?500,000 for the River Wandle

An historic agreement has been reached that will see more than £500,000 being paid by Thames Water to restore and improve the River Wandle over the next 5 years.

This follows the serious pollution incident on 17 September, which saw thousands of fish killed and a significant impact on invertebrate and plant life in the river. Thames Water admitted responsibility for the incident within days and has apologised unreservedly to the local community and angling clubs. The Anglers’ Conservation Association has led negotiations which have concluded today with the largest settlement in the ACA’s 60 year history. The water company will today announce:<ul>[*]£7,000 project funding for a local education project;[*]£10,000 in compensation for the two angling clubs;[*]£30,000 to meet the costs of restocking and an ongoing survey to assess damage to the river’s ecology;[*]£200,000 core funding for the Wandle Trust to include support for the cost of an employee who will raise additional project funding to deliver access and habitat improvements along the length of the river;[*]£250,000 over 5 years for a restoration fund to support local projects to improve the river environment;[*]Investment in failsafe measures at Beddington Sewage Treatment works to prevent pollution like this ever happening again in the future;[/list]

The announcement of this project will not have any bearing whatsoever on any future criminal prosecution of Thames Water by the Environment Agency for the incident.

Mark Lloyd, Executive Director of the Anglers’ Conservation Association said: “This incident has been transformed from a disaster into a triumph for the river by Thames Water’s genuine desire to put right the damage they caused back in September. The settlement we have negotiated provides the basis for a long term future for the River Wandle by giving the Wandle Trust the funding it needs to become a sustainable River Trust. It also compensates the anglers fully for their loss of angling amenity.”

Theo Pike, Trustee of the Wandle Trust and Senior Vice President of the Wandle Piscators said: “September 17 was a catastrophe for the Wandle, but we are now delighted to be entering into this 5-year habitat rehabilitation project with Thames Water and the Environment Agency. With the security of significant funding, we’re looking forward to leading a genuine partnership of local stakeholders, helping a long stretch of the river literally come back from Year Zero, and restoring the Wandle as a world-class showcase for responsible community stewardship of urban waterways. We welcome all ideas for the future health of the Wandle, its habitats and biodiversity, and will shortly start collecting these via a web forum at www.wandletrust.org”

Thames Water's CEO, David Owens said: "Thames Water was quick to acknowledge that we caused this incident and we are acting quickly to not only restore, but improve the health of this important river. We have been working particularly closely with the Anglers’ Conservation Association, as well as other local groups to ensure that the programme being put into action now yields real and lasting results. It will provide the resources to support the ongoing stewardship of the river and create a fund which can be used to continually restore and improve the health of its habitats. We would like to thank the ACA for facilitating rapid and productive discussion with the Wandle Trust, the Environment Agency, the National Trust and the local community, which have enabled us jointly to begin what we will know will inevitably be a long process of rehabilitation."

WELL DONE to the ACA!

now will you ALL join?
these guys do wonders for our sport AND the environment in general.

Mark what assurances have been given that this type of incident will not happen again either by way of improved systems or infrastructure?

Whilst the money is good, there is little value in the investment if the incident repeats itself.

Mark, sorry to take this off thread, but your comments on behalf of the ACA on the FACT iniatiative for a unified represenatative body would be most welcome.There is a feeling amongst several ACA members on here that they are somewhat in the dark as to the Association's intentions.

The thead is hereWhat type of Governing Body Do you Want

BACK ON THREAD

Wonderful News Mark!

I've only seen the Wandle a couple of times and 'pretend' fished it once (that's another story), but it looked a superb little river that had lots of potential. I do hope that it's full potential can be realised now.

It's good that Thames Water admitted liability immediately,which maybe shows that the company is taking it's pollution occurrences seriously now, never again would be the better policy. However, I do wonder how seriously they would take it were it not for the existence of the ACA as well as the EA. Still, look to the brights side and well done to all so far!

Keep it up.

The thing is (and has been said on F-Blues radio show) that any kind of fine etc. will come out of our pockets anyway, in terms of water rates, so we all pay the money that Thames water has kindly donated to the Wandle. Like Keith Arthur has said, fines are no godd (for the reason above) BUT some kind of sentence for those responsible would put a stop to it happening again via gross neglegence.
Let's face it (I love that saying!) you can get a prison sentence for stealing eggs of certain birds, so why not for wiping out picean 'rarities' like BIG roach, barbel, chub etc.

..and all in 3 months,terrific news.

Just to answer a couple of points quickly (on the way to a meeting).

Prevention of future incidents: Thames Water will be investing in failsafe technology, and letting us and the Wandle Trust inspect it, to make sure this can't happen again. This will be a combination of telemetry and storage facilities to keep any pollution out of the river.

The settlement does not go on water bills, but will come out of shareholders' dividends.

The ACA campaigns for tougher criminal sentences for companies which pollute the environment, but we can't do anything else.

With regard to unification, the ACA is sending a letter and enclosure to all its members this week explaining the benefits of the proposal. Certainly it would allow us to do a lot more of this work, and the work we have done on the Isle of Wight/RSPB issue.

More of that anon.

