Sector Irrigated agriculture
Sports-turf: (a) golf courses (b) race courses
Total number of
abstraction licences 11560
840 35
Total licensed volume (m3)
341000000
10200000 854000
Total abstracted volume(m3)
115000000
4320000 521000
Table 1. Total number of abstraction licences, total licensed and abstracted volumes for sports turf (golf courses and race courses) compared against agriculture. Data relates to 2003.
Test Objective Continued
2 Continued justification of need
3 Efficient use of water
Definition Responsibility
1 environmental be sustained without significant impact on water Agency through sustainability
To assess whether the continued abstraction can Environment resources, other water users or the environment CAMS To assess whether the abstraction is still required,
based on the 'reasonable need ' of the licence
To assess whether the right amount of water is being used in the right place at the right time
Table 2. Environment Agency tests for abstraction licence renewal.
approximately 40% of golf courses have an abstraction licence for irrigation; for racecourses the figure is slightly higher (63%). The remainder either do not irrigate or rely on mains water. The irony is that many sports facilities opted for mains water for irrigation because of its greater reliability, but under drought conditions this source has been shown to be equally susceptible to restriction at short notice. Sports facilities need to think more
strategically on how to adapt to changing water availability, and preferably to have more than one source on which to depend. Those currently impacted by drought orders might consider switching to an abstraction licence, but even here the rules of engagement are changing…
Tests for licence renewal
New water regulation requires all abstractions for irrigation above the de minimis threshold (currently defined as 20m3 per day) to have a licence from the Environment Agency (EA). All licenses issued since the Water Act (2003) came into force, and many issued previously, are time-limited. Using both carrot and stick, government policy is to encourage other licence holders to convert to time- limited status. These will be
54
renewed on a roughly 12 year cycle, although some licences may have different durations depending on local catchment conditions. The objective is to bring all licences within each catchment abstraction management strategy (CAMS) into line, by defining a common end date (CED). The EA have stated that
there will be a presumption of renewal for a time-limited licence so long as three tests are satisfied (See Table 2). These constitute an ‘Environmental MOT’. Test 1 will be largely undertaken by the EA through their CAMS process. However, the responsibility for satisfying Tests 2 and 3 will rest with the individual. This will require them to submit a well-structured case for licence renewal, addressing a range of factors that impact on their requirement for irrigation (justifying 'reasonable' need), whilst demonstrating that they are also adopting best management practices to ensure wise (efficient) use of the volumes abstracted. Demonstrating continued justification of need (Test 2) is likely to require a retrospective analysis of water use, including an evaluation of historical abstractions, the seasonal timing of demand, a comparison of authorised licensed and abstracted quantities, an assessment of the impacts of climatic
variation on irrigation demand, and possibly some form of water audit. The EA are well aware of the impacts that climatic variation can have on annual turf irrigation needs, but it is important that abstractors can demonstrate a link between fluctuations in their water abstraction with their licensed volume.
Some golf courses have understandably been concerned that their licensed volume might be adjusted downwards, particularly if their abstractions (as a proportion of licensed volume) in recent years have been small (due for example, to a spate of relatively wet summers). It is critical that these differences can be justified; clearly this is a much easier exercise to
Individual
holder, and to check that the maximum levels of abstractor abstraction are still reasonable
Individual abstractor
undertake if appropriate data have been collected on a regular basis over a sequence of wet and dry years as part of the management regime. Relying on memory or ad hoc information on which to develop a robust case for licence renewal will place a business at risk and is not recommended. One area where there is scope to improve is data collection, relating to the climatic drivers that influence turf irrigation, namely rainfall and
evapotranspiration (ET). Most golf courses record rainfall, but only a few measure ET, because it is complex, requiring the integration of temperature, humidity, solar radiation and wind-speed data. Traditionally this has required a weather station (£1500-£2000) but much cheaper alternatives (£300) such as the ETgage (see Figure1) are now available that can provide a sufficient degree of accuracy for irrigation management purposes.
In the UK turf irrigation is supplemental to rainfall, and this balance between rainfall and ET can vary significantly, with impacts on irrigation need. In a ‘typical’ year irrigation is usually required on sports surfaces between April and September when ET exceeds P, but as Figure 2 shows the pattern of rainfall and ET during a wet year (1998) and very dry year (2003) can be very different. Clearly, in the context of
justifying ‘reasonable’ need, sports facilities that are aware of and responding to these climatic drivers, and modifying their irrigation practices accordingly, would certainly demonstrate a high level of irrigation management proficiency. Most golf courses also keep
Figure 1. An ETgage used for planning irrigation applications on a golf course.
regular records of the total volume of water applied through a season, but only a small proportion actually record the timing and volume applied on each part of the course. If this information were collected, it could be usefully related back to the volume pumped at the point of abstraction. From this it would be possible to compare metered water abstractions with the estimated volumes of water applied to each part of a course Any differences could then be investigated to
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80