Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Justice for Lough Neagh

View campaign

Toxic Sludge

View campaign

Category: Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Year of Scrutiny: The Independent Water Commission

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

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

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

As the details emerged, optimism gave way to frustration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The People’s Commission: A Blueprint for Change

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

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

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

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

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

The Thames Water Saga: A Cautionary Tale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Regulator’s Verdict: A System Still Polluting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power to the People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Needs to Happen Next

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Packham on stage at the March for Clean Water

A River Still Rising

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Amy Fairman, Head of Campaigns, River Action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Molly Allen

By Charles Watson, Founder and Chairman of River Action UK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The ASA ruling proves it doesn’t.

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

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

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

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

World Mental Health Day – The people behind our water

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

Water should unite us all, not divide us

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

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

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

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

Tony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: How has this affected you personally?

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

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

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

John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please remember

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Defra based this on three assumptions that: 

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

 

Inflated Economics? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The cost of and case for special administration 

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

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

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

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

 

References

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

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

Posted on by Molly Allen

River Action’s legal challenge

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

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

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

What is special administration for water companies?

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

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

 The Government’s response

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

Evidence that a policy exists?

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

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

Why transparency matters

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

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

What next?

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

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

Posted on by Molly Allen

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

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

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

Why enforcement matters

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

River Action’s fight against factory farm pollution – Timeline

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

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

What’s next?

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

Because nothing less than meaningful reform will do.

The Water Commission’s Final Report: Why It Falls Short – And What Must Come Next

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

At the end of July, the Independent Water Commission released it’s final report on the state of our water industry with recommendations on how the industry could be fixed. River Action, alongside Surfers Against Sewage, has analysed the recommendations against our five core principles for real reform.

Our conclusion? While the Commission makes some useful noises about reform, it ultimately ducks the bold changes needed to end sewage pollution and protect people and nature.

Here’s how the Commission performed when measured against our principles – and why government must now go much further with its upcoming White Paper.

1. Operating for Public Benefit

The Commission’s approach accepts the profit-driven privatised model of water companies as a given. Instead of rethinking this broken system, it focuses primarily on tighter regulation.

This is not enough. Decades of evidence show that shareholder-first models drain money out of the system while rivers fill with sewage. The Commission ignored credible international evidence that public benefit ownership models – like those in much of Europe – deliver lower bills, more investment, and cleaner rivers.

Without a fundamental redesign of ownership, governance, and financing, alongside regulatory reform the crisis will continue.

2. Democratic Decision-Making

The Commission’s proposal for Regional Water Authorities is a step forward, hinting at more democratic oversight. But as drafted, these bodies risk being toothless talking shops.

Real reform requires municipal-level oversight, with local authorities, communities, and environmental groups holding real power over how water companies invest, operate, and deliver. Without this, decisions will remain in the hands of profit-driven boards.

3. Protecting Public and Environmental Health

The Commission acknowledges sewage pollution is a major public health crisis – but stops short of the urgent action needed.

Taskforces and reviews won’t protect the thousands of people falling ill after using polluted rivers and seas. We need immediate legal duties for all water companies, regulators, and government to protect public and environmental health, backed by stronger permits and updated Bathing Water Regulations that safeguard everyone, year-round, from emerging pollutants like ‘forever chemicals’ and microplastics.

4. Tough, Independent Regulators 

The Commission rightly diagnoses regulatory failure. But renaming regulators without changing their powers, duties, and resources will not fix the problem.

We need a strong, independent regulator with a clear duty to protect public and environmental health – not water company profits. And where companies fail, government must use the Special Administration Regime to reset them around public benefit principles, starting with Thames Water.

5. Transparency

The Commission calls for more monitoring – which we welcome – but still clings to the discredited model of operator self-monitoring, where water companies mark their own homework.

That system has failed. Independent monitoring, citizen science, and full real-time transparency are the only way forward. People deserve to know what’s happening in their rivers and seas.

The Bottom Line

The Water Commission’s report was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset a failing system. Instead, it tinkers at the edges, leaving the profit-driven model intact and communities exposed to sewage, debt, and declining water quality.

