Drought orders, emergency measures for use in times of drought, are being abused to meet rising demands for water. Rivers and their wildlife are threatened by water companies taking too much water while failing to implement basic water conservation measures. Environmental reports produced to assess impacts of drought orders are inadequate.
If both the environment and the consumer are to be protected water companies must develop long term contingency plans rather than relying on crisis management. Guidelines must be developed to establish what constitutes an exceptional shortfall of rain so that drought orders are used only when really necessary.
Codes of practice for use of drought orders should be developed. These must ensure that drought orders are granted only after water companies have implemented a suite of demand management measures. Statutory minimum acceptable flows must be set for rivers to act as a basis for sustainable water management.
Environmental assessments must be prepared for drought orders well in advance of them actually having to be used and must follow best practice guidelines. Interested parties must be consulted much earlier in the process and given sufficient time to analyse and comment on reports.
Emergency measures to abstract extra water from rivers are being abused by some water companies. Under a legal mechanism known as a drought order water companies can apply to take more water from the environment if they can show there has been an “exceptional shortfall of rain” which threatens a “serious deficiency of water supplies”[1].
Since water privatisation the use of drought orders in many regions has increased as demand for water has risen. For example, during 1995/6 Yorkshire Water depended on drought orders to meet more then one fifth of its water supply[2].
If demand is allowed to rise unchecked the perceived need for drought orders will increase with serious costs to the environment.
As an alternative, water companies should be adopting water conservation measures [3] and developing contingency plans rather than plunging from crisis to crisis and expecting the environment to take the strain.
This paper reviews the use of drought orders and permits (section 2) and discusses assessment of their environmental impacts. Section 3 briefly describes ecological impacts of low river flows that may result from overuse of drought orders. Environmental reports produced for Yorkshire Water's applications for drought orders are examined in section 4. It is suggested in section 5 that best practice guidelines should be followed in reports on impacts of drought orders. The need for change in the drought order process is addressed in section 6 with recommendations given in section 7.
Water companies can apply to take extra water, in addition to licensed abstractions under three legal mechanisms[4]:
Ordinary and emergency drought orders are granted by the Secretary of State for the Environment and drought permits by the Environment Agency.
Any person has seven days to inspect plans and reports from the date a drought order/permit is served or advertised. Objections must be lodged in the same seven days. This time period takes no account of postal delays, weekends or staff being on leave. For example, English Nature, a statutory consultee for the drought order on the River Hull, had just days to respond to threats to three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)[5].
The time period of seven days provides objectors with insufficient
time to fully assess impacts and reflects the crisis nature of applications
for drought orders and permits.
Yorkshire water was criticised by an independent commission of enquiry in relation to drought orders[6]. Although it nominally consults nature conservation organisations it is clear that the legislation must be changed so that water companies are forced to consult statutory conservation bodies much earlier in the application process.
Codes of practice could be set under section 5 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to provide water companies with practical guidance on how to meet their consultation and environmental duties.
While water companies are legally required to demonstrate an exceptional shortage of rain there are no guidelines for calculating shortage. Without an objective definition of what constitutes exceptional shortage it is possible for companies to create subjective judgements on rainfall patterns. This is raising concern amongst environmentalists who believe that drought orders are being used unnecessarily.
Additionally, water companies are able to obtain drought orders on rivers if they can demonstrate water shortage in another part of their operating area. Opposition to a drought order on the River Hull showed that there was not a water shortage in the Hull catchment [7]. However, Yorkshire Water was granted the order on the basis of water shortage in another part of Yorkshire. So an emergency measure which threatens the ecology of the River Hull was granted even though there was no shortfall of rain.
Before a drought order or permit is granted water companies are required to show they have taken measures to limit demand. The Environment Agency suggests hosepipe bans, leakage control, pressure reduction, or publicity campaigns[8].
Friends of the Earth believes much more could be done to manage demand before turning to rivers for more water[9]. For example:
These measures would save water and help remove the pressure to develop costly new resources whilst creating jobs and protecting the environment. They would also reduce the need for drought orders.
