Overview of Anglian Water’s Catchment Management Strategy 11 th July 2012 Simon Eyre Water Resources Management Team
Overview of Anglian Water’s Catchment Management Strategy
11th July 2012
Simon Eyre
Water Resources Management Team
Contents
• Background Information
• AW catchments
• Nene drinking water catchments
• Work in the Nene
• Water Quality
• Activities
• Recent survey
• Next stages
Anglian Water
•Geographically the largest water company in England and Wales.
•4.2 million water customers and 5.6 million wastewater customers.
•Abstraction of c.1,200 Ml/d
Anglian WaterDrinking water sources
50% of our raw water comes from groundwater and 50% is from surface
water.
Groundwater:•226 sources, >500 boreholes
Surface water:
•9 reservoirs and 8 direct intakes
•Direct river abstraction into the treatment works •Pumping of water from a river into an impounding reservoir
•Natural flow from streams and storage in reservoirs
Pollution issues
• c.82% of AW region land agricultural
• Pesticides and nitrate • Diffuse and point source pollution
• Contrast surface water and groundwater catchments– Surface water; more vulnerable, larger
catchments, seasonal responses– Groundwater; variable vulnerability,
smaller catchments, less seasonal
Surface water catchments
Groundwater catchments
AW WTWs and theNene Catchment
73.45Tinwell) and Gwash)Morcott
123.891,215,190Nene (u/s of
Wansford)
(also Welland (u/s of
Rutland
reservoir
Wing
36.00101,643Nene (u/s of Duston
Mill)
Holcott, Scaldwell, Waldegrave
Pitsford
reservoir
Pitsford
7.0418,066Coton Mill
Crow Hill
Ravensthorpe
and Hollowellreservoirs
Ravensthorpe
Average Output (Ml/d)
PopulationFeeder streams/rivers
SourcesWTW
Pitsford – Natural catchments
These are small headwater catchments which feed directly into the reservoir. Detailed information on the catchment response is not
available.
Catchment response
Undifferentiated argillaceous rock overlain by interbedded limestone and sandstone
Catchment geology
Holcot Feeder Stream, Scaldwell Brook and Walgrave Brook combined: 47 km
2
Catchment area
Pitsford catchment
Catchment
These streams feed directly into PitsfordReservoir.
Nature of intake monitoring
SP793713SP776718
SP794701NGR
River River RiverSource Type
WalgraveBrook intake
ScaldwellBrook intake
HolcotFeeder Stream, intake
Source Name
Pitsford – Pumped catchment
Based on the flow gauge at Upton (a short distance upstream of the intake), the catchment response is affected by runoff
increased with effluent returns
Catchment response
Mostly clay (70%) with 30% superficial deposits, mainly Boulder Clay. Predominantly rural catchment with land use of
mixed farming
Catchment geology
280 km2
Catchment area
Water is pumped from intake to Pitsford Reservoir
Nature of intake monitoring
Upper NeneCatchment
SP729596NGR
RiverSource Type
River Nene/Duston Mill intakeSource Name
Ravensthorpe catchment
This is a small headwater catchment which feeds directly into the reservoir. Detailed information on the catchment
response is not available.
Catchment response
The geology of the catchment is Upper Lias overlain by Inferior Oolite
Catchment geology
9.9 km2
Catchment area
Water from this stream feeds into the Ravensthorpe
Reservoir
Nature of intake monitoring
RavensthorpeCatchment
SP683738NGR
Inflow from reservoir catchmentSource Type
Coton Mill Stream intakeSource Name
Hollowell catchment
This is a small headwater catchment which feeds directly into the reservoir. Detailed information on the catchment
response is not available.
