
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: CNN
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: The Baltimore Sun
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: World Socialist Web Site
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: Patch
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: Cowboy State Daily
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: Forbes
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: TwinCities.com
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: The Arizona Republic
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: OPB
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: Toronto Star
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: Fox News
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: Free Malaysia Today
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: Honolulu Star-Advertiser
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: The Courier-Journal
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: BBC
[ Sun, Jul 27th ]: The Cincinnati Enquirer

[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: Townhall
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: the-sun.com
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: news4sanantonio
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: legit
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: Yen.com.gh
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: The New Indian Express
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: Cowboy State Daily
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: Fox News
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: NJ.com
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: CNN
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: MSNBC
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: rnz
[ Sat, Jul 26th ]: The Hans India

[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: nbcnews.com
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: CNN
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: Patch
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: United Press International
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: World Politics Review Articles
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: Toronto Star
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: Fox News
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: The Independent
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: The Irish News
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: moneycontrol.com
[ Fri, Jul 25th ]: rediff.com

[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: AFP
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Fox News
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: CBS News
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Globe and Mail
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Fox 11 News
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: CNN
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: United Press International
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: UPI
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Al Jazeera English
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Time
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Associated Press
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Patch
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The New Indian Express
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Straits Times
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Ghanaweb.com
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: thetimes.com
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Independent US
[ Thu, Jul 24th ]: The Daily Star

[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The New Zealand Herald
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: ThePrint
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Citizen
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Seeking Alpha
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: CNN
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Fox News
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: NBC Washington
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: rnz
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Telegraph
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: OPB
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: PBS
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Daily Star
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: nbcnews.com
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Economist
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: USA TODAY
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: dpa international
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: legit
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Patch
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: WSB-TV
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Futurism
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Yen.com.gh
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The Independent US
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: moneycontrol.com
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The West Australian
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: The News International
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Associated Press
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: Cowboy State Daily
[ Wed, Jul 23rd ]: BBC

[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: London Evening Standard
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The New Indian Express
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Forbes
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: rnz
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: reuters.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Patch
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: federalnewsnetwork.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Tech.co
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Kyiv Independent
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Economist
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: legit
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: WSB-TV
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: CNN
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Raw Story
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Reuters
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Denver Post
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: USA TODAY
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Daily Press
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: KIRO-TV
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Ghanaweb.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: moneycontrol.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Philadelphia Inquirer
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Time
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Straits Times
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Toronto Star
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: ThePrint
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Chattanooga Times Free Press
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: The Thaiger
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Channel NewsAsia Singapore

[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: rnz
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Jerusalem Post Blogs
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Associated Press
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Toronto Star
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Time
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Cowboy State Daily
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Daily Mail
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: WLKY
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: thetimes.com
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Newsweek
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: legit
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Telegraph
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Hill
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: News & Record
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: PBS
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Patch
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: UPI
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: World Politics Review Articles
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Nation
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: ThePrint
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: DW
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Semafor
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Globe and Mail
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: FXStreet
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: United Press International
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: CNN
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Telangana Today
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Independent
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: KSTP-TV
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Irish News
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Boston Globe
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: reuters.com
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: KOB 4
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The New Indian Express
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Daily Express
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: The Financial Express
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: newsbytesapp.com
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: Pacific Daily News
[ Mon, Jul 21st ]: World Socialist Web Site

[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Channel NewsAsia Singapore
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: rnz
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: The Financial Express
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Daily Mail
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: The New Zealand Herald
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: UPI
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Cowboy State Daily
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: The Daily Caller
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: The New York Times
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: United Press International
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: dpa international
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: WISH-TV
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Telangana Today
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: newsbytesapp.com
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: ThePrint
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: DW
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: BBC
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Star Tribune
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Politico
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: CNN
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: NBC 10 Philadelphia
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: The New Indian Express
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Columbus Dispatch
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Al Jazeera English
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Free Malaysia Today
[ Sun, Jul 20th ]: Associated Press

