water supply in the uk: towards a more sustainable future?

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 8, 155–164 (2000)

WATER SUPPLY IN THE UK:TOWARDS A MORESUSTAINABLE FUTURE?

John Tate*

University of Central England, UK

This paper reviews the impact ofincreasing environmental concerns onthe UK water industry over the 30 yearsfrom early research in the 1970s to thepresent. From being supply driven 30years ago, with demand being regardedas an exogenous variable, the focus isnow very much on demandmanagement. The sustainability of thefreshwater environment is now thecentral concern. After laying down somebasic principles, the impacts of thisswitch in focus are identified in thecontext of the present situation. Somekey areas of environmental pressure areanalysed together with current policystances in relation to both demandmanagement and system expansion. Theimpact of the introduction of domesticmetering and related pricing strategies isa particular concern in relation to theformer as is new water savingtechnology. The paper concludes withsome thoughts for water resourceplanning in the 21st century, particularlyin the context of new housing provision.Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 22 September 1999Revised 16 November 1999Accepted 23 November 1999

FROM ‘SUPPLY FIX’ TO ‘DEMANDMANAGEMENT’

Water is a renewable resource that isvital in the maintenance of humanwelfare (Department of the Environ-

ment, Transport and the Regions, 1999a).Paradoxically, it has been regarded histori-cally as a ‘free’ good, not just in the UK butalso in the US (Herrington, 1976; Frederick,1998). Undoubtedly, the same is true in otherdeveloped countries. It is also represented bymany commentators as a ‘merit’ good (Huby,1998). Policies in both the UK and US up untilthe early 1970s were supply driven:

The industry in Britain was so preoccu-pied with water supply that the term sup-ply-fix was a not unfair characterisation.Men, materials, management and researchwere directed toward the realisation ofone important objective: the provision ofextra supply capacity at ‘reasonable’ (i.e.‘not too high’) cost (Herrington, 1976, p68).

Yet capacity cannot be expanded indefi-nitely without rising long-run social costs,both financial and environmental. What was‘reasonable’ in 1970 could well have provedunacceptable in 1990 because of rising costsand changing attitudes, particularly towardsthe environment. It is the purpose of this

* Correspondence to: John C. Tate, School of Planning, Facultyof the Built Environment, UCE, Perry Barr, Birmingham B422SU, UK.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

J. TATE

paper to review the implications of this shiftfor water resource planning in the UK up tothe present time with an emphasis on theevolving focus on to sustainability. ‘Demandmanagement’ is now very much in the lime-light and the paper concludes with somethoughts on how the demand – supply rela-tionship might be managed in the future.

Within the UK water industry the supplyfix began to break down in the early 1970s asconcern began to shift to the issue of demand(forecasting, pricing principles and strategy).At the time little was known about the factorsunderpinning demand and it was clear thatbetter forecasting methodologies would beneeded if the decision process in relation tofuture investment was to be improved. Thisnew concern underpinned the rationale be-hind the setting up by the (then) Water Re-sources Board of a Water Demand Study bythe Economics Department at the Universityof Leicester in 1969. The shifting emphasisopened up the opportunity for ‘radically dif-ferent possible solutions to the reconciliationof supply and demand’ (Herrington, 1976, p69), a move that culminated in the currentconcern for achieving sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITY

The principles behind achieving a sustainableapproach to the management of all renewableresources had been laid down well before thischange in emphasis, in the context of forestryand fisheries (Tate, 1994). The thrust of theapproach is to manage both demand and sup-ply in order to achieve a sustainable yieldover time (Pearce and Kerry Turner, 1990;Rees, 1990). Fresh water may be regarded as‘critical capital’ (Pearce, 1993):

As a result, sustainability requires that thevalue of the fresh water capital stockshould not decline over time. More gener-ally, we can interpret this requirement assaying that current fresh water use shouldnot impose costs on future generations, beit directly, via lower health standardsfrom increases in pollution, or indirectly,

in terms of opportunities foregone. Hencecurrent water use should not only notimpose direct costs upon future users, itshould also not foreclose the use optionsof those future users either (Pearce, 1993,p 64).

