Hi, I’m Christian, and I’ve recently joined River Action as Legal Coordinator.
I grew up in Conwy, where the Eryri National Park was a constant part of my life. Those early experiences shaped my relationship with nature: not something to dominate, but something we live alongside and have responsibilities towards.
Before joining River Action, I worked across environmental law, political monitoring, and campaigning, most recently at Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. Alongside this, I’ve been involved in political and environmental campaigning through SERA, Labour’s environment campaign. I’ve just moved back to the UK, and I’m really excited to be putting my skills to use protecting rivers and supporting the communities that depend on them.
Q2. What first sparked your interest in protecting rivers and freshwater ecosystems?
I am lucky to have spent a lot of time kayaking and swimming in rivers and lakes. As I got older, seeing those same rivers increasingly affected by pollution, sewage discharges, the climate crisis and ecological decline made the crisis feel both urgent and personal. Historically, geographically, and politically, rivers are meeting points in the British Isles. Rivers are the places where the climate and biodiversity crisis, corporate exploitation and weak enforcement meet, but they are also the space where we can come together to write something new.
Q3. You have just spent 6 months at Greenpeace International. Can you describe the work you did there, the campaigns you were involved with, and what you learned from that experience?
After completing a Masters in International Environmental Law at Utrecht University, I joined the Greenpeace International Legal Unit in Amsterdam for a six-month internship. What stayed with me most was seeing how powerful the law can be when it’s used alongside campaigning and political pressure. I supported strategic litigation across several campaigns: challenging unlawful deep-sea mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction; pursuing accountability for forced labour at sea in corporate supply chains; and using European law to resist a multi-million-dollar SLAPP suit brought by a US oil company against Greenpeace. I was also lucky enough to attend the International Court of Justice’s historic Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and to scope future climate litigation to build on 2025’s historic legal victories.
Q4. You serve as an executive committee member at the Socialist Environment and Resources Association (SERA). Could you tell us more about that role, what the organisation does, and how that experience shaped your approach to environmental advocacy?
SERA is Labour’s environment and climate organisation, working to strengthen ambition across the movement by connecting grassroots members, trade unions, NGOs and parliamentarians, and putting climate, nature and environmental justice at the centre of political power. As an executive committee member, I contribute to strategy, governance, fundraising and campaign development. I also founded and led Our Earth in 2050, a youth-led initiative amplifying young people’s voices within Labour’s environmental agenda – defining its purpose, securing resources, coordinating volunteers and building partnerships. This experience has shaped my approach to environmental advocacy by highlighting the importance of coalition-building, clear strategy, and political judgement – an approach I now bring to my work at River Action, where legal accountability, community mobilisation, and political engagement are combined to protect rivers and the communities that depend on them.
Q5. Looking ahead to your new role as River Action’s Legal Coordinator, what will you be focusing on, and what can people expect to see from you in 2026?
My role focuses on using the law as a lever for change. That includes supporting River Action’s strategic litigation, producing legal research and briefings, monitoring legal and policy developments, and working closely with colleagues and communities to ensure legal action feeds into wider campaigns.
A key part of the role is helping connect legal expertise with grassroots action – ensuring communities have the tools, information, and confidence to challenge pollution and hold decision-makers to account.
I’m particularly excited to contribute to legal strategies that are scalable and catalytic, such as catchment-based approaches that stops pollution at source, strengthens enforcement, and supports community-led action. There’s huge potential to use the law creatively and collaboratively, and I’m looking forward to helping develop that work.
Q6. Finally, in your opinion, what needs to change to rescue Britain’s rivers?
We need to move from a system that tolerates pollution and decline to one that actively prevents it. That means deliberate decision-making, stronger enforcement, real consequences for polluters, and communities having access to information, tools, and legal leverage. It also means recognising rivers as living systems that deserve protection in the public interest.
We have to shift legal and governance systems, move the markets, and empower communities. I’m excited to join River Action, whose approach, combining law, campaigning, and community action, gives me a lot of hope.
If you’ve ever stood beside a river and watched it flow clear and vibrant, you’ll know the feeling of peace and connection that our waterways bring. Now imagine that same river turned murky and lifeless, its gravel beds choked with silt, its life below the surface silenced. This is not a distant problem – it’s happening right here in the Bristol Avon catchment, and it’s largely preventable.
