Water Resources Technical Stakeholder Meeting ... · Water Resources Technical Stakeholder Meeting...

Water Resources Technical Stakeholder Meeting

Environmental assessments

Demand management options

19 June 2017

SWOX WRZ

SWA WRZ

Agenda

10:00 Welcome & introduction Chris Lambert (Chair)

10:10 Environmental Assessment: Overview of the approach

John Sanders/Ben Stansfield

11:00 Breakout session Table Discussion

11:50 Short Break

12.00 Assessments of specific options Break-out format

12.45 Summary and Next Steps John Sanders/Ben Stansfield

13:00 Lunch

13:30 Demand management Marissa Vandonkelaar

14:45 General discussion

15:00 Meeting Close

Exploring future options

5

Resilience assessments

Environmental performance

Bottom up risk and updated cost

WRMP19 rejection register

Pro

gra

mm

e

ap

pra

isa

l

Methodology reports

Option feasibility

reports

Cross option investment needs

Phase 1

Co

nc

ep

tua

l d

es

ign

rep

ort

fo

r

co

nstr

ain

ed

lis

t

Co

nstr

ain

ed

lis

t o

f

optio

ns

Sc

ree

nin

g r

ep

ort

Ad

va

nc

ed

pro

gra

mm

e

inve

sti

gati

on

s

WRMP14

options

Screening

methodology

Option

investigation

needs

New options

3rd party

options

Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Planning

Permission

Pre

ferr

ed p

rog

ram

me

Outline

Design

John Sanders & Ben Stansfield - Ricardo

Environmental Assessment:

Approach

Exploring future options

7

Resilience assessments

Environmental performance

Bottom up risk and updated cost

WRMP19 rejection register

Pro

gra

mm

e

ap

pra

isa

l

Methodology reports

Option feasibility

reports

Cross option investment needs

Phase 1

Co

nc

ep

tua

l d

es

ign

rep

ort

fo

r

co

nstr

ain

ed

lis

t

Co

nstr

ain

ed

lis

t o

f

optio

ns

Sc

ree

nin

g r

ep

ort

Ad

va

nc

ed

pro

gra

mm

e

inve

sti

gati

on

s

WRMP14

options

Screening

methodology

Option

investigation

needs

New options

3rd party

options

Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4

Planning

Permission

Pre

ferr

ed p

rog

ram

me

Outline

Design

Objectives for this morning

• To recap the approach to environmental assessment of the

WRMP

• To set out the key findings from the Strategic Environmental

Assessment, Habitats Regulations Assessment and Water

Framework Directive Assessment of the options in the

Constrained List

• To explain the layout of the assessments to assist

stakeholders in their subsequent review of the reports

• To discuss and gain initial feedback on the assessment

findings

Statutory framework provides focus of the approach

9

Habitats Regulations

Assessment

Will the option adversely affect any

European designated conservation

sites?

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Beneficial & adverse effects of each option are assessed against a broad range of

environmental & social topics (e.g. biodiversity, heritage, health)

Water Framework Directive

Assessment

Will the option lead to adverse effects on

the biology and chemistry of water

bodies or their physical characteristics?

Assessment of option elements, options,

programmes and WRMP as a whole

Compliance with statutory framework

Habitats

Regulations

Assessment

Strategic

Environmental

Assessment

Water Framework

Directive

Assessment

European Legislation

Defra

Guiding

Principles

Water Resources

Planning

Guideline

National Regulatory Guidance

Best Practice Guidance

National Legislation

Countryside &

Rights of Way Act

UKWIR Guidance

SEA & HRA for

WRMPs

Wildlife &

Countryside Act

NERC

Act

Various Water

Acts

11

Approach to Environmental & Social Assessment

WFD

SEA Conceptual

Design

HRA

Constrained

Option

Elements

Initial screening

of wide range of

options

Fine

Screening

Assessment

of WRZ

programmes

Assessment

of whole

plan

Stakeholder consultation and engagement throughout the process

Informs

programme

appraisal

WFD

SEA

HRA

Feasibility

Reports

Env Assessment

Reports

Fine Screening

Report

Key Activities to Date • Assessment methodology consultation – January to December 2016

