Cleaning up the UK’s river crisis was a key election commitment for this government, but current efforts risk falling short by focusing too narrowly on sewage.
Despite popular claims that sewage is the leading cause of the UK river’s poor health, agriculture is the biggest culprit, affecting 45% of water bodies. This is primarily driven by nutrient and chemical pollution running off agricultural land.
Nutrient pollution from fertiliser use – particularly nitrogen and phosphorus – drives eutrophication, harming ecosystems, contaminating drinking water and damaging coastal areas.
Synthetic fertiliser and livestock manure are the two primary drivers of nutrient pollution.
Synthetic fertilisers are used to boost crop yields beyond nature’s limits, but both the production and use come at an environmental cost. In the UK, the current nitrogen use efficiency of synthetic fertilisers is 55% for crop production, meaning about half of fertilisers are lost to the environment, and this drops to 6-37% for animal products, like dairy.
Livestock manure is a valuable nutrient resource that is recycled onto land to fertilise crops, providing an array of nutrients to soils. Its environmental impact is determined by its form, depending if animals are housed in slurry or straw based systems.
Nutrient pollution risk is directly related to the type of farming system. Industrial livestock farming systems are higher risk because animals are raised indoors – in confined spaces – and thus produce vast amounts of manure that has issues relating to storage and application. The rapid increase in industrial livestock units across England and Wales means slurry is produced in ever increasing quantities. These units rely on synthetic fertilisers to grow feed both in the UK and abroad, driving deforestation in biodiverse areas, with half of agricultural land used to grow feed for animals in these systems. High concentrations of phosphate and nitrogen in feed means the livestock manure is highly concentrated in these nutrients, and is thus a risk for environmental pollution.
There are a multitude of confounding reasons for such a large agricultural water pollution issue, including:
Poor enforcement of regulations at the mercy of reduced budgets
Piecemeal regulation with a multitude of inconsistent requirements of farmers
Ever intensifying agricultural livestock production, supported by synthetic fertilisers
Poor quality of slurry infrastructure due to financial constraints of small-scale and tenant farmers
Beyond nutrient pollution, sewage sludge is a fertiliser that is unprecedented in its impact, with alarm bells being raised by NGOs over the chemical contaminants present. Sewage sludge is an emerging source of pollutants, with evidence showing contamination with PFAS, microplastics and industrial chemicals. Water companies are paid by chemical producers to take their waste, which is mixed with wastewater before farmers are given the product to use as fertiliser. Typically, farmers are unaware of the contaminants and the potential fertility impacts of continuous use of sludge on soils, with over 3.5 million tonnes of sewage sludge is spread on agricultural land every year.
Our recent survey found that 92% of people in the UK believe water companies should ensure sewage sludge on UK farmland is not contaminated; 88% support making water companies publicly report contamination levels in treated sewage sludge; 87% support increasing regulation on monitoring of treated sewage sludge.
To conclude, we have put together an Agricultural Water Pollution Strategy with seven recommendations that would help the government to tackle water pollution with the same ambition that has been shown to tackling the water sector crisis:
Proper and clear enforcement of anti-pollution regulations
A well resourced and better trained Environment Agency
Appropriate funding and updated planning guidance for slurry infrastructure
Implement Sustainable Nutrient Management Plans overseen by a Defra Task Force
Lower thresholds for Environmental Permitting Regulations and extend to beef and dairy
Transition to a catchment-based approach to nutrient management, using regional water authorities
Prevent toxic sewage sludge contaminating agricultural land
The event brought together policymakers, regulators, farmers, scientists, and environmental campaigners to outline a credible, evidence-based roadmap for reducing agricultural pollution while supporting fair and sustainable farming. Speakers welcomed the strategy as a basis for concerned parties from the farming and environmental sectors to work with the government to identify a way forward. Helen called for better monitoring to assist regulators in identifying progress on farms, as well as more research into agricultural practices that work for both farmers and the environment.
A new YouGov/River Action poll reveals that three-fifths (61%) of UK respondents do not know that farmers commonly use sewage sludge from water companies, and 50% believe this practice carries risks for health and food quality.
