This paper is an assignment submitted to De Montfort University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of LLM in Environmental Law by Andrew Brown. It asks whether, despite the much higher levels of fines on water companies for environmental offences imposed[NP1] recently, there remains an unacceptably [NP2] low level of compliance with the regulations. What can be done?
A central issue to the pollution of water courses is whether the regulators enforce the rules and, are the sanctions enough to deter further offending and encourage future compliance? Historically fines for environmental offences were criticised by the Environment Agency [NP3] for being too low[1] and then many were reduced on appeal giving the impression that the courts were being lenient.[2] It is only relatively recently that significant fines have been levied for environmental offences such as the £90 million fine handed down to Southern Water[NP4] [3]. Even though the nine English water companies [NP5] have been fined many millions of pounds over recent years the level of compliance has not shown signs of much improvement.[4] [NP6] Does this mean that the water companies see the fines as part of normal operating costs? Given the current economic situation and the cuts in funding to governmental organisations[5] [NP7] would the hypothecation of fines received from environmental offences be useful for organisations such as the Environment Agency to enhance their ability to ensure compliance and enforcement of the regulations? This essay will examine the practicalities of water company fines being used as an extra funding source of the Environment Agency. [NP8]
Many pollution incidents emanate from the storm overflows of sewage treatment works. These overflows are an essential part of the system and are designed to allow rainwater to be added to the wastewater [NP9] and then to be discharged during times of heavy rainfall. This is to prevent sewage flooding streets or backing up into homes during storm events.