Water management transition approaches

Climate change and population growth, in particular urban populations, are increasing pressure on water resources and the water environment. By 2050 86% of the population of OECD countries will be living in cities. There is an increasing recognition of the need for Integrated Water Management. This should be multi-disciplinary and ensure we are managing all aspects of water together (water quality, availability, flooding etc.) while delivering multiple benefits through planning and liveable cities. Many approaches were presented and discussed at the International Water Association's Efficient 2015 conference in April 2015.

The international Water Association is leading development an Urban Water Charter. This provides the opportunity to discuss some of these questions and ensure we join up water, planning and urban development for liveable and resilient cities. In the UK the Water Resources Planning Guideline currently out for consultation enables more flexible and risk based approaches to planning that could support a transition towards integrated water resources planning. This also fits with the call for improved wastewater and drainage planning from the Ofwat resilience taskforce.

Below I outline a range of models and ask questions of how we can best use these for sustainable water management. But one to start with is - Are we confusing stakeholders by the many names we give to these approaches or does this make them more relevant for specific geographies?

Water transition models/ new paradigms

Some of the many names being proposed for integrated water management approaches are outlined below (WERF, 2015) and I outline a selection of these:

• Regenerative infrastructure 
• Integrated water resource management 
• Water sensitive urban design 
• Integrated resource planning 
• Integrated regional water management 
• Total water cycle management 
• Integrated urban water management 
• Blue Cities
• One Water
• Whole water

Water Sensitive Cities

The transition to water sensitive cities is being promoted by the International Water Association and is supported through Water Sensitive Urban Design delivery. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is the process of planning and engineering the built environment through urban design to integrate with water-cycle management to help manage stormwater, prevent flooding and improve water quality. WSUD aims to encourage harmony between water and the community and create attractive, functional and sustainable surroundings for local people and the environment. Taking a holistic approach to managing water in urban areas, WSUD focuses on the management of water supplies, surface water and waste water, and also helps to build resistance against climate change.  

Transition approach to Water Sensitive Cities - compares UK and Australia (CIRIA, 2013)

A range of enabling factors have been identified for transition to Water Sensitive Cities. I provided comments on the London Infrastructure Plan around what these might mean in a UK context. Key elements include targets, funding points and demonstration projects. In Australia the business case for water sensitive cities has been explored in detail.

Key factors and GLA role in enabling the transition to a Water Sensitive City

Four generations of water infrastructure

A further conceptual approach incorporating elements of service innovation has been presented by the Institute for Sustainable Futures in Sydney. This associates the relative cost per household of water infrastructure provision with a certain generation of water infrastructure. The third generation in particular focuses on alternative but centralised supply options such as desalination or wastewater reuse. In Australia, the high cost associated with such options was justified by the short time-frame in which to make planning decisions to address the Millennium Drought (1995-2012). However, the fourth generation focuses on integrated service provision and customer service, with the aim of meeting multiple objectives. For example, green infrastructure could be regarded as fourth generation as it can deliver water saving, stormwater management, heat island mitigation and health benefits, which have been realised in projects such as the Olympic Park in London. More examples are in my post on financing the fourth generation of infrastructure.

Relative cost per household for different generations of water infrastructure (White and Turner, 2014)

OneWater

Another approach published in 2015 by the Water and Environment Research Foundation is "One Water". The definition of this is below (see full report):

"The One Water approach considers the urban water cycle as a single integrated system, in which all urban water flows are recognized as potential resources, and the interconnectedness of water supply, groundwater, stormwater and wastewater is optimized, and their combined impact on flooding, water quality, wetlands, watercourses, estuaries and coastal waters is recognized." 