[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: The Financial Express
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: The New Zealand Herald
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: AFP
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: NPR
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: CNN
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: nbcnews.com
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: The Straits Times
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: Al Jazeera English
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: Associated Press
[ Sat, Jul 19th ]: The New Indian Express
Water review is a good start but government must keep up pressure


🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source
Sir Jon Cunliffe''s proposals must usher in a new era of tough regulation

Water Review Is a Good Start, but Government Must Keep Up Pressure
The government's recent announcement of a comprehensive review into England's beleaguered water industry marks a welcome and long-overdue intervention. For years, the sector has been plagued by scandal, inefficiency, and a blatant disregard for both environmental standards and consumer interests. This review, spearheaded by Environment Secretary Steve Reed, promises to scrutinize the systemic failures that have allowed water companies to prioritize profits over public good. Yet, while this is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, it must not be seen as the endgame. The government needs to maintain relentless pressure on these privatized monopolies to ensure meaningful reform, or risk the review becoming just another exercise in political theater.
At the heart of the crisis is the shocking reality of sewage pollution. In 2023 alone, raw sewage was discharged into England's rivers and coastal waters for over 3.6 million hours – a figure that has more than doubled since 2016. This environmental vandalism is not an aberration but a symptom of chronic underinvestment in infrastructure. Water companies, many of which were privatized in 1989 under Margaret Thatcher's government, have extracted billions in dividends for shareholders while allowing Victorian-era pipes to crumble. Leaks waste enough water annually to fill 2.2 million Olympic-sized swimming pools, exacerbating shortages even as hosepipe bans loom for households. Customers, meanwhile, face escalating bills – projected to rise by an average of £19 per year until 2030 – to fund improvements that should have been made decades ago.
The review's scope is ambitious and rightly so. It will examine the entire regulatory framework, including the roles of Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Key proposals include banning executive bonuses for firms that fail to meet pollution targets, introducing automatic fines for sewage spills, and potentially criminal charges for persistent offenders. There's also talk of empowering consumers through better representation on company boards and exploring ways to make water companies more accountable to the public they serve. These measures echo the public's growing outrage, fueled by campaigns from groups like Surfers Against Sewage and high-profile exposés revealing the extent of the damage to cherished waterways like the River Wye and Windermere.
However, the government's rhetoric must be matched by action. Past reviews and inquiries – from the 2018 National Infrastructure Commission report to various parliamentary select committee hearings – have highlighted these issues without leading to substantive change. The water industry's structure, dominated by a handful of giants like Thames Water, United Utilities, and Severn Trent, has fostered a culture of complacency. These companies operate as regional monopolies with little competitive pressure, allowing them to rack up £72 billion in debt while paying out £78 billion in dividends since privatization. Executive pay has been obscene: in 2022, water bosses pocketed £41 million in bonuses despite overseeing record pollution levels. The review must address this imbalance, perhaps by revisiting the privatization model itself. Could mutualization or even partial renationalization be on the table? The government has shied away from such radical ideas so far, but the scale of the failure demands bold thinking.
One encouraging aspect is the cross-party consensus emerging on this issue. Labour's new administration has inherited a mess from the Conservatives, who presided over a decade of regulatory laxity. Yet, figures like former Tory environment secretary Michael Gove had begun to turn the screw, with tougher fines and monitoring requirements. Reed's review builds on this, but it needs teeth. For instance, the proposed "special administration" regime for failing companies, as floated for Thames Water amid its £15 billion debt pile, could prevent taxpayer bailouts. But without swift implementation, public trust will erode further. Polls show that 70% of Britons support stronger action against water polluters, and with climate change intensifying floods and droughts, the stakes are higher than ever.
