Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Up Your Standards

View campaign

Independent Water Commission

View campaign

Author: Molly Allen

Flea treatment – The silent river killer

Posted on by Molly Allen

Silent Rivers

By Jeff Gill
Jeff’s dog, Bonny

In 1962, Rachel Carson published her seminal book A Silent Spring. In it, she exposed the devastating environmental damage caused by the pesticide DDT and challenged the misinformation from industry, together with the lack of questioning by public bodies.  In 2025, it appears we still haven’t learnt to stop the damage caused to the environment by pesticides, as our rivers fall ever more silent under this continuing chemical assault. As a pet owner, I have a dog, it’s the black one in the photo. I was shocked to realise that I was part of the problem when I discovered the pollution of our rivers by the pesticides in the popular Spot-On pet medicines that are used to treat fleas and ticks.

This is what I found out. The pesticides fipronil and imidacloprid are still authorised for use in pet medicines in spite of them being banned for agricultural use nearly ten years ago. This is largely because barely any environmental risk assessment takes place by our regulators, as it is assumed that the pesticides are unlikely to enter the environment in any quantity. But assumptions can be dangerous, especially when you consider there are over 10 million dogs and over 10 million cats in the UK. The dodgy assumptions are weakened further when, on top of the vast number of pets, an aggressive pet med marketing strategy is designed to entice and often frighten pet owners to use as many of these products as often as possible and for as long as possible.

“Driven by innovation and profit, the pharmaceutical and chemical industry require marketing authorisation to get their products onto the market as quickly as possible. The regulatory authorities rely on industry to ensure that their products are safe and effective, in other words, to mark their own homework. Technology today is far more reliable and predictive of human health and environmental impact than ever before. The challenge facing society today is government inertia to amend regulatory requirements in line with 21st-century evidence-based test methods”.

Dr Andre Menache MRCVS  PVA – Progressive Veterinary Association

Industry misinformation exposed all those years ago by Rachel Carson still exists today and is evidenced by the strategies to boost sales. Marketing claims fly in the face of the advice coming from responsible vets and ignore the science. For example, organisations like Vet Sustain and the PVA champion a ‘One Health’ approach (see below) and disagree with the practice of applying routine monthly prophylactic use of these Spot-On treatments regardless of need. Instead, like many others, they advocate a risk/need-based approach, contextualised is the phrase often used, as well as the use of environmentally safer or better still safe alternatives.

So, given all this, just how wrong have those assumptions made by our regulator proved to be? For our aquatic life, the answer is disastrous because this is what we now know and why it matters. To start with, there is the question of how do pesticides in Spot-On pet treatments which are applied in the household get into our rivers in the first place? The image below drawn from extensive research, shows how this happens. Since this was published in 2021, the suggested but at that stage unconfirmed additional pathways have also been confirmed. {Thanks to Dr Rose Perkins and Sussex University for the image)

A demonstration of how flea treatment pollution enters our rivers. Thank you to Dr Rose Perkins and Sussex University for the image.

So that’s how pet product pesticides get into our rivers but to what extent is this a problem for aquatic life? Just how many rivers are affected and what concentrations are being found? Environment Agency data from 2018 found extensive contamination of many English Rivers with fipronil and imidacloprid being found in at least two-thirds of the samples (99% in the case of Fipronil). Further monitoring in 2024 concluded that the levels of these two chemicals was now way above the PNEC, this being the predicted no effect concentration. As a result, the Environment Agency has identified these two pesticides as top of their list of priority concerns as well as confirming the source from pet medicines, all of which is supported by independent research. Other published studies have ranked fipronil as the organic pollutant posing the greatest threat to English waterways and ranked imidacloprid (a neonicotinoid) as the highest-risk organic contaminant in London’s waterways.  So online retailers like, for example, Amazon and Pet Drugs Online have a lot to answer for, and yet in spite of these levels of pollution, they still continue to drive booming sales of products like Itch Flea©, Frontline©, Advantage©, Bob Martin Plus© to name a few.

Are pet owners aware of this problem? A study by Imperial College London of ponds on Hampstead Heath, see the image below, confirmed not only pet pesticide levels at way above risk thresholds but also that most dog owners were not aware of the problem. It did, however, find that many dog owners would choose safer alternatives if they knew what was going on.

Thanks to the Imperial College PREPP group for the image.

Taking a deeper dive into our increasingly silent rivers we know that Mayfly nymphs are amongst some of the aquatic invertebrates most vulnerable to these two chemicals. You only need to speak with trout anglers in national parks like Exmoor to find out what they think about this pollution.  One resident on Exmoor told me that “These pet medicines containing pesticides are poisoning the pristine waters of the rivers Barle and Exe and killing off the insects and water life that used to sustain the migratory fish like Atlantic salmon, native trout and local bird life”.

Mayfly Nymph – Thank you to Dr. Cyril Bennett MBE for the image.

You might expect rivers in our National Parks to do better than most but not so. As it turns out they are the most heavily polluted compared with urban rivers when it comes to human pharmaceuticals. Add the pet medicines to this, and yes fipronil and imidacloprid are being found at alarming levels in the small rivers on Exmoor, then this is an eco-toxic timebomb poisoning our rivers and risks silencing them for good.

As well as invertebrates and the knock effect on fish stocks and river-dwelling birds like dippers and kingfishers, there is increasing concern for my personal favourites, the otters that rely on a healthy ecosystem to survive and thrive. As apex predators, they can be a keystone indicator of river health.

But our rivers can’t speak up for themselves, so what can we do about all this? One thing is for pet owners like me who love their pets and who love nature to explore alternative approaches. For example, consider environmentally safe tick repellents like Cedarcide© (made from all-natural cedar oil and smells great!). Talk to your vet and ask about some of the oral medicines that are potentially safer, as well as assess the level of risk your pet might be exposed to, for instance are ticks an all-year-round issue where you walk your dog or very seasonal?

“Risk-based parasite control in pets means tailoring parasite prevention to each animal’s lifestyle and infection risk, instead of giving routine treatments to every pet. This approach balances animal, human and environmental considerations, reducing unnecessary drug use, limiting side-effects, slowing resistance development, and helping protect the environment.”

Dr Rosemary Perkins BVSc CertSAOpth PhD MRCVS

We can also challenge the industry to clean up their act. For example, put feedback about environmental damage into reviews, talk to store managers in supermarkets and other retail outlets (The Co-op and Waitrose have stopped selling these products) and write to the mighty Amazon and the like. If your vet happens to be part of the IVC Evidensia chain, then ask them about the environmentally irresponsible marketing practice of Pet Drugs Online which is owned by this global vet group.

At the government level, there is increasing awareness of the problem and of public concerns. As a result, there are small signs that DEFRA ministers are beginning to listen and the regulatory bodies like the VMD that are accountable to DEFRA are taking tiny steps although handicapped by the powerful lobby from the vet medicines industry. Talk to your MP and let them know not enough is being done nor at a pace in keeping with the data and research. We can collectively start to drown out the big pharma lobby with noise of our own. Taking action, which surely is what River Action is all about.

 

River Action takes Ofwat to High Court, accusing regulator of letting customers ‘pay twice’ for same improvements

Posted on by Molly Allen

We are taking Ofwat to the High Court today, arguing that the economic water regulator acted unlawfully because its approach has potentially allowed water companies to charge bill payers twice for the same infrastructure improvements that would reduce pollution of our waterways.

At the heart of the case is Ofwat’s 2024 Price Review (PR24), which approved above inflation bill increases – averaging £123 a year per household – and authorised “enhancement expenditure” for water companies to upgrade wastewater treatment works and pumping stations including to meet their legal obligations. The case uses United Utilities and Lake Windermere as a case study, but we believe the claim has uncovered issues with Ofwat’s approach across England and Wales.