The Environment Agency and the Secretary of State should expect to see such measures in place so that demand is reduced well in advance of serious water shortage. However, despite recent exceptionally dry summers no significant measures for reducing demand have been developed. Furthermore leakage rates have increased amongst many companies[10]
The water company must prepare an environmental report as part of its application for a drought order or permit. This should identify the impacts of the proposal. Friends of the Earth is concerned that these reports do not adequately assess the ecological impacts.
The detailed impacts of over-abstraction of water on river ecology are poorly understood. However, it is known that pollutants are concentrated as the volume of water in the river is reduced with consequent impacts on sensitive species of fish and invertebrates. Low flows in summer may lead to higher water temperatures and reduced oxygen levels in the water. Drinking water can be affected and the aesthetic quality of the habitat reduced[11].
Reduced flows can lead to siltation of channels and settlement of fine sediments. This can clog up fish spawning grounds making them unsuitable as breeding sites for fish like grayling and barbel or cover eggs that have already been laid, starving the developing embryo of oxygen. At low flows fish may not be able to access shallows for spawning.
Low river flows may affect movement of migratory fish like salmon and trout. During low flows fish congregate in pools where they are more susceptible to pollution, predation and spread of disease and parasites. Changes in availability of insects and fish which are food sources for birds could affect species such as kingfishers, common sandpipers and dippers.
Lower flows on tidal rivers, brought about by drought orders, could result in movement of saline water further upstream. This effect could be compounded by sea-level rise from global warming[12].
The implementation of minimal acceptable flows is widely supported as a way to ensure that river flows do not drop to environmentally damaging levels. However, there are few circumstances where these are set and adhered to.
Yorkshire Water has substantially increased its use of drought orders since privatisation. Between 1977-1988 no applications for drought orders were made yet 36 applications were made in the subsequent four years [13]. In 1995 alone Yorkshire Water applied for 20 drought orders [14].
Friends of the Earth examined the ecological sections of 18 environmental reports produced for Yorkshire Water drought orders in 1995 and six from 1996. The purpose of this was to determine what impacts were being predicted and whether this affected decisions to grant drought orders. Key observations are outlined below. These are general to all, but particular examples are referenced.
The impacts of over-abstraction on river ecology are poorly understood [15] yet the environmental reports claimed negligible impact on river wildlife while recognising that the “assessment of impacts [is] hampered by lack of understanding of species”[16].
Some of the reports used vague statements like “there are not expected to be any impacts on the fish population” or there is not likely to be any “significant impact” [17] with inadequate evidence to support their claims.
The quality of Yorkshire Water's reports improved in 1996, after the pressure of the 1995 drought lessened, but the poorest examples dismissed likely impacts with claims like:
“The reduction in available habitat is not likely to have a significant impact on the composition of invertebrate populations although abundance may change. Any effects are recoverable within a year”[18].
No data were given to explain how they could be so sure that species would recover and under what climatic circumstances. Percentage loss of habitat was not given or any discussion of cumulative impacts.
Clearly the consultants were pressured for time. For example, for the 1995 drought order for Hebden Water and River Worth [19] it was stated that no data were available on aquatic plants and that whilst there might be records available they had “not been investigated due to the time constraint of the assessment”. Without baseline data impacts cannot be assessed.
Statements were vague and did not quantify impacts eg “reduction of stream width may have some effect on the overall abundance”[20]. No information was given on what the exact effects on particular species would be.
A number of the reports noted that historic data were used and that in some cases species identification was carried out “to a very basic level” [21], [22], [23]. Surveys that are carried out to family level rather than to species level indicate large scale changes in fauna only and may miss impacts on rare and protected species.
In many of the 1995 statements the need for monitoring the accuracy of predictions after use of a drought order was not discussed, yet such information is fundamentally important in understanding the effects of over-abstraction on river wildlife.
Without post monitoring of the impacts of the drought order it is impossible to know if invertebrate and fish populations recover. On the River Don a second drought order was granted before the impacts of the first were even known[24].
One report tried to blame anglers for the problem [25]:
“Coarse fish are susceptible to similar or greater stress from physical handling, particularly if this is repeated. The intensity of angling pressure therefore also has a bearing on fish health.”
And bordered on arrogance in dismissing the impacts of low flows:
“Whilst natural low flows may make angling more challenging because the fish can see the anglers better, the additional effect of the drought order is negligible.”