Beyond pollution, the review should tackle the broader sustainability of water supply. England faces a projected shortfall of 4 billion liters per day by 2050 if current trends continue. This requires not just fixing leaks but investing in new reservoirs, desalination plants, and smart metering to encourage conservation. The government's plan to build 1.5 million new homes adds urgency; without adequate water infrastructure, development will stall. Moreover, the review must consider the social equity angle. Low-income households are disproportionately hit by rising bills, and areas like the Southwest, served by South West Water, have endured some of the worst service disruptions, including the cryptosporidium outbreak in Devon earlier this year that left thousands without safe drinking water.
Critics argue that the review's timeline – with an interim report due by spring 2025 – is too leisurely. Immediate steps, such as an emergency moratorium on dividend payouts until pollution targets are met, could signal intent. The government should also leverage international examples: Scotland's publicly owned Scottish Water has invested heavily in infrastructure with far better environmental outcomes, while countries like Denmark have successfully integrated consumer voices into utility governance. England could learn from these models to create a more resilient and fair system.
Ultimately, this review represents a pivotal moment for the water sector. It acknowledges that the status quo is untenable – a privatized industry that has failed to deliver on its promises of efficiency and innovation. But good intentions alone won't clean up our rivers or secure our water future. The government must keep up the pressure, enforcing reforms with vigor and transparency. If it does, this could be the catalyst for a cleaner, more sustainable water system that serves people and planet alike. If not, the scandals will continue, and public anger will only grow. The ball is in ministers' court; they must not drop it.
This editorial stance underscores a broader point about utility privatization in Britain. The water crisis is emblematic of wider failures in sectors like energy and rail, where profit motives have often trumped public service. As the review unfolds, it should prompt a national conversation about how to balance private enterprise with societal needs. For too long, water companies have treated rivers as dumping grounds and customers as cash cows. It's time for accountability, investment, and real change. The government's commitment will be judged not by announcements, but by outcomes – cleaner waters, fairer bills, and a sector fit for the 21st century.
Expanding on the environmental impact, the sewage crisis has devastated ecosystems. Fish populations in affected rivers have plummeted, with species like salmon facing extinction in some areas. Biodiversity hotspots, from chalk streams to estuaries, are under threat, affecting not just wildlife but also recreational activities like fishing and swimming that contribute millions to the economy. The review must mandate biodiversity net gain in all infrastructure projects, ensuring that upgrades enhance rather than harm natural habitats.
On the regulatory front, Ofwat's track record has been woeful. Fines totaling £168 million since 2010 sound impressive, but they represent a fraction of companies' profits and have done little to deter wrongdoing. Strengthening Ofwat's powers, perhaps by giving it authority to veto executive pay or force asset sales, could transform oversight. Similarly, the Environment Agency needs more funding to monitor discharges effectively; currently, only a tiny percentage of spills are investigated.
Consumer empowerment is another key pillar. The review's suggestion of customer representatives on boards is a start, but why not go further? Establishing independent water consumer councils with veto powers over price hikes could rebalance the scales. Digital tools, like real-time pollution maps, could also engage the public, turning passive bill-payers into active watchdogs.
Financially, the sector's debt burden is unsustainable. Much of it stems from leveraged buyouts by private equity firms, which have loaded companies with borrowings to fund dividends. The review should explore debt-for-equity swaps or ring-fencing funds for infrastructure. Taxpayers should not foot the bill for private mismanagement, as nearly happened with Bulb Energy's collapse.
In conclusion, while the water review is a commendable initiative, its success hinges on sustained governmental resolve. By addressing pollution, investment, regulation, and equity head-on, Britain can reclaim its waterways and build a model utility sector. The alternative – continued decline – is unacceptable. Ministers must act decisively, proving that this is more than a good start; it's the beginning of lasting reform. (Word count: 1,048)
Read the Full thetimes.com Article at:
[ https://www.thetimes.com/comment/the-times-view/article/water-review-is-a-good-start-but-government-must-keep-up-pressure-f0c8qrvg9 ]