Catchment response
The geology of the catchment is Upper Lias overlain by Inferior Oolite
Catchment geology
11.7 km2
Catchment area
Water from this stream feeds into the Hollowell Reservoir
Nature of intake monitoring
HollowellCatchment
SP672712NGR
Inflow from reservoir catchmentSource Type
Crow Hill Stream intakeSource Name
Drinking water standards
All water companies must supply water to defined drinking water standards
For example: Individual pesticide: 0.1 ug/l
Total pesticides: 0.5 ug/l
• If standards are exceeded the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) requires solutions to be implemented
• Part of the Periodic Review Business Planning process
• Five year AMP periods• DWI Undertakings specify requirements
• Traditional solution has been treatment
Metaldehyde (2008-2012)
Pitsford Water Treatment Works - Metaldehyde
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Jan
08
Feb
08
Ma
r08
Ap
r08
May
08
Jun
08
Jul0
8
Aug
08
Sep
08
Oc
t08
No
v0
8
Dec
08
Jan
09
Feb
09
Ma
r09
Ap
r09
May
09
Jun
09
Jul0
9
Aug
09
Sep
09
Oc
t09
No
v0
9
Dec
09
Jan
10
Feb
10
Ma
r10
Ap
r10
May
10
Jun
10
Jul1
0
Aug
10
Sep
10
Oc
t10
No
v1
0
Dec
10
Jan
11
Feb
11
Ma
r11
Ap
r11
May
11
Jun
11
Jul1
1
Aug
11
Sep
11
Oc
t11
No
v1
1
Dec
11
Jan
12
Feb
12
Ma
r12
Ap
r12
May
12
Jun
12
Jul1
2
Meta
ldeh
yd
e (
µg
/l)
Duston Mill intake
(river to reservoir)
Holcot Feeder Stream
(river to reservoir)
Scaldwell Brook
(river to reservoir)
Walgrave Brook
(river to reservoir)
Pitsford Raw Water
(reservoir to WTW)
Final Water
(12m max = 0.109µg/l)
Regulatory Standard
Go to Data
Metaldehyde (2008-2012)
Ravensthorpe Water Treatment Works - Metaldehyde
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Jan
08
Feb
08
Ma
r08
Ap
r08
May
08
Jun
08
Jul0
8
Aug
08
Sep
08
Oc
t08
No
v0
8
Dec
08
Jan
09
Feb
09
Ma
r09
Ap
r09
May
09
Jun
09
Jul0
9
Aug
09
Sep
09
Oc
t09
No
v0
9
Dec
09
Jan
10
Feb
10
Ma
r10
Ap
r10
May
10
Jun
10
Jul1
0
Aug
10
Sep
10
Oc
t10
No
v1
0
Dec
10
Jan
11
Feb
11
Ma
r11
Ap
r11
May
11
Jun
11
Jul1
1
Aug
11
Sep
11
Oc
t11
No
v1
1
Dec
11
Jan
12
Feb
12
Ma
r12
Ap
r12
May
12
Jun
12
Jul1
2
Me
tald
eh
yd
e (
µg
/l)
Crow Hill
(river to Hollowell Reservoir)
Coton Mill
(river to Ravensthorpe Reservoir)
Hollowell Reservoir
(reservoir to WTW)
Ravensthorpe Reservoir
(reservoir to WTW)
Final Water
(12m max = 0.1µg/l)
Regulatory Standard
Go to Data
Clopyralid (2008-2012)
Pitsford Water Treatment Works - Clopyralid
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Jan
08
Fe
b08
Ma
r08
Ap
r08
Ma
y08
Jun
08
Jul0
8
Au
g08
Se
p08
Oc
t08
Nov
08
De
c08
Jan
09
Fe
b09
Ma
r09
Ap
r09
Ma
y09
Jun
09
Jul0
9
Au
g09
Se
p09
Oc
t09
Nov
09
De
c09
Jan
10
Fe
b10
Ma
r10
Ap
r10
Ma
y10
Jun
10
Jul1
0
Au
g10
Se
p10
Oc
t10
Nov
10
De
c10
Jan
11
Fe
b11
Ma
r11
Ap
r11
Ma
y11
Jun
11
Jul1
1
Au
g11
Se
p11
Oc
t11
Nov
11
De
c11
Jan
12
Fe
b12
Ma
r12
Ap
r12
Ma
y12
Jun
12
Clo
py
rali
d (
µg
/l)
Duston Mill intake
(river to reservoir)
Holcot Feeder Stream
(river to reservoir)
Scaldwell Brook
(river to reservoir)
Walgrave Brook
(river to reservoir)
Pitsford Raw Water(reservoir to WTW)
Final Water (max = 0.139µg/l)
Regulatory Standard
Go to Data
Clopyralid (2008-2012)
Ravensthorpe Water Treatment Works - Clopyralid
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Ja
n08
Feb
08
Mar0
8
Apr0
8
May
08
Ju
n08
Jul0
8
Aug
08
Sep
08
Oct0
8
No
v08
Dec
08
Ja
n09
Feb
09
Mar0
9
Apr0
9
May
09
Ju
n09
Jul0
9
Aug
09
Sep
09
Oct0
9
No
v09
Dec
09
Ja
n10
Feb
10
Mar1
0
Apr1
0
May
10
Ju
n10
Jul1
0
Aug
10
Sep
10
Oct1
0
No
v10
Dec
10
Ja
n11
Feb
11
Mar1
1
Apr1
1
May
11
Ju
n11
Jul1
1
Aug
11
Sep
11
Oct1
1
No
v11
Dec
11
Ja
n12
Feb
12
Mar1
2
Apr1
2
May
12
Ju
n12
Clo
pyra
lid
(µ
g/l
)
Crow Hill
(river to Hollowell Reservoir)
Coton Mill
(river to Ravensthorpe Reservoir)
Hollowell Reservoir
(reservoir to WTW)
Ravensthorpe Reservoir
(reservoir to WTW)
Final Water
(max = 0.113µg/l)
Regulatory Standard
Go to Data
Business options
Solutions are costly:• Options:
– close source and find alternative– blend with better quality water (if available)– treat to remove/reduce pollutant
