Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Justice for Lough Neagh

View campaign

Toxic Sludge

View campaign

Author: Molly Allen

When a fisherman must go to court to save a lough

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Enda McGarrity, Director at P.A. Duffy & Co. Solicitors

Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. It supplies drinking water to much of Northern Ireland and supports a unique ecosystem, a historic fishing community and livelihoods that stretch back generations. Today, this vital natural asset is in crisis.

For several summers, Lough Neagh has been smothered by severe blue-green algal blooms driven by excessive nutrient pollution. The green slicks spreading across the water are not merely unpleasant to look at. They signal ecological failure. Wildlife is disappearing, fish stocks are under pressure, and communities around the lough are increasingly concerned about the consequences of prolonged pollution.

Blue-green algal blooms in Lough Neagh ©SaveLoughNeagh

Against this backdrop, local eel fisherman Declan Conlon has brought a legal challenge against the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA). His case asks the courts to examine whether the authorities have fulfilled their legal responsibilities to protect Lough Neagh and those who depend upon it from nutrient pollution.

In his sworn affidavit to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Declan described the long tradition of eel fishing in his family. He told the court, “Our father James Gerard Conlon was an eel fisherman and his father Hughie Conlon before him was an eel fisherman. Going further back than that, beyond memory, my family would all have been fishermen.”

Eel fisherman, Declan Conlon arrives at the Belfast courts ©Mark Marlow/PA Media Assignments

For families like the Conlon’s, fishing on Lough Neagh is not simply a job but a way of life built on generations of knowledge and experience. The eel fishery is internationally recognised, and Lough Neagh eel holds Protected Geographical Indication status.

 

But what Declan and many others are witnessing today is a serious decline in the ecosystem that once supported this way of life.

The algal blooms affecting the lough are the visible symptom of excessive nutrients entering the water from agricultural runoff and wastewater discharges. When nutrients accumulate in a lake, they fuel the explosive growth of algae that can damage ecosystems and threaten wildlife.

Declan has seen these changes directly. He has described a lough where the flies that once fed the eels have disappeared, birdlife has diminished, and at times the blue-green algae gives off a very bad smell, an unpleasant gassy odour. The fishing season, once a reliable source of income, has been severely disrupted.

As Declan told the court:

“My way of life has been destroyed by the blue green algae and I want the DAERA to do whatever is necessary to stop the algae and safeguard and protect Lough Neagh, the fish, the flies and the wildlife for the benefit of future generations.”

Campaigners gather in support of eel fisherman Declan Conlon. ©Mark Marlow/PA Media Assignments.

It should never fall to a fisherman to bring a case of this magnitude. Yet Declan’s action highlights an important truth: environmental protections only matter when they are implemented effectively. When they are not, the environment and the communities dependent upon them suffer.

Northern Ireland has legal frameworks designed to protect rivers, lakes and coastal waters from pollution. River Basin Management Plans and regulatory controls on nutrient discharges are intended to ensure water bodies achieve good ecological status.

But when pollution persists year after year, and ecological decline becomes visible to those who depend on the water, it is right to ask whether those legal duties are being fulfilled.

Declan’s judicial review asks the court to examine that question.

We welcome the interventions of River Action and Friends of Earth NI in this case.

River Action has a strong track record of holding environmental regulators to account through the courts, including legal actions over pollution in the River Wye challenging the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales on nutrient pollution oversight.River Action is applying to intervene to assist the court by clarifying what constitutes a lawful River Basin Management Plan and by addressing the duty of regulators to put in place effective and enforceable measures where pollution is causing clear ecological harm.

Emma Dearlaney , Christian Fuller of River Action and Laura Neal of Friends of the Earth NI gather outside the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast in support of eel fisherman Declan Conlon’s judicial review. ©Mark Marlow/PA Media Assignments.

This case is not about assigning blame to any single sector. Farmers, fishermen, businesses and residents all depend on the health of Lough Neagh. Rather, the case seeks clarity about whether current plans to tackle nutrient pollution are strong enough to restore the lough.

The legal question at the heart of the challenge is straightforward: when a protected water body is clearly failing, are authorities taking the steps required by law to reverse that decline?

Judicial review ensures public authorities act within the law and fulfil duties placed upon them.

This case matters not only for the Conlon family or the fishermen of Lough Neagh. It matters for everyone who depends on clean water and responsible environmental governance.

Lough Neagh is central to Northern Ireland’s landscape, culture and water supply. Allowing it to decline year after year is not inevitable, nor acceptable.

Declan Conlon has shown courage in bringing this case. His aim is not only to defend his livelihood and way of life,  but to ensure the law protects the lough for future generations.

What Are Welsh Parties Doing About River Pollution? Senedd Election 2026 Explained

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Ellie Roxburgh, Policy and Advocacy Manager, and Erica Popplewell, Head of Engagement

There’s a lot of noise ahead of May’s Senedd election – new voting systems, shifting polls, and speculation about who might form the next government. But beneath that sits a more important question: what kind of country does Wales want to be when it comes to its rivers? Because the decisions taken after this election will shape their future for decades.

This election matters precisely because it is so uncertain. No party is likely to win outright, which means priorities will be negotiated in coalition talks. In that kind of environment, issues only stay at the top if they are politically unavoidable—and river health has too often been treated as something that can be traded off. That’s a risk Wales cannot afford to take.

The reality is that Welsh rivers are already under serious strain. Sewage pollution, agricultural runoff and weak enforcement have pushed many waterways beyond ecological limits. Public awareness is growing, and rightly so, this is about health, nature and the places people live. Crucially, there are decisions to be made in Wales. The Senedd has the power to act.

River pollution near the River Wye ©TillyHunter

So what are the parties offering? 

