Water Resources in the Built Environment: Management Issues and Solutions

Section 1

Introduction to the Book

1

Water Resources: Balancing too Little Versus too Much

Colin A. Booth and Susanne M. Charlesworth

1.1 Introduction

Why are we told to conserve water supplies and alter our attitudes towards water usage, yet our homes and businesses are increasing inundated with floodwaters? This is a question that is common to many communities in many counties around the world and is an ever-increasing issue being raised in the United Kingdom (Charlesworth and Booth, 2012).

1.2 Too Little Versus too Much

Being curtailed by a restricted water usage order, whilst standing knee-deep in floodwater inside your home is a confusing and perplexing scenario for society to comprehend – particularly when homeowners could be fined for using a hosepipe to clean out and sanitise their home after the destruction and devastation of a flood.

In the summer of 2010, with only ~300 mm of rain falling in several months and reservoirs at less than half their usual capacity, the water company for north-west England (United Utilities Plc) gained permission in early July 2010 for a drought order to restrict nonessential use of water for seven million homes in Cheshire, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and parts of Cumbria. However, within a matter of days of the restriction being imposed, residents in parts of Lancashire (Preston, Leyland, Ribbleton, Lostock Hall, Bamber Bridge and Coppull) and Merseyside (Bootle, Seaforth, West Derby and Bromorough) were inundated with floodwater after torrential rain (~50 mm in one hour) caused flash flooding. However, the drought order remained in place for many weeks later until mid August 2010 and, during which time, anybody caught breaching the ban would have be fined £1000 (~$1600 USD or ~ €1200 EUR). It is estimated that the water company saved about three billion litres of water during the drought order but the homes and businesses affected by the flooding were inconvenienced for many months later. This scenario highlights the problematic nature of attempting to report drought conditions to the general public so they will curb their water usage demands, when media reports are also screening the trauma and ruin of water excesses.

It would be wrong to have expected the water company to have envisaged or even anticipated the intensity of future rainfall events across its region and, furthermore, the rainfall did not bolster supplies because it fell in isolated places away from the main reservoirs. The company’s decision to impose a drought order was an attempt to marry-up likely water demand with probable water availability, so as to maintain a regular and uninterrupted supply for its customers. However, the scenario clearly highlights the fact that water resources management decision-making is a complicated matter, which encompasses reliance upon nature to assist in the prediction of unknown rainfall events. Traditionally, it has been justifiable to assume that summer months will be warmer and drier than the other seasons. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons (and it is not our intention to persuade you to believe or disbelieve the climate change agenda; see Committee on Climate Change, 2012), there seems an ever-increasing shift in climate patterns towards extreme weather events with impacts that appear to be exacerbated by human activities in the built environment arena. As a result, this is causing widespread droughts and flooding to be commonplace for some countries. The following are examples.

Australia, the driest continent on Earth, is no stranger to drought conditions and through a host of measures they have dramatically reduced their water consumption over the last decade to address the issue. However, the Queensland floods in January 2011 served as a reminder that their highly variable climatic pattern of rainfall can have devastating effects (floodwater covered the equivalent area of France and Germany) on the coastal cities and towns, and their communities. In response, it has been proposed that new dams should be constructed to mitigate flooding and to provide a water resource for the growing population.

Many of the southern states of the United States are plagued by drought and flooding. New Orleans will always be remembered for the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina (August 2005). However, by late 2011 and early 2012, much of the States of Louisiana and Mississippi were suffering extreme drought conditions. That was until heavy rainfalls brought ~180 mm to Louisiana State and ~250 mm to Mississippi State, causing flooding in many places. Elsewhere, in the State of Georgia, the City of Atlanta experienced its worst drought in living memory in 2007, yet within two years (September 2009) the city experienced an unprecedented 500-year flood event. Ever-demanding population growth and increasing urbanisation were highlighted as the precursors for these events.

Poorly maintained drainage systems were fundamental in causing flash flooding in Argentina’s capital city, Buenos Aires, during February 2012, when torrential rains fell. However, the surrounding province, which suffered a lack of rainfall at this time, remained in drought for many months, until it rained ~200 mm in one night and caused extensive flooding (700 000 hectares) to the towns around Bolivar.

Many African nations are listed by the United Nations as being in a state of water stress (1700 m³ per person) or scarcity (1000 m³ per person). Ghana, like many other African countries, contends with the challenges of delivering a potable supply of water for its population, providing water for food production and growing its economy, confined within the constraints of its limited water resources. However, urban flooding in Ghana is becoming more frequent (February 2011, June 2011, October 2011) and with even greater impacts on communities and businesses.

India is a vast nation with extremes of water shortage and flooding. For instance, in 2002, more than 40 thousand villages in the State of Rajasthan were drought-stricken yet many millions of people in the States of Assam and Bihar were deep in floodwaters. Both scenarios caused suffering and the widespread destruction and failure of crops, together with associated poverty. Nearby, Pakistan was devastated by catastrophic floods (July 2010), which left some 20 million people homeless. Yet, in early 2012, many of the small communities neighbouring the River Indus were now suffering water shortages and were unable to irrigate their crops. Changes in glacial meltwater flows and upstream diversions were identified as compounding water resource issues and driving people into poverty. However, months later (August 2012) those same communities were once again forced from their houses when excessive rainfall caused the river to burst its banks and destroy many of their homes.

Elsewhere, also during August 2012, more than a million people were affected by flooding in the Philippine’s capital, Manila, when two weeks’ worth of rain fell in just 24 hours. As a consequence, about half the city was submerged with water up to 3–4 metres deep in places, which meant travel was impossible and some victims were stranded on the roofs of buildings. However, the memory of an earlier event in 2009 meant many people were well prepared and more organised when asked to evacuate.

Thailand was devastated in 2011 when it suffered its worst floods for several decades. Hundreds of people were killed, several millions of people were affected and the economic cost was estimated to be tens of billions of pounds (close behind Hurricane Katrina). However, several months later, 50 of its provinces were facing drought conditions. Nearby, severe drought also affected North Korea until heavy rains and flooding caused widespread damage, the deaths of >100 people, many thousands of people left homeless and a similar number of people in the City of Anju were left without potable water supplies (August 2012).