In describing this for WERF a number of case studies were presented to demonstrate:

• Planning and partnerships
• Legislation and regulations
• Economics and finance
• Culture, knowledge & capacity
• Citizen and stakeholder engagement

Future Cities UK

The UK Water Partnership and the Foresight programme jointly produced "Future Visions for Water and Cities: A thought piece". This developed five visions on how cities may manage the water cycle better in the year 2065:

• "Vision 1 – Green Food & Garden Cityscapes: More food is grown both in and on buildings, while water sensitive urban design management plays a pivotal role.
• Vision 2 – Flood-proof Cities: Existing cities and new city areas floating on stilts are designed to withstand sea-level rise, extreme rainfall and expansion of river floodplains.
• Vision 3 – Smart Homes & City Networks: Using the internet, appliances, networks and data-hubs interact to ensure optimal management of water supply and demand.
• Vision 4 – Cities & the Underworld: Deep geology beneath cities is harnessed to house combined systems delivering effective drainage, water, heating and cooling services.
• Vision 5 – Community Transition Cities: Utility run programmes change communities’ water-related habits and practices by ‘transitioning’ these to a more sustainable level."

I attended a workshop on this in June 2015 in London and wrote a blog on the approach. In summary though, the workshop supported greater debate within the water community and a recognition of the need to focus on cities. However, there is a need for this to integrate with existing initiatives such as the 100 resilient cities project and C40 cities so that water can be an enabler of wider social and economic transformations.

Future City Visions

Blue Cities

The Canadian approach is "Blue Cities" and this has developed out of the Blue Economy Initiative. The report from this initiative was developed based on interviews with 17 subject matter experts and thought leaders. Their vision for a water sustainable city includes:

• Water is visible and valued
• A culture of conservation exists
• Responsibility is shared

The approach is then developed around essential innovations and making the business case. As with the OneWater approach the input of experts and case studies provides a practical aspect to the transition outlined towards a Blue City.

Conclusions

There is a need for innovation and a transition to new ways of managing water. Many approaches are being developed internationally, however questions arise in terms of how joined up they are and how we can best apply them:

• Do we need to agree a consistent message on transition to integrated water management approaches to ensure both the water management community and our wider stakeholders can take this vision forward?
• How can we best communicate these to change water resources management plans and business planning in the UK between now and 2019?
• What are the common elements for transition? What can we learn from partnership working and business cases developed across many different countries?

The international focus is increasingly on urban water management with a city scale. As has been recognised with climate change (e.g. C40 cities programme) this could be a scale at which we can achieve greater stakeholder engagement from water companies, local authorities, the private sector and communities towards more sustainable water management approaches.

COP21 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions and Water

We are now heading towards the end of the COP21 climate change negotiations in Paris. However, I thought this is still a good time to bring up the issue of water and climate change. Water is a key medium through which we feel the impacts of climate change but also a key driver through carbon emissions from treatment, use and disposal.

In 2014 I worked with several countries including Azerbaijan to consider water sector emissions in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). These were designed by the UNFCCC to encourage countries to consider their domestic mitigation and adaptation measures and communicate these ahead of the conference (the figure below from the UNFCC portal show the progress of submissions to date).

This post outlines case-studies on water and climate change and provides a link to a work in progress document collating water sector actions in submitted INDCs.

INDC Submissions to date

Water sector INDCs - Azerbaijan Case Study

I was invited by the European Commission funded ClimaEast project to present at a National Workshop on Water-related Policies and Measures as part of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. In my presentation I covered:

• Water sector energy use and carbon emissions
• UK research identifying 90% of emissions from water supply, use and disposal are related to heating hot water in the home
• UK research identifying that demand management options can have lower carbon costs than large centralised supply options
• Australian example - heating hot water in the home accounts for 8% of Australia's GHG emissions, 13% of electricity use, and 18% of natural gas use
• Case studies - South East Water; joint water and energy efficiency programes; Water Sensitive Urban Design
• Irrigation and agriculture dominate water use in Azerbaijan, however water recycling is increasing. The carbon emissions from this sector needed further assessment.

Water sector carbon emissions in a city

Review of INDCs and Water

The UNFCCC has published the INDCs submitted by each country. I've been updating a google doc with water sector actions. The aim is to collate this information for further review and it can input into projects such as the International Water Associations Water and Climate Change WACCLIM initiative for utilities and how this links to city, national and international climate change agendas.