River Action’s Red–Amber–Green analysis against the asks set out in our Cymru Elections Manifesto shows a familiar pattern: some recognition of the problem; however, few parties have set out credible solutions.

On water system reform, most parties acknowledge that water companies should be held accountable but stop short of fundamental change. Labour’s proposed Clean Water Bill and new regulator are steps forward, while others focus on infrastructure and sewage discharges without addressing the system itself. Only Plaid Cymru and the Greens clearly challenge the current model and treat water as a public good.

Senedd Elections 2026 – River Action’s RAG review for river pollution manifestos (Click image for full size)

Agriculture remains the biggest gap

Despite being a major source of river pollution, agricultural pollution is still politically under-addressed. In a bid to make lives easier for farmers by taking the approach of cutting red tape, Reform and the Conservatives will struggle to meet other commitments to clean up rivers.

Labour and the Liberal Democrats favour support and incentives over firm regulation, whereas Plaid Cymru takes the approach of replacing unfit regulations with something that is science-led and risk-appropriate. Only the Greens fully recognise the impact of intensive farming. The result is a clear mismatch between the scale of the problem and the strength of the response.

Intensive poultry units (IPUs) are commonplace in Wales and a major contributor to agricultural pollution.

Progress, but not enough to fix Wales’ rivers

There are some positive shifts. More parties are now framing river pollution as a public health issue, reflecting growing public concern. But stronger language is not the same as stronger policy. Without clear targets, monitoring and enforcement, many commitments risk falling short in practice.

Overall, the picture is one of partial progress but insufficient ambition. In a fragmented Senedd, that matters even more. Without clear commitments, river health risks being diluted in post-election negotiations.

This is why River Action is calling for a step change:

  • A water system that prioritises public and environmental health
  • Real action on agricultural pollution
  • Enforceable plans to restore rivers
  • A long-term approach to water resilience

These are not radical demands – they are the foundations required to get the system to work.

First court hearing for River Wye pollution claim

Posted on by Molly Allen

A first hearing for the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk pollution claim will take place at the High Court in London on Monday, 27 April 2026.  

The claim, which is the biggest ever to be brought in the UK over domestic environmental pollution, now has more than 4,500 people on board.  

The hearing next week will determine key aspects of the way the case will be managed, including a timetable and a deadline for other residents and businesses to join the legal claim.  

River Action is supporting the legal claim and is organising a show of support outside the Royal Courts of Justice on the morning of the hearing. The giant Goddess of the Wye, a large-scale puppet symbolising the river, will appear outside the court alongside clean water campaigners calling for action to protect these threatened waterways. 

The legal claim is against industrial chicken producer Avara Foods Limited and its subsidiary Freemans of Newent Limited, as well as the region’s sewerage operator Welsh Water.  

It is argued that Avara’s and Freemans of Newent’s industrial chicken operations plus Welsh Water’s management of the sewerage system have resulted in widespread pollution in the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk. All three defendants have denied the allegations. 

The High Court hearing on 27 April will see the parties appear in court for the first time to argue how the claims should be managed going forwards. The claimants will argue that the community should be given a longer opportunity to join this environmental legal action, and that the poultry defendants should be ordered to disclose details of the locations of their industrial poultry operations across the region.  

The legal claim against Avara, Freemans of Newent and Welsh Water alleges that pollution has been caused by water run-off from farmland containing high levels of phosphorus, nitrogen and bacteria from poultry manure spread on the land as fertiliser. It also alleges bacteria and nutrient pollution in the rivers has been caused by the discharge of sewage directly into the rivers from Welsh Water sewerage systems.  

The claim was filed at the High Court in autumn 2025.

Leigh Day partner Oliver Holland, who leads the claim, said: 

“This first court appearance marks an important step in the Wye, Lugg and Usk pollution claim. There has been a great deal of effort put in by the community and environmental campaigners to help drive the proceedings to this point, showing the strength of feeling from those involved about the state of the rivers. They feel that the government and regulators have not done enough to prevent the deterioration of these rivers, leaving court action as their only option to pursue environmental justice. 

“In this hearing, important aspects of case management such as deadlines for the next stages and disclosure of information by both sides will be determined. We are hoping for a positive outcome, and to be able to look ahead to presenting our clients’ arguments in full to the High Court in due course.”  

River Action’s head of legal Emma Dearnaley said: 

“This case comes at a critical time for some of our most cherished rivers and the communities connected to them. We believe industrial-scale chicken production supplying major supermarkets and fast-food chains has placed immense pressure on the Wye, Lugg and Usk, driving nutrient pollution levels that these sensitive ecosystems cannot absorb. Sewage pollution must also be reduced and stopped to reverse the decline of these rivers.  

“River Action supports this claim because it gives a voice to thousands of people who refuse to accept the continued degradation of their rivers. Communities should not have to live with the consequences of sewage pollution or an intensive farming model that we believe pollutes their waterways. This action offers an important way to hold those allegedly responsible to account and secure the systemic change needed to protect and restore our rivers for generations to come.”

Why I’m taking a water company to court

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Jo Bateman, Open Water Swimmer and Campaigner

I took a water company to court over sewage pollution. Here’s why I’m still campaigning.

My name is Jo Bateman, and I am taking legal action against South West Water because I am sick of sewage pollution ruining the sea where I swim.

A few years ago, I was living in the Midlands, about as far from the coast as you can get. I loved walking, so I decided to spend a week on the South West Coast Path, from Poole to Lyme Regis. That week changed everything. I fell in love with the sea. Not long after, I handed in my notice, sold my house, and moved to Exmouth to live by the coast.

Then one winter’s day, I was persuaded to get into the sea, reluctantly at first. From that moment, I was hooked. I have been sea swimming year-round ever since. When I am in the water, everything going on in my head gets left behind on the shore. All that exists is me, the sea, and the cold. When I get out, I feel completely transformed. The mental health benefits are huge. It reduces stress, lifts my mood, and gives me a sense of calm I cannot find anywhere else.

