Take action
Take action

Campaigns

Latest

View All

Justice for Lough Neagh

View campaign

Toxic Sludge

View campaign

Category: Blog

BREAKING: Water companies report ‘self-cleaning water’, as rivers fight back

Posted on by Molly Allen

   In an unexpected turn of events, water companies have announced a groundbreaking discovery: self-cleaning water. After decades of grappling with relentless pollution, rivers have decided to take matters into their own currents.

“For years, we’ve been working tirelessly to—well, mostly explain why we can’t stop sewage spills,” said Dr. Flo Waters, Thames Slaughter Chief Innovation Officer. “But now, something unbelievable is happening: our rivers are retaliating.”

Thames strikes back: sewage returned to offender

   Londoners have reported bizarre incidents along the Thames, where sewage is refusing to stay put. “My tap water turned brown mid-sip,” gasped one unfortunate water bill payer. “I don’t even live near the river.”

Other reports include showers mysteriously shutting off when users fail to recycle, toilets flushing in reverse, and entire streets of luxury flats experiencing “unexpected indoor rain”. 

“Honestly, it’s great the rivers are fighting back,” added Waters. “Because, despite our company being Europe’s largest water utility, we’re completely skint. Sure, the regulator just approved massive bill hikes, and the High Court agreed to our £3bn emergency loan but weirdly, that money never seems to reach the ‘fixing things’ department.”

River Severn & Wye snap: The great chicken manure rebellion

   Meanwhile, in rural areas, rivers like the Severn and Wye are rising up against industrial-scale chicken farms. Reports suggest massive waves of nutrient-rich sludge have been flinging themselves back onto farmland. “I woke up, and the fields around our chicken factory were mysteriously re-fertilised overnight—whether I wanted it or not,” grumbled a chicken factory manager

Eyewitnesses in the Wye Valley claim that thousands of litres of suspiciously murky water have been seen creeping upstream, seemingly trying to return to the vast chicken barns housing millions of birds that produced the mess in the first place. “It’s like the river finally snapped,” one environmentalist noted. “I saw a duck give a man the side-eye for even looking at the water funny.”

 

Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, chef and long-time campaigner for cleaner rivers, commented:

   “For years, we’ve been warning that dumping endless tonnes of chicken muck into rivers would have consequences. But did anyone listen? No. And now, the Wye has gone full exorcist, projectile vomiting waste right back where it came from. If the Government won’t hold these companies accountable, at least the rivers are showing some self-respect.”

Campaigners rejoice: “Finally, nature is doing our job”

   Environmental activists, long frustrated by Government inaction are breathing a sigh of relief. “For decades we have begged politicians to crack down on pollution but they are simply obsessed with growth at all costs and refuse to take real action to return our rivers to health,” said activist Angela J Trout. “But now? The rivers are handling it themselves. The Thames is rejecting sewage, the Wye is returning chicken muck to sender, and frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Mersey starts sending legal threats to water companies.”

   With rivers across the country tackling the issue, campaigners say they finally have hope. “It’s a win-win,” Trout continued. “The environment gets cleaner, and we don’t have to sit through another meaningless consultation on ‘sustainable economic growth’ while sewage floods our rivers.”

Authorities baffled—citizens warned to treat rivers with respect

   Thames Slaughter, Untreated Utilities and other water companies remain deeply confused with executives at Untreated Utilities reportedly considering whether to charge customers extra for rivers with ‘self-cleaning’ properties.

   In the meantime, citizens are advised to be nice to their local waterways—or risk their taps running backwards, their farmland fighting back, or, worst of all, a personal visit from an extremely angry trout.

   The Secretary of State was unavailable for comment today after being ruthlessly ambushed by a rare gang of wild salmon. Eyewitness Jim Murray (The Crown, Masters of the Air) described the attack: “They were just strolling to a North London dinner party, blissfully ignoring the state of our rivers, when suddenly—bam!—the salmon leapt at them. I fear the Minister’s suit is beyond salvation.”

   How thrilling that the High Court has given Thames Slaughter the green light to slap an extra £3 billion onto Londoners’ water bills—just to service their debt! It’s only fitting that Old Father Thames has finally taken a seat at the table, right beside Thames Slaughter CEO Chris Easton at the Fleecin’ Customers Casino. After all, as Chris himself mused in that BBC doc to justify his pipe-busting salary: “Cream and shit always rise to the top.”

 

Celebrating World Poetry Day with Rob Macfarlane’s ‘Riversong’

Posted on by Molly Allen

Celebrating World Poetry Day with Rob Macfarlane’s ‘Riversong’

On World Poetry Day, we’re celebrating the power of verse to inspire, move, and mobilise, and what better way than with Rob Macfarlane’s stirring poem ‘Riversong’. This evocative piece, created in collaboration with artist Nick Hayes, is more than just a poem – it’s a call to arms for river protection, capturing both the beauty of our waterways and the tragic reality of their decline.