Some of the key messages on water in INDCs include:

Developing the Ministry of Water and Irrigation’s (MWI) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Policy for the Jordanian Water Sector (2015) starting with utilization of sludge and other biosolids to generate energy, which is one of several projects announced under the policy, which seeks to achieve a 15 % reduction in energy consumption of billed water by the year 2025 through the introduction of economically feasible and environment-friendly power generation systems based on renewable energy sources.  Introducing renewable energy as a source to supply water systems. (Jordan)

Water resource management tools, which include climate change and variability considerations, will be in place for the country’s priority water basins (Columbia)

The initial costing of implementing the green growth and climate resilience strategy indicated that Rwanda will need 24.15 Billion USD in the sector of Water resource management, Agriculture and Energy up to 2030 (Rwanda)

Singapore has developed a robust, diversified water supply system through “The Four National Taps”: namely, local catchment water, imported water, NEWater7 and desalinated water. Since 2011, with the completion of three reservoirs in urbanised areas, the total water catchment area has been increased from half to two-thirds of Singapore’s land surface. (Singapore)

Guarantee the integral management of water for its different uses (agriculture, ecological, urban, industrial and domestic). (Mexico)

Tonga’s current reliance on imported oil for its development needs, which supplies all transport fuel, much of the energy for water pumping. The Government also aims to replace all diesel-based water pumping engines by 2017 using solar power. (Tonga)

Please contact me if you have any suggestions for this or are interesting in helping collate and assess water related INDC contributions.

Working together to identify climate change vulnerabilities (Bursa, Turkey)

Competition in the Water Sector: Financing the Fourth Generation of Water Infrastructure

Originally published on the Alliance for Water Efficiency Financing Sustainable Water Blog (19/10/15)

What if your building, home or office, was also a water company that could enable innovative decentralized water management approaches? In the UK and Australia, changes to the water competition regime are enabling new companies to provide water services at an individual building scale, for neighborhoods and towns or as strategic new supplies available for existing water companies. This post explains the approaches behind these at the building and neighborhood scale and outlines two case studies.

A fourth generation of water infrastructure has been identified by the Institute for Sustainable Futures Sydney as an emerging, efficient, decentralized, integrated and fit-for-purpose approach (Figure below). We have seen increasing costs from centralized options, including desalination and other drought resilient measures, that can no longer be afforded by utilities and local government in a US context or passed on to customers in an Australian and UK context. Enabling competition in water service provision is one model that can finance this fourth sector of water infrastructure.

Figure: Four generations of water infrastructure (White and Turner, 2014)

Competition explained

In a previous post, I outlined retail competition as the customer-facing services that can help improve water efficiency. Upstream competition (in the economic, not catchment or watershed sense) includes sourcing and developing water resources for public supply, water and sewerage treatment services, or managing a network to transport water and wastewater (see orange arrows in figure below).

Figure: Overview of the value chain and difference between upstream and retail competition

Examples of competition could include, but aren’t limited to:

●     A new supplier of water and wastewater for a property development using recycled water or a new source of water

●     A wastewater recycling operator who provides a source of water for a new factory, which could include “mining” and treating water from an existing sewer system

●     A local authority that harvests stormwater through sustainable drainage systems/ green infrastructure and provides this as a source of water to an existing water supplier

●     An innovative demand management company that reduces commercial or domestic demand for water and sells this to a utility as a “source” of water

An analogy from the energy sector could be the selling of renewable energy into the grid. For example a new wind farm could be built by a private developer and the existing energy utility would buy from this. Or a new factory could purchase energy from this wind farm directly to augment its power supply. The situation for water can be more complicated due to the different levels of water quality matched against different end water uses.

Case Study: Central Park Sydney

This innovative new development is served by Central Park Water, servicing 4,000 residents and 15,000 workers and visitors daily. The world’s largest membrane bioreactor system, with ultraviolet and reverse osmosis treatment in the basement of the building, provides water to 50-70% of non-potable uses including toilet flushing, washing machine use and garden/green wall irrigation.

