The deliberate release of raw sewage from Heathrow Airport has caused the deaths of thousands of fish in the nearby River Crane.

Thames Water decided to release the sewage after a valve in a major sewer serving the airport became jammed on Saturday.

The company made the decision that the comfort and convenience of passengers at the busy airport took precedence over the fate of the river's fish and other wildlife.

A statement from Thames Water said, "Faced with the unpalatable choice of letting the remaining sewage back up into the airport or spill to the River Crane, we were forced to opt for the latter, resulting in sewage entering the river and damaging wildlife, which we deeply regret".

Over the weekend sewage tankers were used to remove some of the waste before it could enter the river and the faulty valve was eventually closed with the use of hydraulic equipment on Monday morning, but despite these efforts a seven-mile stretch of the River Crane has been affected with fish including pike, eel and perch amongst the victims.

The Environment Agency (EA) estimates as many as 3,000 fish have been killed and has begun an enquiry into what they consider a 'major incident'. At the same time their officers are overseeing and helping with the clean-up operation.

The EA advise that people keep themselves and their pets out of the water until the problem is fully resolved.



Published: Bob Mehen Wednesday 2 November 2011, 10:58 am

__________________
Allan
Only dead fish go with the flow.

Should have let the sh1t spill into the airport. Will TVWA replace the fish?

BK

'The EA advise that people keep themselves and their pets out of the water until the problem is fully resolved.'

It's not just the fish & wildlife at risk ! companies should not be able to make these kind of decisions by themselves

I hope ( when the EA take them to Court ) that they receive a record breaking fine, large enough to make all such companies think before they act !....... but i doubt it .

__________________
www.te-ff.org/
Trout Fisherman Magazine.
Hardy/Greys. Fulling Mill.

"Faced with the unplatable cost of an alternative to polluting (there always is one!) we ruthlessly decided that the maximum fine would be less than the cost of doing the right thing".

They don't deserve to keep trading. Natural justice would bankrupt them and let someone buy them out and try to do a better job. Instead they will absorb the fine up their rates to consumers to protect shareholder dividend/value and continue to do alright.

http://www.thameswater.co.uk/cr/wast...-prosecutions/ their own page shows how often they get this wrong! However their £500,000 funding to river improvement etc. after the Wandle clean up was a step in the right after a big screw up.

Sadly this was almost certainly paid for by customers and not shareholders to keep the board's positions safe...

This is beyond farcical. having just looked at the link to Thames Water's own prosecutions page it appears they were fined £125000 for breaking the law and then were given back £75000 of the fine to help pay to put right that which they had done wrong! To quote the Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn 'you couldn't make it up'.

They should be fined millions and the Directors brought before the Courts to explain why, when they know the possibility of these 'overflows' exists, they do not do something preventative before it occurs. If no reasonable answer is given the Court should set up a daily fine to be imposed until the work is completed. Failing that put the Managing Director and the Operations Director in prison until it is done. See how fast it gets done then.

We stand for these abuses of our countryside far too much.

All court fines go to the treasury and are not used directly to remedy the effects of the crime. However I believe a judge can insist upon improvement works.

Because defendants often/always perform a clean up before the case they tend to emphasise what they spent on that and downplay/dismiss the work incurred by others helping to clean up. The courts often seem to buy into this where water co's are concerned and reduce the treasury fines perhaps because they feel that the extra costs will only impact shareholders and customers.

It doesn't always sit well with me either.

In addition to any criminal prosecution, any affected angling club could sue the ****ards in a civil court and would easily win - in civil cases the proof is based on balance of probabilities, not absolute proof. They could sue for the cost of any cleanup and restocking.

One for the Angling Trust "Fish Legal" team to pursue. They have been VERY successful at getting proper compensation for angling clubs and certainly forcibly vocal against steam-roller decision making (like the Thames hydro projects on 8 different weirs).

Becoming a member of the Angling Ttrust was a decision I didn't take lightly, it doesn't really affect me much because I mostly fish in the sea. However, I have seen the reports of the work they have done and I am going to remain a member purely because of this - even though I get very little personal direct benefit. The benefit to angling as a whole is massive.

Join up! Get your club to use the legal beagles and see for yourselves just how much work the AT do behind the scenes. Their biggest failing is in NOT TELLING people what they get up to. They just get on with in and don't trumpet blow. I like that.