By Erica Popplewell, Head of Engagement at River Action
“Popcorn Week”
The recent local elections brought major political change across the country, with seats changing hands in every direction and hundreds of new councillors elected to represent their communities. Nationally, the impacts are already being felt. Westminster has entered what one commentator described as “popcorn week”, a moment where everyone sits back and watches the seismic political shifts unfold.
But while attention is focused on national politics, we shouldn’t forget the real power and opportunity that exists at a local level. Because when it comes to protecting our rivers, local government matters enormously.
New councillors are stepping into their roles full of energy, ideas, and a desire to make a difference in their communities. Many will already care deeply about nature and public spaces. Others may not yet realise just how central healthy rivers are to local life – from public health and biodiversity to flooding, recreation, farming, and community wellbeing.
Rivers have been a centre point for local communities for thousands of years.
That’s where we come in.
As campaigners, river users, and citizens who care about our waterways, we have an opportunity right now to help put rivers firmly on the local agenda.
Reach out to your newly elected representatives. Send them a welcome message. Invite them for a walk along their local river. Show them both the beauty and the challenges: the pollution, the sewage, the loss of wildlife, but also the joy, value, and sense of place that rivers bring to communities. For many councillors, environmental issues may sit outside their usual knowledge zone. We can help bridge that gap. We can connect local stories to local action.
River Action’s River Rescue Kit also contains practical resources and guidance to help communities campaign effectively for cleaner rivers and engage with local decision-makers. You can explore ithere.
River pollution – a shared concern
And while you may or may not agree with the political colour of your new council representatives, one thing is worth remembering: in our experience, there are good people in every party who genuinely care about their communities and want to do the right thing.
At River Action, we’ve sat down with representatives from across the political spectrum, including what felt like one of the unlikeliest meetings I’ve ever attended, with two local councillors, one Green and the other Reform. Yet even there, we found a shared concern about the state of our rivers.
So let’s stay open-minded. Let’s focus on common ground. And let’s work with those willing to stand up for clean, healthy rivers. Political change creates moments of possibility. Let’s make sure rivers are part of this new chapter.
For the first time since devolution, a new party holds the reins in the Senedd. Plaid Cymru won the election with 43 seats, followed by Reform with 34.
As expected, the election was very much a two-party race, with Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats doing somewhat worse than polls had predicted. Labour now holds 9 seats, Conservatives have 7, Greens have 2 and Lib Dems have 1.
Plaid falls short of the 49 seats needed for a majority, but with other parties doing worse than expected, they have limited options with whom to form a coalition. Labour and Plaid are unlikely to find common ground on much, given that Plaid just ousted the long-standing party. Reform and the Conservatives together make a substantial opposition, but we are yet to see if they will work together. Prior to the election, the Conservatives leader, Kemi Badenoch, indicated they would not work with any party that is not delivering, and that “the only deal we’re doing is a deal with the Welsh people”, which could be inferred as an alliance with Plaid over Reform.
In his victory speech on Saturday, Rhun ap Lorweth announced that Plaid will be seeking a minority government. He has now been announced as First Minister of Wales, supported by the two Green Party members.
Plaid Cymru yn cipio’r Senedd
Am y tro cyntaf ers datganoli, mae plaid newydd wrth y llyw yn y Senedd. Plaid Cymru enillodd yr etholiad gyda 43 sedd, wedyn Reform UK gyda 34.
Yn ôl y disgwyl, ras dau geffyl oedd yr etholiad hwn, gyda Llafur, y Gwyrddion a’r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol yn gwneud fymryn yn waeth nag yr oedd y polau piniwn wedi’i ddarogan. Mae gan Lafur 9 sedd erbyn hyn, y Ceidwadwyr 7, y Gwyrddion 2 a’r Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol 1.
Mae Plaid ychydig yn brin o’r 49 sedd sydd eu hangen ar gyfer mwyafrif, ond gyda phleidiau eraill yn gwneud yn waeth na’r disgwyl, cyfyngedig yw’r opsiynau o ran ffurfio clymblaid. Go brin y bydd Llafur a Plaid yn canfod llawer o dir cyffredin ar lawer, o gofio bod Plaid newydd sgubo’r blaid hirsefydlog o rym. Mae Reform a’r Ceidwadwyr yn bresenoldeb gwrthbleidiol sylweddol, ond dydyn ni ddim eto’n gwybod a fyddan nhw’n cydweithio. Cyn yr etholiad, roedd arweinydd Ceidwadwyr Prydain, Kemi Badenoch, wedi dweud na fydden nhw’n gweithio gydag unrhyw blaid nad yw’n cyflawni, gan nodi “the only deal we’re doing is a deal with the Welsh people”, a allai awgrymu cynghreirio gyda Plaid Cymru yn hytrach na Reform.
Yn ei araith ddydd Sadwrn, cyhoeddodd Rhun ap Iorwerth y bydd Plaid Cymru yn ceisio ffurfio llywodraeth leiafrifol. Mae bellach wedi’i gyhoeddi’n Brif Weinidog Cymru, gyda chefnogaeth dau aelod y Blaid Werdd.
What will Plaid do for Welsh rivers?
In 2025, six of the ten UK constituencies with the highest combined sewage overflows were in Wales, cumulating to over 415,000 hours of pollution. Last year, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) announced that seven out of nine protected rivers are failing Good Ecological Status due to phosphorus pollution. Salmon are expected to disappear completely from some Welsh rivers by 2030.
However, while Plaid Cymru’s manifesto offered positive steps towards tackling environmental issues, rivers were notably absent from their first 100 days pledge, launched during the Parties’ Conference in February. Yet with wider water reforms from Westminster imminent, Plaid Cymru will need to outline its position on addressing river pollution.
Beth fydd Plaid Cymru yn ei wneud dros afonydd Cymru?
Yn 2025, roedd chwech o’r deg etholaeth yn y DU gyda’r lefelau uchaf o orlif carthffosiaeth gyfun yng Nghymru, gan gronni dros 415,000 awr o lygredd. Y llynedd, cyhoeddodd Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru (CNC) fod saith o bob naw afon warchodedig yn methu â chyrraedd Statws Ecolegol Da, dynodiad a bennwyd gan ddeddfwriaeth yr UE, yn sgil llygredd ffosfforws. Mae’r dirywiad mewn bywyd gwyllt yn arwydd o hyn, gyda disgwyl i’r eog ddiflannu’n llwyr o rai afonydd Cymru erbyn 2030.
