Diffuse urban pollution and River
B i M
Basin
Management Pl
Plans
D id L
David
Lerner
With thanks to:
• Richard Martin
and
d others,
th
EA & D
Defra
f
• URSULA and CSC teams
• RSPB and ECUS
• EPSRC KT funding
But the opinions
are the author’s!
NADP consultation 1
1, Feb 2007
• Five priorities
– Industryy
– Transport
– Abandoned mines
– Sewage
– Sediments
• Options
– 20 legislative mechanisms
– 20 voluntary
l t
mechanisms
h i
Scale and cost (pCEA 2007)
P
Pressure
S l (E&W unless
Scale
l
stated)
t t d)
P ban
20 companies to change products
Misconnections
1 380 000 misconnections
Misuse of drainage
63 000 operators
50
Urban drainage
No estimate given
?
Commercial, institutional and
industrial sites
2 060 000 sites
3100
Construction sites
86 000 sites
1080
Oil, chemical and waste storage 1 330 000 storage tanks
Petrol station forecourts
7 100 forecourts
In-situ sediment
No estimate given
*Equivalent
Equivalent Annual Value
EAV (£M/y)*
(£M/ )*
65
235
2500
36
?
Total
Royal Haskoning, 2007. Cost-effectiveness of measures: Analysis of measures to
reduce non-agricultural diffuse pollution. Final Report 9S4904.A0/R/901937/Nijm
£7 060 M/yr
NADP consultation 2
2, Jan 2008
• Never happened! Was going to have:
– General Binding
g Rules
–
–
–
–
–
–
Washing Activities
Abuse of the Drainage System
Site Management
Surface Water Control for Construction Sites
Permeable Surfacing
Petrol Station Forecourts
– A
Amending
di Oil St
Storage R
Regulations
l ti
– Tackling Misconnections
– Removal of Phosphates from
Detergents
– Sustainable Drainage Systems
– Water Protection Zones
– Voluntary Mechanisms
Final outcome
• B
Ban on phosphates
h
h t iin llaundry
d
detergents from 2015
• Removes
R
2% off P lload
d tto
waters
• NOT a diffuse pollution action!
Scale and cost (pCEA 2007)
P
Pressure
S l (E&W unless
Scale
l
stated)
t t d)
P ban
20 companies to change products
Misconnections
1 380 000 misconnections
Misuse of drainage
63 000 operators
50
Urban drainage
No estimate given
?
Commercial, institutional and
industrial sites
2 060 000 sites
3100
Construction sites
86 000 sites
1080
Oil, chemical and waste storage 1 330 000 storage tanks
Petrol station forecourts
7 100 forecourts
In-situ sediment
No estimate given
*Equivalent
Equivalent Annual Value
EAV (£M/y)*
(£M/ )*
65
235
2500
36
?
Total
Royal Haskoning, 2007. Cost-effectiveness of measures: Analysis of measures to
reduce non-agricultural diffuse pollution. Final Report 9S4904.A0/R/901937/Nijm
£7 060 M/yr
Costing SUDS retrofit
© Crown Copyrig
ght and databa
ase right 2009
9. Ordnance
urvey
Su
• L
London
d Tid
Tideway
Tunnels study
• 37% di
disconnection
ti
• £130K/ha (whole life)
• BUT selected easy
picks:
Catchments of West Putney, Putney Bridge
and Frogmore (Buckhold Road) CSOs
– Wide suburban streets
– Municipal housing
estates
– Rear roof
disconnections
Ashley et al. 2010: Potential source control and SUDS applications: Land use and
retrofit options. University of Sheffield for London Tideway Tunnels Programme
Costing SUDS retrofit for roads
• LTT analysis is for volume reduction for
CSOs
• Assume cost is similar for DUP reduction
(More difficult sources balance lower volume reduction)
• 50% coverage for DUP
(
(separated
t d systems
t
only,
l LTT handles
h dl combined
bi d areas))
• 1600 km2 of London
£10
£
0b
billion
o for
o London
o do
Scale up road SUDS to GB
• London
L d
– 1600 km2
– 14 400 km of roads
– 95% of traffic on 5% of roads (TfL)
• Total urban roads
– 245 000 km
– Ratio up (*245/14.4) gives
£175 billion for GB
Sediment removal – Lower Lee
• 2009 dredging
• 3.2 km Tottenham Lock
to Lee Bridge Rd
• 23 000 m3 removed
• £2M (£90/
(£90/m3)
• Incoming 4000 m3 /y
– Deephams 830 t/y
– Tributaries 1500 t/y
– Road
R dd
drainage
i
670 t/
t/y?
