Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

California environmentalists sue Port of Los Angeles, alleging clean water violations

News Feed
Tuesday, July 23, 2024

A California environmental group on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Port of Los Angeles, accusing the defendant of unleashing toxic pollutants into the San Pedro Bay. The activists — from the organization Environment California — claimed that the port has violated the federal Clean Water Act with more than 2,000 illegal discharges in the past five years alone. Those releases, they argued, have routinely surpassed legal limits on fecal bacteria, copper and other contaminants. In addition to spotlighting the alleged pollution itself, the plaintiffs also claimed that the Port's stormwater treatment system is problematically undersized. As a result, the activists contended, some untreated wastewater ends up bypassing the system entirely, also in violation of federal law. “Everyone in and around the Los Angeles Harbor knows that the water quality is terrible," Laura Deehan, state director of Environment California, said in a statement. "We are suing to get the Port’s pollution of San Pedro Bay under control and make it a model for improving water quality,” she added. Deehan and her colleagues argued that because the Port earns revenue from leasing and services fees charged to massive shipping corporations, the City of Los Angeles should not be supporting this entity via tax dollars. Currently, the Port is housed within the Los Angeles Harbor Department, a branch of the city's municipal government, and is located about 25 miles south of downtown.  Last month, the Port authorized a $2.6 billion budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year and forecast about $281 million in net revenues, the plaintiffs stressed. “If a well-funded city department pollutes in violation of its Clean Water Act permit limits, how can the city expect anyone else to comply?” Deehan asked. While the port's on-site treatment system is supposed to remove toxic metals, bacteria and other pollutants that amass on the property, the activists argued that the equipment has proved ineffective. Unable to wholly eliminate those contaminants during dry weather, the system leaves behind excess pollutants — which then pollute the stormwater when it rains, according to the activists. The pump station at the Port, per the complaint, spills out into a section of the Los Angeles Harbor that is "heavily used for public recreation" — attracting more than a million people every day.  "People swim, fish, and boat in the Harbor, and picnic, barbecue, use playgrounds, and engage in other activities along its shore," the plaintiffs argued. Even though the Port has been regularly paying a "mandatory minimum" state fine of $3,000 per violation, these infractions have persisted, the plaintiffs noted. Deehan described these payments as "a slap-on-the-wrist-penalty," arguing that the alleged violator is paying to pollute. Under the Clean Water Act's "citizen suit" provision, those affected by such violations can bring a case to federal court after providing 60 days' warning to the defendant and to state and federal environmental agencies. Environment California said it sent notice of its intent to file such a suit on May 21. "The Port can afford to solve this problem — and the people of California cannot afford for unchecked pollution like this to continue," Deehan said. The Hill has reached out to the Port of Los Angeles for comment.

A California environmental group on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Port of Los Angeles, accusing the defendant of unleashing toxic pollutants into the San Pedro Bay. The activists — from the organization Environment California — claimed that the port has violated the federal Clean Water Act with more than 2,000 illegal discharges in the past...

A California environmental group on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Port of Los Angeles, accusing the defendant of unleashing toxic pollutants into the San Pedro Bay.

The activists — from the organization Environment California — claimed that the port has violated the federal Clean Water Act with more than 2,000 illegal discharges in the past five years alone. Those releases, they argued, have routinely surpassed legal limits on fecal bacteria, copper and other contaminants.

In addition to spotlighting the alleged pollution itself, the plaintiffs also claimed that the Port's stormwater treatment system is problematically undersized. As a result, the activists contended, some untreated wastewater ends up bypassing the system entirely, also in violation of federal law.

“Everyone in and around the Los Angeles Harbor knows that the water quality is terrible," Laura Deehan, state director of Environment California, said in a statement.

"We are suing to get the Port’s pollution of San Pedro Bay under control and make it a model for improving water quality,” she added.

Deehan and her colleagues argued that because the Port earns revenue from leasing and services fees charged to massive shipping corporations, the City of Los Angeles should not be supporting this entity via tax dollars.

Currently, the Port is housed within the Los Angeles Harbor Department, a branch of the city's municipal government, and is located about 25 miles south of downtown. 

Last month, the Port authorized a $2.6 billion budget for the 2024-2025 fiscal year and forecast about $281 million in net revenues, the plaintiffs stressed.

“If a well-funded city department pollutes in violation of its Clean Water Act permit limits, how can the city expect anyone else to comply?” Deehan asked.