Ond er bod maniffesto Plaid Cymru yn cynnig camau cadarnhaol tuag at fynd i’r afael â materion amgylcheddol, roedd afonydd yn amlwg absennol o’u haddewid 100 diwrnod cyntaf, a lansiwyd yng nghynhadledd y Blaid ym mis Chwefror. Ond gyda diwygiadau dŵr ehangach ar y gweill o du San Steffan, bydd angen i Plaid Cymru amlinellu ei safbwynt ar fynd i’r afael â llygredd afonydd.
Westminster is expected to announce new legislation to clean up rivers tomorrow (Wednesday 13th May) in the King’s Speech through the ‘Water Reform Bill’. The UK Government has indicated its intention to create a new integrated regulator for the water sector, combining Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and some functions of the Environment Agency, with implications for the regulation of Welsh water companies. While Plaid has committed to seeking full devolution of powers over water, interim processes for interaction with NRW will need to be established. This could be a timely opportunity for Plaid to take action on NRW, the Welsh environmental regulator, which is widely recognised as not fit for purpose.
NRW as it currently operates is limited in impact, in part due to a lack of resourcing, but also a failure to implement an effective strategy for reducing pollution from both agricultural sources and the water sector.
One area that River Action has identified is the process by which NRW deals with pollution from industrial livestock. As it stands, NRW has chosen to ‘wash its hands’ of pollution by failing to take into account the environmental impact of manure once it leaves the farm boundary. Any reform of NRW must ensure that, as a regulator, it acknowledges and uses its full powers to act, including placing conditions on permits or refusing them where pollution risks cannot be properly controlled.
Cau’r bwlch rheoleiddio ar lygredd afonydd
Mae disgwyl i San Steffan gyhoeddi deddfwriaeth newydd i lanhau afonydd heddiw (dydd Mercher 13 Mai) yn Araith y Brenin drwy’r ‘Bil Diwygio Dŵr’. Mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi nodi ei bwriad i greu rheoleiddiwr integredig newydd ar gyfer y sector dŵr, gan gyfuno Ofwat, yr Arolygiaeth Dŵr Yfed a rhai o swyddogaethau Asiantaeth yr Amgylchedd, gyda goblygiadau i reoleiddio cwmnïau dŵr Cymru. Er bod Plaid wedi ymrwymo i geisio datganoli pwerau dros ddŵr yn llawn, bydd angen sefydlu prosesau interim ar gyfer rhyngweithio â CNC. Gallai hyn fod yn gyfle amserol i Plaid fynd i’r afael â CNC, rheoleiddiwr amgylcheddol Cymru, sy’n cael ei gydnabod yn eang fel un nad yw’n addas i’r diben.
Mae CNC fel y mae ar hyn o bryd yn gyfyngedig o ran effaith, yn rhannol oherwydd diffyg adnoddau, ond hefyd yn sgil methiant i weithredu strategaeth effeithiol ar gyfer lleihau llygredd o ffynonellau amaethyddol a’r sector dŵr.
Un maes a nodwyd gan River Action yw’r broses lle mae CNC yn delio â llygredd da byw diwydiannol. Fel y mae pethau ar hyn o bryd, mae CNC wedi dewis ‘golchi ei ddwylo’ ar lygredd trwy fethu ag ystyried effaith amgylcheddol tail ar ôl iddo adael ffiniau’r fferm. Rhaid i unrhyw broses o ddiwygio CNC sicrhau ei fod, fel rheoleiddiwr, yn cydnabod ac yn defnyddio ei bwerau llawn i weithredu, gan gynnwys gosod amodau ar drwyddedau neu eu gwrthod lle nad oes modd rheoli risgiau llygredd yn iawn.
Poultry factory farms are a lead perpetrator for agricultural pollution in Wales
What about the water companies?
Plaid’s manifesto set out a commitment to set up a new Welsh water regulator, with powers to set price controls, limit bonuses, and direct capital investment to reduce sewage spills, upgrade infrastructure and make environmental improvements.
While better regulation is certainly part of the solution, the ability of water companies to prioritise financial returns over customers and the environment remains a fundamental issue. As a not-for-profit, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water can still pay executives and bondholders high amounts. Although it does have lower bills than many English water companies and fewer pollution incidents, it continues to contribute to unacceptable levels of environmental pollution.
Plaid has also committed to setting out pathways towards the nationalisation of Welsh Water. Public ownership would help address the issue of financial extraction from essential water services. There are also other alternatives, such as municipally ownership, or community-interest models, which could attract the investment needed while prioritising environmental protection and public benefit. Whatever structure is chosen, water companies and the regulator should have a statutory duty to prioritise the environment and public health.
It is now up to this new Senedd Government to decide whether stronger regulation alone will set the Welsh water sector on a path to environmental recovery, or whether more fundamental structural reform of Dwr Cymru Welsh Water is needed to stop the pollution of Welsh rivers and waterways.
Beth am y cwmnïau dŵr?
Roedd maniffesto Plaid yn nodi ymrwymiad i sefydlu rheoleiddiwr dŵr newydd yng Nghymru, gyda phwerau i osod rheolaethau prisiau, cyfyngu ar fonysau, a buddsoddiad cyfalaf uniongyrchol i leihau achosion o ollwng carthffosiaeth, uwchraddio’r seilwaith a gwneud gwelliannau amgylcheddol.
Er bod rheoleiddio gwell yn rhan o’r ateb heb os, mae gallu cwmnïau dŵr i flaenoriaethu enillion ariannol dros gwsmeriaid a’r amgylchedd yn parhau’n broblem sylfaenol. Fel sefydliad nid-er-elw, mae gan Dŵr Cymru filiau is na llawer o gwmnïau dŵr yn Lloegr a llawer llai o achosion llygredd, ond mae’n parhau i gyfrannu at lefelau annerbyniol o lygredd amgylcheddol.
