Public ownership is not the only – or best – way to oversee our water supply
Derwent aqueduct water pipes stretching across the dried up bed of Ladybower Reservoir Peak District National Park
4 min read
Two weeks ago, I took the nice scenic walk to Ardingly reservoir; setting off from the village, taking in the edge of the South of England showground, and proceeding along a leafy lane through a field full of baleful looking cows to the water.
Only there isn’t much water. Great wings of baked earth surround the protruding mass of the concrete tower which broods like a vast flamingo, its single leg rising from a disappointing puddle.
Having seen it, I found the announcement of severe drought in the south of England unsurprising. What we do about it is another question, or rather, it is an overlapping series of questions with multiple dependencies, lines of accountability, administrative boundaries, shared responsibilities, allocated costs, and project, network and system level risks to water supply.
In the late 1880s a commentator listed the active authorities in Bedfordshire: “3 municipal boroughs; 3 urban sanitary districts; 6 rural sanitary districts, some of which stretch into adjoining counties; 6 highway districts, two of which stretch into adjoining counties; 4 lighting and watching districts; 45 school districts, four of which run into adjoining counties; 6 [poor law] unions, some of which overstep the county borders; 134 entire poor law parishes, and portions of three more. All these divisions,” he noted, “overlap and interlace. Each of them is governed by its own petty authority, which for the most part wholly ignores the existence of any other division or authority.”
Plus ça change. The present-day English water system is still like that. It divides responsibility between central government, regulators, private water companies, local authorities, river basin bodies and voluntary catchment partnerships. Their boundaries rarely correspond with one another or with the borders that residents recognise.
The South East is suffering most, so let’s take an example there: Kent is served by four water companies—Southern Water, South East Water, Affinity Water and Thames Water—and straddles two River Basin Districts: the South East River Basin, which covers much of Kent and extends west through Sussex and Hampshire to include the Isle of Wight, and the Thames River Basin, which covers parts of north and west Kent, London and areas as far west as Gloucestershire and Oxfordshire.
Responsibility for flooding is divided among the Environment Agency, Kent County Council as lead local flood authority, district councils, internal drainage boards and water companies according to the source and type of flood risk.
Drought responsibilities are also distributed. The Environment Agency monitors rainfall, river flows, groundwater and environmental impacts and coordinates drought response; water companies must maintain statutory drought plans covering triggers, demand restrictions and alternative supplies; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs oversees national policy and legislation; the Environment Agency convenes the National Drought Group; and five regional water-resources groups coordinate long-term planning across company boundaries.
That’s a lot of interested parties. Add to that the fact that we haven’t built a new reservoir for forty years, and we must. When we do and try to fix the leaking pipes and fit water meters, this will add a great big bill for new infrastructure to the confusion of administrative boundaries and distributed responsibilities. That bill has to be paid somehow, just as the bill for electrification has to be paid. The UK was an early mover in electrification, rushing headlong into decarbonisation and renewable generation in ways that – in retrospect – look unwise and are certainly proving expensive.
We are not first movers on water.
That lets us learn from effective schemes elsewhere. We need to seize that opportunity and not default to thinking that public ownership is the – only, or best – solution to the problem. Public control can’t secure the necessary local legitimacy and governance that will make higher bills acceptable, nor will it resolve the confusion of boundaries and responsibilities.
Devolution must play a role, and it should suit the kinds of hydrological boundaries Cunliffe recommends and go beyond mayoral oversight. In a paper written for the Common Ground Institute, we are advocating for new Water Parliaments with representation for central and local government, industry and bill payers. If the Prime Minister really believes in electoral reform and regional distributed powers, here is his opportunity to act and give water the governance it needs to secure long-term resilience for England.
Genevieve Maitland Hudson is Deputy Chief Executive Officer at Social Investment Business
