Water UK

Water UK Flooding Conference

09/11/05

Pamela Taylor, Chief Executive

Over the past few weeks I have been talking a lot about drought and water scarcity which are so high profile in the South-East. Just over a week ago the industry launched its independent water efficiency NGO, waterwise. And only a couple of weeks ago we submitted our response to a parliamentary inquiry that was stimulated by water shortages. Today in complete contrast we’re here to talk about the reverse problem – too much water, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Of course the two problems are linked in several ways, but not least because our business is dependent on the natural environment, and we forget that basic fact at our peril. Not everyone recognises the relevance of the flooding debate to the water industry. Perhaps that isn’t so surprising because the wastewater side of the business is a closed book to many people. I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to underline why flooding is very important to us and to set out our views. Water companies are not flood managers or land drainage authorities. Those duties lie with the Environment Agency or riparian owners. In some ways it is an accident of history that we have a role to play at all.

Prior to the 1960s, when the sewerage system was run by local authorities, it was convenient to use combined sewer systems in urban areas for both foul sewage and surface water. When combined sewers can’t cope with heavy rainfall, the result can be surface flooding or backing up of foul sewers. The point is that water companies have a duty under the Water Industry Act, to ensure that their areas are “effectually drained”, even though they have very limited control on what is put into the system. Of course it isn’t practical for this to be an absolute requirement (as everyone recognises) and the companies’ priority continues to be preventing internal flooding of property and reducing surface flooding when the system is overwhelmed. Over the years two factors have increased the sewer flooding problem – more intense rainfall events and more urban development.

This came to a head in 2000 when large areas of the South of England were under water, some of which was contaminated by sewage. This was a loud wake-up call and put flooding firmly on the political agenda. Quite a lot has happened as a result.

First, an impressive Foresight Report has spelt out the big issues – climate change, land use planning and urban development. And it recognised that although there are moves towards more sustainable or ‘softer’ approaches like use of Sustainable Urban Drains we may still need serious investment in ‘hard’ flood prevention schemes.

Second, the government has published its ‘Making Space for Water’ consultation. This is useful and practical and consistent with the principles of sustainable development. In particular it refers to the need for integrated urban drainage management, and also pilot projects to test different methods of integration. We are looking forward to participating in this process and I would like to mention one particular requirement, a very familiar one I’m afraid. We need to establish clearly who will be responsible for SUDs. The industry is keen on the potential of SUDS to help cut the flood risk by attenuating flows or even diverting surface water from the sewerage system. I accept that SUDs aren’t a panacea, particularly if they’re under water themselves. But they won’t make any real headway unless the ownership quagmire is sorted out.

A third important development has been the Environment Agency launching a Flood Awareness campaign to improve public understanding. We support this initiative and hope it will cure some of the confusion many people still have about the relationship between fluvial and sewer flooding

We also support the European Commission initiative on flood management, although we are disappointed that it has almost nothing to say about the water industry or the relationship between drainage problems and catchment management. This is a pity, because the industry has an important role to play and fully accepts its responsibilities. We want help develop solutions and influence the way forward. I will describe our policy in five areas:

 •  Maximising the value of major investment in reducing the totally unacceptable effects of sewer flooding
 •  Commitment to the replacement of our legacy wastewater infrastructure
 •  Calling on government to impose clarity on the responsibilities of the myriad players in flooding as a matter of urgency
 •  Arguing for more coordinated policies to achieve holistic and sustainable solutions
 •  Making sure that we use the full potential of the Water Framework Directive in devising solutions at national and catchment level.

So, first, sewer flooding:

Sewer flooding

Internal sewer flooding is one of the worst service failures a customer can experience and we need to pull out all the stops to reduce the impact on customers. In the run-up to the 2004 price review in England and Wales a powerful coalition of consumer representatives, companies and regulators successfully put the case for a dramatic increase in funding. I’m pleased to say it was successful, though more still will be needed to eradicate the problem completely.

On average the cost of solving sewer flooding is between £50k and £70k per property. Under the regulatory settlement Ofwat made allowance for reducing flooding at 15000 properties in England and Wales. This means over 9000 properties at risk for internal flooding and 6000 from external flooding will benefit from capital solutions. In total the industry will invest over £1 billion by 2010. This is a major commitment to society and quality of by anyone’s standards. It’s hardly the most spectacular part of our work and it affects the lives of a tiny number of customers, but it is something everyone supports and it should be better known.

Now on to our second policy – replacing our inadequate wastewater system

Wastewater infrastructure

For many years our combined sewerage systems served their purpose pretty well. But urban development has put more and more strain on them, especially the huge increase in the impervious area to be drained. And this is all made worse by changes in the climate with more frequent, intense rainfall. This leads to surface flooding due to lack of drainage capacity, and discharge of sewage from storm overflows into the environment. Run-off from streets also picks up pollutants which put extra pressure on the environment and wastewater treatment.