Ofwat’s own policy is that customers should not pay twice for enhancement schemes.

We claim that Ofwat acted unlawfully when it implemented its policy because its approach has allowed costs to be passed to customers without ensuring the funds actually deliver promised improvements rather than merely correcting historic underinvestment. In effect, we argue that Ofwat’s approach has likely allowed for paying twice, with some households having to pay for infrastructure improvements to achieve environmental compliance, which should have been funded from historic bill payments.

Our Head of Legal, Emma Dearnaley, said:

“It is fundamental that the public should not be made to pay twice for water companies’ past failures to invest in improvements to stop sewage pollution. But River Action is concerned that Ofwat’s approach means customers could be paying again. Meanwhile, degraded infrastructure keeps spewing pollution into rivers and lakes across the country that should have been clean decades ago. The regulator must ensure that the billions it approves results in legal compliance by water companies and that customers are charged fairly from now on. We cannot fix the sewage crisis or restore public trust until we have regulation that delivers for billpayers and the environment. ”

Legal grounds: flawed approach, weak enforcement


Represented by law firm Leigh Day, River Action will argue that:

Ground 1: Ofwat’s approach to implementing its own “not paying twice” policy was unlawful.

Ground 2: Ofwat ‘clawback’ mechanism to recover funds if water companies misuse customer money is flawed and incomplete.

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents River Action, said:

“Our client believes that this case shows that Ofwat has failed to make sure that water bills are used for infrastructure upgrades. River Action will argue that the money that could and should have been used to make essential infrastructure improvements is now gone, and customers are being asked to foot the bill for those improvements a second time over.”

A case with national implications


Although the legal challenge focuses on the PR24 determination for United Utilities and the Windermere schemes, we believe the outcome has national significance. The case aims to expose 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.

Windermere as a case study for a national problem


Lake Windermere, the “jewel in the crown” of the Lake District, has become a symbol of the crisis in England’s waterways. Despite being a designated protected site, monitoring data shows thousands of hours of sewage discharges every year from nearby treatment works and pumping stations.

Our case uses Windermere as a case study to illustrate a national problem. If such failures can happen at one of the country’s most iconic lakes, the charity argues, they are likely happening across the network of water and sewerage systems in England and Wales. Our concern with Ofwat’s approach to implementing its own ‘not paying twice’ policy extends across all of the 4,000 schemes it has approved across England and Wales.

Beyond the courtroom: a call for regulatory reform


Our legal challenge is part of its broader campaign to reform how water regulation works in the UK. We argue that Ofwat, as currently structured, has become too close to the companies it regulates and too distant from the public interest it is meant to serve.

Since the case was filed, the Independent Water Commission has also raised many of our concerns, calling for a major overhaul of the regulation of water services in England and Wales with a new single integrated regulator replacing the current fragmented system (including Ofwat) and with long-term infrastructure investment and asset health being central to making the system fit for the future.

Crucially, the outcome of this case should have profound consequences for PR29, the next five-year regulatory review.  PR29 must not repeat the same failures of PR24. A reformed, well-resourced and robust regulator – with Ofwat’s current structure and functions expected to be abolished and included in the new regulator following the Commission’s recommendations – must ensure full environmental compliance by water companies before customers are asked to pay.

Notes to editors

The hearing takes place at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on November 4th & 5th.
River Action is represented by law firm, Leigh Day, and barristers David Wolfe KC and Nicholas Ostrowski.

The March for Clean Water: What’s Changed a Year On?

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Amy Fairman, Head of Campaigns, River Action

A profound silence swept across Parliament Square as over fifteen thousand people stood still. On the giant screens, scenes of glistening waters, darting kingfishers, and emerald riverbanks shimmered into life while Robert Macfarlane’s voice carried through the air:

“Riversong is ebb and flow, flow and ebb, deep pools and shallow beds.”

It was 3 November 2024, and a wave of blue had descended upon London. From river source to seashore, people from every corner of the country came together to demand action from a newly elected government — action to rescue our dying rivers and polluted seas.

That day, the heart of Westminster became a confluence of voices and waters: Robert’s moving poem, Charles Watson’s impassioned river roll call, the symbolic mingling of over a hundred river samples, and the rallying cries of young river warriors, seasoned campaigners, union representatives, and community groups. It wasn’t just a protest — it was a movement in full flow, a moment that galvanised a nation determined to turn the tide.

I left Parliament Square that afternoon buoyed by the energy of the day — the powerful sense that years of hard work, heartbreak, and hope had finally gathered into one unstoppable current.

But one year on, what’s changed? Has the government listened? Are our rivers and seas rebounding from decades of neglect and abuse?

Author and writer of ‘Ebb and Flow’, Rob Macfarlane, alongside our CEO, James Wallace.

A Year of Scrutiny: The Independent Water Commission

Political attention on our rivers has continued to intensify. Clean water was one of the defining issues of the general election, and the new Secretary of State quickly made it a top priority.

Following the calls of many campaigners, including those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Parliament Square, the government launched the Independent Water Commission — a long-awaited review of the water sector.

Hope rippled across the movement. Could this be the start of the systemic overhaul we’d been fighting for — the beginning of the end for a failed privatisation experiment that had siphoned billions from public hands into private profits?

As the details emerged, optimism gave way to frustration.

The Commission’s scope was tightly ring-fenced,  to “making the current system work better”. It was forbidden from considering public ownership or alternative models — effectively excluding the kind of bold, structural reform the water industry desperately needs.

Even more concerning, agricultural pollution, which remains the single largest source of contamination in our rivers, was entirely outside its remit. This omission spoke volumes about how narrow and politically cautious the review was.

That’s not to say nothing of value emerged. The Commission made several important recommendations: reforms to a regulator long viewed as toothless; new rules to tackle toxic sewage sludge; improved transparency of water company data; and greater enforcement powers. These asks were central to the joint evidence provided by River Action and Surfers Against Sewage to the commission, as well as the response submitted by many other organisations that took part in the march for clean water.

But you can’t fix a broken system by tightening its bolts.

The privatised water model, with its vulture-like investors extracting dividends while infrastructure crumbles, remains fundamentally unfit for purpose. Bill payers are being squeezed to cover the cost of failure, while rivers bear the burden of a system designed for profit, not for people or nature.

Our call to action for the public’s submission to the Independent Water Commission, voiced by Deborah Meaden

The People’s Commission: A Blueprint for Change

While the government’s commission tinkered around the edges, others were busy reimagining the system.

The People’s Commission, a collaboration of grassroots groups, academics, and policy thinkers, have been determined to prove that another way is possible.

Drawing lessons from models in Europe and beyond, the People’s Commission laid out a roadmap for a publicly owned, democratically accountable water system. One that puts environmental protection and community well-being above shareholder returns.

Their recommendations included decentralised governance structures, citizen representation on regional water boards, ring-fenced reinvestment of profits, and clear mechanisms for environmental accountability.

The People’s Commission is a reminder that imagination is as vital as indignation. It shows what could happen if we truly placed the public interest — and the health of our rivers — at the centre of water management.

The Thames Water Saga: A Cautionary Tale

If ever there was a symbol of the failure of privatisation, it’s Thames Water.

Over the past year, its decline has become a national drama — a slow-motion car crash of mismanagement, financial engineering, and moral bankruptcy.

In the spring, investors began to pull out, with major backers like RRK retreating while new ones, such as CRK, stepped in under dubious terms. Meanwhile, news reports revealed that the company was seeking exemptions from environmental fines — arguing that such penalties would deter investors.

Let that sink in: a company responsible for repeated pollution incidents effectively asking for immunity so that it could attract more capital.