This new emphasis represented a seachange from the supply fix of previous years.The approach involved not only rigorous ap-praisal of investment proposals, particularlyin environmental terms, but also the introduc-tion of demand management measures, in-cluding pricing strategies, designed to stiflelow-value uses that impose high social costs.The implication for investment appraisal wasthe need to take both a ‘long’ and a ‘wide’view, incorporating such things as an explicittreatment of time and irreversibility and im-pacts on biodiversity, river flows and watertables, together with a broad measure of bene-fits, including output and employment. De-mand side measures clearly needed to includeat the very least a consideration of the bene-fits of domestic metering linked with pricestructures designed to achieve equity and effi-ciency. New technologies designed to reducewater use were clearly also important. Sur-prisingly, by the early 1970s the only waterundertaking in the UK with domestic meterswas the (then) Malvern Rural District Councilin Worcestershire1. The objective of the re-source planning process in terms of the lan-guage of economics was to become theshort-term balancing of marginal social bene-fits with marginal social costs, since a re-source misallocation will occur if water issupplied for low marginal value uses at theexpense of higher marginal value uses. Adeveloping longer-term focus was to becomethe ‘critical capital’ issue and the achievementof sustainable yield.

1 At the time Malvern was the ‘Mecca’ for UK water resourceeconomists – all five of them! This number makes an interest-ing contrast with what were probably hundreds of engineers inthe employment of the water utilities at the time. This domi-nance of the industry by one profession was certainly a factorin accounting for the emphasis on supply and also may haveproved to be a barrier to the adoption of economic analysis inpolicy formulation and appraisal.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 8, 155–164 (2000)

156

WATER SUPPLY IN THE UK

FACTORS DETERMINING DEMANDAND THE PROBLEM OFFORECASTING

Underpinning the new approach was a needto understand the factors determining de-mand. This need for ‘conceptualization’ is anessential part of any planning process (Kolb,1984; UK Round Table on Sustainable Devel-opment, 1998) and provides an input intoboth forecasting and the direct design of pol-icy measures (e.g. price structures). The WaterDemand Study produced a range of paperson the factors determining demand in theearly 1970s (Herrington, 1973). At that timeconventional wisdom in the water supply in-dustry was that demand would ‘double’ bythe end of the century (Herrington, 1973).Such a forecast was based on opinion (theso-called ‘Delphi’ method), plus crude extrap-olations of past trends flavoured by ‘judge-ment’. In the context of ‘judgement’,Herrington makes the following comment:

American writers delicately refer to this asthe ‘seat of the pants’ approach to fore-casting, which neatly sums up the amountof intellectual effort often put into suchpredicting. The ‘judgement’ is usually by‘experts’ in the investigation area, and itinevitably involves considerable ‘intuition’and ‘foresight’. Accordingly it is fre-quently a cheap substitute for analysis(Herrington, 1973, p 5).

Understanding the factors determiningtrends in demand is, conceptually, a majorstep forward. In itself, though, it does notguarantee that any forecast is, ex post, anymore accurate than one derived using ‘cruder’methods. A major problem (putting statistical/econometric difficulties on one side) is thatmethods such as multiple regression analysisare dependent on the accuracy of the forecastsof the relevant independent variables. Suchmethods do, however, expose the implicationsof particular assumptions concerning the lat-ter (e.g. the effect of x% growth in per capitaincomes on unmetered demand). Indeed, sim-ple extrapolation may, at the end of the day,

produce remarkably accurate forecasts simplyby chance (Herrington, 1973). Nonetheless,the case for a deeper conceptual understand-ing of what drives demand is an overwhelm-ing one.

Nearly 30 years on from the Water DemandStudy, and with sustainability firmly on thenational agenda, it is sad that, in a review ofwater company plans, the EnvironmentAgency found it necessary in 1998 to beratethe industry on its approach not only to fore-casting but also to methods of estimating ex-isting consumption:

1. Water companies must reduce the un-certainty associated with present un-metered consumption. Current estimatesvary greatly, from 136 to 180 l/day. Fewcompanies have explained the basis fortheir estimates. . . Estimates of unmea-sured consumption have an enormous in-fluence on leakage. Companies mustjustify their estimates, and improve theirtransparency.2. Water companies must reduce the un-certainty of future estimates of consump-tion. There is even more variation infuture estimates of measured and unmea-sured individual consumption. For exam-ple, the range of forecast measuredindividual consumption in 2025 variesfrom 125 to 200 l/day. Most companieshave provided little explanation of theirfuture estimates, so we cannot identifywhich estimates are most likely. Compa-nies must share data, models and meth-ods, and must work with the regulators toestablish best practice (EnvironmentAgency, 1998a, p 4).

