With the Water (Special Measures) Bill working its way through parliament and the work of the independent water commission about to get underway, water is high on the legislative and policy agenda in a way which is most welcome. Progressive voices in the sector see the opportunity for a full reset of a regulatory system which has outlived its shelf life.
Despite this, there is a real danger that a serious national challenge – water security – will be overlooked while understandable focus is given to dealing with sewage discharges. In 2018 the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) set out the likely shortfall in water resources caused by climate change, population growth and the need to protect the environment from overabstraction. Subsequent reports from the NIC and others have highlighted the lack of investment in our water infrastructure and the worrying state of many of our critical assets.
Economic growth makes this a tougher challenge. You can’t build 1.5 million new homes unless you can supply them with water. Other drivers of new growth, such as investment in data centres and the industries which support decarbonisation such as hydrogen conversion, are intensive water users. We have already seen the growth constraints on areas like Cambridge due to shortfalls in water supply. The numbers are stark – most estimates put the forecast supply demand deficit by 2050 at around 5,000 megalitres per day. While the measures set out in water company Water Resource Management Plans (WRMPs) ostensibly meet that deficit, there is significant uncertainty around many of the measures proposed.
Some progress, but gaps remain
Progress has been made since the NIC first highlighted the looming deficit. Collaboration between regulators now provides a mechanism for strategic schemes to be progressed. Ground has been broken on the first new reservoir since 1992. Affinity’s joint plan with Severn Trent and the Canals and Rivers Trust to transfer water to the south east through the Grand Union Canal has just closed its first public consultation.
Despite being promised for at least five years, government measures to design water efficiency into new house-building have not been implemented. Nor have rules to help consumers understand how much water their washing machine and dishwashers use. The largest of the new supply options, a substantial new reservoir near Abingdon, remains at an early stage of planning and, like many major infrastructure developments, has local opponents.
Given the scale of the water resources challenge, it is striking that there is no national plan for water security against which a government can be held to account. No single agency is responsible for delivery. Local and regional government has no formal role in the water investment planning process despite the criticality of utility network investment to support regional economic development.
A parliamentary priority?
The new government, with a strong mandate for water reform, has a unique opportunity to take bold action to prioritise water security. It should look to secure clear public control over such a vital strategic issue and a greater level of democratic accountability.
This could be achieved through a series of initial steps. Firstly, a new water security act, obliging the environment secretary to lay a plan before parliament. Annual scrutiny of delivery against that plan could take the form of formal reports to the Commons and hearings by the environment, food and rural affairs and environmental audit committees.
Secondly, the creation of a new single national agency with a strategic responsibility for the delivery of water resilient infrastructure. Bolstering the role of local government and regional planning groups will also be vital, for example, by giving local government a statutory role in the planning and prioritising of water companies’ strategic investment programmes. Both regulators and companies would then be obliged to demonstrate these have been taken into account in their business plan and subsequent determinations. Similarly, regional water planning should be placed on a legal footing, with fixed funding from water company license fees. Local government should also be joint partners in the regional plans.
Finally, the price and investment setting process for the water sector should be reformed so all its elements – the water resources management plan (WRMP), the drainage and wastewater management plans, the water industry national environment programme (WINEP) programme, and the five-year price review process – align logically.
Water saving needs to be seen by the public as a national imperative, and as important as climate change. For this to be achieved, national government leadership is required. A nationally-led campaign could be accompanied by a government review into water tariffs with a view to moving towards fairer consumption-based charging regime supported by universal metering.
Simple steps could be taken to reduce the water footprint of new homes by changing planning guidance to remove the need for local authorities to demonstrate water stress in their area The Grand Union Canal is among the options to transfer water to the south-east before imposing water neutrality conditions on new development.
Together, these measures would show government leadership on a critical issue. They would bring greater accountability; what the plan for water security is, who is responsible for delivery and what progress is being made would be much clearer.
As a water-only company in the south east with a highly environmentally sensitive catchment, we at Affinity are only too aware of the challenges in delivering water security. We know we must make our own contribution – reducing abstraction, cutting leakage, investing in new resources and working with our customers to help them use less. We also know that a national challenge needs a national response, and we are keen to play our part.
Related