Figure: Central Park Sydney showing green walls (Photo: Hans Veneman, Creative Commons, Flickr)

Water sources include (see interactive graphic):

●     Rainwater from roofs

●     Storm water from impermeable surfaces/planter box drainage

●     Groundwater from basement drainage systems

●     Sewage from an adjacent public sewer

●     Sewage from all buildings within the Central Park community

●     Drinking water from the public water main

Wider benefits stated by Central Park Water include lower infrastructure charges for developers, quicker land release speeds for development and lower bills for customers. Central Park Water also supply recycled water to surrounding buildings, including the Institute for Sustainable Technology.

A range of similar schemes are developing in New South Wales, including an additional eight communities and more than 25,000 dwellings. As of April 2015, the economic regulator IPART reported 28 current licences under the Water Industry Competition Act 2006.

Case Study: Inset appointments UK

Through the process of inset appointments, Albion Water was one of the first companies in the UK to provide an alternative water service to a new development. At Knowle Village, they supplied the wastewater and sustainable drainage infrastructure to 750 residential homes with a saving of £2m for the developer and reduced customer tariffs compared with the existing monopoly water supplier.

After six years, research into wetland wastewater treatment with Cranfield University has identified a wider range of benefits, including improved water quality and biodiversity outcomes along with improved monitoring of activities to reduce energy use and managing flood risk during storm events. As of August 2015, there are 5 small water and sewerage companies, including Albion Water, providing these inset schemes in the UK.

Learning from case studies and questions for competition

The case studies above have been enabled by competition regimes. These require innovation in the ways we see customers and move away from traditional centralized water utility regimes. The case studies also link with transitions towards resilience by providing semi-autonomous areas that are more resilient themselves and reduce the impact of new development on existing centralized systems. The UK Water Efficiency Network (WATEF) is currently considering these issues through its service innovation technical committee, which I chair. Further innovation could include companies providing water efficiency retrofits of existing areas with guaranteed water savings similar to water neutrality approaches.

Competition isn’t the only option. An alternative community model is taking shape in the South West of England. This is called Rain Share and involves connecting those with excess water, including roof runoff, with those who need water. The first example of this will be between householders and an adjacent allotment for growing vegetables. In the UK, innovative approaches on water reuse have been implemented by water companies in the North West Cambridge development and at the London Olympic Park. However, both schemes required innovative thinking from water companies but also clear partnerships with the developer, the University for Cambridge and the Olympic Development Authority in London.

Competition may provide a way forward for development of innovative water supply options. This has been applied within the privatized UK context, as well as the public utilities in Australia. Some questions that arise are:

●     Will upstream competition be successful in the UK and Australia in the face of long-term maintenance and operation requirements?

●     How can we consider upstream competition and nested semi-autonomous water supplies within wider planning to ensure optimal economic, social and environmental outcomes?

●     Will community based approaches or those led by more institutional developers (e.g. universities or legacy sites) provide the same level of innovation as new private water companies?

●     Can existing monopoly water service companies provide similar innovations through partnership working and funding approaches?

Notes and further information:

●     The Water Industry Act 1991 in England enables customers using over 50 million litres of water per year to be supplied by a new water service company or gain access to wholesale prices form the current provider in the area. The Water Act 2014 opens this up to enable the supply of water to an existing water utility by an entity or person other than a water utility.

●     The Water Industry Competition Act 2006 in New South Wales sets out similar regions for this state in Australia. The act provides for licensing third party providers of water services, access for these third parties to existing infrastructure and enables the regulator IPART to arbitrate disputes in this area.

Learning from the US for Green Infrastructure delivery in the UK

Working in a company with over 40,000 employees around the world provides some interesting opportunities for collaboration. Following discussions with a few cities in the UK around water management and resilience I got in contact with the team delivering green infrastructure in the US.

I posed some of the questions from one city to Andrew Reese, who has been leading stormwater management work for 30 years in cities including Philadelphia, Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville and others.

Examples of Green Infrastructure in Atlanta (Rayburn and Reese, 2014)

Questions on Green Infrastructure (GI) implementation in the USA

Are US cities driving GI/ SuDS programmes for flood risk management (rather than water quality as a side benefit of flood risk management)?

