engineering the future water review 2011

8/19/2019 Engineering the Future Water Review 2011

1/16

Engineering the future of water

Review of 2011 discussion series

Engineering the Future


2/16

This report is a summary of proceedings of three meetingsorganised by Engineering the Future in the Autumn of 2011.The meeting was attended by members of the professionalengineering institutions, Fellows of The Royal Academy of Engineering, representatives of industry, government andother relevant organisations. The report reflects thediscussions that took place at those meetings, but it should

be noted that while the conclusions and recommendationsreflect the majority opinion, they do not necessarilyrepresent the policies of the organisations involved.

www.raeng.org.uk/etfwater


3/16

© The Royal Academy of Engineering

ISBN 1-903496-88-8

April 2012The Royal Academy of Engineering3 Carlton House TerraceLondon SW1Y 5DG

Tel: 020 7766 0600 Fax: 020 7930 1549www.raeng.org.ukRegistered Charity Number: 293074

A copy of this report is available online atwww.raeng.org.uk/etfwater


Review of 2011 discussion series


4/16

2


1. Foreword ........................................................................................................3

2. Demand management and behaviour change:

water for domestic use .................................................................................4

3. Demand management and behaviour change:

water for industry and agriculture ................................................................7

4. Challenges and solutions:

local water recycling and water transfer ......................................................9

5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................12

6. Acknowledgements .....................................................................................13

Contents


5/16


6/16

4


2. Demand management and

behaviour change: water fordomestic useWater for domestic use and water for industry

Water use in the UK can be considered from the perspective of water fordomestic use and water for industry.

UK society is generally unaware of how much water is taken from theenvironment for activities other than to the water utility industry. In the UK,an average of 40% of blue water abstraction is used for domestic watersupply; 40% for power generation and 20% for industry and commerce,

including 1% for agriculture (globally agriculture uses an average 70% of blue water abstractions).

Domestic use – how society values water

In the UK today, water is both everywhere and nowhere. An invisibleinfrastructure makes drinking water available round the clock. The large-scale and constantly flowing water supply is made possible by a hiddennetwork of pipes, part of the indispensable infrastructure of modern life.

Because it appears to frequently rain in the UK, there is a popularperception in that there is a surplus of available water. However, inFebruary 2012, after two dry winters in a row, the South East of England

was officially declared in drought and future droughts are expected to be aregular occurrence. Yet, when we turn on the tap, the water is there and wedon’t appear to have any problem.

Supply makes demand. Supply has a huge influence in constructing demand.The invention of mobile phones created the demand for them which did notpreviously exist and now there are more of them than people on the planet.Present day practices and levels of water demand are in a large part a productof supply systems. If there were no underground infrastructure of watersupply and waste water pipes serving people’s houses, and if people had todeal with their water and waste water by tanker for example, patterns of household demand would be entirely different.

Adjusting society’s attitude towards water use

Throughout the series of events, experts from industry and academiareiterated the point that there is a need for a ‘burning platform’ such as asevere drought before UK public attitudes towards household water usewill change.

It has been said that the key to promoting change is to focus on people’sattitudes, behaviours and choices. There are four ways that we can try toget people to change their behaviour:

• exclusivity/novelty – people want to be the first• benefits – people can see the benefits of saving water, for example: lower

water bills• fewer barriers• social proof - our innate human need to conform.

“The United Nations hasenshrined the concept

that drinking water is ahuman right.”

Michael Norton MBEFICE

“Water is everywhere inour homes but never in

our minds. Water consumption iseverywhere but we don’tsee it so it seems like itis nowhere.”

Dr Jan Selby, Universityof Sussex


7/16

5


Price of water

It is assumed that the most appropriate tools for changing behaviours arepricing tools and public awareness campaigns that seek to inform andmake people think more rationally about their actual water use

Average water bills may need to rise significantly in order to represent thetrue cost of what is actually used. If household budgets for water are tochange in the same way as they did for the cost of fuel, then there would bea much quicker take-up of demand reduction techniques and incentives toalter behaviours such as remembering to turn off the tap and takingshorter showers.

The user

Users can be supply and demand managers. The modern Western

consumer does not have to be an expert in managing their water suppliesor water demand: they turn on the tap. They don’t need to know aboutplumbing, engineering or water demand regulation because that is forthe experts.

In places where water supply is low and intermittent, and often where stateregulatory authorities are quite weak, it is normal for users of water to playa highly active role in demand management.

Case studyIn some parts of the world, there are often long water supply shortages and

cuts. Every summer, in varying degrees, the pipes run dry in most communitiesthroughout this particular area.

The result is that, unless people are very wealthy, they tend not to spend 10minutes in the shower. Another result is that practices related to water management are a part of everyday life.

