What are 4 things that are most important for me to know when I feedback to the consultation?
1. You can reply to the consultation by email or a paper or online form, you do use the form you can still add extra comments
2. TW will highlight certain things they want to focus on - please do not be limited by this. Respond with any feedback on any aspect of the scheme as you feel appropriate.
3. There will be a lot of documents produced by Thames Water. At a minimum try reading their “project brochure”, or summary, and then please read through the SOLAR website for an alternative view.
4. It is important that people respond to the consultation.
What are 3 key areas where I might object to the scheme?
1. The quality of the treated effluent being pumped into the river.; it will not remove many biological / chemical contaminants. The impact of the effluent on the river when the river is at low flow and there will be a concentration of contaminants with upriver STWs
2. The issue of Mogden STW which has severe space issues and needs significant investment to deal with existing usage. TDRA will interfere with that.
3. That the new abstraction structure and towpath diversion will diminish the character of the Thames riverside at North Kingston and also the access to/from the river.
4. The impact of construction works, on the green space and community and properties and roads..
Thames Water say this is a drought relief scheme that will only be used occasionally, as we need water isn’t that OK?
Two points on this; First Point = it is meant to be a drought relief scheme specifically related to avoiding level 3 or 4 drought responses - which are permits to abstract more water from a river or possibly standpipes. However, when you look carefully at the Thames Water planning scenarios and the suggested every 2 year scenario you have to question why it would be used that frequently?. Are we expecting severe droughts every 2 years? It seems strange that planning for a 1:200 drought event, with a probability of occurrences of .5 % every year somehow results in a forecast of use every second year. That level of use seems more related to Thames Water using TDRA to avoid imposing hosepipe bans which is not what it is meant to be for. The trigger for TDRA is proposed to be Level 1 drought response - that level is nowhere near permits or standpipes. The information on when the scheme may be used is very hard to follow but needs serious scrutiny. Using the scheme very often could easily result in environmental damage.
Second Point = We do need water. We need general supply increases and efficiencies in usage and leakage reductions. Once these demand measures are in place then the increasing need for water can only be met by storage, transfers, and large scale desalination or actual reuse and by working on a regional and national level. That is what the National Infrastructure Commission said in 2018 when the issue of long term planning really started to be looked at.
Doesn’t London need water?
Yes, London needs water but TDRA is not the scheme to provide the water needed in the future. It is a small sized scheme that cannot be scaled up.
Thames Water say they are going to introduce highly treated water into the Thames, what are the concerns?
Highly treated is a relative term. They will treat secondary treated sewage from Mogden to a slightly better degree with very specific and limited factors in mind. Secondary treated effluent has been strained, settled and may have some aeration to allow good bacteria to remove some bad chemicals. Tertiary treatment includes extra chemical processes defined by a permit. The permit is specific to location and for TDRA that location means they are looking to treat to remove phosphorus, nitrites, some more solids, and a couple of other things. It is not highly treated, which is a phrase more often (nearly always) associated with advanced treated wastewater. Advanced Waste Water Treatment is treated to a degree suitable for reuse in a reservoir etc as a drinking water source.
What are the alternatives? Are they viable?
The primary initial alternative to TDRA is improving leakage and reducing per person usage. TW say the costs of a higher level of leakage reduction would be too much. However, this must be in a context; reducing leakage means water supply in all situations is improved and reservoirs etc are not depleted as quickly in a drought meaning less reliance on drought schemes like TDRA.
TW should be acting faster on leakage reductions and getting people to use less water. Leakage reductions means even in a drought there may not need to be a new source because the existing water will get around. Better education and planning will help people use less. Going faster will cost, but it is necessary and provides more supply security than having to rely on a drought asset. Recent surveys by Ofwat and Thames Water have shown people are not as educated on water usage as they could be so a big push on that could help reduce per person usage quicker in the 2030s.
Another alternative to TDRA is the Beckton Reuse Scheme. This scheme has long been touted by Thames Water as the alternative to TDRA and it is a more expensive option. But Beckton Reuse Scheme is scalable, is a proper reuse of resources and potentially could be used as a supply option not just a drought option and have commercial benefits. Other alternatives include new regional transfers, regional reservoirs, reconsideration of existing regional transfers; reconsideration of existing abstraction regimes, ensuring all water treatment and existing reservoirs are managed to their most efficient levels.
What is treated effluent, should I be worried about it? (See Q5 also).
Treated effluent to a tertiary level is not the same as highly treated effluent. Tertiary treated effluent will contain biological contaminants like EColi and cryptosporidium, it will contain PFAs and forever chemicals. Yes this is allowed - but is it a good idea in a stretch of river that is utilised very regularly by swimmers, boaters, by schools etc. Remember this load of treated effluent will be in addition to the effluent coming from upriver and at times when the river is at low levels.
What about Thames Water’s financial situation, what impact will that have?
This will have no impact we think unless whoever is in charge decides to really examine what the public needs and what it is credible to move forward with.
Will this help the dumping of sewage into the river?
No, this is unrelated to the so-called accidental spills of untreated sewage into the river.