Even when reports did note ecological impacts the drought orders were
still granted.
For example, the environmental report for the Pennine Reservoirs Compensation drought order [26] noted that, “If 1996 remains dry, the drought order will produce conditions comparable with a severe drought. The environmental impacts in such conditions are likely to be significant, principally on fish and to a lesser extent on aquatic macroinvertebrates”.
A 1996 drought order for the River Wharfe [27] predicted impacts on the East Keswick Fitts SSSI. One for the little Don in the Sheffield catchment noted that there would be “significantly greater impact of toxic metals .on an already impoverished fauna”[28].
A drought permit has recently been granted on the River Hull yet the environmental assessment noted that saline water may extend 2-3km further upstream when the permit is in operation. In addition, there may be a moderate to severe impact on water quality, increased risk of fish kills and possible impacts on Leven Canal SSSI [29].
Some of the reports relied on the drought ending to reduce the impact of the drought orders: “The expectation is that rain will occur and flows increase, such that the emergency drought order either will not be needed, or will only be used for a few days” [30].
But the drought didn't end as was realised in the drought order for Winscar releases[31]:
“The drought of summer 1995 was expected to end during the winter of 1995/96 enabling natural replenishment of reservoir stocks. Cessation of the drought did not occur over this period.”
Consequently reservoirs were not replenished and river flows remained low with continued threats to wildlife.
The same report attempted to paint a positive picture of the drought order by highlighting the opportunity it gave to “obtain better baseline data, and to monitor impacts and recovery”.
Key points arising from the examination of environmental reports are:
The purpose of the environmental report submitted for a drought order or permit is to provide information to the public, the Environment Agency and the Government on the impact of additional abstraction on the water environment. Currently these reports are not adequately reflecting the possible impacts on wildlife and drought orders are being granted with incomplete knowledge of environmental impacts. Friends of the Earth believes that the whole system of using drought orders needs to be reassessed and environmental reports should incorporate best practice guidelines for wildlife.
Much can be learned from best practice developed for environmental impact assessments. In the UK Environmental Assessments (EAs) are required for certain projects which may have a significant impact on the environment. Statutory requirements to prepare Environmental Statements (the report of the assessment) were introduced in the UK in mid-1988 with the implementation of the 1985 EC Directive on environmental assessment of major projects (85/337/EEC)[32]. The Directive is implemented by the Town and Country Planning Regulations[33]. Applications for drought orders do not require an EA but they do require an environmental report which should identify impacts.
Early EAs were considered inadequate and of poor quality, particularly in terms of conservation of wildlife [34,35]. To improve the process, organisations such as English Nature [36], CPRE [37] and the RSPB [38] have developed best practice guidance for EAs focusing on the impacts of developments on wildlife. Good practice guidelines have also been published by the Department of the Environment [39]. Consultants must be required to follow these guidelines to improve the quality of reporting. Ten key areas should be addressed.
The purpose of scoping is to focus the environmental assessment on key issues and is considered good practice[40]. It must not be seen as an alternative to a full assessment, however. It should involve consultation with interested parties to enable them to voice their concerns. Such opportunities for consultation must be genuine and organisations should have ample time to analyse and comment on reports.
The water companies have a duty to further the conservation and enhancement of flora and fauna under section 3 of the Water Industries Act 1991. Scoping would provide important information to enable them to meet this duty. Local wildlife specialists can provide useful information on existing ecology and should be consulted.
Scoping is not a mandatory part of the environmental assessment process but there is strong support for its inclusion.
Baseline data provides information about the existing nature of a site - water quality, hydrology, ecology - before changes are made. It is not possible to predict impacts unless the existing conditions are recorded and understood. Baseline data can then be referred to in subsequent monitoring of impacts.
Assessment of ecological impacts should cover both habitats and species of flora and fauna (especially protected species). A thorough survey of the site should be carried out and of the surrounding area that may be affected. The data used should be up to date and may have to be screened for accuracy.
Because of the time pressure on getting a drought order most of the data used is second hand, gathered from previous survey data and desk studies. It is essential that new field surveys are carried out as conditions may have changed.
