GARD’S ALTERNATIVES

To meet future peak supply shortfalls GARD’s alternative proposals are based on:-

• Treated Water re-use, supplemented by (as and when needed)
• Piped water transfer from the river Severn into the Thames..

Treated Water re-use

Over two billion litres per day of treated waste water are discharged by Thames Water from London into the Thames estuary, a scandalous waste of a major water resource in what is defined as one of the UK’s “water-stressed regions”.

• We all drink recycled treated waste water guaranteed to meet the highest standards. Water recycling facilities can be built at relatively modest cost in 2/3 years.
• Water re-use is climate-change proof, therefore inherently sustainable.
• Recycling facilities like those already in use elsewhere can be introduced sequentially to match demand growth as it develops. Note: Thames Water’s assertion that some water treatment facilities would require costly reverse osmosis is unproven.
• By contrast, Thames Water's Abingdon reservoir, taking approx three times as long to construct, would have depended on their highly questionable long range demand forecasts. It would have cost approximately five times that of a conventional re-use facility.
• A number of smaller waste water treatment schemes could also be brought on stream at modest cost to meet the forecast shortfall.

Water transfer

• Thames Water’s Abingdon reservoir’s total dependence on supply from the Thames (already heavily abstracted) would have become increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change diminishing its flow.
• As and when it might become necessary to supplement the Thames flow, piped water transfer from the Severn would be relatively easy to implement. NB. It was recommended by the Water Resources Board and the National Rivers Authority prior to water privatisation, was thoroughly examined then and found to be feasible.
• GARD has researched possible routes from the Severn into the Thames and has defined two feasible routes. (read more)
• The Severn has three times the flow as the Thames and has a much larger water catchment area. There is little difference in the water chemistry between the two rivers.
• Piped water transfer would cost substantially less than a Thames Water’s Abingdon reservoir. As with conventional water reuse it would also produce less CO2 because of its shorter period of operation.
• It would have limited environmental impact, would be quicker to build, and would provide a guaranteed supply.
• The amount of water transferred from the Severn could be adjusted to meet demand, as required. Previous studies have shown such transfer would only be needed for about 20 days a year on average, thus limiting energy use.

THESE CHEAPER ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF LONG TERM WATER SUPPLIES PROPOSED BY GARD MADE THAMES WATER’S CASE FOR THEIR ABINGDON RESERVOIR PROPOSAL WHOLLY UNNECESSARY.