As the financial situation worsened, rumours of a government bailout swirled. Ministers insisted there would be “no blank cheques,” yet also failed to clarify when or how they might trigger special administration, the mechanism designed to temporarily control failing utilities. A  mechanism that could be used to fundamentally rethink how to restructure the company to work in the interests of people and nature, not purely boardroom shareholders.

In the absence of a clear policy, uncertainty reigned. Thames Water has continued to limp on, its debts deepening, while the rivers it was meant to protect remained choked by sewage spills.

Those who took to the streets last November are now gracing courtrooms. Windrush Against Sewage Pollution (WASP) and Charlie Maynard MP challenged the terms of the rescue package and demanded transparency. And at River Action, we are challenging Defra for their failure to have a policy in place for taking failing water companies into special administration.

Thames Water’s saga is not an anomaly; it’s a symptom. A warning of what happens when vital public goods are treated as commodities, and when regulation bends to the interests of those it’s meant to restrain.

The Regulator’s Verdict: A System Still Polluting

If anyone still needed proof that our rivers remain under attack, the latest performance reports from Ofwat and the Environment Agency delivered it in black and white.

In 2022, the water companies committed to cutting serious pollution incidents by 30 per cent. But the data now shows the opposite: serious pollution has risen by almost 30 per cent. It’s outrageous.

Let’s be clear.. After all the pledges, the speeches, and the glossy PR campaigns, the companies responsible for protecting our most precious natural resources are not just failing — they’re going backwards.

The Environment Agency described the performance of several major utilities as “unacceptable,” noting that some have slipped further behind their legal duties. Ofwat’s own report echoed the same frustration: repeated rule-breaking, inadequate investment, and a culture of denial at the top.

How can it be that in 2025, after decades of evidence and billions in profits, our water companies are still treating pollution fines as the cost of doing business?

This isn’t about a few bad actors — it’s a systemic failure. The regulators’ findings lay bare the fundamental truth that the current model is broken beyond repair. We cannot rely on the same companies that caused the crisis to be the ones who fix it.

Power to the People

If the year since the March for Clean Water has taught me anything, it’s that real change doesn’t just flow from Westminster — it springs from the ground up.

Across the country, the organisations, communities, and individuals who marched that day haven’t stopped moving. They’ve channelled the energy of that moment into ongoing, determined action.

Communities across the country are standing up to factory farms polluting our rivers. In the Wye Valley, Alison Caffyn (part of the Save the Wye community) and River Action won a landmark legal case forcing planners to assess the cumulative impact of intensive farms. In Norfolk, residents prevented new factory farm developments for failing to consider climate impacts, and in Hertfordshire, campaigners secured a ruling that manure taken off farms must be treated as waste, not dumped on land.

Individuals and local groups across the county picked up their pens to share their views on the Water Commission – over 2,000 people made use of River Actions guidance to respond, and many other communities of other organisations like Surfers Against Sewage did the same.

The Riverscape Partnership has launched its Making Space for Water initiative, calling for support for farmers and landowners to restore nature-rich river corridors.

The Women’s Institute, whose members turned out in force at the march, organised a Week of River Action — bringing thousands of women together to monitor water quality, campaign for tougher regulation, and celebrate the rivers that sustain their towns and villages.

The Angling Trust, alongside many community groups, have doubled down on the fight to protect England’s precious chalk streams, demanding that these globally rare habitats receive the same level of legal protection as rainforests.

And in an extraordinary act of citizen empowerment, the Citizens Arrest Network has continued its creative campaign of symbolic “boardroom arrests” — calling out pollution-for-profit executives and holding them to account through using the power of citizen arrests.

This is where I find hope:  in the compassionate energy of people who refuse to look away.

CEO of Surfers Against Sewage, Giles Bristow, at the March for Clean Water

What Needs to Happen Next

A year after that extraordinary march, we stand at a crossroads.

The government’s upcoming White Paper on Water Reform offers another opportunity to show genuine leadership. But if it merely repackages the recommendations of the Independent Water Commission, it will fail to meet the scale of the crisis affecting our rivers.

We need a framework that addresses the whole system, not just the symptoms. That means:

  • Clear timelines for bringing failing water companies back into temporary public ownership through the special administration regime, or introducing hybrid community models.
  • A 25-Year Agricultural Roadmap that tackles diffuse pollution at its source.
  • Stronger, independent regulators free from political and corporate interference.
  • And a second Water Bill, one that enshrines the right to clean water and healthy rivers in law.

Without these, the “blue wave” that filled Parliament Square will, as Chris Packham said on stage, “be back…..in brown”.

Chris Packham on stage at the March for Clean Water

A River Still Rising

As I reflect on that November day, I can still feel the rhythm of the drums echoing through Westminster, the collective heartbeat of thousands who refused to accept that our rivers should be sacrificed for profit.

One year on, that heartbeat hasn’t faded. It’s grown stronger.

Every petition signed, every water test taken, every letter written to an MP is another ripple pushing against the current of complacency.

We may not yet have turned the tide, but the direction of flow has shifted. Awareness has deepened. Accountability is rising. Along the riverbanks, people’s voices rise, demanding change.

The March for Clean Water was never meant to be a single day. It was a major moment along a journey. The galvanising of a movement of communities reclaiming the lifeblood of this country.

And as long as our rivers run — however polluted, however wounded — so too will our determination to see them restored, replenished, and free.

Because rivers are not just waterways. They are the veins of our land, the pulse of our planet, and the mirror in which we see the health of our democracy.

The tide is turning. Let’s keep it moving.

By Amy Fairman, Head of Campaigns, River Action

TIMMMBBEEERRRRRR….will the Government ever let Thames Water fall?

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Dr Samir Seddougui, Campaign Researcher at River Action

I have recently been wading deep into the details of our legal action against the Government for failing to have a policy for when it will place Thames Water into special administration. Every now and then I would come across the phrase ‘Project Timber’ which piqued my curiosity. What could the Government be referring to when they use ‘Project Timber’ in internal documents? Digging around the Government website and several search engines yielded scant results. So I decided to conduct my own investigation.

It turns out that for over a year now, rumours have been circulating through the corridors of power (Parliament & the press) about the Government’s codename for its plan to put Thames Water out of its misery and into a special administration regime. This mysterious plan is called Project Timber. It was developed by the previous Government and was first mentioned in Parliament in March 2024. During a Parliamentary debate on Thames Water contingency plans, Richmond Park MP Sarah Olney said “what is currently a secret is Project Timber, which I understand is a contingency plan should Thames Water be unable to operate.” 18 months later and Project Timber is still a mystery.

The first thing that needs to be asked is why is there so much secrecy around this? What is the Government trying to hide? These questions are outside of the parameters of Freedom of Information (FOI) or Environment Information Regulation (EIR) requests, so instead I requested a copy of the Project Timber document or any internal documents that reference Project Timber. Defra came back to us with a rather confusing response.

It turns out Project Timber is so secret, Defra can ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ its existence. They also argued that releasing information on Project Timber would threaten international relations and national security. What is so secretive about a contingency plan for a failing water company, that this Government won’t even admit whether it exists or not. With the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ a betting person would put money on Project Timber’s existence, which then leads to the question why doesn’t Defra want to make it public? But here’s the catch: how can something simultaneously not exist and pose a security risk if disclosed? It can’t be both.

Without transparency from the Government, we are left to scratch our heads and try to speculatemake some informed guesses about what Project Timber, is and why the Government is being so secretive about it. The metaphor of a falling tree having implications for the surrounding environment is not lost on me but rather ironic, given the current environmental impact from allowing Thames Water to continue to fail and pollute our rivers. “Timber” is usually a warning, but special administration would be a positive step for the water industry, which for decades has been getting rewarded for systemic failure across all metrics.