Jo, in the water

From sea swimming to sewage pollution awareness

At the beginning, I knew nothing about sewage pollution, and ignorance really was bliss. I could enjoy the sea without thinking about what might be in it. But over time, that changed. I started seeing alerts warning of sewage discharges into the water. There were days when the sea was unsafe, days when I could not swim, and days when something that had become essential to my wellbeing was taken away from me.

The more I learned about sewage dumping by water companies, the more shocked and angry I became. It was not just occasional incidents. It was frequent, systemic, and deeply damaging. What had started as a personal passion quickly became a source of frustration and concern. Eventually, I reached a point where I felt I could not just stand by and accept it.

Jo at the March for Clean Water, 2024

Why I took legal action against a water company

In 2024, I decided to take South West Water to court. I filed a claim in the small claims court, seeking compensation for loss of amenity because repeated sewage pollution was preventing me from swimming. The cost to file the claim was £50, and I asked for £379.50 in compensation.

But this was never really about the money. It was about the principle. Why should water companies be allowed to pollute our rivers and seas and face so few consequences?

Water companies often argue that sewage discharges are unavoidable, particularly during heavy rainfall. They say the system cannot cope and that dumping sewage is necessary to prevent worse outcomes. I do not accept that explanation. Rain is not new. The UK has always experienced heavy rainfall. The real issue is decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, combined with a system that has prioritised shareholder payouts over environmental protection.

Jo talking to Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2

From one legal claim to a growing movement

What happened next was something I never expected. My case resonated with people far beyond Exmouth. What started as a small claim quickly grew into something much larger.

The case is now supported by the law firm Leigh Day and has progressed to the High Court. Alongside this, a group legal action has been launched on behalf of the people of Exmouth, with more than 1,300 claimants taking action against South West Water.

Personally, my life has changed beyond recognition. I have become part of a wider community of people who care deeply about clean water and are willing to speak out and take action. I have gone from being a relatively quiet person to speaking in Parliament, appearing in national media, and addressing large crowds at protests and events. There is even a documentary telling my story (find out more).

‘Jo in the Water’ documentary premiere

Why I am still taking on water companies

Taking on a water company can feel like a David and Goliath battle. These are large, powerful organisations with significant resources. I am just one individual. But I believe this fight is necessary.

Clean water should not be a privilege. It should be a basic right. We should be able to swim in the sea without worrying about sewage pollution. We should be able to trust that water companies are protecting the environment, not harming it.

We live in a world where extraordinary technological achievements are possible. It should not be beyond us to build and maintain a sewage system that does not pollute our rivers and seas. Real change requires accountability. It requires proper enforcement of environmental laws, and it requires water companies to stop putting profit before pollution.

Jo campaigning outside 10 Downing Street

A message to others fighting sewage pollution

If there is one thing I have learned through this experience, it is that individual action matters. You do not have to accept the status quo, and you do not have to stay silent.

There are thousands of people who feel the same way, and together we are far more powerful than we are alone. Collective action can drive change, even in the face of powerful institutions.

This is about all of us. It is about the future of our rivers, our seas, and our environment. And it is a fight we cannot afford to lose.

Because nature needs us.

If you would like to find out more about Jo’s incredible story, you can book a ticket to a screening of her documentary here.

All Ffermio Achub y Cleddau? Gwersi o Dir Pori Sir Benfro

Posted on by Molly Allen
Gan Chloe Peck ac Ellie Roxburgh (River Action)

Wrth i ni yrru i lawr i Sir Benfro yn gynnar ym mis Chwefror, roedd yna deimlad o obaith yn yr awyr, gyda’r cennin Pedr melyn llachar cyntaf i’w gweld yn y cloddiau a’r haul yn adlewyrchu oddi ar fôr gwyllt a garw. Roedd mynd am dro ar draeth caregog yng Nghymru yn sicr yn apelio, ond roedden ni yno ar gyfer mwy na dim ond y golygfeydd. Diben y daith oedd gweld a yw’r nodau uchelgeisiol o gydbwyso maethynnau a ffermio adfywiol yn dal dŵr mewn sefyllfa ymarferol ac fel rhan o weithgareddau bob dydd fferm laeth.

Pont Cleddau, Sir Benfro

Afon Dan Bwysau

Mae’r Cleddau wrth galon tirwedd Sir Benfro, gyda’r Cleddau Ddu a’r Cleddau Wen yn uno cyn llifo i aber dwfn. Mae’n rhan hanfodol o’r ardal, ond yn wynebu pwysau sylweddol ar hyn o bryd. Mae llygredd amaethyddol yn parhau i fod yn un o’r achosion mwyaf o bwysau ar ein hafonydd ledled y DU, a dydy’r Cleddau ddim yn eithriad. Gall maethynnau o wrtaith a thail lifo i’r dyfrffyrdd hyn, gan gyfrannu at ddifrod ecolegol a dirywiad yn ansawdd y dŵr.

Roedden ni yn yr ardal yn benodol i siarad am lygredd maethynnau yn y dalgylch a sut mae ffermwyr eisoes yn gwneud newidiadau ymarferol i arferion rheoli ffermydd, gyda chefnogaeth gan y cadwyni cyflenwi, i wneud gwahaniaeth. Roedden ni hefyd yno i edrych ar yr hyn sydd angen ei wneud. Ar lawr gwlad, mae hyn yn cael ei amlygu gan y newid yn y ffordd mae’r tir a buchesi yn cael eu rheoli. Yn bwysicaf oll o bosib, fe wnaethon ni weld sut mae ffermio “ystyriol o afonydd” yn canolbwyntio ar reoli pori. Drwy symud i ffwrdd o ddulliau dwys traddodiadol tuag at systemau fel pori er lles cadwraeth, mae’n haws i ffermwyr amddiffyn y pridd a’r dŵr sy’n rhedeg drwyddo.