Mae Plaid hefyd wedi ymrwymo i fraenaru’r tir tuag at wladoli Dŵr Cymru. Byddai perchnogaeth gyhoeddus yn helpu i fynd i’r afael â’r mater o echdynnu arian o wasanaethau dŵr hanfodol. Mae yna ddewisiadau amgen eraill hefyd, megis perchnogaeth fwrdeistrefol, neu fodelau buddiannau cymunedol, a allai ddenu’r buddsoddiad sydd ei angen gan flaenoriaethu diogelu’r amgylchedd a budd y cyhoedd. Pa bynnag strwythur gaiff ei ddewis, dylai cwmnïau dŵr a’r rheoleiddiwr fod â dyletswydd statudol i flaenoriaethu’r amgylchedd ac iechyd y cyhoedd.
Mater i’r Llywodraeth newydd hon yn y Senedd yw penderfynu a fydd rheoleiddio cryfach ar ei ben ei hun yn gosod sector dŵr Cymru ar drywydd adferiad amgylcheddol, neu a oes angen diwygio strwythurol mwy sylfaenol ar Dŵr Cymru er mwyn atal llygredd afonydd a dyfrffyrdd Cymru.
More than 4,500 people, angry, frustrated and exhausted, have turned to the courts because they believe their rivers have been polluted and those allegedly responsible have not been held to account.
On Monday last week, the High Court heard the first stage of a landmark legal case led by law firm Leigh Day over pollution in the rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk. It is the largest claim ever brought over UK environmental pollution. Behind that headline figure are thousands of individuals who feel they have been left with no other option – and more people joining every week.
These are not abstract environmental concerns. These are rivers people live beside, rely on and identify with. They support wildlife, local economies, farming, tourism and public health. Yet they are now widely seen as being in serious decline.
Amy Fairman, Head of Campaigns at River Action, outside the Royal Courts of Justice
Avara Foods supplies poultry to some of the UK’s leading supermarkets and fast-food chains, producing chicken at an industrial scale in a concentrated area.
Communities along the Wye, Lugg and Usk argue that this industrial model carries a clear environmental cost, and that the corporate group directing the scale and profit of this intensive poultry operation cannot ignore their alleged role in driving the system behind the pollution of these rivers.
An example of an Industry Poultry Unit (IPUs) that are frequently operated by Avara Foods.
Welsh Water – a serial polluter
Welsh Water/Dŵr Cymru, the region’s sewerage operator, is also accused of materially contributing to pollution through the discharge of sewage into these rivers and through the production of sewage sludge applied to land in a similar way to poultry manure.
In 2023, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water was responsible forover 916,000 hours of sewage releases across Wales and England, accounting for around 20% of the UK total, with over 70,000 hours believed to have occurred in the River Wye Catchment.
Communities say they are being forced to live with the consequences of a system that allows waste to enter waterways that should be protected.
Outside the Royal Courts of Justice, peaceful demonstrators gathered in support, in an action organised by River Action UK. Many had travelled from Wales and Herefordshire. They beat drums, held a blessing of the rivers, and stood alongside the Goddess of the Wye, a 10-foot puppet symbolising the river. It underscored that this case is not only legal, but personal to a community who have suffered real losses.
At the centre of the case is nutrient pollution, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, linked to sewage discharges and poultry manure spread on land and washed into waterways. These nutrients can trigger algal blooms and bacteria that strip oxygen from the water, damaging ecosystems and killing aquatic life. Sewage discharges and poultry manure are also alleged to have directly added further harmful bacteria to these rivers.
For the people bringing this claim, this is not theoretical. They say they have seen water quality decline, wildlife disappear, and rivers they once used become unsafe. Many point to impacts on livelihoods and the value of their homes, others to their health. All describe a sense that the situation has been allowed to worsen without effective intervention.
River Action, legal team and campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice
It is time for real accountability
This case is about accountability. It asks whether those who have operated in these catchments at an industrial scale should make right the damage the communities claim has been caused.
Last week’s hearing did not determine the outcome. Instead, it began to set out how the case will proceed, including timelines, whether more people can join, and what information must be disclosed by the Avara group defendants. These decisions matter. The clearer the scale of harm, the harder it becomes to ignore.
Claimants are seeking change. They want allegedly harmful practices addressed and reversed, and are asking whether those allegedly responsible should be required to repair the damage already done. The case comes at a time when the sustainability of intensive farming and the performance of wastewater systems are under increasing scrutiny. Both can cause serious environmental harm if done at a scale the eco-system cannot absorb.
For many involved, the aim is simple. They want clean, healthy rivers again. Rivers they can use, rely on, and pass on in a better state.
The River Wye
Change can no longer wait
What makes this case significant is not just its size, but what it represents. It reflects a growing belief that environmental protections are not keeping pace with the pressures on natural systems, and that legal action has become one of the few remaining routes for a community to demand change and seek redress.
Thousands of people are no longer prepared to accept that the decline of their rivers is inevitable. They believe these rivers have been pushed too far, and they are now asking the court to decide what accountability should look like. This case is not just about the Wye, the Lugg and the Usk. It is about whether environmental harm on this scale can be challenged, and whether communities can force change when other systems fail, with the potential for significant ramifications nationally.
Above all, it is about whether communities act when the damage is clear, and whether we are prepared to restore what has been lost.
By Enda McGarrity, Director at P.A. Duffy & Co. Solicitors
Lough Neagh is the largest lake in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. It supplies drinking water to much of Northern Ireland and supports a unique ecosystem, a historic fishing community and livelihoods that stretch back generations. Today, this vital natural asset is in crisis.
For several summers, Lough Neagh has been smothered by severe blue-green algal blooms driven by excessive nutrient pollution. The green slicks spreading across the water are not merely unpleasant to look at. They signal ecological failure. Wildlife is disappearing, fish stocks are under pressure, and communities around the lough are increasingly concerned about the consequences of prolonged pollution.
Against this backdrop, local eel fisherman Declan Conlon has brought a legal challenge against the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA). His case asks the courts to examine whether the authorities have fulfilled their legal responsibilities to protect Lough Neagh and those who depend upon it from nutrient pollution.
