Fending Off Flooding

Following on from the previous post on this blog about river flooding generally, Sarah Lunnon, Green Party Gloucestershire County Councillor and resident of central Stroud, writes about issues right here in the Stroud Valleys, and some of the Green solutions now being implemented following her persistent campaigning on the issue:

"As I write this, the rain is beating on my windows and the autumn leaves are falling; and I am thinking about the brooks, streams and River Frome winding through the district and the town.

Where previously the flood problems have seemed intractable, today I feel optimistic, as I think of work about to start in the upper reaches of the Slad Brook and Painswick Stream. Small-scale, low-cost operations will work with natural systems, creating small ponds and 'beaver dams' to retain and slow down water in the catchment - work that, as it builds year on year, will provide those of us living downstream with protection from the 'pulse-type' tropical rainfall that has been increasing in recent years.

This work is a Rural Sustainable Drainage System (RSuDS) and is the result of 7 years of cajoling and terrier-like persistence. I am proud to have achieved funding for a 3 year post by the Rural Flood and Coastal Committee, and funding of works by Shire Hall, with office support from Stroud District Council. The problem of living alongside fast-reacting, steep-sided catchments will not disappear; but this RSuDS project is a big step in the right direction."

New planning laws will be disaster

Mike Gallagher photo of Ruscombe Valley

We are now looking at where housing and employment must go in the District - places for some 3,200 homes needs to be found. There will be lots of discussion, debate and no doubt many campaigns. Locally we have the threat of significant housing numbers on several key sites like the Ruscombe Valley - more details will be available very soon when papers are published.

Things were bad but the changes being made by the Lib Dem Tory Coalition Government are very bad indeed. This looks set to be a charter for development. I recently read Green Leader Caroline Lucas' Guardian blog on the planning reforms - see here with links - for me it sums up the key arguments so I have copied it below along with a couple of other links on this topic. Click read more to see. There is also info re the National Trust's 'Up for Grabs' campaign and how to sign a petition against sweeping reforms to the planning system.

Water extraction damaging rivers

Frome near Stonehouse

The Independent on Sunday had an article noting a study says extraction from our rivers by water companies is causing harm; "causing environmental damage, death to wildlife and the build-up of chemicals that upset fragile aquatic ecosystems". Even before the dry spring demands have caused water levels to drop. Indeed a year ago I raised this issue on this blog - see here.

The report by by Dr Simon Less, a former director of Ofwat, says that current abstraction by firms from rivers and groundwater sources is so high that it would take the equivalent of 23 million people to stop using water every day to get back to environmentally sustainable levels. Without action current practices will cause "serious damage to river and wetland ecologies". Only 15 per cent of the country's river network is in a condition to support a "healthy ecosystem".

A White Paper to be published in November is expected to propose smart metering in homes. Of course more charges for abstraction could mean higher bills for consumers. Already average water bills are set to rise by around 4.6 per cent to £356 this year. Click on read more to see more incl recent Green party news release re low income households and water.

Water Forum meets, Squash in a bra and more

The last couple of weeks have been slowly building up with the meetings...meeting to sort allotment water supply plus working party, a Food Transition meeting to look at a Potato Day and an Edible Open Garden project for next July plus a meeting last night about Feed-In tariffs and tonight a Parish Council meeting. I am going to try and keep it to 3 evenings a week as last year it was usually 4 or 5 weekday evenings....

Photos: first two from walk around garden before the Transition Food group meeting then a couple of pics of Forum

Anyhow the Food group one was lots of fun to start planning the projects for next year and included a walk around one of the members organic garden - a bra that was rejected by a charity shop has a new role supporting a squash (see photo) - we are starting to consider gardens for next year - already have a number but if anyone in Stroud Valleys reads this and is interested please get in touch.....our next meeting is on 13th Oct - also see my previous blog re the film, 'Food Inc', on Sunday night.

More on all those bits soon but a quick mention of the Water Forum......

Last time the Stroud Valleys Water Forum met we were hit by a power cut and the presentation from the County Council was shortened - see comments here. Last week we met again with the County to explore further their flood plans and how we can input into those. Neil Carmichael MP was there for the first 45 minutes but sadly had to leave - we are hoping to get him back to the next meeting to raise some key local issues with him.

The County has done a fair job in this area of planning re floods compared to other Councils - we also have a Green Flag award for it.

Anyhow we discussed the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments - which are needed to be prepared. The Minister last month chose Gloucestershire to launch the plan - indeed our County website has lots of good info and videos on it - like who does what, what to do in the event of a flood, grease and more - see here - if link doesn't work it is probably due to the redesign of the website that I understand will happen very soon.

I have to say it is disappointing that Pitt's recommendations have not been fully enacted and we are still left with over a dozen bodies responsible for various bits of river and water management - what a nonsense. Who will enforce when there are problems?? Will SUDs be nationally funded?

At the meeting we also had a brief round-up re what the various local flood and water action groups are doing. Here are two of them....

Ruscombe update

I had to report that Severn Trent have not responded yet to two letters regarding the works they have tentatively proposed for sewers locally - see here background. I also mentioned the recent walk with FWAG and their recommendations.

Slad Brook update

Well remember the £500,000 - see here - I've reported there have been hiccups and stops along the way - the new Water Framework Directive is throwing a spanner in the works - if this scheme goes ahead it means water quality could go from moderate to poor - can't do that! It means a possible near doubling of costs? Or is there another way than these two large ponds? Well all along we have suggested 40 small attenuation ponds might be a better way - lower maintenance - less risk - restoring many of the sites previously used for attenuation -

Wessex Water meeting:

As regular blog readers will know I sit on the Customer Liaison Panel of Wessex water on behalf of Stroud District Council. There are 3 or 4 meetings each year and one of those was this week - a day off work and a trip to Bath. You can click on the Wessex Water label below to catch up with the issues I have raised.

Photo: pics from visit

This blog will not cover the contents of the meeting as there is far too much to say - but a bit of a taster and hopefully pick up on some of the issues previously covered and whether we are in a drought...well some 35 or so of us assembled and first up was the Executive Chair's report which he delivered in style - Colin Skellett has much to be pleased about - service and performance standards all put Wessex Water first (or a couple of times second) in the industry.

I've covered the Price Review Outcome before but here's a summary of what they plan in next 5 years - improved security of supply by building a grid, cutting leakage by a further 5%, water quality improved for over 100,000 customers, installing advanced sludge treatment to generate green energy and cut carbon by 32,000 tonnes, solutions to 500 homes re flooding and better bathing and river waters.

Various issues were raised by Colin - one I was interested in was the move Wessex would like to see towards longer investment programmes - the current 5 year plans are ridiculous - I did seek assurances that longer plans would still be flexible to take account of new info re climate change or energy security - while Wessex have a plan I am not convinced other companies are as well along that road.

