Identifying Routes to Integrated Water Management Delivery

^{All photos in this article are copyright by Carsten Ingemann}

As adaptation and resilience is high on the agenda in the UK, time has come to explore smoother pathways to implementing integrated water management (IWM), bringing together representatives from the Environment Agency, water utilities, local councils, rivers authority and drainage boards.

This article will look at the Cloud Burst Management Plan for integrated water management in Copenhagen, Denmark, and capture the learnings that could be applied in the UK. For clarity, a cloud burst is an intensive, localised period of rainfall that typically causes flash floods.

In the UK, sometimes highly damaging incidents are too small to be picked up in advance by meteorological forecasts, as they are much more unpredictable because topography and ground permeability can vary greatly. Climate change is intensifying the impact of storms and increasing the likelihood of cloud burst events such as the storms and heavy rain in early May 2023. More than two weeks’ worth of rain fell in a few hours and turned roads to rivers in the county of Somerset, UK (BBC, 2023). Disruption also affected travel networks and brought damage to homes and businesses in other parts of the country, including Devon, Northamptonshire, and Essex. The worst effects of flash flooding were, however, experienced in rural Somerset where a Major Incident was declared (Guardian, 2023). Managing all stormwater in underground sewers is too expensive and unsustainable. Alternative water management infrastructure needs to be considered for the urban landscape above ground, hence the relevance of looking at the Copenhagen case study.

Huge challenge

The challenge for project leaders in Copenhagen was to get multiple organisations to invest in projects where the benefits were not instantly visible or immediately obvious. The scale of the task was huge - Copenhagen has seven major river catchments and a population of 1.3 million people, and the €2 billion investment involves the implementation of 350 projects.

A 20-year project programme was planned, and it was decided to roll it out straightaway. The thinking was that no one could predict when the next stormwater event would happen, so every project on the ground would help deliver the overarching objectives.

The Copenhagen initiative was to manage not only cloud burst events, but better stewardship of daily rainfall and ensuring bringing wider value to communities. Participants heard that it required local authorities to be open-minded, and new co-funding investment models were introduced to cover the innovative and integrated approach to stormwater management.

Where it was difficult to get agreement, it was explained that political will was necessary to get projects over the line. For example, utilities were allowed to pay from drinking water and sewerage investment funds where the outcomes help meet objectives for those services and work on rivers; municipalities paid for synergy projects that delivered public amenities.

The Copenhagen case study supports thinking on how IWM  moves opinion beyond water to other agendas, including energy and carbon, planning, waste, biodiversity, agriculture, water resources, active travel, reduced pollution, healthy spaces, and natural capital.

Funding models

There are examples of bespoke funding arrangements available in the UK, such as the Herne Hill & Dulwich Flood Alleviation Scheme, which involved a public-private partnership between Southwark Council and Thames Water, with support from the UK Environment Agency. A funding gap in the original proposal was bridged by combining funding streams for Thames Water’s sewer surcharge and the local authority’s overland flooding allocation, in a public-private partnership.

One of the regulatory barriers to the implementation of integrated water management projects in the UK includes Ofwat’s five-year asset management plan (AMP) investment periods for the water sector in England and Wales. Given the long-term change required and multiple projects necessary to deliver an IWM project successfully, five-year plans to reduce storm overflows into the environment might miss the broader social and ecosystems opportunities made possible by IWM.

Defra/the EA’s flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) Strategy is considered to provide the means to be the continuum between droughts and floods. Water companies’ 25-year drainage and water management plans (DWMPs) were seen as a gamechanger in delivering partnership working and developing resilient infrastructure using nature-based and hybrid sustainable drainage solutions. DWMPs feed into utilities’ five-year business plans, but the lack of certainty in the perceived performance of NBS in meeting regulatory requirements is a potential barrier to delivering IWM projects. Combining these with the Water Resource Management Plans (WRMPs) could create real opportunities for IWM.

Public pressure

The urgency of meeting environmental targets, driven by public and political pressure to tackle storm overflows, is another reason timely delivery of NBS and IWM might not be possible. If these barriers cannot be overcome quickly, it will mean more upsizing of tanks and implementation of traditional means of keeping water out of flood risk areas over the next five years.

Once flooding can be managed where and when it arises, wider climate resilience and water resource issues come together and can be addressed in an integrated way but deciding responsibility for on-going costs for maintenance and operation of new assets represents another perceived blocker for IWM schemes. In Copenhagen, service agreements were introduced with municipalities maintaining all new assets above ground, while the water utilities hold responsibility for underground assets.

The roundtable event confirmed that utilities and local authorities in the Wessex region already have excellent relationships, but funds should be found by local organisations for those increased costs, decisions that would need to be made at a national level.

Stakeholder engagement

The need for early engagement across multiple parties and at many levels is critical. That includes water utilities, local authorities, river trusts and drainage boards, but also some bodies like highways, political leaders, and the general public.

Some of these stakeholders may have shared interests, and others that differ; no matter, they need to work together for a holistic strategy. Working in silos, especially around the regulatory five-year AMP cycle, misses the need for the necessary long-term perspective and strategy. It’s about having the right amount of water in the right place, at the right time.

It is crucial to have an ‘open mindset’ to deliver such complex and multi-faceted schemes. This relates to the partners who would be expected to deliver projects, but also the need to change the mindset of how people and communities relate to water as a resource and the water environment.

To ensure the resilience of communities in the future, people need to become more accepting of managing water at surface level, rather than underground. This may require the involvement of social scientists and behaviour change specialists working alongside planners and engineers.

The city of Copenhagen actively sought to be a global leader in IWM through its Cloud Burst initiative. It demonstrates that politicians can be awakened to the reputational capital they can garner by ensuring such schemes are successfully delivered. As the benefits stack up on flood management, green-blue amenities, biodiversity, climate resilience, and cost, their value is effectively communicated and community buy-in follows.