Privatization Of Water And Sewerage Sector Biology Essay

Published:

Since the privatization of water and sewerage sector, about 85 billion have been invested in the both types of infrastructure in England and Wales. The average annual capital investment have been maintained at the level of more than £4.2 billion, compared with corresponding investment figure of about £2 billion a year during the 1980s (before privatization). In 2008-09, capital investment reached 48% of the industry's turnover, a high figure when compared with other industries.

Despite this, OFWAT (2009) reports that overall capital expenditure was almost 4% behind the regulator's expectations for the first four years of the ended monitoring period, mainly due savings made by an improved efficiency. The aggregate gross capital investment in 2008-09 was £4.7 billion, compared with £5.0 billion in 2007-08. Table 4.1 shows capital investment by service and purpose category for the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09. In the last five year period maintenance of above-ground assets and the quality enhancement programmes comprised bulk of the money spent with the figure of over £8.3 billion. Maintenance of underground assets including sewer networks and other infrastructure has been rising steadily over the last five years and comprised about 12% of the whole sewerage industry.

Table 4.1. Gross capital investment by service and purpose category

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Professional

Essay Writers

Lady Using Tablet

Get your grade
or your money back

using our Essay Writing Service!

Essay Writing Service

2008-2009 prices

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Five year total

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

Water service

1,874

1,833

2,353

2,536

2,339

10,934

Sewerage service

Base service (purpose category):

Maintenance of underground assets

213

248

304

333

303

1,402

Maintenance of above-ground assets

669

810

1,031

1,037

948

4,495

Improving and maintaining the supply/demand balance

113

102

150

181

182

727

Quality enhancement programmes

1,121

637

632

757

757

3,904

Enhanced service levels

108

144

198

215

185

850

Sewerage service total

2,222

1,942

2,315

2,523

2,375

11,378

Industry total

4,096

3,775

4,667

5,059

4,714

22,313

Note:

The figures were adjusted to 2008-09 prices using year average RPI.

Numbers may not add because of rounding.

Source: OFWAT 2009

Between 2007-08 and 2008-09 investment in the sewerage service exhibited a decrease of about 6%. This reduction was the result of excessively high expenditure in 2007-08 as the companies tried to compensate for the time delays from the previous two years. During the first four years of this price review period, the water and sewerage sectors' maintenance expenditure was about 10% higher than projected in price limits. Because of the significant investment during 2007-08 and 2008-09, the investment in sewerage service was about 14% more than projected. The increase in investment shows how much financial resources must be utilized by the companies' in order to make sure they maintain their sewerage networks and serviceability of their sewage treatment works at required levels. Additionally, enhanced service level investment at an industry level to date was 17% higher than the price limits set by the regulating body and was mainly due to increased investment to alleviate flooding from sewers (OFWAT 2009).

Table 4.2. Gross capital investment by purpose category - water and sewerage companies 2008/09

2008-2009 prices

Base service:

maintenance

of underground

assets

Base service:

maintenance

of aboveground

assets

Improving

and

maintaining

the supply/

demand

balance

Quality

enhancement

programmes

Enhanced

service

levels

Total

investment

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

Sewerage service

Anglian

33.5

74.3

13.6

77.1

15.0

213.5

Welsh Water

25.1

66.9

11.2

56.2

13.3

172.7

Northumbrian

15.1

76.6

14.8

23.5

3.6

133.5

Severn Trent

55.2

167.8

30.6

106.1

2.7

362.4

South West

11.3

27.0

5.8

6.0

1.9

52.0

Southern

16.4

96.2

24.0

50.6

22.2

209.3

Thames

45.5

152.3

30.1

65.2

82.9

376.0

United Utilities

62.9

148.3

26.2

227.8

27.9

494.1

Wessex

13.2

56.4

13.0

48.4

15.3

146.2

Yorkshire

23.8

81.9

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

Comprehensive

Writing Services

Lady Using Tablet

Plagiarism-free
Always on Time

Marked to Standard

Order Now

12.4

96.3

0.6

214.9

Total

303

948

182

757

185

2,375

Note:

Numbers may not add because of rounding.