In his sworn affidavit to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Declan described the long tradition of eel fishing in his family. He told the court, “Our father James Gerard Conlon was an eel fisherman and his father Hughie Conlon before him was an eel fisherman. Going further back than that, beyond memory, my family would all have been fishermen.”
For families like the Conlon’s, fishing on Lough Neagh is not simply a job but a way of life built on generations of knowledge and experience. The eel fishery is internationally recognised, and Lough Neagh eel holds Protected Geographical Indication status.
But what Declan and many others are witnessing today is a serious decline in the ecosystem that once supported this way of life.
The algal blooms affecting the lough are the visible symptom of excessive nutrients entering the water from agricultural runoff and wastewater discharges. When nutrients accumulate in a lake, they fuel the explosive growth of algae that can damage ecosystems and threaten wildlife.
Declan has seen these changes directly. He has described a lough where the flies that once fed the eels have disappeared, birdlife has diminished, and at times the blue-green algae gives off a very bad smell, an unpleasant gassy odour. The fishing season, once a reliable source of income, has been severely disrupted.
As Declan told the court:
“My way of life has been destroyed by the blue green algae and I want the DAERA to do whatever is necessary to stop the algae and safeguard and protect Lough Neagh, the fish, the flies and the wildlife for the benefit of future generations.”
It should never fall to a fisherman to bring a case of this magnitude. Yet Declan’s action highlights an important truth: environmental protections only matter when they are implemented effectively. When they are not, the environment and the communities dependent upon them suffer.
Northern Ireland has legal frameworks designed to protect rivers, lakes and coastal waters from pollution. River Basin Management Plans and regulatory controls on nutrient discharges are intended to ensure water bodies achieve good ecological status.
But when pollution persists year after year, and ecological decline becomes visible to those who depend on the water, it is right to ask whether those legal duties are being fulfilled.
Declan’s judicial review asks the court to examine that question.
We welcome the interventions of River Action and Friends of Earth NI in this case.
River Action has a strong track record of holding environmental regulators to account through the courts, including legal actions over pollution in the River Wye challenging the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales on nutrient pollution oversight.River Action is applying to intervene to assist the court by clarifying what constitutes a lawful River Basin Management Plan and by addressing the duty of regulators to put in place effective and enforceable measures where pollution is causing clear ecological harm.
This case is not about assigning blame to any single sector. Farmers, fishermen, businesses and residents all depend on the health of Lough Neagh. Rather, the case seeks clarity about whether current plans to tackle nutrient pollution are strong enough to restore the lough.
The legal question at the heart of the challenge is straightforward: when a protected water body is clearly failing, are authorities taking the steps required by law to reverse that decline?
Judicial review ensures public authorities act within the law and fulfil duties placed upon them.
This case matters not only for the Conlon family or the fishermen of Lough Neagh. It matters for everyone who depends on clean water and responsible environmental governance.
Lough Neagh is central to Northern Ireland’s landscape, culture and water supply. Allowing it to decline year after year is not inevitable, nor acceptable.
Declan Conlon has shown courage in bringing this case. His aim is not only to defend his livelihood and way of life, but to ensure the law protects the lough for future generations.
By Ellie Roxburgh, Policy and Advocacy Manager, and Erica Popplewell, Head of Engagement
There’s a lot of noise ahead of May’s Senedd election – new voting systems, shifting polls, and speculation about who might form the next government. But beneath that sits a more important question: what kind of country does Wales want to be when it comes to its rivers? Because the decisions taken after this election will shape their future for decades.
This election matters precisely because it is so uncertain. No party is likely to win outright, which means priorities will be negotiated in coalition talks. In that kind of environment, issues only stay at the top if they are politically unavoidable—and river health has too often been treated as something that can be traded off. That’s a risk Wales cannot afford to take.
The reality is that Welsh rivers are already under serious strain. Sewage pollution, agricultural runoff and weak enforcement have pushed many waterways beyond ecological limits. Public awareness is growing, and rightly so, this is about health, nature and the places people live. Crucially, there are decisions to be made in Wales. The Senedd has the power to act.
On water system reform, most parties acknowledge that water companies should be held accountable but stop short of fundamental change. Labour’s proposed Clean Water Bill and new regulator are steps forward, while others focus on infrastructure and sewage discharges without addressing the system itself. Only Plaid Cymru and the Greens clearly challenge the current model and treat water as a public good.
Senedd Elections 2026 – River Action’s RAG review for river pollution manifestos (Click image for full size)
Agriculture remains the biggest gap
Despite being a major source of river pollution, agricultural pollution is still politically under-addressed. In a bid to make lives easier for farmers by taking the approach of cutting red tape, Reform and the Conservatives will struggle to meet other commitments to clean up rivers.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats favour support and incentives over firm regulation, whereas Plaid Cymru takes the approach of replacing unfit regulations with something that is science-led and risk-appropriate. Only the Greens fully recognise the impact of intensive farming. The result is a clear mismatch between the scale of the problem and the strength of the response.
Intensive poultry units (IPUs) are commonplace in Wales and a major contributor to agricultural pollution.
Progress, but not enough to fix Wales’ rivers
There are some positive shifts. More parties are now framing river pollution as a public health issue, reflecting growing public concern. But stronger language is not the same as stronger policy. Without clear targets, monitoring and enforcement, many commitments risk falling short in practice.
Overall, the picture is one of partial progress but insufficient ambition. In a fragmented Senedd, that matters even more. Without clear commitments, river health risks being diluted in post-election negotiations.
This is why River Action is calling for a step change:
A water system that prioritises public and environmental health
Real action on agricultural pollution
Enforceable plans to restore rivers
A long-term approach to water resilience
These are not radical demands – they are the foundations required to get the system to work.
I took a water company to court over sewage pollution. Here’s why I’m still campaigning.
My name is Jo Bateman, and I am taking legal action against South West Water because I am sick of sewage pollution ruining the sea where I swim.
A few years ago, I was living in the Midlands, about as far from the coast as you can get. I loved walking, so I decided to spend a week on the South West Coast Path, from Poole to Lyme Regis. That week changed everything. I fell in love with the sea. Not long after, I handed in my notice, sold my house, and moved to Exmouth to live by the coast.