Indeed one of the other presentations from Wessex was their report on climate change adaptation for Defra - it looked for example at the impact of more frequent and intense storms and the drier summers - the sewer floodings, increased pollution, the growth of unwanted micro-organisms/algae in reservoirs, siltation of sewers, more flooding of buildings etc. I asked about how they were integrating the info from this report into their practice - again it is clear it is influencing and supporting their current strategy.

Another issue that is on the cards is how the current system encourages companies to build their own resources - there needs to be a way to encourage more sharing of resources - indeed the whole system is a nonsense whereby it is harder for a water company to merge with another water company than it is for a company that has no water interests - of course there are concerns re monopolies but some mergers would clearly benefit and provide more sustainable supplies of our water.

The current regulatory regime inhibits companies from generating renewable energy - an issue I've covered before - Wessex wants to become carbon neutral but such regulations make it difficult. Similarly sludge digesters could be used more widely - for domestic organic waste. While I am often fearful when there is talk of burning up the red tape and regulations there are clearly here examples of where it needs to occur. Regulations have often been brought in to tackle a particular problem - just to cut them is not the answer - certainly look at their functioning....but hey I'm getting off topic - I learnt that wind turbine prices have increased by 30% in recent years due to strength of pound and overseas demand for turbines - see my post here this week on renewables....anyhow at least the government are getting rid of similar regulations that stop councils from generating renewable energy...

Some interesting suggestions from Wessex included merging Ofgem and Ofwat, combining the Environment Agency with Natural England and making the Drinking Water Inspectorate part of teh food Standards Agency - well the later is unlikely as the Food Agency looks set to go completely - I'm not sure about the EA but certainly there is room for strengthening certain roles.

It looks like there will be a Biodiversity Bill fairly early in parliament - now at first I would welcome this but I have dreadful suspicions that it is not going to be the direction we want - already there is alot of emphasis on farming - and farming that is not particularly sustainable - but lets hope I am proved wrong!

Well there were also a number of issues raised regarding planning legislation - the ridiculous infrastructure charges that means new developments pay about £250 per development instead of the real costs of £1,200 - a way of subsidising housing developments - but why should existing customers end up footing the bill??? More of this in another post soon. Water companies should also be mandatory consultees....

We also had a brief discussion on Pitt - again an issue previously covered on this blog - sadly it has not resolved the SUDS issue. We do need leadership on this. There were other presentations on customer services - again Wessex is a leader so not much to say otherthan they are top and working to improve further. One other talk was a look at Waste Management - not the sludge stuff but everything else - the biggest part - some 80% - being the stuff they dig out of the road to lay pipes or fix leaks etc - they are looking at every step to see how this can be minimised - all impressive stuff.

So have we got a drought? Can we expect hosepipe bans in the Wessex region? In short no - some of teh northern water companies already have hosepipe bans but while reservoirs have dropped they are reasonable compared to other years, ground water storage is also OK as are rivers - the rivers are drier but not exceptional. This is not like 1995 or 1975/6 - also leakage rates have improved significantly.

Hey OK this is a bit of a ramble but happy to talk if folk have a particular interest.

Flooding ramble: Bridgend, Water Bill, Foxes Field and more

This blog is a bit of a ramble from Bridgend to the new Water Bill...it starts with a questionnaire I completed from a civil engineering student in his final year of a degree at Nottingham Trent University.

Photos: nothing to do with floods but met these two great horses up in Randwick Woods the otherday

This blog means I get quite a few students contact me - two last month on Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems - anyhow this guy is writing his dissertation on the role of Flood Forums in Flood Management. A useful project indeed - however too often people don't have a voice on those forums or on flooding issues.

The recent Flood and Water Management Bill is a start and notes that the 2007 floods caused major disruption, particularly in Hull, Doncaster, Leeds and the Severn Valley causing £3 billion worth of damage, affecting 55,000 properties and the loss of 13 lives. Since then we've seen Morpeth, Cumbria and others. However I fear the Bill may not go far enough - the way we manage our land and increasingly climate change means we are set for many more problems.

Indeed Gloucestershire Councils all wrote a joint letter last month pointing to some of their concerns - here is some of what it said:

We note with great interest the recently published Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Paper (23 September 2009) reporting its views on progress to date on the new Flood and Water Management Bill. We are therefore disappointed to read that the Committee identifies that the current Draft Bill is a “confusing mix of measures many of them poorly drafted”.

We are profoundly concerned that the proposals in this Bill would bring about an over centralised model which, if introduced would significantly reduce the role of Local Government as a Community Leader, and place excessive power and influence with the Environment Agency. If enacted this Bill, based on the current EA flood risk investment strategy, would place the responsibility on the Environment Agency for 40% of the 5.2 million properties that are at risk of flooding and give them 90% of the resources. Local Government will pick up responsibility for 60% of the properties at risk from flooding with less than 10% of the resources. This at best can be described as perverse.

The joint model we have been operating in Gloucestershire was presented to the Select Committee by colleagues from Gloucestershire County Council putting forward the proposal of a Joint Catchment Flood Management Board, which has been identified by the Select Committee as having “much to recommend it”; yet to date this has been ignored by DeFRA.

Our principle concern (and that clearly reflected by the Select Committee) is that the Bill is being rushed and there is a likelihood that the outcome of such a Bill may well offer no significant improvement to where we are already.

It also has the potential to be an overcentralised model, which is likely to result in reduced value for money and greater remoteness from local communities. We ask that you explore our concerns and seek to ensure that any future Flood Bill is fit for purpose.

Bridgend flooding again

The local press reported flooding again at Brigend on the 29th/30th - one house was flooded and pumped out by the Fire Brigade, and the residents of a further 8 properties spent the night pumping flood water away from their homes desperately trying to stop the water getting in. This time they managed to avert serious damage to their homes and property, but clearly all suffered a great deal of stress and anxiety alongside a very busy and sleepless night.

The rainfall that weekend was not exceptional by any fashion, and yet Bridgend suffered again - moves are being made by agencies to look at the problems and now early January a meeting has been set up with Councils and the EA - I hope that comes up with a useful strategy.

Flooding in Severn Vale

The Potsdam Institute in Germany say their best guess is a one metre sea level rise this century, assuming three degrees warming, and up to five metres over the next 300 years - see more here. With figures like that it does mean we need to seriously look at any future developements - and existing flood plains.

The District planners already are talking to County colleagues about how to produce better climate change projections for the County/Stroud. This will hopefully lead to a better understanding of issues locally and help provide better evidence to support new policy approaches.