The findings will be revealed as a petition calling for an end to the spreading of contaminated sewage sludge, signed by more than 62,800 people, is handed over outside DEFRA’s headquarters on Marsham Street, London, at 10:05am on 16 December.
The petition will be delivered to the Minister for Water and Flooding, Emma Hardy, by River Action and Greenpeace, urging immediate government action.
Water companies are selling this toxic sludge to farmers, putting rivers and human health at risk and leaving farmers concerned about the impact on their soil and water. The government must act immediately to stop contaminated sewage sludge being spread on farmland and support farmers in producing safe food while protecting our rivers.
Treated sewage sludge is sold as a cheap fertiliser, but water companies are not required to remove PFAS “forever chemicals,” microplastics, or other modern contaminants, because legislation governing sludge treatment was drafted in the 1980s — long before these pollutants existed. The sludge is now spread widely across farmland, draining into rivers already under severe pressure.
Key public findings from the YouGov survey
92% say water companies should either have a great deal of responsibility (79%) or a fair amount of responsibility (13%) when it comes to ensuring that sewage sludge that will be used on UK farmland is not contaminated.
89% say the government should have a great deal (59%) or a fair amount of responsibility (30%) when it comes to ensuring that sewage sludge that will be used on UK farmland is not contaminated
88% support requiring water companies to report publicly on levels of contamination in treated sewage sludge
87% support Increasing regulation on monitoring of treated sewage sludge for contaminants
87% support requiring water companies to conduct further treatment to remove contaminants including forever chemicals and microplastics from sewage sludge
85% support setting legal limits on levels of contaminants in treated sewage sludge spread on UK farmland
47% support banning the spread of treated sewage sludge on UK farmland
62% see a risk from using treated sewage sludge on farmland to water health, around 50% see risks to food quality and personal health
39% think water companies should find a different way of disposing of treated sewage sludge, even if this means water bills are more expensive
Findings from River Action’s farmers survey*
Alongside the national polling, River Action surveyed 105 farmers across the UK to understand how sewage sludge contamination is affecting those who buy and use it on their land. Although the sample is very modest relative to the size of the UK farming sector, the results show a striking level of awareness: 83% of respondents recognised the risk of contamination in biosolids..
Concern is widespread. Seventy-two per cent said they were worried about the impact of contaminated biosolids on water health, with almost 40% describing themselves as very or extremely worried.
A similar picture emerges for soil health, with 69% of farmers worried about the application of contaminated biosolids with 41% describing themselves as very or extremely worried.
The findings point to clear demand for stronger safeguards. Farmers expressed strong support for:
Better treatment to remove contaminants (76%)
Public reporting on contamination levels (58%)
Legal limits set on contaminants (56%)
Tighter regulation on monitoring contaminants (53%)
CEO of the Nature Friendly Farming Network Martin Lines said, “These findings show just how worried farmers are about the contamination of sewage sludge. And who can blame them? They’re already under huge pressure from supply chains chasing ever-higher profit margins, while water companies are offering cut-price or even free sludge that turns out to be contaminated.
“Farmers should not be the ones carrying the blame for a problem they didn’t create. This is a mess for the water companies and government to fix, not the people producing our food. Farmers want to do the right thing for their soil, their customers and their rivers, but they need a system that doesn’t set them up to fail.”
Farmer John Hall from County Durham said, “Water companies expect farmers to pay for the privilege of taking their waste, insisting that sewage sludge is a ‘valuable fertiliser’. In any other sector, waste producers cover the cost of safe disposal. But when the ban on dumping sludge at sea came in, water authorities and the Environment Agency simply assumed farmers would pick up the tab and take this supposedly valuable product off their hands.”
A southern Scotland farmer, who wishes to remain anonymous, told River Action, “Having used biosolids in the past, I became increasingly concerned that a natural by-product was becoming laced with household chemicals and industrial wastes, often described as forever chemicals because they break down so slowly in the soil.