Source: OFWAT 2009

In respect to investment classified by the purpose category, Table 4.2 provides figures specific for each water and sewerage company in 2008-09 and gives a general overview of how the companies invested in the fifth year of this price review period when compared against each other. As shown above, at £494.1 million United Utilities had the highest total investment figure for that year, even when compared with companies serving higher number of customers. About 46% of this was contributed to various quality enhancement programmes including those for Sandon Dock and Bromborough Wastewater Treatment Works aimed to improve the environmental performance (United Utilities, 2009). For comparison, Thames Water has invested about 22% of their total in this category and it is important to notice that the company's environmental performance although improving, was rated lowest according to this study (Table 4.10). Large differences can be observed in the way the companies have been investing in 2008-09 in different purpose categories. This is mainly due to size of each company measured by the number of customers, extent of the operated infrastructure, as well as current and the future needs [ref. to industry overview]. Table 4.3 provides a brake-down of a five year total for three service areas in the sewerage industry. As shown, the investment in sewage treatment infrastructure was the highest compared to two other categories, which gives an indication of how service areas are prioritized by the companies.

Table 4.3. Gross capital investment by service area - industry

2008-2009 prices

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Five year total

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

Sewerage service

Sewerage

869

778

932

935

907

4,421

Sewage treatment

1,246

986

1,201

1,381

1,241

6,056

Sewerage general

107

178

182

207

226

900

Sewerage service total

2,222

1,942

2,315

2,523

2,375

11,376

Note:

The figures were adjusted to 2008-09 prices using year average RPI.

Numbers may not add because of rounding.

Source: OFWAT 2009

Figure 4.1. Gross capital investment: Sewerage service total from 1998/09-2008/09

Figure 4.1 shows total investment levels in the sewerage service from year 1998/1999 to 2008/2009. The massive difference in terms of capital investment for the periods before and after 2000/2001 is attributed mainly to companies' efforts to meet drinking water quality and sewage effluent standards set out by the new European Union directives. In majority, the efforts included operation and upgrade of the new and existing treatment plants to comply with domestic as well as international standards (OFWAT 2001). Therefore, it can be noticed that apart from the first two years of this particular overview, the investment levels have been on the steady rise since 2000/2001 for the industry as a whole. However, not every company managed to maintain consistent rise in the investment levels as shown in Table 4.5. Based on the cumulative percentage change, from 2000/2001 to 2008/2009, United Utilities, Thames, Severn Trent and Wessex Water have increased their capital investments by impressive 122%, 89%, 48% and 46% respectively, whereas South West Water recorded a decrease of over 60%. Other companies have kept corresponding figures on comparable levels: Southern 33%; Yorkshire 23%; Welsh Water 22%; Anglian 17%; apart from Northumbrian at only 3%.

Table 4.5. Gross capital investment by company - 1998/99 - 2008-2009 overview

2008-2009 prices

1998-1999

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

£m

Sewerage service

Anglian

252.26

243.62

202.38

201.66

207.30

228.13

225.34

183.09

267.02

235.25

213.50

Welsh Water

265.09

238.83

158.38

135.00

197.08

176.82

177.96

144.36

145.58

164.29

172.70

Northumbrian

180.68

255.25

168.33

85.96

87.77

96.17

124.69

110.97

98.38

108.46

133.50

Severn Trent

449.48

380.66

239.19

282.11

264.29

322.15

Lady using a tablet
Lady using a tablet

This Essay is

a Student's Work

Lady Using Tablet

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Examples of our work

348.64

295.39

299.20

331.15

362.40

South West

80.81

95.56

114.86

120.73

140.95

87.34

87.83

94.05

87.00

76.63

52.00

Southern

369.87

371.67

299.61

230.68

202.74

162.74

135.44

286.71

445.43

329.91

209.30

Thames

292.18

254.89

185.24

238.71

309.22

361.64

296.41

274.13

378.48

425.18

376.00

United Utilities

414.95

374.07

245.42

250.70

348.86

596.57

420.29

267.68

298.02

484.92

494.10

Wessex

126.85

125.65

115.58

113.18

144.39

148.07

141.45

89.93

91.83

139.98

146.20

Yorkshire

274.56

325.75

182.96

200.70

217.76

224.31

264.29

196.44

204.48

226.81

214.90

Sewerage service total

2706.72

2665.95

1911.94

1859.43

2120.36

2403.93

2222.33

1942.74

2315.42

2522.57

2374.60

Finally, Figure 4.2 provides information related to capital investment levels for all ten sewerage companies and shows companies have invested most and which have invested least during this overview period. Due to different size of each company, numerical figures included below should be further analyzed, in conjunction with Table 2 which provides various data allowing to compare size of each company, based on the number of customers, kilometres of sewer network, volume of treated sewage effluent and the number of wastewater treatment works.