The immediate impact from tidal flooding is not likely to be great as the existing defences will largely cope with that and no development is likely to be promoted in those areas at risk alongside the River Severn in any case. The coastal defences issue is currently being considered via the Shoreline Management Plan currently being prepared by Halcrow (see here).

The impact of fluvial flooding arising from the backing up of rivers flowing into the Severn is less well understood and this could increase the risk of flooding from our 'main' rivers (Frome, Cam/Ewelme, Little Avon), but the extent of that impact is not known as far as I am aware. It is that sort of thing that the Council's work will help us understand.

Foxes Field

I've blogged before on this absurd plan to develop this last green field between Stroud and Stonehouse with over a 100 homes - see here - well the inquiry is over and we await the results. Graham Williams, a member of Fox’s Field Action Group, kicked off the inquiry, by setting out some of the reasons why not to develop the site - a key reason he gave was the risk of flooding on the field, which he said, would be greatly heightened by the proposed development.

Of course there are many other reasons that this site should not be developed like it would create a major change in the form, style and mass compared with the ‘ribbon’ development which has so far been built along this stretch of Ebley Road in a countryside setting close to the Cotswold AONB and the Cotswold Way. As the CPRE guy said: "It is clear that the development would be unsympathetic to the surrounding houses and would damage to some extent, arguably substantial or significant, this part of the countryside."

However of concern relating to this blog was the failure to make more of the flooding issue in the original objections. It seems the EA did not object for a number of reasons but did state that any flood risks arising from the development were to be outlined in a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), for consideration solely of SDC and any resulting increase in flood risk be determined by SDC.

The action groups claim that the actual FRA as prepared for this proposed development was deficient in following respects like: it pays no regard to the large volumes of rainfall runoff entering the site from farmland further up Doverow Hill and actually attempts to infer that there is no drainage into the site; it therefore also fails to account for the additional runoff that presently attenuates within the topsoil where the proposed development is to be located; the FRA does propose a (partial) SuDS approach, only addressing some of the rainfall falling on part of the development area; the proposed (partial) SuDS approach will only capture approx 1/100 year rainfall event (the recent Cumbria event was 1/1000 - we have had 5 x 1/100+ events locally in last 3 years, and barely 100 years of meanful rainfall data exist for UK); the proposed (partial) SuDS here will attempt to soakaway into the deeper strata some of the captured rainfall, which will very quickly enter the River Frome as the site is only 120 m distant at 10 m elevation and thought to be free draining here; a new drain is proposed as a part of this proposal for excess drainage, where there was none before; this can only contribute further to the regular damage of property and critical risk of flooding downstream, arising solely as a result of this development; the FRA makes no attempt to account for the effects of additional drainage downstream - like the impact on Brigend.

SDC appear to have accepted the FRA from Barratts - despite the various concerns mentioned - this makes countering it difficult - but I hope the inquiry took on board these concerns.

Lastly two bits of good news

The Slad brook scheme to reduce flooding is set to start in January and the EA have rejected the plans at the Nailsworth Railway Hotel due to concerns re flooding.

Another meeting with Wessex Water: panorama's sewage and more

A couple of weeks ago I was in Bath for the Wessex Water Joint Customer Liaison Panel meeting on which I sit on behalf of Stroud District Council - you will see stuff re previous meetings by putting Wessex into the search facility.

Photo: diatoms - read on to see why they are here.

I will come to the four key questions I raised at the meeting in a mo but also wanted to cover some of the other stuff - apols if this is a bit of a ramble but I've been interrupted several times - as always we are made very welcomed at Wessex and the quality of info given is always high with proper presentations on key issues. There is loads discussed and I can't poss cover all like the state of reservoirs, the new standards re customer care, that the 2011 date for private sewers transfer is looking more doubtful as no draft regulations yet, the aim of Wessex to develop a grid (if they are allowed) to ensure better distribution of water supplies when they are under pressure and stuff on the draft Water Management Bill like it's encouragement of SUDs, more legal support for misconnections and better management of surface water.

Panorama programme on sewage

Many of these issues I've discussed here before, one issue that I was particularly interested in was the Bathing Water Quality Standards. Bathing water has certainly improved but a dip in performance last year due to rainfall - recent failures are attributed mainly to agricultural and urban run-off - however there is also the issue of combined sewage overflows.

Some folks might have seen the Panorama programme looking at our dirty beaches - see BBC site here. It is also on Youtube for 4th September - this link might work here. They found that of all the beaches tested for water quality in the UK, 43% present at least a one in 20 chance of getting gastroenteritis after a swim, according to a calculation by the Marine Conservation Society (MCS). They went on to highlight that when sewage treatment plants are overwhelmed by heavy storms, water companies are allowed to employ - combined sewer overflow pipes - or CSOs.

As this blog has noted before there are more than 20,000 CSOs around the UK, all owned and operated by UK water companies. In theory, they are meant to act as safety valves for the system during periods of intense and heavy rainfall. They combine storm water with raw sewage and spill out of CSOs into rivers and eventually into the sea.

It is worth noting that the Environment Agency recommends that people avoid bathing for 24 hours after heavy rain.

As Panorama showed the Good Beach Guide indicates that 45% of the 1,134 beaches they list have a CSO close enough to affect them and that they are spilling more often than they are meant to.

Well I have to say Wessex gave a robust defence of their approach - they note their programme to tackle CSOs that cause problems - and it is certainly true that the Panorama programme was sadly sensational and not giving a fair picture. Wessex claim that the risks are exaggerated - certainly re illness - the figure of one in seven at risk of gastric illness when bathing is a fifteen year old paper - much has changed - yes a risk but not significant enough to go to doctors and even in the control group one in ten had it.

It is true that Climate change is creating a wetter environment meaning CSOs are operating more often while it also adds to the run off from agricultural land. There are many other contributing factors, down to the non-permeable flagstones used on home driveways which are generating concentrated masses of water which are affecting the country’s drainage system and as noted agricultural run-off.

One other factor mentioned is animal fouling - amazingly coliform loads of a starling are equivalent to a human, one cow is equal to 2.8 humans, one pig, 5.7 humans and one sheep 9.5 humans. I do seem to remember in the Bourne stream in Poole a serious issue is all the seagulls doing their business on a bridge over the river that led to the beach.

Anyway the problem stems from the Victorian sewage system which is the basis of the network which combines sewage and surface water.

Here is a quote from an Environment Agency spokesperson: “We want to see the separation of sewage and surface water in future developments, rather than combined sewer overflows, and we are working with farmers to prevent chemicals and manure from running off their land and into the sea. Bathing water samples are collected by us at every one of our 495 designated bathing waters once a week – 20 times during the bathing season. They are then tested at our accredited laboratory within 24 hours and we give the information to councils and local organisations on a weekly basis.”