Trefnwyd ein taith gan Ric Cooper, asgwrn cefn ac arweinydd Prosiect y Cleddau. Mae Ric yn un o’r ymgyrchwyr hynny sy’n gallu ymdrin â data cymhleth ar faethynnau un funud, cyn troi ei law at gydlynu gwirfoddolwyr gwyddor dinasyddion, ac yna trafod agweddau ymarferol gyda ffermwyr y funud nesaf. Oherwydd ei fod yn llais lleol mor uchel ei barch, roedd yn gallu’n cyfeirio ni at amrywiaeth eang o safbwyntiau ledled y dalgylch.

O Borthi Dan Do i Dir Pori Agored

Drwy gysylltiadau Ric, trefnwyd i ni gyfarfod â’r ffermwyr lleol Mike Smith ac Andrew Rees fel y gallen ni fynd i lygad y ffynnon a gweld sut maen nhw’n rhoi mesurau ymarferol ar waith i leihau eu heffaith ar yr amgylchedd. Mae’r ddau yn rhan o First Milk, cwmni llaeth cydweithredol ym mherchnogaeth ffermwyr Prydain sy’n canolbwyntio ar systemau adfywiol seiliedig ar bori. Mae’n rhaid i aelodau First Milk ddarparu mynediad at dir pori am o leiaf 120 diwrnod y flwyddyn, gan eirioli dros bori fel dewis amgen hanfodol i borthi dwys dan do.

Mae manteision y dull hwn wedi’u gwreiddio yn y cylch maethynnau lleol. Mewn systemau dan do, mae gwartheg yn aml yn cael eu porthi â bwyd sy’n uchel mewn ffosffadau a nitradau, sy’n aml wedi’i gynhyrchu dramor a’i fewnforio. Mae hyn yn cyflwyno maethynnau “newydd” i’r amgylchedd lleol. Ar y llaw arall, pan fydd gwartheg yn pori ar borfa, maen nhw’n bwyta maethynnau sydd eisoes yn bresennol yn y pridd lleol. Pan fydd y gwartheg yn cynhyrchu slyri, mae’n golygu bod y maethynnau sydd ynddo yn lleol i’r ardal benodol honno. Drwy wasgaru’r slyri hwn ar yr un tir amaethyddol, mae’n cynnal y cydbwysedd maethynnau yn y tir yn hytrach na’i orlethu. Mae’r system dolen gaeedig hon yn hanfodol i amddiffyn ein hafonydd rhag y maethynnau mewn dŵr ffo sy’n arwain at ewtroffigedd – lle mae gormodedd o faethynnau yn achosi gordyfiant algâu, a hynny’n mygu ocsigen ac yn niweidio ecoleg yr afon.

Ond mae mwy i’r gwaith o bontio i ffermio sy’n ystyriol o afonydd na phori yn unig. Trafodwyd amrywiaeth o ddulliau eraill, megis gwell rheolaeth ar faethynnau ac ar wasgaru tail a gwrtaith, sydd yn eu tro’n lleihau’r risg o ddŵr ffo yn llifo i’r Cleddau yn sylweddol. Yn Moor Farm, mae Andrew wedi troi’r model traddodiadol ar ei ben drwy ostwng y defnydd o wrtaith a chemegion yn sylweddol. Mae’n credu bod hynny’n fwy na rhywbeth sy’n “ddymunol” o safbwynt amgylcheddol yn unig; gall cam o’r fath gynnal neu hyd yn oed wella’r elw ac adfer iechyd y tir ar yr un pryd.

Cydweithio ar Draws y Gadwyn Gyflenwi

Fe wnaeth Ric ein cyflwyno hefyd i Christopher ac Emma yn Puffin Produce, cwmni cyflenwi cynnyrch ffres mwyaf Cymru a chydberchnogion Hufenfa Sir Benfro. Mae’r rôl ddeuol hon yn eu rhoi mewn sefyllfa unigryw i ddylanwadu ar gaeau a llaethdai. Maen nhw’n defnyddio’r Rhwydweithiau Mentrau Tirwedd (LENs) i bontio’r bwlch rhwng cyflenwi masnachol ac iechyd yr amgylchedd.

Drwy’r rhwydwaith hwn, maen nhw’n cyd-ariannu atebion ar sail natur sy’n cael eu cynllunio gan y ffermwyr eu hunain. Mae’n ddull pwrpasol: yn hytrach na mandad o’r brig i lawr, mae’n grymuso pob busnes fferm i gynnig yr arferion adfywio penodol a fydd yn diogelu daearyddiaeth unigryw yr ardal leol honno orau.

Y Darlun Mawr: Dyfodol i’r Cleddau

Wrth i ni adael Sir Benfro, roedd yn amlwg bod amddiffyn ein hafonydd yn gofyn am weithredu cydlynol ar draws y system fwyd a ffermio gyfan, o’r ffermwyr a’u tir pori i’r cwmnïau cydweithredol, y manwerthwyr, y rheoleiddwyr a’r llunwyr polisi. Yn galonogol, yn ein sgyrsiau gydag arweinwyr fel Andrew Rees, Mike Smith a’r tîm yn First Milk, gwelsom fod llawer o ffermwyr eisoes yn gweithio i fod yn rhan o’r ateb.

Fodd bynnag, bydd datblygu’r ymdrechion ar raddfa ehangach yn gofyn am fwy na dim ond uchelgais amgylcheddol. Gwelsom fod pontio i ffermio adfywiol yn aml yn cael ei ystyried fel risg sy’n cymryd sawl blwyddyn i’w gwireddu. Er mwyn llwyddo, mae’n rhaid i ni ail-fframio’r ddadl, a dangos y gall ffermio sy’n ystyriol o afonydd fod yn economaidd hyfyw.