While the port's on-site treatment system is supposed to remove toxic metals, bacteria and other pollutants that amass on the property, the activists argued that the equipment has proved ineffective.

Unable to wholly eliminate those contaminants during dry weather, the system leaves behind excess pollutants — which then pollute the stormwater when it rains, according to the activists.

The pump station at the Port, per the complaint, spills out into a section of the Los Angeles Harbor that is "heavily used for public recreation" — attracting more than a million people every day. 

"People swim, fish, and boat in the Harbor, and picnic, barbecue, use playgrounds, and engage in other activities along its shore," the plaintiffs argued.

Even though the Port has been regularly paying a "mandatory minimum" state fine of $3,000 per violation, these infractions have persisted, the plaintiffs noted. Deehan described these payments as "a slap-on-the-wrist-penalty," arguing that the alleged violator is paying to pollute.

Under the Clean Water Act's "citizen suit" provision, those affected by such violations can bring a case to federal court after providing 60 days' warning to the defendant and to state and federal environmental agencies.

Environment California said it sent notice of its intent to file such a suit on May 21.

"The Port can afford to solve this problem — and the people of California cannot afford for unchecked pollution like this to continue," Deehan said.

The Hill has reached out to the Port of Los Angeles for comment.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Santa Monica's waves have turned a bright pink. How can the dye job improve water quality?

Monday's pink, fluorescent dye drop in Santa Monica Bay is part of a project to study how water circulation could be driving poor water quality.

Over the next two weeks, surfers and beachgoers in Santa Monica may spot waves that have a pink, fluorescent hue — but officials say not to worry.The luminous, pink color spreading across the Santa Monica Bay is from a temporary, nontoxic dye that researchers are using to study how ocean circulation might contribute to the bay’s poor water quality. The project kicked off Monday morning, as UCLA and Heal the Bay researchers discharged the first of four batches of the pink dye near the Santa Monica Pier. “By following where the dye goes, we will better understand how the breakwater changes the environment around it, providing insight into Santa Monica beach’s poor water quality,” Isabella Arzeno-Soltero, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at UCLA and a researcher on the project, said in a statement. Although the pink dye on Monday didn’t appear to create many “bright pink waves,” as researchers warned might be the case, additional bouts of the dye — or the fluorescent rhodamine water tracer dye — will be released later this month. But the fact that the dye seemed to dissipate quickly Monday didn’t mean the first phase won’t lead to important data, said Gabriela Carr, a researcher in the project and doctoral student at UCLA’s Samueli School of Engineering. “It was a big success today,” Carr said. “The dye is pink but it’s also fluorescent, so that’s kind of our main tracker.” A boat with “finely tuned fluorescent monitors” would remain in the bay for 24 hours, Carr said, and at least 10 additional trackers will remain attached to buoys through the end of the month, when additional dye drops will occur. The study is intended to help researchers understand how the man-made breakwater that was built in the 1930s in Santa Monica Bay, often visible during low tide, might hurt water circulation and, therefore, water quality. Santa Monica Pier routinely tops the yearly list of the state’s dirtiest beaches by environmental nonprofit Heal the Bay, which tests waters up and down the California coast for fecal bacteria, which can harm beachgoers. The break in the Santa Monica Bay was constructed to create a marina, but storms and time damaged it beyond effectiveness, though remnants of the rocky break still affect the water flow, researchers said.“It still substantially impacts the coastal hydrodynamics and surrounding environment,” Timu Gallien, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at UCLA and a lead researcher in the study, said in a statement. “For example, the breakwater protects the beach from large waves, keeping the beach wider than it would naturally be.”Santa Monica Mayor Lana Negrete watched the first deployment Monday morning and said she was hopeful this research could help her city finally get off the list of “beach bummers.” The city has partnered with the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering and the Bay Foundation on the project. “We’re trying to see if the circulation of the water is so poor that that’s creating the concentrated pollution 100 yards north and south of the pier,” Negrete said. “We don’t want to keep ending up on the beach bummer list — it’s a bummer!”She said this is one of many projects to help researchers understand and combat water quality issues, including a relatively new advanced water treatment facility and a sand dune restoration project. “This is all working in tandem,” Negrete said. “The whole ecosystem is important.”The researchers did not include in their announcement what remedies might be recommended if the breakwaters are determined to be responsible for, or a factor in, the poor water quality. That would probably be a multifaceted decision involving city and environmental leaders. Although this is the first time the dye has been used in the Santa Monica Bay, UCLA researchers said the coloring has been used for many years in other waterways, explaining that it disperses naturally and poses no risk to people, animals or vegetation.Carr said there may be more pink visible next week when the team performs another surface-level drop of the dye, but probably not as much when they do two deep-water drops later this month. Still, the pinkifying of the bay might not be much of a spectacle despite signs that were plastered all around the Santa Monica Pier area that scream: “Why is the water pink?” Carr said the team wanted to be sure the public did not become alarmed if the pink color was spotted. The next surface-level dye deployment will occur sometime Sept. 22–24, and the last underwater deployment will be Sept. 30, Carr said.

