River Use Survey
We are looking at the interconnection between water quality and river ecology health and the physical and mental health of our communities in relationship with the river. Our survey has been designed and is being analysed by professional researchers who we are grateful to have in our volunteer team.
This gives us a wide-ranging view of all those who are Friends of our River Dart:
Who interacts with the river, eg. swimmers, canoeists, anglers, birdwatchers, walkers, etc.
What kinds of relationship people have with the River Dart
How the river influences the lives of our community
How often people interact with the river
What is our community’s experience of pollution & the ecology of the river
This survey will help us to work towards our CRHD to revitalise both the river and our community’s connection to nature.
The interim report findings (end of July 2023) can be seen here
A final report is due at the end of September 2023, then a follow up survey will assess the impact of our work & changes in river health in 2 years time.
Thursday 19th December
This document details the background thinking and the actual responses from Friends of the Dart CIC to Defra’s Consultation on Reform of the Bathing Waters Regulation 2013.
The consultation seeks views on 3 suggested Core Reforms (for immediate implementation) and 2 Wider Forms (for future possible implementation, date unknown) followed by reforms on 9 technical amendments. The reforms aim to improve the use of EA resources and bring the Regulations in line with modern sampling practices.
Link to Consultation:
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/water/bathing-water-reforms-consultation/
Consultation Period:
This is a once in a decade opportunity to shape the future of our waterways. We have until the 23rd of December to express our comments. We must share widely and get everyone in the community to participate.
__________________________
Consultation Questions with FoD Replies in Blue:
Q1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed removal of automatic de-designation from the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for England and Wales?
A: Strongly Agree
The purpose of Bathing Waters designation is to ensure public safety at a spot that is recognised as used by the public. The EA is responsible for monitoring for substances that are harmful to humans. De-designation would only put public safety at risk.
Q2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that water quality, the feasibility to improve water quality to ‘sufficient’ standard, physical safety and environmental protections be considered before deciding whether to designate a site as a bathing water under the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for England and Wales?
A: Strongly Disagree
Designation should be focused on ensuring public safety. This encompasses ensuring that the health of the river and ecology are protected too. This should not be led by what is considered feasible or achievable by a water company and other stakeholders that spill effluents (directly or indirectly) into the river.
Q3: How should the public be notified that a site has been considered as a bathing water but not designated on the grounds that it is not feasible to improve water quality to a ‘sufficient’ standard?
A: This should not be a consideration and form part of the reforms. All sites SHOULD be designated if they are used by the public.
Q4: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed increase in flexibility of Bathing Season dates prescribed in the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 for England and Wales?
A: Strongly disagree
We know that the river ecology relies on clean waters all-year-round for its survival, as well as that, clean waters are enjoyed all-year-around by water users. Therefore, in principle we strongly agree to any extension of Bathing Season dates as our river is used all-year-round and therefore should be monitored all year round.
For the avoidance of doubt, ‘Flexibility’ suggests that the dates could be shortened as well as extended, to this we strongly disagree.
Once a site has been formally registered and recognised as one that the public use, the point to emphasise is that the monitoring of that designated site should be in perpetuity and 24/7/365. It is in the public interest to do so and the public rely on the site being monitored for their safety.
A location-based approach, where national comparisons were hard to reach, would stop the development of a national picture of the situation.
Q5: Are you content with the 9 proposed technical amendments listed below? [9 technical amendments to improve the use of EA resources and bring the Regulations in line with modern sampling practices]
Yes or No or Don’t Know
A: No as answers vary differently on specific points
Full answers below:
Defined Area: Designation was designed initially with coastal waters in mind, as a CIC advocating for and representing the interest of our local river, we welcome any review that prioritises the safety of all river users as well as the ecology of the river itself. Rivers behave differently and have distinct needs to those of coastal waters which the current process is designed for. As such, we would urge the review to be radical and all encompassing by taking into account the unique individual needs of our rivers at the same time as those of other water bodies. Therefore we answer YES to the suggested technical reform on defined area, with the following caveat the “Defined Area” should take into consideration that ‘Rivers’ are flowing watercourses, and the bathing stretch may have polluting assets at many points along it’s stretch or that feed into that stretch of water.