Flood risk isn't really driving programmes in the US but is increasingly being seen as a benefit of programmes. Stormwater management and combined sewer overflows or CSOs are the main drivers linked to water quality. Green infrastructure is showing flood risk reduction benefits for retrofit rather than new large-scale flood control programmes. An example is underground injection wells linked to high infiltration speed rain gardens have been used successfully in Seattle.

Resilience planning has led to more GI for flood risk management. Examples from Los Angeles and Atlanta include digging up whole streets and integrating gravel catch basins, which can capture stormwater for a whole neighbourhood in one street.

How are US cities managing to limit unwanted distributional impacts of bill rises to pay for the work?

Amec Foster Wheeler have worked on over 70 stormwater use fee programmes. By providing residents with the option for credits on GI for their property this helps address increases in fees. Another option has been rate relief programmes for means tested poor individuals (e.g. food stamps) which can be paid for by a voluntary rounding up of customer bills and placing this into a fund or through direct application to the utility. Nashville and Philadelphia have well developed credit and incentive mechanisms.

What are the lessons we need to learn/ be aware of that don't appear in best practice guides/ case studies?

The main problems in the US in order are:

1. Issues from poor construction practice; 
2. Early maintenance not undertaken; 
3. Poor design. 

The Atlanta stormwater design guidelines provides a good example of best practice used on over 1400 projects to date, not just for the guidance, but where the use of inspectors and assistance during construction helped to ensure the right processes were put into place and that stormwater features were adequately stabilised over time. Two inspection visits during construction led to significantly lower failure rates. Similar examples exist for the pacific North West where pipes and guidance were provided for domestic projects or in Nashville to support 600 raingardens. This additional support has been essential for implementation but isn't captured in the guidance alone.

How will the new GI estate be managed in a drought?

Special designs have been developed in the Western USA using native plants and xeriscaping. From a UK perspective I think we need more research into the performance of biotention systems during drought, however they can be designed to hold back smaller rain events and use these to keep plants alive during drought as is the case in Australia. Stormwater reuse for irrigation has been a wider use of GI in Melbourne.

Implications for the UK

Climate change and population growth are placing increasing pressures on water management in urban approaches. Following the 2007 floods the Pitt Review led to the development of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and subsequent requirements in planning for green infrastructure through sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). However, issues remaining for implementation include the need for better partnership and funding arrangements, research and guidance development to support best practice, and more effective adoption and long term maintenance of these features.

The stormwater utility fee approach may provide an opportunity for water companies in the UK to address increasing impermeable surfaces and urban creep. However, this would need to be balanced against existing issues of water poverty in the industry. A similar approach has been applied in the UK by water companies offering social tariffs and water efficiency options for customers who have a water meter compulsorily installed (Southern Water is one example).

As we deliver large scale SuDS retrofit programmes and incorporate these into planning for new developments we should ensure sufficient support and capacity building is provided around the guidance to reduce failure rates. The experience from the US further supports capacity building organisations and initiatives in the UK.

Planning for drought

The Environment Agency in England recently consulted on water company drought plan guidance. In the UK this framework is continually evolving and supported companies during the 2012 drought along with efforts to increase longer term resiliency. In this blog I comment on this guidance and ask how we can better integrate water resources planning and drought planning?

Long term planning

Better integration is required between drought planning and water resources management plans. A real options analysis approach as part of water resources planning can support development of incremental measures to address the more extreme droughts that we expect with climate change. An example of this approach was presented for Sydney by Stuart White at the International Water Association Efficient 2015 conference (Figure below), whereby a significant costs saving would have arisen through planning for and not building a desalination plant. Similar approaches have already been applied in the UK such as the Thames Estuary 2100 project.

Real Options Analysis approach applied in Sydney, Australia (White, 2015)

This was also my experience working for the Water Corporation in Western Australia during what was at the time the driest year on record (2006). As part of our drought response we utilised a detailed Integrated Resource Planning model to develop short and long term demand management behaviour change programmes to meet the gap between new supply options. Additionally, a broader portfolio of options as part of a “security through diversity” approach was important in enabling Western Australia to have lesser watering restrictions than other states. This has now developed into climate resilient planning. Having a suite of water resources options available as part of drought planning can help in the event of future extreme drought beyond what we traditionally plan for.

