Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Cllr Mel Allcott, Cllr Luke Mallett, and Cllr Richard Udall.
The motion was moved by Cllr Richard Udall and seconded by Cllr Dan Boatright who both spoke in favour of it and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.
The following amendment was moved by Cllr Richard Morris and seconded by Cllr Emma Marshall and accepted as an alteration by the mover and seconder of the motion which therefore became the substantive motion:
“Council calls upon the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for the Environment with officers to bring a report to the Environment Member Advisory Group to outline the legal obligations and powers available to the council and to explore how Worcestershire County Council, in partnership with District Councils, the Environment Agency and other partners, can all contribute to improving river water quality in Worcestershire. The Member advisory Group will advise the CMR for the Environment on next stages if required.”
In the ensuing debate, the following points were made:
· River pollution was a serious risk to public safety and the impacted negatively on the environment. A number of serious national contamination incidents had impacted on biodiversity and endangered public health. Water pollution incidents were occurring every day in this county and river health was declining. The Environment Agency (EA) appeared to be unable to act and had had its budget massively reduced in recent years. It was only able to respond to the most serious cases. The Council needed to help the enforcement agencies with their work, meet its own obligations and educate and raise awareness
· The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Environment commented that the responsibility for water quality rested with the water companies and the EA. However, it was important to understand the local situation and determine what action the Council could and should take within a partnership role. The amendment proposed to bring the matter to the Environment Member Advisory Group so it could be examined more fully with cross party involvement. He set out a number of areas where the Council was already involved in water quality enhancement work. Gloucestershire County Council had recently completed a scrutiny exercise on water quality and it seemed sensible to use their findings rather than repeat the scrutiny process in this council. Although the Government had taken major steps to improve water quality, it was unacceptable that water companies continued to discharge sewage into rivers. The targets in the Environment Act would act as powerful tools to ensure that water companies improved water quality and biodiversity. He gave an assurance that the findings of the MAG would be made public at some point
· Work was being undertaken to create fish corridors to enable fish to follow their usual migratory patterns and allow fish populations to thrive. It was important to prevent plastics entering watercourses and work with farmer to encourage working practices that were friendly to watercourses
· The River Severn Partnership had successfully attracted Government funding to improve the quality of waterways. The improvement of water quality was very much a long-term project. It was important that the district and county council planning processes supported efforts to improve water quality
· Rivers were cleaner now in terms of levels of particulates than they had been for decades. However, there had been a major decline in biodiversity since the 1970s. River levels and river flow were important factors that the MAG should examine. The views of the angling society should also be considered
· The privatised water companies were insufficiently regulated and the Environment Act did not provide a legal obligation for them not to pollute rivers and oceans, just to gradually reduce sewage discharges. There remained a relative lack of investment by water companies in improving water quality and certainly less than was paid out in dividends to their shareholders
· Worcestershire’s watercourses had a particular problem with phosphate pollution, largely from the agriculture sector
· It was not possible to rely on the Government or water companies to protect water quality and therefore it was important that the Council with partners organisations did as much as it could to prevent the pollution of rivers
· The fines received by water companies for illegal discharges were miniscule compared with the profits they made
· Domestic and agricultural waste was more prevalent than industrial waste in recent years. It was less obvious to observe but was just as damaging to the environment
· The impact on watercourses needed to be addressed as part of future housing and infrastructure policies/developments
· Strong regulation was the key factor in ensuring water companies behaved responsibly and appropriately
· The improvement of consumer rights was a key factor in improving water quality.
On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was agreed unanimously.
RESOLVED “Council calls upon the Cabinet Member with Responsibility (CMR) for the Environment with officers to bring a report to the Environment Member Advisory Group to outline the legal obligations and powers available to the council and to explore how Worcestershire County Council, in partnership with District Councils, the Environment Agency and other partners, can all contribute to improving river water quality in Worcestershire. The Member advisory Group will advise the CMR for the Environment on next stages if required.”