Yet getting the demand–supply balance toan ‘acceptable’ position is central to theachievement of sustainability. Currently, thisis only the case for about one-third of the 27companies in England and Wales (Environ-ment Agency, 1998a). All of the remainingcompanies forecast shortfalls in supply overthe period 2000–2010. In such cases, systemexpansion is not now the automatic responseit would have been 30 years ago. Demandmanagement is now very much an alternative


157

J. TATE

policy option (Office of Water Services, 1997).Here, knowledge of variables such as priceand income elasticities of demand is critical,as is an assessment of the impact of furthermetering. A particular concern is the problemof peak loads, and trials have suggested thatmetering has ‘a particularly strong effect onpeak summer demand. . . in particular forgarden watering’ (Department of the Environ-ment, Transport and the Regions, 1998a, p 16).These conclusions echo research published inthe US as far back as the 1950s, work that wassummarized in papers published by the Wa-ter Demand Study in the early 1970s (Herring-ton and Tate, 1970, 1971a) but which plainlyhad little or no impact on UK policy.

DOMESTIC DEMAND

With rising per capita incomes, it is domesticdemand that is driving the current agendaand raising questions about the sustainabilityof the delivery system, particularly in parts ofsouthern and eastern England. Industrial de-mand still accounts for over 50% of totalconsumption (Department of the Environ-ment, 1996a) but is actually declining (UKGovernment, 1994; Office of Water Services,1996), leading to a concomitant rise in watertables in particular localities. The latter couldnot necessarily have been predicted by exam-ining past trends. Spray irrigation, fish farm-ing and hydroelectric power represent theonly key areas of non-domestic growth (UKGovernment, 1994; Huby, 1998). Average do-mestic per capita consumption was estimatedby the Water Services Association in 1991 tobe around 140 l/day, of which 32% was toiletflushing, 17% bathing/showering and 12%washing machine use. Outside use repre-sented 3% and dishwashing 1%. The largestcategory of all (35%) was ‘miscellaneous’, cov-ering drinking, cooking and, importantly,leakage (Water Services Association, 1991).None the less, accurate data are difficult tocome by, a situation made no easier by theissue of commercial confidentiality followingprivatization (Environment Agency, 1998a).Rising leakage rates could, however, be caus-

ing an increase in winter base demand levels(Office of Water Services, 1996). Current fore-casts of growth in domestic demand suggestan increase of 25% to 2025 (UK Government,1994; Huby, 1998), though the caveats alreadymade concerning such forecasts should beborne in mind. Nonetheless, there is empiricalsupport for a continued increase in domesticconsumption. The Office of Water Serviceshas expressed concern about rising gardenuse (Office of Water Services, 1997), with salesof hosepipes and sprinklers more than dou-bling between 1992 and 1995. Over 60% ofthis represented new sales (Office of WaterServices, 1996). Rising per capita incomes andclimate change (Office of Water Services, 1996;Herrington, 1996) could be significant factorsthat could drive further growth, and it shouldbe remembered that ‘luxuries’ at low incomelevels become ‘necessities’ later on (Pearce,1993). There is a need for research into thegarden use of water (Office of Water Services,1997) and international comparisons suggestthat market saturation has not been reachedwith regard to ownership of hosepipes andsprinklers (Office of Water Services, 1996).Such growth in water demand is thereforelikely to be in ‘low-value’ uses, a factor thathas to be set against the long-run marginalsocial costs (particularly environmental dam-age) of providing for such uses.

A ‘TWIN TRACK’ APPROACH ANDECOLOGICAL COSTS

With only about one-third of water companiesin England and Wales having an ‘acceptable’demand–supply balance, the fact that there isan overall excess of supply over demand forthe UK as a whole (UK Government, 1994) isnot particularly useful, with great variationsin balance between a ‘low demand–wet’north and west and a ‘high demand–dry’south and east and no national water grid tomediate the inequalities. Groundwater ab-straction is concentrated in the south and eastof England (UK Government, 1994). It is thisregionalized imbalance that is generating thepressure points on the sustainability of the


158


system. Low rainfall, e.g. in the summer of1995, exacerbates the situation and has re-sulted in the introduction of hosepipe bansand loss of agricultural output (Office of Wa-ter Services, 1996). While some aspects of sys-tem expansion may be justified in terms oftheir impact on output, the environmentalconsequences may be adverse (Council for theProtection of Rural England, 1994). Westonand Wilson have demonstrated the complexi-ties of project evaluation in the context ofThames Water’s recent proposal for a newreservoir in the Upper Thames Valley(Weston and Wilson, 1998). They stress theimportance of a ‘twin track’ approach (Envi-ronment Agency, 1998a), where demand con-straint becomes a key alternative to systemexpansion. Indeed, it would appear that theemphasis is now firmly moving towards theformer, particularly in the south and east,because of the environmental costs attachedto ‘predict and provide’. The UK Governmentcomments

Over-abstraction, often for public watersupply, has led to unacceptably low flowsin some rivers. . . thereby damagingwildlife habitats and having an adverseimpact on water quality and recreationaland amenity value. . . (UK Government,1994, p 57).