China has a water resources divide. The northern plain, with megacities such as Beijing and Tianjin, has endured severe water shortages to such an extent that reservoirs have diminished to only puddles (e.g. Shandong Province) and, as a consequence, to meet demand, groundwater aquifers are being abstracted faster than they can be replenished. In contrast, southern China is commonly afflicted by floodwaters. For instance, flooding in Sichuan, Guizhou, Hunan and Hubei Provinces (June 2011) caused enormous suffering and infrastructure damage, with many roads, bridges and buildings destroyed, and hundreds of thousands of people evacuated and many thousands of people left stranded. Recognising the imbalance of its water resources, the government is funding (~£37 billion) the North–South Water Project to build a series of massive pipes and canals to transfer water to where it is most needed.

Elsewhere, during June 2011, storms caused flooding in Hamburg, Germany, which inundated buildings and immobilised transport links. The rainfall, however, was welcomed because the country experienced its driest spring months on record. The previous year in Germany had brought extreme heat and drought (July 2010), yet it also brought the wettest August on record.

Spain has been a recent victim to both droughts and flash flooding. Following months of drought and scorching temperatures, the Andalucian Provinces of Almeria, Malaga and Murcia were inundated by a colossal amount of rainfall in only a few hours (September 2012). Such a large amount of rain in a short time meant streets were several metres deep with torrents of water that washed away cars and infrastructure, causing several deaths and mass evacuations.

The UK weather of 2012 can only be described as topsy–turvy. The early part of the year started with a second dry winter in succession, resulting in the implementation of drought orders across many parts of the country (affecting ~20 million people). Since then, the country has experienced some of the wettest periods since records began. Some places have reported up to 30 mm of rainfall in one hour and others have reported up to 100 mm in one day. As a consequence, flooding in June 2012 occurred in parts of Sussex (Bognor Regis, Bosham, Bracklesham, Earnley, Elmer, Felpham, Worthing, Middleton-on-Sea, Littlehampton and Hunston), West Wales (Dol-y-bont, Llandre, Machynlleth, Penrhyncoch and Talybont), the Midlands counties (Penkridge, Albrighton, Boningale, Frankley, Birmingham, Leicester, Kington, Kingsland and Eardisley), Greater Manchester (Wigan and Oldham), Lancashire (Croston, Darwen and Bacup), Cumbria (Kendal and Askam), Durham (Whitley Bay), Yorkshire (Mytholmroyd, Swillington, Todmorden and Hebden Bridge; during September 2012 in Boroughbridge, Catterick, Gilling and Tadcaster), Northumberland (Chester-le-Street, Durham, Morpeth, Newburn, Rothbury and Stockton-on-Tees) and Devon and Cornwall (Looe, Mevagissey, Bideford, Exmouth and Clovelly in October 2012).

The plethora of examples outlined above illustrate that droughts and flooding are concomitant global issues and, moreover, illustrate the necessity for water resources managers, water engineers and water policy-makers to ensure that they produce accurate and well-informed decisions to guarantee the sustained delivery of potable water supplies and the continued protection of society from floodwaters. Climate change may (or may not) transpire to be the root cause for droughts and flooding but perhaps there is also a need to reflect on a host of other reasons why these problems exist and concurrently learn to adapt the built environment and lifestyles for any predicted changes (Booth et al., 2012).

The foremost reasons for water scarcity include population growth, food production, water quality, water demand, plus a host of legislative, policy, social, economic, political and management decisions, while the primary reasons for flooding include natural reasons, such as excessive rainfall or storm surge, and anthropogenic reasons, such as restricted infiltration and excessive runoff from impervious landscapes, again brought about through a host of legislative, policy, social, economic, political and management decisions. Further and more fruitful insights into these issues and potential solutions are deliberated in the remaining chapters of this book.

1.3 Structure of the Book

This book comprises three parts and eight sections, which are collated into twenty-nine chapters. The first part of the book (Sections 2, 3 and 4) addresses management issues and solutions to minimise water shortages and provide water security for society, whilst the second part of the book (Sections 5 and 6) addresses management issues and solutions to control excessive rainfall and minimise flooding impacts. The latter part of the book (Section 7) contextualises the issues of the earlier sections within international case studies from the developing world.

Section 1 forms the introduction to the book and provides insights into issues and examples of the need to balance water resources from the extremes of having too little (drought) versus having too much (flooding). Section 2 introduces water demand, policy and cost and gives insights into water strategy, policy and legislation for meeting water demand, whilst also looking at the issues of regulating, privatising and economics of water. Section 3 concentrates on water infrastructure and supply and presents insights into issues of large-scale water storage, the impacts of powering the water industry, treatment of water to meet potable supply standards and delivering supplies in buildings. Section 4 assembles chapters dealing with water conservation and bestows insights into the concept of achieving water-neutral housing developments, building regulation attempts to reduce water usage, reaping water from rainwater and greywater harvesting, and an innovative approach to utilising inland waterways. Section 5 centres on flooding responses and reinstatement and furnishes insights into measuring and monitoring rainfall, engineered schemes for managing and protecting communities from floodwater, the economic cost of flooding, burdens on the insurance sector and a holistic approach to property flood protection. Section 6 ponders on flood solutions in the urban landscape and proffers insights into sustainable drainage systems, together with pavement drainage and green infrastructure benefits, the role of constructed wetlands and the treatment of wastewater. Section 7 contextualises international case studies with insights into water resources issues in Africa and Asia. Section 8 converges with a summary of the book and offers insights into the lessons that can be learnt for the future of water resources management.

1.4 Conclusions

The wealth of global examples and information communicated in this chapter have been randomly collated by the authors, from a host of media sources (television, radio, Internet and newspapers) throughout the last few years, and whilst the journalism reports have not been interrogated for absolute accuracy or scrutinised through a peer-review process, like the references used in the subsequent chapters, they are reported here to simply convey the scale of the water resources message of the need to balance too little with too much.