Water
Animals
Pollution

Exclusive-In Australia, a Data Centre Boom Is Built on Vague Water Plans

By Byron KayeSYDNEY (Reuters) -Authorities in Sydney approved construction of data centres without requiring measurable plans to cut water use,...

SYDNEY (Reuters) -Authorities in Sydney approved construction of data centres without requiring measurable plans to cut water use, raising concerns the sector's rapid growth will leave residents competing for the resource.The New South Wales state government, which presides over Australia's biggest city, green-lit all 10 data centre applications it has ruled on since expanding its planning powers in 2021, from owners like Microsoft, Amazon and Blackstone's AirTrunk, documents reviewed by Reuters show.The centres would bring in a total A$6.6 billion ($4.35 billion) of construction spending, but would ultimately use up to 9.6 gigalitres a year of clean water, or nearly 2% of Sydney's maximum supply, the documents show.Fewer than half the approved applications gave projections of how much water they would save using alternative sources. State planning law says data centre developers must "demonstrate how the development minimises ... consumption of energy, water ... and material resources" but does not require projections on water usage or savings. Developers need to disclose what alternative water supplies they will use but not how much.The findings show authorities are approving projects with major expected impact on public water demand based on developers' general and non-measurable assurances as they seek a slice of the $200 billion global data centre boom.The state planning department confirmed the 10 approved data centres collectively projected annual water consumption of 9.6 gigalitres but noted five of those outlined how they expect to cut demand over time. The department did not identify the projects or comment on whether their water reduction plans were measurable."In all cases, Sydney Water provided advice to the Department that it was capable of supplying the data centre with the required water," a department spokesperson told Reuters in an email.Data centres could account for up to a quarter of Sydney's available water by 2035, or 135 gigalitres, according to Sydney Water projections shared with Reuters. Those projections assume centres achieve goals of using less water to cool the servers, but did not specify what those targets were.Sydney's drinking water is limited to one dam and a desalination plant, making supply increasingly tight as the population and temperatures rise. In 2019, its 5.3 million residents were banned from watering gardens or washing cars with a hose as drought and bushfires ravaged the country."There is already a shortfall between supply and demand," said Ian Wright, a former scientist for Sydney Water who is now an associate professor of environmental science at Western Sydney University.    As more data centres are built, "their growing thirst in drought times will be very problematic," he added.The number of data centres, which store computing infrastructure, is growing exponentially as the world increasingly uses AI and cloud computing. But their vast water needs for cooling have prompted the U.S., Europe and others to introduce new rules on water usage.New South Wales enforces no water usage rules for data centres other than the government being "satisfied that the development contains measures designed to minimise the consumption of potable water," according to the documents.Just three of the 10 approved data centre applications gave a projection of how much the developer hoped to cut reliance on public water using alternative sources like rainwater. The biggest centre cleared for construction, a 320-megawatt AirTrunk facility, was approved after saying it would harvest enough rainwater to cut its potable water consumption by 0.4%, the documents show.An AirTrunk spokesperson said early planning documents referred to peak demand but "subsequent modelling recently tabled to Sydney Water has determined actual usage will be significantly lower".The company was "working with Sydney Water to transition the site to be nearly entirely serviced by recycled water", the spokesperson added.The most ambitious commitment to cut reliance on town water was 15%, for one of two data centres approved on land held by Amazon, planning documents show.The two centres would collectively need 195.2 megawatts of electricity and take up to 92 megalitres a year of Sydney's drinking water before rainwater harvesting, say the documents, which give a projected reduction in water use for one project but not the other.Amazon declined to comment on individual properties but said its Australian data centres avoid using water for cooling for 95.5% of the year because their temperature controls rely more on fans than evaporative cooling.Microsoft gave a 12% projected water use reduction for one of the two Sydney data centres it has had approved. Microsoft declined to comment.Sydney's suburban councils, meanwhile, want to slow what they see as competition for limited water supply, especially when the state wants 377,000 new homes by 2029 to ease a housing shortage.    "A lot of them have been built without much discussion," said Damien Atkins, a member of Blacktown council where state-approved centres owned by AirTrunk, Amazon and Microsoft are being built.    "There should be more pushback and I'm just starting to ask those questions now."    In the city's north, Lane Cove council asked the state to return approval powers to local government, citing water usage and other concerns.    Neighbouring Ryde council has five centres and another six in various stages of planning. It said those 11 would take nearly 3% of its water supply and has called for a moratorium on approvals.    On a small vegetable farm near where Amazon, Microsoft, AirTrunk and others are building centres, Meg Sun said her family's business had to turn off the sprinklers in the 2019 drought but still bought enough water from Sydney Water to drip-feed the crops.She worries what might happen if water demand is worsened by data centres' needs in the next drought."We can't even run the business then, because we do rely on water," she said.($1 = 1.5161 Australian dollars)(Reporting by Byron Kaye, with additional reporting by Stella Qiu; Editing by Sam Holmes)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Water
Business
Government

