Water UK, the body that represents all the UK water supply and wastewater companies at national and European level, was responding to a consultation on the water performance of buildings by the European Commission in November last year.

Water UK told the Commission that while setting targets on the performance of buildings would save water, it was the people in them that use water and measures targeting education and economic drivers should be taken into consideration.

Behavioural change is where the water companies appear to believe the greatest challenge lies. The response says that despite certain regulations being introduced in the UK, such as the code for sustainable homes, studies have shown that the theoretical water use expected can often be much lower than what is actually used which impacts on forecasting future demands and developing future water resource plans.

Although setting targets on buildings could save water, it was the people within them that used the water and not the building itself. Education was important, but again different methods will impact people in a number of ways, both positively and negatively. Water UK said there was also a question around the longevity of savings from water saving campaigns and also water saving products as customers can still change out the water saving devices for higher using products available on the market.

Awareness raising and education were vital to achieving any sustained water savings and should go hand in hand with any policies. Raising of awareness and information campaigns were critical components of any water efficiency initiative -  however, they were challenging to both implement and sustain. It was also very difficult to quantify their impact.

The response said studies had shown that habit change was needed to make the savings permanent, which was very difficult to achieve. Changing behaviours was most likely to gain the highest and sustained water savings, but exactly how this was done was not yet understood. It was likely that it was related to the price of water, the technology available and lifestyle choices.

Interestingly, the response says that while cconomic theory would suggest that an increase in the price of water to reflect its true value may result in the more efficient use of water, there is no evidence that block tariffs are effective in reducing consumption. It cited as a UK example South West Water’s block tariff trial, where the firm said it would not pursue the development of rising block tariffs as a means of curbing customer water use after trials failed to produce significant behaviour change.

The response has thrown up some interesting highlights on how the water companies view the growing pressures on the UK’s already-stressed water resources.

The water companies say that EU wide standards should be compulsory for equipment and labelling schemes across all countries and all buildings to maximise the potential savings and ensure consistency. Both residential and non residential properties should be targeted to ensure potential reductions in waste are maximised.

Commenting on current UK Government policy, the response says that while the Green Deal could potentially include water savings, but the future of this was still very uncertain and the water companies were unsure how water savings would be incorporated or how effective it would prove. They want the Government to extend to water the financial mechanism which allows capital for energy efficiency schemes to be available to consumers and recovered from savings to energy bills.

With regard to technology, the response says that the highest water wasting devices should be removed from the market to guarantee they are not installed within buildings or homes.The use of rainwater systems was likely to be most appropriate in new buildings and implemented as part of the design of a building. However, rainwater harvesting was unlikely to be appropriate in all regions or all circumstances and should therefore only be installed on a voluntary basis.

On metering, Water UK said that while it provided an incentive to reduce consumption and costs, it should to be a water saving tool per se as customers could over react to metering by initially reducing consumption and then revert back to more wasteful activities if metering was found not to be financially detrimental.

The water companies were lukewarm about the idea of rating systems, which were likely to be costly and impose a high administrative burden. The quality aspects of water re-use had to be considered as part of any re-use policy initiatives and EU requirements would not be appropriate. Rating systems would be more appropriate for new builds or a significant refurbishment programme which would allow for the more efficient use of water to be included as part of the design of a building. To reduce the administrative burden the possibility of adding a water efficiency rating to existing energy rating schemes could be investigated.

At an EU level, the response says that binding measures are not appropriate due to the need for these to reflect local circumstances –whether water supply arrangements, scarcity, or institutional frameworks. Measures should be differentiated among different regions (river basins) of Europe depending on the water scarcity situation.