Balancing our water resources requirements and its management is clearly a complicated and multifaceted responsibility. Societies will complain when there is not enough water and the same communities will protest when they are flooded. The examples used portray a global problem of hardship and an obvious sense of frustration that must be so readily apparent to those affected. Whether you believe in climate change is a cause, or not, evidence suggests there is a shift towards more extreme weather events and the extent, frequency and repetition of droughts and floods illustrates a need to understand and adapt our lifestyles and behaviour, our homes and businesses, and our towns and cities to accommodate these events.

References

Booth, C.A. , Hammond, F.N. , Lamond, J.E. and Proverbs, D.G. (2012) Solutions to Climate Change Challenges in the Built Environment. Wiley–Blackwell, Oxford.

Charlesworth, S.M. and Booth, C.A. (2012) Water resources issues and solutions for the built environment: too little versus too much. In: Booth, C.A. , Hammond, F.N. , Lamond, J.E. and  Proverbs, D.G. (eds) Solutions to Climate Change Challenges in the Built Environment. Wiley–Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 237–250.

Committee on Climate Change (2012) Climate Change – Is the UK Preparing for Flooding and Water Scarcity? Adaptation of Sub-Committee Progress Report. http://www.theccc.org.uk/reports/adaptation.

Section 2

Water Demand, Policy and Cost

2

Meeting Demand: Water Strategy, Policy and Legislation

Sharron McEldowney

2.1 Introduction

Water quality and availability is fundamental to human health and well-being and essential to economic productivity. Water plays a key role across a variety of commercial activities from food production and manufacture, to energy generation, industrial activity and for leisure activities. The sustainable use of water in urban landscapes involves the management of these diverse and often competing demands on a scarce resource. Policy-makers have to engage with managing water resources to ensure sustainability. It is a multidimensional problem which must somehow be resolved with the equitable distribution of water, while conserving water quantity and quality in the face of growing demand.

At present, ~18 billion litres of water are supplied daily by the UK water industry to residential and commercial users. The service sector is by far the largest single commercial user, accounting for 56% of nonresidential water use, with manufacturing using 28% and agriculture 12%. Some of this demand for water is met through direct abstraction by both agricultural and industrial businesses (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2011a, 2012a). Roughly 150 litres of water are used per day per person in the UK (www.waterwise.org.uk). Any water shortages will undoubtedly have diverse and substantial impacts. Policy development for sustainable water usage is faced with an expanding population, predicted to rise from just over 62 million to an estimated 70 million by 2027 in the UK (Office for National Statistics, 2011), and the impact of global warming. The UK 2012 Climate Change Risk Assessment (DEFRA, 2012a) sets out the vulnerability of the UK’s water supply to climate change through reduced water availability and impacts on water quality.

There are a number of important contributions to the governance and management of water resources in England and Wales. DEFRA, together with the Welsh Assembly Government, is responsible for water policy. The Environment Agency (EA) for England and Wales contributes substantially to the sustainable development of the water resource. Nature Resources Wales, formed from the merger of the Environment Agency for Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission for Wales in 2013, has similar responsibilities. OFWAT is the economic regulator for public water providers in England and Wales; it ensures water companies maintain a balance between supply and demand. The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) oversees the quality of drinking water from public and private supplies.

This chapter will begin by reviewing the current legislative and regulatory framework for managing water quality and demand in the built environment. Strategies to foster greater water use efficiency in the future will be examined and current policy directions for water management in England and Wales are outlined.

2.2 Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Managing the Water Resources

The current regulatory framework for UK water resources reflects two major influences. Firstly, the European Union has substantially contributed to water protection, particularly through the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and its Daughter Directives. Secondly, the bulk of water supply and the treatment of wastewater, some 16 billion litres per day (DEFRA, 2012b), are provided for by the privatised public utility companies (see Chapter 3). The previous Labour Government’s water strategy (2008) made clear the need to value water more highly and the necessity of conserving water resources for the future (DEFRA, 2008; Howarth, 2008). The new Coalition Government’s recent White Paper, Water for Life (DEFRA, 2011b), has followed a similar approach, which underlines the value of water and emphasises the need to tackle pollution, overabstraction and improve water efficiency.

2.2.1 OFWAT and the Protection of the Water Supply

The Water Industry Act 1991 provides for water companies to supply water and sewage services and established a regulator for the industry. A modified Water Services Regulation Authority (the acronym OFWAT) was set up by the Water Act 2003, with a new emphasis on regulation of a service rather than the economic regulation of a company. This has brought greater cooperation with other agencies. OFWAT is under a primary duty ‘to protect the interests of consumers, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition’. Consumers are defined to include not only current but future users of water. The environmental consequences of water use also lie within the competences of OFWAT. There is an additional duty linked to the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) that requires the development of common principles ‘to promote sustainable water use’. The Water Industry Act 1991 imposes a duty on water companies to promote the efficient use of water by its customers supplementing the powers of OFWAT.

The need to repair an ageing, Victorian water infrastructure is a major problem for OFWAT and the water industry. There is an ongoing major programme of infrastructure repairs carried out by the water companies and required by OFWAT. Undoubtedly, there has been improvement in leakage levels but, after an initial period of some success, current leakage reduction is disappointing. There were an estimated 2494 megalitres of losses from water companies’ distribution networks and 787 megalitres from supply pipes on customers’ properties per day in 2009–2010 (DEFRA, 2011a). These figures have remained fairly constant since 2000. Individual water companies have been set yearly targets to reduce leakage by OFWAT until 2015, and must publish data on annual leakage on their web sites. In the past, OFWAT has taken enforcement action over companies not reaching water leakage targets in breach of their statutory obligations and may do so again in the future. Water companies are expected, however, to balance the costs of reducing leakage against managing supply and demand in other ways (e.g. metering, promoting efficient use of the water resource and also against exploiting a new water resource). Guidelines were published by OFWAT as part of the 2009 Price Review on best practice in the calculation of a sustainable economic level of leakage (OFWAT, 2009). The calculation is intended to include consideration of social and environmental costs. There have been some difficulties in the interpretation of this calculation by water companies and OFWAT, the EA and DEFRA are currently reviewing the guidance. OFWAT has also set requirements for the improvements of sewage infrastructure at substantial cost to water companies and their customers. Again the age of the infrastructure is a fundamental problem and improvements are essential if EU Water Directives are to be achieved.