Indeed the EA while recognising that it was right to raise the issue they were nevertheless so concerned by the programme's bias that they issued a Youtube video - see here - it notes for example that 97 per cent of beaches in England and Wales meet minimum European Bathing Water Standards and that improvements are on-going. Interestingly the EA have also since the programme called for a Cleaner Seas Forum - see here.

Certainly the issue is not as straight forward as Panorama have said but I would like to see more work going into tackling CSOs. We need to get the water out of the sewers rather than just building larger sewage treatment plants. We need to stop the wholesale destruction of trees in urban centres (Trees reduce urban humidity and attenuate rainfall impact). We need Sustainable Urban Drainage systems ("SUDS") a condition of planning applications. I know I've said that a dozen times or more. We also need to see water utilities being statutory consultees on all major planning applications. Beating up water companies is an entertaining blood sport, but remember that they are the tail end Charlie of the impact of new developments: councils approve them, and the utility has an obligation to hook them up to the system: no-one asks the utility if there is enough sewer treatment capacity. They just have to deal with it. We have to plan developments in the context of the ability of the infrastructure to deal with their impact.

The water regulator OFWAT is also answerable here - and indeed I was somewhat baffled why Panorama picked on the EA - The EA does not tell water utilities what to invest in - OFWAT does that. One commentator, not at Wessex, said to me: "well water utilities love huge capex projects like sewage plants, because that's how they make money - the regulator grants them an allowed rate of return (8-9%) every 5 years, when utilities present their forward investment plans, so the more the invest, the more money they make. OFWAT doesn't like that of course, as that rate of return comes out of higher water bills. The EA is largely toothless in this process."

Well if it makes you feel any better, Britain is not the worst off. A recent internal Govt report suggested that only 22% of Italy's coastal water meets the quality stipulations of the EU water and waste water treatment Directive about to come in force. Utilities there are facing billions in fines in consequence.

Anyway I have to say as I noted on this blog a couple of years ago, the very fact that CSOs exist was shocking to me - raw sewage in our waterways and seas is just not right!! Yet with our Victorian sewage system there is little option in many cases until we sort out that infrastructure. Certainly improvements can be made - some of which I've noted - but they will come at a cost. Will folk be prepared to pay? Do others have views on this? I'd welcome more info.

Questions sent before meeting

While Wessex are happy to answer while we are there they ask that questions be sent before the meeting so that more comprehensive answers can be given. Here are the questions I sent ahead of the next meeting (answers in blue):

1. I wonder whether Wessex would consider signing up to the national 10:10 campaign. Stroud District Council is signed up (initiated by Green councillor Fi MacMillan) and so are all Stroud's Green District councillors. Many others like B&Q, Royal Mail, Aviva and Microsoft are also signed up. More info at:
http://www.1010uk.org/business#what_is_1010
And: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/10-10

They are still considering although their targets are above what 10:10 are seeking to achieve.

2. Would it be possible to have an update on redundancies – the press reported earlier that 200 jobs were at risk?

Just under 200 jobs went and apparently virtually all staff were helped to find new jobs.

3. Is any more news re OFWAT prices? See my previous report on this here.

Early November.

4. Do you have any comments re the Environment Agencys report that only 33% of SW’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters received ‘good’ or ‘high’ ecological status – better than country average but still a very long way from EU targets of 95% getting good or very good by 2015. At current investment would you not agree there is no hope to reach the target? What needs to happen? See my comment on this blog here about no pristine rivers in SW.

I've received a very detailed report on this. In short I do agree with their comments that the investment needed to achieve the standards is required through the agricultural and industrial sectors and increased awareness of the general public rather than the water industry. In terms of investment to achieve good ecological status, many waterbodies fail this target on only one specific element e.g. diatoms, fish or phosphorus. However the standards uses a 'one out all out' technique for determining status so actually the waterbody could be at excellent status for all but one determinand. The main factors preventing waterbodies from achieving good status in the SW are:

• diatoms (a type of algae) c. 60% of waterbodies not at good status for this indicator
• fish c. 55% of waterbodies not at good status for this indicator
• phosphate c. 35% of waterbodies not at good status for this indicator

There are a number of reasons why these levels are so low, which may not be related to the level of recent investment. Firstly, many waterbodies have yet to be monitored for diatoms, so this figure is more of a risk based estimate; also, there is debate as to whether diatoms are an appropriate indicator to represent the biological response to eutrophication. Further work is needed in both of these areas to identify the sound science behind this and a much more realistic level of status. In many ways, it's a similar story for fish. However with phosphate is an area for caution there are calls to change the level. Indeed Wessex note that one way we can achieve the level of good status is by changing the standards - they would argue some are over cautious and some possibly not based on sound science. There is evidence to support this, but I am seeking further info.

OFWAT: more action on climate change needed

Ofwat’s draft decision on Wessex Water’s price limits for 2010 to 2015 has been out for a while and as I sit on their customer liaison panel I have been trying to ascertain what this will mean. You can see my letter of concern sent both to OFWAT and Wessex Water below.

In August 2008, Wessex Water published its draft plan for the period 2010 to 2015, in which it proposed to raise prices by 2 per cent above inflation over the five year period. Research by the Consumer Council for Water showed that 67 per cent of Wessex Water customers said that they were willing to accept the company’s draft plans. In April 2009, Wessex Water submitted information to the economic regulator, Ofwat, that included extra work the company was being asked to carry out which pushed possible price increases to 6.3 per cent above inflation.

We are now at the next stage in a price setting process which takes place every five years. Ofwat will evaluate feedback from the company, the Consumer Council for Water and other stakeholders and in November make a final decision on how much each company will be able to charge customers until 2015. Here is my draft letter - comments welcomed!

Re the OFWAT draft determination re Wessex Water for Prices for 2010-2015 at the end of July (i).

I am disappointed that this draft determination has failed to fully recognise the serious threat that climate change presents to our communities and appears to completely ignore the threat of Peak Oil. Even though UKCP09 was not available until June 2009 there has been considerable evidence about the threats posed. It is crucial that much greater emphasis is put on developing more sustainable approaches to water.

I welcome that OFWAT recognises the importance of tackling climate change. However the scientific consensus is that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050 to have a reasonable chance of avoiding runaway climate change. This draft determination would appear to hinder attempts to meet this target and build resilience against the affects of climate change. Indeed the failure to take these measures now is likely to lead to greater costs in future. I applaud many of the measures already taken by Wessex Water, but even though they are leaders in the field of sustainability, I do not consider they are moving fast enough. In particular, regarding Wessex Water, this draft determination would appear to have a number of negative effects:

1. It is widely recognised that metering helps reduce energy and water use. If we are serious about tackling these issues then we need to be moving towards universal water meters. However it appears that with the draft determination Wessex Water will no longer be able to meter customers on change of ownership? Surely this is an unhelpful move?