Special administration allows for a more sustainable ownership, financing and governance model guided by public benefit, not private profits. Transparency from the Government regarding their contingency plans for Thames Water would let the public understand and properly scrutinise their (in)action so far. This is why we are appealing the Government’s ‘neither confirm nor deny’ response, due to the weight of public interest on the matter. Afterall, it is the public who are most affected by this. Timber, the material, is solid, dependable and the backbone of many structures. Unfortunately the same cannot be said about Thames Water.

River Action is now urging the Government to provide much-needed transparency on when it will act. Yes, these documents might contain market-sensitive information but Defra could redact those sections while still making contingency plans and policies public. That would allow proper scrutiny and help to rebuild public trust in the water sector.

What do you think is in Project Timber? And why do you think the Government is holding back?….

It’s time our supermarkets expose Red Tractor’s greenwash and up their standards

Posted on by Molly Allen

By Charles Watson, Founder and Chairman of River Action UK

Britain’s rivers are in terrible shape, and our biggest supermarkets are up to their necks in it. For years, retailers like Tesco and Asda alongside their agribusiness suppliers have hidden behind the cosy logo of Red Tractor, telling customers their food is “farmed with care… from field to store all our standards are met”. This week the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) called time on this charade.

The regulator has ruled that Red Tractor, the UK’s largest farm assurance scheme, misled the public by suggesting its logo guarantees strong environmental protection. It doesn’t. And today we reveal that the most recent Environment Agency data shows a staggering 19,000 breaches across 60% of Red Tractor–certified farms between January 2020 and July 2025, exposing a systemic failure behind the label’s “environmentally friendly” claims.

This isn’t a marginal issue. It goes to the heart of how our food system operates, and how some of the biggest companies in Britain shield themselves from responsibility while rivers and lakes collapse under a deluge of pollution caused by intensive agricultural practices.

Take Tesco. Controlling nearly 30% of the supermarket sector, it is the single most powerful buyer of British farm produce. Its chicken and pork supply chains run through industrial-scale operators like Avara Foods and Moy Park. These are not quaint family farms but subsidiaries of US agribusiness giants Cargill and Pilgrim’s Pride. These companies have been linked to ecological crises such as the collapse of the River Wye and the ongoing algal disaster in Lough Neagh, the UK’s largest freshwater lake.

For years, supermarkets have pointed to the Red Tractor logo as their environmental alibi. But that line has now been shredded. In a landmark ruling, the UK’s ASA has concluded that Red Tractor’s environmental claims are misleading. This is no longer just campaigners or scientists calling the Red Tractor scheme inadequate. It is a regulator finding that Red Tractor’s advertising exaggerated and misled consumers on its environmental standards. Any retailer still brandishing that logo as a mark of environmental protection is not reassuring customers. They are engaging in greenwash.

The data is stark. Between January 2020 and July 2025, 7,353 Environment Agency inspections of Red Tractor–certified farms found 4,353 breaches — nearly 60% of farms failing environmental rules. These weren’t minor slip-ups: the violations included thousands of breaches designed to prevent slurry and fertiliser from pouring into rivers, fuelling algal blooms, killing fish, devastating ecosystems, and contaminating drinking water. In total, the inspections recorded a staggering 19,305 instances of non-compliance. 

This is not just a story about dirty rivers. It is about a food system where the biggest players, multinational agribusinesses and the retailers who buy from them, use weak, industry-controlled assurance schemes to insulate themselves from scrutiny. Red Tractor is not a neutral standard-setter. It is designed by the very interests it is supposed to regulate. And guess who controls it? The majority of seats on Red Tractor’s governing council are held by the UK’s various National Farming Union bodies. Yes, the farming lobby actually controls its own product quality scheme. 

Red Tractor’s defenders will say that criticising the scheme means attacking farmers. Let’s be clear, it does not. Many farmers care deeply about the land and waterways that sustain them and us all. They are being undercut by a system that rewards scale, intensification and cutting corners, while paying lip service to environmental protection.

As Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, has put it: “Consumers and farmers want real sustainability, not a sticker.” Farmers who are genuinely improving soils, protecting rivers and reducing chemicals see little reward for their efforts. Meanwhile, industrial producers hide behind the same Red Tractor logo. That isn’t fairness. It’s exploitation.

Supermarkets cannot claim ignorance. They have been told repeatedly about the links between their suppliers and river pollution. The Environment Agency rejected Red Tractor’s bid for “Preferred Status” precisely because it fails to meet good environmental standards. Yet retailers still rely on the logo as their shield.

This complicity matters because of their sheer market power. When supermarkets demand Red Tractor chicken, vast supply chains, from feed mills to slaughterhouses to contract farmers, are locked into a destructive model. This legitimises the industrial systems polluting our rivers. And when consumers challenge them, they point to the little tractor logo, as if that settles the matter.

The ASA ruling proves it doesn’t.

We now face a choice. Tesco, Asda, Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons and others can continue to sell food tainted with pollution, hiding behind a logo that regulators have called out as misleading on environmental performance. Or they can do the honest thing: demand genuinely high standards from suppliers, and pay farmers properly for producing food in ways that don’t wreck our rivers.

This isn’t just about protecting wildlife or river users such as this nation’s army of wild swimmers. Though that should be enough. It is also about restoring trust in our food system. Consumers deserve to know that when they buy British, they are supporting farming that safeguards our countryside, not destroy it. Farmers deserve a level playing field that rewards those who do right by the land. And companies that profit from selling us food have a duty to ensure their supply chains comply with legal standards, both under the law and broader social responsibility.

For too long, Red Tractor has allowed agribusiness and retail giants to dodge that duty. Thanks to the ASA, the greenwash is now exposed. The question is whether the supermarket giants will finally face up to reality, or whether they will cling to a broken system until public trust collapses.

Britain’s rivers cannot wait. Neither can the farmers who are trying to do the right thing. The time for excuses is over.

ASA ruling exposes Red Tractor as greenwash – River Action demands supermarkets act

Posted on by Molly Allen

New figures reveal staggering 19,000 breaches across 60% of inspected Red Tractor farms, exposing systemic failure behind the label’s “environmentally friendly” claims

River Action is calling on leading supermarket retailers including Tesco and Asda to stop relying on Red Tractor for environmental certification. The scheme has been exposed for serious environmental greenwashing in an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling.

Having filed the complaint in April 2023, the case is thought to be one of the longest investigations in ASA history.

 

ASA ruling: Red Tractor environmental claims ‘misleading’

The ASA has today upheld a complaint by River Action’s Chair and Founder, Charles Watson, ruling that Red Tractor – the UK’s largest farming assurance scheme – misled the public about its environmental standards and exaggerated the benefits of Red Tractor endorsement.

River Action challenged advertising for the Red Tractor scheme because of its concerns that environmental standards relating to pollution on Red Tractor farms were not being met – including the claim “When the Red Tractor’s there, your food’s farmed with care… from field to store all our standards are met”.

During its investigation, the ASA considered extensive evidence and arguments put forward by Red Tractor including that it was not an environmental certification mark specifically so “did not seek to replicate environmental law or even cover all aspects of pollution risks by farms”.

The ASA concluded that the evidence provided by Red Tractor to demonstrate compliance with basic legislative standards and a good environmental outcome was insufficient to substantiate the claim which “farmed with care… all our standards are met” conveyed to consumers. The advert breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.12 (Exaggeration).

 

Evidence of non-compliance and pollution

Red Tractor’s marketing claimed its farms take “a preventative approach to protect the environment”, citing reduced pesticide use, strict pollution controls, and rigorous soil management.