“The ongoing accumulation of these substances will damage soil life, be absorbed by food crops, and eventually enter the wider water environment. These materials are more harmful than other inputs applied to the soil.”
River Action’s Head of Campaigns Amy Fairman said, “Farmers do not want to be dumping contaminated sludge on their land. Water companies are selling sludge laced with forever chemicals and microplastics, and the public is rightly concerned. Human health and our rivers are at risk, and the government must act immediately.”
Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall added, “People are rightly worried about forever chemicals, microplastics, and other contaminants entering our rivers, soil, and food. Much of it is coming from “toxic sludge” which, astonishingly, is being given to farmers to spread on their land without telling them what’s in it. Urgent action is clearly needed from both water companies and the government to stop this pollution, support our farmers and food producers, and protect the environment.”
River Action’s Agricultural Water Pollution Strategy
River Action will launch its Agricultural Water Pollution Strategy on 17 December at the Palace of Westminster. The strategy was developed with farmers, food producers, supermarkets, and major fast-food chains to create practical solutions for sustainable farming while restoring river health.
Seven-point plan for clean rivers and fair farming:
Enforce the law properly – Create a single compliance framework requiring the Environment Agency to act when voluntary approaches fail.
Resource the regulators – Ringfence fines to fund training, farmer support, and monitoring tools like satellite imaging and citizen science data.
Fix failing slurry infrastructure – Redirect agricultural subsidy funds to urgently upgrade unsafe or outdated storage systems.
Establish regional water authorities – Create catchment-based bodies with powers to coordinate nutrient reduction and implement Water Protection Zones.
Smarter planning and data use – Integrate environmental, farm, and planning data to streamline compliance and remove barriers to essential farm upgrades.
Modernise sludge regulation – Bring sewage sludge under Environmental Permitting Regulations, with legal limits for forever chemicals, microplastics, and other contaminants.
Notes to Editors
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. The total sample size was 2,150adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 2-3 December 2025. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all UK adults.
The complete YouGov poll dataset is included in full so you can see the numbers behind the headline findings.
River Action undertook its own survey of the farming community between 19th November – 10th December. The survey was carried out online and received 105 responses. The finding can be found here.
Media can download images of contaminated sewage sludge here. If used, please credit: Fighting Dirty
Members of the media are invited to attend the launch of River Action’s Agricultural Water Pollution Strategy, Hosted by Alistair Carmichael on 17 December at 1pm in Dining Room A, Palace of Westminster. Keynote address will be given by Minister Hardy. Register interest at: media@riveractionuk.com
By Emmeline Hardisty, Founder of the Voice of Water
What is the Voices of Water Foundation (VoW)?
The Voices of Water Foundation (VoW) is a soon to be CIO focused on river system restoration and healing through advocating for, acting on behalf of, and protecting the river’s voice and rights. Following the Rights of Nature movement, we believe rivers should have a say in how they are treated, and river rights should be protected and respected. Therefore, with the river’s natural and inherent rights at the core of our ethos and focus, such as the right to be free from pollution, or the right to regeneration and restoration, we are:
1. Campaigning for a law change in the UK whereby rivers and drowned river valleys (Ria) are recognised as the ‘entities’, the life forces they truly are and granted rights, following the Universal Declaration of River Rights (UDRR).
and
2. Connecting with many to develop river guardianship projects and groups, through combining science and policy, with art and spiritual practice.
Just as the natural world works best connected, so do we. We want our guardianship projects and practice to be where both community voice and river voice can meet, be heard and understood.
How and why did I become a River campaigner?
I have made a VoW to the river, to do whatever I can to protect and act on behalf of ‘her’.
I have had a special, personal connection to river environments since I was a little girl. Then and now, the way the river flows has always inspired me, the water through, under, around and over stone. To me, this echoes hope that there is always a way.
Fast forward to my early adolescence in 2021, nearing the end of my research master’s in marine biology, sat by the river again, I asked – “Where did it all go wrong?” A question that sparked my now almost 5-year investigative research journey into river issues, environmentally and systemically, in the UK. This led me to delve into environmental law, which then led me to the ‘words’ that I believe are a root in some of the issues – rivers being seen as ‘objects’ under law, instead of ‘entities’ with rights that give them a say in how they are treated.