• SEA Scoping Report consultation – July to September 2016

• Consultation feedback – majority agreed that environmental valuation (£) of

environmental effects would not materially improve the assessment process

• Option specific environmental assessments – e.g. Severn Thames Transfer

Water Quality & Ecology Report; Vyrnwy river support environmental studies

• SEA, HRA and WFD assessments of feasible options – Feasibility Reports

• SEA, HRA and WFD assessments informed environmental dimension at

Fine Screening of option elements – Fine Screening Report

• Detailed SEA, HRA and WFD assessments of all Constrained List option

elements – Environmental Assessment Reports now being published

12

13

CONCEPTUAL

DESIGN

MITIGATION &

ENHANCEMENT

FEASIBILITY

REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL

& SOCIAL

DATASETS

ENVIRONMENTAL

STUDIES

HRA

SCREENING

WFD

ASSESSMENT

SEA

Environmental Assessment – Building Blocks

FINE SCREENING

REPORT

Progression of environmental assessment

throughout WRMP development to date

Criteria

Be

ckto

n

Estu

ary

Sou

th

Erit

h

Mar

she

s/

Cro

ssn

ess

Estu

ary

Sou

th

- Th

ame

sme

ad

Estu

ary

Sou

th

– C

ross

ne

ss

Dir

ect

Su

pp

ly

Option Capacity (Ml/d) 150 150 300 150 300 75

Planning & environmental criteria

Planning policy and history Land Use and Land Use Quality Floodplain encroachment (loss of floodplain / need for compensation storage)

Landscape Character Sensitivity Views and Visual Amenity Employment and local economy Nature Conservation and Biodiversity Opportunity for biodiversity improvement Archaeology and Historic Environment Non-traffic impact of construction on local residents Impact on recreation Water resources & water quality STAGE 3 ASSESSMENT PASS FAIL FAIL PASS PASS PASS

FEASIBILITY

REPORT

Sub-dimension Desalination

Be

ck

ton

Th

am

esm

ea

d

Cr

ossn

ess

150 Ml/d 150-300

Ml/d 75 Ml/d

Environmental & Social Assessment

SEA ◎◑r ◎◑r ◎◑r

HRA ○ ○ ○

WFD ○ ○ ○

Cumulative effects ○ ○ ○

FINE

SCREENING

REPORT



Criteria

Be

ckto

n

Estu

ary

Sou

th

Erit

h

Mar

she

s/

Cro

ssn

ess

Estu

ary

Sou

th

- Th

ame

sme

ad

Estu

ary

Sou

th

– C

ross

ne

ss

Dir

ect

Su

pp

ly





FEASIBILITY

REPORT

Sub-dimension Desalination

Be

ck

ton

Th

am

esm

ea

d

Cr

ossn

ess

150 Ml/d 150-300

Ml/d 75 Ml/d



HRA ○ ○ ○

WFD ○ ○ ○


FINE

SCREENING

REPORT

CONCEPTUAL

DESIGN

MITIGATION &

ENHANCEMENT



HRA

SCREENING

WFD

ASSESSMENT

SEA

Criteria

Be

ckto

n

Estu

ary

Sou

th

Erit

h

Mar

she

s/

Cro

ssn

ess

Estu

ary

Sou

th

- Th

ame

sme

ad

Estu

ary

Sou

th

– C

ross

ne

ss

Dir

ect

Su

pp

ly





FEASIBILITY

REPORT Sub-dimension Desalination

Be

ck

ton

Th

am

esm

ea

d

Cr

ossn

ess

150 Ml/d 150-300

Ml/d 75 Ml/d



HRA ○ ○ ○

WFD ○ ○ ○


FINE

SCREENING

REPORT

CONCEPTUAL

DESIGN

MITIGATION &

ENHANCEMENT

18

Network Element

Water

Reuse

Desalination

New

Reservoir

Severn-

Thames

Transfer

Reuse

plant

WTW London

Ring Main

Desal

plant London

Ring Main

Resource

Element

Raw Water Conveyance

Element

Raw Water

System Element

Treatment

Element

WTW London

Ring Main

WTW London

Ring Main

River regulation

London raw

water storage

London raw

water storage

London raw

water storage

Assessment by option element at this stage to inform the programme appraisal model

