To consider a presentation from the Environment Agency in respect of water levels in the River Ivel.
Decision:
Ms Julie Barker (Environment Agency), assisted byMr Alessandro Marsili (Affinity Water), gave a presentation regarding water levels in the River Ivel.
The Chairman thanked the Environment Agency and Affinity Water representatives for their presentation and attendance at the meeting.
RESOLVED: That the representatives from the Environment Agency and Affinity Water be thanked for their presentation.
REASON FOR DECISION: To keep Members of the Committee abreast of water level issues on the River Ivel and Ivel Springs.
Minutes:
Ms Julie Barker (Environment Agency), assisted byMr Alessandro Marsili (Affinity Water), gave a presentation regarding water levels in the River Ivel.
Ms Barker advised that she was attending the meeting to answer Members’ questions following Affinity Water’s presentation to the Committee’s previous meeting in September 2017.
Ms Barker stated that anyone who abstracted water from bore holes or a river would need a licence from the Environment Agency (EA). The EA had to judge whether or not there was sufficient water to enable a grant of the licence, and that there would not be any adverse impact on third parties, other licence holders or the water environment. A justification for the need for the water would also be required.
Ms Barker commented that the legal system came about following the Water Resources Act 1963. Before then, anybody could abstract water. The boreholes currently operated by Affinity water near Baldock were all pre-1963. She thought that one was drilled in the 1920s and the others a little later.
Ms Barker explained that when the legislation changed in 1963, those responsibility for each borehole had been required to apply to prove that they had been pumping at certain quantities. If so proven, they were provided with a Licence of Right. This was the situation for the Baldock boreholes.
Ms Barker advised that, since 1963, the EA had granted licences to other users. The EA had to publish plans and policies on how it allocated water to certain catchments. In most cases in her area, the ground water was fully committed (ie. no more abstraction licences were being issued). Summer surface water was also fully committed, but the EA were still issuing licences concerning water taken from rivers above certain flow thresholds.
Ms Barker stated that East Anglia was an area of low rainfall. The annual average rainfall was about 600mm, but 450mm of that evaporated (mostly in the summer), leaving only 150mm to permeate into the ground for abstraction purposes.
Ms Barker commented that the EA had bid for Affinity Water to undertake a project on the River Ivel. In common with other water authorities, Affinity Water were funded in 5 year blocks (called Asset Management periods). Affinity Water were currently in the middle of Asset Management period 6 (undertaking investigatory work), and that EA had lobbied that this was a project on which Affinity Water could spend their customers’ money. Following this investigation and, if appropriate, the EA would lobby for the next 5 year block (2020-25) to address any problems.
Ms Barker explained that the current investigatory (options and appraisal) stage aimed to discover the cause and effect between abstraction and the river. There was no gauging station on the River Ivel, and so there was no historical flow record as the EA would have for other rivers. The EA did monitor water quality and ecology, and Affinity Water had drilled additional observation boreholes. Some increased flow measurement had been undertaken over the past few years (from November 2014). A report on those two years had been prepared, and cost and benefits options were to be looked at in order to improve the flows.
The Chairman advised that the older residents of Baldock remembered the River Ivel flowing freely, but now it dried up for at least six months of the year. In 2017 it had only flowed for 3 months of the year. He asked if this was because there was so much water being taken from boreholes. He also asked if water could be pumped to fill in the ponds adjacent to the river, so that they could be used by wildlife.
Ms Barker replied that the amount of permitted/licensed water to be taken from boreholes had not changed since the 1960s. How much water taken up to their maximum amount allowed had changed due to increased demand for water as a result of additional housing development. Water abstraction had most likely doubled since 2000. However, this increase was still not in excess of the licensed amount. There was also the variable wet and dry years, and another dry winter could cause some problems with water supplies.
Ms Barker advised that the level of the River Ivel rose because of rainfall and run-off, but also because of a base element from the chalk soil. She conceded that the lack of flow could partly be due to the increased abstraction over the years for the reasons previously stated.
Ms Barker explained that one option could be an augmentation scheme (a standalone borehole to pump in water to the top of the Ivel Springs). This would work best should the wet cycles of weather be more frequent, and had been carried out successfully elsewhere, including the River Hiz.
Ms Barker commented that the driver for the investigatory work was the EU Water Framework Directive, which required Government’s to re-look at water was licensed, in order to achieve good ecological status in rivers (ie. invertebrates, fish etc.). Hence, the River Ivel came into focus because of the perception that there was insufficient flow for these creatures. The EA was mindful od the ponds, but the major driver for the project was the health of the river.
In response to a Member’s question regarding the boreholes, Ms Barker stated that there were three boreholes and, the way the groundwater flowed through the aquifer, one took water away from Pix Brook, but the cones of depression of the other two eclipsed the top of the River Ivel. The issue was still being quantified by the EA and Affinity water, as part of the options and appraisals work.
The Committee noted that Affinity water would be shortly presenting some options to the EA, including a reduction in water abstraction; augmentation schemes; morphological works; and/or a combination of these options. A balance between costs and benefits would need to be associated with each of the options.
Ms Barker added that once an option was agreed between the EA and Affinity water, the latter would bid for the funding to carry out the scheme during the next (2020-25) 5 year round of funding. A decision on whether or not the funding would be approved would not be made until November 2019, ready for the spend to commence in April 2020.
The Chairman thanked the Environment Agency and Affinity Water representatives for their presentation and attendance at the meeting.
RESOLVED: That the representatives from the Environment Agency and Affinity Water be thanked for their presentation.
REASON FOR DECISION: To keep Members of the Committee abreast of water level issues on the River Ivel and Ivel Springs.