Why did I go on a 100-day pilgrimage?
From this, I founded the Voices of Water Foundation (VoW) and launched a petition – calling the UK Government to grant Rivers and Rias Legal Personhood (legal recognition) in England, and for a system to be created whereby River Guardians in many forms can come together to act on behalf of the rights of rivers. To share the word about the petition and this overall movement, I embarked on a 100-day, 1000+ mile pilgrimage from Cornwall to Wales, back to and across England, ending at the mouth of the River Thames.
This was a journey for the river, I followed and met many rivers at differing points along the way – the River Camel, River Tamar, River Dart, River Exe, River Otter, River Frome, River Severn, River Neath, River Thames and many more. I posted daily updates on the VoW Instagram, through which I was able to grow a wonderful social media campaign and community, and I met so many wonderful, kind people on the quest, sharing their water stories of adventure and healing. From this, it became ever more apparent that journeying for River, water connection, this was also a journey of human connection.
What did I learn during the pilgrimage?
I truly believe a huge part of reversing the disease of disconnect is about us coming together, so many beautiful things can happen when we listen and communicate. This, I feel, can resonate and re-root beautifully in River Guardianship practice. But undoubtedly the element that shone through the brightest during my pilgrimage was the wonder of water, and this existence we get to live because of ‘her’. This I was reminded of daily, every morning waking up to my first thought/question being – “Do I have enough water for the day?”.
Why are River Rights important?
We truly cannot live without water. Therefore, it makes zero sense to me that river voice and right are not already a key part in river conservation practice and decision-making related to these precious environments and all connected to them.
I believe the Rights of Nature movement is imperative for the healing and regeneration of Mother Earth’s vital interconnected habitats, and our relationship to and with ‘her’. Based on the indigenous perspective, river rights, specifically environmental personhood, is eco-centric, whereby people – River Guardians, act on behalf of the river’s voice and rights. But giving rivers a say in how they are treated and protected is not just about developing physical acts, conservation practice and projects within/of nature guardianship; this is a paradigm shift, a re-awakening, a vital shift in perspective, reminding us of how interconnected we truly are to this Earth.
I hear the word ‘radical’ mentioned a lot in this space, but I don’t actually agree with associating river rights and guardianship with this word. Remembering that rivers, woodlands, and mountains are truly alive is not something new; it is re-awakening an ancient perspective, knowing, and understanding of the remarkable world we are all a part of. I believe this is key to fixing the mess.
Vision for legal Guardians and Guardian groups for Rivers?
Following a law change, granting rivers legal personhood (recognition) will give rivers legal standing. Lead guardian and guardian groups for protection and enforcement of the river’s rights could be assigned/designated to each river. However, there is a lot to consider when developing a system for River Guardianship legal protection and practice, and it would also need to be both specific and broad enough to align with every river’s collective and unique pollution issues and ecology. There are now many movements based on and leading to the formation of river guardian groups and projects in the UK, the momentum is flowing! At VoW we are trying to connect with as many as possible in the rights of nature, law, policy and conservation space and in the development of a River Guardianship, which we will be sharing a lot more about over the next year.
Thames Water knew over 90 sewage sites were failing as 13 communities and Sir Steve Redgrave launch UK’s first coordinated sewage pollution statutory nuisance action
We can today reveal, using documents submitted by Thames Water to Ofwat, that 93 sewage treatment works and water pumping stations the company promised to upgrade remain unfinished, leaving rivers across the Thames catchment exposed to continued pollution and dangerously high levels of bacteria.
With Thames Water failing to act, 13 communities from Buckinghamshire and Elmbridge to Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Oxford and Richmond to Wokingham are now fighting back, sending statutory nuisance complaints to their local authorities to demand accountability and urgent action.
