If not Teddington DIrect River Abstraction then what other options are there?
SOLAR accepts that there is a need to: reduce demand for water, to increase resilient water supply and to reduce the use of environmentally damaging drought schemes.
Reductions in demand may not account for all of the increased need for water by 2050 – but accelerating demand reduction measures will improve water supply sooner, will have positive environmental benefits and we believe would remove the “need” for TDRA.
On the supply side, TDRA is not a supply option it is a drought measure. Supply side measures that can increase overall supply, create storage and allow water transfers should be the first choice of water resource development.
The selection of TDRA as a “solution” to the supply issue is short sighted. It will waste customer money – £400 or £500 million just to build the scheme. That money could be invested into demand reduction or alternatives that will have better long-term outcomes. Not only that, but some of the alternative suggestions including the high-cost ones (Beckton Reuse) are already being considered because of the need to pre-empt supply issues of the future. If TDRA goes ahead customers will end up paying for that short term solution and then paying on top of that because in fact more solutions are needed.
TDRA is a small-scale drought scheme (not supply) based on soon to be obsolete treatment standards. In a changing climate it is not the future proof solution that London needs.
Alternatives to Thames Water's TDRA
Fix Leaks Faster
Thames Water leaks about 401 million litres a day (MLD) in London. This is against a target of 381MLD. (WRMP annual review 2025). This failure to meet leakage targets is not new for them. In June 2023, a freedom of information report showed that Thames Water pipe leaks were at their highest level in five years. Thames Water indicated they would be unable to meet their performance targets for leakage fixes.
Thames Water cannot be allowed to construct TDRA whilst failing to meet their basic leakage targets. Less leakage means better use of existing water supply, which is especially important in a drought.
We call on Thames Water to accelerate its leakage reduction programme. Less leaks means less of a need for TDRA.
Faster smart meter deployment
Smart meters not only help customers reduce water usage they also help water companies pinpoint leaks quickly and accurately.
A Waterwise* report in 2021 ("Smart water metering and the climate emergency"), states “installing one million smart water meters in the UK each year for the next 15 years could result in saving at least one billion litres of water a day (1,000 Mld) by the mid-2030s”. This report also pointed out that Thames Water reported in 2020 that customers with smart meters were using around 17% less water than those without a meter.
In England smart meters only account for 12% of households (Water efficiency must become national priority says EA - GOV.UK). In 2025 to 2030 Thames Water plan to install about 450,000 smart meters in London (Million plus smart meters coming to Thames Water region (2024).
Given the significant water savings that smart meters can provide we call on Thames Water to accelerate the installation of smart meters in London.
Government led improvements in building controls, white goods labelling and education on water saving behaviours by customers
Government has a role in reducing demand for water by improving the water efficiency standards of new builds and retrofitting older properties and mandatory labelling for white goods. The public also can be educated on how to use water wisely. These measures will reduce water use and can be implemented quite quickly. The recent government white paper highlights the importance of these measures. (A New Vision For Water 2026 -A new vision for water: white paper - GOV.UK).
We call on Thames Water to encourage the Government to ensure water efficiency building regs and white goods labelling are introduced early and are mandatory, not optional.
We call on government and the public to play their part in reducing demand for water to protect people and the environment in the future.
Run the Beckton Desalination Plant at Capacity
Beckton Desalination Plant (Beckton Desalination Plant, England – TheGreenAge) was opened in June 2010 and cost tax-payers £250 million. If it were run at capacity, the plant should produce about 150MLD. The plant was specifically developed for use in drought. However, Thames Water admitted in November 2022 that the plant had only been used on three occasions.
In their 2024 water resource plans Thames Water plan that Beckton Desalination plant will provide 50 Ml/d during the period up to 2030, and 75 Ml/d from then on. The Environment Agency’s highlights that there is a risk of Thames Water not achieving the planned rates and that Thames Water should consider whether to continue operating the asset in the long-term. Essentially the EA is suggesting that Thames Water should “use it or lose it” for Beckton Desalination.( The Overall Best Value Plan).
These statements demonstrate a real failure to manage the plant. Running at full 150MLD (or even 3/4 capacity) Beckton Desalination would cancel out the need for TDRA.
We call on Thames Water to confirm that there is no feasible way to increase the capacity of Beckton Desalination sooner rather than later.
Development of Beckton wastewater recycling scheme (or the alternative Mogden recycling scheme).
Although more expensive than TDRA, Beckton and Mogden could deliver 2 to 4 times more water capacity, at a higher quality. They are true "recycling” schemes as they take effluent water and treat it to an advanced level such that it can be reused for drinking water. (see, what is water recycling - Water recycling for public water supply: Environment Agency position statement - GOV.UK).
It is not good enough for Thames Water to focus on cost or “simplicity” when comparing TDRA to Beckton Reuse/ Recycling. The cost must be seen in the context of the advanced nature of recycling schemes, the cleaner water, the potential economic benefits for industrial use, the scalability. If the cost of drought to London is estimated to be £500m a day, then the cost of building infrastructure to deal with that is worth it. As to “simplicity” – it is not credible to describe London as water stressed and then choose to avoid water recycling because it is a “complex” process. Water recycling is exactly the solution that water stressed countries like Australia or cites like Singapore or Beijing use to provide significant source of water for drinking, industry and drought resilience.
