|
Section 2: Policy, protection and vulnerability |
1 Southern Water Services Ltd., Victory House, Manor Royal, West Sussecx RH10 2PN, UK
2 Thames Water Utilities, Ltd., Nugent House, Vastern Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DB, UK
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) Bill 1994 authorizes the construction, mainten- ance and operation of a high speed rail link between St Pancras in London and Folkstone in Kent. Furthermore, the Bill makes identical provision for widening works associated with the A2 at Cobham and the M2 in Kent between junctions 1 and 4. The publication of the Bill raised a number of very serious issues affecting the responsibilities of both the Statutory Water Undertakers and those of the Environment Agency (the Agency). Furthermore, the Bill failed to define suitable mitigation measures that would reduce the risk of public groundwater supply contamination, introduced by the construction and operation of the CTRL, to within tolerable limits.
This paper explores how both the Promoters of this major transportation link and the water companies sought protective provisions utilizing the Agency's Groundwater Protection Policy and risk assessment methodologies in order to define the potential for groundwater contamination. This process culminated in the Statutory Water Undertakers presenting evidence at the All Party Parliamentary Select Committee in order to demonstrate the necessity for suitable protective measures. Furthermore, this paper assesses the current status of the Agency's Groundwater Protection Policy in the light of this major test of resolve and the apparent paradox of Statutory Duties for both the Agency and Statutory Water Undertakers with regard to groundwater contamination.