This marks the launch of the first coordinated statutory nuisance action of its kind, with communities uniting to ask local authorities to hold Thames Water legally accountable for the impact of sewage pollution. Rowing legend Sir Steve Redgrave and Olympic champion Imogen Grant MBE have also submitted nuisance complaints, joining residents from across the Thames. It follows a nuisance complaint brought by Matt Staniek of Save Windermere after pollution by United Utilities harmed England’s most famous lake.
Communities fighting back
With Thames Water failing to act, residents across the Thames catchment are turning to the law to challenge sewage pollution in the River Thames. communities in Buckinghamshire, Elmbridge, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Oxford, Richmond upon Thames, South Oxfordshire, Southwark, Vale of White Horse, Wandsworth, West Berkshire and Wokingham have today sent statutory nuisance complaint letters to their local authorities based on the sewage pollution experienced in their area, asking them to make Thames Water take decisive action to stop its sewage pollution that is causing harm along the River Thames.
River Action and these communities believe that discharges of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from infrastructure operated by Thames Water constitute a statutory nuisance under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
This type of complaint should trigger an investigation by the local authority to determine whether a statutory nuisance has occurred or is occurring and take reasonable steps to investigate the issues raised. If sewage is found to cause a statutory nuisance, an abatement notice — a legal order that would require Thames Water to stop causing the nuisance or face criminal prosecution – is required to be served on Thames Water by the local authority.
A statutory nuisance is an activity that unreasonably interferes with peoples’ use or enjoyment of land and is likely to cause prejudice or injury to health – for example, through noise, smells or other forms of harm. A ‘nuisance’ is described in case law as being a state of affairs which is not something “objectively a normal person would find it reasonable to have to put up with”. In this case, residents argue that sewage pollution from Thames Water’s failing sites and infrastructure has made rivers unsafe, disrupting recreation, sport, local businesses and everyday enjoyment.
Real-world examples underline the risks:
A 16-year-old rower from the Henley Rowing Club became unwell after training on the river; tests confirmed he had contracted E. coli. His illness coincided with his GCSE exams, preventing him from revising and sitting some papers.
In West Berkshire, a kayaker capsized and became unwell over the following days.
At Taggs Island, five children fell ill after playing in the River Thames near Hurst Park.
These complaints seek to hold Thames Water legally accountable for the harm and interference caused by sewage to riverside communities, recreation, business and public health.
Community member from Oxford, delivering her statutory nuisance complaint letter.
Calls for intervention
We are calling on local authorities to investigate these complaints and for the Government to apply to the High Court to put Thames Water into special administration to prioritise investment in sewage infrastructure and protect bill payers and the river that sustains our economy.
Our Head of Campaigns, Amy Fairman said:
“This action is about fixing sewage pollution in the Thames for good, not compensating people for past failings.
Each local authority must investigate these complaints and, where statutory nuisance is found to exist, issue an abatement notice and take enforcement action. Councils now have a legal duty to act.
Despite extensive evidence of performance failures and being on the brink of insolvency, the Government has not taken steps to place Thames Water into a special administration regime, a process that would allow for urgent infrastructure upgrades, put public interest ownership and governance first, and protect communities and the environment.
River Action is calling on the Secretary of State for the Environment to act now: the Government must take temporary control of Thames Water to end the era of private profiteering and stop polluting the river.”
Dirty discharges and dangerous bacteria levels
At several sites, it’s not just sewage overflows that are causing pollution but also the quality of treated effluent which also presents a direct threat to public health.
At Henley-on-Thames Treatment Works, Thames Water’s own data – obtained by River Action from Thames Water via an Environmental Information Request – shows E. coli levels in treated effluent reaching 28,000 cfu/100 ml in September 2023 – more than 30 times the safe limit for designated bathing water. This toxic cocktail is a direct threat to swimmers, rowers, anglers, and wildlife.
Newbury STW discharges into the River Kennet, within a globally rare chalk-stream catchment. The river is designated as a Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Over five years, the site has released almost 4,000 hours of untreated or partially treated sewage.
An upgrade was scheduled under Price Review 24 (PR24), while the linked London Road Pumping Station, due to be completed under PR19, remains unfinished.
