In Praise of Public Sewers
In Anna’s piece about the Reverse Dutch Steamboat (good job it wasn’t Reverse Dutch Steam Clean; that would hurt), she took a sideswipe at the proposal that shared private sewers and drains should be transferred to Water Companies:
Thames Water, that statist corporation so named to bring to mind images of Runnymede and the hard won rights to the Barons to preserve some semblance of dignity against the encroachment of the state, has announced that by virtue of the powers invested in Defra, they are reversing the 1936 Act which allowed you to keep control of your sh*t until it left your property – and henceforth, all those pipes – and contents – which lay under your land and connected with the ‘public’ sewer system, will belong to them.
Some 125,000 km of private pipes on private land, owned by 10 million property owners, will, after the 1st October 2011, belong to the government.
Anna frames the problem as taking away control of their own .. er .. *output* .. from people on their own property:
‘Everybody, every last one of you must pay up to £14 a year extra to ensure that if Mrs Woods at No 18 chooses to flush her unloved cactus plant down the loo, thus blocking her own drain and no one else’s, that she doesn’t bear the cost of this action personally – we will all pay for her fool hardy action’.
I think Anna is looking from the wrong end of the pipe this time, as was the Angry Anarchist who covered the story first.
I had my notification from Severn Trent the other day about my sewers being taken over, and I couldn’t be happier.
There will be no restriction whatsoever on sending your own cacti through your own pipes, though you should remember to flush before sitting down again.
The Water Company will only take control of your pipes where those pipes are shared; your cactus-flushing fetish will only be interfered with should your cactus block somebody else’s drain or sewer, or restrict their right to sh*t through the pipe that belongs to you.
Severn-Trent puts it like this:
Post-transfer
• All sewers transfer
• All laterals outside property boundaries transfer
However
• Home owners will remain responsible for the private drains within their boundary.
Private treatment works, septic tanks, drains (serving one property) within property boundaries and surface water drains are not included in the transfer.
So you won’t lose control of your pipe, as long as it is an exclusive pipe on your own property.
Let me try a thought experiment to explore the changes.
Imagine Commentariat Terrace, a row of houses.
These houses are occupied by 8 neighbours who live on a slight hill: Polly, Solly, Molly, Penny, Lenny, Denny, Quentin, and Little Johann on the end. Little Johann is at the top of the hill.
This could be a row of Terraces in the People’s Republic of Bolsover, or it could be a group of houses built on Polly’s old garden in London.
Due to the way the geography works, each neighbour’s drains go over all the other neighbours’ gardens. This is a normal UK arrangement, and occurs everywhere. The responsibility for the drainage and sewers works like this:
At present, for the next 2 months, Little Johann is spending more time at home than usual, for some reason, and the drains are more heavily loaded because he is having lots of parties.
Little Johann’s ‘drainage’ causes a blockage in the drain under Polly’s garden between the place where the connection from Solly’s drain comes under the fence, and where it joins her own main drain.
Unfortunately the blockage is sited exactly where Polly has built her own mini-Roman Temple, her Rhetorarium, made out of Umbrian Marble from her own quarry, where she does her writing – firstly giving a speech for polemical vigour, then writing it down for posterity.
Solly and Molly are away on holiday, and Penny is off somewhere, supporting people occupying a building while trying to kick-start a revolution. She is attempting to convince everyone that a group of incomers occupying a building, while scuppering a planned local voluntary project, is a good thing for the local area; you have to at least admire her creative streak.
Therefore Lenny is the first to discover that there is a problem, when his loo doesn’t flush.
Solly and Molly are unavailable, and Penny is away for the time being, so Lenny talks to Polly about the blockage which exists somewhere between her Roman Rhetero-Temple and his – Lenny’s – garden, 4 doors up. Polly says:
“Mine works fine, and the output is at normal levels. It must most likely be a problem with Solly, Molly or Penny. I’ll dig up the floor of my temple when you have proved the problem is here, and not before.”
And then Polly returns to feeding the Ring-Necked Parakeets in the garden; a completely logical response form Polly’s viewpoint.