Any ‘defined area’ must take into consideration not only where the public accesses the water but also each asset that could be a source of pollution affecting that stretch. To keep the public informed and safe the monitoring and testing regime of the river waters needs to take both into consideration.
Removal of sampling to end a STP (short-term pollution) event: NO
We recommend maintaining this requirement to sample after STP events. Any reduction in testing could lead to less monitoring during pollution events, creating gaps in data needed for public safety - we need more sampling rather than less.
Remove the 7 day time limit when a replacement sample has to be taken to end a STP:
NO
Removing the requirement to test within & days of an STP, could lead to delays in monitoring, reduced accountability and timely public warnings. We need more sampling rather than less.
Remove requirement to take a pre-season sample:
NO
Water quality should be monitored all year round to protect the public. The removal could delay the detection of pollution, expose water users to risks - we need more sampling rather than less.
Specify % value to 3 decimal places rather than two: Yes
Remove requirement to ID person responsible for taking action on STP: YES update in line with existing current practise
Remove requirement to use indelible ink: YES
Remove requirement to replace sample during Abnormal Situations: NO we need more sampling rather than less
Amend to specify new target date (currently 2015) by which all bathing waters should be classified as at least ‘sufficient’: YES
_________________________
Background and Overview:
Bathing waters are currently managed under the Bathing Water Regulations 2013 (‘the Regulations’) which apply to both England and Wales. The Regulations transposed the 2006 EU Bathing Water Directive into domestic law and were assimilated into UK law under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.
Following final designation as bathing waters, coastal and inland waters are monitored by the Environment Agency (EA) in England.
Water quality sampling and testing is used by local authorities to inform public health messaging on the health risks associated with bathing and identify where improvements are necessary.
There have been changes in how and where people use bathing waters since the Regulations were introduced.
In their current form, the Regulations take a generally ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to bathing water designations, water quality monitoring and the de-designation process. There may be advantages to reforming the Regulations to allow for greater consideration of site-specific factors in these processes. The purpose of the Regulations is to ensure the protection of public health through the use of monitoring and classifications. It is the government’s intention to pursue an increase in the designation of safe bathing water sites.
For these reasons, Defra are consulting on potential reform measures to improve the current Regulations and increase flexibility.
FoD’s Position and Context on the 3 Core Reforms and 2 Wider Reforms:
Core Reform 1: Remove the automatic de-designation provision from the Regulations. Currently, bathing waters are automatically de-designated following five consecutive years of ‘poor’ classification. This is often too short a time for investments and improvements to be made. De-designation would instead be based on review and recommendation by the EA.
End Automatic De-Designation (of poorly performing sites)
We believe no site should ever be de-designated.
To enable improvements, we believe a publicly accessible, transparent and historically documented protocol and process should be triggered as soon as a site is classified as ‘poor’. The protocol should include:
A breakdown of when investigations need to happen, by when, and when they need to have been completed by.
A time scale that results of investigations need to be published within.
The extent of the problems, details which assets specifically need works and the anticipated costs of such improvement/repairs/upgrades.
Timescale when such works need to be completed by.
This protocol is signed off by the Regulator, the EA and local authority/applicant of DBWs, at each stage.
Should any of the stages of the protocol be missed or not happen in the agreed timescale then consequences should fall to the water companies i.e. fines. Should the water company continue to breach the terms of the protocol in a given period of time, then the regulator should step in and impose an "Accelerated Infrastructure Delivery Programme” which would expect resolution in a much shorter time frame i.e. 1 year.
Designation was designed initially with coastal waters in mind, we welcome any review that prioritises the safety of all river users as well as the ecology of the river itself. Rivers have different needs to those of coastal waters which the current process is designed for. As such, we would urge the review to be radical and all encompassing by taking into account and meeting the unique individual needs of rivers at the same time as those of other water bodies.