Resilience approaches

Resilience is increasingly being recognised by the economic regulator Ofwat and the Environment Agency as essential in the water sector. This was recently defined by an Ofwat task and finish group as:

Resilience is the ability to cope with, and recover from, disruption, and adapt to, trends and variability in order to maintain services for people and protect the natural environment now and in the future.

Resilience is also increasingly a theme for cities in the UK and is being explored as part of the 100 Resilient Cities programme. The interaction between the regional scale drought management responses of water companies and city scale actions need to be considered. This links to land-use planning where decisions on water management for new developments can have a significant impact on how resilient a city is to drought. Water sensitive cities, for example, is an approach that addresses this and considers decentralised options such as water re-use, rainwater harvesting and stormwater management that could reduce pressures on centralised systems. Appropriate plant use in gardens and streetscapes along with bioretention systems that are designed to make best use of any rainfall during drought can bring wider benefits including urban cooling, recreation and amenity(which can now be quantified in a recent tool from CIRIA).

By developing semi-autonomous water supplies throughout cities via new development and opportunistically as part of retrofit programmes we can support a transition towards greater resilience. In the case of the UK this could be implemented through inset appointments and competition, where similar legislation in NSW has led to the Central Park development in Sydney. The new Central Park Water private utility harvests rainwater, stormwater and uses a membrane bioreactor system to reuse and supply 50-70% of the buildings demand (4,000 residents and 15,000 workers/ visitors). A benefit and selling point of this to the development is that is makes it independent of watering restrictions during a drought.

Drought communications plans

The UK Water Industry Research (UKWIR) report Understanding the impacts of drought restrictions provides useful analysis of the first implementation of new temporary use bans (water use restrictions) following the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 coming into force. I presented on this at the CIWEM Annual Conference in 2014 (see presentation). This includes suggestions on how to monitor communications and their impacts. Additionally, a comparison between communications implemented by the different companies impacted by the 2012 drought provides lessons on when to start communications and the best methods.

The analysis was supported by a review of messaging information provided by the water companies and a survey of 1000 domestic customers and 300 non-domestic customers on the impacts of communications. Key findings included that messages from water companies were linked with both domestic and non-domestic customers who had greater knowledge about watering restrictions and changed their behaviour. This suggests water companies should remain the key route for communications around drought measures. Although a minority of households self-identified as confused by the 11 different TUB categories, they subsequently struggled to identify which activities were restricted. This suggests further improvements are required in how we communicate these and look towards longer term messaging around the value of water and water conservation.

Reviewing what has happened during a drought

The UKWIR report also identified a range of data gaps and varying levels of detail between water companies. A top down or bottom up assessment of the impacts of TUBs on water use can be undertaken, however due to flooding events while these were in place during the 2012 drought, neither method provided statistically robust trends. In future, companies who record their communications efforts in more detail may find this easier to match with impacts on demand.

Methods to assess changes in water use during a drought

As we move towards higher levels of smart metering we need to consider what this means for evaluating the impacts of actions taken during a drought. For example, better disaggregation of demand components (e.g. toilet, shower, etc.) within smart meter data and real-time analysis could identify the potential vs actual savings in outdoor use but also better target the larger proportion of domestic consumption that is indoor use.

An example for South East Queensland was presented at the IWA Efficient 2013 conference by Cara Beal. Through the residential end use study (bottom-up) they could determine changes in water use in the home linked with levels of watering restriction. A similar longer-term analysis of smart metering data for households in the UK may provide this information to target restrictions in future.

Water consumption trends with internal and external splits highlighted

What can we learn from the Isle of Eigg for water?

The Isle of Eigg in Scotland is a world first example of combining wind, solar and hydropower with energy storage in one system to enable 90% renewable energy supply to the island. However, it isn't just about the technology, it is the ownership and governance along with changing behaviours that have enabled this innovative low carbon approach. After hearing about this scheme through a BBC Costing the Earth Podcast I have outlined these further and consider the implications for integrated water management below.