Toxic Pfas above proposed safety limits in almost all English waters tested

Exclusive: 110 of 117 bodies of water tested by Environment Agency would fail standards, with levels in fish 322 times the planned limitNearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England tested for a range of Pfas, known as “forever chemicals”, exceed proposed new safety limits and 85% contain levels at least five times higher, analysis of official data reveals.Out of 117 water bodies tested by the Environment Agency for multiple types of Pfas, 110 would fail the safety standard, according to analysis by Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust. Continue reading...

Nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England tested for a range of Pfas, known as “forever chemicals”, exceed proposed new safety limits and 85% contain levels at least five times higher, analysis of official data reveals.Out of 117 water bodies tested by the Environment Agency for multiple types of Pfas, 110 would fail the safety standard, according to analysis by Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust.They also found levels of Pfos – a banned carcinogenic Pfas – in fish were on average 322 times higher than planned limits for wildlife. If just one portion of such freshwater fish was eaten each month this would exceed the safe threshold of Pfos for people to consume over a year, according to the NGOs.Pfas, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of thousands of human-made chemicals used in industrial processes and products such as non-stick pans, clothing and firefighting foams. They do not break down in the environment and some are linked to diseases, including cancers and hormone disruption.Pfas pollution is widespread, prompting the EU to propose a new water quality standard that limits the combined toxicity of 24 Pfas to 4.4 nanograms per litre of water, calculated as PFOA-equivalents – a method that weights each substance according to its toxicity relative to PFOA, a particularly hazardous and well-studied carcinogen that is now banned.The EU is also planning to regulate about 10,000 Pfas as one class as there are too many to assess on a case-by-case basis and because none break down in the environment, but the UK has no plans to follow suit.Last week, environment groups, led by the Marine Conservation Society, wrote to ministers, urging a ban on all Pfas in consumer products and a timeline for phasing them out in all other uses. Now, public health and nature groups have joined forces to propose urgent measures to rein in pollution.“Scientists continue to identify Pfas as one of the biggest threats of our time, yet the UK is falling behind other countries in restricting them,” said Hannah Evans of the environmental charity Fidra. “Every day of inaction locks in decades of pollution and environmental harm … we’re asking the UK government to turn off the tap of these persistent forever chemicals.”They say the UK should align with the EU’s group-based Pfas restrictions and ban the substances in food packaging, clothing, cosmetics, toys and firefighting foams, following examples from Denmark, France and the EU. They want better monitoring, tougher water and soil standards and to make polluters cover the cost of Pfas clean-up.Emma Adler, the director of impact at Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “Pfas are linked to an explosion of impacts for wildlife and public health, from cancers to immune issues. These new figures underline just how widespread Pfas pollution is and that Pfas regulation must be a much clearer priority in government missions to clean up UK rivers and improve the nation’s health.”Thalie Martini, the chief executive officer at Breast Cancer UK, said: “Evidence points to the potential for some Pfas to be related to health issues, including increasing breast cancer risk … millions of families affected by this disease will want the government to do everything they can to deliver tougher Pfas rules to protect our health.”Last year, 59 Pfas experts urged the government to follow the science and regulate all Pfas as a single class, warning their extreme persistence – regardless of toxicity – posed a serious environmental threat.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Countries like France and Denmark, the EU as a whole and many US states have taken strong action against Pfas pollution,” said Dr Francesca Ginley from the Marine Conservation Society. “The time is now for the UK to take a stand and show the leadership we need on Pfas pollution from source to sea.”Dr Shubhi Sharma of the charity Chem Trust said: “Too often with hazardous chemicals the world has ignored early warnings of harm and learned lessons far too late. Costs to tackle Pfas in the environment and address health impacts have a multi-billion pound economic price tag … the government must not delay.”An Environment Agency spokesperson said the science on Pfas was moving quickly and that it was running a multi-year programme to improve understanding of Pfas pollution sources in England. They added: “We are screening sites to identify potential sources of Pfas pollution and prioritise further investigations, whilst assessing how additional control measures could reduce the risks of Pfas in the environment.”A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “The government is committed to protecting human health and the environment from the risks posed by Pfas. That’s why we are working at pace together with regulators to assess levels of Pfas in the environment, their sources and potential risks to inform our approach to policy and regulation.”