Thanks for everyone's support

They cannot on-charge to customers. They have to account for it within their P/L and shareholder dividends I believe......

Thanks Mark on both counts.

Sorry Mark........but i am going to take some convinving about "The settlement does not go on water bills, but will come out of shareholders dividends.

When the shareholders divvy is down, what happens?????????

God help us if not for the ACA though, what would "they" get away with?

I've no doubts that the amount of money is welcome to the anglers who have been affected by this incident. However,to TW this amount of money isashtray change, which has bought them a great deal ofenvironmental wash.The statement goes on to say "it will not have any bearing whatsoever on any future criminal prosecution of Thames Water by the Environment Agency for the incident." That may or may not be true, but it will be used in mitigation to the district judge in the magistrate’s court, where the maximum he/she can fine them is about 25K.

I also think statements like this are dangerous Mark! "It also compensates the anglers fully for their loss of angling amenity.”Because as sure as eggs are eggs, that statement will be used in court when the brief makes his mitigation plea. Which coupled with the above will keep them out of Crown Court and unlimited fines.

And how many pollution incidents has TW caused since this incident in the whole of it's region?

Sadly courts can only deal with the case infront of them not whatTW have done in the past or how many cases they have pending against them.

Well done again ACA,

As Chris Murray said above, 'Now will youALL join...'

No ****y I won't and am unlikely too when the Director make statements, as above which builds polluters mitigation argument for them! Such statements used in mitigation by them allows them to slip the full force of the law.

I've always kept my options open on whether to rejoin after the James affair based on how they appear to me to be performing. And based on that statement my view is one of concern that they are giving criminals an out against the full force of the law

Dear Phil,

It has been made absolutely clear from the start of our negotiations with Thames Water that this settlement will not be used in mitigation for a criminal prosecution.

In any case, criminal fines for accidental pollution incidents on this scale are woefully low and very rarely get above £10,000. Even if the settlement did affect the level of the criminal fine, which it will not, it would mean a few thousand less that Thames Water would have to pay to HM Treasury. Given that you believe £500,000 is ashtray change for the company, why would another £5K on their fine be so significant?

I'm not quite sure what the ACA has done wrong. In terms of our performance since the events of 2004, I'm pretty satisfied that the organisation is transformed. This year we have settled a record 30 cases for our members, secured funding from WWF to run local and national campaigns on water issues affecting anglers, secured the biggest settlement in our 60 year history, mediated a solution to the Isle of Wight anglers disagreement with the RSPB, seen membership increase in all categories and balanced our finances for the second year running after a decade of losses. What's not to like?

As far as I am aware, in answer to your question, the company has caused no pollution incidents since this one in September. Obviously this is something we will be watching carefully.

Mark we'll see when the transcript of the trial is open to public scrutiny whether their briefs use it ornot!

The amount fined does matter in this respect, low fine for pollutersget coverage on page 7 of the papers, whereas maximum fines make it to front page or font page inside news.

Such coverage exposes the "Environmental Wash" these criminal companies like to wrap themselves in.

As for low fines that's mainly becausethe EAtake them through the lowest courts (easier to secure a conviction)and not the crown court, where fine can be unlimited. And in a clear-cut case as this one, it's timethe EA really made an example of them.It's also something I think the ACA should beputting pressure on them to do.

Phil,

We are applying pressure on the Agency and others to make all polluters pay more for the damage they cause. Please refer to our Blueprint for Water (www.blueprintforwater.org.uk) coalition campaign which has the following demands under the heading "Make Polluters Pay":

1. By 2007, Defra and the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) must publish new guidance for Magistrates and Crown Courts for significant increases in the fines for pollution incidents, such that they reflect the damage caused.
2. By 2008, Defra and DCA must amend both the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to remove the statutory limit on fines and require fines to take account of the damage caused.

All our members were sent a copy of the Blueprint document when we launched it in November 2006. We recently held a one year review of progress with the Environment Minister and other politicians to keep up the pressure. We are doing a lot on this, but we need more income from membership subs to support us in doing it.

I still don't follow your logic about our settlement, but never mind, we can't please everyone I guess.

"We are doing a lot on this, but we need more income from membership subs to support us in doing it."

Those are the important words, Phil. It's no good moaning if you don't intend joining, better to moan from the inside.

There's an awful lot I would like to see done to polluters, like prison sentences for directors (see below), but fines just go into the Chancellors Kitty, not to those who are damaged by their actions. The damages pay for that and Mark's way of doing it by "friendly persuasion" is even better since it keeps money out of the barristers hands.

It's a fine line to tread anyway for the ACA, but I reckon that the last 2-3 years have been some of the best in their history. So stop griping, Phil, and get joining.

.

EDIT (forgot the Below bit) - A couple of years ago 4 directors of a waste company were held in Belgian prison for 74 days for the heinous crime of - not filing the correct papers for dumping waste. I would like to see more of that.

There's just been a terrific 3 minute news item on ITV's London Tonight about the pollution and pay out.

Unfortunately, it didn't mention the ACA's involvement, but there were interviews with Theo Pike (lovely name for a river lover) of the Wandle Trust and one of the anglers, didn't catch his name, sorry.

All good publicity for angling though.