Remote sensing |


From catchment to console


Alastair MacLeod, the CEO of Ground Control, explains how his company is connecting remote hydrology to generate dependable data for effective decisions


IF A WATER UTILITY has an asset such as a reservoir, pipeline, pumping station or metering point, that sits beyond reliable cellular coverage, we typically design an architecture to transmit both individual and aggregated gateway data reliably, quickly and cost effectively.


In our network-agnostic design approach we


evaluate line of sight, power budget, expected data volumes, latency tolerance, mobility and security requirements, then select the narrowest, simplest bearer that meets the need. Where possible we push analytics to the edge so the system sends only what matters.


Above: Alastair MacLeod, CEO of Ground Control


Live hydrology to inform generation


Below: Ground Control says it can help transmit data reliably and quickly in the absence of cellular coverage


decisions A great example of this is RWE’s hydroelectric power stations in Snowdonia, Wales. When it rains heavily – as it often does in this remote, mountainous region – RWE has the opportunity to generate more renewable energy, by directing more water into leats and waterways, and from there into lakes and reservoirs. RWE needed to know the water levels in real time in order to benefit from the additional rainfall, and so installed solar powered hydrological stations to capture this information. However, there is no cellular network in this


protected area, so Ground Control worked closely with RWE and other partners to integrate satellite connectivity into the hydrological stations. Data is transmitted every three hours, but collected every 15 minutes, and edge computing allows the frequency of transmission to be increased if water levels go above normal parameters. Once the water levels


drop, transmissions slow down again automatically, meaning that monthly usage at each site doesn’t exceed 2MB.


In this instance, Ground Control recommended and implemented the Hughes 9502 Viasat IoT Pro terminals (previously called Inmarsat BGAN M2M), as it was possible to establish a clear line of sight between the stations and the overhead satellite, resulting in a stable and economical connection. Antenna placement is one consideration when selecting a satellite network and service; you’re also looking at location, power budget, latency, data volumes, mobility, data security, and how much control you have over your data - i.e., do you need to transmit over IP, or can you manipulate your data to use a message-based protocol, which is a more power- and budget-friendly option. It is always helpful to have expert advice, particularly as more satellite networks and services become available.


Reservoir monitoring under power


constraints Another customer had a series of reservoirs in Northern Canada that required remote monitoring over the long, harsh winter months. Viasat’s satellites are in Geostationary orbit, which means they appear to be stationary overhead, and your device needs to be able to ‘see’ the satellite. In the far north and south of the globe, this becomes increasingly difficult, and easy to block with vegetation and hills, so for this customer, the Viasat service would not work. The other major constraint was power; solar panels would be partially effective over a Canadian winter, but the solution needed to be able to report


What matters most for hydro and dam projects


From Ground Control’s deployments, six considerations repeatedly make or break outcomes: 1. Sky view & geometry (LEO vs GEO). For GEO (e.g., Viasat), you need an unobstructed line to a fixed point on the horizon; small changes in mast height/azimuth can make or break the link. For LEO (e.g., Iridium), you don’t need continuous line-of-sight to a single satellite, but you do need an unobstructed view of the sky so passing satellites aren’t consistently blocked. Validate with pass simulations


and on-site tests, accounting for seasonal foliage and water level changes.


2. Power budget. Start with the worst month of solar yield and temperature. Favour event driven, message-based protocols; push compression and thresholding to the edge.


3. Data minimalism. Separate sampling frequency from transmit frequency. Store-and-forward plus exception reporting protects airtime and batteries.


4. Latency tolerance. Decide what truly


needs sub-minute visibility (alarms, control) versus what can be hourly/ daily (trends, reports). Map these to different bearers if needed.


5. Environmental hardening. Specify for ingress protection, temperature range, connectors, mounting and surge protection. The best modem is useless if the enclosure fails.


6. Data ownership and security. Clarify who controls device credentials and routing, how data is encrypted in transit and at rest, and how over-the-air updates are authenticated.


36 | December 2025 | www.waterpowermagazine.com


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