The water companies are expected to present an annual report to OFWAT, which in the past have been much criticised for being too onerous. The requirements for reporting have been simplified and from July 2012 the report has taken the form of a ‘risk and compliance statement’. OFWAT believe this will provide more proportionate, targeted and risk-based regulation and incorporate a degree of horizon scanning for risk (OFWAT, 2012a). The statement includes confirmation that the company has met its statutory obligations, as well as licensing and regulatory obligations. The risk assessment element of the statement maps risks and sets out plans to manage or mitigate them. The companies must also report on their progress against a number of indicators for environmental impact, reliability and availability, customer experience and finance. The reliability and availability category include the serviceability of the water and sewage infrastructure and leakage. The environmental impact factors are primarily related to pollution incidence, safe sludge disposal and meeting discharge consents, all of which affect water quality. There is also a reporting requirement on greenhouse gas emissions. The indicators were developed in consultation with the EA, who will use them to help assess water companies’ performance related to their environmental impact. The water companies can include other indicators that are not relevant to OFWAT and there seems to be the intention to include indicators of drinking water quality (OFWAT, 2012b).

OFWAT would undoubtedly claim there have been improvements in the efficiency of supply and service provided by the water companies. It is difficult to gauge, however, how much the improvements have been driven by the regulatory activity of OFWAT and how much is the result of the improving standards driven by the European Union. OFWAT has recently been pushing to increase the speed of introducing water metering in England and Wales, with a target of 90% of supplies metered by 2030. The regulator claimed this would not only have benefits for customers but would have substantial environmental benefits in reducing demand (OFWAT, 2011). However, this initiative does not seem to have been reflected in the recent Coalition Government’s White Paper, Water for Life (DEFRA, 2011b) or the Water Bill 2013/14. The water companies through their distribution and supply of water are key players in the conservation of water resources. It is likely that there will be continued pressure on them to reduce environmental impacts relating to water quality, conservation and use.

2.2.2 The Drinking Water Inspectorate and Drinking Water Supply

The provision of safe, good-quality drinking water is regulated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI). The Chief Inspector of the DWI has statutory powers of inspection under the Drinking Water Act 2003 (Section 57). It is an offence under the Water Industry Act 1991 to sell water that is unfit for consumption (Section 70). The DWI has enforcement powers under the 1991 Act and has recently cautioned Thames Water, and Essex and Suffolk over drinking water supplies that were unfit for human consumption (DWI, 2011). The Drinking Water Directive (Directive 98/83/EC) sets the quality standards (chemical, microbiological and organoleptic) for drinking water and requires regular monitoring of supplies. There must also be public access to information on drinking water quality (see Chapter 9). Local Authorities keep records of private supplies in their area including reporting on compliance with the Drinking Water Directive. The Inspectorate prepares an annual report on the state of drinking water quality for both public supplies and private supplies (see, for example, Chief Inspector of Drinking Water, 2011).

The percentage of drinking water supplies failing tests in England and Wales was 0.04% in 2010, a slight improvement on 2009 where the rate of failure was 0.05%. There has been a rise in the incidence of failure since 2005, which has caused some concern (ENDS Report, 2009) and appears due to two factors, overfluoridisation and pesticides. There is a requirement for water companies to undertake risk assessments for each water treatment works and linked supply system, which is designed to prevent unhealthy water entering the water supply system. Water companies are expected to have an appropriate risk management system in place.

2.2.3 The Environment Agency and Protecting Water Resources

The EA is the major environmental regulator in England and plays a key role in protecting the quality and quantity of the water resource. It was established under the Environment Act 1995. There are a number of major pieces of legislation relevant to maintaining water resources. In particular the Water Resources Act 1991 provides comprehensive powers for the management and regulation of water resources. There are general duties on the EA to conserve, augment, redistribute and secure proper use of water resources in England and Wales. The 1991 Act provides a water pollution control system and powers under this Act also relate to making drought orders. The Environment Act 1995 gives the EA an extensive remit over water resources, including water management, water pollution control, abstraction, flood defences, conservation and fisheries management.

The EA is the competent authority in England for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC), which is implemented through the Water Environment (England and Wales) Regulations 2003. The Directive essentially applies sustainable development principles to the water industry and to water resources. It provides for comprehensive phased improvements in the status of the water resource. The WFD is intended to be the main regulatory system for covering surface water and groundwater in a common framework. The new Daughter Directives also contribute to the overall regulatory framework. One Daughter Directive is specifically designed to protect the groundwater resource (The Ground Water Directive 2006/118/EC), while a new Environmental Quality Standards Directive (Directive 2008/105/EC), also known as the Priority Substance Directive, sets environmental quality standards for chemical substances that are identified as presenting a risk to or via the aquatic environment. A ‘priority list’ of substances is set out in Annex X to the WFD and includes industrial chemicals, biocides, metals and metal compounds. These substances are selected on the basis of their persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity or as agents of equivalent concern (e.g. endocrine disrupting chemicals). They must be monitored and exceedances of environmental quality standards (EQSs) reported. Under the WFD, discharges of these substances to the aquatic environment should be progressively reduced or stopped.