Pollution from construction sites might not make the headlines like oil spills or chemical disasters, but make no mistake: it’s a silent killer of river health. Every time heavy rainfall washes sediment, concrete washout, fuels, lubricants, and other contaminants off poorly managed sites and into watercourses, our rivers suffer.
This isn’t just about aesthetics. Fine sediment literally smothers river beds, filling the gaps between gravels that invertebrates and fish eggs need to survive. It alters channel shape, reduces habitat diversity, and disrupts the very processes that keep rivers healthy. What’s more, with climate change driving more intense storms, the volume of runoff and potential for damage is increasing.
One of several outfalls within 100m, discharging from construction sites in North West Bristol in November 2025.
Communities Give Everything – Only to See It Washed Away
Across the Bristol Avon catchment, community groups pour heart and soul into river restoration. They clear invasive plants, remove rubbish, monitor water quality, and plant trees to stabilise banks. But when sediment-laden runoff from nearby development buries the habitats, they’re working to improve, it’s not just disheartening – it’s counterproductive.
We’ve seen this again and again: volunteers offer thousands of hours of effort, only to have their work undermined by pollution that should have been prevented at source.
River restoration volunteers in the Bristol catchment
Houses, Infrastructure – Yes. But Not at Nature’s Expense
We agree that new homes, schools, roads, and other infrastructure are necessary. Growth and development are part of a thriving society. But it’s not a choice between development and healthy rivers – we can deliver both. With proper planning, investment in pollution control measures, and rigorous enforcement, it’s entirely possible to build responsibly while maintaining thriving freshwater ecosystems.
The point at which the Hazel Brook joins with the River Trym at Combe Dingle. Notice the colouration of the Hazel Brook – summer 2025. Credit: Trout in the Trym.
The Problem Isn’t Ignorance – It’s a Failure to Act
The tools and guidance to prevent pollution on construction sites already exist. Best practice measures like sediment traps, wheel wash stations, appropriate stockpile management, and controlled drainage are well understood. What’s missing is consistent implementation and enforcement. When developers cut corners, or when regulators fail to act decisively, it’s our rivers that pay the price – and that cost isn’t abstract. It shows up in lost biodiversity, diminished recreation opportunities, and weakened climate resilience.
Another outfall discharging from a construction site. Credit: Peter Coleman-Smith (Trout in the Trym), November 2025
We Can and Must Do Better
At Bristol Avon Rivers Trust, we believe that healthy rivers are non-negotiable. They’re essential to climate adaptation, community wellbeing, and the natural capital that supports life in our region. Our rivers should not be collateral damage to development.
Here’s what needs to happen:
Developers must embed pollution prevention into day-to-day site practice, not as an afterthought but as standard operating procedure.
Regulators must act swiftly and transparently when prevention fails, applying the polluter pays principle without delay.
Communities and charities should be supported, not left to pick up the pieces after harm has occurred.
A Call to Action
Our rivers deserve more than well-meaning words. They deserve meaningful protection and robust action. The solutions are not beyond us – what’s needed is the collective will to implement them. Development and nature don’t have to be at odds. With commitment, collaboration, and accountability, we can secure thriving rivers alongside vibrant communities.
If you care about clean water, thriving wildlife, safe spaces for recreation, and resilient landscapes in a changing climate, then this issue matters. Let’s stop pollution at the source. Let’s defend our rivers before it’s too late.
My name is Ellie, and I am the new Policy and Advocacy Manager at River Action! I am really excited to join such a dynamic and impactful organisation at such a critical time for water policy.
I have worked on environmental issues ranging from marine conservation, sustainable rice, nitrogen policy, and now rivers! This broad range of topics has equipped me with an understanding of how different sectors and practices impact water quality and the wider environment.
Q2. What first sparked your interest in protecting rivers and freshwater ecosystems?
I grew up in Kent, which is a very green environment yet we had little access to rivers for swimming. Now that I live in Bristol, I am spoiled for choice and cherish swimming in my local river throughout the summer.
Having worked previously for the Soil Association on nitrogen, I became increasingly aware of the impact of agriculture on rivers, lakes and seas. I learned about the appalling water crisis unfolding in this country, and the dirty money trail leading straight to the companies in charge of keeping our rivers running and our tap water clean.