Almost all houses in this area have their own rooftop water storage systems.Most households have their own personal collection of pumps and motors withwhich they manage their water supply.

People often go looking for water if it becomes particularly hard to find, butthere are other ways in which people manage their water supply and demand.

If the water has run dry in their own homes, people go and wash with friends andfamily. The laundry is not done until the water supply comes back on. When

supplies are really low, parents might stop their children from playing outsideand getting dirty because that would increase the amount of laundry they wouldneed to do. The essential point is that in some parts of the world, unlike in theUK, water supply is not invisible or taken for granted and, as a result, water usersare not just consumers but are active supply and demand managers of their ownhousehold water supply.


8/16

6


Smart infrastructure empowering consumers

Case study: Debuque, Iowa, USAIn Debuque, 300 households were given information about their water usage inreal time, with the aim of encouraging them to make informed decisions.

They were provided with proactive notifications using clear data. For example,when a potential leak was detected, an email or text would be sent to users.When information about their water usage was shared on an online portal,people, feeling part of a community, adopted a community behaviour of tryingto save water and helping others to do the same.

The outcome was that participants in the Debuque scheme were 10 times morelikely to report a leak than people who did not take part in the scheme. TheDebuque scheme was successful because it was about empowering peoplethrough informing them about their choices and impact of choice.

Smart technology and smart meters are clever, instrumented and intelligent.However, people equipped with the right skills, information and motivation, willultimately change their behaviour towards water usage because they want to.


9/16

7


3. Demand management and

behaviour change: water forindustry and agricultureThe role of smart water infrastructure

If society is able to manage the integration of the digital world and physicalsurroundings properly, there is significant potential to supportcommunities, industry and agriculture towards positive behavioural changethat will conserve water resources for the future.

As sensors become more embedded across ecosystems, people gain theopportunity to sense, monitor and measure domestic and industrial water

use. That information can be shared in order to make more informedchoices about how industry and communities use water.

Case study – Sonoma County, California, USAIn Sonoma County, smart infrastructure has been applied to a complex systemto improve understanding and to promote a much more joined-up approach tothe management of water resource. This is similar to how smart grids andsmart meters have been applied in the fuel sector.

The Sonoma County Water Agency provides water to around 600,000 people.Like most of California, the area is experiencing increasing population andeconomic growth along with demand from a wine industry dependent on theexpanding vineyards; all factors increasing demand on local water resources.Combined with these factors, four of the last five summers have broughtdroughts.

Water retailers sell water to six different townships in the county and there is astrong concern about maintaining enough water in the Russian river to allowthe Chinook salmon to migrate upstream to spawn.

With the aim of promoting greater collaboration and the drawing off of water ina sustainable, orchestrated fashion and building a better understanding of howto balance supply and demand without over-abstraction of the Russian river,Sonoma County has invested in a smart infrastructure platform. The systemattempts to better integrate the physical and digital worlds, and creates aplatform which brings together multiple stakeholders to communicate andcollaborate for the common good.

They have implemented the system in three ways:• installation of more sensors, meters and actuators at strategic locations to

build a better understanding of their whole system

• creation of a collaboration portal, a web-based platform, which helps to bringthe retailers, vineyards and industrial users together, to allow them toorchestrate the way they draw water from the Russian river and avoid itfalling to unnecessarily low levels

• using information better by using this network of sensors to optimisepumping regimes to improve efficiency and build resilience.

The greatest benefit of the smart infrastructure platform in Sonoma County hasbeen bringing people and organisations together to collaborate for the commongood, thereby protecting an important resource needed by multiple stakeholders.


10/16

8


Water footprint

The UK citizen’s water footprint is around 1,300 m3 a year, which isequivalent to around 3.5 m3 a day for each person. Almost three-quarters of this derives from outside the UK as “embedded” or “virtual” water, withmuch of this from countries with worse water stress. In comparison, theaverage American citizen has double the UK’s average water footprint butnearly all derives from the USA itself.

Water footprint analysis of industries

The concepts of ‘virtual footprint’ and ‘virtual water’ have been taken upwith alacrity by business and industry. Industries have become interestedin water footprint, in some cases, well ahead of governments, because theycan see that understanding their water footprint, where it is and what risksthey face as a result of it, is an immediate business issue.

Large multinational companies such as SAB Miller, Marks & Spencer,Coca-Cola, Rio Tinto and BG Group are now making water footprintanalysis of their businesses to assess risks and taking mitigating action.

Water footprint is “thetotal volume of freshwater that is used tomake a product, or suiteof products, expressed interms of green, blue and grey water, and in termsof location. This can beexpressed by nation,state, river basin,business, community,product or suite of

products.”