The WFD provides a ground-breaking holistic approach to the protection of water resources. Its technical complexity is matched by its ecological complexity and innovation (Josefsson and Baaner, 2011). The Directive employs river basin management plans (RBMPs) and ensures integrated management across river catchments from the point where the rivers rise to the coastal waters and incorporates all the catchment’s water bodies (i.e. lakes, canals, reservoirs, wetlands, amongst others). England and Wales are divided into 11 river basin districts. There is a six-year cycle of planning; the next cycle is from 2015. The plans include objectives for each water body and, where relevant, reasons for not achieving the objectives. The programme of actions in order to achieve the objectives must also be included. The plans are available to the public on the EA website (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33240.aspx). Part of this planning specifically includes consideration of the likely effects of climate change on the water resources. The Floods Directive, essentially a sister Directive to WFD, also requires management across river basin districts and over a six-year planning cycle, which must be coordinated with RBMPs.

There is multilayer governance under the WFD and, because of the technical complexity of the legislation, a need to ensure some commonality in implementation across the European Union. There are working groups of experts and stakeholders from ‘Member States’ that produce documents on key areas of implementation as part of a ‘Common Implementation Strategy’. These documents are guidelines rather than legally binding. Similarly, the UK Technical Advisory Group (UKTAG) on the WFD produces guidance for implementation of the scientific and technical aspects of the Directive within the United Kingdom to help ensure consistency of approach across the country (UKATG, 2012). Despite the attempt at common implementation, Member Sates actually have substantial implementation discretion and, indeed, can use broadly worded provisions to derogate from achieving good status (Howarth, 2009). Derogation can come from the application of an economic decision-making process, which forms part of the Common Implementation Strategy (European Commission, 2003a). This is intended to provide a process not only to judge the most cost-effective combination of measures to attain good-quality status as part of the planning process but also provides for a disproportionate cost analysis. The latter allows for time derogations and alternative objectives (Wright and Fritsch, 2011). There are concerns that some Member States are likely to claim derogations and adopt implementation targets less than ambitious, resulting in the Directive loosing effectiveness across the European Union as a whole (Keessen et al., 2010).

Water bodies are assessed under WFD using 30 different criteria (dependent on the water body) under the general headings of biological (including ecological) quality, physical and chemical quality, environmental quality standards (priority substances) and physical quality (e.g. hydromorphological quality). The status of each water body is classified according to these criteria as high, good, moderate or bad, and by water type (e.g. river, estuary or coastal – one nautical mile from shore). Annex V to the Directive classifies waters into different ecological categories. Good ecological status comes when the biological elements of the water bodies deviate only slightly from undisturbed conditions and is the target status for water bodies by 2015. This involves Members States in establishing ‘reference conditions’ that represent the point at which the water body began to deviate from undisturbed conditions and against which the ecological status of the water body is assessed. This has been controversial, not least because identifying such historic conditions when most water bodies will have gone through substantial change over time is probably unachievable (Josefsson and Baaner, 2011). High-status water bodies must not be allowed to deteriorate from this status. In fact, minimising anthropogenic impacts on ‘natural’ waters is a legally binding obligation under the Directive (Howarth, 2006). In a sense, the status quo is not accepted for water bodies below good status, with the WFD intended to foster continual improvement until they achieve the best possible status. Designing techniques to establish and monitor ecological quality objectives have been demanding. There are a diversity of approaches with minimal coherence, as yet, in the selection of tools or sampling requirements to monitor water body status (Birk et al., 2012). Monitoring is an important part of the WFD, but existing monitoring networks may not be sufficient or effective in supporting the integrated management process envisaged by the Directive (Collins et al., 2012).

The target date to achieve ‘good status’ is 2015. Approximately 27% of surface water bodies in England and Wales are of ‘good ecological status’, leaving a considerable distance to travel. The reasons for failure of targets at the beginning of the planning cycle (in 2009) include: a physical modification typical of the built environment (31%); diffuse pollution (22%), with nonagricultural sources making up 9% of this total; point sources (16%), of which sewage treatment works are a major contributor; and abstraction (4%) (National Audit Office, 2010a, 2010b). The EA has had some success in controlling polluting discharges, especially through a substantial investment by water companies in sewage treatment infrastructure (Howarth, 2008), but controlling diffuse sources remains stubbornly problematic even in urban environments (see Thames River Basin Management Plan, 2009, at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/125035.aspx). There are very real concerns about the problem of achieving ‘good status’ and questions about the ‘one out–all out’ approach (i.e. if a water body fails any one of the 30 assessment criteria it does not reach good status) (Josefsson and Baaner, 2011). There is considerable pressure to drop this approach (Phippard, 2012) and redefine ecological status (Josefsson and Baaner, 2011). A review of the WFD is currently underway and there is a consultation on policy options to safeguard EU waters (European Commission, 2012). A recent House of Lords European Union Committee Report (2012) has urged a reconsideration of the ‘one out–all out’ approach in the review, describing it as ‘a blunt and rigid method which fails to capture effectively the ecological as well as the chemical quality of water’.

WFD specifically draws the public as well as listed statutory consultees into the decision-making process. The public includes ‘users of the water’ and this group can represent a diverse range of activities from leisure to commercial. Public participation is voluntary and agencies implementing the plan must seek public engagement from the beginning, as part of the planning process, through ‘shared decision-making’. There is a ‘self-determination’ element in the engagement, which means local water management is handed to stakeholders and the public (Howarth, 2009). Guidance on public participation is provided under the Common Implementation Strategy (European Commission, 2003b). Outcomes from an EA pilot project on public participation in river basin planning emphasised the importance of the public understanding of the planning and implementation process and their limitations (Fox et al., 2004). Crucially, fostering public engagement at the local level and encouraging the public to take ‘ownership’ of measures to protect and improve local water resources is likely to be far more effective than top-down action (Wright and Fritsch, 2011). Moreover, water conservation and resource protection are both likely to be supported by greater availability of environmental information (Doron et al., 2011), as part of the WFD.