Q3: You spent nearly three years at the Soil Association. What did your role there involve, and what did it teach you about the connection between soil health and the state of our rivers?
During my time at the Soil Association, I convened a coalition of eNGOs to advocate for greater ambition and more integrated government action on nitrogen. The group of farming, climate, health and nature organisations came together after learning about the pollution swapping risks from taking a siloed approach to nitrogen policy. We hosted the coalition at the Soil Association to ensure that farmers were always considered in any solutions that we put forward.
Nitrogen is used as a fertiliser for crops, either in synthetic form manufactured using fossil fuels, as livestock manure, or supplied through nitrogen-fixing crops like legumes. In the UK, fertiliser application rates are high, with only about half of fertilisers being taken up by the plant.
The rest is lost to the environment, either as air pollution, a greenhouse gas or leached through surface and groundwater to the rivers. Too much nitrogen in rivers leads to eutrophication, whereby the nitrogen (and phosphorus) spur growth of algae to the point that it blocks light out of the river, killing wildlife and plants under water.
Ways to reduce nitrogen leaching into rivers starts with the soil. Building soil health will mean more nitrogen is held in the soil and it won’t wash away in heavy rainfall. Applying the right fertilisers at the right time, in the right amount and in the right place will reduce losses and – importantly – massively increase farm profitability.
Q4: Tell us more about your position as secretary for the Society of Conservation Biology’s Impact Evaluation Working Group.
I am responsible for managing Volunteers and convening the Working Group. I joined the group after writing a paper on the impact of conservation organisations’ support for community governance of marine resources with the Journal (Society of Conservation Biology), and becoming interested in the use of impact evaluation in increasing effectiveness of conservation initiatives. With few resources to go round, and the biodiversity crisis deepening, it’s important that conservation projects and the communities they work with get the most bang for their buck.
Q5. Looking ahead to your new role as River Action’s Policy and Advocacy Manager, what will you be focusing on, and what can people expect to see from you in 2026?
Given my experience in agricultural water pollution, I will be steering the policy work in this direction. The government’s shown appetite to clean up England’s rivers, but so far, is falling short of any immediate impact on agricultural pollution. I see better agricultural management of nutrients as integral not only to cleaning up rivers, but also to restoring biodiversity, air quality and reducing contributions to climate change. I will be kicking off 2026 by sharing our agricultural water pollution strategy with key decision makers in government.
The other area that I see as needing more attention from the government is the issue of water scarcity. Demand for water is only going up, with much drier and heatwave-ridden summers and the sudden appearance of data centres, the government needs a plan to ensure there is enough water to go around. That must include managing water for public interest to ensure corporations cannot guzzle it all on infrastructure.
Q6. Finally, in your opinion, what is further needed/what needs to change to rescue Britain’s rivers?
Holding polluters to account, re-structuring water companies to be for public interest. There’s a really interesting example of the Eau in France, where the water company is a charity and they invested in supporting farmers in the catchment to convert to Organic farming in a bid to clean up the river before the Olympics. These farmers produce healthy and nutritious food without the use of synthetic fertilisers or pesticides, which is then supplied to schools in the local area.
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.
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.
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.
By James Wallace, CEO of River Action & Alex Papuca, Senior Communications Coordinator
Water should unite us all, not divide us
“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle” – Plato
When rivers run foul or bills rise, frustration flows quickly. That anger is understandable, but too often it is directed at the wrong people through verbal and sometimes physical abuse. The engineers fixing broken pipes, the call handlers answering complaints, and the operations teams responding to pollution are not the ones making the big decisions in water companies. They are the ones trying to hold the system together.
Rather than venting our frustration at the staff trying to fix the problems, we should be focusing our concerns – peacefully – on the water company leaders, investors, regulators and the Government that are culpable. They are the ones responsible for bill increases, polluted waterways, private profiteering and failed regulation.
This World Mental Health Day, we are reminded that kindness and respect can make a world of difference. With help from Unison, the leading union in utilities, we spoke to workers within the water industry about the challenges they face, the abuse they endure, and the moments of humanity that keep them going. We found the conversations both enlightening and deeply sobering. To protect their anonymity, we have given each of the workers a pseudonym. Here is what they had to say:
Tony
Tony is an Operations Manager at Severn Trent, overseeing teams who work daily to maintain essential water and wastewater services across the Midlands. With more than two decades in the industry, Tony has seen the sector evolve through major changes in regulation, technology, and public scrutiny. He now represents staff at a time when pressures on the water industry are at an all-time high, and he’s passionate about ensuring that the voices and well-being of frontline workers are not forgotten in the debate.