Then one winter’s day, I was persuaded to get into the sea, reluctantly at first. From that moment, I was hooked. I have been sea swimming year-round ever since. When I am in the water, everything going on in my head gets left behind on the shore. All that exists is me, the sea, and the cold. When I get out, I feel completely transformed. The mental health benefits are huge. It reduces stress, lifts my mood, and gives me a sense of calm I cannot find anywhere else.
Jo, in the water
From sea swimming to sewage pollution awareness
At the beginning, I knew nothing about sewage pollution, and ignorance really was bliss. I could enjoy the sea without thinking about what might be in it. But over time, that changed. I started seeing alerts warning of sewage discharges into the water. There were days when the sea was unsafe, days when I could not swim, and days when something that had become essential to my wellbeing was taken away from me.
The more I learned about sewage dumping by water companies, the more shocked and angry I became. It was not just occasional incidents. It was frequent, systemic, and deeply damaging. What had started as a personal passion quickly became a source of frustration and concern. Eventually, I reached a point where I felt I could not just stand by and accept it.
Jo at the March for Clean Water, 2024
Why I took legal action against a water company
In 2024, I decided to take South West Water to court. I filed a claim in the small claims court, seeking compensation for loss of amenity because repeated sewage pollution was preventing me from swimming. The cost to file the claim was £50, and I asked for £379.50 in compensation.
But this was never really about the money. It was about the principle. Why should water companies be allowed to pollute our rivers and seas and face so few consequences?
Water companies often argue that sewage discharges are unavoidable, particularly during heavy rainfall. They say the system cannot cope and that dumping sewage is necessary to prevent worse outcomes. I do not accept that explanation. Rain is not new. The UK has always experienced heavy rainfall. The real issue is decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, combined with a system that has prioritised shareholder payouts over environmental protection.
Jo talking to Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2
From one legal claim to a growing movement
What happened next was something I never expected. My case resonated with people far beyond Exmouth. What started as a small claim quickly grew into something much larger.
The case is now supported by the law firm Leigh Day and has progressed to the High Court. Alongside this, a group legal action has been launched on behalf of the people of Exmouth, with more than 1,300 claimants taking action against South West Water.
Personally, my life has changed beyond recognition. I have become part of a wider community of people who care deeply about clean water and are willing to speak out and take action. I have gone from being a relatively quiet person to speaking in Parliament, appearing in national media, and addressing large crowds at protests and events. There is even a documentary telling my story (find out more).
‘Jo in the Water’ documentary premiere
Why I am still taking on water companies
Taking on a water company can feel like a David and Goliath battle. These are large, powerful organisations with significant resources. I am just one individual. But I believe this fight is necessary.
Clean water should not be a privilege. It should be a basic right. We should be able to swim in the sea without worrying about sewage pollution. We should be able to trust that water companies are protecting the environment, not harming it.
We live in a world where extraordinary technological achievements are possible. It should not be beyond us to build and maintain a sewage system that does not pollute our rivers and seas. Real change requires accountability. It requires proper enforcement of environmental laws, and it requires water companies to stop putting profit before pollution.
Jo campaigning outside 10 Downing Street
A message to others fighting sewage pollution
If there is one thing I have learned through this experience, it is that individual action matters. You do not have to accept the status quo, and you do not have to stay silent.
There are thousands of people who feel the same way, and together we are far more powerful than we are alone. Collective action can drive change, even in the face of powerful institutions.
This is about all of us. It is about the future of our rivers, our seas, and our environment. And it is a fight we cannot afford to lose.
Because nature needs us.
If you would like to find out more about Jo’s incredible story, you can book a ticket to a screening of her documentary here.
Wrth i ni yrru i lawr i Sir Benfro yn gynnar ym mis Chwefror, roedd yna deimlad o obaith yn yr awyr, gyda’r cennin Pedr melyn llachar cyntaf i’w gweld yn y cloddiau a’r haul yn adlewyrchu oddi ar fôr gwyllt a garw. Roedd mynd am dro ar draeth caregog yng Nghymru yn sicr yn apelio, ond roedden ni yno ar gyfer mwy na dim ond y golygfeydd. Diben y daith oedd gweld a yw’r nodau uchelgeisiol o gydbwyso maethynnau a ffermio adfywiol yn dal dŵr mewn sefyllfa ymarferol ac fel rhan o weithgareddau bob dydd fferm laeth.
Pont Cleddau, Sir Benfro
Afon Dan Bwysau
Mae’r Cleddau wrth galon tirwedd Sir Benfro, gyda’r Cleddau Ddu a’r Cleddau Wen yn uno cyn llifo i aber dwfn. Mae’n rhan hanfodol o’r ardal, ond yn wynebu pwysau sylweddol ar hyn o bryd. Mae llygredd amaethyddol yn parhau i fod yn un o’r achosion mwyaf o bwysau ar ein hafonydd ledled y DU, a dydy’r Cleddau ddim yn eithriad. Gall maethynnau o wrtaith a thail lifo i’r dyfrffyrdd hyn, gan gyfrannu at ddifrod ecolegol a dirywiad yn ansawdd y dŵr.
Roedden ni yn yr ardal yn benodol i siarad am lygredd maethynnau yn y dalgylch a sut mae ffermwyr eisoes yn gwneud newidiadau ymarferol i arferion rheoli ffermydd, gyda chefnogaeth gan y cadwyni cyflenwi, i wneud gwahaniaeth. Roedden ni hefyd yno i edrych ar yr hyn sydd angen ei wneud. Ar lawr gwlad, mae hyn yn cael ei amlygu gan y newid yn y ffordd mae’r tir a buchesi yn cael eu rheoli. Yn bwysicaf oll o bosib, fe wnaethon ni weld sut mae ffermio “ystyriol o afonydd” yn canolbwyntio ar reoli pori. Drwy symud i ffwrdd o ddulliau dwys traddodiadol tuag at systemau fel pori er lles cadwraeth, mae’n haws i ffermwyr amddiffyn y pridd a’r dŵr sy’n rhedeg drwyddo.