Isle of Eigg
Progress in community renewable energy and the use of decentralised approaches is rapidly enabling some areas to go off grid and bringing benefits to those areas that are too expensive to serve.

There are several features which make the Eigg scheme unique and are the reasons why this has been an international case study for researchers. These include:

• First scheme to combine hydro, wind, solar and energy storage in one system
• The community owns the island and owns/ developed its own energy supply
• Community learning has been a key feature of the scheme. A maximum of 5kWh is allowed for each family. A kettle of immersion heater with an element accounts for 2.5 kWh and stickers were provided to households to remind and educate them about energy use of appliances to reduce peak loads on the system.
• Sweat equity - much of the cost from the run of river hydro scheme installed was met through labour provided by the islanders. This in turn means they have a stake in their energy supply while reducing the overall costs.
• The cost of this decentralised solution is far lower than an interconnector supplying energy from the mainland or the individual diesel generators employed before. 
• Economic and wider benefits are already arising with the scheme, including population growth on the island enabled by a renewable energy supply.

What can we learn from a water perspective?

There are similar areas of water supply that are hard to supply on islands or in rural communities. Additionally, private water supplies are increasingly being recognised as a potential health risk. In England there are currently 37,717 known private supplies and in a recent study 13% of supplies failed tests for E.coli (see link for more info).

• Communities can get together to develop water management schemes. Upstream competition in England may further enable local community trusts to take over water services or provide services to new developments.
• Either through community trusts or through a new innovative private supplier - supporting smaller communities using decentralised water supplies can enable more integrated water management approaches
• Linking surface water management and SuDS with water recycling and re-use
• Community scale rainwater harvesting and third pipe systems can enable a greater level of control over maintenance and water quality
• Maintenance of SuDS features for recreation and amenity on both private and public land supported by volunteers in the local community
• Opportunities to join up with combined heat and power schemes and ground/ air source heat pumps
• Behaviour change - water budgets are an approach that is increasingly used in the USA for water efficiency. Within the context of a community water supply a lower level of service could be agreed that means peak water use needs to be limited by household behaviour as in the case for energy on Eigg.

Moving from private water supplies to water sensitive local communities

• More information about the Isle of Eigg energy scheme is available online
• The CIRIA UK Scoping study for Water Sensitive Urban Design outlines some of the integrated approaches possible for water and is available online 

Water in Future Cities

"Thinking long term" and "blue and green cities" were some of the concepts discussed at the UK Water Partnership RCUK event Future Visions for Water and Cities 30 June 2015 in London.

It was great to see so much enthusiasm for new approaches to sustainable water management and the event was very well attended throughout the day. The use of breakout groups and workshops for the second half of the day helped add to the debate and motivate those attending. The day was billed as the "Great Think" and an opportunity to address water management issues for cities in the UK and internationally.

From the "Great Stink" to the "Great Think"

A summary of the report launched at the event is available on the future of cities blog and below is my summary of the day. A few key issues this workshop raised for me included:

• Where are the people? Citizens were not explicitly included in some of the future city visions and how these would be achieved.
• Is water at the centre of future cities? In order to engage wider decision makers water can be a focus and enabler, however priorities may be on growth and social issues rather than direct environmental issues. This supports the need to make a business case for water management within the wider context of future cities.

Summary of presentations

Cities in 2065: Science and Foresight, Sir Mark Walport, Government Chief
Scientific Adviser
City scale research matters as this is where policies succeed or fail. Good infrastructure is often not valued but there are opportunities with devolution of power to cities with the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [HL] 2015-16.

The foresight project on cities has developed outputs on liveability, water being crucial for attractive cities, and identified that future city growth is largely mapped across areas of water scarcity in the UK.

Household growth and water stress 2011-2021 (RTPI 2014)

A systems approach is required for future cities - linking IT, water, energy and cycles of impact. The foresight project developed a range of  scenarios. This encompasses a diversity of evidence types and included local people through workshops in 20 cities across the UK. The full reports and essays from the foresight programme are available online.