Q: From your perspective in the industry, how have things changed over the years?
“In the early 2000s, there just wasn’t the same level of regulation. OFWAT wasn’t putting the right governance in place to stop problems before they happened. Back then, we had around 5,000 employees; now there are almost 12,000, and all of our wastewater operations are managed in-house. The sector has grown massively, but so have the pressures and expectations on staff.”
Q: What kind of impact has that had on employees?
“Staff are constantly getting heat from the public. There’s a lot of anger directed towards the industry, and that often falls unfairly on the people on the ground, especially the ones out there repairing infrastructure, responding to incidents, and trying to do the right thing. We’ve had members face some really frightening situations. There was an unprovoked machete attack on workers in Wolverhampton, and another case where a member of staff was stabbed with a screwdriver. Verbal abuse happens far too often.”
Q: How does it feel to be working under that level of scrutiny?
“There’s a lot of pressure right now, especially with increased regulation and public attention. People want to do the right thing, but it’s a stressful environment. We’re seeing a rise in stress-related cases among employees. The whole casework scenario has changed because of it. Many staff feel they have no voice to counter the negative narrative that’s out there.”
Q: How has this affected you personally?
“To be honest, I don’t wear a Severn Trent jacket in public anymore. I just don’t want to draw attention to myself. That says a lot about how people in the industry are feeling at the moment.”
Q: What message would you want the public to hear this World Mental Health Day?
“Please remember that the people out there fixing leaks, managing treatment works, and responding to incidents aren’t the ones making the big decisions. They’re doing their best under a lot of pressure. Kindness and understanding go a long way. The challenges the industry faces are real, but so are the people behind it.”
John
John is a Network Controller at Yorkshire Water, managing incidents and customer complaints from the front line. He’s often one of the first points of contact when something goes wrong, whether it’s a burst main, a pollution event, or a surge in bills. With public frustration growing, John shares what it’s like to work on the streets when tensions are high.
Q: What do you think the public often misunderstands about the people who work on the ground in the water industry?
“The public often misunderstands that those of us working in the field don’t make the big decisions. We’re just a small cog in a very big system. We work for the company, but we don’t own it, and we don’t have a say in how it’s run. There’s only so much we can do from our side, and we’re doing our best to fix problems as quickly as possible.”
Q: How does public anger or frustration around issues like pollution or water company performance affect you and your colleagues personally?
“It does get quite verbal. People are upset and I get that, but sometimes the anger gets directed at the wrong people. We’re the ones trying to sort out the problem, not the ones who caused it. People sometimes shout abuse during callouts, and it’s only a matter of time before someone really gets hurt. It affects people more than you might think. Colleagues take that stress home with them, and it can play on their minds.”
Q: Have you or your team ever experienced abuse or hostility from the public because of the industry’s reputation?
“Yes, and it’s increased a lot over the last year or so. What used to happen maybe once a month is now a day-to-day occurrence. Verbal abuse is the most common; sometimes it’s just frustration, but it can get very personal. We try to stay professional and move on, but it wears people down.”
Q: Are there any small acts of kindness or understanding from the public that really stay with you?
“Absolutely. When people take the time to thank us, offer a cup of tea, or just show appreciation, it means a lot. I’ve had customers bring out cake or send a kind email after we’ve sorted an issue. To be honest, I’m not here for praise; I just want to be able to do my job without suffering abuse.”
Q: If you could say one thing to members of the public who are frustrated about pollution or sewage issues, what would it be?
“I’d like people to know that we, the frontline staff, are working our hardest to fix these issues. None of us wants to see rivers polluted or communities affected. But these problems aren’t caused by the people on the ground; they’re the result of decisions made much higher up. Hold the industry accountable, but please treat those of us doing the work with respect.”
Sarah
Sarah works at United Utilities in West Cheshire, where she supports vulnerable customers and provides mental health support for staff. Her role often involves helping people in distress – whether they’re struggling to pay bills, facing water supply issues, or dealing with difficult personal circumstances. Sarah is driven by a simple motivation: “I do what I do because I want to help.”