11/16

9


4. Challenges and solutions:

local water recycling andwater transferTwo of the sessions in the series were dedicated to local water recyclingtechnologies and water transfers. Like many engineering solutions, thesetechnologies should not be viewed as a silver bullet answer for watershortages, but as part of a system that includes other technology,alongside with societal and political dimensions.

With the South East of England undergoing regular droughts, alternativesconsidered for supplying the region with sufficient supplies of water haveincluded local storage, water transfer, more reservoirs, ground water

storage and desalination, or a combination of several of these.

Before and after publication of the water White Paper Water for Life(DEFRA, December 2011), a consultation setting out a vision for futurewater management, there has been political, public and industry debate onoptions such as desalination, water transfer and local water tradingbetween adjacent water companies.

Local water recycling

Water recycling is not a new technology. In some parts of the world,including Singapore, Israel and Australia, it is a technology widely in use.

There is an instinctive resistance to consuming recycled water among theUK general public. This resistance, combined with widespread public belief that the UK has access to a limitless supply of clean fresh water, is a strongbarrier to better use of water supply in UK homes and businesses.

Water reuse can make a more significant contribution to improving watersecurity. Some recycled water, while not suitable for drinking, is suitable forother domestic uses such as flushing toilets and watering plants (‘grey’ water).

Case study - The role of water companiesIn its strategic direction statement, Cambridge Water states that it willencourage developers to incorporate grey water recycling in new

housing developments.

Before the recession, it was expected that the housing market boom wouldresult in 40% more customers in Cambridge Water’s catchment area. With thisin mind, the company found that water stress would become a reoccurringproblem. This resulted in the Cambridge Proposition which requiredinfrastructure for water recycling to be installed in new developments;financed in the same way as the water infrastructure is currently paid for:through capital contributions from developers and future charges for greywater by customers.

Use of recycled water for agriculture and industry

Some 70% of abstracted blue water is used by agriculture globally. In

England only 1% of abstracted water is used for this purpose but thisaverage figure hides spatial and temporal variations which can mean thatuse increases to over 25% at times.

“Our nation needs totake a radical and refreshed view of itstotal water needs acrossdrinking, agricultureand industry against itscurrent total renewablewater resources. Water recycling is going to beone of the ways in whichwe resolve that.”



12/16

10


The National Farmers Union has said that in order to feed the growingpopulation, the UK will need to increase productivity by at least 50% by2030. The demand for water for agriculture in the UK is expected to greatly

outstrip supply over the next 20 years.

Water is vital for food production. There is political pressure to producemore from less. There is a view that agriculture’s use of abstracted watercould be reduced by 40% but to do this will require substantial investment.

The UK is currently spending £82 million per year on irrigation becausefarmers are reliant on water companies for their water.

Water recycling equipment can enable companies to reduce their use of expensive tap water by up to 50% but some manufacturers of foodstuffs –including pet feed – believe their brand image would be compromised if theywere seen to be using less than top quality water.

One well known potato brand recently began using a £1 million waterrecycling plant to wash their potatoes after a study of their environmentalcredentials.

The normal method is to pipe in abstracted water through the water mains,wash the potatoes then send out the water as effluent. However, sinceintroducing a water recycling plant, the company has since reduced theiraverage water mains usage by 52%.

Water transfer

Water transfer is about moving large volumes of water from areas of plentyto places where supply is under greater stress. Water transfer schemes in

England and Wales have long been debated and the subject often raisespolitical issues.

The Environment Agency believes that water transfer needs to be thought of as part of an integrated approach to water resources planning.

Transferring water from Wales to the South-east of England has been underserious consideration on several occasions in the past 50 years. The conceptwas first put forward by the Water Resources Board in the 1960s and studiedin substantial detail in the 1970s through investigations into an enlargedreservoir at Craig Goch in the Elan valley. The concept was looked at again aspart of the National Rivers Authority’s water resource strategy for England & Wales in 1994, concluding that schemes involving transfers from the Severn

to the Thames looked feasible in engineering and cost terms, but more workwas needed on the associated environmental issues. Thames Water is nowundertaking more studies as part of their statutory water resourcemanagement plan for 2014.

Consideration of water transfer needs to include storage, because the timingof when that water is available and the ability to distribute that water isequally as important as the reliability of the source of supply. In the case of transferring water from the Severn to the Thames, a modest increase insupply can be obtained without supporting storage, but for a moresubstantial scheme a supporting reservoir would be needed either in thelower Severn valley or in mid-Wales, for example, the enlargedCraig Goch reservoir.

“Large scale transfers arean inherent part of our water resourcemanagement systemstoday and there is everypossibility that they mightprovide an opportunity

for the future.”