Figure 4.2 Gross capital investment by company for the sewerage service - 1998/99 - 2008-2009 total

Performance Indicators

This section contains four indicators used by the regulator to assess performance of each company in the areas such as sewer collapses and blockages, pollution incidents, flooding from the sewers and number of properties at risk of flooding from sewers. Tables included below provide performance information for a five year period, except Table 4.6 which contains comparative serviceability assessment based on 3 year period.

Table 4.6. PI1 - Sewerage service: 3 year serviceability assessment

Water and sewerage companies

Collapses and blockages

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Anglian

Stable

-

Stable

-

Stable

-

Welsh Water

Stable

-

Stable

-

Stable

-

Northumbrian

Marginal

-

Stable

-

Marginal

-

Severn Trent

Stable

-

Marginal

-

Stable

-

South West

Stable

-

Stable

-

Stable

-

Southern

Stable

-

Marginal

-

Stable

-

Thames

Stable

-

Stable

-

Stable

-

United Utilities

Stable

-

Stable

-

Stable

-

Wessex

Marginal

-

Stable

-

Stable

-

Yorkshire

Stable

-

Stable

-

Stable

-

Note:

- Better than industry average performance by over 50%.

- Between +/- 50% of industry average performance.

- Worse than industry average performance by over 50%.

Serviceability is ranked (from best to worst) as:

• improving, stable, marginal, deteriorating

Table 4.7. PI2 - Properties at risk of flooding from sewers - performance analysis - 2004/2005 to 2008/2009

Water and sewerage companies

Twice in ten years

Once in ten years

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

%

%

%

%

%

No.

%

%

%

%

%

No.

Anglian

0.020

0.017

0.014

0.011

0.009

239

0.012

0.010

0.007

0.006

0.005

124

Welsh Water

0.008

0.015

0.010

0.009

0.007

101

0.011

0.023

0.021

0.018

0.012

164

Northumbrian

0.006

0.013

0.019

0.027

0.031

370

0.012

0.012

0.010

0.010

0.016

189

Severn Trent

0.014

0.017

0.005

0.003

0.002

91

0.007

0.005

0.012

0.014

0.014

539

South West

0.004

0.004

0.003

0.004

0.004

30

0.017

0.014

0.013

0.008

0.006

44

Southern

0.007

0.005

0.004

0.004

0.004

73

0.020

0.017

0.015

0.009

0.007

139

Thames

0.018

0.012

0.010

0.009

0.009

492

0.065

0.055

0.046

0.038

0.029

1,669

United Utilities

0.012

0.009

0.015

0.015

0.015

469

0.016

0.011

0.016

0.017

0.016

521

Wessex

0.029

0.023

0.017

0.011

0.004

51

0.041

0.031

0.024

0.019

0.011

126

Yorkshire

0.003

0.002

0.003

0.003

0.003

61

0.009

0.008

0.007

0.006

0.006

129

Total industry

0.013

0.012

0.010

0.009

0.008

1,977

0.027

0.022

0.021

0.018

0.015

3,644

Table 4.8. PI3 - Flooding from sewers - performance analysis - 2004/2005 to 2008/2009

Water and sewerage companies

Connected properties flooded (per 100,000) (other causes)

P.A. 2008/

2009

Connected properties flooded (per 100,000) (overloaded sewers)

