At the start of April 2023, DEFRA unveiled its Plan for Water as a commitment to implementing “a systematic, local, catchment-based approach” for delivering clean and plentiful water. Though the Plan highlights the strides forwards in addressing water purity, there is still room for further improvement.

In an Expert Focus article for WaterBriefing, Mark Fowles, group business development director at wastewater treatment specialist William Gilder Group, which has a treatment facility close to the M5 motorway in Gloucestershire, explores the proposed steps within Defra's Plan, and where the direction of travel is.

Mark Fowles: Though we are only a quarter of the way through, 2023 is already shaping to be a critical year in addressing the high levels of pollution in our waterways. The Plan for Water is the latest example, outlining how the UK’s water system will be transformed over the coming years and how this will lead to the continuing supply of clean water for both society and the natural world.

Yet for all its positives and the commendable ambition, the fact is there is long way to go if the country is to address its long-standing shortfalls. Not least within the arena of storm overflows and the strains being placed on an ageing sewer network as a direct result of population growth and other factors, such as climate change.

A network-wide transformation, as the Plan for Water does not dispute, will take considerable investment in every aspect. In fact, it reports that the issue of eliminating all discharges from storm overflows could cost as much as £600 billion. Investment towards this hefty figure has been outlined, but money alone will not completely solve the issue.

The Plan also highlights the changes required in order to improve drainage and water run-off using natural resources. All of which have long been earmarked as examples where the water industry has perhaps been guilty of shortcomings. But there is also a case to be made for the gaps between multiple stakeholder groups to be more closely linked.

Take agriculture, wastewater, and sewerage companies for instance. All three are referenced throughout the Plan for Water at various points. While they have differing objectives and requirements, that doesn’t mean they should be operating in isolation. As an example, the treatment of farm slurry, often seen by many of us as waste material, is actually a vital component for the anaerobic digestion process used to create organic fertiliser which, as an extension, contains less phosphorus than manufactured fertilisers. Again, reducing the amount of phosphorous that is transferred into the water system by surface run-off during heavy rainfall is an area highlighted in the DEFRA Plan. Therefore, should attention be directed towards aiding a suitable network of treatment facilities that will benefit both the agriculture and water sectors in one go?

It would represent a positive step, yet the stumbling blocks come when businesses within these two areas attempt to access funding to go towards investing in the necessary infrastructure and facilities. Agriculture, especially, has felt the force of disruption from Covid-19 and the Ukraine conflict, as have consumers in the form of increasing water bills.

Questions still need to be answered around the ‘real life’ impacts of the recommendations and pledges, and how the stakeholders responsible will be supported in meeting expectations, not to mention the urgent need to educate the wider public on how it, too, can play its part without being needlessly hindered in doing so. The ‘catchment area’ approach referenced in the Plan could result in this very scenario.

As the saying goes, prevention is better than cure. Strides have been taken through the acceleration of removing debris from canals and rivers, funding being made available for agriculture’s ongoing sustainability developments, and conscious consumers trying to limit their water use. To take these strides forward will require even greater backing from government, both local and national. Decisions taken at the top table should be made with greater input from all sides as to the true extent of the issues surrounding water quality and supply.

An interesting statistic raised within the Plan is that no new reservoirs have been built in the past 30 years, despite several facilities first proposed as far back as the 1960s not making it through to full completion. It should also be noted, though, many of the current reservoirs have been expanded or improved. And the progress of the Havant Thicket Reservoir in Hampshire is a sign of forward-thinking.

With research suggesting the UK would need as many as 30 new reservoirs to handle demand, the Havant facility – itself capable of holding close to nine billion litres of water – could be the first to use recycled water technology. That includes partly filling the reservoir with treated wastewater, in addition to the natural water from the underground springs. Here is where developers have encountered opposition, and is yet another example of the challenges that plague such developments.

A new reservoir can take around 10 years to build from the moment planning permission has been granted to the water able to be used. Add in the sheer scale of monetary cost involved and it is understandable for there to be a high level of scrutiny, especially as the water industry is keen to learn from what transpired with the Kielder Water Reservoir, initially meant to be a water supply for the steel industry in Northumberland but which became labelled as a white elephant when factories closed down.

Water storage and treatment should operate in parallel with each other as part of a preventative approach to navigating the harsh summers likely ahead. Maintaining storage facilities, and upgrading them if necessary, improves resilience and the promise of greater storage volumes for agriculture up to 2050 referenced in the Plan is certainly welcome, too. The further challenges lie in opening access for farmers and other agricultural businesses to utilise such resources, and demonstrating to opposition groups that treated water is indeed safe. That in itself will be a sizeable hurdle to overcome.

To bring everything full circle, therefore, the Plan for Water ticks many boxes for various stakeholders. What is still lacking in clarity is how these groups will be protected from unforeseen hindrances and how the current blockages for sectors such as agriculture to contribute as both expected and desired by those within these sectors will be cleared.

William Gilder Group has observed and been directly affected by evolving legislations across both agriculture and water treatment. The company’s heritage within the former has identified where the pitfalls that the Plan for Water looks to address and combined with in-depth knowledge of wastewater treatment, is bridging the gap between the two.

It is through a collaborative approach such as this, with improvements that may hold the key to solving the UK’s water conundrum, resulting in the supply of plentiful, clean water, for all.