The EA went through a long consultation period in the development of the RBMPs as part of public engagement. It can be criticised for the complicated nature of the consultation and the number and complexity of the annexes (see, for example, the Thames River Basin Plan; see Environment Agency, 2008a), which may have had the effect of reducing full public engagement. Today, public and stakeholder participation is fostered at national and regional levels with a DEFRA National Stakeholder Group for England, an EA National Liaison Panel for England and also EA River Basin Liaison Panels. These may not, however, have moved beyond traditional methods of engagement dominated by centralised policy-making with minimal incorporation of stakeholder knowledge (Howarth, 2009; Collins et al., 2012). DEFRA is currently heavily promoting a ‘Catchment Based Approach’ for WFD implementation that is intended to identify key issues in a catchment and, specifically, involve ‘local groups in decision making’ (DEFRA, 2012b). There are a total of 25 pilot catchments for this approach, 10 of which are hosted by the EA, while the remaining are hosted by a mix of Nongovernmental Organisations (NGOs) and water companies (Environment Agency, 2012c).

Groundwater is deemed so important in providing drinking water, sustaining agriculture and natural ecosystems under the WFD that there is a Daughter Directive on Groundwater (2006/118/EC). The aim of the WFD is to achieve good groundwater status and, as with surface water bodies, once achieved there should be no deterioration. Good status encompasses both chemical and quantitative objectives. Pollutant ingress should be prevented or at least limited and measures should be put in place to reverse downward trends in groundwater quality.

As mentioned above, abstraction of groundwater and surface water has major implications for the quantity and conservation of water resources. It has significant impact on achieving ‘good status’ in surface water (House of Lords, 2012) and, of course, groundwater. Water companies are responsible for ~50% of the water volume abstracted. The EA operates a licensing system for both groundwater and surface water abstraction, with ~21 000 abstraction licenses granted in England and Wales. Abstraction licensing was originally introduced under the Water Resources Act 1963 and at that time existing abstractors were given licenses of right, and volumes to be extracted were set on the basis of previous use or the capacity of equipment used for abstraction. There was no consideration of environmental impacts and few conditions to limit abstraction at times of low flow. The licences were not time-limited. Subsequent legislation consolidated the position and it was not until the drought of 1995–1996 that abstraction licensing was reviewed and a White Paper, Taking Water Responsibly, was published. The outcome was the Water Act 2003. This provides that:

All new abstraction licences should be time limited.

If abstraction results in serious environmental harm then the license can be revoked with no compensation from 2012.

Licensing abstraction limits can be changed.

Small abstractors no longer require a licence (i.e. some deregulation).

Significant abstractors outside the original regime are brought into licensing requirements (e.g. dewatering of excavations).

This Act also made drought plans and water resource management plans prepared by water companies a statutory requirement.

The EA has established ‘Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies’ setting water availability for abstraction on a catchment basis and intended to inform the permitting system. The EA is attempting to control historic abstraction licences if they result in environmental damage through a ‘Restoring Sustainable Abstraction Programme’ (Environment Agency, 2010a). This is primarily done through negotiation and voluntary agreements encouraged by cost incentives. The EA has only limited enforcement powers, however, and controlling abstraction has proved difficult. At present, 600 licences are under review. OFWAT consulted on incorporating an ‘Abstraction Incentive Mechanism’ in its regulatory toolkit for water companies, in order to provide an economic incentive for efficient abstraction management (OFWAT, 2012c). The recent White Paper, Water for Life, has added further impetus to controlling abstraction to conserve the water resource (DEFRA, 2011b).

2.3 Water Management and Conservation for the Future

Demands on water resources in urban areas are many and varied. The quality and status of water bodies has implications for leisure users, water companies and other commercial enterprises in urban environments. The security of drinking water resources, the efficiency of their use and their availability are fundamental to health and well-being. Developing policy, legislation and strategies to protect a precious resource into the future is a considerable challenge and involves balancing competing demands. It is, however, increasingly recognised as key to the countries economic, social and environmental prosperity (House of Lords, 2012; Institution of Civil Engineers, 2012).

There are a number of new policy and regulatory developments that will be important for the future of our water resources. The new ‘National Policy Planning Framework’ has a requirement for local plans to incorporate water management issues. This, however, may not sufficiently encourage Local Authorities to act as key players at the local level in implementation of the WFD (House of Lords, 2012), but nevertheless it is an encouraging development. The recent White Paper, Water for Life (DEFRA, 2011b), and the new Water Bill will also influence the future management of water in England. The European Commission has also published an important policy document, A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources (European Commission, 2012), on responses to the present and predicted challenges to water resources across the European Union. This is a time when risks to our water resources are becoming ever more apparent and workable responses to meet the challenges ever more critical. Achieving a balance between supply and demand will increasingly be put to the test by climate change, a rising population and land use intensification. Pollution pressures on our water bodies are likely to increase in urban conurbations as well as rural environments, especially from diffuse pollution (Environment Agency, 2008b).

It is clear that government and regulators will have to be proactive and collaborative in ensuring sustainable water supplies and resources for water users. The current overlap between the responsibilities of regulators is clear and the need for active partnership between regulators as a strategy has not gone unrecognised (see Environment Agency, 2010b). A coordinated response is a necessity for a workable strategic approach to water resource management (Council for Science and Technology, 2009). The WFD puts to the fore stakeholder and public participation and again this is an essential strategy for the conservation of water resources and for implementation of the WFD. The role of academics as actors in the protection of resources should not go unmentioned. The ‘Thames River Basin Management Plan’ recognises the need to engage more fully with academic knowledge in implementing the WFD (Environment Agency, 2009) and other commentators have pointed out the significance of academic contributions (Collins et al., 2012). This is not necessarily easy and knowledge exchange can be affected by poor communication and limited resources, which act as substantial barriers to a constructive dialogue between policy-makers, regulators and academics (Slob et al., 2007). It is similarly important to stimulate innovation in the water sector and explore novel technological solutions to specific problems (House of Lords, 2012). There are many examples in the built environment where technology may be able to contribute workable strategies towards ensuring water resource efficiency and limiting urban water pollution. These include energy and cost-effective technologies (see Chapter 7) to reuse wastewater, rainwater and greywater harvesting (see Chapter 13); water saving devices and products (see Chapter 12); designing technologies to reduce water use in industrial processes; designing technologies such as SUDS (see Chapter 23) to protect the quality of water bodies (European Environment Agency, 2012).

