The questions were addressed by discussion groups who through rapporteurs’ summary presentations made the following points:

  

Question One: Is our current tertiary education system aligned with the delivery of polymaths who understand policy and the range of science and engineering disciplines needed for the future?

​

Across the tables, there was support for the concept of a broader education but a recognition that this needs to be fostered at all levels, from early years through secondary and tertiary education, and importantly into professional life.

​

A spirit of curiosity and the ability to learn were highlighted as essential to becoming a polymath.

Although not all tables liked the term polymath, there was consensus that broadening of the skills base will be essential for future employers as we attempt to resolve the multiple crises facing us.

The view was expressed that too often, primary education system knocks innovation and imagination out of early learning.

​

The secondary education system in England and Wales appears to focus too early on too small a number of subjects.

​

Our tertiary education system should reinforce a systems thinking approach and excitement in continued development of the mind and encourage an "every day's a school day" attitude through future professional life.

​

Many universities offer M.Sc. courses for postgraduate studies, and there is growing relevance of MBAs targeted at engineers looking to broaden their careers. We need to educate people for the long term so that when engineers arrive in positions of influence, they can have the maximum positive impact.

​

A further reflection was made that we have done much to round out tertiary education, with graduates emerging from university having been taught to question and be inquisitive. However, the failure is often with employers and the culture within the workplace which supresses questioning and inquisitiveness.

​

Question Two: What is the role of regulatory bodies such as Ofwat and EA going forward, and how might we need to change that in the face of current challenges?

​

There was unanimity that neither Ofwat nor EA had performed particularly well over a number of years, and several contributing factors where recognised as playing a role in this underperformance.

​

Ofwat's failure to understand the financial engineering by private equity company owners had led both Thames Water and Southern Water to the brink of insolvency.

​

At privatisation, there had been "Asset Registers" which listed the assets and their condition and performance grades. These served well until 2003 when Ofwat refused to take them into account in the new Periodic Review. The “Asset Registers” showed a growing need for expenditure on asset maintenance and replacement.

​

It was reflected that Ofwat's often singular focus on keeping customer bills low is now being seen as a major contributor to the declining performance of the asset base and its inability to service a growing population.

​

The view was expressed that there was a general lack of transparency in billing and that everything had become too complicated for the general public who could not understand where the money from charges was being spent.

​

Society has to have the debate "what is a reasonable charge for water" and the broader benefits of a cleaner water environment for nature and recreation.

​

As for the EA, they had failed to adequately collect and use the data from water companies having introduced compulsory near real-time monitoring of Combined Sewer Overflows . For example, having announced that instrumentation had been installed and all CSOs were now monitored, both Thames and Southern responded to an FT Freedom of Information request admitting that they had both lost all the data and mapping for 30% of their assets, including water mains, sewers, and treatment plants.

​

Responses highlighted that there were too many independent strategies and not enough cooperation between regulators. There is no mechanism for dealing with system-level issues that cross government departments, a fact that is exacerbated by the fact that government allocates money to departments, not the solution of societal problems per se.

​

Regulatory bodies should be part of delivering solutions and need to be reset to focus on a broader range of indicators beyond economics and safety. These need to drive innovation, encourage rapid and effective change, and deliver broader social and environmental outcomes. They need to establish principles of competence, independence, trust, and intelligent decision-making.

​

Notwithstanding the above, it was also noted the difficult tightrope regulators have to walk, with one table highlighting that one tiny mistake attracts enormous attention.

Reflections on this question also turned to the private sector operators and whether differently owned or constituted businesses such as Welsh Water, Scottish Water, and Anglian Water had performed better at delivering wider benefits.

​

Question Three: Climate change is producing phenomena that are outside the design criteria for some of our historic infrastructure systems. What innovations are needed to deal with these design challenges?

​

At a national level, it was acknowledged that we have ”sweated” our Victorian and later assets to the brink of failure without consideration of our long-term requirements and availability of finance.

​

We have no detailed understanding of exactly when our water infrastructure is going to fail. This includes the interrelated failure of other adjacent infrastructure.

​

We should rapidly install a whole array of sensors on all infrastructure, take advantage of AI, so we can see decline and take pre-emptive action to avoid catastrophic failure.

​

The choice of whether to retrofit or build new assets was discussed with a focus on the trade-offs between the cost of building new versus short-term fixes that are not resilient for the long term. Building something new is challenging, but sometimes it is better to scrap what we have and start again.

​

In design we need to plan for climate change and a changing population, and we need to make proper use of risk and hazards modelling.

​

The importance of water systems modelling and retaining the associated skills in the sector was also highlighted.

​

At a global level, we should anticipate the impact of increased migration and future water wars.

​

Question Four: How does the UK compare with other nations facing similar challenges in Europe or elsewhere in the world?

​

Comparisons internationally are difficult as there is limited consistent reporting, but in terms of compliance with EU water quality and environmental protection standards, the UK appears to be in line with the top performers.  Other countries in the EU face similar water supply and environmental protection challenges, although there are regional variations both in challenge and preferred solutions. That said the UK's position may fall if we don’t maintain our infrastructure.

​

In the UK, we face both cultural and personal responsibility challenges. The UK doesn't create a solid long-term "apolitical" plan or strategy and stick with it through thick and thin. We have had unnecessary water shortages since privatisation and lack a Plan B. It has been a long time since we were encouraged to "shower with a friend to save water".

​

Singapore has an excellent record on future-proofing and getting on with what's needed in delivering the SDGs. However, we need to remember that Singapore has a very different political system to the UK.

​

It was also observed that unlike some European Countries we don’t have a compensation mechanism to facilitate the planning process by directly addressing the negative impacts on local communities.

​

The observation was made that Sweden's private sector is starved of investment.

​

Question Five: How can we increase the pace at which policy development and its implementation is working so that we can continue to be prepared for extreme events?

​

"Do something and stop endless debates" was a common theme with a plea for “Less policy; more Engineers”.

​

While policy has changed over time to encourage systems approached, incentivize innovation and mandate both SUDS and water recycling, it was felt that devising ways to speed up policy implementation is very hard without more radical changes to our democratic system.

​

Someone suggested that perhaps the recent Heathrow power supply failure might be a wake-up call in relation to resilience of critical infrastructure.

​

Partnerships like RAPID, where there is a willingness to work together on large schemes and collaboration should be developed and encouraged across the UK.

​

We need to bring people with us and build support for national infrastructure, increasing understanding and willingness to pay. The role of the community in the participatory planning process was highlighted as a way of doing this, as well as adding real value to infrastructure design and investment.

​

The need to ensure infrastructure is properly funded, making the argument for long-term investment was also highlighted.

​

The opportunity to use AI to help speed up policy-making was also raised, and while there was some skepticism, there was a desire to explore possible applications.