Captured streams and springs in combined sewers: a review of the evidence, consequences and opportunities.
Captured streams and springs may be flowing in combined sewers, increasing clean baseflow in pipes and wastewater treatment works (WwTWs), reducing pipe capacity and increasing treatment costs. The UK water industry is aware of this in principle, but there has been no explicit discussion of this in the published literature, nor have there been any known attempts to manage it. Instead, the current focus is on the similar intrusion of groundwater infiltration through pipe cracks and joints. We have conducted a thorough review of literature and international case studies to investigate stream and spring capture, finding several examples with convincing evidence that this occurs. We identify three modes of entry: capture by conversion, capture by interception, and direct spring capture. Methods to identify and quantify capture are limited, but the experience in Zurich suggests that it contributed 7-16% of the baseflow reaching WwTWs. There are negative impacts for the water industry in capital and operational expenditure, as well as environmental and social impacts of loss of urban streams. For a typical WwTW (Esholt, Bradford) with 16% of baseflow from captured streams and springs, we conservatively estimate annual costs of £ 2 million to £ 7 million. A detailed case study from Zurich is considered that has successfully separated captured baseflow into daylighted streams through the urban area, with multiple economic, environmental and social benefits. We conclude that there is a strong case for the UK water industry to consider captured streams and springs, quantify them, and assess the merits of managing them.
['Broadhead|A T|AT|', 'Horn|R|R|', 'Lerner|D N|DN|']
D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis D004323:Drainage, Sanitary D045483:Rivers D018505:Waste Management D062065:Waste Water D018508:Water Purification
Combined sewer Wastewater Urban streams Culvert Sewer infiltration