The core of the problem has been thestreams and rivers emanating from the chalkdownlands of southern England. One of theearliest casualties was the Kentish Stour(Poupard, 1998), but probably the most gener-ally perceived damage has been done to theWiltshire/Hampshire Avon, the decline ofwhich has been charted in a trilogy of papers(Haytor, 1996; Campbell, 1997; Wheat, 1997).While the problems of the river and its tribu-taries are complex and under intense scientificscrutiny, low flows are a major contributingfactor, particularly in the tributaries and dur-ing summer. Indeed, in terms of lack of flow,the river is placed in the ‘high’ risk category,both for the present and the future, making italmost unique among river Sites of SpecialScientific Interest (English Nature, 1996). Inthis context, ‘high’ ‘suggests that concerns

may need to be addressed promptly on asite-specific basis’ (English Nature, 1996, p 4)The Avon valley was designated a Site ofSpecial Scientific Interest in 1996 and it is alsolikely to become a Special Area of Conserva-tion under the European Habitats Directive(Tarver, 1998). None the less, commentators‘on the ground’ feel that little progress will bemade until the issue of abstraction from theaquifers in the chalk is tackled (Barnard,1998). The River Wylye has been particularlybadly affected, with low flows increasing lev-els of eutrophication. This tributary is now thesubject of major Environment Agency action(Lightfoot, 1998). Further east, flows in therivers Test and Itchen are also giving concern(English Nature, 1996). All these rivers, onceboth the finest brown trout waters in Europeand superb coarse fisheries, are now paleshadows of their former selves.

Further north, the situation is far from satis-factory. The rivers Noe and Ashop inDerbyshire have been completely dry for longperiods since their headwaters were divertedinto Ladybower Reservoir. Historic abstrac-tion rights granted to the (then) Derwent Val-ley Water Board allow Severn–Trent Water tocontinue this practice, the costs of which, ac-cording to the Environment Agency, are theloss of a wild brown trout fishery, reducedbiodiversity and landscape damage (Environ-ment Agency, 1999a).

It is not just river flows that suffer. Reser-voir construction involves significant loss ofland, often of high environmental value, andreservoir proposals generate ‘blight’ (Westonand Wilson, 1998). Of course, these costs haveto be set against the undoubted environmen-tal and recreational benefits generated. In ad-dition, falling water tables are causingwetlands to dry out, damaging habitat andreducing biodiversity. The Council for theProtection of Rural England, The Royal Soci-ety for the Protection of Birds, the Environ-ment Agency and English Nature have allexpressed concern over this situation (Councilfor the Protection of Rural England, 1998;Royal Society for the Protection of Birds–English Nature, 1998; Environment Agency,1998b; English Nature, 1996; Wynne, 1998).The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’Conservation Officer has highlighted the


159

J. TATE

Somerset and Pevensey levels as key areasunder threat, but there are 89 Sites of SpecialScientific Interest affected right across Eng-land (Wynne, 1998; Royal Society for the Pro-tection of Birds–English Nature, 1998; EnglishNature, 1996). Of these, 37 are proposed Spe-cial Areas of Conservation under the Eu-ropean Habitats Directive and have beendescribed as ‘the jewels in the crown of Eng-land’s natural heritage’ (Royal Society for theProtection of Birds–English Nature, 1998, p2). All 89 sites (41 ‘high’ risk, 48 ‘medium’risk) are the subject of Environment Agencyscrutiny and the Agency is currently refininga list of priorities initially published in 1998(Environment Agency, 1998b). The 89 repre-sent 9% of wetland Sites of Special ScientificInterest but, in addition, there are a further14% that are thought to be under threat fromdirect abstraction for agriculture (English Na-ture, 1996). The precise number of such sitesis not specified and more research appears tobe needed with regard to this latter category.

