International comparisons - leakage: results for 2006-07

This site uses the UK Government AccessKeys system	Protecting consumers, promoting value and safeguarding the future Skip Menus
	What's new \| Publications \| Media centre \| Price review \| FAQs Update alerts \| Consumer issues \| Site map \| Competition \| Contact us


Advanced Search \| Help

Ofwat

Competition acquisitions, mergers, company structures

Consultation papers

Information asset register

Information notes

Investigations

Leaflets

Letters to Managing Directors

Letters to Regulatory Directors

Miscellaneous

Price reviews & interim determinations

Position papers

Regulatory accounting guidelines

Reporting requirements: company returns

Reports commissioned by Ofwat

Reports on water companies

Research papers

Submissions, responses, evidence

Speeches

Ofwat home > Publications > Reports on water companies

Introduction	Customers' bills	Unit costs	Customer service levels	Water quality
Environmental performance	Water balance	Water efficiency	Leakage	Network activity

International comparisons - leakage: results for 2006-07

Key conclusions

Reported leakage levels in the Netherlands are extremely low. The evidence suggests that differences in the operating environment can explain some of the disparity in leakage between the Netherlands and the UK.
Leakage levels in Scotland are high, but last year Scottish Water reduced leakage by 100 Ml/d.

Figure 10 shows estimates of leakage in l/prop/d and m³/km/d.

Overall, the Netherlands has the lowest average leakage. A recent UKWIR study comparing leakage practice and levels in the UK and the Netherlands found that Dutch companies have low leakage because:

they have low operating pressures because of the flat terrain, while tall buildings also have their own pumps;
they have a newer post-war infrastructure system compared with England and Wales, made of non-corrosive PVC;
mains tend to be located under footpath paving blocks in sandy soils which means that leaks cause the pavement to subside, allowing easy leak location and repair access;
they have fewer joints, as a single connection generally supplies a number of buildings; and
they respond rapidly to reported leaks.

Where similar conditions exist in England and Wales (for example, in the East of England) leakage was recorded at comparable levels.

Despite having a higher distribution input than England and Wales, Australia has the second-lowest average leakage. The average and maximum leakage values for Australia fall within the lower end of the range for England and Wales. As a result of the ongoing drought in Australia, additional pressure management and leakage reduction programmes have been implemented to reduce leakage. The narrower range of leakage values for Australia may reflect the similar operating environments of the Australian companies, all of which supply urban areas.

Portugal's leakage is similar to levels in England and Wales. The average leakage value is heavily influenced by the performance of the biggest utility, which represents more than 50% of the distribution input supplied by all the Portuguese utilities that we compare.

Scotland reports the highest leakage level. However, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland's 'Strategic Review of Charges for 2006-10' allowed for significant expenditure to achieve the economic level of leakage. In 2006-07, the first year of the review period, Scottish Water reduced daily leakage by 100 Ml/d. This compares to a reduction of 155 Ml/d for the companies in England and Wales.

Leakage

Leakage - results for 2006-07

Disclaimer & Privacy Statement