Q: What’s your role at United Utilities, and what motivates you to do it?
“I work with vulnerable customers, helping them access support in any way we can, whether that’s through our own services or by connecting them with charities and resources like the Hub of Hope. I’ve also completed mental health first aider training, which helps me support people who are really struggling. I do what I do because I genuinely want to help people. That’s what keeps me going.”
Q: How does public anger or frustration around issues like pollution or water company performance affect you and your colleagues personally?
“There’s a lot of negative feedback at the moment. People are angry, and understandably so, but it’s tough when that anger is directed at staff. We’re trying to do our jobs and help people, but sometimes the abuse gets very personal.”
Q: Have you or your team ever experienced abuse or hostility from the public because of the industry’s reputation?
“Unfortunately, yes, and it’s getting worse. We’ve had staff receive death threats, and one colleague was told someone would kill her dog. Others have had people say horrific things like “I’m going to kill your parents.” It’s shocking, and it’s nothing like what we used to see in the past. The level of hostility has really escalated in the last few years.”
Q: If you could say one thing to someone frustrated about pollution or sewage issues, what would it be?
“We completely understand why people are upset. We see the same headlines and care about the environment too. But we’re just trying to do our jobs to the best of our ability. There’s nothing we can personally do about the big decisions, and we don’t deserve the abuse that sometimes comes our way. If you need to vent, that’s fine, just please remember there’s a person on the other end of the phone who’s trying to help you.”
Q: Are there any small acts of kindness or understanding from the public that really stay with you? “Yes, there are always people who take the time to write in and say thank you. It doesn’t happen every day, but when it does, it makes a huge difference. It reminds you that most people out there do appreciate what we do and that the kindness far outweighs the hate.”
Please remember
Rivers are under threat, but so are the people working to protect them. On this World Mental Health Day, please remember:
Frontline water workers are doing their best in difficult circumstances.
Accountability lies with water company bosses, investors, and regulators.
Peaceful action is powerful. Target the system, not the staff.
Join River Action and campaigners across the nation by asking your local MP, your council, and your mayor to pressure the Government to:
Reform the regulators so they can hold profiteering and polluting water companies to account and invest in cleaning up our waterways.
End privatisation by restructuring and refinancing water companies for public benefit and environmental performance.
Please visit River Action’s River Rescue Kit for advice on how to be an effective campaigner. Together, we can make corporate and government leaders clean-up our rivers while respecting the mental well-being of frontline workers.
Whenever the conversation turns to the cost of nationalising the water industry or even just exploring public benefit and ownership models instead of continuing with deep privatisation, the government references the scarily high figure of £90-100 billion to dampen public support.
On 16 September, Defra released a short policy paper outlining the rationale behind its estimation that nationalising the water industry would cost approximately £100 billion. A similar number was reached in a 2018 Social Market Foundation report paid for by four water companies (Anglian Water, Severn Trent, South West Water and United Utilities). The Social Market Foundation’s estimation takes the RCV from 2018 which was estimated at £64 billion and then added premiums for acquisition, so presumably their estimation would be even higher now.
Defra based this on three assumptions that:
the value of Water Companies should be tied to their Regulatory Capital Value (RCV);
the government would absorb equity and debt; and
no discounts or premiums should apply.
Inflated Economics?
Let’s be clear: this isn’t rigorous economic analysis. It is a simplistic and unrealistic theory being relied on by the government to justify not taking decisive action in public and environmental interests by putting failing companies like Thames Water into a special administration regime. What it protects are investors and an unsustainable cycle of debt servicing.
Professor Ewan McGaughey, professor of Law at King College London and co-author of the People’s Commission argues that public ownership is an inexpensive solution, contending that the true cost is closer to zero as a more accurate market valuation would account for performance and financial failures.
As Economics Professor Sir Dieter Helm puts it, Defra’s estimate is “misleading, simplistic and wrong”. In his analysis published on 22 September, Helm sets out why each of Defra’s assumptions is wrong and goes on to explain why special administration for a failing water company such as Thames Water would make sure the business continues on a sustainable basis, giving it “breathing space” before, the special administrator would “almost certainly achieve a price which is at a significant discount to the RCV” with debt holders taking a “haircut”.
