Valuing our water

Tim Pollard
Head of Sustainability at Plumb Center
Visit website

Post date: Monday, 6th February 2012

The government’s white paper entitled Water for Life, which was released in December last year, highlights a growing need to include water efficiency as part of overall sustainable development. Water is a highly undervalued asset and has long been treated as the ‘poor relation’ of carbon and energy in the green economy. Such a lack of attention could have serious implications in the future.

UK households account for approximately two-thirds of the country’s public water supply use, which means about 3.5 billion cubic metres per year. Domestic water use has grown consistently to the current average of 150 litres per person per day. Schools alone spend at least £70 million on their water bills each year, which in the current climate of austerity is an alarming figure.

In England and Wales our drinking water costs around 1p for 10 litres and most household customers pay for their water services based on the rateable value of their property, not actual consumption. The disparity in costs becomes more obvious when properties are moved on to a metred supply - and bills increase. Water poverty, defined as households where more than 3% of income is spent on water, is an emerging phenomenon and one whose impact should not be underestimated.

Tackling water efficiency is easier said than done.

First and foremost, we need to encourage involvement from across the industry - from government, the utility companies, distributors, manufacturers of water products and their associated installers - to ensure an integrated and co-ordinated approach. By helping consumers to understand their use of water, we can establish its true value, especially in context of the relative scarcity of this resource.

Water efficiency labelling is imperative if we are to make any headway. Installers or plumbers, as well as end users, need to be aware of the potential savings on offer and be able to easily differentiate between measures.

We should all be supporting the adoption of a compulsory labelling system in the same vein as the Bathroom Manufacturers Association’s existing voluntary scheme, using the simple A-G scale. There have been suggestions that this adds a layer of complication. I would argue that for consumers, since such a scale is used for energy efficiency, this common format does, in fact,  increase understanding.

However, current product labelling systems do not go far enough because of two key issues. While labels may allow consumers to compare products, the measure of water use requires two factors - namely flow rate and time. The purchase of a tap with a lower flow rate is only beneficial if the tap is left running – for example for rinsing. However, if a receptacle needs to be filled (with the same quantity of water) then it will simply take longer. Likewise, the use of a restricted flow or aerated shower will only be beneficial if the user uses the appliance for the same amount of time.

Labelling would also need to encompass grey water products that potentially reduce potable water use by substituting rainwater or recycling waste water from a bath or shower.

Another very visible labelling measure would be to extend the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) to include water usage and become a more holistic and representative Resource Performance Certificate.

As with energy efficiency, incentives will be required to promote the kind of extensive retrofit programme that is required to make a difference. The inclusion of hot water products in the Green Deal is welcome news but, in view of the overall goal to reduce the environmental impact of our buildings, why not allow the scheme to encompass all measures that reduce water consumption? After all, the water industry is a major energy user and therefore water savings automatically translate in to a significant impact on carbon emissions.

As water moves up the political agenda, one can only hope that lessons learned over the past ten years from promoting energy efficiency will help to accelerate a programme of change that addresses the issues. Eventually, more drastic measures might be called for - legislation restricting the use of non-efficient products is not beyond the realms of the imagination - but in the meantime raising awareness should be the priority.

Most of the products and technologies that will help to deliver water savings are already in existence and readily available. If we can change perceptions, then we certainly have the means to reduce water consumption.

Energy and Environment