PART 2 WITNESSES' VIEWS (continued)
THE WATER INDUSTRY
AND ITS CUSTOMERS
The Water Services
Association, the Water Companies Association and the North of
Scotland Water Authority
30. Representatives
of the water industry also expressed a general welcome for the
draft Directive and the river basin approach. They suggested that
the definition of "good status" in Article 4 could
be improved by making it clear that it should include "compliance
with appropriate environmental quality standard values where relevant,
a balanced and sustainable ecosystem consistent with local conditions,
minimum quality standards related to the actual or potential use,
(and) sustainable yield/flows appropriate to the range of normal
climatic conditions". They also suggested a reordering
of the Directive to reflect more closely the approach to investment
planning normally applied in business. They felt that the catchment
planning process should take more account of water resource development
and not simply rely on demand management; and that the costs of
the proposed measures should be properly taken into account and
explained to the public, so that customers' willingness to pay
for them could be assessed. Most of their points had been made
on a Europe-wide basis in the joint paper by EUREAU and EWWG[15],
provided by the Water Services Association (WSA) as written evidence
(pp 47-55; QQ 153-61).
31. Mr Cockburn, of
the North of Scotland Water Authority, said he would welcome SEPA
being given powers in line with those of the EA in England and
Wales. For example, controls over abstraction would protect water
authorities' own abstractions from interference by others (Q 162).
32. WSA representatives
found the draft lacking in clarity on the level of decision making
(Q 163). The definition of "good" needed to be
flexible, to reflect the varying circumstances across Europe:
it was quite legitimate for the Community to establish common
goals, but details of implementation should be left to Member
States. All this should be on the basis of transparency and fair
reporting on the state of water across Europe. Like other witnesses,
they felt the 2010 deadline was unrealistic (Q 167). They
were in favour of the environmental quality standard approach
as opposed to fixed limit values as in the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive (Q 169). They felt that the significance of climate
change to decisions on resource development and demand management
was not properly taken into account in the draft (Q 175).
So far, water supply had not been a constraint on development
(Q 188).
33. Views differed across
the country and between companies on the efficacy of metering,
but the WSA welcomed the Government's review of charging (QQ 183-4).
If full recovery of environmental costs were to be implemented,
the revenue generated should be ploughed back into environmental
improvements (Q 186). It was not for the water industry to
set environmental standards, but it had a role in pointing out
the costs and practical implications of proposed standards so
that they could be debated and understood by the community at
large (QQ 191-3).
WRc plc
34. WRc (formerly known
as the Water Research Centre) generally echoed comments by the
water industry, particularly on the over-optimistic timetable.
Like the Environment Agency, they saw a future in the developing
science of assessment of ecological quality. In their view it
called for a Europe-wide research programme, which WRc (as convenor
of the European Environment Agency's Topic Centre on Inland Waters)
was well placed to lead (pp 94-5).
The Director General
of Water Services (OFWAT)
35. The Director General,
in written evidence, put it to us that it was important for Ministers
to be aware of the costs of any change in policy or standards
when making decisions about the setting of new or improved environmental
standards; that efficient use of water should take precedence
over new infrastructure or increased abstraction; that it would
help the conservation of resources if water companies had a statutory
duty to use their charging powers to promote economy; that Member
States should be free to decide how best to address questions
of affordability for domestic consumers; that estimating the costs
of achieving "good" status was not possible without
reliable information on the present quality of ground waters;
and that the costs of compliance must necessarily influence the
assessment of whether the timescale for compliance was reasonable
(pp 73-6).
The Consumers'
Association and the OFWAT National Customer Council
36. Both consumer bodies
were in general accord with the Director General. They were particularly
concerned by the lack of detailed costings. They would like to
see a more thorough application of the "polluter pays"
principle and stronger representation of the interests of water
customers in the development of water policy (pp 68-9, 76-9).
15 The bodies respectively representing the water supply industry and the waste water collection and treatment industry in the Member States of the EU and EFTA. Back
| 
