DOCSLIB.ORG

GARD Response to Thames Water's Draft Fine Screening Report On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

GARD response to Thames Water’s draft Fine Screening Report on WRMP19 Resource Options 31st October 2016 Group Against Reservoir Development www.abingdonreservoir.org.uk GARD response to Thames Water’s report on fine screening of options Contents Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Aim of GARD’s response ............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Use of GARD’s simulation model ................................................................................................ 4 2. Demand management options ....................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Metering ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Leakage reduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Effluent reuse, direct river abstraction and desalination options .................................................. 7 3.1 Effluent reuse .............................................................................................................................. 7 3.2 Direct river abstraction ............................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Desalination ................................................................................................................................ 8 4. Raw water transfer options ............................................................................................................ 9 4.1 Unsupported Severn-Thames transfer........................................................................................ 9 4.2 The TW proposed option – STT supported by Vyrnwy and Severn Trent sources ................... 13 4.3 STT supported only by Vyrnwy ................................................................................................. 16 4.4 STT supported only by Severn Trent ......................................................................................... 18 4.5 STT supported by both Vyrnwy and Minworth/Draycote/Mythe ............................................ 19 4.6 Upper limit to transfer capacity ................................................................................................ 21 4.7 Cotswold canal transfer option ................................................................................................. 21 4.8 Environmental impact of transfers ........................................................................................... 21 5. Reservoir options ................................................................................................................................... 23 5.1 Choice of reservoir site .................................................................................................................... 23 5.2 Size of scheme and potential for phasing ................................................................................. 24 5.3 Deployable output of reservoir options .................................................................................... 24 5.4 Assessment of fine screening criteria ....................................................................................... 25 6. Resilience to severe droughts and climate change ....................................................................... 26 6.1 Thames Water’s assessment of resilience ................................................................................ 26 6.2 GARD’s methodology for assessing resilience to climate change and drought ........................ 30 6.3 Resilience against climate change............................................................................................. 31 6.4 Resilience against droughts longer than historic ...................................................................... 31 6.5 Resilience against climate change and droughts worse than historic ...................................... 35 6.6 GARD’s conclusions on resilience to climate change and severe droughts .............................. 35 7. TW’s future work programme ...................................................................................................... 37 Appendix A – GARD’s simulation model ................................................................................................ 38 Figures Figure 1 - Operation of the unsupported 300 Ml/d Severn-Thames transfer in droughts ................................ 10 Figure 2 - Comparison of speed of drought recovery in the Thames and Severn ............................................. 12 Figure 3 - Operation of TW's proposed STT supported by Vyrnwy and Severn Trent ....................................... 14 Figure 4 - Operation of 400 Ml/d STT with 180 Ml/d Vyrnwy, 247 Ml/d DO for Thames Water ...................... 17 Figure 5 - Operation of 400 Ml/d STT with 103 Ml/d from Severn Trent, 238 Ml/d DO for TW ....................... 19 Figure 6 - Operation of 500 Ml/d STT 308 Ml/d support, 357 Ml/d DO for TW ................................................ 20 Figure 7 - GARD's modelling of London storage 1920 -2008 with 300 Ml/d USTT & 152 Ml/d DO ................... 28 Figure 8 - Operation of Upper Thames Reservoir if the 1933/34 drought extends into 1935 .......................... 32 Figure 9 - Comparison of option performance in extended droughts ............................................................... 33 Tables Table 1 - Sources of raw water for 300 Ml/d USTT in critical droughts ............................................................. 11 Table 2 - Sources of raw water in droughts for TW’s supported 300 Ml/d STT option ..................................... 15 Table 3 - Performance of "Vyrnwy only" support options ................................................................................. 16 Table 4 – Performance of “Severn Trent only” support options ....................................................................... 18 Table 5 - Effect of increasing transfer capacity on combined Vyrnwy & SvT option ......................................... 20 Table 6 - Comparison of Thames Water and GARD DO estimates for Abingdon reservoir ............................... 25 Table 7 - Impact of climate change on option types .......................................................................................... 31 Table 8 - Loss of deployable output (Ml/d) if options are designed for extended droughts ............................. 34 Table 9 - Resilience to climate change and extended droughts (Ml/d) ............................................................. 35 Table 10 – Variation of DO with various climate change and drought scenarios (Ml/d) ................................... 35 Summary Key points: 1. We propose that the following additional options should be retained: • The 300 Ml/d unsupported Severn-Thames transfer • The 190 Ml/d Crossness reuse scheme • The 150 Ml/d Lower Lee direct abstraction • The Marsh Gibbon and Chinnor reservoir sites 2. The deployable output of supported Severn-Thames transfer options has been underestimated and the S-T transfer capacity should be increased to 400 Ml/d if supported by Vyrnwy or Severn Trent alone, or 500 Ml/d if supported by both 3. There should be more ambitious targets for meter penetration and demand savings 4. The deployable output of Upper Thames Reservoir options should be reduced by about 33% to allow for extended droughts 5. The number of reservoir options should be reduced, with no phased options 6. The weakness of hydrological evidence in the feasibility reports should be rectified as a matter of urgency in the next stage of investigation 7. All options should be subject to rigorous and transparent analysis of resilience to climate change and severe droughts Demand management, effluent reuse, direct river abstraction and desalination The fundamental problem for water supplies in London and the South-East is lack of water – the Thames is already heavily exploited. Therefore, we welcome Thames Water’s focus on options that are not dependent on the availability of flows in the Thames – demand management, effluent reuse and desalination. We broadly support the screening decisions on these options, but we consider that the Crossness reuse scheme and the Lower Lee direct river abstraction should both be retained for the next stage of investigation. The need for more hydrological analysis In view of the shortage of water in the South-East, we support Water UK’s work on climate change and resilience. We think that hydrological analysis of water availability is fundamental to options that depend on it – the Upper Thames Reservoir and inter-regional transfers. Therefore, we consider that the complete absence of hydrological analysis in the feasibility reports is a major weakness that has led to incorrect conclusions about the feasibility of these options. We have undertaken our own hydrological analysis of these options. The analysis has included modelling of climate change and extended droughts, similar to Water UK’s work. However, in the absence of any information in the feasibility reports on the
Recommended publications
  • Case Study – April 2018