When valuing a utility company such as Thames Water, RCV is only one factor a buyer would weigh. Helm argues that a company’s failure to maintain assets and its debt levels are central to any realistic valuation. The People’s Commission notes that RCV ignores another glaring reality: water companies have extracted £83 billion in dividends to shareholders. Karol Yearwood at the University of Greenwich has described the privatised water industry as a “cash machine for investors”. Today, the biggest beneficiaries are historic shareholders and debt holders keen to cash in on the roughly £17 billion debt Thames Water has been allowed to rack up.
Since privatisation 32 years ago, Thames Water has handed £7.2 billion pounds to shareholders, while neglecting essential upgrades leaving the public with failing pipes, sewage discharges, and degraded waterways.
Defra also glosses over Thames Water’s massive debt pile and fines including a record-breaking £123 million penalty this year for serious pollution that continues to devastate our rivers. Polluters should foot the bill, not taxpayers. Under a special administration regime, customer payments would flow to court-appointed administrators to fund the operation of essential water services, instead of being paid out to as returns to shareholders who would go to the back of the queue, making the process far less of a financial burden than Defra claims. In fact, as Helm points out, it would exceed the cost of running the business.
The cost of and case for special administration
The Government says that special administration of Thames Water would cost the government £4 billion. This is also overblown: on Helm’s analysis, the Government should recover its costs from the sale of Thames Water which, when offered for sale, would receive bids way in excess of £4 billion. The net cost to the Treasury should be zero.
Helm also explains why special administration is not nationalisation, as it is often misleadingly labelled or conflated as a tactic to avoid having to use it. Special administration is a regime designed specifically to deal with water company failure and it offers the most effective way out of the mess Thames Water is in. It should not be feared but favoured.
Dieter Helm cuts through the noise: “What is needed now is for Defra to put Thames into special administration, instead of putting out simplistic and ill-thought-through “assumptions” to support an implausible, very big round number.”
We are also pursuing a Judicial Review against DEFRA for failing to set out clear thresholds for when a company should be put into SAR. In our view, this failure breaches core public law duties and leaves rivers and communities at the mercy of failing operators. With 16 million customers, some ministers may believe Thames is too big to fail. River Action says it’s too big to be allowed to keep failing. It’s time to put customers and the environment before private profits – by putting Thames Water out of its misery and into a special administration regime.
References
Becky Malby, Kate Bayliss, Frances Cleaver, Ewan McGaughey, “A fair price to the public for water nationalisation.” The Guardian. 3 August 2025. Accessed here.
Defra, “Nationalising the water sector: how we assessed the cost.” Policy Paper, 16 September 2025, accessed here.
The Social Market Foundation, “The cost of nationalising the water industry in England.” February 2018. Accessed here.
Dieter Helm, “The next episode in the Thames Water saga: Defra’s misleading £100 billion cost of nationalisation and flawed board vetting proposals”. 22 September 2025, accessed here.
Ewan McGaughey, “How to Clean Up Our Water: Why Public Ownership in Law Costs Zero”. Common Wealth, 5 June 2025, accessed here.
Kate Bayliss, Frances Cleaver, Becky Malby, “Defra and the £100bn”. The People’s Commission, 18 September 2025, accessed here.
Karol Yearwood, “The Privatised Water Industry in the UK. An ATM for investors.” University of Greenwich, September 2018, accessed here.
Tainted Water, “Where Your Money Goes”, Goldsmiths, University of London, 2024, accessed here.
Sandra Laville, Anna Leach, & Carmen Aguilar García, “In charts: how privatisation drained Thames Water’s coffers”, The Guardian, 30 June 2023, accessed here.
Sandra Laville, “Thames Water fails to complete 108 upgrades to ageing sewage works”, The Guardian, 10 July 2024, accessed here.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “Reforming the Water Sector”, House of Commons, 9 September 2025, accessed here.
Eleanor Shearer & Ewan McGaughey, “Deep Trouble: Fixing Our Broken Water System”, Common Wealth, 11 July 2024, accessed here.
Sarah Olney MP, “Thames Water: Contingency Plans”, House of Commons, 15 March 2024, accessed here.
Alex Lawson, “The fate of Thames Water hangs in the balance. So what are its options?”. The Guardian, 22 March, 2024, accessed here.
River Action, “River Action launches legal challenge against the Government over Thames Water failures”, 30 July 2025, accessed here.
