Richard Broome, Managing Director at LSBUD, explores the contradictory approach to safety in the water industry, highlighting the stark contrast between the protection of workers and the under-protection of assets from third-party strikes.
The water industry is undoubtedly committed to the safety of its workers. Stringent measures, protocols, and policies are in place to ensure that on-site teams are safeguarded against risks when working on critical infrastructure projects.
Yet, when it comes to protecting their own vast network of underground infrastructure, water companies fall short. This discrepancy raises an important question: why do companies prioritise the safety of their people but not their assets, especially when the consequences of damage can be so severe?
A divided approach to safety
Water companies are vastly conflicted when it comes to safe digging best practices. Despite having over 400,000 kilometres of underground pipes across the UK, they remain reluctant to protect their own infrastructure through the collaborative sharing of asset information.
Only 20 percent of water companies are registered to LSBUD’s central, collaborative portal, leaving up to 350,000 kilometres of water pipelines across the UK unprotected. This hesitation creates a confusing contradiction: workers are being safeguarded, but the very infrastructure they are working on remains vulnerable.
Those that have registered their assets include Portsmouth Water, South Staffs Water, Sutton and East Surrey Water and Cambridge Water. People looking to dig safely in their areas have instant access to gas, electricity, and water plans at the same time and, as a result, damage incidents are falling, proving that collaboration works.
But damaging even a single water pipe can have significant consequences.
One of the most significant consequences of this gap in asset protection is the risk posed by third-party strikes. Damage to water pipelines can cause severe disruptions to water services, crippling businesses, leaving homes without clean running water, and even impact critical services like hospitals. Third-party damage can also inflict severe financial, reputational, and environmental consequences. For example, damaged pipes can allow contaminants into the water supply, creating potential health risks for entire communities.
It therefore comes as a surprise that there are still huge swathes of the UK’s water pipeline network that are poorly protected from potential third-party strikes, and the resulting consequences. So, what are the reasons why water companies prioritise protecting their workers, but not their assets?
-
Cultural disconnect
One reason for this discrepancy may be rooted in the industry’s culture. Water pipelines are typically located deeper underground than other utilities. A poorly prepared or executed excavation is more likely to strike broadband, gas, or electricity assets first. However, as a result, as they are less likely to be the first asset hit during an excavation, it creates a false sense of security for water companies. This belief, though understandable, ignores the potentially severe consequences of a pipeline strike.
-
Data security
Further complicating the issue is the water industry’s concern over data security, with some companies having reservations surrounding data access and privacy. They fear that sharing their underground asset data could expose vulnerabilities or pose privacy risks. However, modern safe digging portals ensure that asset owners retain full control over who can access their data, addressing these concerns while still protecting critical infrastructure.
-
Commercial interests
Water companies are often commercially driven when it comes to their asset plans, with established commercial arms that sell this data alongside other land and property searches. While this practice is perfectly legitimate, it can inadvertently discourage third-parties from accessing this information, increasing risk to those very assets, and of course those doing the digging. Allowing an asset owner to choose who to charge, separating those who are looking to work safely from those who wish to sell the plans on as part of a wider service, is fundamental to a balanced approach.
So, what is needed from water companies to improve the industry?
Collaboration is key
Even though water companies understand the implications of not protecting their pipes, it is still commonplace across the majority of the industry. Although Ofwat has increased pressure in recent years with the introduction of its PR19 regulations, it has not had the impact many thought it would.
So, collaboration is key, alongside open communication and transparency. From an asset owner’s perspective, sharing data protects the physical pipes by improving project planning and pre-excavation awareness. By joining a central system, asset owners benefit from the ‘safety of the herd’ effect. From a people point of view, knowing where underground pipes and cables are helps ensure that on-site delays and injuries can be avoided.
Final thoughts
The water industry’s steadfast commitment to worker safety is commendable, but it cannot come at the expense of protecting critical infrastructure. As the AMP8 period approaches, water companies face growing pressure to balance safety and cost. By addressing the contradictions in their approach and embracing more collaborative, transparent practices, the water sector can ensure that both people and pipelines remain protected, futureproofing the industry.
