Jump to content

CRT water sources


jonesthenuke

Featured Posts

I have just been browsing CRT's web pages on water resources https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/our-work/managing-our-water/water-sources The picture given suggests that water is added to the system from clean sources such as reservoirs or rivers.

 

 On the Staffs and Worcs I understand that a significant source into the summit pound is the treated sewage effluent from Wolverhampton, with outfalls from the sewage plants at Coven Heath and the larger plant between Authersley and Aldersley junctions, thus into the summit pound. This use of effluent is mentioned in Ian Langford's Towpath Guide book on the Staff and Worcs canal (noting that dates from the 1970s) where it says that 8 million gallons a day were sourced from this effluent. I have no Idea what the current flow rate is but did observe the effluent stream at Coven Heath last week so it does still occur.

 

I am just curious, but does this addition of effluent occur in other parts of the system and, if so, are CRT being a little misleading in only mentioning the "nicer" sources of water?  I am not overly concerned by this use of treated effluent, but would expect CRT to mention it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

....................but would expect CRT to mention it.

 

From C&RTs annual report and accounts 2016/17

 

C&RT have an income of £36.6m from boating activities (licences and moorings), they have a declared income of £27m from 'Utilities and water' by charging Farmers, industry etc for 'abstraction licences', and charging 'water authorities' for 'discharge licences' allowing them to put 'water' into the canal.

 

They get paid 3 times for each gallon of water :

Putting it into the network is chargeable

Boaters floating on it are charged

Extracting it from the network is chargeable

 

Nice business !

 

As you can see - water 'sales' is almost as important to their income stream as boating is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jonesthenuke said:

  I am not overly concerned by this use of treated effluent, but would expect CRT to mention it.

Why? Water coming from an effluent treatment works will be of higher quality than that from many 'natural' supplies, given the various types of pollution entering streams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many water sources including streams the flow into the canal network. Both streams and field run off has the potential of being contaminated with what farmers and their stock put on the field. 

 

Then there are the minerals in the water such as ironstone that comes into the canal at places like Harecastle and Bilston. To state water is clean is somewhat misleading, I would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Montgomery Canal has the Tanat Feeder that flows into the canal at Carreghofa and much at present (until the Llanymynech section is restored that is) flows down into the sump level, over a weir at Wern Mill and into the New Cut. From there it flows into the Severn. At the other end of that sump are the locks that climb up towards Newtown where a feeder from the Severn flows in. I would guess both are clean sources

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not quite correct to describe sewage works outfall as effluent - that is better used, I believe, to describe its input. Many sewage works discharge into natural water courses and there are strict laws on not putting out anything that pollutes the rivers etc. I know that some larger treatment works are wont to demonstrate the effectiveness of their process by offering a glass of water to visitors!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

It is not quite correct to describe sewage works outfall as effluent - that is better used, I believe, to describe its input. Many sewage works discharge into natural water courses and there are strict laws on not putting out anything that pollutes the rivers etc. I know that some larger treatment works are wont to demonstrate the effectiveness of their process by offering a glass of water to visitors!

I wouldn't try that in the river just below Norwich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

It is not quite correct to describe sewage works outfall as effluent - that is better used, I believe, to describe its input. Many sewage works discharge into natural water courses and there are strict laws on not putting out anything that pollutes the rivers etc. I know that some larger treatment works are wont to demonstrate the effectiveness of their process by offering a glass of water to visitors!

I would disagree. Effluent is the correct term for what flows out of such a process plant and may be raw, treated or untreated (see for example Wiki or the dictionary definitions. Treated sewage effluent is generally quite clean usually to the standard where it can be discharged into watercourses and used for animals to drink etc.

 

In the power industry, where I worked, the cooling water discharged back to rivers or the sea is defined by the EA as "Trade Effluent" and is essentially only warmed up water being returned to the original source but it is still effluent.

 

My OP was making no attempt to say this effluent was noxious or polluting, I was simply musing on the apparent choices that CRT have made for highlighting their water sources to the general public. 

 

Edited to add, for precision, the input to a sewage plant should be described as the "influent".

 

Edited by jonesthenuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jonesthenuke said:

The replies to this are interesting and informative, but I was primarily interested in CRT's examples of water sources and how they seem biassed to clean rather than lets call it "recycled" water. 

 

Biased? Surely the CRT webpages are concentrating on the water resources they manage themselves. They don't have much influence over the quantities of effluent from sewage works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, David Mack said:

 

Biased? Surely the CRT webpages are concentrating on the water resources they manage themselves. They don't have much influence over the quantities of effluent from sewage works.

They will have considerable say via contract, no doubt. However, I am sure that EA are even more stringent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, jonesthenuke said:

I would disagree. Effluent is the correct term for what flows out of such a process plant and may be raw, treated or untreated (see for example Wiki or the dictionary definitions. Treated sewage effluent is generally quite clean usually to the standard where it can be discharged into watercourses and used for animals to drink etc.

 

In the power industry, where I worked, the cooling water discharged back to rivers or the sea is defined by the EA as "Trade Effluent" and is essentially only warmed up water being returned to the original source but it is still effluent.

 

My OP was making no attempt to say this effluent was noxious or polluting, I was simply musing on the apparent choices that CRT have made for highlighting their water sources to the general public. 

 

Edited to add, for precision, the input to a sewage plant should be described as the "influent".

 

I take your points about terminology but re-reading your original post it is disingenuous to claim that it was a neutral post. The way you expressed it clearly seeks to make trouble over sewage output not being 'nicer' water. In many places such additional water will improve the canal water quality rather than worsen it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.