Agenda item

To receive an update from Affinity Water and the Environment Agency regarding Ivel Springs.

Affinity Water and the Environment Agency provided the Committee with an update regarding water abstraction and the impacts on Ivel Spring.

 

RESOLVED: That Affinity Water and the Environment Agency be requested to update the Committee on the River Ivel in 12 months time.

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Baldock and District Committee to be apprised of the issues affecting the River Ivel and the proposed actions of Affinity Water and the Environment agency to mitigate impact.

 

NB: A comfort was taken at 9.11pm

 

NB: The meeting resumed at 9.23pm

Audio recording – 12 minutes 6 seconds

 

Affinity Water and the Environment Agency provided the Committee with an update regarding water abstraction and the impacts on Ivel Spring and the River Ivel.

 

Alessandro Marsilli, Affinity Water, gave a PowerPoint presentation including:

 

·                An overview of the current abstraction licence and the last 5 years of abstraction rates;

·                Details regarding the ecology of the area;

·                An overview of flow rates at various points;

·                Abstraction at bore holes was decreased;

·                Flow rates were between good and failing;

·                An overview of intervention options, including augmentation;

·                River restoration could be instigated by augmentation;

·                Flow records showed the river was dry at times;

·                Flow had increased by 6 megalitres a day;

·                All intervention options were satisfactory in principle, although the trigger level needed to be discussed;

·                They would wish to cap the abstraction rates in 2024;

·                During dry periods the river would be dry even without abstraction;

·                Historically there were reed beds that were managed by AnglIain Water and used to treat effluent;

·                Future planned developments have not been included in the 5 year plan as planning permission had not yet been granted;

·                The augmentation scheme should be linked to the flow at Black Horse Farm.

 

Richie Carruthers, Affinity Water, gave a PowerPoint presentation including:

 

·                The Water Resource Management Plan helped balance supply and demand;

·                They recognised that, in the short term, they needed to reduce leakage and reduce demand;

·                Ground water supply was a longer term planned alternative to abstraction;

·                Affinity were looking at shared reservoirs and shared supplies as well as moving water into the area;

·                There was a group of regulators looking at future schemes;

·                Some money had been made available for schemes;

·                There could be opportunities to transport water from the West Midlands using the Grand Union Canal;

·                They were looking at better connectivity between areas, regions and companies

·                They recognised the wish for unsustainable abstraction to end, but water was still needed.

 

Rob Bakewell, Environment Agency, gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                There were 225 chalk streams, 9 were classified as Special Sites of Scientific Interest, 4 of those were special areas of conservation;

·                All other surface bodies of water shared the same level of protection which sought to improve matters, or at least prevent deterioration;

·                They had investigated all the bodies of water and identified issues and through those investigations identified a preferred action plan;

·                The River Base and Management Plan set out the objectives for all water bodies from which a series of actions were extracted. These actions were then considered on a cost/benefit system;

·                The actions were then put into a WinEp which was considered by Ofwat;

·                This country put a low value on water and we were al part of the problem;

·                Abstraction and leakage were problems which added to the challenge of new developments;

·                Nationally there was focus on chalk streams;

·                They could only go as far as powers allowed them to do so;

·                There were no guarantees that alternative sources of supply would be available;

·                Unless there was an environmental reason to object, Affinity could pump as much water as they liked into the streams.

 

Iain Paige, Environment Agency, gave a PowerPoint presentation including:

 

·                The abstraction licences were granted in the 1960s when there were very different views on environmental issues;

·                The cost of addressing the issues had been deemed to be too high;

·                They were trying to get Affinity to support ecology;

·                There was no long term flow gauging station;

·                They needed to address the head waters;

·                They recognised that Ivel Springs was an area of concern locally;

·                Due to the lack of long term gauged flow records they were using modelled flows;

·                If want to get Ivel Springs restored, Affinity needed to reduce the amount of abstraction and this could be achieved by capping the licences;

·                River augmentation and river support was the most cost effective way to manage the flow;

·                The desired level of flow and associated support had yet to be decided;

·                The actions taken to date was as much as could be done at the moment;

·                A step change was needed including significant investment and significant reduction in abstraction;

·                An holistic view was needed in order to meet the needs of the rivers and streams as well as new developments and growth;

·                This was the biggest chance for a step chance and for people to get involved.

 

Matt Ramscar, Environment Agency gave a verbal presentation including:

 

·                He gave an explanation of the modelling of flows and outcomes;

·                Want to get away from abstraction and back to natural flows;

·                The river support schemes were intended to top up rivers at the most crucial times, but regular use of these schemes cause their own problems.

 

The following Members asked questions:

 

·                Councillor Michael Muir;

·                Councillor Michael Weeks;

·                Councillor Tom Tyson;

·                Councillor Steve Jarvis;

·                Councillor Jim McNally.

 

In response to questions:

 

Iain Paige, Environment Agency, advised:

 

·                New licences were issued with flow constraint conditions attached;

·                The water company had a duty to ensure there was no deterioration;

·                This was the biggest opportunity to feed into the plans for the future;

·                Consideration was being given to building a new reservoir, but this would take time;

·                There was a need to reduce demand.

 

Allesandro Marsilli, Affinity Water, advised:

 

·                The river Chess option of reducing abstraction was already in Affinity’s 5 year plan;

·                They had agreed to cap the licence for the River Ivel in 2024;

·                They had money to address water abstraction in the future, but they needed to meet demand;

·                They had measured flow monthly for 5 years and could correlate flow with abstraction;

·                One intervention was to install flow measuring at Black Horse Farm;

·                If have to put in infrastructure in order to increase flow, we need to be aware that this would have an impact;

·                Affinity policy was to look at alternatives to abstraction from chalk streams;

·                Any future reductions would be voluntary with the levels being decided at a strategic planning level;

·                Plans could be modified.

 

Matt Ramscar, Environment Agency, advised:

 

·                Modelling had demonstrated what the natural flow would have been;

·                Flow would vary year to year under natural conditions;

 

Rob Bakewell, Environment Agency, advised:

 

·                They were expecting Affinity to undertake consultation;

·                This was a starting point which would then be refined.

 

The Chair thanked the presenters from Affinity Water and the Environment Agency for their presentations.

 

RESOLVED: That Affinity Water and the Environment Agency be requested to update the Committee on the River Ivel in 12 months time.

 

REASON FOR DECISION: To enable the Baldock and District Committee to be apprised of the issues affecting the River Ivel and the proposed actions of Affinity Water and the Environment agency to mitigate impact.

 

NB: A comfort was taken at 9.11pm

 

NB: The meeting resumed at 9.23pm