We call on the regulators and Thames Water to reexamine the long term benefits of TDRA compared to Beckton Recycling for London’s future water supply.
SOLAR suggests the following “wild card” proposal
Conversion of Beckton desalination plant to an Advanced Wastewater treatment plant. If Beckton Desalination plant cannot be managed to improved capacity, then the costs benefit of utilising the existing assets in this way should be considered. Beckton sewage treatment works will be processing a significant amount of extra sewage waste from the Thames Tideway tunnel. Why not create a circular economy of wastewater to produce a significant advanced wastewater recycling water supply for London?
We call on Thames Water to consider the cost benefit of developing the Beckton Desalination plant into an advanced waste water recycling plant
Better utilisation of reservoir assets
Better utilisation of reservoir assets- 1. Sedimentation Loss: reductions in capacity from sedimentation may lead to significant reductions in water available for use. A 2001 report assessed that reservoirs between 50 and over 100 years old could have a reduced capacity of between 5% and 10%. Did Thames Water assess the sedimentation levels of their reservoirs as part of the WRMP24 options? Did they assess the cost benefits of how much more water could be stored against the cost of managing sedimentation better? 2. The reservoir capacity at the Queen Mary reservoir may have a surplus capacity which has not been included in Thames Water’s resource modelling.
We call on Thames Water and the regulators to ensure sedimentation in reservoirs is managed to ensure there is no loss of capacity. Also to ensure the capacity of all reservoirs is fully understood and solutions utilising existing reservoir infrastructure is considered before developing new infrastructure.
A new London reservoir in the east
Reservoirs have proven over decades to be a simple, durable, reliable supply asset. It seems logical to think that in looking at water resource options Thames Water would have considered if a new reservoir could be constructed in the North East London area. However, the water resource management plan 2024 reservoir feasibility report specifically states that potential options for reservoirs must be “located near to the River Thames upstream of Windsor or a main tributary river that flows into the River Thames upstream of Windsor” (Addendum Report - Reservoirs). How can options for reservoir development for Greater London be considered without taking account of the wider range of locations including North and East of the city?
We call on Thames Water to show it has examined all potential sites to develop reservoirs which could provide reliable, durable supply asset for North East London.
Develop the Severn to Thames Transfer (STT) earlier in the water resource cycle.
This should be brought forward for the benefit of not just London but the south east. This is a project to transfer up to 300Mld of water via pipeline or canal from the Severn to the Thames. The idea of regional transfers was a top option for the National Infrastructure Commission in 2018 and for all regulatory bodies since. It is a genuine strategic long-term solution based on the reality of regional rainfall volumes over decades. The scheme is proposed to be available from 2050, but that is to do with water resources planning decisions not when the project could feasibly be ready. The informational groundwork for the scheme is being advanced already. (JV picked to progress Severn-Thames water transfer plan | Construction Enquirer News).
We call on Thames Water to bring forward the development of the STT project given the regional and long term benefits to water supply for the South East.
Termination or renegotiation of the 91 Ml/d Essex & Suffolk Water export agreement.
There is a water trading arrangement between Thames Water and Essex & Suffolk Water. This agreement is from 1963. It allows 91MLD to be transferred from the London Lee Valley reservoirs to ESW. The original agreement states that E&S should impose hosepipe bans at the same time as Thames Water, or TW may reduce the transfer by 25%. A current variation allows Thames Water, in times of drought, to reduce the export to 71MLD. This flexible arrangement ends early 2035. (Updated response to Defra’s request for further information).
We call on Thames Water to ensure that it has fully explored with ESW how this export agreement is managed to maintain that flexibility in drought, including how hosepipe bans are managed.
More efficient use of, development of, existing abstractions.
In 2016 the abstraction control process (the Lower Thames Control Diagram- LTCD) was “optimised” to ensure abstractions were being managed efficiently. This optimisation created an extra 30mld of available water for abstraction. Thames Water note that “The LTCD has not been re-optimised between WRMP19 and WRMP24”. (WRMP24 DO (Technical Appx I -DO). Why has this not been done? If the LTCD is optimised and more water is available for abstraction utilising existing infrastructure, then TDRA would not be needed.
This is especially important given that Thames Water is currently considering the development of what it calls the Lower Thames to West London Reservoir (LTWLR) project. This is a significant “storage and transfer” project around the lower Thames abstraction points and reservoirs. It will utilise existing riverside infrastructure and is planned to add 300 or 500 MLD to the water supply. Surely this will mean a change to the abstraction regime for the Lower Thames? This scheme seems to be being developed in parallel to TDRA. Customers will end up funding TDRA for its cheap and short-term outcome as well as paying for the LTWLR.
We call on Thames Water and the EA to ensure existing Lower Thames abstractions are managed efficiently utilising existing infrastructure before adding unnecessary riverside infrastructure and damaging new treated sewage outputs