Mae ymroddiad amlwg Puffin Produce, First Milk a rhwydwaith gwyddor dinasyddion Ric Cooper yn profi bod newid go iawn yn bosib pan fydd ymddiriedaeth leol a chefnogaeth y gadwyn gyflenwi yn cyd-fynd law yn llaw. Bydd cefnogi a datblygu’r ymdrechion cyfunol hyn ar raddfa ehangach yn hanfodol os ydyn ni am adfer a diogelu iechyd ein hafonydd ar gyfer y cenedlaethau i ddod.

Cyfieithwyd gan Testun Cyf

Can Farming Save the Cleddau? Lessons from the Pembrokeshire Pasture

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Chloe Peck, Senior Engagement Coordinator and Ellie Roxburgh, Policy and Advocacy Manager (River Action)

As we drove down to Pembrokeshire in early February, there was a feeling of hopefulness in the air, with the first bright yellow daffodils popping up along the verges and the sun reflecting off a wild, rough sea. A walk on a pebbly Welsh beach was certainly inviting, but we weren’t just there for the scenery. We were there to see if the ambitious goals of nutrient rebalancing and regenerative farming actually hold water when they meet the daily reality of a working dairy farm.

Cleddau Bridge, Pembrokeshire

A River Under Pressure

The Cleddau is at the heart of Pembrokeshire’s landscape, with the Eastern and Western Cleddau rivers flowing together into a deep-water estuary. It is a vital part of the area, but is currently facing significant pressure. Agricultural pollution remains one of the most significant pressures on rivers across the UK, and the Cleddau is no exception. Nutrient runoff from fertilisers and manure can enter these waterways, contributing to ecological damage and declining water quality.

We went specifically to speak about nutrient pollution in the catchment and how farmers are already making practical changes in farm management, alongside support from supply chains, to make a difference, as well as what more needs to be done. On the ground, this looks like a shift in how the land and herds are managed. Perhaps most importantly, we saw how “river-friendly” farming focuses on grazing management. By moving away from traditional intensive methods toward systems like conservation grazing, farmers can better protect the soil and the water that runs through it. 

Our trip was organised by Ric Cooper, the local linchpin and lead of The Cleddau Project. Ric is the kind of campaigner who is able to navigate complex nutrient data one minute, coordinate citizen science volunteers the next, and then talk practicalities with farmers. Because he is such a trusted local voice, he was able to introduce us to a wide variety of perspectives across the catchment.

From Indoor Housing to Open Pasture

Through Ric’s introductions, we met with local farmers Mike Smith and Andrew Rees to learn firsthand how they are implementing practical measures to reduce their environmental impact. Both are part of the First Milk cooperative, a British farmer-owned dairy co-op focused on regenerative, grazing-based systems. First Milk requires its members to provide at least 120 days of pasture access per year, advocating for grazing as a vital alternative to intensive indoor housing.

The benefits of this approach are rooted in the local nutrient cycle. In indoor systems, cows are often fed imported feed, rich in phosphates and nitrates that were grown elsewhere, sometimes even in another country. This introduces “new” nutrients into the local environment. In contrast, when cows graze on pasture, they are consuming nutrients already present in the local soil. This means that when the cows produce slurry, the nutrients within it are local to that specific area. By spreading this slurry back onto the same farmland, the nutrients remain balanced with the land rather than overwhelming it. This closed-loop system is essential for protecting our rivers from the nutrient runoff that leads to eutrophication – where excess nutrients cause algal blooms that choke the river of oxygen – damaging the ecology of the river.

This transition toward “river-friendly” farming isn’t limited to grazing alone. We discussed a variety of other approaches, such as improved nutrient management and more precise manure and fertiliser control, which can significantly reduce the risk of runoff into the Cleddau. At Moor Farm, Andrew has turned the traditional high-input model on its head by significantly reducing fertilisers and chemicals. He believes that these changes aren’t just an environmental “nice-to-have” lower inputs can actually maintain or even improve profit margins while restoring the health of the land.

Collaboration Across the Supply Chain

Ric also introduced us to Christopher and Emma at Puffin Produce, the largest supplier of Welsh fresh produce and partial owners of the Pembrokeshire Creamery. This dual role puts them in a unique position to influence both the fields and the dairies. They are leveraging the Landscape Enterprise Networks (LENs) to bridge the gap between commercial supply and environmental health.

Through this network, they co-fund nature-based solutions that are designed by the farmers themselves. It’s a bespoke approach: rather than a top-down mandate, it empowers each farm business to propose the specific regenerative practices that will best protect that local area’s unique geography.

The Big Picture: A Future for the Cleddau

As we left Pembrokeshire, it was clear that protecting rivers requires coordinated action across the entire food and farming system, from the farmers in the pasture to the cooperatives, retailers, regulators, and policymakers. Encouragingly, our conversations with leaders like Andrew Rees, Mike Smith, and the team at First Milk showed that many farmers are already working to be part of the solution.

However, scaling these efforts will require more than just environmental ambition. We learned that the transition to regenerative farming is often seen as a risk that takes several years to realise. To succeed, we must shift the frame, to show that “river-friendly” farming can be economically viable.

The commitment we saw from Puffin Produce, First Milk, and Ric Cooper’s citizen science network proves that when local trust and supply chain support align, real change is possible. Supporting and scaling these collective efforts will be essential to restoring and safeguarding the health of our rivers for future generations.

Farmers across England begin ‘Return to Sender’ programme for chemical-laced sewage sludge – April Fools

Posted on by Molly Allen

Concerned farmers across England have today announced a coordinated initiative to return sewage sludge contaminated with so-called “forever chemicals” back to the water companies that supplied it, citing growing fears for soil health, river health, food safety, and their own reputations.