The WFD has served as an excellent illustration of the importance of an integrated and holistic approach to water management and the multidimensional characteristics of successful management. It could be argued that actually protecting the quality of water resources is primarily about land use management and planning, while protecting the quantity of water is all about managing the demand for water and promoting an understanding of the value of water. At present the full cost of producing potable water or wastewater treatment has not been reflected in pricing regimes, and this undoubtedly has led to a disconnect between water users and the true value of the resource (see Chapter 4). The concept of ecosystem services has drawn considerable interest in recent years as a useful method of placing an economic (i.e. monetary) value on the services provided by natural environments such as water bodies (Brown et al., 2007). In fact, the WFD does not incorporate the concept. Ecosystem services are not only those that directly relate to a commercially valuable product but also less tangible benefits that come from an improvement in human well-being. The more indirect the benefits the more difficult they are to value. It seems unlikely that relying on market valuation of water ecosystem services will, on its own, provide sustainable water resources (Watson and Albon, 2011). However, it will undoubtedly provide another valuable tool for the protection of water resources and is certainly worthy of consideration in WFD review (European Commission, 2012; House of Lords, 2012).

Article 9 of the WFD is intended to contribute to better water pricing in a number of ways. There are the principles of ‘recovery of the costs of water services’ and ‘the polluter pays principle’, as well as incentive pricing. The ‘polluter pays principle’, of course, requires a polluter to bear the financial burden of pollution reduction. The principle of ‘recovery of costs of water services’ brings a focus on the monetary, societal and environmental costs of water supply and that these should be reflected in water pricing. Water pricing should also contain an element of ‘incentive pricing’ to provide water users with incentives to use water efficiently. It is important that any pricing through tariffs and metering takes into account times of scarcity and seasonal variations in setting charges (European Environment Agency, 2012). There are a number of alternative economic regulatory mechanisms that can be used to reduce water use by domestic and commercial consumers as well as the water industry. It is possible to apply environmental taxes to alter prices or introduce environmental subsidies, perhaps to encourage development and adoption of new water efficient technologies by industry or change consumer behaviour through green purchasing schemes. Tradeable permit schemes could be applied effectively to abstraction or pollution, in a similar way to carbon trading. Economic instruments may not work in isolation but would form part of a coterie of regulatory mechanisms aimed at protecting and conserving the water resource (European Environment Agency, 2012).

The White Paper, Water for Life (DEFRA, 2011b), focused on a number of key areas particularly relevant to this discussion. Firstly, tackling water pollution through the catchment based approach intended to protect water quality. The efficacy of this policy is being tested at present through a number of pilot catchments (see above) and should not need any further legislation beyond the implementation of WFD. Secondly, tackling overabstraction through the reform of the abstraction licensing regime through new legislation, which is a much needed initiative. The intention is also to reduce barriers to trading abstraction licences. Thirdly, changing the way we use and value water. This is to take a number of forms but draws back from legislation. Water efficiency is to be encouraged and incentivised, with the provision of water efficiency advice but universal water metering is not to be a requirement. The House of Lords European Union Committee (2012) thought this an important gap in the armoury of measures to manage demand. The White Paper again turned away from regulation in the context of sustainable drainage systems, which are to be encouraged but not required. Water for Life is perhaps a missed opportunity for the sustainable management of the water resource, rather concentrating on competition in the water sector. The resulting legislation, in the form of the Water Bill, will not be passed through the Houses of Parliament until 2014.

2.4 Conclusions

Future sustainable water management in the built environment will require an imaginative mixture of regulation, financial incentives, technology and societal contributions. Fundamental to success is collaboration between different actors, including government and regulators, private enterprises, the public and NGOs, with a real integration of their activities and a dialogue that recognises the merit of each contribution and is willing to make trade-offs. Measuring the worth of water as a financially valuable commodity through ecosystem services or setting tariffs on potable water would undoubtedly result in changes to consumer and producer attitudes. It may control demand and protect water quantity. However, water quality may be better protected not just by ‘valuing’ water as a commodity for whatever use but also through the public acceptance of stewardship and feeling ownership of their local resource.

References

Birk, S. , Bonne, W. , Borja, A. , Brucet, S. , Courrat, A. , Poikane, S., Solimini, A. , van de Bund, W. , Zampoukas, N. and Hering, D. (2012) Three hundred ways to assess Europe’s surface water: an almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators, 18, 31–41.

Brown, T. , Bergstrom, J. and Loomis, J. (2007) Defining, valuing and providing ecosystems goods and services. Natural Resources Journal, 47, 329–376.

Chief Inspector of Drinking Water (2011) Drinking Water 2010. Private Water Supplies in England. Drinking Water Inspectorate.

Collins, A. , Ohandja, D.-G. , Hoare, D. and Voulvoulis, N. (2012) Implementing the Water Framework Directive: a transition from established monitoring networks in England and Wales. Environmental Science and Policy, 17, 49–61.

Council for Science and Technology (2009) Improving Innovation in the Water Industry: 21st century challenges and opportunities. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www2.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/files/water-report.pdf.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2008) Future Water. London.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2011a) Environmental Statistics – Key Facts, December 2011. London.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2011b) Water for Life. Cm 8230. London.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2012a) The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment: Government Report – Water, January 2012. London.

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2012b) Catchment Based Approach. Available at: http://www.DEFRA.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/legislation/catchment-approach/.

Doron, U. , The, T.-H. , Haklay, M. and Bell, S. (2011) Public engagement with water conservation in London. Water and Environment Journal, 25, 555–562.

Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) (2011) Objectionable Taste and Odour in Water Supplies in North–East London between January and March 2010. Ref 2010–2661/2663, 25 October 2011. Available at: http://dwi.DEFRA.gov.uk/stakeholders/information-letters/2011/08-2011-annexa.pdf.

ENDS Report (2009) Drinking water incidents rise. The ENDS Report, 414, 20.

ENDS Report (2012) Tussle over plans to merge Welsh Regulator. The ENDS Report, 448, 30–31.