• Consequences of depending on treatment:– Capital and operational costs increase with number and complexity of
treatment stages– Embedded carbon cost of plant construction– Operational energy carbon cost– Disposal of process water by-product– Environmental and social impacts of asset construction and operation– Treatment options may not be completely effective – Technology may not be available to remove pollutants
Catchment ManagementRegulatory drivers
• Promoted by the WHO in 2001 and the Drinking Water Inspectorate
• Defra Water Strategy (2008): ‘We will encourage water companies to work with farmers to tackle pollution at source’
• AW Strategic Direction Statement (2007); sustainable approach to management of drinking water quality
• Opportunities given by DWI and Ofwat to invest in catchment management work
• Water Framework Directive Article 7: DrWPAs require catchment protection to avoid deterioration of raw water quality and the installation of additional treatment
Therefore, a regulatory shift of expectation from ‘traditional’ end-of-pipe solution to catchment management
Max. concentrations of selected pesticides from Pitsford reservoir(2005-10)
0.116Metazachlor
Pitsford Reservoir
1.7
0.133
0.604
0.786
0.369
0.195
0.18
0.827
0.236
Max. (ug/l)
Total pesticides
Simazine
Propyzamide
Metaldehyde
Mecoprop
Isoproturon
Clopyralid
Carbetamide
Bentazone
Pesticide
Max. concentrations of selected pesticides from Ravensthorpe and Hollowell reservoirs (2005-10)
0.1520.076Clopyralid
0.9950.17Simazine
HollowellRavensthorpe
1.472
0.173
0.594
0.994
0.307
0.142
0.675
0.306
Max. (ug/l)
2.178Total pesticides
0.045Quinmerac
1.14Propyzamide
1.47Metaldehyde
0.334Mecoprop
0.08Chlorotoluron
0.945Carbetamide
0.222Bentazone
Max. (ug/l)Pesticide
AW Nene work
• Improve understanding of catchment– Data Acquisition
– Catchment modelling
– Stakeholder meetings
– Hosting farmer and agronomist meetings at WTW
– MSG awareness
– ADAS farmer surveys
• Support initiatives– CSF Catchment Partnership
– WFD Pilot Catchment
– Nature Improvement Area
Catchment understanding
Key aspect of catchment management is to answer questions such as:
• What has caused the pollution problem?
• What needs to change?• What land use management practices to promote
and where?• What impacts on raw water quality would different
practices have?• How soon would the impacts be seen?• Can we do without treatment?
Survey work
Direct Engagement with farmers:
• Nov-11 to Feb-12
• Carried out by ADAS
• Gathered data on the use of metaldehyde and alternatives
• Raised awareness of drinking water issues
Process
• Invitation letters
• On-farm surveys (20 farms covering an area of 3,943 Ha)
• Collate data (for group not individual farms)
• Report
Key findings
• Willingness to consider ferric phosphate is an option to metaldehyde but need convincing
• Key factors in choice of slug control– Effectiveness of product
– Advice of agronomist
• Pellets rarely mixed
• Fairly consistent number of fields given an application 20-27% over the period 2008-2011
• Factors affecting slug presence– Wet weather
– Soil type
– Seed bed quality
Key findings (cont)
• Despite publicity some farmers not familiar with or not following best practice– Applications only carried out by trained operator
– No drains running at time of application
– Applications not exceeding 210g metaldehyde/ha during the restricted period (1st August to 31st December)
• Areas affected by breaches of guidelines (2008-11)– Untrained operators: 1292 ha
– Drains running at application: 4571 ha
– Restricted period applications exceeding max 210g/ha: 2672 ha
Next stages
Possible next steps:
• Discuss and review results
• Focussed group training
• Alternative product trialling
– Financial factors
– Agronomic factors
Conclusions
• Metaldehyde and clopyralid are still issues
• Catchment solutions are required to avoid:
– Expensive treatment, or
– Potential loss of product
• Planning mitigation measures has started
• Trials are needed to provide evidence that measures will work
• Opportunity to work together to ensure no detriment to either the farming or water businesses