Water
Chemicals
Food

Breaking Down the Force of Water in the Texas Floods

Flash floods last week in Texas caused the Guadalupe River to rise dramatically, reaching three stories high in just two hours

Over just two hours, the Guadalupe River at Comfort, Texas, rose from hip-height to three stories tall, sending water weighing as much as the Empire State building downstream roughly every minute it remained at its crest.Comfort offers a good lens to consider the terrible force of a flash flood’s wall of water because it’s downstream of where the river’s rain-engorged branches met. The crest was among the highest ever recorded at the spot — flash flooding that appears so fast it can “warp our brains,” said James Doss-Gollin, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University.The Texas flood smashed through buildings, carried away cars and ripped sturdy trees out by the roots, dropping the debris in twisted piles when the water finally ebbed. It killed more than 100 people, prompted scores of rescues and left dozens of others missing. The deaths were concentrated upriver in Kerr County, an area that includes Camp Mystic, the devastated girls' camp, where the water hit early and with little notice.Water is capable of such destruction because it is heavy and can move fast. Just one cubic foot of water — imagine a box a bit larger than the size of a basketball — weighs about 62 pounds (28 kilograms). When the river rose to its peak at Comfort, 177,000 cubic feet — or 11 million pounds (5 million kilograms) of water — flowed by every second.“When you have that little lead time ... that means you can’t wait until the water level starts to rise,” Doss-Gollin said. “You need to take proactive measures to get people to safety.” Water as heavy as a jumbo jet A small amount of water — less than many might think — can sweep away people, cars and homes. Six inches (15.2 centimeters) is enough to knock people off their feet. A couple of feet of fast-moving water can take away an SUV or truck, and even less can move cars.“Suppose you are in a normal car, a normal sedan, and a semitrailer comes and pushes you at the back of the car. That’s the kind of force you’re talking about,” said Venkataraman Lakshmi, a University of Virginia professor and president of the hydrology section of the American Geophysical Union.And at Comfort, it took just over 15 minutes for so much water to arrive that not only could it float away a large pickup truck, but structures were in danger — water as heavy as a jumbo jet moved by every second.At that point, “We are past vehicles, homes and things can start being affected,” said Daniel Henz, flood warning program manager at the flood control district of Maricopa County, Arizona, an area that gets dangerous scary flash floods.The water not only pushes objects but floats them, and that can actually be scarier. The feeling of being pushed is felt immediately, letting a person know they are in danger. Upward force may not be felt until it is overwhelming, according to Upmanu Lall, a water expert at Arizona State University and Columbia University.“The buoyancy happens — it’s like a yes, no situation. If the water reaches a certain depth and it has some velocity, you’re going to get knocked off (your feet) and floating simultaneously,” he said. The mechanics of a flash flood The landscape created the conditions for what some witnesses described as a fast-moving wall of water. Lots of limestone covered by a thin layer of soil in hilly country meant that when rain fell, it ran quickly downhill with little of it absorbed by the ground, according to S. Jeffress Williams, senior scientist emeritus with the U.S. Geological Survey.A flash flood generally starts with an initial lead wave and then builds as rain rushes over the landscape and into the river basin. It may rise quickly, but the water still takes some time to converge. The water crumpled cars into piles, twisted steel and knocked trees down as if they were strands of grass. Images captured the chaos and randomness of the water’s violence.And then, not as fast as it rose, but still quickly, the river receded.Five hours after its crest at Comfort, it had already dropped 10 feet (3 meters), revealing its damage in retreat. A couple of days after it started to rise, a person could stand with their head above the river again.“Everything just can happen, very, very quickly,” Henz said.Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein in Washington contributed.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - June 2025