Trefnwyd ein taith gan Ric Cooper, asgwrn cefn ac arweinydd Prosiect y Cleddau. Mae Ric yn un o’r ymgyrchwyr hynny sy’n gallu ymdrin â data cymhleth ar faethynnau un funud, cyn troi ei law at gydlynu gwirfoddolwyr gwyddor dinasyddion, ac yna trafod agweddau ymarferol gyda ffermwyr y funud nesaf. Oherwydd ei fod yn llais lleol mor uchel ei barch, roedd yn gallu’n cyfeirio ni at amrywiaeth eang o safbwyntiau ledled y dalgylch.
O Borthi Dan Do i Dir Pori Agored
Drwy gysylltiadau Ric, trefnwyd i ni gyfarfod â’r ffermwyr lleol Mike Smith ac Andrew Rees fel y gallen ni fynd i lygad y ffynnon a gweld sut maen nhw’n rhoi mesurau ymarferol ar waith i leihau eu heffaith ar yr amgylchedd. Mae’r ddau yn rhan o First Milk, cwmni llaeth cydweithredol ym mherchnogaeth ffermwyr Prydain sy’n canolbwyntio ar systemau adfywiol seiliedig ar bori. Mae’n rhaid i aelodau First Milk ddarparu mynediad at dir pori am o leiaf 120 diwrnod y flwyddyn, gan eirioli dros bori fel dewis amgen hanfodol i borthi dwys dan do.
Mae manteision y dull hwn wedi’u gwreiddio yn y cylch maethynnau lleol. Mewn systemau dan do, mae gwartheg yn aml yn cael eu porthi â bwyd sy’n uchel mewn ffosffadau a nitradau, sy’n aml wedi’i gynhyrchu dramor a’i fewnforio. Mae hyn yn cyflwyno maethynnau “newydd” i’r amgylchedd lleol. Ar y llaw arall, pan fydd gwartheg yn pori ar borfa, maen nhw’n bwyta maethynnau sydd eisoes yn bresennol yn y pridd lleol. Pan fydd y gwartheg yn cynhyrchu slyri, mae’n golygu bod y maethynnau sydd ynddo yn lleol i’r ardal benodol honno. Drwy wasgaru’r slyri hwn ar yr un tir amaethyddol, mae’n cynnal y cydbwysedd maethynnau yn y tir yn hytrach na’i orlethu. Mae’r system dolen gaeedig hon yn hanfodol i amddiffyn ein hafonydd rhag y maethynnau mewn dŵr ffo sy’n arwain at ewtroffigedd – lle mae gormodedd o faethynnau yn achosi gordyfiant algâu, a hynny’n mygu ocsigen ac yn niweidio ecoleg yr afon.
Ond mae mwy i’r gwaith o bontio i ffermio sy’n ystyriol o afonydd na phori yn unig. Trafodwyd amrywiaeth o ddulliau eraill, megis gwell rheolaeth ar faethynnau ac ar wasgaru tail a gwrtaith, sydd yn eu tro’n lleihau’r risg o ddŵr ffo yn llifo i’r Cleddau yn sylweddol. Yn Moor Farm, mae Andrew wedi troi’r model traddodiadol ar ei ben drwy ostwng y defnydd o wrtaith a chemegion yn sylweddol. Mae’n credu bod hynny’n fwy na rhywbeth sy’n “ddymunol” o safbwynt amgylcheddol yn unig; gall cam o’r fath gynnal neu hyd yn oed wella’r elw ac adfer iechyd y tir ar yr un pryd.
Cydweithio ar Draws y Gadwyn Gyflenwi
Fe wnaeth Ric ein cyflwyno hefyd i Christopher ac Emma yn Puffin Produce, cwmni cyflenwi cynnyrch ffres mwyaf Cymru a chydberchnogion Hufenfa Sir Benfro. Mae’r rôl ddeuol hon yn eu rhoi mewn sefyllfa unigryw i ddylanwadu ar gaeau a llaethdai. Maen nhw’n defnyddio’r Rhwydweithiau Mentrau Tirwedd (LENs) i bontio’r bwlch rhwng cyflenwi masnachol ac iechyd yr amgylchedd.
Drwy’r rhwydwaith hwn, maen nhw’n cyd-ariannu atebion ar sail natur sy’n cael eu cynllunio gan y ffermwyr eu hunain. Mae’n ddull pwrpasol: yn hytrach na mandad o’r brig i lawr, mae’n grymuso pob busnes fferm i gynnig yr arferion adfywio penodol a fydd yn diogelu daearyddiaeth unigryw yr ardal leol honno orau.
Y Darlun Mawr: Dyfodol i’r Cleddau
Wrth i ni adael Sir Benfro, roedd yn amlwg bod amddiffyn ein hafonydd yn gofyn am weithredu cydlynol ar draws y system fwyd a ffermio gyfan, o’r ffermwyr a’u tir pori i’r cwmnïau cydweithredol, y manwerthwyr, y rheoleiddwyr a’r llunwyr polisi. Yn galonogol, yn ein sgyrsiau gydag arweinwyr fel Andrew Rees, Mike Smith a’r tîm yn First Milk, gwelsom fod llawer o ffermwyr eisoes yn gweithio i fod yn rhan o’r ateb.
Fodd bynnag, bydd datblygu’r ymdrechion ar raddfa ehangach yn gofyn am fwy na dim ond uchelgais amgylcheddol. Gwelsom fod pontio i ffermio adfywiol yn aml yn cael ei ystyried fel risg sy’n cymryd sawl blwyddyn i’w gwireddu. Er mwyn llwyddo, mae’n rhaid i ni ail-fframio’r ddadl, a dangos y gall ffermio sy’n ystyriol o afonydd fod yn economaidd hyfyw.
Mae ymroddiad amlwg Puffin Produce, First Milk a rhwydwaith gwyddor dinasyddion Ric Cooper yn profi bod newid go iawn yn bosib pan fydd ymddiriedaeth leol a chefnogaeth y gadwyn gyflenwi yn cyd-fynd law yn llaw. Bydd cefnogi a datblygu’r ymdrechion cyfunol hyn ar raddfa ehangach yn hanfodol os ydyn ni am adfer a diogelu iechyd ein hafonydd ar gyfer y cenedlaethau i ddod.