The move follows mounting evidence that sludge spread on farmland contains PFAS chemicals, microplastics, and industrial residues that persist indefinitely in the environment. 

Much of this cocktail originates from chemical and manufacturing industries, which helpfully design substances robust enough to survive heat, pressure, sunlight, and, it turns out, most attempts at water treatment. Farmers say they are no longer willing to act as what one described as “the final chapter in a very long and poorly edited industrial experiment.”

Under the scheme, informally dubbed “Sludge Back Guarantee™”, farmers plan to deliver unwanted biosolids directly to water company offices, treatment works, and executive car parks, accompanied by polite notes reading: “Thanks, but no thanks. Please enjoy your product.”

“We were told this stuff was a ‘nutrient-rich soil improver’,” said one arable farmer from the Midlands. “Turns out it’s more of a forever-chemical retirement plan. We grow wheat, not legacy pollution.”

Farmers stress that they are not anti-recycling, anti-fertiliser, or anti-water company in principle. They are, however, reluctant to spread materials that behave less like compost and more like a time capsule for industrial chemistry.

Clean river campaigner and responsible farming advocate Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall said:

“British farmers have spent decades improving soil health and food standards, so it’s reassuring to know they’re now trusted to warehouse a selection of synthetic chemicals that don’t degrade, can’t be removed, and weren’t invited. It’s a bold new diversification strategy.”

The action follows growing concern within the farming community that they are being used as a convenient outlet for sludge generated not just from households, but from industrial effluent containing persistent synthetic chemicals. Critics say the system works with admirable efficiency: chemical companies produce substances that resist breakdown, water companies circulate them through treatment systems not designed to remove them, and farmers are then offered the end product as a sustainable soil enhancer.

River Action’s Head of Campaigns Amy Fairman said:

“This arrangement has the elegance of all good cost-saving exercises: the pollution stays, the risk travels along our rivers, and responsibility quietly disappears. Farmers aren’t rejecting recycling – they’re declining to be mistaken for hazardous-waste facilities.”

Farmers say they are now calling on:

  • Chemical manufacturers to stop testing the limits of eternity in products that end up in wastewater
  • Water companies to stop accepting industrial chemical waste into systems that produce agricultural sludge (or at least stop calling the result ‘beneficial’)
  • Government to update decades-old rules and recognise that ‘persistent’ is not a synonym for ‘harmless’
  • Regulators to require full disclosure of what is actually in sludge, ideally before it is spread rather than several decades afterwards

“Food security doesn’t mean ‘spread now, regret indefinitely’,” said a mixed farmer from Yorkshire. “Our soils are our pension, our business, and our responsibility. We’d quite like them not to double as a long-term chemical archive.”

Water companies contacted for comment said they were “reviewing the situation” and confirmed that while sludge was safe “within current guidelines,” they would “prefer not to receive it back.”

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reminded farmers that April 1 is “not an appropriate day to trial reverse logistics for biosolids,” before adding that it would “continue to engage constructively with all stakeholders and, where possible, reality.”

Farmers insist the message is serious, even if the timing is not.

“We don’t want sludge wars,” said one. “We just want clean water, clean soil, and slightly fewer forever chemicals. Ideally none, but we’re trying to be realistic.”

Notes to editor

This press release is issued as part of April Fools’ Day and the “Return to Sender” programme described above is satirical.

However, the practice of spreading sewage sludge on agricultural land in England is very real. Sewage sludge can contain PFAS “forever chemicals”, microplastics, and other industrial contaminants that are not routinely removed during treatment and can persist in soils and waterways.

Farmers’ concerns about being asked to spread contaminated sludge, the lack of transparency over its contents, and the long-term risks to soil health, water quality, food safety, and public trust are genuine and widely shared.

Public concern is also significant. A recent YouGov poll conducted for River Action found that 92% of people in the UK believe water companies must ensure sewage sludge used on farmland is not contaminated. The same polling shows that 61% of respondents were unaware that sewage sludge from water companies is commonly spread on farmland, while half (50%) believe the practice poses risks to health and food quality.

Justice for Lough Neagh: The First Hearing

Posted on by Molly Allen

Written by Christian Fuller, River Action’s Legal Coordinator  

This week, River Action took part in the first hearing of a legal case which, for the first time, asks the court to decide whether the Northern Ireland government is doing enough to tackle the water pollution crisis in Lough Neagh. 

Outside of the Royal Court of Justice in Belfast, clean water campaigners and members of the fishing community gathered to make their point plainly: the Lough is being destroyed by algae. Draped in green and holding placards reading ‘Justice for Lough Neagh’, the peaceful demonstration captured the now-familiar sight of blue-green algal blooms spreading across the water in recent summers.

Inside, representatives for the applicant, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), Ulster Farmers’ Union, River Action and Friends of the Earth NI were present, with a packed courtroom due to public interest and concern.

The case is being brought by eel fisherman Declan Conlon, whose family has fished Lough Neagh for generations. He is challenging the failure of DAERA to comply with its obligations to safeguard and protect Lough Neagh from agricultural and wastewater pollution on eight legal grounds. The claim challenges the lawfulness of DAERA’s response, including its failure to adopt an adequate or lawful River Basin Management Plan. 

River Action has applied to intervene in Mr Conlon’s case to help the court assess whether DAERA is complying with its legal duties by raising important legal and practical matters. Our focus is on what the law requires and particularly the need for a lawful River Basin Management Plan to include clear actions and measures capable of restoring water quality, following the landmark case of Pickering. Drawing on major legal precedents on agricultural waste and nutrient pollution in which River Action has been involved in England, we hope to establish that DAEERA should put in place stronger measures as part of a lawful plan, including the proper enforcement of regulation to control the spreading of manure and sewage sludge, the implications of the classification of manure as waste following National Farmers’ Union v Herefordshire Council, and the need for planning and permitting to take account of cumulative pollution impacts. We will also seek to provide evidence to help the court understand the scale of the problem and what measures and practices could lead to the necessary reduction in pollution. 