Environment Agency (2008a) Water for Life and Livelihoods. A consultation on the Draft River Basin Management Plan, Thames River Basin District. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33250.aspx.

Environment Agency (2008b) Water Resources in England and Wales – current state and future pressures. Available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO1208BPAS-E-E.pdf.

Environment Agency (2009) Water for Life and Livelihoods. River Basin Management Plan, Thames River Basin District. Available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GETH0910BSWA-E-E.pdf.

Environment Agency (2010a) Managing Water Abstraction. Available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO0310BSBH-E-E.pdf.

Environment Agency (2010b) Creating a Better Place 2010–2015. Water Supporting Strategy. Available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/GEHO1109BQXG-E-E.pdf.

Environment Agency (2012a) Catchment Based Approach for a Healthier Environment. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/131506.aspx.

Environment Agency (2012b) How the Environment Agency Manages Water Resources in England and Wales. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/water/133013.aspx.

Environment Agency (2012c) Water Situation Report. Monthly Bulletin for England and Wales, March 2012.

European Commission (2003a) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No. 1. Economics and the Environment: the Implementation Challenge of the Water Framework Directive. Office of Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2003b) Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No. 8. Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive. Office of Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2012) A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Waters and a Consultation on Policy Options for the Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources. COM (2010) 673 final. Available at: http://ec.europa.en/environment/water/blueprint.

European Environment Agency (2012) Towards Efficient Use of Water Resources in Europe. EEA Report/No. 1/2012.

Fox, P. , Bond, D. , Orr, P. , Madeira, N. , Riley, C. , Rees, Y. and Davis, M. (2004) Ribble Pilot River Basin Public Participation and River Basin Planning – Early Experiences. Environment Agency. Available at: http://www.merseybasin.org.uk/archive/assets/48/original/MB15_Ribble_Pilot_River_Basin_Public_Participation_and_River_Basin_Planning_Early_experiences.pdf.

House of Lords (2012) An Indispensable Resource: EU Freshwater Policy. European Union Committee, 33rd Report of Session 2010–12, HL Paper 296.

Howarth, W. (2006) The progression towards ecological quality standards. Journal of Environmental Law, 18, 3–35.

Howarth, W. (2008) Visions, strategies and realization. Environmental Law Review, 10, 310–318.

Howarth, W. (2009) Aspirations and realities under the Water Framework Directive: Proceduralisation, Participation and Practicalities. Journal of Environmental Law, 21, 391–417.

Institution of Civil Engineers (2012) The State of the Nation. Water 2012. Available at: http://www.ice.org.uk/Information-resources/Document-Library/State-of-the-Nation-Water.

Josefsson, H. and Baaner, L. (2011) The Water Framework Directive – A Directive for the Twenty–First Century? Journal of Environmental Law, 23, 463–486.

Keessen, A.M. , van Kempen, J.J.H. , van Rijswick, M. , Robbe, J. and Backes, C.W. (2010) European River Basin Districts: are they swimming in the same implementation pool? Journal of Environmental Law, 22, 197–221.

National Audit Office (2010a) Environmental Protection Briefing for the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. National Audit Office.

National Audit Office (2010b) Tackling Diffuse Water Pollution in England. HC 188 Session 2010–2011.

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf.

Office for National Statistics (2011) National Population Projections 2010 – Based Statistical Bulletin.

OFWAT (2009) Price Review 2009. Available at: www.OFWAT.gov.ukj/pricereview/pr09faqs.

OFWAT (2011) Water Today, Water Tomorrow. Exploring the costs and benefits of faster, more systematic water metering in England and Wales. Available at: http://www.OFWAT.gov.uk/future/customers/metering/pap_tec201110metering.pdf.

OFWAT (2012a) Delivering Proportionate and Targeted Regulation – OFWAT’s Risk-Based Approach. Available at: http://www.OFWAT.gov.uk/regulating/compliance/pap_pos1203regcomp.pdf.

OFWAT (2012b) Key Performance Indicators – Guidance. Available at: http://www.OFWAT.gov.uk/regulating/compliance/gud_pro1203kpi.pdf.

OFWAT (2012c) The Case for Change – Reforming Water Abstraction Management in England. Available at: http://www.OFWAT.gov.uk/future/markets/waterrights/pap_pos20111205abstraction.pdf.

Phippard, S. (2012) A DEFRA perspective on the Blueprint. Paper given in A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water – Highlighting the Critical Issues for the UK. SOAS 11 January 2012. Available at: http://www.ciwem.org/media/474436/Sonia%20Phippard.pdf.

Slob, A.F.L. , Rijnveld, M. , Chapman, A.S. and Strosser, P. (2007) Challenges of linking scientific knowledge to River Basin Management Policy: AquaTerra as a case study. Environmental Pollution, 148, 867–874.

Thames River Basin Management Plan. Available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/125035.aspx.

UKTAG (2012) The United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group for the Water Framework Directive. Accessible at: http://www.wfduk.org.

Watson, R. and Albon, S. (2011) UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Understanding nature’s value to society. Synthesis of key findings. Information Press, Oxford.

Wright, S.A.L and Fritsch, O. (2011) Operationalising active involvement in the EU Water Framework Directive: why, when and how? Ecological Economics, 70, 2268–2274.

3

Water Privatisation and Regulation: The UK Experience

John McEldowney

3.1 Introduction

Water privatisation is a global phenomenon and refers to nonstate actors involved in the delivery of water (World Bank, 2012). The UK model, as it has become known, involves the entire water system from abstraction to sewage treatment being sold to private firms (Schofield and Shaol, 1997). Monitoring and regulation oversight of privatised water companies becomes the responsibility of regulatory agencies supported by legislative and licensing frameworks. Privatisation may take a different form than the UK approach. Different types of private sector partnerships may be formed with state-owned water entities (Pinsent Masons, 2011). There is also a form of privatisation, common in France, where the actual operations and planning of water services are undertaken by private entities (Wollmann and Marcou, 2011).

On the basis of this broader definition and taking into account the growth of both population and water privatisation between 2007 and 2011, Pinsent