    Case Study – April 2018

    Collaborative working to reduce disruption. Case study – April 2018. Collaborative working to reduce disruption. We’re passionate about reducing the impact our work can have on customers across our region. So we’re working with gas, power and telecommunications providers, as well as Transport for London, the London Borough of Croydon and the Greater London Authority, to see how collaborating on planned streetworks can reduce the impact on the lives of all our customers, local communities and the environment, while still improving our services. Background. Over the past year we’ve been working with Atkins and their digital partner Fluxx, challenging ourselves to make improvements in the way we deliver streetworks to reduce their impact on our customers, and become more efficient by collaborating better. We know that our essential streetworks can often Visualising complex data. disrupt our customers’ daily lives, especially when a During our workshops with teams across Thames road reopens only to quickly close again for a different Water, we identified numerous benefits of sharing project, or for another company to start work. project information at the planning stage - including less frequent streetwork disruptions, less From talking to our customers, we know that they environmental impact, saving money, and better want us to minimise the inconvenience of roadworks. relations with our partners and customers. Our customers see the need for roadworks to maintain and upgrade infrastructure, but they want However, sharing complicated early stage pre- planning, advance warning, co-ordination with other planning information can be very difficult. This is utilities and highway authorities, and clear information because the information often isn’t finalised yet, it’s about the roadworks and how long they’ll last.
  • II. (Iff* Water Resources for the Future