Water Resilience for Cities – a green and blue future, Dr Mark Fletcher, Arup
Climate change will be felt through water and this could be through shocks (extreme weather) or increments (sea level rise). A move towards recovery/ adaptation is required within the context of urbanisation. which leads to the concept of the Water Sensitive City.

Mark presented on designing for water and systems thinking as part of the C40 programme. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is gaining momentum in the UK with references in the Southern Gateway planning work and Birmingham demonstrator programme. When thinking about streetscape scale interventions (tree pits, rain gardens) something on the scale of New York's 6-7,000 interventions can have clear results.

Transitions towards water sensitive cities (CIRIA, 2013)

Global Water Risks, Conor Riffle, CDP
The World Economic Forum recognises that water is a key risk to business. A CDP study of business found that 68% thought water was a risk and 20% thought this would constrain growth. City Governments are now being included in annual reporting and out of 300 cities 70% recognised water risk.

The next step is to integrate company and city datasets, which are freely available online.

Designing Systemic Change in Cities, Dan Hill, Future Cities Catapult
"Technology is the solution... but what was the question" opened this broader presentation on future cities. New sensors are enabling higher resolution anlaysis of air quality in Enfield - what are the implications of similar innovation for water? Enabling citizens was discussed with citizen participation models in Latin America.  Parklet programmes in California, which provide temporary public space within roads and rights of ways chosen by citizens, is another approach that could have benefits for water (rain gardens, tree pits and other SuDS measures).

Parklet in City of Oakland California

Looking after London’s Water, Alex Nickson, Greater London Authority
With population growth of up to 3.5m by 2050 and future rainfall resulting in more extremes there is a need to innovate in addressing water management in London. From as early as 2016 Thames Water projects a deficit (demand greater than supply) rising to 10% by 2025 and 21% by 2040.

Projected water supply deficit for London

Many parts of London are at risk of flooding and although the Thames barrier protects many properties it is the other rivers in London that pose major risks. A draft map provided by the Environment Agency was presented and indicates that not one water body within the London area has met good ecological quality status under the Water Framework Directive.

An integrated water management approach is required - GLA's approach includes legislation, regulation, innovation, coordination and partnership. These themes fit with some of the comments I made in a previous blog on the London 2050 infrastructure plan. There is an opportunity for London to lead the way in water management while addressing other liveability issues such as air quality, urban heat islands, recreation and biodiversity.

Workshops I attended

Flood proof cities
I attended the Flood Proof Cities vision workshop session. A initial presentation was followed by group discussions on the following key areas:

• What are the needs of, and the benefits, for society?
• How can we help develop this vision further?
• What are the global business opportunities?
• What are the barriers and linkages - e.g. with energy?
• What are the research and innovation needs?
• How could urban demonstrators and/or simulators help?

Flood proof cities vision

The key issue for my group was the name "flood proof" city doesn't refer to adaptive management required for resilience or the wider links with water resources management, water quality and other benefits from green infrastructure. We discussed some of the many benefits from society that should be considered as part of this vision. CIRIA have recently released the benefits of SuDS tool (BEST), which helps to value these.

Visions such as Water Sensitive Cities, Blue Green Cities of the Future, and the fourth generation of water services already exist. The next step is considering how these can be practically applied by water sector leaders working with urban designers, planners and other policy/ strategy leaders.

Interdependencies workshop: scenarios for the future of water in the national system of cities
The foresight programme ran a taster workshop to demonstrate future scenario thinking processes and to gain insight from the water experts at the event. This was based on what the impacts or interactions for water would be in cities of the future based on various levels of London centrist or regional cities approaches.

What next?

This workshop supported greater debate within the water community and a recognition of the need to focus on cities. However, there is a need for this to integrate with existing initiatives such as the 100 resilient cities project and C40 cities so that water can be an enabler of wider social and economic transformations,

As the water sector continues to innovate through integrated water management approaches we need to engage other sectors in planning and development if we are to achieve goals for water management alongside liveability in Water Sensitive Cities in the UK.