Core Reform 2: Include the feasibility of improving a site’s water quality to at least the ‘sufficient’ classification as a criterion for final designation. This would avoid poor value for money, by limiting expenditure where water quality improvement is not feasible or proportionate.
Criteria for Designation
This should be based on the protection of the ecology and the water users, with the broadest definition of these. This should by no means be led by what is considered to be achievable by the polluters.
Core Reform 3: Remove the fixed dates of the monitored bathing season from the Regulations. Season dates would be moved into guidance allowing the EA to adapt the dates to better suit local needs in the future.
Removal of Fixed Bathing Season Dates
Removing fixed dates allows for year-round monitoring, which provides a more comprehensive understanding of the river’s ecology. However, at the moment it is unclear whether the 20-week minimum monitoring period will still be in place with this suggested reform.
As it has been formally registered and recognised that the public use this site, the first point to note is that once a site is a Designated Site, it should remain so permanently, 24/7/365. It is in the public interest and they rely on the site being monitored continuously.
In terms of the amount of monitoring that happens on this site, to maintain all year round monitoring there could be 2 periods; High Season and Low Season where the monitoring pattern differs depending on the season.
The site should have protection through monitoring, all year round (not as suggested to be agreed location by location!).
Location by location would stop a national picture developing of the situation, where comparisons can be made therefore there should be standardised national dates.
We all know that the river is enjoyed and needed all year round by the ecology that relies on it for its survival as well as the all year round water users.
For the avoidance of doubt, the bathing season dates should NOT be shortened.
Wider Reform 1: Clarification and expansion of the definition of ‘bathers’ to include other water users. ‘Bathers’ is currently understood by its common meaning as swimmers only. We are seeking views on whether a wider range of water users should be considered, and if so, what other types of users should be included and how their needs can be balanced against current users.
Expansion of the Definition of ‘Bathers’
It should cover all users and be not limited to a list (i.e. surfers, paddle boarders etc).
The health and wellbeing of pets should also be considered, therefore the definition should include pets (i.e. dogs) as well.
With that, the scheme should be renamed to better describe its purpose.
We suggest “Water Users” rather than ‘bathers’ and the scheme is renamed “Designated Waters for Water Users”.
Wider Reform 2: Use of multiple monitoring points at each bathing water site where useful to classify water quality. We are seeking views on whether additional monitoring to capture water quality variation across sites would be beneficial.
Introduction of multiple testing points at a site.
Fresh waters have much longer stretches that are included as part of a site
We would ask that this goes further and the testing covers more substances, chemicals, PFAs and plastics etc.
9 Technical Amendments:
Proposed technical amendment
Rationale for amendment
Have a defined area for each bathing water
Currently, the waters used by members of the public are in roughly defined areas, for example the area adjoining a beach, or an accessible stretch of a river.
This reform would update the Regulations to match this reality and provide a consistent understanding for all stakeholders. This would also provide a clearer understanding of what parts of the water are used to support decisions on infrastructure improvements that might be needed, including through the Asset Management Plan (AMP).
Remove the requirement to take a sample to end short-term pollution (STP) events
A short-term pollution (STP) event is an event in which a bathing water site is contaminated by a known source and where the contamination is expected to affect bathing water quality for no more than approximately 72 hours. During an STP, pollution risk warnings are issued and advice against bathing is displayed.
Under current regulations, the EA and NRW are required to take and test an additional water sample to end an STP.
The time needed to process samples is approximately 2-4 days. The bacterial quality of water is known to vary greatly even over the course of a day making one sample unrepresentative of the range of quality variations over a day or an STP event. Further as STPs do not last more than approximately 72 hours, the water quality at the time of sampling will not correlate with that at the time the results are produced. This means a sample taken after or during STP does not provide useful data on whether a STP event has ended as by the time the results are available the quality will have changed.
Remove the 7-day time limit in which a replacement sample under STP has to be taken
Under current Regulations, the EA and NRW must take a sample to replace regular sampling taken during an STP so the required number of site samples does not fall below the minimum standard. This sample must be taken 7 days after the sample taken during the STP.
