The IPPR has published a detailed analysis of an important issue facing society. Its report will contribute to an already lively debate on how to improve the country’s use of an under-valued resource.

To their credit the authors recognise that increasing water efficiency is no simple matter. Some of their ideas make sense, like the call for more extensive use of meters and the need for collaboration between many different partners.

However in their calculation of water industry expenditure on household water efficiency and proposal for a Water Efficiency Commitment (WEC) based on industry targets their case is much weaker.

In summary the IPPR’s proposals for water efficiency policy are at best half right.

Meter policy and collaboration

The IPPR argues sensibly for a more direct approach to the installation of meters in areas where water supplies are stretched. There is a growing consensus that giving water companies more flexibility to install meters would benefit the overall resource position. The clear statement that wider compulsory metering should not disadvantage poorer families or vulnerable groups is also welcome.

Similarly the think tank is right to emphasise that achieving greater water efficiency depends on different groups pulling together and contributing where they are best able. So, water companies work to reduce leakage and promote wise use of water throughout the customer base; government has influence through legislation, guidance to regulators and procurement policy; and public bodies, especially local authorities, can use their role in the community and in supplementary planning guidance.

Company expenditure and the water efficiency commitment

The report contains figures for the level of spending by water companies on promoting household water efficiency. Water UK believes that the calculation is based on very narrow terms and that the numbers, whether accurate or not in themselves, are open to serious question.

However the IPPR goes on to use its calculation to imply criticism of the industry for a poor response in its duty to promote water efficiency. This is unjustified.

Companies are required to ensure security of supply through the most cost-effective means given their local environment, the condition of their infrastructure and so on. IPPR queries the emphasis placed on tackling leaks although that may be demonstrably the best strategy in particular circumstances.

What seems to have happened is that the IPPR has formed the view that a WEC similar to the Energy Efficiency Commitment would be a good thing and then looked for a way of showing why such a policy is necessary.

As a broad aim for any number of groups in society such a commitment may have much to recommend it. But that is not what the IPPR has in mind. The WEC would be based on “a national baseline target to serve as an indicator of good company practice”.

Targets

The authors are careful to distinguish their idea from plans for other targets for companies being considered by the government-led Water Saving Group (WSG), namely consumption per head and volume of water put into supply. Water UK accepts the difference, but believes that using targets to make one group in society accountable for customer choice and consumer behaviour in such a complex area as water use is asking for trouble.

First, making one group accountable could allow others to relax, including even consumers themselves who could blame 'those in charge' if targets are not met.

Second, as many in the health service and elsewhere know only too well, targets can distort policy by focusing too much effort on a single variable at the expense of the overall objective. (Ironically the IPPR in its report comes close to suggesting that existing water company leakage targets have prevented a proper allocation of resources to promoting water efficiency in the home.)

Third, companies have their part to play but aren’t necessarily the best source of information about reducing the use of water. Recent research by the Consumer Council for Water confirms this familiar view.

Summary

The water industry accepts that more can always be done to promote water efficiency. It is totally committed to the aims of the WSG and to demand management as one side of the 'twin track' approach to ensuring security of supply.

Water UK welcomes this report as a useful contribution to the debate. But in its incomplete picture of current industry efforts and its plan for a WEC that could easily prove counter-productive, we believe its conclusions are seriously flawed.

The IPPR proposes more targets, more monitoring and more regulatory bureaucracy. Would it not be better for everyone involved to cooperate in promoting a better appreciation of the part water resources management plays in successful societies and of how everyone can contribute.

As it happens, we have a good opportunity to do this in the next two years as water resource management plans – already among the best in the world – are opened up to public consultation with the full support of the industry. If the process is successful it can only improve knowledge and society’s capacity to use water wisely in its own interest.