P.A. 2008/

2009

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006/

2007

2007/

2008

2008/

2009

2008/

2009

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006/

2007

2007/

2008

2008/

2009

2008/

2009

Anglian

4.2

6.2

7.9

6.6

10.0

-

2.3

0.8

6.5

4.0

2.7

-

Welsh Water

8.0

11.0

14.8

13.2

13.4

-

11.2

8.7

9.6

7.2

12.2

-

Northumbrian

9.8

37.7

15.1

24.0

23.6

-

9.7

51.94

10.8

43.22

44.8

-

Severn Trent

13.4

13.6

15.6

19.0

16.2

-

6.0

4.0

8.1

9.9

2.6

-

South West

14.5

19.5

19.6

15.6

13.6

-

5.7

5.7

8.7

9.1

6.1

-

Southern

15.2

16.1

16.8

14.5

16.1

-

0.8

5.5

3.3

4.7

2.8

-

Thames

12.3

10.0

21.7

18.0

14.7

-

9.2

8.8

11.5

29.7

3.4

-

United Utilities

13.4

18.2

17.7

33.3

31.7

-

30.53

4.8

8.9

10.4

9.1

-

Wessex

7.8

5.8

7.0

9.0

6.5

-

4.1

2.1

5.4

6.3

3.1

-

Yorkshire

10.5

9.0

21.4

17.1

20.1

-

9.5

4.7

7.1

8.5

3.4

-

Total industry

11.3

13.2

16.8

18.1

17.2

10.0

7.8

8.5

14.9

6.6

Comparative performance assessment:

- Above average >25% better than industry mean

- Average +/- 25% of industry mean

- Below average >25% worse than industry mean

Notes:

1. Properties flooded by river flooding or surface water in the major storms of June and July 2007 are not included in these figures.

2. Includes 194 properties (16 per 100,000) flooded as a result of a series of severe storms on 22 and 23 June.

3. Includes 547 (17.6 per 100,000) properties flooded as a result of a series of severe storms in August 2004.

4. Includes 217 properties (18 per 100,000) flooded as a result of severe storms on 19 June and 31 August 2005.

Table 4.9. PI4 - Environmental impact (pollution incidents by category) - performance analysis - 2004/2005 to 2008/2009

Water and sewerage companies

Pollution incidents by category

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Cat. 1

Cat. 2

Cat. 3

Cat. 1

Cat. 2

Cat. 3

Cat. 1

Cat. 2

Cat. 3

Cat. 1

Cat. 2

Cat. 3

Cat. 1

Cat. 2

Cat. 3

Anglian

3

17

237

2

17

215

2

13

288

1

5

416

1

9

432

Welsh Water

2

6

190

4

13

189

1

15

201

2

7

260

2

1

230

Northumbrian

1

9

204

0

5

184

1

6

113

1

10

85

2

2

78

Severn Trent

1

6

273

1

11

375

2

8

405

3

9

333

0

6

261

South West

0

5

165

0

5

178

0

5

163

0

5

152

0

3

87

Southern

3

13

198

4

9

177

2

13

312

1

6

247

1

3

194

Thames

2

21

166

4

26

184

4

8

163

4

9

162

0

2

193

United Utilities

1

10

126

1

20

122

0

7

129

0

8

147

1

9

178

Wessex

0

5

1166

0

6

130

0

8

92

0

4

106

0

0

68

Yorkshire

3

17

155

2

13

134

3

17

114

2

5

126

2

11

94

Total industry

16

109

1,830

18

125

1,888

15

100

1,980

14

68

2,034

9

46

1,815

Note:

The Environment Agency Regions' reports to OFWAT, 2008, 2007, 2006

Pollution incident categories 1, 2 and 3 correspond to major, significant and minor incidents, respectively.

Table 4.6 shows the serviceability assessments (PI1) for each company, between year 2006/2007 and 2008/2009. Throughout the sewerage service, serviceability of sewer networks has been maintained at a stable level for the majority of the companies. OFWAT (2009) states that the significant improvements in performance are mainly due to earlier implementation of the action plans aimed to recover stable serviceability levels. However, Northumbrian Water has failed to improve its serviceability levels which for the last two years have dropped from stable to marginal. In the future this may result in deterioration of the overall performance related to sewer collapses and blockages, which currently is rated as better than the industry average. In the contrast, Thames water managed to maintain stable serviceability levels, but company's overall performance for this indicator is worse than the industry average, therefore needs further improvement. It is also important to note at this stage, that during this research both the companies have obtained some of the lowest performance ratings for this and the other performance indicators.