At the hearing, the judge recognised the importance of this case. There were, he observed, no obvious “knockout blows” against the applicant. On the contrary, the judge said that this is “an important matter which will require a considerable amount of time to be devoted to it” and referenced “a significant element of public concern” in the situation with Lough Neagh. 

The judge repeatedly signalled there were a large number of issues and that detailed evidence would be required to “get to the bottom” of what is happening in the Lough. The judge emphasised that it was “important to leave no stone unturned” and that meant ensuring all “relevant players” were before the court.

The case will return to court on 1 May for a further review hearing, where the legal issues will be refined and the roles of additional parties considered. A permission decision will follow (to decide whether the claim is arguable and can proceed), with a substantive hearing anticipated later this year. 

This is the first real opportunity for the court to consider the Government’s response to the severe pollution of Lough Neagh and the applicable legal framework, with the potential to become the most significant water quality case in Northern Ireland for a generation. 

It is a critical opportunity to clarify what the law requires and to ensure that meaningful, urgent action is taken to restore Lough Neagh.

Fisherman launches High Court challenge against DAERA over Lough Neagh pollution crisis

Posted on by Molly Allen

Eel fisherman Mr Declan Conlon, whose family has fished Lough Neagh for generations, has brought a judicial review against the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA).

The case argues that DAERA continues to rely on inadequate plans and unenforced pollution regimes despite clear evidence of ecological collapse over several years. It raises serious questions about how agricultural pollution is addressed by DAERA in Northern Ireland. 

Lough Neagh, the largest lake in the United Kingdom and Ireland, providing approximately 40% of Northern Ireland’s drinking water, has suffered years of severe blue-green algal blooms and ecological decline – which can be seen from space.

In a sworn affidavit to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Mr Conlon described the deep generational connection his family has to the lough.

“Our father James Gerard Conlon was an eel fisherman and his father Hughie Conlon before him was an eel fisherman. Going further back than that, beyond memory, my family would all have been fishermen.”

“My way of life has been destroyed by the blue-green algae and I want DAERA to do whatever is necessary to stop the algae and safeguard and protect Lough Neagh, the fish, the flies and the wildlife for the benefit of future generations.”

Speaking about the legal challenge, Declan Conlon said, “I’ve fished Lough Neagh all my life, just like my father and his father before him. Now I’m watching it die in front of my eyes. This isn’t just about my livelihood – it’s about justice for the lough before there’s nothing left for the next generation.”

Enda McGarrity, Director at P.A. Duffy & Co. and solicitor for Mr Conlon, said the case reflects the lived experience of those whose livelihoods depend on the health of the lough and is about securing justice for Lough Neagh and the communities who rely on it.

“Declan Conlon has fished Lough Neagh his entire life, and what he is witnessing in recent years is a collapse unlike anything seen before.

“Where there was once abundance, there are now no flies for the eels to feed on, barely any birds, and stretches of water that smell so foul you cannot stand near them.

“He has seen the impact with his own eyes, from wildlife disappearing to reports of animals becoming sick after contact with the water. The blue-green algae is not just unsightly; it poses a real risk to health.

“Declan did not take this case lightly. He has brought this challenge because he believes the lough, his livelihood, his way of life, and the community that depends on it deserve proper protection under the law.”

River Action UK and Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland will apply to intervene in Mr Conlon’s legal challenge concerning the ongoing pollution crisis affecting the lough.

We are seeking to intervene in the judicial review to help the Court assess whether DAERA is complying with its legal duties to protect Lough Neagh. By drawing on recent legal cases addressing agricultural waste, nutrient pollution and river basin planning in England, River Action hopes to establish that DAERA must put in place clear, enforceable measures to reduce pollution and restore the health of the lough and its internationally important habitats.

River Action’s Head of Legal Emma Dearnaley said, “Declan Conlon’s case raises urgent questions about whether enough is being done to tackle the pollution driving the decline of Lough Neagh. When pollution persists year after year and ecological harm becomes impossible to ignore, it is right to ask whether the legal frameworks designed to protect Northern Ireland’s waters are being properly applied. River Action seeks to assist the Court in answering that question. 

“For too long, decision-makers have relied on plans and promises while pollution has continued and Lough Neagh has visibly deteriorated. We hope this case will help bring about the clear, enforceable action needed to reduce pollution and restore this vital ecosystem.”

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents River Action, said, “As a national organisation, River Action hopes to make sure that all jurisdictions in the UK are taking a correct and consistent approach to dealing with the acute pollution crisis in our rivers and lakes. 

“They have already established important legal principles in cases brought in England, and they hope that they can bring these principles to bear in Mr Conlon’s case. This would not only be for the benefit of Lough Neagh, but also every other water body at risk of ecological collapse in Northern Ireland.”

Friends of the Earth NI has been campaigning to protect Lough Neagh for decades. Standing in solidarity with communities and grassroots groups such as Save Lough Neagh, Friends of the Earth NI is committed to seeking justice for Lough Neagh, whether that be inside our Courts or outside. 

Over 50,000 people have supported Friends of the Earth NI’s five point plan for a just settlement for the Lough. 

James Orr, Director, Northern Ireland, Friends of the Earth said, “Lough Neagh is dying and it is dying in plain sight.

“It is a sad indictment of the state of our environmental protection regime that it has taken a local fisherman to challenge government inaction through the Courts to protect the Lough.

“For generations the lough and its communities have been betrayed by those in power. Yet again, taking this case shows the leadership to protect our life support systems is coming from our local communities.” 