Detailed assessment by SEA topic

SEA topic Key considerations

Biodiversity, Fauna and Flora wildlife sites, species diversity,

habitats, invasive species

HRA & WFD input

Population and Human Health noise, air quality, well-being,

recreation

Material Assets & Resource Use waste minimisation, energy efficiency

Water water quality, flood risk, river flows,

WFD input

Soil, Geology and Land Use soil erosion, agricultural land take,

geological features

Air and Climate air pollution, greenhouse gas

emissions

Archaeology & Cultural Heritage heritage assets and their settings

Landscape & Visual Amenity landscapes, townscapes and their

settings

20

Assessment of option elements after taking account of mitigation & enhancement measures

• Conceptual design report prepared for each option element - level of

design reflects strategic nature of the WRMP

• Includes the mitigation measures identified from the environmental

assessment

• Covers both temporary effects (mainly from construction) and permanent

effects

• Mitigation includes consideration of environmental enhancement

opportunities

• Mitigation measures have been costed and included in overall cost of the

option element – to ensure “like for like” £/Ml AIC comparison

• Assessment of adverse and beneficial effects for SEA, HRA and WFD is

the residual effects after application of mitigation and enhancement

21

SEA assessment of adverse and beneficial effects

22

SEA assessment of adverse and beneficial effects

23

Environmental metrics: graded scales for programme appraisal modelling

24

Approach to assigning adverse effects grades

Minimum grade of -9 applies where:

• Major adverse effect on internationally designated site or feature identified in

SEA

• HRA shows Likely Significant Effects on European Site

• WFD deterioration between status class likely

Minimum grade of -7 applies where:

• Major adverse effect on nationally designated site or feature identified in SEA

• HRA shows possible risk of Likely Significant Effects on European Site

• Risk of WFD deterioration between status class

25

Grades are assessed directly from SEA, HRA and WFD assessments

26

Environmental Metrics are NOT a replacement for SEA, HRA and WFD assessment

• Environmental metrics are only used to inform programme appraisal model

– numerical model requires numerical values

• Enables model to hold information on the environmental effects of each

option element alongside other criteria

• Full SEA, HRA and WFD assessment will still be carried out on the

OPTIONS that are determined from the modelling

• Full SEA, HRA and WFD assessment will be carried out on the

ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMMES derived from the programme appraisal

• These detailed assessments will inform the decision-making to determine

the “best value” programme of options – not the Environmental Metrics

27

Questions?

Ben Stansfield - Ricardo


Key Findings

29

SEA findings: introduction

Assessments have been carried out for each of the option elements

Each option element assessed against range of SEA topics and objectives

Detailed assessment table produced along with assessment summary and

environmental metrics (beneficial and adverse)

Option element summaries have been collated together into an overall

summary with option elements ranked according to the scale of the adverse

and beneficial effects

SEA findings: example for the Teddington Direct River Abstraction option

Option elements

• We have assessed all resource options according to their elemental parts

• Teddington Direct River Abstraction comprises 3 elements as follows:

Element A: Tertiary treatment

of effluent at Mogden Sewage

Treatment Works

Element B: Conveyance of

treated effluent from Mogden

STW to the River Thames

Element C: Conveyance

of the water resource from

Teddington to the

reservoirs in the Lee

Valley

Element A: Tertiary treatment of effluent at Mogden Sewage Treatment Works

Engineering Scope Tertiary treatment of 300Ml/d of Mogden effluent at Mogden STW.

Engineering

Components

Effluent abstraction pumping station – total 2,120 kW power rating

Waste return pumping station - 55kW power rating

Nitrifying Rapid Gravity Filters (RGFs) with ferric sulphate addition

3 No 9.6m deep storm water tanks (2 No 70m x 45m, 1 No 70m x 22.5m)

Permanent land area of 22,150 m2

New power supply of 2,300 KVA

Resource Benefit 268 Ml/d [DYAA]

Engineering Scope Treated water from the Mogden tertiary treatment plant will be pumped to a shaft and

subsequently gravitated through a tunnel to discharge into the River Thames. This flow will

supplement the flow upstream of Teddington Weir

Engineering

Components

Effluent abstraction pumping station - 148 kW power rating

Tunnel 3.5m diameter and length 4.5km

Drive shaft 12.5m diameter and depth 17m

Intermediate shaft diameter 10.5m//depth 17m; reception shaft diameter 10.5m/depth 20m

Pipeline from tunnel to river outfall 1.7m diameter and 40m long

Outfall and screening structure


New power supply of 90 KVA

Element B: Conveyance of treated water from Mogden STWs to the River Thames

Engineering

Scope

A new abstraction from the River Thames upstream of the new Mogden effluent transfer

discharge location. River water will be pumped into the Thames Lee Tunnel and conveyed to

Lockwood for treatment at Coppermills WTW.