As a result of continues investment in the previous years, in 2008/2009 1,445 properties were removed from the higher risk registers (PI2) (Table 4.7). The number of properties considered to be at risk of internal sewer flooding once in every ten years fell from 4,332 in 2007-08 to 3,644 in 2008-09. Those properties considered at risk of flooding twice or more in ten years fell from 2,075 to 1,977. Additionally, OFWAT (2009) also suggests that about 60 properties in every 100,000 are at risk of flooding at least once in every 20 years (but less than once in every ten years).

Moving to the next indicator (PI3), data from Table 4.8 shows alarming signs of a significant increase in figures for companies such as Anglian, Welsh Water, Northumbrian, Severn Trent and Southern in relation the flooding from sewers due to causes different than hydraulic overload. The biggest changes however, have been noticed at Yorkshire (doubled in five years), with smaller changes recorded at Welsh Water, United Utilities, Thames and South West.

An interesting pattern emerges from both performance indicators PI1 and PI3. In the first one Northumbrian Water has been assessed as marginal for the blockages and collapses of its sewerage infrastructure. In the second one a sharp increase can be observed in the number of flooding incidents due to hydraulic overload and other causes. However, it is also important to point out that the main increases occurred in 2005/2006 and 2007/2008, the periods when severe summer storms were experienced within the region. Possibly, this led to extreme deterioration of the infrastructure and further drop in the performance recorded in 2008/2009, the year where no adverse weather conditions were recorded.

Over the last five year, the companies have also succeeded to reduce the numbers of pollution incidents (PI4). As a result both serious, category 1 and 2 and minor, category 3 incidents that occurred due to poorly working or operated sewage infrastructure have dropped significantly to the lowest levels in years. Only nine category 1 incidents have occurred at sewage related assets in 2008/2009, which according to OFWAT (2009) makes it the third best year since 1995 (there were eight incidents in both 2000 and 2002). The regulator stated that for the seventh consecutive year, Wessex has not been responsible for a single category 1 pollution incident, which also makes the company the best performer according to Table 4.10. Category 2 incidents reached a record low of 46. This represents a reduction of more than 30% from 2007 when 68 category 2 incidents were recorded. Category 3 incidents, although increasing in the first four years of this overview period, in 2008/2009 have been reduced to 1,815, making it the best ever year since 1995 with a reduction of 40% (OFWAT 2009).

Company performance rating

Table 4.10 show company performance rating based on four assessment categories corresponding to the performance indicators listed in Tables 4.6 - 4.9. The rationale behind the performance assessment is outlined and explained in chapter 4. As shown below, the two companies which received lowest overall rating include Thames and Northumbrian Water with overall scores 4 and 3 respectively. However, it is vital to remind the reader that the assessment undertaken for the purpose of this research does not take into account factors such as unexpected and severe weather conditions experienced by the companies during the last five years. Relative sizes of the companies as well as more or less challenging operational conditions are also not taken into consideration at this time. Interestingly, companies which showed better performance as compared to the others are not necessarily the smallest ones. Therefore relative size and the external factors influencing effectiveness of their operations can be partially ignored.

Table 4.10 Overall performance assessment by company

Assessment category 1 -

Collapses and blockages

-serviceability

Assessment category 2 -

Properties at risk of flooding from sewers

Assessment category 3 -

Flooding from sewers

Assessment category 1 -

Environmental impact

Overall rating

(out of 30)

Final position

Category position

Anglian

2

1

8

6

13

3

Welsh Water

5

5

6

8

6

4

Northumbrian

4

10

3

10

3

6

Severn Trent

3

4

5

3

15

2

South West

2

7

1

5

15

2

Southern

1

3

7

4

15

2

Thames

6

8

10

2

4

5

United Utilities

2

9

4

9

6

4

Wessex

1

2

2

1

24

1

Yorkshire

2

6

9

7

6

4

Future precipitation - general projections

Figure 4.3. Change in summer precipitation (%) - medium emission scenario for North East England

50% probability level (middle estimate)

2020s

2050s

2080s

67% probability level (unlikely to be greater than)

2020s

2050s

2080s

Figure 4.4. Change in winter precipitation (%) for medium emission scenario - North East England

50% probability level (middle estimate)

2020s

2050s

2080s

67% probability level (unlikely to be greater than)

2020s

2050s

2080s

Figure 4.5. Change in summer precipitation (%) for medium emission scenario - South East England

50% probability level (middle estimate)

2020s

2050s

2080s

67% probability level (unlikely to be greater than)

