In September, we reconvened Stream’s Steering Group which comprises experts that represent water companies, regulators, research, innovation bodies and government. 

Co-chaired by Icebreaker One and NWL, the group’s primary function is to help provide leadership and market signalling. Oversight of, and endorsement from, this group will establish a lasting set of robust governance measures to ensure data is shared safely and with the correct regulations.

Date: 1 September 2025 10:00-12:00 BST

Location: online

Co-Chairs: Melissa Tallack (NWL); Gavin Starks (IB1)

Secretariat: IB1

Meeting Aims:

  1. Introduction to the Cunliffe Review in preparation for aligning on responses in the next meeting 
  2. Conduct vote to endorse setting up Data Standards Water Quality Monitoring 
  3. Conduct vote to confirm endorsement by members of the Innovate UK bid 

Summary:

Q3 outcomes update and engagement overview

  • It was noted that:
    • Work is progressing as planned, with only one item in the technology pillar at risk of not being completed.
    • An engagement sheet has been created to track all activities in Stream and to identify gaps, especially around voting.
    • Improvements are being made to address barriers to engagement, such as adding links to chaser emails and increasing visibility of upcoming work.

Cunliffe review framing

  • It was noted that:
    • Ofwat will be replaced by a new regulator following the Cunliffe Review
    • Individual meetings will be arranged during October between Ofwat and water companies to discuss open data progress and future plans.
    • 37 review recommendations relevant to Stream will be reviewed at the next SG meeting.
    • Members were asked to review recommendations and prepare for discussion on Stream’s future role.

Data standards for continuous water quality monitoring (CWQM)

  • It was noted that:
    • Section 82 of the Environment Act mandates continuous monitoring of discharges with near real-time data publication in a common format.
    • Alignment with regulatory obligations, transparency, and open publication are key drivers.
    • Implementation timelines vary across companies.
    • Stream’s role may require coordination with Water UK or other bodies for broader sector inclusion.
  • It was discussed that no definition has yet been given for the “common format,” creating both a challenge and an opportunity to define standards early, to ensure that fragmented approaches seen previously (e.g., NSOH) are avoided.
  • The English WaSCs agreed that:
    • There is a need for a CWQM data standard.
    • They supported  Stream convening WaSCs to define this standard.
    • They supported Stream leading consistent near real-time publication.
    • They are willing to participate in a follow-up session.
  • It was noted that additional companies want to take advantage of being involved in the data standardisation discussion.
  • It was noted that the next step would be to gain consensus on the plan to create and publish a standard and co-ordinate the open publication of the data.

Costing Working Group update

  • It was noted that:
    • The Costing Working Group (WG) has met several times and proposed a draft set of commercial principles to guide work beyond core running costs.
    • The principles aim to safeguard Stream’s open data mission while enabling aligned commercial work; members were asked to consider their appropriateness.
    • The model supports Stream’s independence from NWL, working towards a not-for-profit structure post-project phase.
  • It was discussed that:
    • A freemium model is being considered, with open use cases remaining free and optional commercial services layered above.
    • Lessons from NSOH show the importance of securing parallel resourcing to avoid diverting core teams.
  • It was noted that early feedback supported the approach, including a desire to avoid increased subscription fees while leveraging co-funding opportunities such as the Ofwat Innovation Fund.

Breakout group 1 feedback:

  • It was agreed that Stream must maintain a foundational, business-as-usual programme focused on publishing, updating, and maintaining core open data services.
  • It was discussed that:
    • There are outstanding governance questions, including whether thresholds could be introduced to streamline approval for smaller projects.
    • The distinction between commercial and non-commercial activities may challenge existing principles, and a sub-committee or working group could be established to manage these complexities.
    • Publishing third-party data raises considerations around data security, SLAs, and service expectations, particularly under commercial agreements.
    • Clear value demonstration is essential for stakeholder support, including defining impact metrics and understanding Stream’s addressable market within public-good versus private sector boundaries.
  • It was noted that financial thresholds could be introduced to distinguish between minor and major projects requiring SG oversight.

Breakout group 2 feedback

  • It was noted that:
    • The group broadly supported the proposed commercial principles, recognising the viability of an open and premium model.
    • Public bodies may face constraints in engaging with commercialised data models.
    • The group supported further refinement and wordsmithing of the draft commercial principles.
  • It was discussed that maintaining alignment with Stream’s vision and avoiding dilution of its public-good mission is essential.
  • It was suggested that a governance committee could be established to manage commercial decision-making and mitigate against mission drift.

Innovate UK Bid – Water ontology and AI workshop

  • It was noted that:
    • A visioning workshop is planned for 10 September to explore the use of AI in accelerating development of a water sector ontology, supported by UCL, the Future Water Association and Visioning Lab.
    • The initiative aims to address the lack of a common ontology across the water sector and determine how AI might assist in resolving that gap.
    • No costs are associated with the initial workshop, and at least two water companies are required to support the Innovate UK bid.
    • Stream’s involvement was seen as positive for ensuring sector-wide alignment and engagement, including access to shared datasets and structured workshops.
    • The scope will likely need to narrow over time due to the complexity of the challenge.
    • Stream members were asked to vote to indicate their willingness to participate in the Innovate UK bid, which they passed in favour
  • It was discussed that data protection and vendor lock-in were key concerns; participants requested assurances about non-functional requirements, such as secure environments and ring-fenced data