However, as part of its ASA complaint, River Action presented damning evidence – supported by Environment Agency (EA) data (2014 – 2019) – that Red Tractor farms are routinely linked to serious environmental harm:

  • Red Tractor farms were responsible for most agricultural pollution incidents in England over a five-year period.
  • 62% of the most serious pollution events (Categories 1 & 2) involved Red Tractor-certified farms.
  • Certified farms had worse compliance rates than non-certified farms (26% vs 19%).
  • In a North Devon case study (2016–2022), 87% of Red Tractor farms inspected by the EA were in breach of environmental rules.         

The EA rejected Red Tractor’s bid for “Earned Recognition” due to its failure to meet minimum environmental standards.

But more than two years on, River Action can now reveal – through Environmental Information Requests – that serious pollution and regulatory failures persist on Red Tractor–certified farms. The data covers the period January 2020 and July 2025 and reveals the following:

  • 7,353 Environment Agency officer inspections of farms claiming Red Tractor status. 
  • Alarmingly, 4,353 of these inspections (nearly 60%) identified at least one breach of environmental regulations.
  • A staggering 19,305 instances of non-compliance were recorded across failing Red Tractor assured farms.
  • Cattle farming accounted for just over 25% of non-compliance, with 13.2% from beef farms and 12.4% from dairy farms.
  •  1,373 follow-up inspections were required to address non-compliance.
  • Even when actions were completed by deadlines, a substantial number of farms still failed to meet environmental standards, with only 4,657 actions recorded as completed on time. 
  • This demonstrates that membership of the Red Tractor scheme does not guarantee compliance with environmental regulations.

 

Supermarkets: up your standards

River Action is now warning major supermarkets that by using Red Tractor to reassure customers they are buying food produced to basic environmental standards they risk complicity in misleading advertising, while pollution of the UK’s rivers continues.

Given their enormous market share and purchasing power, supermarket retailers wield significant influence over UK food supply chains and therefore have the opportunity to drive rapid action to address the environmental harm caused by the industry. 

For example, Tesco dominates the supermarket sector with nearly 30% of the market (28.1%), sourcing vast quantities of Red Tractor meat and poultry through suppliers such as Moy Park and Avara Foods.

According to a recent news report, Moy Park has been implicated in the devastating environmental catastrophe at Northern Ireland’s Lough Neagh, where recurring summer blooms of toxic blue-green algae threaten both wildlife and the health of the lake. 

Similarly, Avara Foods, owned by US agribusiness Cargill and linked to the ecological collapse of the River Wye, boasts on its corporate website: “You can trust that we do things ethically; all of our chicken is Red Tractor approved.”

 

Other major retailers in the frame

Tesco are not alone. River Action is also calling on Aldi, Lidl, Morrisons, Asda, and others to stop relying on Red Tractor as a mark of environmental standards and protection:

  • Asda – 11.9% market share; told Farming UK: “We continue to source all our other fresh primal chicken from UK Red Tractor Assured farms.” Its website states, “The Red Tractor badge is a standard of excellence….It’s about producing the best possible product in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner.”  
  • Aldi – 10.9% market share; major buyer of Red Tractor products and states that “…you can trust the products you buy when you see the Red Tractor logo…..Red Tractor….(covers) animal welfare, food safety, traceability and environmental protection. Food and drink bearing the Red Tractor logo has been produced responsibly to some of the most comprehensive and respected standards in the world.”
  • Morrisons – 8.4% market share; states that “100% of the fresh pork, beef, lamb, poultry, milk and cheddar cheese we sell in our stores comes from farms certified by Red Tractor, or an approved equivalent scheme, giving customers assurance on food safety, hygiene, animal welfare standards and environmental protection.”
  • Lidl – 8.1% market share;  publically state that “we work closely with Red Tractor to ensure that our British meat, poultry, fruit and veg is responsibly sourced to strict food hygiene, animal welfare and environmental standards”.
  • Sainsbury’s, once a Red Tractor buyer, has already distanced itself from the scheme. In 2014, then-CEO Justin King called it “the refuge of scoundrels” and criticised it for setting a “low bar that frankly anybody could use.”

 

What Tesco says

Celebrating 25 years of Red Tractor, Natalie Smith, Tesco Head of Agriculture, said last month: “We’re proud to support British agriculture and the thousands of farmers and producers who provide us with quality, affordable, sustainable products year-round. Certification schemes play a key role in providing reassurance for customers, and over the past 25 years, Red Tractor has established itself as a mark of quality, standing for food safety standards, animal welfare and environmental protection.

“We recognise there is still more to do, and it’s essential we continue to work in partnership with Red Tractor to improve standards, and take quick action to drive forward change, strengthening the farming industry for generations to come.”

The Tesco website proudly states, “We require the majority of our meat, dairy, fruit and vegetable products produced in the UK to meet the Red Tractor standard, or an appropriate equivalent. The Red Tractor standards ensure that the production of these products does not have an adverse impact on the environment. For example, pesticides and fertilisers must be applied and stored in ways that minimise pollution of soil and groundwater; it also provides extensive guidance on manure management.”

 

River Action responds

Chair and founder of River Action Charles Watson said, “Red Tractor farms are polluting the UK’s rivers, and consumers trying to make environmentally responsible choices have been misled. This ASA ruling confirms what we’ve long argued: Red Tractor’s claims aren’t just misleading – they provide cover for farms breaking the law. The time has now come for our major food retailers to lay out credible plans as to how they will move away from this busted flush of a certification scheme and support farmers whose working practices are genuinely sustainable.

“Supermarkets and their suppliers now face serious reputational risk if they hide behind Red Tractor greenwash. By selling products linked to pollution, they deceive customers, undermine trust, and fail in their duty to ensure supply chains obey the law.”

 

Consumers want confidence, not greenwashing

River Action says that supermarkets need to use assurance schemes that give consumers genuine confidence that the products they buy are not linked to lawbreaking or environmental harm. At present, Red Tractor fails to provide this. An assurance scheme should be meaningful. Supermarkets already have credible models in place for fresh produce, so the same rigorous standards should be applied to livestock.

River Action has written to all the major supermarkets, calling on them to:

  • Publicly acknowledge the ASA ruling and findings by informing their customers of the misleading labelling and committing to driving change both within farming and food standards and within food certification.
  • Publish a clear and transparent roadmap showing how they will certify the environmental standards of all their food produce – including eggs, poultry, dairy, and fresh produce. This roadmap should set out rigorous environmental requirements, be backed by independent inspections, and ensure full public reporting, so customers can see and trust the standards behind the food they buy.

 

Red Tractor’s own data shows that its logo appears on approximately £18bn worth of food sold annually, meaning this greenwash reaches deep into Britain’s shopping baskets. Jim Moseley, Red Tractor’s CEO, has also boasted that consumer trust in the scheme is tracking at 74%.

Martin Lines, CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, added: “Consumers and farmers want real sustainability, not a sticker. They want confidence that the British produce they buy does not harm the environment or our rivers. 

“Supermarkets and fast-food chains hiding behind Red Tractor need to sort out their suppliers or face low consumer confidence and difficult questions about the environmental violations in their supply chains that are damaging our rivers. Farmers committed to nature-friendly practices must be properly rewarded, or the system will continue to incentivise damaging methods”

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall said, “As someone who will always support farmers who work positively with nature, protect the environment and feed the nation, I am deeply concerned by the ASA’s ruling exposing Red Tractor’s persistent greenwashing. For years, consumers have trusted the logo as a sign of environmentally responsible farming, yet the evidence shows widespread environmental breaches that are causing ongoing pollution all over the UK. 