2020s

2050s

2080s

Figure 4.6. Change in winter precipitation (%) for medium emission scenario - South East England

50% probability level (middle estimate)

2020s

2050s

2080s

67% probability level (unlikely to be greater than)

2020s

2050s

2080s

Uncertainty in climate change projection is a major problem when planning to adapt the current and future drainage infrastructure to a changing climate. Preparing for a smaller change than the one which actually occurs could result in significant damage to the property as well as the infrastructure itself and can cause risk to public health. However, adapting to a change larger than the future conditions could contribute to an inefficient use of financial resources. UKCP (2009) also highlights the risk of maladaptation - adaptation to climate change in a way that prevents future adaptation. The projections used in this study deal with uncertainties very openly hence two levels of probability are provided for a medium emission scenario.

The figures included above should be therefore treated as estimates of probabilities of different outcomes rather than a single prediction of expected changes established on the basis of one model. The main reason why there is a large uncertainty in projections of future climate change is a lack of sufficient understanding of Earth Systems and their impact on the climate itself. Additionally, inability to predict future emission levels makes it more difficult to model specific changes to the climate based on the know change mechanisms.

The figures included above contain projected change in precipitation for two geographical regions in which two worst performing companies operate. The aim of this section is to establish how differences in the future precipitation will affect drainage networks operated by the companies, based on the percentage change for each probability level.

For the North East of England, the projections of change in summer precipitation range from -10% to -20% and than -30% in specific parts of the region. The highest change can be observed at 50% probability level which is expected to take place in the next 40 - 70 years time. At 67% probability the projection is much more moderate and does not exceed -20% for most parts of the region up to 2080. In general terms this indicates substantial rainfall reduction during the dry period and as it has been already established in Chapter 3, regular occurrence of intensive storm events. The increase in winter precipitation for the North East during the next ten years is project at approximately 10% for both probability levels. The projections for major increases between 20% and 40% in some of the parts can only be observed 3 - 6 decades from now, which from the planning point of view leaves more time for adaptation of the infrastructure.

The reduction of summer precipitation in the South East region is expected to be much more severe than for the North East. At 50% probability level, the reduction can go as far as -10% inland and -20% in coastal areas. Around 2050, annual precipitation can drop by further 10% finally achieving range of -40% to -50% by the coast. However at 67% probability those estimates are slightly less extreme and differ on average by 10%. Projections in winter rainfall change for the South East are also considerable bigger than for the North East. For example, at 67% probability the change ranges between 10%-20%, 20%-30% and 30%-40% for 2020s, 2050s and 2080s respectively. Again, the average difference for 50% and 60% probability estimate is 10%.

Trend for changes in number of population

The increase in population will put further pressures on water and sewerage companies in England and Wales. This will be mainly contributed to a greater water demand and the consequent increase of the volumes of sewage that will have to be transported away from the urban areas and then treated. The implications will therefore include higher sewer capacity and temporary storage requirements, as well as larger and more efficient sewage treatment works. However the future scale of impact will vary depending on region. According to the official projections the UK population is expected to increase by 4.4 million to 65 million by 2016 which is equivalent to an average annual rate of growth of 0.7% between 2006 and 2016. If past trends continue, the UK population will increase from an estimated 60.6 million in 2006, to 65 million in 2016, rising to 70 million in 2028, and reaching 71 million by 2031. By 2016 population of England is projected to increase by 8 per cent and Wales by 5 per cent (ONS 2007). In general terms, over the past 10 years the levels of population in England and Wales have been rising faster than over the previous 20 years and it is forecasted to increase at an even greater rate over the next quarter of a century (Figure 4.7). As shown below, by 2031 it is expected that the total population of England and Wales will grow by an extra 10 million, an increase of 18 per cent from 2006.

.

Figure 4.7 Population trends in England and Wales

Source: Office of National Statistics 2007

As shown in Figure 4.8, the forecasts differ significantly for certain parts of England and Wales. For example, in the North East of England the population is expected to increase by 11% to 20% whereas in London and some parts of Midlands this figure is over 40%. Many of the growth areas are in places where the water environment and/or water supplies are already stressed (Environment Agency 2008).

Figure 4.8 Projected population growth 2006 to 2031

Source: Office of National Statistics 2007