Government must now go further. The upcoming White Paper must:

  • Restructure water companies to deliver public benefit, not private profit.
  • Embed democratic oversight at local and regional levels.
  • Put public and environmental health at the heart of water law and regulation.
  • Create a tough, well-funded regulator with the power to act.
  • End operator self-monitoring and deliver full transparency.

Anything less will leave us trapped in the cycle of pollution, public anger, and political failure.

You can read our full indepth analysis HERE.

From Green to Clean – The Spanish community that saved their lake and what the UK can learn

Posted on by Molly Allen
By Drew Richardson, Communities Coordinator, River Action

The Dirty Man of Europe

The UK is unaffectionately known as the ‘Dirty Man of Europe’ when it comes to the state of our rivers. Three-quarters of rivers now pose a risk to human health, with many of our great lakes and rivers turning green with algal blooms from upstream pollution. Industrial meat production is one of the biggest culprits, driving 62% of river stretches to fail ecological health standards. But a community in Spain faced a similar crisis – and fought back. Their victory offers a blueprint for how we could save our own rivers.

The sad state of the River Wye

A Familar Problem

You may have read my blog post earlier this year, where I visited a community in Spain battling an industrial dairy factory that was threatening to become bigger than their township. I visited this community alongside representatives from across Europe. Organised by Friends of the Earth Europe, we had come together to share knowledge on how communities across the continent are fighting back against industrial pollution.

There I met campaigners from Amigos de la Tierra (Friends of the Earth Spain) and Federación de Consumidores y Usuarios – CECU (the Federation of Consumers and Users). They told me how the community of As Conchas, on the shore of a 25‑mile‑long reservoir, had already begun taking action after years of suffering from pollution caused by industrial meat factories upstream.

For years, local people had endured nauseating smells, keeping their windows shut in the Spanish heat. Further to this, they could no longer access local drinking water, as they saw their wells become contaminated by the waste seeping into the aquifer. Local communities raised their concerns with local government officials, but were told, that the water was safe to bathe in, that their wells were safe to drink from, and no action was needed. And yet, studies warned that cancer rates in the district exceed the rates found in other Galician districts.

Here I am outside the industrial dairy factory in Spain

From Citizen Science to the Courtroom

So local communities decided to take action.

They began with citizen science and found that the Lima River that empties into the reservoir contained at least 97 million dangerous cyanobacteria per litre of water and nitrate pollution levels 1000 times higher than the permitted limits.

The source? Labs attributed this pollution to manure produced by industrial meat factories that litter the river’s catchment. Still the regional government did nothing. So members of the community took their regional government to court, supported by Amigos de la Tierra, Federación de Consumidores y Usuarios – CECU, and Client Earth, for allowing the uncontrolled expansion of industrial meat factories, and inaction regarding the environmental and health impacts they were causing which breached their human rights under the Spanish Constitution and EU human rights law.

After supplying such clear evidence, the judge ruled in their favour and the regional government was ordered by the court to immediately adopt measures to end the pollution impacting the As Conchas reservoir and its community.

What This Means for the UK

This was a tremendous win, which sets a precedent across the EU. Already Portuguese politicians are taking their Environment Agency equivalent to task about downstream pollution. But how does this help us rid the blight from good old Blighty?

Well it wasn’t too long ago that we were part of the EU, so a lot of our environmental law is still in line with our European cousins’. Of course, our laws no longer have to be kept in line with EU directives, so could be liable to change, but so far so good.

Our human rights law however is still the same; we still subscribe to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These are the laws that ensure we have a right to a fair trial, a right to live, etc. Article 8 is particularly interesting; it’s the right to respect of our privacy and family life. Our private life isn’t just about a place free from surveillance, its our right to participate in society, the economy, culture, and leisure activities. It also means we have rights for the state, individuals, or businesses to not invade our home, affect our private life, or force us from our home.

A Blueprint for Action

When the people of As Conchas could no longer drink the water from their wells, participate in the culture and leisure activities that were intrinsically tied to the reservoir As Conchas was built around, when the smell invaded their home, and when the pollution invaded their bodies and was affecting their health, it became a human rights problem.