Engineering

Components

Intake structure and screens

Raw water abstraction pumping station - 640 kW power rating


One 7.5m diameter shaft at a depth of 38m

Site security and landscaping

New power supply of 600KVA and standby generation

Element C: Pumped abstraction from River Thames upstream of Teddington Weir

to the existing Thames Lee Tunnel (for conveyance to Lockwood Reservoir)

35

Overview of SEA findings Earlier detailed screening assessments has eliminated option elements with

unacceptable environmental and social effects

Adverse environmental effects of option elements are considered to be

within acceptable boundaries in most cases

Some exceptions – conceptual design to be reviewed to assess scope for

change to design and/or additional mitigation measures

In general, the largest option elements give rise to greater adverse effects

AND greater beneficial effects

Demand management and catchment management option elements

generally have the lowest adverse environmental effects while delivering

some minor to moderate beneficial effects

Smaller supply option elements (notably groundwater sources) have a lower

magnitude of both adverse and beneficial effects than the larger, more

strategic schemes

38

Questions?

39

Feedback on Key Assessment Findings

Facilitated Table Discussions

11:00-11:50

Break ~ 10 minutes

41

Feedback on specific scheme elements

Break-out format

12:00-12:45

John Sanders - Ricardo


Summary and Next Steps

43

Next steps Information on the environmental assessment findings of each of the option

elements will be available on the Thames Water website

Opportunity for you to review and provide feedback to Thames Water over

the next 2 weeks (ideally by 26 June)

Feedback will inform the finalisation of the assessments

Environmental assessment findings will be used to inform the programme

appraisal modelling over the coming weeks

Subsequently, environmental assessment will be carried out on:

The options selected within the alternative programmes selected

from the programme appraisal process

The alternative programmes (including cumulative effects

assessment)

These assessment findings will be used to help inform decisions on the

preferred, ‘best value’ programme

44

Questions?

Enjoy your lunch ! Please be back at 1:30

Managing the growing demand for water

46

Objectives of this session.

• To present the benefits and assumptions behind

the Feasible Demand Management Options

• To present the Average Incremental Cost (AIC) of

the Feasible Demand Management Options

• To outline next steps in the development of

Demand Management Programmes and how

these are considered alongside resource options

• To provide the opportunity for discussion and

comment on this work

47

Every day we put ~2,600 Ml of water into supply. Where does it go?

48

How do we decide on the best demand management options?

49

.

Draft Screening Report Published

August 2016

Feedback sought from stakeholders on the options and screening process

Responded to Stakeholder Comments

February 2017

Outlined the method to develop demand management programmes

Updated Screening Report Published

March 2017

Detailed presentation on non-potable reuse, metering and water efficiency

Feasible Options Paper Published

June 2017

Collation of assumptions and benefit data on feasible options

Leakage Metering Water Efficiency Incentive Schemes Non-Potable

Pressure

Management

Metering Houses

Only Smarter Home Visit

Targetted

Incentives Scheme

Rainwater

Harvesting

Mains ReplacementMetering Blocks of

Flats (Bulks) Only

Smarter Business

Visit

Stormwater

Harvesting

Metering Houses

and Bulks

Housing

Association Fix

Greywater

Recycling

Metering Houses,

bulks and

individual flats

Wastage Fixes (e.g.

leaky loos)

Customer Side

Leakage Repair

Intensive area

based promotional

campaigns

Innovative Tarrifs

(feasible post-smart

metering)

Enhanced Active

Leakage Control -

DMA Enhancement

and DMA

Enhancement Plus

Metering Houses, bulks and individual flats + Customer

Side Leakage Repair + Smarter Home Visit

Metering Houses, bulks and individual flats + Customer Side

Leakage Repair + Housing Association Fix

Metering Houses + Customer Side Leakage Repair +

Smarter Home Visit

Feasible Options

50

Black Text = Options

included in WRMP14 and

reassessed for inclusion in

WRMP19

Green Text = New Options

for WRMP19

51

District Metered Areas

Leakage (Ml/d)

Usage & Wastage (Ml/d)

Feasible Options

Costs (£)

Benefits (Ml/d)

Scenarios

Target Levels of

Demand Management

Inte

gra

ted D

em

and M

odel

(ID

M)

Output

Mix of Investment

Options

Investment Spend per

Option

Levels of Leakage,

Usage & Wastage

EB

SD

(E

co

no

mic

s o

f B

ala

nc

ing

Su

pp

ly a

nd

De

ma

nd

)

Optimised

demand

programmes

How do we develop Demand Management Programmes?

