Future Drainage 2025 | Roundtable Reflections
Local authorities increasingly recognise that data underpins the shift from reactive to proactive drainage management. The second roundtable explored how organisations are using the information they hold, where it is already supporting better decisions, and what still limits progress. Delegates described a sector that values data, but is still working through gaps in coverage, fragmented systems and competing pressures on time and funding.
Across the discussion, authorities stressed a shared ambition: to use data more consistently and strategically, while acknowledging that confidence often depends on the quality and completeness of the information available.
Using Data to Inform Decisions
The session began by asking how far drainage data influences maintenance and investment choices. Most organisations placed themselves in the middle of the scale, describing data as something that informs decisions occasionally rather than routinely. Only a small number said they use it often or always, reflecting a picture where data helps, but does not yet shape every decision.
Figure 1: How far drainage data informs maintenance and investment decisions.
Delegates highlighted familiar barriers, including incomplete mapping, inconsistent formats and legacy records inherited over many years. These issues often make it difficult to embed risk-based approaches fully.
A strong theme across tables was the need for pragmatism:
“Eighty percent accuracy is good enough. If we wait for perfect data, we’ll never start.”
This mindset is helping teams move forward with what they have, building confidence gradually as datasets improve.
Where Data Is Already Making a Difference
Despite the limitations, many authorities shared examples of data being used to deliver measurable improvements. Several described using survey evidence to refine cleansing frequencies, reducing unnecessary activity while maintaining service levels. Others noted how silt data had strengthened planning or helped explain why certain locations were being prioritised.
One example stood out. A delegate described how data prevented a capital scheme from proceeding when analysis showed the investment would not deliver enough benefit. This was viewed as a clear demonstration of how evidence can prevent wasted spend.
Risk-based working was another area where progress is visible. Authorities spoke about fewer complaints, reduced reactive work and clearer justification when discussing priorities with members and the public. These examples showed that even partial datasets can support better outcomes when applied consistently.
Figure 2: How authorities are currently using the drainage data they collect.
What Authorities Want to Do With Better Data
When asked how they would use more complete or reliable data, delegates emphasised budget prioritisation, stronger investment cases and clearer communication with stakeholders. Many see better data as a route to more transparent decisions, especially during severe weather when expectations can rise quickly.
Some tables discussed the role of data in improving public understanding, for example by using dashboards or sharing performance trends locally. One distinctive example described smart SuDS being monitored by schools, combining improved asset confidence with community involvement and education.
Across the discussion, authorities were clear that more reliable data would not only improve operational decision-making, but would also help them demonstrate value and build confidence in long-term planning.
Figure 3: How authorities would use more complete or reliable drainage data.
What Limits Progress Today
Incomplete or segregated data was the most frequently cited barrier. Many organisations still hold information across multiple systems, with different teams maintaining their own records. This fragmentation often results in duplication and makes it harder to form a complete picture.
Funding and political prioritisation also limit progress. Delegates noted that while data can highlight the need for investment, decisions sometimes reflect historic expectations or short-term pressures. Cultural challenges were mentioned too, particularly when trying to move away from long-standing routines.
Resource capacity and skills play a role. Some authorities said they lack the time or tools to analyse data consistently, while others highlighted the challenge of building confidence in interpretation. These issues do not prevent progress, but they do shape the pace at which change is possible.
Figure 4: Barriers to implementing risk-based asset management.
How the Sector Moves Forward
Delegates identified several practical steps that are already helping authorities strengthen their use of data:
• Targeted surveys to build confidence
Selective data collection helps authorities understand hotspots, refine cleansing frequencies and support more robust business cases.
• Improving data consistency across teams
Aligning formats, validating historic records and strengthening SuDS handover processes were all highlighted as important foundations.
• Reducing duplication through shared processes
Better coordination between teams ensures that data captured once can be used many times.
• Embedding risk-based approaches
Clearer evidence and transparent scoring help authorities prioritise more confidently and explain decisions internally.
• Using data to support communication
Demonstrating avoided costs, reduced reactivity and operational challenges helps shift expectations and promote proactive working.
These steps reflect a sector that is steadily improving the way it uses data, even when resources remain tight.
Conclusion
Roundtable 2 showed a sector that sees data as an essential enabler of doing more with less, but one that is realistic about its limitations. Authorities are using data to refine programmes, reduce unnecessary activity and support more defensible decisions, yet progress depends on improving coverage, reducing fragmentation and building confidence in the information used day to day.
Data does not need to be perfect. But it does need to be trusted and applied consistently if authorities are to deliver the resilience and transparency required in a changing climate.