2. It appears that the ability to reduce the risk of flooding and ensure properties that have flooded internally do not flood again will be cut back from what has been proposed. This again does not appear helpful when considering the increases we face in extreme weather conditions?

3. Less funding appears to be proposed than was planned for the ageing asset stock. Again this seems to be just the time we need to invest in such measures to build greater resilience?

4. The crucial increase in self generation of energy to about 30% and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 9% has been cut. As we know the water industry is on a rising emissions trajectory owing to the demands of growth and more stringent quality obligations that require increasingly energy-intensive treatment technologies. If companies are to meet targets in reducing emissions they will need to adopt and be able to deliver such targets. Indeed again if significant investment is not made now we will be reliant increasingly on imported fossil fuels.

A further point regarding customers is that I recognise that with the Wessex Water proposals there may be customers not on metered charges who could find an increase in bills difficult to manage. I hope very much that the Government tackles this issue when they respond to the Walker report this Autumn. However I am also concerned that there is no encouragement to Wessex Water to try the innovative tariffs that smart meters would allow. The current economic situation has led to an increase in those who are finding it difficult to pay. It is widely recognised that affordability of water is a growing problem. There is an urgent need for innovative solutions to support vulnerable customers and I am surprised that this move by Wessex appears to be rejected.

Lastly on two issues that I do not consider have been given sufficient attention in terms of their impact on prices and customers:

1. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) represent a win-win solution, reducing flood risk as well as the energy required for pumping and treatment. I hope that OFWAT will do more to support and encourage SUDS?

2. Peak Oil. Increasingly this has been recognised by many as a crucial issue yet it gets no mention in the OFWAT report. Why? Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) said in August that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years (ii). Some consider it will be much sooner than this. However even 10 years is a very short time to make the necessary changes. Huge investment is needed now to develop renewables. Wessex Water's attempts need to be fully supported and other companies encouraged to make similarly bold moves.

Cllr Philip Booth, Stroud District Council representative on the Wessex Water Joint Customer Liaison Panel

Notes: (i) See report here. (ii) See IEA report here. See industry concerns re Peak Oil here.

Contact me re Wessex Water issues in Stroud District

As some will know I was appointed to the Wessex Water panel for SDC - see here details of my first meeting - well firstly below is a press release I sent out last week and haven't managed to put on this blog yet then below are the questions I asked at Wessex last time.

Photo: top of Ash Lane

Here is the press release:

COUNCIL REP CALLS FOR WESSEX WATER ISSUES

Act now on payment difficulties

Cllr Philip Booth, who was recently appointed as Stroud District Council's representative on the Customer Liaison Panel for Wessex Water, is asking members of the public and businesses if there are any issues they would like him to raise at the panel’s next meeting on 26th February. He is also urging customers with payment difficulties to contact the company immediately.

Philip Booth, who has a particular interest in water issues and promoting more sustainable use of water, has helped found both the Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire and a local brook action group. He said: "Wessex Water are leaders in their field. Last year they celebrated being the first water company to gain the hugely coveted and prestigious Queen's Awards for Enterprise for Sustainable Development (see more here). Nevertheless there are always going to be issues to raise and Wessex seem to be genuinely striving for improvements. If there are issues I am happy to take them to the next Customer Liaison Panel. Do please contact me here or on 755451."

Payment difficulties?

Philip Booth who is District councillor for Randwick, Ruscombe and Whiteshill near Stroud said: "Wessex Water has a good approach in the way they manage customers who are genuinely struggling to afford to pay their water bills. There is no question that with the Credit Crunch more people are and will have difficulties. The earlier people contact Wessex Water the easier it is to set up the best tariff and payment option."

Wessex Water covers 10,000 square kilometres of south west England including Dorset, Somerset, Bristol and Bath, most of Wiltshire and parts of Gloucestershire and Hampshire. They serve 1.3 million drinking water consumers and provide sewage services for 2.6 million.

Questions to the panel last time

Already I have several issues for next meeting in February - the answers given at the last meeting were comprehensive - below the answers here are just notes...

1. Ofwat would like to see all newly built homes having their own water meter. However I have read about concerns in the Thames Water area that in for example newly developed apartment blocks and redeveloped flats in Victorian homes, the developer can agree with the water company to fit only one meter. There are clearly incentives for the landlord and developer to have a single meter as landlords can charge an admin fee and installation is cheaper. I understand in some cases this has led to very unfair bills for users in the apartment blocks and clearly also does little to help customers conserve water. Please can you assure me that Wessex Water will be insisting on water meters for every home?

A. The Water Act requires meters.

2. I would like clarification re your policies re pumping water from boreholes to top up rivers. I understand from some organisations that this approach is not the most sustainable?

A. Stream support is water from aquifers used to provide additional flow to watercourses at times of low flow. It is only installed when agreed with Natural England that ecology is considered.

3. The Pitt Review recommends more SUDs. I understand in many countries the approach is mandatory, but while there is alot of support to move towards more SUDs this doesn't seem to be happening with enough urgency. What are the issues that prevent Wessx Water from insisting on more SUDs?

A. WW supports SUDs. The more storm water out of sewers the better but this is difficult as many are combined flow. Ownership following installation also needs considering.

Bathing Water standards

Defra has announced England 's bathing water quality standards for May to September 2008. The results show that of the 414 bathing waters in England, 398 met the mandatory standards.

In the South West 10 beaches failed the mandatory water quality standard, but none of these were in the Wessex Water area. In our region 100% of bathing waters met the mandatory quality standard for the fifth consecutive year. There was an above average 76.6% compliance rate with the more stringent guideline standard.

Some bathing waters failed to meet the tougher standards during the summer months, however WW are confident that their sewerage infrastructure performed well during times of intense rainfall. Other factors, such as agricultural run off, may have affected the quality of bathing waters in the region following the heavy rainfall experienced during the summer of 2007.

Gully cleaning could be better

As regular blog readers will know Gully cleaning has featured lots on this blog but I've not mentioned for a while. So here is a wee update as I am still seeking improvements to Highways over the issue of SUDs.

There has been a desperate need to update the County's Design Guidance re SUDs and more. The current Guidance dates to 1999, with a review in 2001, and there are areas that do not reflect national policy or best practice (such as Manual for Streets for example). The County is working to ensure that they make progress with a review and may well have developed a policy as the target was to have an adopted Transportation Design Guide for publication by the end of 2008. However despite having made many comments I have not heard news so this week have been chasing up.