WATER CONSERVATION

Water conservation is thus firmly on the sus-tainability agenda, with the emphasis beingvery much on demand management and onthe constraints attached to further system ex-pansion. In this context, the Office of WaterServices has criticized the most recent invest-ment plans of the water companies, involving£2.2 billion of expenditure, because these fo-cus too much on system expansion and notenough on demand restraint via the increaseduse of tariffs (Office of Water Services, 1998).The latter’s function is seen particularly in thecontext of reducing ‘discretionary’ domesticuse (especially hosepipes/sprinklers). It is esti-mated that such a strategy could cut the levelof predicted expenditure back to £1 billion(Office of Water Services, 1998). Central tobetter demand management are both the issueof domestic metering and that of understand-ing the effects of variables such as price, in-come and climate on demand. The benefits ofmeters are given by the Environment Agencyand the Department of the Environment,

Transport and the Regions and the Office ofWater Services as

1. providing a direct incentive to reduce con-sumption, particularly peak loads whichcan be 30% higher than average,

2. a reduction in bills (research suggests anaverage cut by those who have alreadytransferred of around 50%),

3. improved leakage control through vastlyimproved monitoring of flows and

4. introducing the opportunity for imagina-tive tariff structures that can not only at-tract customers to switch to meters but canfocus on to reducing ‘discretionary’ use

(Department of the Environment, Transportand the Regions, 1998a; Environment Agency,1998a; Office of Water Services, 1996, 1997).

The number of domestic dwellings meteredis approximately 11% in England and Walesand is rising slowly though there are widevariations between companies (from 1.0 to28.1%). Forecasts of penetration by 2025 varyfrom 99 to 4% (Department of the Environ-ment, Transport and the Regions, 1998a).Compulsory metering is ruled out for existingdwellings except for those with swimmingpools and sprinklers, though all newdwellings will be fitted with meters as a mat-ter of course (Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions, 1998b) and powershower users will have to have special li-cences (Housebuilder, 1998a). Metering is seenas a pre-requisite for wider efficiency mea-sures (Environment Agency, 1998a) in whichleakage reduction is a major component.Overall leakage levels are estimated at be-tween 25 and 30% (Department of the Envi-ronment, Transport and the Regions, 1998a,1999a) and the level of optimum leakage isstill contentious, with appraisal of differentapproaches being screened by issues of com-mercial confidentiality on the part of the com-panies concerned (Environment Agency,1998a). The Office of Water Services is press-ing for a nationally agreed methodology forassessing leakage and has argued the case fora ‘Water Saving Trust’ (Office of Water Ser-vices, 1997). This whole situation represents agreat step forward from the time of the WaterDemand Study in the early 1970s when


160


domestic metering was insignificant and thearguments concerning its efficacy were, byand large, unrehearsed.

The Department of the Environment, Trans-port and the Regions is now arguing thatactive measures should be taken to encouragenon-metered domestic consumers to switch tometered supply (Department of the Environ-ment, Transport and the Regions, 1998a). TheOffice of Water Services has taken a similarstance (Office of Water Services, 1997). Suchan approach also attempts to address whathas, historically, been a major objection tocharging by volume, namely the impact onthe less well off. Thus the removal of standingcharges, free leakage detection and repair,free installation and ‘rising block tariffs’ at-tempt to address the distribution issue. ‘Ris-ing block tariffs’ would allow normal levels ofdomestic use at a comparatively low chargebut with steep rises thereafter to curtail ‘dis-cretionary’ use (car washing, lawn sprinkling,garden watering), with prices possibly season-ally determined (Department of the Environ-ment, Transport and the Regions, 1998a). Theuse of a premium to cover the cost of anyresource depletion could also be considered(Herrington, 1990). The impact on consump-tion, and hence on the sustainability of thesystem, would depend vitally on the sorts ofeffect/coefficient/elasticity that were discussedand presented in the publications of the WaterDemand Study in the early 1970s (Herringtonand Tate, 1970, 1971a,b). Whether updatedversions of this work, particularly the econo-metric studies, are available is not knownthough it is interesting to note that the En-vironment Agency (Environment Agency,1998a) supports the notion of separate ‘meter-ing’ and ‘pricing’ effects put forward by thestudy (Herrington and Tate, 1971a). Under-pinning the decision to meter is the guidingprinciple of ‘equality at the margin’, that anyprogramme should proceed as long as mar-ginal social benefit is greater than marginalsocial cost; implementation should not costmore at the margin than the value of thewater saved.