There is no problem with drainage for Polly’s own output, even though the blockage is under her garden. Nor is there a particular problem for Little Johann yet. His own drainage works fine, and he can have as many wild fantasy parties as he likes, until the smell comes back up the hill and catches him by surprise.
Legally the repair is Polly’s responsiblity, but she will get no benefit – apart from less aggro – from taking action. She *may* be covered for any damage by her Buildings insurance, or she may not.
But someone has to get a man in to investigate the problem. Who?
How is Lenny supposed to get permission from Solly, Molly or Penny to work under or in their gardens when they are ‘indisposed’?
And who will pay for employing the contractors to clear the blockage, and perhaps to restore Polly’s Rhetero-Temple and fill in the hole in the ground?
And what is to stop Little Johann from doing exactly the same thing next month when he has his next party, and where is the motivation to make him care, anyway?
Not exactly an ideal situation.
Enter stage left a thoroughly sensible proposal that all shared ‘private’ sewers and drains should be the responsibility of the Water Companies to repair, and a miniscule increase in the cost of water bills to pay for it.
This will change the situation in the diagram at the start to be like this:
That is, the householder will be responsible for sewers and drains which carry their own sewage and drainage within the boundaries of their own property, but the Water Companies will be responsible for shared sewers and drains whereever they are.
Polly, Solly, Molly, Penny, Lenny, Danny, Quentin, and of course Little Johann, can rest easy. The water company will be responsible for solving the problem and the whole thing will be a lot simpler. And all for about a tenner each per year.
They should have done this 50 years ago.
And Quentin went “HARRUMPH! WHAT PROBLEM!” through a megaphone, and returned to his quinine-drops, his Daily Mail, and the Glen Baxter Annual 1981 Edition, oblivious to everything else.
(*) Any resemblance to any characters living or dead may be intentional, but elements of garden and household furniture, and the incidents mentioned, are imaginary – with just a few exceptions.
Credit for photo of Commentariat Terrace: Dominicspics.
Dramatis Personae: 1, 2, 3, 4.
[Update: Joe Public, in the comments, draws our attention to a problem – or possibly a way for Ken Clarke to reduce the Prisons’ Budget – with personal ‘maintenance’ of private cess-pits.]
- July 16, 2011 at 16:24
-
It sounds like enforced blockage insurance to me.
No doubt the premium
will increase over time too.
- July 16, 2011 at 16:06
-
Just ring Dyno-rod. Or stuff a suppository up the unblocked end.
- July 16, 2011 at 14:14
-
Depending upon the severity of the blockage, it may be worth consulting the
Bristol Stool Scale to discover the grade of laxative necessary to maintain
minimum flow………….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Stool_Scale
- July 16, 2011 at 13:49
-
Gr8 cartoon! Been pondering a bit more. My Libertarian solution, clear your
own bit and sod everyone else does come up against a legal problem with shared
drains as you’d be causing someone else to spend money if you shift the
blockage down to them. In practice you could probably break up a blockage or
retrieve it with the hook attachment, but, wisdom of Solomon moment, you
define the responsibility in the title deeds. Each person is allowed to shove
the blockage down without being sued until it eventually reaches the main
sewer. None of this communal taxation/corporatism lark.
As a caring
Libertarian (non complete bastard wing) you’d offer to help out in the case of
elderly, disabled or genuinely penniless neighbours.
Perfect, just give me
the world to run and you won’t regret it (my Gestapo/KGB wouldn’t allow
regrets to be expressed openly anyway).
-
July 16, 2011 at 16:03
-
- July 16, 2011 at 13:02
-
This does seem to be a good move.
But I’m suspicious. When do
authorities do anything sensible?
This talk of moles and fibreoptics is
gonna set off the conspiracy nuts.
“They can take my sewer when they pry it from my cold dead
fingers!”
Anyone doing T-shirts for that?
-
July 16, 2011 at 13:30
-
- July 16, 2011 at 12:46
-
Thanks for the explanation Matt.
Does this diagram also help illustrate the situation?
