Surprising amount on river pollution in The Times today. A front page article, a two-page report and an editorial, all lamenting the decline in water quality, reduction in testing, drop in prosecutions and increased risk to public health. There are plenty of specifics in the articles, and they are pitched to reflect/cause concern amongst groups like wild swimmers (increasingly popular apparently) and parents of children who play in the water, both reporting illnesses. The paper blames a weak EA which doesn't address its own data and water companies allowed to mark their own homework and even propose their own penalties for breaches. The conclusion is that if the EA needs more money than the taxpayer can afford, the water companies can stump up. Interesting to see this in a paper typically big on business and tepid on the environment?