“Supermarkets should not hide behind environmental certification that fails both the planet and honest producers. They have enormous influence and must use it to drive genuine progress that benefits the environment.  That means paying farmers properly for sustainable practices, supporting nature-friendly food production, and leading the way in either rigorously reforming or, if necessary,  completely dropping Red Tractor as a mark of environmental standards.

“Customers deserve more than misleading labels. They deserve assurance that their food supports farming that regenerates soils, protects wildlife, and respects the environment. It is time for supermarkets to step up, take responsibility, and make sustainability a real priority, not a fake one.”

River Action’s complaint to the ASA was prepared with the expert support of Leigh Day solicitors — Ricardo Gama, Carol Day, Julia Eriksen and Lily Hartley-Matthews — together with counsel Tom de la Mare KC and George Molyneaux of Blackstone Chambers. Their advice and representation were instrumental in securing this ruling.

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents River Action, said, “After a two and half year investigation, River Action is delighted that the ASA has finally ruled that Red Tractor was likely to mislead consumers when claiming that its certification scheme ensures high environmental standards. 

“The length of time of the investigation was a result of the contested nature of the case, with both River Action and Red Tractor arguing tooth and nail for their positions. This should set a precedent for other advertisers, including those in the food industry, that misinformation will not be tolerated.”

 

Consumers: demand better

River Action is urging the public to pressure supermarket retailers into telling their customers the truth about Red Tractor-labelled produce.

Support the campaign: Tell your supermarket to expose Red Tractor
If you shop at these supermarkets, tell them to clean up their supply chains and stop profiting from environmental harm. For more information and to find out how you can support the campaign, visit www.upyourstandards.riveractionuk.com.

 

 

Notes to Editor
The source for supermarket market share figures is a Kantar article published on 24 June 2025, which you can read here.

An assessment carried out by the Environment Agency (EA) in 2020, revealed that between 2014 – 2019 Red Tractor-assured farms were responsible for the majority of instances of agricultural pollution over a five-year period. The assessment revealed that of a total 4,064 pollution incidents RT farms were responsible for 62% of category 1 and 2 incidents and 56% of category 3 incidents. Significantly, the report concluded that RT farms were less compliant (26%) with EA inspections compared to non-RT farms (19%). As a result of this assessment, a request by Red Tractor for its assured farms to benefit from EA “Preferred Status” was denied.

When we received the data from the Environment Agency, they advised that many farms include more than one livestock or crop type. As a result, category totals may not add up precisely to the overall inspection figure.

Our research indicates that we could not find any ASA case that took longer to resolve than our complaint against Red Tractor. On its website, the ASA notes that, “A small number of our most complex cases can take six months or more to complete if, for instance, we need to appoint independent experts to help us assess evidence.”

At a webinar in April 2024, Red Tractor CEO Jim Moseley told the Tenant Farmers Association that the Red Tractor logo features on £18 billion worth of food sold each year. He also claimed that public trust in the Red Tractor scheme stands at 74% (watch from around 9 minutes 31 seconds).

ASA ruling of 15 October 2025:

  • River Action challenged a 2023 advert for Assured Food Standards’ Red Tractor Scheme because of its concerns that environmental standards relating to pollution on Red Tractor farms were not being met. 
  • The ASA considered extensive evidence and arguments put forward by Red Tractor, including its own claims that environmental protection was not its primary focus and that RT was not an environmental certification mark specifically so “did not seek to replicate environmental law or even cover all aspects of pollution risks by farms”. 
  • The ASA assessed how the notional average consumer, who was reasonably well-informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, was likely to view the ad. This included the claim “When the Red Tractor’s there, your food’s farmed with care… from field to store all our standards are met”, highlighting the use of Red Tractor labelling across all aspects of food production and farming. The ASA considered that at least some consumers would expect that, in giving assurances about high standards of farming and food production, Red Tractor’s standards would include measures to manage and mitigate environmental risk that arose through farming practices. The ASA also considered that consumers would expect that such standards incorporated compliance with or reflected at least basic legal requirements concerning food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection, and that measures were in place to help produce a high standard and quality of food (in line with the objectives of the Red Tractor scheme, which included environmental measures, as explained on Red Tractor’s website).
  • In reaching its decision, the ASA looked at Environment Agency (EA) reports and data which showed “around half of RT farms being not fully compliant” and led the EA to conclude “The evidence gathered through this project indicates that Red Tractor membership is not currently an indicator of good environmental performance”.
  • The ASA concluded that the evidence provided by Red Tractor to demonstrate compliance with basic legislative standards and a good environmental outcome was insufficient to substantiate the claim which “farmed with care… all our standards are met” conveyed to consumers. 
  • The advert therefore breached BCAP Code rules 3.1, 3.2 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 (Substantiation) and 3.12 (Exaggeration).

World Mental Health Day – The people behind our water

Posted on by Molly Allen
By James Wallace, CEO of River Action & Alex Papuca, Senior Communications Coordinator

Water should unite us all, not divide us

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle” – Plato

When rivers run foul or bills rise, frustration flows quickly. That anger is understandable, but too often it is directed at the wrong people through verbal and sometimes physical abuse. The engineers fixing broken pipes, the call handlers answering complaints, and the operations teams responding to pollution are not the ones making the big decisions in water companies. They are the ones trying to hold the system together.

Rather than venting our frustration at the staff trying to fix the problems, we should be focusing our concerns – peacefully – on the water company leaders, investors, regulators and the Government that are culpable. They are the ones responsible for bill increases, polluted waterways, private profiteering and failed regulation.

This World Mental Health Day, we are reminded that kindness and respect can make a world of difference. With help from Unison, the leading union in utilities, we spoke to workers within the water industry about the challenges they face, the abuse they endure, and the moments of humanity that keep them going. We found the conversations both enlightening and deeply sobering. To protect their anonymity, we have given each of the workers a pseudonym. Here is what they had to say:

Tony

Tony is an Operations Manager at Severn Trent, overseeing teams who work daily to maintain essential water and wastewater services across the Midlands. With more than two decades in the industry, Tony has seen the sector evolve through major changes in regulation, technology, and public scrutiny. He now represents staff at a time when pressures on the water industry are at an all-time high, and he’s passionate about ensuring that the voices and well-being of frontline workers are not forgotten in the debate.

Q: From your perspective in the industry, how have things changed over the years?

“In the early 2000s, there just wasn’t the same level of regulation. OFWAT wasn’t putting the right governance in place to stop problems before they happened. Back then, we had around 5,000 employees; now there are almost 12,000, and all of our wastewater operations are managed in-house. The sector has grown massively, but so have the pressures and expectations on staff.”

Q: What kind of impact has that had on employees?

“Staff are constantly getting heat from the public. There’s a lot of anger directed towards the industry, and that often falls unfairly on the people on the ground, especially the ones out there repairing infrastructure, responding to incidents, and trying to do the right thing. We’ve had members face some really frightening situations. There was an unprovoked machete attack on workers in Wolverhampton, and another case where a member of staff was stabbed with a screwdriver. Verbal abuse happens far too often.”

Q: How does it feel to be working under that level of scrutiny?

“There’s a lot of pressure right now, especially with increased regulation and public attention. People want to do the right thing, but it’s a stressful environment. We’re seeing a rise in stress-related cases among employees. The whole casework scenario has changed because of it. Many staff feel they have no voice to counter the negative narrative that’s out there.”

Q: How has this affected you personally?

“To be honest, I don’t wear a Severn Trent jacket in public anymore. I just don’t want to draw attention to myself. That says a lot about how people in the industry are feeling at the moment.”

Q: What message would you want the public to hear this World Mental Health Day?

“Please remember that the people out there fixing leaks, managing treatment works, and responding to incidents aren’t the ones making the big decisions. They’re doing their best under a lot of pressure. Kindness and understanding go a long way. The challenges the industry faces are real, but so are the people behind it.”