In reality we have a legacy urban drainage system not designed for current day needs. Many of the calculations and assumptions we made in our designs years ago are no longer relevant. The continuing debate about an interceptor tunnel to run alongside the Thames is just one, high profile, example of what is needed – and an example of the high cost and complexity of the required solutions.

The industry has sponsored research to investigate upgrades and replacements and establish new guidelines. The work has widespread support. But the decisions that will have to be taken are formidably complicated. One solution may be to move towards huge storage tanks under towns and cities. The massive facilities constructed to reduce flooding in Barcelona are a good example. But in most cases it is just not sustainable in the UK to construct bigger and bigger pipes, relief sewers and storage tanks. It would be like building another M6 just to cope with a bank holiday. Will customers be happy to pay? And can we live with the environmental impacts and disruption associated with building them?

My third policy point is the need for clarity about responsibilities.

Responsibilities

The current situation is still frankly a mess. Everyone understands this and this gives me grounds for hope. The number of different players involved in urban areas means the whole thing is a mystery to our customers and the public. When there are problems who do they turn to? Is it the Environment Agency, the water company, the local authority or the riparian owners? Are we clear ourselves? This needs to be firmly established with the government taking a lead.

My fourth point is the relationship (well in fact the lack of a relationship) between catchment or river flooding and urban flooding.

Coordination

We need to ensure that all the relevant authorities work together better, particularly at the planning stage. The Environment Agency has made great strides in improving awareness of flooding with publicity campaigns, helplines and its website. The trouble is that for all its efforts and warning schemes it can’t usually predict more localised urban flooding – often local authorities and water companies are better placed for this.

What happened in Carlisle in January was a case in point. Many areas were flooded due to an overloaded drainage system, as well as the river overtopping its banks. This was an extreme case – a one in 150 year event. But it showed what can happen if contact links aren’t open when necessary.

So to reiterate: urban drainage can’t be looked at in isolation and we must work to convince everyone concerned that what goes on in the catchment – for example river flood prevention schemes – will almost always have an impact, for example on the free flow of drainage systems. Fortunately there are some good examples of how to get this right. The Glasgow Strategic Drainage Plan is one example. The city has a history of drainage problems, so it was decided at the start that the new plan had to deliver an integrated and sustainable approach to sewerage and drainage master planning.

Of course there is a message here for development planning and new build on floodplains. It’s simply that the performance of many existing wastewater drainage systems can be compromised by heavy rainfall. Not to put too fine a point on it, sewers do not work well underwater and planners obviously must be aware. The conclusion is not necessarily that the development shouldn’t go ahead, but specific, detailed and early consultation is vital. This may be the right moment to point out that water companies can also be victims of flooding and this can have serious effects on customers. For example last January an important section of water supply main was washed away during a storm surge in the river at Hexham. And at the time of the flooding in Carlisle I mentioned a moment ago the sewers could not drain the area because pumping facilities were put out of action and were not accessible for repair.

Later on Philip Evans of FM Global will be here to talk to us about the findings of a valuable research project his company has carried out in partnership with Water UK. It looks at the potential impacts of flooding on water assets and the response of companies. The place of flood within risk management is going to occupy more of our time and potentially demand more investment in future to ensure the security of our operations.

My last point is about our friend the Water Framework Directive. We must make sure that its implications for flood management aren’t forgotten. (I know you will ask how we could ever forget the Water Framework Directive.)

Water framework directive

The key point is that the river basin planning process should be an opportunity to encourage better flood planning. In Scotland this is already recognised by a requirement in the legislation for Responsible Authorities to contribute to sustainable flood management. The European Commission makes a similar point in a proposal that the 2015 River Basin Management Plans should incorporate flood management plans, although I would hope that in UK we will take account of flooding issues in our first plans to be published in 2009.

We are also concerned that the potential problems of pollution from combined sewer overflows I have already outlined may compromise the achievement of ‘good ecological status’ required by the Water Framework Directive. The industry of course has already spent millions in this area. As well as having potentially damaging effects on the operation of our own systems we must be aware that ‘hard’ flood prevention schemes can also result in highly modified water bodies and reduction in biodiversity all of which are contrary to the aims of the Directive. So it’s not surprising that we are generally in favour of properly maintained ‘soft’ measures such as ponds, attenuation and infiltration systems which reduce the hydraulic load to sewers in urban areas.

Summary

Urban flooding from overloaded drains is a serious problem and the industry’s part in managing it is not always recognised or properly funded. We need to establish clear responsibilities and make sure that everyone is aware of them. There needs to be full consultation within the planning process to ensure that potential drainage problems are not overlooked. It can’t be taken for granted that the existing systems will be able to cope with whatever new development is allowed.

We will support Government initiatives for research and pilot projects into integrated urban drainage management. We call on government to adopt a holistic approach to urban flooding and take the opportunity to link it to the River Basin Management Process as part of the Water Framework Directive.

Ends

For more information please contact:

Barrie Clarke, Director of Communication
020 7344 1804 (out of hours pager 07623 960573