Citizen science monitoring (22 September – 24 November 2025)
Local citizen scientist Blake Ludwig monitored E. coli levels in treated effluent at the Newbury Sewage Treatment Works and upstream sites along the River Kennet and Kennet & Avon Canal between 22 September and 24 November 2025, conducting 9 tests in total. All testing was conducted using a WHO-approved Fluidion Alert One E.Coli tester, in coordination with Planet Ocean.
Three highest readings: 2,650, 2,271, and 1,945 cfu/100ml – far above the safe swimming limit
Average E. coli level across all tests: 1,076 cfu/100ml
For an inland bathing site, the Environment Agency considers E. coli levels above 900 cfuCFU/100 mL to be poor and unsafe for swimming.
Local citizen scientist, Blake Ludwig, delivering his letter.
Citizen science monitoring (11 June 2024 – 16 September 2025)
Complementing the findings at Newbury, Citizen Scientists Buckinghamshire monitored E.coli levels in the treated effluent discharged from Little Marlow Sewage Treatment Works (Bourne End) between June 2024 and September 2025. The water quality testing groups conducted 14 tests on the final outflow.
6 out of 14 results exceeded 10,000 cfu/100ml
2 out of 14 results measured 1,000 cfu/100ml
9 out of 14 results were above 7,000 cfu/1200ml
As with the Newbury dataset, these readings sit well beyond the Environment Agency’s inland bathing-water threshold of 900 cfu/100ml, again indicating conditions that are unsafe for recreational water use.
Peaceful protest at Thames Water HQ
Campaigners from across the catchment staged a peaceful demonstration outside Thames Water’s headquarters, Clear Water Court in Reading. Many of those taking part were the very people who have submitted statutory nuisance complaints, and they carried placards naming the boroughs and districts involved. Groups from across the Thames basin joined the action.
Campaigners outside Thames Water’s HQ in Reading
Community groups and rowing legends join the action
Laura Reineke, founder of Friends of the Thames and a resident of Henley-on-Thames, said: “People here are fed up with living beside a river that’s being treated like an open sewer. We’ve submitted a nuisance complaint to our local authority because what Thames Water is doing is unacceptable.
“To find that treated effluent leaving their plant here has contained E. coli at levels 30 times higher than what’s safe for bathing is shocking. Local residents are angry and determined to hold this company accountable for the damage it’s causing to our river and our community.”
International rowing legend Sir Steve Redgrave said:
“As someone who has spent my life on the water, I am appalled by the pollution that Thames Water continues to allow. That’s why I’m joining River Action and communities along the River Thames in taking action to hold this company to account. Our rivers should be safe for everyone. It is unacceptable that people are being forced to fight for clean, healthy waterways.”
Olympic rowing champion Imogen Grant MBE said:
“Rivers are our lifeblood, for sport, wildlife, and community, and it’s shocking to see them poisoned by untreated sewage time and time again. I have filed a nuisance claim with Wokingham because I’ve had enough of pollution putting me and other river users at risk. I stand with River Action to hold Thames Water accountable and protect the rivers we all rely on.”
Friends of the Thames, CEO, Laura Reineke outside Thames Water’s HQ in Reading
Notes to editor
This document, submitted by Thames Water to Ofwat, outlines the 93 improvement projects the company requested permission to carry over from PR19 to PR24. For ease of use, we have extracted the relevant data and displayed it in this document.
In response, Ofwat expressed concerns about non-delivery and whether customer protection is adequate. In this document it stated, “The company does not provide sufficient and convincing evidence that the proposed investment does not overlap with base activities or was not already sufficiently funded for delivery for the period 2020-2025 (PR19). It provides no evidence that non-delivery could have been mitigated.