Domestic metering can be usefully com-bined with improved water use technology.Low-flush toilets reduce consumption from 9

l/flush to 6 l, more efficient dishwashers from45 l/load to 30 l and better washing machinesfrom 100 l/load to 60 l (Council for the Protec-tion of Rural England, 1998). In addition, re-cycling technology that uses ‘grey’ water frombasins, showers and baths for toilet flushingand outside use can have a significant impactthough the costs of retro-fitting have to beborne in mind. The Environment Agency haspublished a series of leaflets indicating thescope for this sort of saving and The NationalWater Demand Management Centre has pro-duced a series of case studies of good practicethat it intends to update on a regular basis(Environment Agency, undated; The NationalWater Demand Management Centre, 1998,1999). Some of these actions are encapsulatedin the Water Supply (Water Fitting Regula-tions) 1999 (Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions, 1999a). A recenthousing development that combines meteringwith such technology by East Thames Hous-ing Group is estimated to cut consumption byas much as 40%, with commensurate savingon water bills (Housing Today, 1999). Suchmeasures clearly have considerable potentialfor improving the sustainability of the waterresource system. Here is found an interfacewith the land-use planning system. The Envi-ronment Agency is now actively providingguidance to local planning authorities notonly on the location of new development butmatters such as the encouragement of meter-ing, leakage control, recycling, new watertechnology and rainwater re-use. A pioneer-ing initiative is the ‘Thames Environment 21’strategy, which applies six sustainability prin-ciples to the management of development inthe Agency’s Thames region (EnvironmentAgency, 1998c). Within these principles, theconservation of water resources plays a keyrole. Forecasts of new household formationreinforce the need for closer integration ofland use and water resource planning (House-builder, 1998b; Hendry, 1998).

THE FUTURE

The greatest threat to the water environmentappears therefore to be increased housingprovision linked with rising per capita


161

J. TATE

domestic use. This has been stressed by theCouncil for the Protection of Rural England(1998) in the context of projections of newhousehold formation in England of between3.8 million and 5.5 million by 2016 (Depart-ment of the Environment, 1995, 1996b; De-war, 1999). In the absence of demandrestraint measures (metering and new tech-nology, including recycling), the initial pro-jection of 4.4 million households wouldequate to an extra 1633 million litres of wa-ter per day (Council for the Protection ofRural England, 1998; Herrington, 1996). Ofparticular concern is the fact that this projec-tion is predicated on a fall in average house-hold size from 2.47 persons in 1991 to 2.17persons in 2016 (Department of the Environ-ment, 1995) since there is mounting evidencethat per capita use rises as household sizefalls (Hoschatt and Herrington, 1993; Ed-wards and Martin, 1995). Some of this evi-dence comes from abroad (particularlyAustralia) and econometric work in the UKis still in its infancy, but clearly changingdemographic structures, if not accompaniedby demand restraint, could be a significantnegative factor in any future demand/supplybalance. Climate change impacting on gar-den and other forms of external use couldtip the balance further away from sustain-able outcomes (Environment Agency, 1998a;Housebuilder, 1998b; Herrington, 1996).

Putting aside such options as desalination,the increased focus in the next century mustinevitably be on demand restraint, particu-larly in locations experiencing low rainfall.Unfortunately, such locations tend to coin-cide with high demand for new housing, of-ten on greenfield sites though the decline ofheavy industry has both reduced industrialwater abstraction and released ‘brownfield’sites for new (housing) uses. The combina-tion of domestic metering, imaginative pric-ing policies and new domestic water savingtechnology must take centre stage if a bal-ance is to be found between supply and de-mand in such locations. Similarly, with anaverage leakage level in England and Walesestimated at 25% of supply, mandatory leak-age targets are vital (Department of the En-

vironment, Transport and the Regions,1999b). Even so, it is easy to be pessimistic.Both the 1994 and 1999 UK strategies for thesustainability of the freshwater system ap-pear somewhat bland (UK Government,1994; Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions, 1999b) though‘improving river quality’ is one of the ‘head-line’ sustainability indicators proposed bythe Department of the Environment, Trans-port and the Regions in November 1998 andconfirmed in May 1999 (Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions,1998c, 1999c). However much damage hasalready been done, some of it irreversible,and repair is likely to be both costly andtechnically problematic. Water is increasinglybecoming a high-cost good at the marginand this fact should be driving the futuremanagement of the demand/supply relation-ship. Such management will require notonly better data, research and forecastingtechniques, but also more openness on be-half of the privatized utilities. It is littleshort of a tragedy that the privatization ofthe industry in 1989, with its focus on com-mercial confidentiality, has brought about asituation that appears to be inhibiting suchan approach. Merit goods and public sectorintervention go hand in hand, and it is herethat the role of the regulator, together withthat of both central and local government,will be critical.