Meanwhile here is an email below to Highways re their recent gully cleaning programme which saw our area have all the gullies tackled.

Photos: Gullies with sludge piled up beside them in Humphreys End

Just a note to give a huge welcome to your gully cleaning programme but I am disappointed that the sludge is still being piled up next to the gullies - see two photos below - in one place the sludge is now as high as the Cotswold stone wall it is leaning against - this is clearly not good for the wall.

Furthermore as noted previously in these critical sites like at Humphreys End and Ash Lane in Randwick piling the sludge up there means with the next heavy rain it gets washed straight back down into the gully (see photos). I understood from a previous conversation with you that you would alert the teams to this issue and certainly at least in key sites this practice would be discontinued.

I would welcome your views as I am concerned we are not getting the best out of this programme. Can we please get teams to take the sludge completely away from the gullies?

Cllr. Philip Booth

Have you any issues with Wessex Water?

Wessex Water leading the way, slug pellets in the water, Credit Crunch and more

Well still a few little coughs and splutters but am over the worst and been back at work this week after a day and a half missed last week - and last weekend in bed but hey let's put that behind us...

Photos: rather poor snaps of the amazing Wessex Water building that has many features to minimise energy use incl use rain water for the loos - it was built on the site of an old hospital reusing the materials

A couple of Council meetings this week but the one this post is about is the one in Bath - I took a day of annual leave so that I could travel down there for the Customer Liaison Panel for Wessex Water - I was recently appointed as Stroud District Council's representative on the Panel and as blog readers will know I have a particular interest in water issues and promoting more sustainable use of water - not least the crusade to bring more SUDs but also having founded both the Safe Water Campaign for Gloucestershire and the Ruscombe Brook Action Group (RBAG).

Customer Liaison Panel

Photo: wonderful open 'street' with cafe runs through the middle of the building

The Panel is the chance to raise questions and this was my first meeting and I was the only councillor to submit three formal questions - more of those in another post as they are ongoing issues I'd like to cover in a bit more depth re water meters, pumping up from bore-holes and SUDs. Anyhow I am now asking members of the public and businesses if there are any issues they would like raising at the thrice annual meeting of the panel - I have drafted a press release as well to go to the Gazette as I hope to reach more than just the blog readers here.

The Panel also received a number of presentations on on-going work including a look at customer satisfaction records, trade waste effluent, the new draft Business Plan (that I will comment on before the closing date) and the state of reservoirs - pretty well all more full than at any other time since records began for this time of year - a very wet wet wet summer.

Wessex Water are leaders in the field

In fact Wessex Water are tops when it comes to water companies - this year they celebrated being the first water company to gain the hugely coveted and prestigious The Queen's Awards for Enterprise for Sustainable Development. Nevertheless there are always going to be issues to raise and Wessex seem genuinely to be striving for improvements. If there are issues I am happy to take them to the next Customer Liaison Panel. As always do please contact me at cllr.Philip.Booth@stroud.gov.uk or on 01453 755451.

Wessex Water is owned by a Malaysian company and covers 10,000 square kilometres of south west England including Dorset, Somerset, Bristol and Bath, most of Wiltshire and parts of Gloucestershire and Hampshire. They serve 1.3 million drinking water consumers and provide sewage services for 2.6 million - but not to me or most in Stroud area - that is Severn Trent - and as an aside I have been trying to see ways that we can encourage that company to increase democratic involvement. They have been more forthcoming of late - since the floods - but this is still an area they could improve significantly!

Paying your bills - excellent scheme for financial difficulties

Photo: Control centre behind a whole host of measures like bullet proof glass!

Another area that Wessex Water is a leader in the field - and I wont list them all otherwise this will be like an ad for them - is the way they manage customers who are genuinely struggling to afford to pay their water bills. There is no question that with the Credit Crunch more people will have difficulties. The earlier people contact Wessex Water the easier it is to set up the best tariff and payment option.

One scheme that I am particularly interested in is the fact that they have a number of special tariffs like their "Assist" tariff for customers in extreme financial difficuties. Wessex pay some £250,000 plus to Citizens Advice Bureau's (see here) - helping to fund debt advice agencies in this way means customers can continue to get free advice and best advice - many customers are not aware of the full range of benefits and tax credits that are available. As well as offering debt advice, agencies can also ensure customers are claiming all of the benefits to which they are entitled.

This makes great sense and I will see what potential we have for bringing more of that to Gloucestershire with other companies.

Slug pellets in the water?

No don't worry it is not in our water. However Durleigh reservoir near Bridgewater was recently found to have 4 times the recommended limit of metaldehyde in drinking water - carbon filters can remove some but not enough so the reservoir was immediately taken out of service with no risks no public. Working with other agencies the source has been identified - no doubt due to the heavy rains this summer leading to more use of slug pellets - work is now being done with farmers to improve the situation - indeed in the Panel meeting there was general agreement that farmers are very keen to work with others to solve such problems - roll on more Catchment Sensitive farming where such issues are looked at - it costs millions to remove pesticides etc from water....a couple of years ago I read that water companies spend up to £313 million a year dealing with nitrates, pesticides and other contaminants (10% of the costs of supplying drinking water). We are long overdue a time when Defra should be giving incentives to farmers to produce food in a way that works for water, wildlife and landscape.

Anyway it is only recently that water companies are testing for metaldehyde - and clearly it is a national problem - and I welcome Wessex Water's openness about this - it is certainly no Camelford - interestingly the concentrations don't seem to go down with the water sitting in the reservoir so it seems that it may have to be let out slowly - I am told this will not effect fish etc.

Regular blog readers will know of my concerns about pesticides in our environment (see for example here re cancer) - every year we hear reports on pesticides exceeding limits or banned pesticides being found in food - the Government is far too slow in acting to ensure foods do not contain cocktails of pesticides and ensuring that safety limits are not breached. We need to reduce pesticide use not just because of health risks but also because it is fossil fuel based - organic farming can feed the world - see here. Greens in Europe have raised many of these issues - especially Caroline Lucas in the EU - and while we have lost Mark Purdey campaigning on pesticides we still have at least the extraordinary Georgina Downs who is particularly campaigning on the spraying of pesticides.

What else? Energy efficiencies going ahead

Well already this post is longer than intended so I think I'll leave other stuff for future posts - otherthan to mention that we may worry about our energy bill but theres is going from £19 million to £27 million! What with all the pumping of water, chemicals and energy-intensive ultra-violet treatment, the water-industry is the most energy-intensive utility (some estimate 2.6% of UK carbon emissions). See more here about our water footprint. Anyway Wessex already have in place energy saving measures, site audits and CHP using sewage sludge plus they hope to build some turbines - although at the moment it seems the Government aren't letting them - more of that when I learn more.