-
July 16, 2011 at 12:57
-
- July 16, 2011 at 10:21
-
Very clearly explained, unlike the Thames Water leaflet.
I never knew shit could be so interesting!
- July 16,
2011 at 09:40
-
Yes, and it makes excellent sense that one householder should not be
reponsible for a sewer pipe that drains adjacent properties and it is
perfectly sensible that responsibility for their operation to be transferred
to the water company. I’m with you that far.
But as I understand it they
are taking ownership, which is something quite different from offerring a
maintenance responsibility.
If they devise a scheme in the future to (say)
replace all pipes with plastic that include a optic fibre broadband conduit
will they be able to dig up your garden with impunity to access ‘their’
pipework?
-
July 16, 2011 at 10:26
- July 16, 2011 at 16:02
-
“….replace all pipes with plastic that include fibre optic broadband
conduit…”
Already done, I reckon. Just look at the sort of shit you can get on the
interweb if you delve too deeply.
-
- July 16,
2011 at 09:27
-
Spot on Matt. As one who lives in an Edwardian terrace with the common
collector running 10′ behind the houses then emerging onto the street through
a shared passage, I one watched in horror as a particularly dense but
energetic neighbour was hacking at a hole in the ground with a pickaxe. I went
outside to chat. He was digging a hole for a tree, he said, “but there’s some
bloody concrete down here”. When I suggested it was protecting the salt-glazed
sewer pipe that ran there he visibly blanched.
If this overdue move just serves to awaken the over 90% of householders as
to what happens to the contents of their toilet bowl, and where the drains
run, it will be a massive improvement.
- July 16, 2011 at 08:37
-
Hmm. As it’s Polly I have another solution. Warn the other neighbours to
put a temporary cap on their soil pipes then hire high-speed jetting
equipment. Wait ’till she’s on the throne, well I think you get the
picture…
- July 16, 2011 at 08:40
-
Keyboard. Tea.
Naughty person.
You’re lowering the tone of my farticle.
-
July 16, 2011 at 11:17
-
I usually do that on an Anna topic, a bit of mirth and a bit of
seriousness. The gravitas thought is that in a complicated situation I
tend to rely on instinct. My instinct is to reject a communal solution
where everyone pays, at the start, £14 extra. It establishes a precedent
which could be used for other things, and would creep up once it’s in
place.
The previous chez-Livewires had 1920s drains in a clay area and
they were in a shocking state due to ground movement and tree roots. The
individual solution was a disposable plastic overall, a respirator, drain
rods and an air-pistol in case of rats. What the neighbours did with their
own drains was up to them, I just don’t like forced communalism, I prefer
an American outlook to a Continental one.
It’ll be interesting to see
how the views split on this one, looks about 50/50 at the moment.
-
- July 16, 2011 at 08:40
- July 16, 2011 at 08:27
-
Some years ago I was a member of the council in the town where I live.
Within my ward there was an estate built in the 1960s where there were long
runs of private sewer – the longest had collected the offerings from 52
properties before it met the public sewer. We had recurring problems with
blockages, mostly arising from fat build ups and, because it was a private
sewer, Severn Trent rightly declined to act. We, the council, met the cost of
jetting the fat deposits out, which wasn’t too expensive.
But after a few times, we started to worry that there was a more deep
seated problem with the 52 property run – a camera inspection revealed that it
was sound, but not before we’d run through the options:
a) We, the council,
pay for major works, which would probably be deemed ultra vires by the
district auditor
b) We, the council, undertake the works and then invoice
the upstream property owners
c) Er
d) That’s it.
Compounding the issue was that, at the time, a standard set of property
searches didn’t show this up: the question “is the property connected to a
public sewer” was answered “yes” because it (ultimately) was. So I had a
number of agitated constituents, concerned that they might suddenly be
presented with an invoice for drainage work out of the blue. In the end it
didn’t happen, the inspection showed the sewer was sound, and we jetted the
fat out from time to time.
If the water companies are going to adopt these lengths and designate them
public sewers then, as you say, about bloody time too.
{ 22 comments }