“This enhancement request is for £172.99m within the water price control (out of a total £1,134m claim). There is a need for Thames Water to complete the outstanding PR19 WINEP schemes by 2030. The company has provided a short business case covering the total claim, but it provides no other supplementary evidence to explain the additional requested funding for ‘Water other’ WINEP drivers. “The proposed funding covers additional investment for schemes under regulatory drivers including the Water Framework Directive (WFD), biodiversity and raw water deterioration. It also includes some capital maintenance costs to support scheme delivery. For capital maintenance, this is base expenditure rather than enhancement. For raw water deterioration, this was not an WINEP driver at PR19 for 2020-25 and should not attract additional enhancement funding under this category. “Some of the reasons for non-delivery of the total WINEP enhancement claim are stated by the company as: cost increases over 2020 to 2025; the scale of the WINEP programme; under-funding in its PR19 final determination; new framework contractors and delays due to Covid. Many of these issues impact other companies equally and are within management control.”
In this correspondence from Ofwat to Thames Water, known as an enforcement order, the regulator explains that while the company can carry over the 93 projects for which funds were already allocated, it can only access an additional £250 million to upgrade these sites, projects that should have been completed during PR19. Ofwat also fined the water company £104.5 million for failure to upgrade these sites in PR19.
To date, 13 statutory nuisance letters have been submitted to local authorities across the River Thames catchment. They are: Buckinghamshire, Elmbridge, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Oxford, Richmond upon Thames, South Oxfordshire, Southwark, Vale of White Horse, Wandsworth, West Berkshire and Wokingham.
The Oxford Rivers Improvement Campaign used an Environmental Information Request (EIR) to obtain data on Newbury STW. The data show that sewage spill hours rose from 482 in 2019 to 1,630 in 2024, an increase of 240%. Over five years, the site discharged almost 4,000 hours of untreated or partially treated sewage. River Action used its analysis of this data to calculate these figures. You can view the calculations here.
Download stills and footage from the peaceful protest outside Thames Water HQ here.
We took Ofwat to court to protect customers from paying twice and our rivers from sewage pollution
This week, the High Court finished hearing our legal challenge of Ofwat’s approach to its ‘not paying twice’ policy in its latest price review (PR24). The hearing took place over three days on 4, 5 and 17 November.
River Action, working with Leigh Day and expert barristers David Wolfe KC and Nicholas Ostrowski, brought this case to address our serious concerns about Ofwat’s approach. We argued that Ofwat’s current methods could allow water companies to charge billpayers again for environmental improvement works that they have already paid for, despite its promise that customers should not pay twice. We challenged Ofwat’s failure to require water companies to demonstrate compliance with environmental regulations as part of its price control exercise, as it said it would. We also highlighted flaws and gaps in Ofwat’s “clawback” mechanism, intended to prevent double funding when water companies fail to meet their environmental obligations.
Ofwat defended its approach, arguing that it never intended to look at actual compliance by water companies as part of its price-setting process and said that this was a reasonable approach to take given its regulatory function. Ofwat said that its clawback mechanism did not need to be explained in PR24 and that it intended to develop a more detailed framework.
During the hearing, the court considered detailed evidence on Ofwat’s PR24 process and methodologies, including exchanges between campaigner Matt Staniek of Save Windermere and Ofwat’s CEO. The court also looked at Windrush Against Sewage Pollution’s evidence of illegal sewage discharges into Lake Windermere by United Utilities, the case study at the heart of the claim.
We think that this case has uncovered significant issues with Ofwat’s regulatory approach to its ‘not paying twice’ policy, with internal documents released in response to the claim revealing gaps in Ofwat’s understanding and enforcement of water company compliance with environmental law. As well as Ofwat’s approach likely allowing some form of double funding, these shortcomings are contributing to the ongoing sewage pollution crisis.
Due to the complexity of the issues, a judgment is not expected for several weeks. We will provide a further update as soon as the judgment is handed down.
Regardless of the legal outcome, we will continue to push for regulatory reform to ensure that billpayers do not pay twice for urgently needed infrastructure improvements and that water companies are properly held to account to stop sewage polluting our rivers.
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 MenacheMRCVS 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.
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.
“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.
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.
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 Actionwon 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.
And in an extraordinary act of citizen empowerment, the Citizens Arrest Networkhas 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.
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?….
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.