By Chloe Peck, Senior Engagement Coordinator and Ellie Roxburgh, Policy and Advocacy Manager (River Action)
As we drove down to Pembrokeshire in early February, there was a feeling of hopefulness in the air, with the first bright yellow daffodils popping up along the verges and the sun reflecting off a wild, rough sea. A walk on a pebbly Welsh beach was certainly inviting, but we weren’t just there for the scenery. We were there to see if the ambitious goals of nutrient rebalancing and regenerative farming actually hold water when they meet the daily reality of a working dairy farm.
Cleddau Bridge, Pembrokeshire
A River Under Pressure
The Cleddau is at the heart of Pembrokeshire’s landscape, with the Eastern and Western Cleddau rivers flowing together into a deep-water estuary. It is a vital part of the area, but is currently facing significant pressure. Agricultural pollution remains one of the most significant pressures on rivers across the UK, and the Cleddau is no exception. Nutrient runoff from fertilisers and manure can enter these waterways, contributing to ecological damage and declining water quality.
We went specifically to speak about nutrient pollution in the catchment and how farmers are already making practical changes in farm management, alongside support from supply chains, to make a difference, as well as what more needs to be done. On the ground, this looks like a shift in how the land and herds are managed. Perhaps most importantly, we saw how “river-friendly” farming focuses on grazing management. By moving away from traditional intensive methods toward systems like conservation grazing, farmers can better protect the soil and the water that runs through it.
Our trip was organised by Ric Cooper, the local linchpin and lead of The Cleddau Project. Ric is the kind of campaigner who is able to navigate complex nutrient data one minute, coordinate citizen science volunteers the next, and then talk practicalities with farmers. Because he is such a trusted local voice, he was able to introduce us to a wide variety of perspectives across the catchment.
From Indoor Housing to Open Pasture
Through Ric’s introductions, we met with local farmers Mike Smith and Andrew Rees to learn firsthand how they are implementing practical measures to reduce their environmental impact. Both are part of the First Milk cooperative, a British farmer-owned dairy co-op focused on regenerative, grazing-based systems. First Milk requires its members to provide at least 120 days of pasture access per year, advocating for grazing as a vital alternative to intensive indoor housing.
The benefits of this approach are rooted in the local nutrient cycle. In indoor systems, cows are often fed imported feed, rich in phosphates and nitrates that were grown elsewhere, sometimes even in another country. This introduces “new” nutrients into the local environment. In contrast, when cows graze on pasture, they are consuming nutrients already present in the local soil. This means that when the cows produce slurry, the nutrients within it are local to that specific area. By spreading this slurry back onto the same farmland, the nutrients remain balanced with the land rather than overwhelming it. This closed-loop system is essential for protecting our rivers from the nutrient runoff that leads to eutrophication – where excess nutrients cause algal blooms that choke the river of oxygen – damaging the ecology of the river.
This transition toward “river-friendly” farming isn’t limited to grazing alone. We discussed a variety of other approaches, such as improved nutrient management and more precise manure and fertiliser control, which can significantly reduce the risk of runoff into the Cleddau. At Moor Farm, Andrew has turned the traditional high-input model on its head by significantly reducing fertilisers and chemicals. He believes that these changes aren’t just an environmental “nice-to-have” lower inputs can actually maintain or even improve profit margins while restoring the health of the land.
Collaboration Across the Supply Chain
Ric also introduced us to Christopher and Emma at Puffin Produce, the largest supplier of Welsh fresh produce and partial owners of the Pembrokeshire Creamery. This dual role puts them in a unique position to influence both the fields and the dairies. They are leveraging the Landscape Enterprise Networks (LENs) to bridge the gap between commercial supply and environmental health.
Through this network, they co-fund nature-based solutions that are designed by the farmers themselves. It’s a bespoke approach: rather than a top-down mandate, it empowers each farm business to propose the specific regenerative practices that will best protect that local area’s unique geography.
The Big Picture: A Future for the Cleddau
As we left Pembrokeshire, it was clear that protecting rivers requires coordinated action across the entire food and farming system, from the farmers in the pasture to the cooperatives, retailers, regulators, and policymakers. Encouragingly, our conversations with leaders like Andrew Rees, Mike Smith, and the team at First Milk showed that many farmers are already working to be part of the solution.
However, scaling these efforts will require more than just environmental ambition. We learned that the transition to regenerative farming is often seen as a risk that takes several years to realise. To succeed, we must shift the frame, to show that “river-friendly” farming can be economically viable.
The commitment we saw from Puffin Produce, First Milk, and Ric Cooper’s citizen science network proves that when local trust and supply chain support align, real change is possible. Supporting and scaling these collective efforts will be essential to restoring and safeguarding the health of our rivers for future generations.
Written by Christian Fuller, River Action’s Legal Coordinator
This week, River Action took part in the first hearing of a legal case which, for the first time, asks the court to decide whether the Northern Ireland government is doing enough to tackle the water pollution crisis in Lough Neagh.
Outside of the Royal Court of Justice in Belfast, clean water campaigners and members of the fishing community gathered to make their point plainly: the Lough is being destroyed by algae. Draped in green and holding placards reading ‘Justice for Lough Neagh’, the peaceful demonstration captured the now-familiar sight of blue-green algal blooms spreading across the water in recent summers. Inside, representatives for the applicant, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA), Ulster Farmers’ Union, River Action and Friends of the Earth NI were present, with a packed courtroom due to public interest and concern.
The case is being brought by eel fisherman Declan Conlon, whose family has fished Lough Neagh for generations. He is challenging the failure of DAERA to comply with its obligations to safeguard and protect Lough Neagh from agricultural and wastewater pollution on eight legal grounds. The claim challenges the lawfulness of DAERA’s response, including its failure to adopt an adequate or lawful River Basin Management Plan.
River Action has applied to intervene in Mr Conlon’s case to help the court assess whether DAERA is complying with its legal duties by raising important legal and practical matters. Our focus is on what the law requires and particularly the need for a lawful River Basin Management Plan to include clear actions and measures capable of restoring water quality, following the landmark case of Pickering. Drawing on major legal precedents on agricultural waste and nutrient pollution in which River Action has been involved in England, we hope to establish that DAEERA should put in place stronger measures as part of a lawful plan, including the proper enforcement of regulation to control the spreading of manure and sewage sludge, the implications of the classification of manure as waste following National Farmers’ Union v Herefordshire Council, and the need for planning and permitting to take account of cumulative pollution impacts. We will also seek to provide evidence to help the court understand the scale of the problem and what measures and practices could lead to the necessary reduction in pollution.