Campaign update: High Court rules on lawfulness of Ofwat’s approach to customers not paying twice

Posted on by Molly Allen

Today the High Court has handed down its decision on the lawfulness of Ofwat’s approach to its policy that water company customers should ‘not pay twice’ for sewer overflow upgrades to achieve environmental compliance and reduce pollution of our waterways. Although River Action’s claim was dismissed, the case has resulted in important clarity and should result in a better regulatory approach.

Ofwat is responsible for regulating water companies and controls what they can charge customers through its five-year price reviews, with Ofwat’s Price Review 24 (PR24) exercise setting charges for the sixteen largest water companies from 2025-2030. Following investigations into water company compliance after widespread sewage discharges were revealed in 2021, Ofwat promised that customers would not pay twice for environmental improvement works that had previously been funded and should already have been delivered. 

Last year, River Action took forward this case because investigatory work by Save Windermere and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution identified potential systemic failures in how Ofwat oversees compliance across the entire water industry and how it routinely signs off funding that could allow water companies to use customers’ money to rectify their own past non-compliance. As well as ensuring customers do not pay twice, the key issue from River Action’s perspective is the significant long-term failures of water and sewerage companies to upgrade storm overflows, sewage treatment works and pumping stations to comply with environmental law because the sewage pollution that results from those infrastructure failures is causing harm to our rivers and lakes.

Internal documents that only emerged as a result of this litigation revealed significant confusion at Ofwat, indicating Ofwat may have failed to follow its ‘not paying twice’ policy because, as it admitted privately but not publicly, “some historical investment programmes now appear to fall short of what should have been required to comply”. Those documents showed that Ofwat did not know whether there was full compliance and whether customers would ultimately pay twice in some instances because Ofwat had failed to look at Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (UWWTR) compliance as well as environmental permit compliance. This is a major mistake that, unless monitored closely in the future, could result in billions of pounds of investment being spent on environmental improvements that should already have been delivered. 

At the hearing, River Action argued that Ofwat’s approach was flawed and unlawful because:

Ground 1: Ofwat’s approach to implementing its ‘not paying twice’ policy was unreasonable because to actually show that customers would not pay twice (1) water companies needed to demonstrate current compliance (namely the reality on the ground, not simply assuming or modelling compliance) and (2) water companies needed to demonstrate customers would not pay twice for improvements that should have already happened. Essentially, our complaint was that Ofwat had publicly said that companies would have to demonstrate compliance but then dropped that requirement without explaining why.

Ground 2: Ofwat’s ‘clawback’ mechanism is flawed and incomplete because it is limited to double funding of permit compliance and does not deal with double funding of UWWTR compliance, despite Ofwat’s internal documents revealing both are required. This means it falls short of operating to ensure that customers will not pay twice.

The High Court has today ruled that Ofwat’s approach was lawful because Ofwat’s evidence provided a ‘sufficient logical basis’ for its approach. In reaching its decision, the Court said that Ofwat has ‘significant latitude’ when looking at the legality of its decisions relating to price controls and compliance because of its role and responsibilities as a regulator.

But the Court did not fully grapple with River Action’s case, focusing on whether Ofwat’s use of modelling data was in line with its ‘not paying twice’ policy but not addressing our key argument that Ofwat’s policy also requires companies to actually show permit compliance. The Court has also not addressed the regulatory gap that exists between Ofwat and the Environment Agency when looking at permit compliance.

There was a positive outcome on the issue of the ‘clawback’ mechanism (intended to prevent double funding when water companies cannot provide evidence of promised improvements towards the end of a price review period). At the hearing, it became clear that Ofwat has yet to settle the rules that will decide whether any clawback should occur, meaning this argument was found by the Court to be ‘premature’. This was a welcome clarification and leaves the issue open so that the clawback mechanism can be fixed and used by Ofwat to make sure customers do not pay twice.

Essentially, in dismissing River Action’s claim, the Court has said that it thinks Ofwat’s approach is good enough because in theory Ofwat might be able to ‘clawback’ money that is spent in breach of Ofwat’s ‘not paying twice’ policy.

That does not mean the water regulator should not do better. It can and it must.

Our legal challenge has shone a light on problems with Ofwat’s regulatory approach and highlighted the urgent need for reform. Going forward, the regulator must not allow customers to pay twice by ensuring that water companies comply with both permit compliance and compliance under the UWWTR. Ofwat must also settle the clawback mechanism so that it works in relation to both permit schemes and UWWTR schemes.

While we waited for judgment, in December 2025, the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) published notices and reports finding that Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Defra failed to properly enforce the law relating to sewage discharges from combined sewer overflows. The OEP’s findings show that Ofwat did not understand for decades that it had a duty to enforce environmental compliance under the Water Industry Act and the UWWTR, only recognising in June 2022 it had this important enforcement function in addition to ensuring assets comply with their permits. This supports our case that Ofwat has not required full compliance in past price reviews and was trying to play catch-up in PR24, while claiming publicly that it only needed to look at permit compliance despite knowing that was only part of the picture.

This judgment and the OEP’s findings are timely as, following the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission, this Government now looks to overhaul the water sector including by creating a new integrated regulator to replace Ofwat and bring together economic, environmental and water quality regulation. The Independent Water Commission also made recommendations relevant to regulatory gaps in holding water companies to account for the delivery of infrastructure projects and customers not paying twice.

Whatever form the future regulator takes, its approach on this fundamental issue should be clear, transparent and fully compliant. Customers must not compensate water companies for poor performance by paying twice for improvements that have not been delivered. And the regulator must hold water companies fully accountable by enforcing all relevant laws.

We will not be appealing the decision. Our focus now is on continuing to push for the major regulatory reform needed to ensure real oversight and enforcement, so water companies are properly held to account and sewage pollution is stopped for good.

Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.