    II. (Iff* Water Resources for the Future

    £ f\ - ( harv\eS Box 2 HTm l U U a II. t f i t T l- (iff* k t ~ i r tfj; public w^ter suppii ■ supplyV4 c a b stra cts a i f i deirti £ f b C f U L s p m Water resources for the future A STRATEGY FOR THAMES REGION March 2001 H E n v ir o n m e n t A g e n c y Published by: Environment Agency Kings Meadow House Kings Meadow Road Reading RG1 8DQ Tel: 01 18 953 5000 Fax: 0118 950 0388 ISBN 1857055179 © Environment Agency All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Environment Agency. ^ <z^ fts&cr\M c q -a OJ-A'T Foreword i i •__________ Water resources in the Thames Region are already The scenario approach we have used, developed from intensively managed and face further pressures as we the Government's Foresight "Environmental Futures”, look ahead into the new millennium. Playing host to emphasises the difficult choices we may need to make such a large, and growing, population imposes many in planning for sustainable development. We cannot and varied demands on our environment and natural provide complete answers at this stage; there are simply resources. Continuing economic development and too many uncertainties in the face of significant demand for a further 1.2 million homes in the south­ decisions regarding new strategic resource east as well as our own propensity to use more and requirements.
  • Thames 21 - a Planning Perspective and a Sustainable Strategy for the Thames Region in the Past, ‘Improving’ Rivers Often Meant Increasing Their Flow Capacity

    Thames 21 - a Planning Perspective and a Sustainable Strategy for the Thames Region in the Past, ‘Improving’ Rivers Often Meant Increasing Their Flow Capacity

    Thames 21 - A Planning Perspective and a Sustainable Strategy for the Thames Region In the past, ‘improving’ rivers often meant increasing their flow capacity. In future it should refer to multi-purpose schemes designed to improve the capacity o f each river valley to function as a visual amenity, a recreation area, a fishery, a nature reserve, a water supply, a storm-detention area, a drainage network, and a movement corridor for boats, walkers, cyclists and equestrians. landscape Planning’ Tom Turner - ULC Press Ltd 1987 NRA THAMES REGION ADDRESSES H eadquarters Kings Meadow House Kings Meadow Road Tel 01734-535000 Reading RG1 8DQ Fax 01734-500388 W est A rea WEST AREA Isis H ouse Howbery Park Wallingford Tel 01734-535000 Oxon 0X10 8BD Fax 01734-535900 N o r th East A rea G ade H ouse London Road Rickmansworth Tel 01992-635566 Herts WD3 IRS Fax 01992-645468 Aspen House The Grange Crossbrook Street Waltham Cross Tel 01992-635566 Herts EN8 8HE Fax 01992-630707 So u t h E ast A rea Riverside Works HEAD OFFICE Fordbridge Road Tel 01932-789833 AREA OFFICES Sunbury TW16 6AP Fax 01932-786463 SOUTH EAST AREA Wah Kwong House 10/11 Albert Embankment Tel 0171-735-9993 London SE1 7SP Fax 0171-582-3625 Contents Page Maps Page Foreword 1 1. Planning Context 4 2. Major Development Locations and Introduction Catchment Management Plans 6 3. The Water Resource 10 Thames 21, Local Agenda 21, Catchment and Land 4. Water Related Assets 20 Use Planning 5. Geographical Sectors in the Thames Region 26 Sustainability in the NRA’s Functional Responsibilities 11 6.
  • Statement of Response

    Statement of Response

    Statement of Response Draft Water Resources Management Plan 27 February 2009 Thames Water is the UK’s largest water and wastewater services company serving over 13.6 million customers in London and the Thames Valley, supplying an average of 2,600 million litres of drinking water and treating around 2,800 million litres of sewage every day. Information about this publication and further copies are available from: Public Consultation Team Thames Water Clearwater Court Vastern Road Reading RG1 8DB Email [email protected] This document is available to download from the Thames Water website www.thameswater.co.uk Contents List of Tables.............................................................................................................iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................v Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 1 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose of this Statement of Response...................................................... 8 1.2 Overview of the public consultation............................................................. 9 1.3 Summary of responses ............................................................................. 10 2 Responses to the Consultation ......................................................................... 12 2.1 Introduction
  • Our Business Plan 2020–2025 WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS WANT

    Our Business Plan 2020–2025 WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS WANT