?
• Refills in 6 years
Halcrow, Lower Lee Water Quality Improvement Viability Study, Final Report,
February 2008
Ramboll, Dredging the River Lee Navigation For Water Quality Purposes,
Spring 2009. Environmental Verification Report for British Waterways
Scale up sediment removal
• Unknown extent of problem
• Say 100 km at 7000 m3/km every 6 years
• £250M over 25 years
Before
After
EA, Thames RBMP
Scale and cost
P
Pressure
S l (E&W unless
Scale
l
stated)
t t d)
EAV (£M/y)*
(£M/ )*
P ban
20 companies to change products
Misconnections
1 380 000 misconnections*
misconnections
Misuse of drainage
63 000 operators
Urban drainage
245 000 km or urban roads
7000
Commercial, institutional and
industrial sites
2 060 000 sites
3100
Construction sites
86 000 sites
1080
65
235
50
Oil, chemical and waste storage 1 330 000 storage tanks
2500
Petrol station forecourts
7 100 forecourts
36
In-situ sediment
100 km of channel?
10
*Equivalent
Equivalent Annual Value
Value, or total/25
*revision due Monday, UKWIR project
Total
£14 070 M/yr
Who and what?
P
Pressure
P ll t
Polluter
Regulatory
R
l t
regime
R
Regulator
l t
“S l ti
“Solutions”
”
In-situ
sediment
Everyone and
no-one
None
No-one
Reduce source
Dredge
Trading estate
runoff
Occupiers
Various
EA
Water co.?
Environmental
Health (LA)?
Audits
Enforcement
Education
Retrofit SUDS?
Misconnections Householders
Various
EA, Water Co.,
EA
Co
LA
Find and rectify
Urban road
runoff
Everyone and
no one
no-one
(Highway
authority)
None
No-one
Retrofit SUDS?
Surface
S
f
water
flooding
Everyone and
no-one
S
SWMA
Local Authority, Retrofit
f SUDS?
S S?
EA
Interactions
W TW
WwTW
Polluters, Owners,
Regulators, Beneficiaries
•
•
•
•
•
•
Local authority
Water company
Companies and landlords
Environment Agency
Householders and landlords
People
• People, societies, ecosystem
services economy
services,
CSOs
Urban roadss
Trading
g est.
Other Runoff
Quality
y
Floodin
ng
Morphology
Benefitts
Upstream
River Basin
Liaison panels
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Business & Industry
Consumers
Environment Agency
Environmental NGOs
Farming
Forestry
Local Authorities
Natural England
Ports
g
Assembly
y
Regional
Regional Development
Agency
Rural business
W t Companies
Water
C
i
Waterways
• U
Users, regulators
l t
and
d
spenders
What’ss in the River Basin Plans?
What
• There
Th
is
i no plan.
l
• Reductionist analysis
–N
No vision
i i
– No assessment of
• Suitability
• Capacity
– No linking
g of solutions to issues
– Not looking for synergistic effects or win-wins
– Basically a load of scraps and exhortations
• + the National Environment Programme for water utilities
• No implementation approach
• Doesn’t consider the Catchment as an entity
What can we do?
• Presumption against regulation
• The Big Society and localism have arrived
What can we do?
What can we do?
• Presumption against regulation
• The Big Society and localism have arrived
• Models of catchment management
g
–Top down
–Big Society
–Partnership
Partnership
Top down
Environment Agency
g
y
Experts
Polluter
Analysis
Regulation
Instruction
Photos: q
qwag.org.uk
k and Daily Mail
Big Society
Lovable
asset
River Lee (Halcrow)
Useful
act o s
actions
Caring
C
i
community
Partnership
• Users
Users, reg
regulators
lators and
spenders, communities
• Spatially focussed
• No blame
• Shared analysis
y
• A vision of the
future
• Shared plan
• Joint funding
g and action
• Regulation is less
important
What can we do?
• Join up SWMPs and the WFD
– Treat q
quality
y and floods as a combined p
problem
• Find some real money!
• Have a vision
• Empower catchment management groups
– Collaboration, enthusiasm, shared vision
– Don’t
D ’t putt th
the EA in
i charge!
h
!