NVZ's and sewage works

[milkloss]

I have been having a look at the justification for keeping our area in an NVZ an out of three water samples the only one that failed is the most upstream one 500m form a sewage works. The next two pass quality with flying colours which to me shows that farmers have been doing a good job of watering down the general public's sh1t. I feel this is unfair.

I got on to the NFU to be told they would help (£500 I think it was) in any legal case and directed me to a water quality company. I haven't taken it up as I feel a little alone on the issue and quite frankly don't have the time to rally troops to form the small army that it may need to win any argument. This isn't really good enough behaviour by the NFU in my opinion especially as it seems others are coming up against similar bodged justifications for NVZ inclusion.

Surely the NFU should be encouraging farmers to investigate thier area and raise it with the NFU so they can get the members farms removed from the NVZ classification.

What does the TFF think and more importantly what does @Guy Smith think? Waste water is big business and we are getting the blame. They should tidy their own crap up before they start laying the blame elsewhere.

 

[Tarw Coch]

Funnily enough I farm just inside an NVZ,, half a mile up the road is a sewage works which pretty much coincides with the boundary of the NVZ, make of that what you will but it does seem like a coincidence that is repeated across the country.

 

[Brisel]

I think you've got a good case for arguing the contribution of the sewage works but beware - the water companies HAVE cleaned themselves up massively in recent years, particularly for phosphates. When the sewage works finally meet the Water Directive spec it will expose agriculture as the next biggest polluter. I wonder if @360farmsupport or @NeilT123 have an learned view on sewage works' discharge?

Despite NVZs I still see practices that are blatantly illegal - spinning fertiliser into watercourses, overdosing slurry, breaching closed periods etc. We've done a lot to improve agriculture's pollution but there's still a lot to do.

 

[milkloss]

I think you've got a good case for arguing the contribution of the sewage works but beware - the water companies HAVE cleaned themselves up massively in recent years, particularly for phosphates. When the sewage works finally meet the Water Directive spec it will expose agriculture as the next biggest polluter. I wonder if @360farmsupport or @NeilT123 have an learned view on sewage works' discharge?

Despite NVZs I still see practices that are blatantly illegal - spinning fertiliser into watercourses, overdosing slurry, breaching closed periods etc. We've done a lot to improve agriculture's pollution but there's still a lot to do.

I agree but are these illegal practices you see the cause for the need of an NVZ? Or is it just the shite from 65 million people?

 

[rob1]

I had a letter yesterday saying we were in a new NVZ, it turns out our land isnt but the fact they cant even get that small detail right is no surprise, but as you say @milkloss their justification for high nitrates is one sample point a few hundred metres downstream from a sewage works that is overloaded from new housing developments with another 500 houses to come, I'm not sure whether to kick up some fuss and do a freedom of info request to see the figures for the sample point up stream of the works or keep my head down, when the new houses are built the level of pollution running through our land wont be diluted so much by the second stream so no doubt the nvz will then be extended

 

[Brisel]

I agree but are these illegal practices you see the cause for the need of an NVZ? Or is it just the shite from 65 million people?

That's a hard one. The worst perpetrators ignore the rules anyway then the rest of us have to put up with the extra paperwork & cost associated with it, but...

Do you think that the Voluntary Initiative has helped clean up the pesticide application industry? I'd say it has IMHO but is there a way of replicating this for nitrates?

I think you're right to promote publicity for sewage discharge affecting or watercourses.

 

[milkloss]

I had a letter yesterday saying we were in a new NVZ, it turns out our land isnt but the fact they cant even get that small detail right is no surprise, but as you say @milkloss their justification for high nitrates is one sample point a few hundred metres downstream from a sewage works that is overloaded from new housing developments with another 500 houses to come, I'm not sure whether to kick up some fuss and do a freedom of info request to see the figures for the sample point up stream of the works or keep my head down, when the new houses are built the level of pollution running through our land wont be diluted so much by the second stream so no doubt the nvz will then be extended

I don't think you need a FOI request:

Go here
http://maps.environment-agency.gov....ault&lang=_e&ep=map&scale=3&x=531500&y=181500

Then look the relevant NVZ patch here:
http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/151337.aspx

 

[Tarw Coch]

Is it still the case that sewage works can still let half of what comes in straight into the watercourse at times of high rainfall? Certainly used to be, it was featured on country file a few years ago and was confirmed to me by an ex Severn Trent employee but this was about 10 years or so ago.

 

[___\0/___]

Think it would be near on impossible for you to get the NVZ removed. You are in an area of clean rivers hence it is working......

As for sewage works being a pollutant then yep agree it needs to be looked at. But I don't think it will aid your case.

 

[milkloss]

Think it would be near on impossible for you to get the NVZ removed. You are in an area of clean rivers hence it is working......

As for sewage works being a pollutant then yep agree it needs to be looked at. But I don't think it will aid your case.

I think you missed the point. The only fail is 500m downstream from a sewage works and the other two very clean samples from farmland catchment have watered the fail down to an acceptable level. This doesn't mean the NVZ has reduced farm nitrate losses or been successful at all but it does suggest the farmers should have their effort recognised.

 

[___\0/___]

But the farmers won't it will be those that brought in the NVZ that will get the credit.

Just out of curiosity do you have details of river pollution before the NVZ came into force.

 

[Tarw Coch]

Think it would be near on impossible for you to get the NVZ removed. You are in an area of clean rivers hence it is working......

As for sewage works being a pollutant then yep agree it needs to be looked at. But I don't think it will aid your case.

