Diffuse Pollution
54. The issue of diffuse pollution was raised several
times during our inquiry. This is pollution arising from land-use
activities (urban and rural) that do not discharge into water
through a point source. This includes, for example, run-off from
roads and agricultural land, both of which can be heavily polluted.
55. Diffuse pollution was an issue raised by our
predecessor Committee in its report on the Periodic Review. It
concluded that the Government was not tackling the problem with
sufficient energy. It is therefore disheartening to find that
despite the issue being much higher on the Government's agenda,
mainly as a result of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), measures
to deal with it have yet to be put in place.
56. The Government has recognised that the existing
controls on diffuse pollution are not comprehensive in their scope
and so are inadequate on their own to discharge its obligations
under the Water Framework Directive. As a result it announced
in its third consultation on the WFD, published in October 2003,
that it proposed to create new powers to control sources of diffuse
pollution, to ensure that the necessary powers are available to
implement the Directive and that it would consult separately on
the details.[62] The
Government also announced in 2003 that it would publish a draft
action plan for consultation in early 2004 that would set out
options to tackle agricultural diffuse pollution, which is one
of the main concerns, including a consideration of the pros and
cons of using economic instruments. The Minister told us this
document was expected in April 2004.[63]
57. According to Ofwat figures dealing with diffuse
water pollution currently costs water companies £7 per customer
per year, a figure which Water UK says will rise as a result of
tighter drinking water standards. According to them "one
medium sized company has estimated that the costs for dealing
with nitrates and pesticides during AMP4 will be £16.50 per
customer".[64] This
is again a significant amount that will have as much of an impact
on many water customers' bills as the environmental or water quality
programmes put forward in the current Review. We accept that water
companies are understandably unhappy that they are being made
to pay for dealing with pollution they do not cause when treating
water for drinking purposes and the fact that no parallel measures
have yet been put in place to address diffuse pollution, which
is the cause of these increased costs. However this is in no way
related, as Water UK and water companies tried to argue, to the
requirement for water companies to meet their own statutory obligations.
Other sectors, particularly agriculture, may now be more significant
polluters of watercourses, but this does not exempt water companies
from meeting their own obligations.
58. The Government has published various reports
and strategies since June 2002 but has yet to come to any decision
about what measures are to be used to deal with agricultural pollution.
We are very concerned at the slow progress by the Government
in reaching a decision on how diffuse pollution from agriculture
will be tackled. In view of this, we would expect DEFRA's response
to this report to include details of the timetable for the implementation
of measures to which they are working.
Water Framework Directive
59. The Environmental Industries Commission have
indicated that it is likely, once the definition of "good"
status for water bodies is agreed upon within the Water Framework
Directive, that a significant proportion of water courses will
have to be improved by 2015 to meet EU obligations. The Government
and Ofwat have expressed the view that measures cannot be put
in place until it becomes clearer what the requirements of the
Directive are. The Government in particular does not believe that
any measures need to be put in place until 2012, which would only
allow 3 years to achieve compliance. The Regulator did acknowledge
to us that the Directive could have an impact on the price limits
to be set in 2009 for the period 2010-15.[65]
60. We are glad that the Minister agreed with us
that a gradual increase in water bills would be more desirable
than a sudden larger rise at the beginning of the next Review
period in order to meet the requirements of the WFD.[66]
We do acknowledge that there are still a number of unknowns in
relation to its implementation. However, we are concerned
that once the requirements of the Water Framework Directive become
clearer there may be a large amount of work needed within a limited
amount of time that may not only have a very significant impact
on customers' water bills in 2010, but also on the UK's ability
to meet statutory obligations.
62 DEFRA, Third consultation paper on the implementation
of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), August 2003. Back
63
Q197. Back
64
Ev65, Water UK Supplementary Memorandum. Back
65
Ev86, Ofwat, Supplementary Memorandum, para 12. Back
66
Q224. Back
| 