John

John is a Network Controller at Yorkshire Water, managing incidents and customer complaints from the front line. He’s often one of the first points of contact when something goes wrong, whether it’s a burst main, a pollution event, or a surge in bills. With public frustration growing, John shares what it’s like to work on the streets when tensions are high.

Q: What do you think the public often misunderstands about the people who work on the ground in the water industry?

“The public often misunderstands that those of us working in the field don’t make the big decisions. We’re just a small cog in a very big system. We work for the company, but we don’t own it, and we don’t have a say in how it’s run. There’s only so much we can do from our side, and we’re doing our best to fix problems as quickly as possible.”

Q: How does public anger or frustration around issues like pollution or water company performance affect you and your colleagues personally?

“It does get quite verbal. People are upset and I get that, but sometimes the anger gets directed at the wrong people. We’re the ones trying to sort out the problem, not the ones who caused it. People sometimes shout abuse during callouts, and it’s only a matter of time before someone really gets hurt. It affects people more than you might think. Colleagues take that stress home with them, and it can play on their minds.”

Q: Have you or your team ever experienced abuse or hostility from the public because of the industry’s reputation?

“Yes, and it’s increased a lot over the last year or so. What used to happen maybe once a month is now a day-to-day occurrence. Verbal abuse is the most common; sometimes it’s just frustration, but it can get very personal. We try to stay professional and move on, but it wears people down.”

Q: Are there any small acts of kindness or understanding from the public that really stay with you?

“Absolutely. When people take the time to thank us, offer a cup of tea, or just show appreciation, it means a lot. I’ve had customers bring out cake or send a kind email after we’ve sorted an issue. To be honest, I’m not here for praise; I just want to be able to do my job without suffering abuse.”

Q: If you could say one thing to members of the public who are frustrated about pollution or sewage issues, what would it be?

“I’d like people to know that we, the frontline staff, are working our hardest to fix these issues. None of us wants to see rivers polluted or communities affected. But these problems aren’t caused by the people on the ground; they’re the result of decisions made much higher up. Hold the industry accountable, but please treat those of us doing the work with respect.”

Sarah

 

Sarah works at United Utilities in West Cheshire, where she supports vulnerable customers and provides mental health support for staff. Her role often involves helping people in distress – whether they’re struggling to pay bills, facing water supply issues, or dealing with difficult personal circumstances. Sarah is driven by a simple motivation: “I do what I do because I want to help.”

Q: What’s your role at United Utilities, and what motivates you to do it?

“I work with vulnerable customers, helping them access support in any way we can, whether that’s through our own services or by connecting them with charities and resources like the Hub of Hope. I’ve also completed mental health first aider training, which helps me support people who are really struggling. I do what I do because I genuinely want to help people. That’s what keeps me going.”

Q: How does public anger or frustration around issues like pollution or water company performance affect you and your colleagues personally?

“There’s a lot of negative feedback at the moment. People are angry, and understandably so, but it’s tough when that anger is directed at staff. We’re trying to do our jobs and help people, but sometimes the abuse gets very personal.”

Q: Have you or your team ever experienced abuse or hostility from the public because of the industry’s reputation?

“Unfortunately, yes, and it’s getting worse. We’ve had staff receive death threats, and one colleague was told someone would kill her dog. Others have had people say horrific things like “I’m going to kill your parents.” It’s shocking, and it’s nothing like what we used to see in the past. The level of hostility has really escalated in the last few years.”

Q: If you could say one thing to someone frustrated about pollution or sewage issues, what would it be?

“We completely understand why people are upset. We see the same headlines and care about the environment too. But we’re just trying to do our jobs to the best of our ability. There’s nothing we can personally do about the big decisions, and we don’t deserve the abuse that sometimes comes our way. If you need to vent, that’s fine, just please remember there’s a person on the other end of the phone who’s trying to help you.”

Q: Are there any small acts of kindness or understanding from the public that really stay with you?
“Yes, there are always people who take the time to write in and say thank you. It doesn’t happen every day, but when it does, it makes a huge difference. It reminds you that most people out there do appreciate what we do and that the kindness far outweighs the hate.”

Please remember

Rivers are under threat, but so are the people working to protect them. On this World Mental Health Day, please remember:

  • Frontline water workers are doing their best in difficult circumstances.
  • Accountability lies with water company bosses, investors, and regulators.
  • Peaceful action is powerful. Target the system, not the staff.

Join River Action and campaigners across the nation by asking your local MP, your council, and your mayor to pressure the Government to:

  • Reform the regulators so they can hold profiteering and polluting water companies to account and invest in cleaning up our waterways.
  • End privatisation by restructuring and refinancing water companies for public benefit and environmental performance.

Please visit River Action’s River Rescue Kit for advice on how to be an effective campaigner. Together, we can make corporate and government leaders clean-up our rivers while respecting the mental well-being of frontline workers.

 

Myth Busting: Would it really cost £100 billion to bring water utilities into public ownership?

Posted on by Molly Allen

By Dr Samir Seddougui

Whenever the conversation turns to the cost of nationalising the water industry or even just exploring public benefit and ownership models instead of continuing with deep privatisation, the government references the scarily high figure of £90-100 billion to dampen public support. 

On 16 September, Defra released a short policy paper outlining the rationale behind its estimation that nationalising the water industry would cost approximately £100 billion. A similar number was reached in a 2018 Social Market Foundation report paid for by four water companies (Anglian Water, Severn Trent, South West Water and United Utilities). The Social Market Foundation’s estimation takes the RCV from 2018 which was estimated at £64 billion and then added premiums for acquisition, so presumably their estimation would be even higher now.

Defra based this on three assumptions that: 

  1. the value of Water Companies should be tied to their Regulatory Capital Value (RCV); 
  2. the government would absorb equity and debt; and 
  3. no discounts or premiums should apply. 

 

Inflated Economics? 

Let’s be clear: this isn’t rigorous economic analysis. It is a simplistic and unrealistic theory being relied on by the government to justify not taking decisive action in public and environmental interests by putting failing companies like Thames Water into a special administration regime. What it protects are investors and an unsustainable cycle of debt servicing. 

Professor Ewan McGaughey, professor of Law at King College London and co-author of the People’s Commission argues that public ownership is an inexpensive solution, contending that the true cost is closer to zero as a more accurate market valuation would account for performance and financial failures.

As Economics Professor Sir Dieter Helm puts it, Defra’s estimate is “misleading, simplistic and wrong”. In his analysis published on 22 September, Helm sets out why each of Defra’s assumptions is wrong and goes on to explain why special administration for a failing water company such as Thames Water would make sure the business continues on a sustainable basis, giving it “breathing space” before, the special administrator would “almost certainly achieve a price which is at a significant discount to the RCV” with debt holders taking a “haircut”. 

When valuing a utility company such as Thames Water, RCV is only one factor a buyer would weigh. Helm argues that a company’s failure to maintain assets and its debt levels are central to any realistic valuation. The People’s Commission notes that RCV ignores another glaring reality: water companies have extracted £83 billion in dividends to shareholders. Karol Yearwood at the University of Greenwich has described the privatised water industry as a “cash machine for investors”. Today, the biggest beneficiaries are historic shareholders and debt holders keen to cash in on the roughly £17 billion debt Thames Water has been allowed to rack up. 

Since privatisation 32 years ago, Thames Water has handed £7.2 billion pounds to shareholders, while neglecting essential upgrades leaving the public with failing pipes, sewage discharges, and degraded waterways.