Water
Climate

South West Water allowed to invest £24m rather than pay £19m fine

Campaigners say Ofwat ‘subservient to industry and its rampaging pursuit of profit’ after illegal sewage dischargesSouth West Water has agreed to pay a £24m penalty for illegal sewage discharges into the environment from its treatment works.The regulator for the water and wastewater sector in England and Wales, Ofwat, says the company, which has 1.8 million customers in Cornwall, Devon, the Isles of Scilly and parts of Dorset and Somerset, is being penalised for dumping sewage in breach of its legal permit conditions. Continue reading...

South West Water has agreed to pay a £24m penalty for illegal sewage discharges into the environment from its treatment works.The regulator for the water and wastewater sector in England and Wales, Ofwat, says the company, which has 1.8 million customers in Cornwall, Devon, the Isles of Scilly and parts of Dorset and Somerset, is being sanctioned for dumping sewage in breach of its legal permit conditions.But there was anger over revelations on Thursday that the regulator had not imposed a direct fine on the company.South West Water put forward the suggestion that it would invest £20m to reduce sewage discharges at key storm overflows, spend £2m to tackle sewer misuse and misconnections, and another £2m to support local environment groups. This was accepted by Ofwat rather than imposing a fine of £19m.But Rob Abrams, the campaigns manager at Surfers Against Sewage, said allowing water companies to choose their own penalty was farcical.He said the situation “illustrates a water industry model that’s broken beyond repair, with government and regulators subservient to industry and its rampaging pursuit of profit, at any cost”.Ofwat said it had chosen this route rather than imposing a fine because it was satisfied that the company would carry out the work required to bring its infrastructure back into legal operation.“We have … concluded that it would be appropriate to accept the undertakings in lieu of the financial penalty we would otherwise impose in this case (£19m, 6.5% of its relevant turnover),” Ofwat said.The regulator carried out a two-year investigation into the company that found it had failed to upgrade its treatment works to prevent sewage discharges into the environment, failed to properly deal with the content of its sewers and failed to put in the resources to monitor its treatment works properly.The penalty is the latest in an ongoing investigation by Ofwat into several water companies into widespread illegal sewage dumping across the network from thousands of treatment plants.Penalties totalling more than £160m have already been imposed against Yorkshire Water, Thames Water and Northumbrian Water for widespread illegal sewage dumping from their treatment works.Lynn Parker, the senior director for enforcement at Ofwat, said the regulator had secured the £24m package and a commitment to put things right from the company.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionBut Abrams said it amounted to a cynical PR exercise and an abdication of responsibility by Ofwat.“There is no transparency about how the money will be spent or whether it’s even enough,” he said.“Of the £4m pledged for environmental initiatives and local groups, we’ve been given no clarity on who will benefit or why.”The public and other stakeholders can make representations about the size of the penalty before it is finalised.

Water
Waste
Government

Suggested Viewing

THE WATER WILL TAKE US

This film tells the story of the victims of the flood of 2019 in Iran, which happened in the three provinces of North, Central and South of the country and left a lot of damages. The main narrators are three women who reveal the causes of this incident and mismanagements and tell the story of the people who were left to fend for themselves during the flood and after.

Water
Social Justice
Climate

Home Waters

Three high school girls trek 50 miles from Florida’s Rainbow Springs State Park to the Gulf of Mexico to explore the hidden rivers, springs, and forests in their backyards. Their journey covers an important, yet unprotected, area of the Florida Wildlife Corridor and helps connect the next generation to our last remaining wild places in the Sunshine State.

Water
Conservation
Youth

Caught in Quicksand

The Dead Sea is disappearing. The documentary, Caught in Quicksand, was made to raise public awareness about the receding of the Dead Sea.

Water
Climate
Documentary

The Cost of Sand

The Cost of Sand highlights the potential destruction of a crucial bio-link on the edge of the Ramsar wetlands from proposed expansion of sandmining in Bass Coast, Victoria. It features interviews with scientists and conservationists about the significance of preserving the last remnant coastal bushland in the region and the vulnerable wildlife and ecosystems it supports.

Water
Resources
Conservation

Water = Life

It seems that not only was the beginning of the life of beings, but also the beginning of the whole world with water. With this idea we can pay more attention to the water and save it.

Water
Conservation

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.