Severn might drop by 80%

Last weekend the Observer carried a story at the weekend showing that the EA’s latest study shows flows in the Severn might drop by up to 80 per cent by 2050 - see here.

Photo: Severn flood defence

The study suggests that although winter rainfall might increase by 10 per cent, the period of higher river flows will be reduced. The research used climate projections from the UK Climate Impacts Programme and showed that, by 2050, river flows in winter may rise by 10 to 15 per cent in England and Wales. But in late summer and early autumn, they could fall by as much as 80 per cent in some places. The patterns would result in a drop in total annual river flow of up to 15 per cent.

Stroud Life asked for a quote but no emails coming in last week and being unwell meant I didn't get to answer until now - probably far too late for the paper but here it is at least for blog readers:

This is another worrying report, but we should bear in mind climate scientists can readily predict temperature rises but predictions of forecast rainfall are difficult. However it seems certain we must prepare for periods of both drought and floods. Indeed research for the recent Pitt Review of our floods last year, indicates that we will increasingly see "extreme rainfall events" in the future along with the possibility of dangerous sea level rises.

We need to do much more on water conservation and develop a proper sustainable drainage strategy in the District that seeks to store and infiltrate water and protect us from floods and drought. As those flooded in Bridgend and other areas know, that means an holistic strategy that includes changes to our planning, farming, house building and more. In short an end to those of us upstream dumping on those downstream.

Yes I know I could say lots more on this but well that'll have to do for now...

Call for water conservation and drainage strategy

Below is my letter in response to the article in Stroud Life re the vote on rainwater harvesting - Labour sadness that Greens and Tories voted against - why I hear many cry? Well I would have loved to have supported it but the wording was not good - see more previously on my blog on this here. Indeed if we are to lead as a Council we must do it right - and that means being clear that water conservation is the number one priority.

Picture: From Water 21 by Dilly Eeles showing what is needed

Anyhow I have to applaud Stroud Life for their excellent look at the need for an holistic approach - something we have been pushing for with the Ruscombe Brook Action Group (RBAG) for nearly 3 years - it is great this issue is getting the coverage it deserves and I think is having an impact now that we have more community groups also speaking up - we need to start understanding the interdependence of upstream and downstream communities along a river catchment - as Julian Jones of Water 21 has said:

• The upstreamers extract too much water leaving little for all the downstreamers
• They pollute and poison the water upstream which hurts all those downstream
• They divert all their own floodwater downstream which deluges the downstreamers, etc.

That means that the water in our valley hear in Ruscombe and Randwick contributes to downstream problems like at Bridgend - and while I think it is important to be aware of climate change and it's impacts in all of this (particularly in the future) we must not underplay some of the main causes of the problems we face in terms of flooding and drought are related to the effects of 50 years of 'modern' farming and other drainage plus the effects of 4% pa increases in paved urbanisation and other civil engineering (much of it in flood plains).... anyhow here is my letter to Stroud Life:

Dear Editor,

Stroud Life reports Labour 'sadness' at those councillors who did not vote for rainwater harvesting to be introduced at Ebley Mill (9/07/08). Indeed the time to take water seriously has never been greater. This is echoed in the recent Pitt Review, reports that summer rainfall could decrease by 30 to 40% (i) and the Environment Agency this month strongly criticising companies on over abstraction of water from rivers and aquifers (ii).

The Labour motion to the Council was welcomed as it raised the issue of water conservation: a priority area that the Council admits it has failed to address properly. However the motion mistakenly focused only on rainwater harvesting. There is much water conservation needed first like cistern dams, leak detectors and tap regulators, then the next step is simple rain water harvesting like water butts, then the advanced rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling. Not to tackle conservation first is like putting solar panels on your home before insulating it.

Stroud can, and needs to do, much more on water conservation. Some Councils have saved big money by using less water. Rainwater Harvesting should be part of that: an exemplar project by the District which included maximising conservation, would be a positive way of leading by example.

However as Stroud Life showed in their excellent coverage of last years floods (16/07/08) we need a wider sustainable drainage strategy in the District that seeks to store and infiltrate water and protect us from floods and drought. As those flooded in Bridgend know, that means an holistic strategy that includes changes to our planning, farming, house building and more. In short an end to those of us upstream dumping on those downstream.

Cllr. Philip Booth, Stroud District Green Party.

PS During the 'Open Homes for a Sustainable Future' weekend on 13th and 14th September two rainwater harvesting schemes and a groundbreaking Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDs) will be on show to the public. See more at:
www.stroudopenhomes.org.uk/

Notes:
(i) See SUDs Planning application guidance at:
http://www.woking.gov.uk/
(ii) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/12/water.wildlife

Ruscombe Brook AGM

Last night around 35 of us met in Randwick Village Hall for the Ruscombe Brook Action Group's AGM. We had 4 speakers and I thought I'd managed to avoid any speaking but did end up with a minor part fielding the couple of questions at the end....anyhow I am possibly too tired to write this now but here goes......

Photo: One of the first slides reminding us of the problems we faced - and while things like the sewage incidents are much reduced we still have many of these problems to tackle

The evening was chaired by the groups Chair Zarin Hainsworth and kicked off with Helen Patrick (pictured), Vice-Chair of the group doing a summary of why we started and some of the achievements over the years plus some of the challenges. It was good to be reminded of some of the stuff as the group was fairly unique - Severn Trent said we were the only such group in their region and we've not come across others set up in the same way - although the local Slad Brook Action Group have to some extent modeled themselves on us. See here an article from a year ago summarising some of the stuff.

We then had Julian Jones from Water 21 with the main talk of the evening. Some of the stories from previous talks were there like the work on sewage and how dangerous it could be, the fact that many sustainable schemes using SUDs are much cheaper - in the case of this slide of a 2km square 'reedbed' approach to dealing with industrial waste water in Sudan - the costs were 90% cheaper than conventional means and produced drinking water at the end and reforested arid areas.

Anyhow the main target of Julian's talk were the water companies and to some extent other bureaucracies like local councils who are failing to lead on this issue - often resorting to old out-dated concrete engineered solutions when what was needed was Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems.

That was followed by Illaria Pretto (pictured), the MSc student from Trento University in Italy who is working on both Slad and Ruscombe Brooks who gave an interesting brief talk about how she is working from the Environment Agency's offices to study and measure the Slad brook first.

I found it very interesting to see how she measured the maximum water that could occur and is now looking at how attenuation ponds further up the valley could hold all that water. The picture shows one of her slides where the amount of water was calculated

She was followed by UCL student Adam Broadhead (pictured) who is working primarily with Ryeford and Bridgend flood groups. He looked at how attenuation further upstream - including on the Ruscombe Brook could help reduce water flows and the flooding further downstream (see picture).