We have these same rights in the UK, and now a clear legal precedent that can help hold polluters to account in court. Imagine if we could use these to rescue our rivers. Imagine communities in the Wye, Severn, Thames, or Windermere taking their evidence of pollution to court and forcing action to happen where regulators had failed.

Swimmers, rowers, anglers, and local people, could use their citizen science to demand change, not only through protest, but with the weight of human rights laws behind them. The people of As Conchas have shown us that when local voices come together, even the dirtiest of waters can become clean. And when no one else will listen, not even the authorities, the law can be used to protect people and planet.

Meet Dr Samir Seddougui, River Action’s Campaign Researcher

Posted on by Molly Allen

Q1. Tell us about yourself

Hi I’m Samir, I grew up in the West Midlands but have spent the last decade living in Bristol where I recently completed a PhD in Social Policy. I have always enjoyed being in water, often spending a lot of time on canals in and around Birmingham, which has more (miles of) canals than Venice! I’m now enjoying spending more time on naturally occurring bodies of water. Having lived in Bristol for the last decade, I have spent a lot of time around the River Avon, and enjoy cycling alongside the river on the way to Bath.

I have family across the world from Morocco to Australia, so I love to travel and explore new places and cultures. During my PhD I worked for several think tanks conducting research on corporate lobbying, Islamophobia and far-right organisations across Europe and North America. Throughout my time in Bristol I have been involved in many social justice campaigns, and strongly believe that social justice and environmental justice are interconnected. This is one of the reasons I am so excited to begin working at River Action and contribute to such important and impactful campaigns. I’ve recently moved to South East London, and really enjoying the variety of amazing cuisines from around the world.

Q2. How did you become interested in river protection?

Like many people, I found nature to be a solace during the Covid pandemic. It was around this time that I began to use Surfers Against Sewage’s SSRS sewage map to make a risk assessment on whether the nearest body of water was safe to swim in. This led me to wanting to find out more about the degradation of British rivers and wanting to collectively transform a broken system.

Q3:  You have had a very impactful career, investigating Islamophobia and racism, and supporting victims of hate crime. What have you enjoyed most about this kind of work and what have been its biggest challenges? 

Having spent around a decade fighting for racial justice, one of things I found most rewarding was being able to work closely with and support many individuals who have experienced hate-crime and discrimination. The criminal justice system is often complex to navigate with many obstacles to traverse, so being able to offer practical and emotional support is a really important service. I was also able to work closely on several landmark cases of racial discrimination and Islamophobia that led to change.

Working within racial justice often felt like swimming upstream against a tide which was constantly getting stronger. This continues to be a major challenge for the sector which has seen consecutive governments underplay the prevalence of systemic racism and the rise of far-right attitudes within society. River Action’s determination and optimism for the future really drew me to this role.

Q4: What are your greatest passions outside of work?

Having spent the last decade in Bristol I have really enjoyed exploring the various stone circles and neolithic sites that are in the South West, particularly Stanton Drew and Avebury which are great to really immerse yourself in the standing stones and their ancient history. I do like to be inside too, and spend a lot of time at gigs watching live music. Bristol has an incredible DIY music scene with amazing venues like Strange Brew and The Exchange. One day might be a 9-piece folk band, and the next a Chelsea Manning DJ set. I really value the diversity and forward thinking nature of the music scene there.

Q5. Tell us about your new position as River Action’s Campaign Researcher, What can we expect to see from your role in 2025?

In my role as campaign researcher I will be supporting the RA team by conducting analysis on river pollution across the UK so river action campaigns are evidence driven and reflect the reality of the current state of our rivers.

Q6. Finally, in your opinion, what is further needed/what needs to change to rescue Britain’s rivers?

We need to radically rethink the system and start putting the environment and the public before the profits of corporations. For too long the system has ignored the degradation of Britain’s rivers and as a result the health of the Rivers across the UK are in crisis. The impact of climate change and extreme weather patterns becoming more regular, only makes this more urgent. River Action are amongst several environmental organisations that are at the vanguard of driving positive change and a roadmap to address decades of policy failures.