NVZ's are reviewed every 4 years and areas do get taken out. At a livestock farming level im sure having 5 months slurry storage alone makes a big difference, once you've got the storage who in their right mind would spread late autumn/early winter when valuable nutrients are most likely to leach.

 

[milkloss]

But the farmers won't it will be those that brought in the NVZ that will get the credit.

Just out of curiosity do you have details of river pollution before the NVZ came into force.

Yes, it all gets a bit long winded:

here is the report on my area:
http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/nvz/NVZ2017_S503_Datasheet.pdf

Bits of it that I think are relevant to your question:

The map showing sample points and sewage works. Notice the fail on the far left. The sewage works is shown as being road side whereas it is actually some distance south on the river bank!

The next three images show the historical samples. It is rather obvious the test site nearest the sewage works has been a consistent fail.

And how they seem to justify where that Nitrate loading comes from which is where I would be interested in your opinion.

 

[CornishTone]

We appealed against our NVZ on just this issue and won. NFU helped and an environmental consultant did the hard work.

Unfortunately, the rules say that if Nitrate spikes above the limit, regardless of where it comes from, Agriculture automatically goes into NVZ regs. Our argument was won on the fact that the EA fudged the figures and put us in to the NVZ when the levels were below the level required, and the fact that it was all coming from the sewage works and water from the rest of the catchment was diluting it.

They did not like loosing and the high court hearing got quite nasty by all accounts. They are now endlessly badgering the whole catchment on phosphate! But it goes to prove that they have to be watched like a Hawke and held to account!

 

[milkloss]

We appealed against our NVZ on just this issue and won. NFU helped and an environmental consultant did the hard work.

Unfortunately, the rules say that if Nitrate spikes above the limit, regardless of where it comes from, Agriculture automatically goes into NVZ regs. Our argument was won on the fact that the EA fudged the figures and put us in to the NVZ when the levels were below the level required, and the fact that it was all coming from the sewage works and water from the rest of the catchment was diluting it.

They did not like loosing and the high court hearing got quite nasty by all accounts. They are now endlessly badgering the whole catchment on phosphate! But it goes to prove that they have to be watched like a Hawke and held to account!

Thank you, interesting. Could you give more info on how the costs were managed?

 

[CornishTone]

We had a meeting at the local NFU offices. Everyone put a couple hundred quid into a "Fighting Fund" and appointed a chair and treasurer to handle the money and co-ordinate. NFU were helpful in getting everyone together, getting the right contacts and consultants on board and generally facilitating, as well as putting some money in. Considering many who benefitted weren't members, it was quite good of them.

The NFU enviro guru I spoke to a lot was Paul Cottingnton.

 

[milkloss]

We had a meeting at the local NFU offices. Everyone put a couple hundred quid into a "Fighting Fund" and appointed a chair and treasurer to handle the money and co-ordinate. NFU were helpful in getting everyone together, getting the right contacts and consultants on board and generally facilitating, as well as putting some money in. Considering many who benefitted weren't members, it was quite good of them.

The NFU enviro guru I spoke to a lot was Paul Cottingnton.

Well done. Looking at my maps it would seem there isn't going to be many farmers interested, I'm thinking intensive beef or dairy. What sort of farmer joined in on your appeal and why were they motivated to do so?

Sorry about the interrogation!

 

[CornishTone]

We are only a small catchment, mostly dairy with a few beef and sheep. It was well known for years that the sewage works were discharging into the main body of the river, but SWW denied it and the EA were hounding the dairy farmer nearest the works. As he was a customer of mine I was pretty sure he was not the culprit. But it's easier to pin it on him rather than go after a big corporate, right?

As luck would have it, the farmers weekly forum had a q&a with EA one week so I asked a few difficult questions. Before I knew it I was invited to the EA offices in Exeter for a meeting and they admitted it was the sewage works that were causing the issue. They then gave me access to all the data from the testing stations up and down the river. Now, I'm no statistician but even I could see that the levels were fine above he sewage works, terrible immediately below and improving all the way down the river.

By the time I'd figured out something was not adding up, most farmers had already shelled out for the infrastructure and rented more land to offset their N levels, so when I approached a few and told them what I'd found there was no problem getting them on board. They were livid! It snowballed from there.

 

[Wastexprt]

Is it still the case that sewage works can still let half of what comes in straight into the watercourse at times of high rainfall? Certainly used to be, it was featured on country file a few years ago and was confirmed to me by an ex Severn Trent employee but this was about 10 years or so ago.

In a lot of cases yes, it's called a Storm Water Discharge and works on the theory of 'the solution to pollution is dilution'. They are trying to reduce the number of these discharges but it's a long process carried out under the AMP requirements.

 

[Wastexprt]

I think you've got a good case for arguing the contribution of the sewage works but beware - the water companies HAVE cleaned themselves up massively in recent years, particularly for phosphates. When the sewage works finally meet the Water Directive spec it will expose agriculture as the next biggest polluter. I wonder if @360farmsupport or @NeilT123 have an learned view on sewage works' discharge?

Despite NVZs I still see practices that are blatantly illegal - spinning fertiliser into watercourses, overdosing slurry, breaching closed periods etc. We've done a lot to improve agriculture's pollution but there's still a lot to do.

I'm not up to speed as much as I was with STW.

I was under the impression that NVZ is now catchment based, as opposed to river based? You are quite correct, the water companies have cleaned up their act massively, agriculture will be next. I have a feeling a Phosphate based directive may be on it's way (Brexit notwithstanding).

STWs come under the Urban Waste Water Directive and are programmed to tighten their discharges under the AMP.