At the hearing, the judge recognised the importance of this case. There were, he observed, no obvious “knockout blows” against the applicant. On the contrary, the judge said that this is “an important matter which will require a considerable amount of time to be devoted to it” and referenced “a significant element of public concern” in the situation with Lough Neagh.
The judge repeatedly signalled there were a large number of issues and that detailed evidence would be required to “get to the bottom” of what is happening in the Lough. The judge emphasised that it was “important to leave no stone unturned” and that meant ensuring all “relevant players” were before the court.
The case will return to court on 1 May for a further review hearing, where the legal issues will be refined and the roles of additional parties considered. A permission decision will follow (to decide whether the claim is arguable and can proceed), with a substantive hearing anticipated later this year.
This is the first real opportunity for the court to consider the Government’s response to the severe pollution of Lough Neagh and the applicable legal framework, with the potential to become the most significant water quality case in Northern Ireland for a generation.
It is a critical opportunity to clarify what the law requires and to ensure that meaningful, urgent action is taken to restore Lough Neagh.
Across Wales, rivers that should be a source of pride – places for connection, wildlife and local identity – are in visible decline.
In recent years, much of the public debate has focused on sewage discharges, storm overflows and Victorian infrastructure doing 21st-century damage. That remains an important focus. But if we are serious about restoring our rivers, another very significant source of pollution must be understood and addressed with an equivalent amount of resolve: nutrient pollution linked to intensive livestock production and, in Wales especially, the waste generated by industrial-scale poultry units.
This is not about farmers trying to do the right thing in challenging circumstances. It is about whether the regulatory system governing intensive agricultural operations is working as Parliament intended and whether regulators are using the powers they have to prevent harm before it occurs.
Pollution from intensive poultry production does not usually appear as a dramatic brown slick after heavy rain. Instead, it spreads more quietly. Vast quantities of chicken manure, rich in phosphorus and nitrogen, are being spread on land or exported and spread on other land that in some catchments is already saturated with nutrients. From there, rainfall can wash those excess nutrients into nearby streams and rivers, fuelling algal blooms that choke oxygen from the water, damage wildlife and smother riverbeds. By the time the ecological harm becomes visible, the pollution has already taken hold.
‘Diffuse’ agricultural pollution comes from widespread activities across a catchment, making it harder to pinpoint and regulate than obvious point-source pollution such as a sewage discharge or a chemical spill. But complexity is not an excuse for inaction: it requires coordinated, consistent, catchment-wide management, not regulatory blind spots.
That is why River Action has launched a judicial review challenging Natural Resources Wales (NRW)’s decision to approve permit variations allowing three intensive poultry units in Powys to expand. The issue is not whether intensive poultry farming should exist. It is whether Wales’ environmental regulator is properly doing its job by using the legal powers it has to prevent pollution linked to those operations.
In approving the permit variations, NRW proceeded on the basis that it had no legal power under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 to regulate manure once it leaves the boundary of a permitted poultry unit. On that view, the environmental impacts of manure exported off-site fall outside the permitting regime and are instead matters for the planning system, but without NRW first being satisfied that effective and enforceable pollution controls would in fact be secured elsewhere.
In effect, NRW treated the boundary of the site as the boundary of its regulatory responsibility. Rivers, inconveniently, do not respect such lines.
Manure from intensive poultry farming is a major source of nutrient pollution affecting Welsh rivers, including the Wye and the Severn. This is not theoretical harm. Both rivers are already under severe ecological pressure from excess nutrients, causing declining water quality and damaged habitats.
Environmental permitting exists precisely to prevent unacceptable pollution before it happens. Parliament entrusted NRW, as Wales’ environmental regulator, with assessing whether permitted activities are likely to cause pollution and with imposing conditions to control and stop it. River Action’s case argues that NRW has taken an extraordinarily narrow view of its own powers and misdirected itself in law by excluding the potential off-site impacts of manure from its permitting decisions on the basis it has no legal power to address them. We say that approach is unlawful. The Environmental Permitting Regulations do not stop at the farm gate. If waste arises from a permitted activity and is likely to cause pollution wherever it ends up, NRW as the regulator must assess and, wherever necessary, control those impacts. That is both logical and, we say, what the law requires. Recent court judgments do not say otherwise, despite NRW’s insistence that its hands are tied.
What makes this more troubling is that NRW’s counterpart in England, the Environment Agency, accepts that it must consider and prevent water pollution through the permitting process including impacts that may occur beyond the site boundary. There is no rational basis for Wales’ regulator to do less, especially when making decisions in sensitive and protected catchments on the Welsh border. Environmental protection should not weaken when you cross Offa’s Dyke.
If NRW’s position is allowed to stand, the consequences extend far beyond these three poultry units in Powys. It risks creating a significant regulatory gap, allowing industrial-scale agricultural operations to expand in vulnerable catchments without effective oversight of one of their most environmentally damaging consequences.
This case is not about attributing blame after the damage is done. It is about prevention. Once excess nutrients enter a river system, they are extremely difficult and costly to remove. Rivers such as the Wye cannot be restored while pollution continues upstream without effective regulatory control.
NRW exists to prevent environmental harm, not to assume that someone else will deal with it. Passing the buck to the planning system on a mistaken understanding of legal powers, without securing robust safeguards elsewhere, won’t wash.
Wales rightly aspires to environmental leadership. It has strong and progressive environmental frameworks and internationally important rivers. But laws only matter if they are used and followed.
River Action’s case asks the court to clarify a simple and fundamental point: to confirm that environmental regulation in Wales means what it says, NRW’s interpretation of its powers was wrong, and that pollution prevention does not end at a conveniently drawn boundary line. Our rivers cannot afford another lost decade of buck-passing. If we are serious about protecting and restoring them, we must ensure that those tasked with safeguarding them are equipped – and required – to use their powers in full.