Professor Roger Falconer

FREng


13/16

11


Concerns associated with water transfer

The natural environment

Mixing of waters has always been a concern when assessing potential watertransfer schemes. For example, the Severn and Thames rivers have differentecologies, meaning that there can be a risk of the transfer and movement of species and possible detriment to local species. Studies of the impact of theSevern to Thames transfer on the Severn estuary and the ecology of theThames are currently being undertaken by Thames Water. Migration of species, such as sea trout and eels, also needs to be considered. Thepotential transfer of invasive or non-native species are a significant concern.

The European Union Water Framework Directive and the European UnionHabitats Directive are key considerations in this regard.

Carbon footprint

Climate change and carbon reduction are now built into water plans andanalyses. However, there remains a question over how to continue to reducecarbon usage in the future.

The Environment Agency has reviewed the carbon footprint of the entirelifecycle of water with regard to desalination, reservoirs, effluent reuse,transfers, metering and water efficiency among others. Water transfers fit inthe middle range of these options, neither being the worst in terms of carbon use nor the best.

Case study – Abberton water transferbetween Ely Ouse and EssexOne of the UK’s most successful water transfer schemes has been runningsince 1972. The Abberton water transfer scheme between the Ely Ouse andEssex rivers is owned and operated by the Environment Agency. This particular scheme has been found to have had no significant effects on water quality,biodiversity, recreation or socio-economics of the region. It supplies the Essexand Suffolk Water Company which has a total of 1.82 million customers,1.5 million of whom are in the more densely populated Essex area.


14/16

12


5. Conclusion

With the release of the Water for Life White Paper, the governmentreiterated its commitment to protecting the environment and water as aresource along with reducing burdens on consumers and industry.

The Engineering the Future alliance encourages government to continue itsregular dialogue with engineers when consulting on and implementingproposed changes to water regulation.

With their ability to view infrastructure not in silos but as an entire system,engineers with their systems thinking approach, are at the forefront of making possible large changes to the way we plan, build and manage ourwater infrastructure. Engineers can envision pathways to change practicesin water demand in a more sustainable way, through being innovative and

imaginative in proposing and implementing solutions.

Concerns surrounding water security are unlikely to disappear in the nearfuture, as the world tackles the challenges of climate change impacts, foodsecurity, and population growth. Engineers, working with society andgovernments, can make a difference across the whole of the water chain,from abstraction and treatment to household use, water for food andre-use of waste water to help address the infrastructure and attitudechanges that are needed.

“One person’s flood

water is somebody else’swater resource.”

Dr Jean Venables CBEFREng


15/16

13


6. Acknowledgements

Engineering the Future would like to thank the speakers from eachEngineering the future of water event:

Local Water Recycling

Tuesday 13 September 2011

Held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

ChairMichael Norton MBE FICE, Global Water Director, AMEC Environment andInfrastructure

SpeakersProfessor Paul Jeffrey, Professor of Water Management, Cranfield University

Professor Tom Stephenson FREng, Head of Applied Sciences, CranfieldUniversityStephen Kay, Managing Director, Cambridge WaterJenny Bashford, Water Policy Adviser National Farmers UnionDr Ben Courtis, UK Commercial Developer – Engineering Systems, GEPower and Water

Water Security: challenges and solutions for the UK;is water transfer the answer?Tuesday 25 October 2011

Held at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Chair

Professor Roger Falconer FREng, Halcrow Professor of Water Management,Cardiff University

SpeakersTrevor Bishop, Head of Water Resources, Environment AgencyYvette de Garis, Head of Environment and Quality Strategy and Regulation,Thames WaterJohn Lawson FREngWilliam Robinson, Water Resources Manager, Essex and Suffolk WaterProfessor Christopher Binnie FREng

Behaviour change and demand management

Tuesday 22 November 2011

Held at the Institution of Civil Engineers

ChairDr Jean Venables CBE FREng

SpeakersDr Jan Selby, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, School of GlobalStudies, University of SussexMelvyn Kay, Executive Secretary, Irrigation UKSteve Magenis, Senior Engineer, Royal HaskoningMichael Norton MBE FICE, Global Water Director, AMEC Environment andInfrastructureRobert Musgrove, Capital Programmes Lead, IBM

Daniel Webb, IBM Global Business Services


16/16

Engineering the Future:

Engineering the Future is a broad alliance of the engineering institutions and bodies whichrepresent the UK’s 450,000 professional engineers.

We provide independent expert advice and promote understanding of the contribution thatengineering makes to the economy, society and to the development and delivery of national policy.

The leadership of Engineering the Future is drawn from the following institutions:

The Engineering Council; EngineeringUK; The Institution of Chemical Engineers; The Institution of

Civil Engineers; The Institution of Engineering and Technology; The Institution of MechanicalEngineers; The Institute of Physics; The Royal Academy of Engineering.

engineering the future water review 2011

Documents