Plus how in the second part of the story the meadows along the valley like at Ebley are invaluable areas for water to soak away and again reduce the flooding - see last photo.

After the talks we enjoyed much chat and many local cheeses - some great ones from the Godsells.

It has been quite a journey with this group over the last 3 years - indeed 3 years ago I hardly knew anything about water but meeting people like Julian Jones and many others has led to much learning. It is sort of frightening how we can become so disconnected from water and understanding how it all works - I was told a story yesterday morning about someone using pesticides near the head of the spring and talking to a developer last week I was shocked that they had so very little understanding of best practice re water management - we all have a lot to learn or should that be re-learn?

SUDS: Message still not getting through

Last week I attended a Policy Panel at Ebley Mill that looked at what we would keep from our Local Plan while we develop the LDF. Various issues were raised - one I have a particular interest in is SUDs (see Label below for some of the previous discussions).

Photo: me crossing Ruscombe Brook - one of the sites we would like to see some SUDs measures applied

I have since that meeting been following up on this particular issue as there is a proposed deletion of Policy NE15 of the Local Plan which covers SUDs. For interest of SUDs fans and I know there are several regular readers of this blog I will cover the issue in some detail...

The Council notes that the issue is covered in both PPS23 and PPS25. In the case of PPS23 this states in appendix A that ‘the need to make suitable provision for the drainage of surface water’ is a planning consideration. It further states in paragraph 1.31 of Annex 1 Developers should be encouraged where appropriate to incorporate into their proposals SUDS that are able to absorb at source, the run-off from various types of development, including car parks, buildings, paved areas and roads, or to store water for non drinking water use or enabling it to be released more slowly. This will help to reduce the impact of diffuse pollution from that run-off and flooding, as well as providing a contribution to local amenity and biodiversity. All SUDS must comply with the requirements of the Groundwater Directive. In PPS25 the matter is mentioned in more detail and Annex F relates specifically to Managing Surface Water and paragraphs F3 to F14 issue guidance on the provision of SUDS. Paragraph F8 is very similar to Policy NE15 of the Local Plan in that it states ‘Local Authorities should promote the use of SUDS for the management of run-off’.

This would seem to me that we are moving from our Local Plan that says we should incorporate SUDs to a situation in PPS23 where developers should be encouraged to provide SUDs where appropriate. PPS25 is perhaps a little stronger saying we should promote SUDs, but this still doesn't seem to be as strong as the requirement in our Local Plan policy? I am told the difference is negligible but I will still be working to see this area is tightened up when it comes to the LDF.

I am, for example, still hearing about Planning Applications in this District being approved where SUDs has not even been considered. The Council does seem interested to see more SUDs and I know this is not always a straight forward area. There are several large developments where SUDS has been a leading consideration like Hunts Grove, Union Street Dursley, Grange Farm Leonard Stanley and Stroud College. As part of SUDS philosophy the Council is also requiring the provision of water butts with every new house.

I am also keen to see Stroud follow Woking Borough's example in terms of pre-planning application guidance - in Woking this covers SUDs, renewables and a couple of other key areas. They have produced a good leaflet which has some great simple advice that seems to be helping to educate developers and more - and indeed leading to greater use of renewables, SUDs etc. We'll see! I will be emailing examples of the Woking leaflets to Officers and councillors.

Rainwater Harvesting not for Ebley Mill

Hey before talking Council stuff here is a quick ad for the Vine Tree's Mexican Night in Randwick - was in the pub for a drink last night after a meeting got cancelled - very nice too - anyhow this evening saw four and a half hours of Council meetings...

Well I can't cover all here but will pick on one issue for this particular blog entry...a Labour motion to bring rainwater harvesting to Ebley Mill. Something I longed to support - indeed as a Green this is just the sort of thing surely we should be calling for....well yes and no....here is the jist of what I tried to say - although jeered by various councillors when I tried to quote Woking Boroughs figures on decreased rainfall....

I welcome the subject of water conservation being brought to this Chamber. Only a few weeks ago I was reading a Woking Borough Council report that says summer rainfall is expected to decrease by 30 to 40% and we will see more extreme weather conditions and demand for water rising evermore. The Pitt Review this week has also focused our attention again on the actions we need to be taking. Indeed it calls for more Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems and mentions Rainwater harvesting as one aspect.

However rainwater harvesting should not be the first choice for an existing building - I understand that both York and Congleton Councils mentioned in the briefing sent to councillors have introduced Rain water harvesting as part of new build projects rather than installing on existing buildings. Indeed sustainability experts say that in terms of the first measures for investment we should consider water conservation, then simple rain water harvesting like water butts, then advanced rainwater harvesting then greywater recycling.

It is the water conservation measures I would like to see first: cistern dams, smart meters and leak detectors, tap regulators like spray taps that cut 80% of water use, flow controls, water less urinals - in one college they saved £7000 on the water bill. Indeed Leicester for example saved £121,000 in ten years and cut water consumption by 43% over 10 years by a whole host of measures.

So rather than leap to recommending rainwater harvesting for Ebley Mill, I would like to see the Councils' water conservation strategy developed to look at all aspects of water conservation and recycling. Let it include rainwater harvesting - I certainly agree with the motion that the Council should be leading on this issue and a Council project would encourage this - but let us make sure energy conservation measures are considered first and when we come to rainwater harvesting we find the sites offering most advantage.

I would also welcome that strategy looking wider at how we can take on the challenge of conserving our water. West Sussex Council for example have held a summit for water companies challenging them about their role. They've also put on a Water Festival that led to a massive increase in water butt requests. Meanwhile other Councils like Woking provide quality information about Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting to people making making planning applications. This would be a positive way to help people save energy, water and money and promote this issue in the District.

To conclude I welcome this motion highlighting this issue, particularly as a re-allocation of resources has seen targets on water conservation slip. However I do not think the specific calls made in this motion for rainwater harvesting at Ebley Mill are the best way forward and therefore wont be supporting the motion.

Before making that decision I did consult with those selling rainwater harvesting and two other local water experts - both agreed water conservation measures should be the first priority - as a council we need to lead not lead people astray - having said that a Rainwater Harvesting project would be great to see to show off the potential....and more is needed in water conservation...yes they do subsidised water butts and hippos but more please!

I could write lots more on this: indeed in terms of water conservation as I've mentioned on this blog before, if we are really wanting to play our part we also need to be looking at the food we eat. For example it takes 500 litres of freshwater to produce a single kilo of potatoes, 11,000 for the beef in a quarterpound hamburger and 20,000 for a kilo of coffee. But it is too late now for more on that....