In this context, the recommendations ofthe UK Round Table on Sustainable Devel-opment would appear appropriate (UKRound Table on Sustainable Development,1997). These range from the publication of anational strategic framework for freshwaterpolicy (together with a more rigorous set ofindicators in relation to sustainability) tonew powers for regulators and the produc-tion of ‘long term sustainable water plans’by all water companies and other statutorysuppliers. In addition it is proposed, amongother things, that

Demand management should be an im-portant feature of the national strategic


162


framework and individual suppliers’plans. The full range of demand manage-ment options should be considered, withan assessment of the social factors, costsand benefits, in the widest sense (UKRound Table on Sustainable Development,1997, p 32).

Such an approach, particularly if set withina national plan for saving water, togetherwith efficiency in use promoted by a WaterSaving Trust (two further recommendationsof the Round Table), would go some way toachieving a balance between demand andsupply, particularly in pressurized locations.In October 1999, the Environment Agencypublished a consultation document (Environ-ment Agency, 1999b) seeking responses to arange of issues relating to the demand/supplybalance, with the ultimate intention of pro-ducing both a national strategy and eightregional strategies. At the end of the day,‘effective’ rainfall provides the ultimate long-term supply limit to demand expansion(Pearce, 1993) but by the time such a positionis reached environmental damage could becatastrophic.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank colleagues Emma Field-house, David Chapman and Peter Larkham for com-ments on an earlier draft of this paper.

REFERENCES

Barnard P. 1998. Coarse fishing. Wiltshire Fisheries Asso-ciation Newsletter 11: 2.

Campbell K. 1997. Water under the bridge, part two.Waterlog 2: 47–49.

Council for the Protection of Rural England. 1994. Water,Water, Everywhere? Council for the Protection of RuralEngland: London.

Council for the Protection of Rural England. 1998. Hun-gry Housing. Council for the Protection of Rural Eng-land: London.

Department of the Environment. 1995. Projections ofHouseholds in England to 2016. HMSO: London.

Department of the Environment. 1996a. Digest of Envi-ronmental Statistics. HMSO: London.

Department of the Environment. 1996b. HouseholdGrowth: Where Shall We Live? HMSO: London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Re-gions. 1998a. Water Charging in England and Wales: ANew Approach, Consultation Paper. Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions: London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Re-gions. 1998b. Water Charging in England and Wales:Government Decisions Following Consultation. Depart-ment of the Environment, Transport and the Regions:London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Re-gions. 1998c. Sustainability Counts: Consultation Paperon a Set of ‘Headline’ Indicators of Sustainable Develop-ment. Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions: London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Re-gions. 1999a. Water Supply (Water Fitting Regulations).Stationery Office: London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Re-gions. 1999b. A Better Quality of Life: A Strategy forSustainable Development in the UK, White Paper Cm4345. Stationery Office: London.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Re-gions. 1999c. Monitoring Progress: Indicators for theStrategy for Sustainable Development in the United King-dom. Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions: London.

Dewar D. 1999. Household projection drops by 300,000.Planning 2 April: 1.

Edwards K, Martin L. 1995. A methodology for survey-ing domestic water consumption. Journal of the Char-tered Institution of Water and Environmental Management9(5): 477–488.

English Nature. 1996. Impact of Water Abstraction onWetland SSSIs, Freshwater Series No. 4. English Na-ture: Peterborough.

Environment Agency. 1998a. Progress in Water SupplyPlanning: the Environment Agency’s Review of WaterCompany Water Resource Plans. Environment Agency:Bristol.

Environment Agency. 1998b. A Price Worth Paying: theEnvironment Agency’s Programme for Water Companies2000–2005. Environment Agency: Bristol.

Environment Agency. 1998c. Thames Environment 21. En-vironment Agency: Bristol.

Environment Agency. 1999a. EA funding to bring life totwo Derbyshire rivers. Fishery News January: 1.

Environment Agency. 1999b. Sustainable Water Resourcesfor the Future: Values and Challenges, Consultation Doc-ument for the Environment Agency’s Water ResourcesStrategies. Environment Agency: Bristol.

Environment Agency. Undated. Conserving Water inBuildings. Environment Agency: Worthing.

Frederick K D. 1998. Marketing water: the obstacles andthe impetus. Resources 132: 7–10.

Haytor A. 1996. Water under the bridge, part one.Waterlog 1: 43–46.

Hendry M. 1998. Infrastructure focus: seeking a solutionto slake the demand. Planning 27 February: 14–15.