IDM

52

Demand Management in the Preferred Plan

EBSD+

IRAS/ MCS

• Range of Demand

Management

programmes

• Constrained list of

Resource options

Optimise Validate Programme Appraisal

Leakage Metering Water Efficiency Incentive Schemes Non-Potable

Pressure

Management

Metering Houses

Only Smarter Home Visit

Targetted

Incentives Scheme

Rainwater

Harvesting

Mains ReplacementMetering Blocks of

Flats (Bulks) Only

Smarter Business

Visit

Stormwater

Harvesting

Metering Houses

and Bulks

Housing

Association Fix

Greywater

Recycling

Metering Houses,

bulks and

individual flats

Wastage Fixes (e.g.

leaky loos)

Customer Side

Leakage Repair

Intensive area

based promotional

campaigns

Innovative Tarrifs

(feasible post-smart

metering)

Enhanced Active

Leakage Control -

DMA Enhancement

and DMA

Enhancement Plus

Metering Houses, bulks and individual flats + Customer

Side Leakage Repair + Smarter Home Visit

Metering Houses, bulks and individual flats + Customer Side

Leakage Repair + Housing Association Fix

Metering Houses + Customer Side Leakage Repair +

Smarter Home Visit

Feasible Options – What Data do we input to IDM?

53

Black Text = Options

included in WRMP14 and

reassessed for inclusion in

WRMP19

Green Text = New Options

for WRMP19

Leakage

54

• 7 feasible interventions

Option 1: Pressure Management

55

Assumptions:

• Leakage reduction is proportional to the percentage

pressure drop based on data from Water Net.

− i.e. a 10% pressure drop = 10% leakage reduction.

• DMA’s with average minimum pressure <30m are not

considered.

• Pressure reduction can be no greater than 15m to avoid

customer complaints and excessive tall building booster

installations.

• Pressure Management infrastructure has a 20 year life

Option 2 to 5: Mains Replacement

56

Reduction in Background Leakage

• Small, inaudible, non-visible leaks that run continuously

• 97% reduction in background leakage achieved by replacing distribution mains and communication pipes

• Benefit must be maintained by managing the deterioration of residual leakage

• Asset life of 80 years

Reduction in Burst Based Leakage OPEX

• Leaks and bursts with moderate to high flow rates, audible or visible

• 80% reduction in Active Leakage Control Detection and Repair OPEX

Option 6 and 7: DMA Enhancement and DMA Enhancement Plus

57

• To build on traditional methods to achieve more efficient leakage

detection and repair

DMA Enhancement Plus

DMA Enhancement

Metering

58

• 9 feasible interventions

Option 1 to 9: Metering Penetration

59

Property Type Internal-external split Survey to Fit Ratio

External Internal External Internal

Detached 85% 15% 97% 29%

Semi-detached 80% 20% 98% 20%

Terraced 83% 16% 98% 20%

Small Block of Flats (Dwellings) 25% 75% 81% 19%

Large Block of Flats (Dwellings) 17% 83% 73% 19%

Small Block of Flats (Bulk) 100% n/a 65%* n/a

Large Block of Flats (Bulk) 100% n/a 65%* n/a

• The extent of meter penetration depends on the Internal/External Split

and Survey to Fit Ratio for each property type

Option 1 to 9: Usage and Wastage Benefit

60

• Average usage reduction = 17% per property

• Behaviour changes occur over the customer ‘metering journey’

− 10% with the installation of a meter

− 50% by the end of the first year of meter installation

− 100% of complete reductions by the second year

Property Type % properties with

Point of Interest (POI)