Defra also glosses over Thames Water’s massive debt pile and fines including a record-breaking £123 million penalty this year for serious pollution that continues to devastate our rivers. Polluters should foot the bill, not taxpayers. Under a special administration regime, customer payments would flow to court-appointed administrators to fund the operation of essential water services, instead of being paid out to as returns to shareholders who would go to the back of the queue, making the process far less of a financial burden than Defra claims. In fact, as Helm points out, it would exceed the cost of running the business.

 

The cost of and case for special administration 

The Government says that special administration of Thames Water would cost the government £4 billion. This is also overblown: on Helm’s analysis, the Government should recover its costs from the sale of Thames Water which, when offered for sale, would receive bids way in excess of £4 billion. The net cost to the Treasury should be zero. 

Helm also explains why special administration is not nationalisation, as it is often misleadingly labelled or conflated as a tactic to avoid having to use it. Special administration is a regime designed specifically to deal with water company failure and it offers the most effective way out of the mess Thames Water is in.  It should not be feared but favoured.

Dieter Helm cuts through the noise: “What is needed now is for Defra to put Thames into special administration, instead of putting out simplistic and ill-thought-through “assumptions” to support an implausible, very big round number.” 

We are also pursuing a Judicial Review against DEFRA for failing to set out clear thresholds for when a company should be put into SAR. In our view, this failure breaches core public law duties and leaves rivers and communities at the mercy of failing operators. With 16 million customers, some ministers may believe Thames is too big to fail. River Action says it’s too big to be allowed to keep failing. It’s time to put customers and the environment before private profits – by putting Thames Water out of its misery and into a special administration regime. 

 

References

  • Becky Malby, Kate Bayliss, Frances Cleaver, Ewan McGaughey, “A fair price to the public for water nationalisation.” The Guardian. 3 August 2025. Accessed here.
  • Defra, “Nationalising the water sector: how we assessed the cost.” Policy Paper, 16 September 2025, accessed here.
  • The Social Market Foundation, “The cost of nationalising the water industry in England.” February 2018. Accessed here.
  • Dieter Helm, “The next episode in the Thames Water saga: Defra’s misleading £100 billion cost of nationalisation and flawed board vetting proposals”. 22 September 2025, accessed here.
  • Ewan McGaughey, “How to Clean Up Our Water: Why Public Ownership in Law Costs Zero”. Common Wealth, 5 June 2025, accessed here.
  • Kate Bayliss, Frances Cleaver, Becky Malby, “Defra and the £100bn”. The People’s Commission, 18 September 2025, accessed here.
  • Karol Yearwood, “The Privatised Water Industry in the UK. An ATM for investors.” University of Greenwich, September 2018, accessed here.
  • Tainted Water, “Where Your Money Goes”, Goldsmiths, University of London, 2024, accessed here.
  • Sandra Laville, Anna Leach, & Carmen Aguilar García, “In charts: how privatisation drained Thames Water’s coffers”, The Guardian, 30 June 2023, accessed here.
  • Sandra Laville, “Thames Water fails to complete 108 upgrades to ageing sewage works”, The Guardian, 10 July 2024, accessed here.
  • Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “Reforming the Water Sector”, House of Commons, 9 September 2025, accessed here.
  • Eleanor Shearer & Ewan McGaughey, “Deep Trouble: Fixing Our Broken Water System”, Common Wealth, 11 July 2024, accessed here.
  • Sarah Olney MP, “Thames Water: Contingency Plans”, House of Commons, 15 March 2024, accessed here.
  • Alex Lawson, “The fate of Thames Water hangs in the balance. So what are its options?”. The Guardian, 22 March, 2024, accessed here.
  • River Action, “River Action launches legal challenge against the Government over Thames Water failures”, 30 July 2025, accessed here.

MISSING: Policy for special administration (or is it?)

Posted on by Molly Allen

River Action’s legal challenge

In July, River Action launched its legal challenge over the Government’s failure to explain when it will trigger special administration for Thames Water and other failing water companies because of breaches of their performance duties.

That same month, the Independent Water Commission also recommended that a clearer policy for special administration be adopted.

Our legal challenge is simple: we say that the Environment Secretary has acted unlawfully by failing to publish a policy on when they will ask the High Court to put a water company in a special administration regime – a mechanism under existing legislation designed to enable the government to take action to deal with failing water companies.

What is special administration for water companies?

Special administration is a legal process for companies supplying essential services like water that are failing in terms of performance, finances or duties. It allows the government via an administrator to step in and take temporary control, ensuring operations keep running while offering a clean break from unsustainable debt and chronic underperformance.

Importantly, a special administration regime prioritises public interest – customer service, environmental protection and infrastructure investment – instead of existing shareholders and debt holders. By redirecting funds away from private profits and towards urgent improvements, it offers a route to restructure and refinance a water company for public benefit and long term sustainability.

 The Government’s response

The Environment Secretary has now formally responded. Remarkably, it has been claimed again that a policy setting out the circumstances in which or the criteria by reference to which the Court would be asked to put a water company into special administration does not exist. The response simply states “There is nothing for the Defendant to publish”.

Evidence that a policy exists?

The Environment Secretary has maintained this position despite clear indications that a policy exists in some form. Most strikingly, in a recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee hearing, the Minister for Water and Flooding was asked about the circumstances in which a water company would meet the threshold for special administration. She read out a “whole list” of thresholds that are apparently being used to determine whether special administration should be pursued by the government. This sounds remarkably like a policy; the very thing the government insists does not exist.

The Water Minister also said that “Thames Water has not met the threshold for special administration for going into special administration” on the “formal advice” she had been given.

Why transparency matters

Why is the government so reluctant to publish a policy on when it will use the regime specifically created to deal with water company failure? How much worse does it need to get at Thames Water before the government will trigger the process? The public has a right to know what policies and plans exist to protect bill payers, our rivers and the provision of essential water services.

This goes beyond Thames Water. It matters for the whole water sector. Having a clear policy on when special administration will be triggered means it will be seen as a credible tool that strengthens regulatory discipline, incentivises better water company performance and avoids political delays. This is crucial to restore public trust and provide certainty to investors. Everyone should know the rules and then they must be followed.

What next?

Now the High Court will decide whether to grant permission for our claim to proceed to a full hearing. In the meantime, River Action will continue to push for transparency around the government’s policy and plans for special administration when water companies fail – and for leadership when it comes to Thames Water.

The Wildlife Trusts Report: More Proof Our Rivers Need Urgent Action

Posted on by Molly Allen

A Call for River-Friendly Farming: Why We Can’t Ignore Factory Farm Pollution

Today, The Wildlife Trusts released a powerful new report exposing the devastating environmental toll of the UK’s intensive pig and poultry industry. For those of us fighting to protect our rivers, its findings come as no surprise – but they provide yet more hard evidence of the scale of damage being caused by factory farming.

At River Action, we welcome this report wholeheartedly. Communities along the Wye, Severn and Kennet have long been raising the alarm about nutrient pollution from intensive farming. This report adds weight to their voices, strengthening the case for urgent change.

Why enforcement matters

The “Farming Rules for Water” already exist to stop pollution – but they remain largely unenforced. Without real accountability, factory farm pollution continues unchecked, leaving rivers overloaded with nutrients and communities paying the price. If the government is serious about protecting nature and rebuilding trust, it must enforce the law while helping farmers make the shift towards more sustainable practices.

River Action’s fight against factory farm pollution – Timeline

We have has taken major legal steps to hold polluters and the authorities enabling them to account:

Taken together, these legal battles underscore a simple truth: without urgent action to rein in the industrial farming model, our rivers and the wildlife that depend on them will continue to pay the price.

What’s next?

The evidence is overwhelming. The law is clear. And communities are demanding change. Now the government must act – ensuring regulations are enforced and farmers are supported in transitioning to sustainable, river-friendly farming practices.

Because nothing less than meaningful reform will do.

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.