Fifteen concerns relating to Southern Water’s WRMP and HWTWRP
A – We get plenty of rain in winter, Southern Water should be developing solutions which store that free natural water for use in dry summers. Only 1% of rainfall is collected in the UK.
(For further detail see FAQ8, FAQ4, FAQ12)
B – Significant risk to Langstone Harbour of developing the effluent recycling plant and deep tunnel shafts needed on the contaminated landfill site at Broadmarsh (Site 72). There are alternative safer and more suitable sites for the plant which avoid unacceptable environmental risk to to the harbour.
(For further detail see FAQ6, FAQ8, FAQ14)
C – The significant visual impact of the proposed Water Recycling Plant at Broadmarsh particularly from around Langstone Harbour.
(For further detail see FAQ13, FAQ14)
D – There is huge concern about the environmental impact of the effluent recycling scheme, including significant impacts associated with the concentrated reject water discharge to the Solent. The reject water from the effluent recycling plant discharged into the Solent will be 4 times more concentrated than the existing sewage effluent discharged. A Southern Water report confirmed it will likely have a significant effect.
(For further detail see FAQ5, FAQ13)
E – Greener and cheaper alternatives are not being properly investigated & brought forward.
(For further detail see FAQ8, FAQ10, FAQ12)
F – Not a sustainable solution, especially building it more than 40km from where the recycled water is needed. The treatment & energy costs to transport the water 365 days a year will be huge. Based on Southern Water’s energy use figures customers will be paying more than £3 million a year for the Havant effluent recycling plant to operate 365 days a year, and pump the water to Otterbourne, even though this option was selected as a drought resource.
(For further detail see FAQ2, FAQ5 , FAQ13)
G – Energy security is already a significant concern, developing energy intensive solutions makes things worse for energy security and the planet.
(For further detail see FAQ4, FAQ13)
H – Very expensive solution which is not supported by customers, minimum £1.2 billion, with costs spiralling, making it very hard to believe that it will provide ‘best value’ for customers. For example, you could build 3 new winter storage reservoirs for the same cost, and they would still be providing a recreational and biodiversity benefit in 200 years, the effluent recycling plants will be redundant in 60 years.
(For further detail see FAQ4)
I – Totally inadequate public consultation before effluent recycling options were selected. Once the Fawley desalination option was rejected Southern Water should have reviewed all of the alternatives and undertaken a full statutory consultation. Posters should have been put up in all of the areas to be impacted by effluent recycling plants to ensure local communities were made aware of the proposals & consultation. All Southern Water & Portsmouth Water consumers that will be impacted by this significant change to their water supply should have been consulted.
(For further detail see FAQ9)
J – It risks turning people away from tap water due to the lack of trust in the water companies, creating a new used plastic water bottle mountain, especially as mixed reservoir water will taste different to spring water.
(For further detail see FAQ5)
K – Loss of a unique biodiversity opportunity to create a chalk spring fed reservoir. The impacts on reservoir water quality and biodiversity are still unknown. The input of recycled effluent to the reservoir will result in changes to temperature, salinity and geochemistry.
(For further detail see FAQ7, FAQ13)
L – Significant additional risk of pollution from the recycling plant, especially if it is not maintained properly by Southern Water. No independent monitoring of the discharge into the reservoir is planned.
(For further detail see FAQ7)
M – Breakdown of trust in both Southern Water and Portsmouth Water. Given Southern Water’s poor track record of treatment plant and pumping station failures, prosecutions for pollution incidents and failure to take prompt action to rectify problems, how can we trust Southern Water to operate and maintain this complex advanced treatment process?
N – The illustration on pages 9 and 17 of Southern Water’s Consultation Brochure is misleading , it fails to show that the recycled water will be supplied to Portsmouth Water’s customers in times of drought and emergency with more routine supply after 2040.
(For further detail see FAQ1)
An industry leakage specialist tells us that if Southern Water prioritised and funded leakage reduction they could strive to achieve a 50% reduction by 2040 and a 70% reduction by 2050, rather than the 53% leakage reduction target they have set themselves by 2050.
(For further detail see ‘Alternative Options’)
[Last updated, 25-11-2024]
Havant Matters 