In practice this provision is very rarely used as site sampling is kept well above minimum thresholds and therefore a replacement sample is usually not needed. Further the 7-day restriction presents considerable logistical challenges to achieve without a clear reason for this to be required, removal of the time limit would remove these challenges.
Remove the requirement to take a pre-season sample
Current Regulations require a sample to be taken at each bathing water site shortly prior to the start of the bathing season for the site to be classified that season. The intended purpose of taking a pre-season sample is to highlight potential issues at sites prior to the start of the bathing season.
Sampling is most effective when used to determine long-term trends in water quality when comparing multiple samples over a period of time, therefore a single sample is unlikely to provide data about issues at sites which can be used to inform public health recommendations. The Regulations currently require this sample to be taken and used for classification thus extra resource be taken to ensure this requirement is met. This sample is taken outside of the season yet it is required to be used for classification making the classification less representative of the designated season. As all sites are subject to regular sampling, it is not anticipated that removing the pre-season sampling requirement will result in negative consequences for bathers or the ability of the relevant agencies to share high-quality public health guidance.
Specify 95th percentile z-value to three decimal places, rather than the current 2 places
This is a highly technical amendment to the allowed precision of values used to calculate water quality classifications. In what is understood to be an omission in error from the original EU Directive, different z-values are specified to a different number of decimal places. We have been unable to identify a sound statistical justification for this difference. The suggested reform would specify all z-values to three decimal places for purposes of consistency and comparison.
In practice this change is unlikely to amount to large enough differences in calculated water quality statistics to impact the classifications given to sites. It is however conceivable that sites within 1 percentile point of class boundaries could give a more precise classification based on this change thus reducing the chance of misclassification.
Remove requirement to identify and provide contact details of any person responsible for taking action over STP’ in bathing water profile
Under current Regulations there is a requirement to provide contact details for ‘any person’ responsible for actioning a STP event on a site’s bathing water profile on Swimfo in England and the NRW bathing water explorer in Wales.
In reality, no lone individual is responsible for STP actions, therefore the EA/NRW has been sharing generic agency contact details so that correspondence can be subject to the internal correspondence triage when needed. The proposed change would simply update the Regulations in line with existing practice.
Remove specific requirement to identify sample and paperwork using indelible ink
Since the Bathing Waters Regulations 2013 were introduced, new and more practical technologies have been introduced to replace marking sampling paperwork with indelible ink, such as barcodes and stickers, electronic tracking systems, and electronic documentation. This proposed change will update the Regulations in line with current practice.
Removing the requirement to replace samples during Abnormal Situations
An Abnormal Situation is an event or combination of events impacting bathing water quality which the EA and NRW would not expect to occur approximately more than once every four years. In such situations the EA or NRW is currently required to suspend monitoring, and then take replacement samples to replace those missed, immediately after the Abnormal Situation has ended.
In most cases, enough samples are taken over a bathing season such that a replacement sample is not needed to meet minimum sampling levels. As abnormal situations can be retrospectively applied considerable effort is taken to take additional samples ‘just in case’ whenever a potential abnormal situation may have taken place to allow a sample to be available to replace one disregarded by an abnormal situation. As a result, while the additional sample taken immediately following an Abnormal Situation is rarely used it requires a disproportionate effort to ensure compliance with the Regulations requirements.
In most cases, enough samples are taken over a bathing season such that a replacement sample is not needed to meet minimum sampling levels. As a result, the additional sample taken immediately following an Abnormal Situation is rarely used.
The proposed reform would remove the need to take replacement samples where they do not benefit understanding of water quality at sites. This would have significant benefits for the relevant agencies' sampling and testing capacity.
Amend regulation 5(1)(a) to specify a new target date by which all bathing waters should be classified as at least ‘sufficient’
The Regulations state that government bodies will exercise their relevant powers to ensure that, by the end of the bathing season in 2015, all bathing waters are classified under regulation 11 at least as “sufficient”. This remains an ongoing target; we will therefore update this target to a future date to ensure that relevant authorities continue to work towards this.