieve the environmental objectives under the Directive.

Member States will be required to ensure that the price charged to water consumers - such as for the abstraction and distribution of fresh water and the collection and treatment of waste water - reflects the true costs. Whereas this principle has a long tradition in some countries, this is currently not the case in others. However, derogations will be possible, e.g. in less-favoured areas or to provide basic services at an affordable price.

Not necessarily a bad thing of course, but I don't think the government's just handing out free money.

[The Woodman]

Great news indeed.

[wanlock dod]

Spending of this nature might have been committed previously, or it might be spending to prevent incurring fines for not implementing the directive. I'm sure that it is no bad thing and certainly the more holistic approach of the Water Framework Directive seems to be a much better way to regulate and manage surface waters than the piecemeal approach of the middle that was the mixture of legislation adressing sewage treatment, fisheries, and dangerous chemicals. It will also recognise nutrient enrichment as "pollution" and hopefully also provide mechanisms to prevent it.

[tom00_uk]

all part of the water frame work directive that came into play a few years ago,

water quality should be improved in all rivers, at worse stay the same and should never suffer deterioration if you wanted it in a nutshell.
of course it not that simple and lots of things have to be taken into consideration, but its likely to increase the fines polluters have to pay, if the quality does decrease in to many catchments then there is the possibility of being finned by the EU