    HERE FOR YOU Our Business Plan 2020–2025 WHAT OUR CUSTOMERS WANT: I think it’s important that they show commitment to the future – it’s such a long term issue. There’s nothing I disagree When things go wrong with. In the 2020–2025 I want Thames Water to period they are investing communicate honestly more and paying less about the problem and dividends, that’s positive. be transparent. It’s great that Thames Water is going to schools and teaching children about the water cycle. DELIVERING OUR VISION: 2020–2025 Average bills in real-terms FLAT Customers on our priority services register 400,000 Supporting families who find it hard to pay 200,000 Reduction in leakage 15% Reduction in pollutions 18% Extra spend on improving resilience £2.1 billion Increase in financial resilience – equity buffer in 2025 £4.7 billion Operational unit cost reduction 13.6% Homes powered with the green energy we generate 115,000 All costs are quoted at 17/18 prices unless stated otherwise. Foreword by Steve Robertson I first became a customer of Thames Water in 1981. When I was lucky enough to be offered the opportunity to lead this amazing business I didn’t hesitate. The vital relationship we have with our customers, the critical role that we play in our local communities and supporting our capital city made it an irresistible opportunity and challenge. Since September 2016 I have got to know our customers and my teammates at Thames and if there is one thing I’ve learned it’s that delivering clean healthy water and safely handling the waste we all produce every day is a lot more complicated than it sounds.
  • GARD Response To

    GARD Response To

    GARD response to Thames Water’s Consultation on Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 29th April 2018 GARD Rivendell 142 The Causeway Steventon Oxfordshire OX13 6SJ www.abingdonreservoir.org [email protected] Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 15 1.1 Scope of response ..................................................................................................... 16 1.2 Availability of information and transparency ............................................................. 17 1.3 The effectiveness of stakeholder engagement ........................................................... 18 1.4 Over-dependence on Atkins’ stochastic river flow data ............................................. 19 2. Supply/Demand balance and deficit forecasts......................................... 22 2.1 Population Forecasting Issues. ................................................................................... 24 2.2 Per Capita Consumption ............................................................................................ 30 2.3 Existing deployable output and allowance for climate change ................................... 32 2.4 Uncertainty in the deficit forecast ............................................................................. 36 3. Leakage and demand management options .............................................
  • The 1975-76 Drought a Contemporary and Retrospective Review

    The 1975-76 Drought a Contemporary and Retrospective Review

    National Hydrological Monitoring Programme The 1975-76 Drought a contemporary and retrospective review National Hydrological Monitoring Programme THE 1975-76 DROUGHT A contemporary and retrospective review by John Rodda & Terry Marsh 1 | The 1975/76 Drought – a contemporary and retrospective view This report should be cited as Rodda, J.C. and Marsh, T.J. 2011. The 1975-76 Drought - a contemporary and retrospective review. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. 58 pages. ISBN: 978-1-906698-24-9 Publication Address Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Maclean Building Crowmarsh Gifford Wallingford Oxfordshire OX10 8BB UK General and business enquiries: +44 (0) 1491 692562 E-mail: [email protected] This document is also available on the CEH website: www.ceh.ac.uk www.ceh.ac.uk | 2 Foreword The 1975-76 drought was at the time considered the most severe experienced across much of the UK. Given its extreme intensity and broad spatial extent, the documentation of the drought remains relatively limited; this is particularly true in relation to material reviewing the wide range of its impacts. To redress the balance, Part I of this publication comprises a report on the drought completed in 1977, but previously unpublished, by John Rodda (CEH Fellow and formerly Deputy Director of the Water Data Unit). The 35-year period since the 1975-76 drought has been one of considerable hydrological volatility with notable drought episodes in 1984, 1989-90, 1991-92, 1995-97, 2003 and 2004-061. The cluster of recent droughts, together with a continuing increase in temperatures has focussed concern on the degree to which climate change may be increasing the vulnerability of the UK to periods of sustained rainfall deficiency.
  • Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options

    Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options

    Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report Update April 2017 Thames Water Utilities Ltd Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options 356236 WCD WAM 40 A PiMS/356236/Documents 30 August 2016 Fine Screening Report Update Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report Update April 2017 Thames Water Utilities Ltd Clearwater Court, Vastern Rd, Reading, West Berkshire, RG1 8DB Mott MacDonald, 22 Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JD, United Kingdom T +44 (0)1223 463500 F +44 (0)1223 461007 W www.mottmac.com Thames Water WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report Update Issue and revision record Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description 01 29 September 2016 Ania Bujnowicz Wendy Kilmurray Bill Hume Smith Draft for stakeholder comment Bill Hume Smith 02 21 April 2017 Jamie Radford Wendy Kilmurray Bill Hume Smith Updated draft for stakeholder Ania Bujnowicz Bill Hume Smith comment Robert MacDonald Victoria Price Bill Hume Smith 03 25 April 2017 Jamie Radford Wendy Kilmurray Bill Hume Smith Updated Tables 3.2, 3.3, 5.14 and Figure 3.4 Information class: Secure This report has been prepared solely for use by the party which We accept no responsibility for any error or omission in the commissioned it (the ‘Client’) in connection with the captioned report which is due to an error or omission in data, information project. It should not be used for any other purpose. No person or statements supplied to us by other parties including the other than the Client or any party who has expressly agreed client (‘Data’). We have not independently verified such Data terms of reliance with us (the ‘Recipient(s)’) may rely on the and have assumed it to be accurate, complete, reliable and content, information or any views expressed in the report.
  • Section 7: Appraisal of Resource Options – April 2020

    Section 7: Appraisal of Resource Options – April 2020

    Section 7 Appraisal of resource options Final Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Section 7: Appraisal of resource options – April 2020 Table of contents A. Introduction 1 Purpose of section ....................................................................................................................... 1 Structure of this section ............................................................................................................... 1 Phased approach to water resource option development ........................................................... 2 Stakeholder engagement ............................................................................................................. 3 Taking a system approach ........................................................................................................... 4 B. Generic screening 5 C. Water resource feasibility assessment 8 Approach to feasibility assessment ............................................................................................. 8 Identifying third party options ....................................................................................................... 8 Feasible List ............................................................................................................................... 13 D. System reinforcements 31 Water treatment cross option study ........................................................................................... 31 Network reinforcement cross option study ...............................................................................
  • Draft Cherwell and Ray Catchment Plan Mar 2021

    Draft Cherwell and Ray Catchment Plan Mar 2021

    Cherwell & Ray Catchment Plan DRAFT March 2021 edit – based on a 2019 partnership workshop and follow-on discussions. River Cherwell restoration stretch, Spiceball Park, Wild Banbury Project. Credit: Judith Hartley 2019 Please note: This is a working document – it is still being refined. Even after publication it will be periodically reviewed and updated by partners as funding allows and as the catchment partnership develops, especially the projects listing. 1 Cherwell and Ray Catchment Partnership 2 Cherwell and Ray Catchment Partnership Contents Map of the Cherwell & Ray catchment ................................................................................................... 5 1. Our Vision for the catchment ............................................................................................................. 6 2. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6 2.1. The Cherwell & Ray Catchment Partnership................................................................................ 6 2.1.1. Role of the partnership ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2. Aims....................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.3. Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2. Drivers
  • Thames Water Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Statement of Response No. 2

    Thames Water Revised Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Statement of Response No. 2

    Thames Water Revised draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Statement of Response No. 2 Main Report Revised draft Water Resources Management Plan 2019 Statement of Response No 2 – Main Report April 2019 Table of contents A. Executive summary 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 Planning future water supply ....................................................................................................... 1 Public consultation on our draft plan ........................................................................................... 2 Further public consultation on our revised draft plan .................................................................. 3 Summary of the common issues raised ...................................................................................... 4 A recap of our proposed plan ...................................................................................................... 5 Adaptive planning and further work............................................................................................. 6 B. Introduction 7 Water resources planning ........................................................................................................... 7 Engagement and consultation ..................................................................................................... 7 Purpose of this report .................................................................................................................