% confirmed as

Wastage

External Internal External Internal

Detached 1.3% 0.6% 36.3% 78%

Semi-detached 1.7% 1.1% 49.5% 78%

Terraced 1.9% 1.2% 48.7% 78%

Small Block of Flats (Dwellings) 1.3% 0.1% 22% 22%

Large Block of Flats (Dwellings) 0.3% 0.1% 22% 22%

• Average wastage reduction = 2,180l/prop/day

Option 1 to 9: Customer Side Leakage Benefit

61

• Average CSL saving = 2,520l/prop/day

• Average bulk saving based on number of dwellings in the block

• POI’s >25l/hr are targeted

Property Type % properties with a

Point of Interest

% confirmed as

CSL

External External

Detached 1.3% 41.7%

Semi-detached 1.7% 28.5%

Terraced 1.9% 29.3%

Small Block of Flats (Dwellings) 1.3% 32.5%

Large Block of Flats (Dwellings) 0.3% 32.5%

Small Block of Flats (Bulk) 8.7% 71%*

Large Block of Flats (Bulk) 8.7% 71%*

* Currently being reviewed as % confirmed as CSL for bulk ranges up to 80%

Water Efficiency

62

• 9 feasible interventions, 3 of which are combined with metering

* Actual value is 36-40l/p/day for newly metered

Options 1 to 6: Benefit

63

Option

No

Intervention Uptake

Rate

Benefit

(l/prop/d)

1 Smarter Home Visit: current measured 20% 11

2 Smarter Home Visit: unmeasured and

newly metered

20% - 23% 25*

3 Smarter Business Visit (average

across cohorts)

13% 2,500

4 Housing Association Fix 15% 15

5 Wastage Fix 5% 212

• The usage and wastage benefit depends on the number of visits and

benefit per visit

• Water Efficiency Device Life = 7 years.

* Actual value is 36-40l/p/day for newly metered

Incentives Schemes

64

• 2 feasible options

Option

NoIncentives Schemes Description

1Targetted Incentives

Schemes

Customers are incentivised through

non-financial offers to reduce their

water consumption

2

Innovative Tarriffs

(feasible post smart

metering)

Introduction of tarriffs or pricing

control to reduce customer water

consumption - only applicable smart

metering

Option 1: Targeted Incentives Schemes

65

• Trial of reward based incentive scheme underway in Reading

• Tariffs will be considered in the future when meter penetration is

>60%

• Effective tool to incentivise specific behaviours, for example

rewards during dry periods

• Will follow-on from Incentive scheme

Benefits/Assumptions

Targeted Incentive Scheme 2% of consumption of metered

properties at a 15% uptake rate

Benefits/Assumptions

Innovative Tariffs 5% of consumption of metered

properties

Option 2: Innovative tariffs

Non-potable water

66

• 24 Opportunity Areas investigated for rainwater harvesting, storm water

harvesting and greywater recycling opportunities

• 9 Opportunity Areas recommended for a combined non-potable solution

• 15 Opportunity Areas recommended to individual non-potable solutions (or

combined rainwater and stormwater)

67

District Metered Areas

Leakage (Ml/d)

Usage & Wastage (Ml/d)

Feasible Options

Costs (£)

Benefits (Ml/d)

Scenarios

Target Levels of

Demand Management

Cost

Benefi

t O

pti

mis

ati

on p

er

DM

A

Output

Mix of Investment

Options

Investment Spend per

Option

Levels of Leakage,

Usage & Wastage

EB

SD

(E

co

no

mic

s o

f B

ala

nc

ing

Su

pp

ly)

Optimised

demand

programmes

Maximum Benefit Scenario: Output

IDM

68

Average Incremental Cost (AIC) – Resource options (London)*

0 - 25 25 - 75 75 – 125 125 - 175 175 - 225 225 - 275 >275

WAFU (Ml/d)

100

200

300

400

AIC

(p

/m3

)

* WRMP19 Resource Options Fine Screening Report

69

Average Incremental Cost (AIC) – Demand Options

Next steps

70

Activity Date

Validate Data and Model June 2017

Run Model and Review

Results

July 2017

Update Screening Report July 2017

Programme Appraisal September 2017

71

General discussion

Thank you for your time and contributions today.

Dates for future meetings

• May/June 2017: Conversation with stakeholders and customers – integrated

with the Business Plan

• 10 June 2017: Steventon Drop In

• 18 July 2017: Water Resources Forum, London

Water Resources Technical Stakeholder Meeting ... · Water Resources Technical Stakeholder Meeting...

Documents

Transcript of Water Resources Technical Stakeholder Meeting ... · Water Resources Technical Stakeholder Meeting...