Prioritising Water Use
Do you agree certain essential public water supply uses should be prioritised? If so, what are they? Are there other sectors whose abstractions should be prioritised and if so, why?
Why the contribution is important
There are probably some uses of water most people would consider of highest importance. Public water supply is essential for services such as domestic water use, sanitation, fire protection and other services that protect and preserve public health, welfare, and safety.
Water companies must prepare and maintain drought plans (see the supporting information for more information). These set out how water companies will continue to meet their duties to supply adequate quantities of drinking water during drought periods while protecting the environment. The plans contain a series of trigger points for action by the companies. The actions taken depend on the severity of the drought and include such measures as restrictions on non-essential use.
At the moment there are controls at low flows that apply specifically to certain abstractors:
- Section 57 imposes restrictions on spray irrigators abstracting from rivers and some groundwater; this has not been used often in the last decade;
- About 20% of abstractors have flow cessation conditions (known as hands off flows) on their licences; and
- All other abstractors can have their abstraction restricted by drought orders; these have never been used. People who suffer loss or damage as a result of a drought order are entitled to claim compensation.
by abstractionreform on September 05, 2014 at 10:55AM
Posted by cfenn September 10, 2014 at 14:09
To work, who-gets-what pecking rights would need to be:
(a) agreed in advance (not when the crunch starts);
(b) agreed for different levels of scarcity (because the order and the (volumetric) entitlements of different users will vary as water availability declines, and as the need for and value of water allocations increases, but differently between different users. It would be preposterous, for example, to give a first priority and/or a fixed volume entitlement to (say) domestic consumption, without regard to the level of consumption, and to the relative impacts/benefits of allocation to different users (including the environment), under those conditions and terms;
(c) revised from time to time, to remain fair and fit for purpose as things change, and as more information becomes available
(d) etc.
Prioritisation is essential. But not dumb prioritisation. We need smart allocation agreements to deal with drought, with variation in the rules to cope with changing needs and benefits as drought develops. And we need these for deep droughts, in particular. We got away with it in 2012, but ...
It's a tough challenge that needs sensitive consideration at resource unit scale by all interested parties, working co-operatively and impartially.
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by colinwest September 11, 2014 at 15:37
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by anglianwater September 11, 2014 at 16:34
However, water companies have a legal obligation to meet demand for treated water supplies, and this obligation will continue to exist in the reformed system. It is important that they are able to continue to meet this obligation in the reformed system, particularly during a drought situation.
It is appropriate that, in exceptional circumstances, (for example, a drought that is unprecedented in terms of its severity / longevity and is outside the scope of normal drought planning) water for essential human needs it prioritised above water for other uses. In the reformed system, this prioritisation could take the form of drought permits and drought orders, as in the current system.
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by abstractionreform September 24, 2014 at 13:41
It seems that everyone agrees some form of prioritisation would be required in exceptional circumstances and that essential services are of priority.
Cfenn you believe prioritisation is essential, do you think the current system is not fit for purpose?
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by SWW September 29, 2014 at 11:39
Some form of market intervention will therefore be required. Outside of such critical periods water will have less value, so is opening of a market a viable solution?
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by nfomes September 30, 2014 at 10:07
Non-essential uses - especially businesses could be encouraged to innovate/ plan/ insure for exceptional droughts rather than blindly assuming water will be available and as a result losing revenue.
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by krussell October 03, 2014 at 16:39
If a reasonable alternative to statutory compensation was available, such as an affordable insurance policy, then it might be possible to consider revoking the statutory right to compensation, which might in turn mean that regulators felt more able to use that tool without fear of economic consequences.
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by WNE October 06, 2014 at 17:07
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by EnergyUK October 08, 2014 at 16:27
It is vital to design from the outset the scope for overridinge of such ‘business as usual’ mechanisms. Without such a clear definition it is impossible for an abstractor desiring access to water at times of water scarcity to understand the risks and value associated with water rights held and those associated with acquisition of additional rights. Such uncertainty may provide a barrier to further additional investment in existing water- dependent assets and investment in new assets.
In many cases, the abstractor or would- be investor may be delivering a priority service. In the case of power plant, that could be the provision of energy or the provision of capacity to generate. Much of the current fleet of power plant requires access to water to generate and this would be expected to be the case for the future fleet. Since As security of electricity supply is provided by the fleet as a whole, whether or not a particular plant or subset of plant is essential to ensure security of supply in a given set of circumstances depends on wider electricity market considerations. However, in the case of the electricity generation sector, a clear case for additional priority compared with to other users or normal allocation to the environment may be the approach to a System Stress Event (as defined in the Electricity Market Reform package.)
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by SouthStaffsWater October 09, 2014 at 13:24
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by CCWater October 09, 2014 at 14:34
Research consistently shows that customers’ top priority is a safe, reliable supply of water. As such, it is vital to continue to meet customers’ (household and non-household) needs and expectations. This is further supported by water company research into their customers’ investment priorities for the 2014 price review.
As abstraction reform is considered, we feel that Governments (England and Wales) must reflect water company customers’ (household and non-household) views and priorities on the best way to provide resilient, reliable supplies.
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by dbellamy October 09, 2014 at 17:37
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by DCWW October 10, 2014 at 10:37
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)
Posted by RacecourseAssociation October 10, 2014 at 17:23
Particularly in summer months, racecourses often require a reliable water source, as a means by which to maintain the highest possible standards of human and animal welfare. An inability to provide this (which a lack of available water may lead to) may cause abandonment of race meetings.
Such incidents have ramifications well beyond the immediate impact of an abandoned race meeting, across the racing industry as a whole and across the rural and national economy as well.
The RCA would certainly be happy to discuss these issues further should it be required.
Report this Comment (Requires Log In)