Water and utilities expert Jo Parker examines one of the radical recommendations in the Independent Water Commission’s final report.
In July, the Independent Water Commission proposed sweeping reform for the water sector in England and Wales in its long-awaited final report.
Early in its 450 pages, it says that the water environment would benefit from a “radical overhaul” of its planning system.
It recommends a “comprehensive systems planning framework” and proposes nine new water authorities – eight regional authorities in England and one national authority in Wales.
These authorities would create long-term plans across the entire water system, covering water supply, wastewater, drainage, and environmental outcomes.
This would be a radical departure from the current, fragmented system. But why is such an overhaul necessary – and how can the government ensure its success?
The commission identifies critical weaknesses in the current planning model.
The system is resource-intensive and complex.
A lack of local engagement and coordination with other developments – such as land-use, nature, and transport – has led to duplicated efforts, inefficiencies, and missed opportunities to deliver what society expects and needs.
England’s five regional water resources groups, established a few years ago, have certainly helped.
But each has a different structure, works to different planning methodologies, and has no statutory or funding support.
On the drainage and wastewater side, there’s no equivalent structure at all.
It’s interesting that the report is calling for ‘regional water authorities’. Weren’t those established in 1974?
These public bodies came into existence in response to the Water Act 1973 and lasted until privatisation in 1989.
Certainly, the proposed areas covered by the new water authorities follow many of the outlines of the old bodies, still reflected in current water company boundaries.
However, this does sound like a very different animal.
The alternative title of ‘water systems planner’ also used in the report perhaps gives a better idea of what these new organisations will do.
It's very clear that the organisations will be small – 20 to 50 staff each – and independent of the regulator and government, which is a welcome move.
However, an alternative proposal places water systems planners within the regulator.
This recognises the government’s reluctance to establish new public bodies and may be its preferred option. But the report notes that it could limit the new bodies’ effectiveness.
The report suggests that the water systems planners can take many of their needed staff from similar roles in other organisations. This includes regulators and regional water resources groups.
Many of these people already carry out aspects of the water systems planner role.
Analysing who they are will be an important part of establishing the organisations.
The report proposes that each water systems planner has a strategic board with an independent chair appointed by the government.
The suggested structure of the board does include all the main interested parties. Whether they can work together and deliver real benefit will depend very much on the board’s leadership.
Only one engineering expert is included. But the systems planners’ remit covers a wide range of engineering issues.
Can one person wield enough technical influence against the various interests on the board?
The report also suggests that water systems planners align with flood planning.
For instance, it suggests that the government coordinates planning cycles for flood risk reduction and water industry price reviews.
In the longer term, it even suggests integrating flood planning into systems planning altogether.
While flooding wasn’t specifically part of the commission’s remit, it acknowledges the overlap, particularly the links between sewage discharges and surface-level flooding.
Integrating water and flood planning could prevent conflicting action and ensure better value for money.
Another welcome aspect of the proposals is the facility for different local groups to feel they have a voice.
Currently, these groups tend to focus on water companies.
But the issues they’re concerned about are affected by many other land use and technical issues, such as highway drainage.
Perhaps this could be a critical factor in turning around the public’s view of water companies.
Finally, apart from managing the overall plan for their area, water systems planners in England will report to some sort of national coordinating body.
This body would ensure regional plans are consistent, of a high standard, and translate to national targets.
The commission suggests this body sits within Defra, but with close links to the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA).
It's to be hoped that this structure will resolve any conflicts between regions, as well as consider ways they can work together where appropriate.
However, compared with the current fragmented approach, any restructuring which supports a regional, cross-sector approach is to be welcomed.
*The ICE welcomes guests to share their views about infrastructure policy issues on the Infrastructure Blog. These views are the views of the individual.
If you're interested in writing for the Infrastructure Blog, please email [email protected]. The ICE reserves the right not to publish articles that have been submitted.
The UK is ill-prepared for the weather extremes it's already facing. In its latest advice to the government, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) explains why it doesn't have to stay that way.
A new ICE policy programme will explore how to boost investment in adapting the UK’s infrastructure to climate change.
The ICE examines the Climate Change Committee’s latest advice to the UK government on reducing carbon emissions.