Where protected species are involved, or features of special interest, it may be important to repeat surveys with more than one surveyor. Surveys should not just deal with the species that are easily identifiable. Weak ecological assessments could be avoided by employing experienced field ecologists to carry out detailed surveys.
The surveys should include areas that have not been formally designated as sites of wildlife importance. It is not just the presence of one or two rare species that is important. Sites might be considered important for conservation because they are good examples of a particular habitat. Recognised survey techniques should be used so that surveys can be repeated, if necessary.
Surveys are rarely carried out to species level. Without this information impacts cannot be adequately assessed on species that are protected or the subject of government action plans.
The timing of surveys is crucial. Different birds will overwinter in a site to those that breed there in the summer. Flowering plants cannot always be easily identified in winter. Some invertebrates such as butterflies and dragonflies are only present in their adult form for short periods. Sufficient lead time should be built into projects to ensure adequate time for data collection.
Many environmental statements are vague in their description of impacts, e.g. “there will be minimal impact” or “negligible impact”. Information should be provided on the magnitude, probability and duration of impact and the long term implications for populations.
Mitigation should be considered throughout the project proposal, not just tagged on to the end as a public relations exercise. Impacts might be avoided by timing abstraction to avoid sensitive periods. Mitigation in low flowing rivers could include restoration of spawning gravels which have been irretrievably lost or damaged. But it should be recognised that habitat recreation and translocation of species are unreliable and unpredictable. Yorkshire Water may offer to carry out fish rescues but evidence is needed to prove projects will work.
There are no formal requirements for monitoring in the EC Directive “despite the fact that lack of effective monitoring could undermine the whole EA process”[41]. Monitoring of effects should be guaranteed in order to assess whether the impact predictions were right.
The environmental report is not a public relations document. It should be objective and accurate. Statements of fact and statements of opinion should be clearly distinguished. There is uncertainty in environmental effects and this uncertainty should be explicitly recognised.
A clear, non technical summary of the likely effects allows the public to participate in decision making. Some reports are excessively long and important information is lost in the bulk of the text. Even when summaries are provided they generally include technical language.
There is little doubt that a more long term view of water resource management is needed. Water companies cannot keep responding to shortfalls in supply by simply taking more water. This is particularly so in the light of the increased frequency and duration of drought likely to result from global warming. As water becomes an increasingly scarce resource we have to find ways of limiting demand.
Nevertheless, there will always be a need to extract a certain amount of water from rivers. Strategic Environmental Assessment which would consider the impacts of drought orders/ permits on rivers in a wider area, for example a catchment, could be used to predict cumulative effects. This would enable more environmentally sensitive decision making.
Water companies may argue that they apply for drought orders and permits during what are considered emergency shortage periods and that they do not have enough time to carry out such comprehensive environmental reports. But with long term planning rivers could be assessed for their ability to withstand drought orders in advance of the orders being used. Such planning would also enable adequate consultation - a situation that the current system of giving interested parties just days to comment on environmental reports clearly fails to do.
Even the Environment Agency is not being adequately consulted. In evidence to the House of Commons Environment Committee's inquiry into water conservation and supply, it called for greater access to water companies' drought contingency and water resource plans [42]. Currently, the Agency is being hindered in assessing whether water companies' plans threaten the environment.
Yorkshire Water admit that the quality of their environmental reports in 1995, at the height of the drought period, did not match up to earlier reports and to those carried out in 1996. This is not acceptable and suggests that environmental reports are being produced merely to fulfill a legal obligation rather than to guide the decision as to whether use of the drought order is environmentally acceptable.
But producing good environmental reports will be a meaningless gesture if the impacts outlined are ignored. There are very real concerns that drought orders are being granted regardless of the environmental impacts. Clear guidelines are needed to identify what degree of threat would justify refusal of a drought order.
[1] The Water Resources Act (1991).
July 1996
Published by Friends of the Earth Ltd
© Friends of the Earth Ltd
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
26-28 Underwood Street
London N1 7JQ
Telephone (0171) 490 1555,
E-mail: info@foe.co.uk
Printed on 100% recycled paper
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk
July 1996
Author
Last modified: Jan 2002