Herrington PR. 1973. Water Demand Study: Final Report.University of Leicester Department of Economics:Leicester.


163

J. TATE

Herrington PR. 1976. The economics of water supplyand demand. Economics 12: 67–84.

Herrington PR. 1990. Notes on Sustainable Developmentand Resource Pricing for Water, Workshop on ResourcePricing. OECD: Paris.

Herrington PR. 1996. Climate Change and the Demand forWater ; HMSO: London.

Herrington PR, Tate JC. 1970. Evidence on Factors Deter-mining the Domestic Demand for Water, Progress PaperS.1., Water Demand Study. University of LeicesterDepartment of Economics: Leicester.

Herrington PR, Tate JC. 1971a. The Metering of ResidentialWater Supplies: Some Empirical Evidence, Progress PaperS.2., Water Demand Study. University of LeicesterDepartment of Economics: Leicester.

Herrington PR, Tate JC. 1971b. Water Consumption inEngland and Wales: an Economic Analysis, Progress Pa-per A.1., Water Demand Study. University of Leices-ter Department of Economics: Leicester.

Hoschatt M, Herrington PR. 1993. Water Demand Analy-sis and Forecasting: an Examination of the Components ofDomestic Water Demand. University of Leicester De-partment of Economics: Leicester.

Housebuilder. 1998a. Water regulations put on hold untilJuly 1999. September: 3.

Housebuilder. 1998b. Watershed for housing. June: 28–32.Housing Today 7. 1999. Water saving homes. January: 8.Huby M. 1998. Social Policy and the Environment. Open

University Press: Buckingham.Kolb DA. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as a

Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall: NewYork.

Lightfoot G. 1998. Report from Graham Lightfoot. Wilt-shire Fisheries Association Newsletter 11: 1.

The National Water Demand Management Centre. 1998.Saving Water: on the Right Track 1 – a Summary ofCurrent Water Conservation Measures in the UK – Janu-ary 1998. Environment Agency: Worthing.

The National Water Demand Management Centre. 1999.Saving Water: on the Right Track 2 – a Summary ofCurrent Water Conservation Measures in the UK – March1999. Environment Agency: Worthing.

Office of Water Services. 1996. Report on Recent Patternsof Demand for Water in England and Wales. Office ofWater Services: Birmingham.

Office of Water Services. 1997. Ofwat’s Response to theHouse of Commons’ Environment Committee’s First Re-port on Water Conservation and Supply. Office of WaterServices: Birmingham.

Office of Water Services. 1998. Prospects for Prices: aConsultation Paper on Strategic Issues Affecting FutureWater Bills, 1999 Periodic Review. Office of WaterServices: Birmingham.

Pearce D. 1993. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Devel-opment. Earthscan: London.

Pearce D, Kerry Turner R. 1990. Economics of NaturalResources and the Environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf:Hemel Hempstead.

Poupard C. 1998. Saving our rivers. Anglers’ ConservationAssociation Review 50th Anniversary Edition : 11–12.

Rees J. 1990. Natural Resources: Allocation, Economics andPolicy, 2nd edn. Routledge: London.

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds–English Na-ture. 1998. Investing in Wildlife. English Nature: Peter-borough.

Tarver C. 1998. Chairman’s remarks. Wiltshire FisheriesAssociation Newsletter 11: 1.

Tate J. 1994. Sustainability: a case of back to basics?Planning Practice and Research 9(4): 367–379.

UK Government. 1994. Sustainable Development: the UKStrategy. HMSO: London.

UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. 1997.Freshwater. UK Round Table on Sustainable Develop-ment: London.

UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. 1998.Monitoring and Reporting on Sustainable Development.UK Round Table on Sustainable Development: Lon-don.

Water Services Association. 1991. Water Facts. WaterServices Association: London.

Weston J, Wilson E. 1998. Trial by water for regionalstrategy. Planning 18 December: 14–15.

Wheat P.1997. Water under the bridge, part three. Wa-terlog 3: 45–46.

Wynne G. 1998. Land for life: real protection for ourfinest wildlife areas. Birds Summer: 3.

BIOGRAPHY

John Tate, Senior Lecturer, BirminghamSchool of Planning, Faculty of the Built Envi-ronment, University of Central England, PerryBarr, Birmingham B42 2SU, UK.Telephone: +0121-331-5157. Fax: +0121-331-5114.E-mail: [email protected]


164

water supply in the uk: towards a more sustainable future?

Documents