‘Riversong’ by Rob MacFarlane

A Poem That Speaks for Our Rivers

‘Riversong’ flows with lyrical beauty, painting vivid images of rivers in their natural glory, rising from source, tumbling as falls, and winding their way to the sea. Yet, the tone darkens as it reflects on the devastating impact of human greed:

“But they gave the orders, and turned the waters / To sink and sump, stink and dump, from hill to sea;
Suits and boardrooms made ghosts of gods, / Turned River’s songs to elegies.”

With these haunting lines, Macfarlane masterfully channels the outrage at private water companies and against pollution and exploitation, transforming the river’s voice into a lament for what has been lost. But it’s also a poem of hope and resistance, urging us to gather, rise, and restore our rivers:

“So gather the waters, sons and daughters, / Braid the currents and weave the flows,
Let River shiver you from skin to bone — / For River’s song is the song of songs, And River’s will is stronger than stone.”

From Page to Protest: ‘Riversong’ at the March for Clean Waters

‘Riversong’ is more than just words on a page, it became a rallying cry during the March for Clean Waters 2024. As thousands of passionate activists, river guardians, and environmental advocates gathered, the poem was performed live, its powerful verses echoing through the crowd. The reading added a poignant and unifying voice to the demonstration, urging collective action against river pollution.

Poetry as Protest

Poetry has long been a tool for social and environmental change, and ‘Riversong’ is a shining example of how art can inspire activism. It reminds us that our rivers, once vibrant and free-flowing, are now too often choked by pollution and neglect. Yet, through creativity, unity, and defiance, we can give them their song back.

Together, we can turn elegies into anthems for action.

Meet Alex Papuca, River Action’s Senior Digital Communication’s Coordinator!

Posted on by Molly Allen

Q1. Tell us about yourself

Hi, I’m Alex and I’m thrilled to join River Action as the Senior Digital Communications Coordinator.

I’m from the Bristol area, and grew up on the River Avon and Boyd, spending much of my childhood swimming, picnicking and jumping from bridges and rope swings that no 10 year-old should’ve probably been using. I love our waterways and if I was ever on I’m a Celeb, my ‘happy place’ would be floating along the river in my kayak, with fish below me, birds above me and woodland to my sides.

Q2. How did you become interested in river protection?

As a keen kayaker, I spend a lot of time paddling our beautiful rivers, and I have seen firsthand the transformation from thriving ecosystems to polluted and degraded waterways. I vividly remember paddling the Wye a few years ago and being shocked at the changes to the river since I last paddled it. The water was much murkier and the river weed had disappeared at an alarming rate, it felt like a friend was dying in front of my eyes.

That sparked a determination to take action, I began to research the reasons for the Wye’s ecological collapse and discovered that River Action had recently been set up and was actively campaigning for the Wye. I have been a great admirer of River Action ever since,  keenly participating in the March for Clean Water last year and joining my local River Trust.

Q3. You have nearly 10 years experience working in sales and marketing.   What have you enjoyed most about this kind of work and what have been its biggest challenges? 

Within my sales and marketing roles, I love being able to use my creativity and problem solving skills to find innovative solutions. I enjoy building real, meaningful relationships with people from varying backgrounds. I have spent time working in Spain, Laos, China and Vietnam, which has given me an amazing opportunity to meet people from all walks of life and to see how strategies and solutions differ from place to place and from company to company.

In terms of challenges, sales is a world in which rejection can be common and disheartening. I maintain that the best sales person is honest, open and resilient, something I’ve tried to take with me in all parts of life. In terms of marketing, navigating the ever-evolving digital landscape. Algorithms change, audience behaviours shift, and attention spans get shorter. Staying ahead requires creativity, adaptability, and a deep understanding of what truly resonates with people.

Q4.  Outside of work, you also volunteer as a ‘Water Guardian’  for the River Avon.  Tell us more about your experience.

As a Water Guardian, I help monitor and report pollution on the River Avon, feeding into a wider network of citizen scientists and campaigners fighting to protect our waterways. It’s a small but vital role, ensuring that pollution incidents don’t go unnoticed and gathering data that can be used to hold polluters to account.

We’ve also done some very cool trips such as a demonstration of how sniffer dogs are now being trained to smell dangerous chemicals that can be found in sewage, so that sewage leaks can be identified and dealt with more quickly. It also gives me a great excuse to visit my stretch of the Avon more regularly, so I would definitely recommend volunteering for those interested!

Q5. Tell us about your new position as River Action’s Senior Digital Communications Coordinator?  What can we expect to see from your role in 2025?

My role is all about amplifying River Action’s campaigns and engaging more people in the fight to save our rivers. In 2025, expect to see bold, creative digital campaigns that not only inform but inspire action, whether through compelling content, community-driven initiatives, or innovative storytelling.

I’ll also be focused on analysing and developing River Action’s analytics, strengthening our supporter and key influencer engagement, and visiting community campaigns to capture the amazing efforts of people around the country. It’s an exciting time, and I’m eager to help drive real change this year.

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

We need stronger enforcement against polluters, proper funding for regulatory bodies, and a shift in public and political will. Right now, too many industries are allowed to degrade our rivers with little consequence. Holding them accountable and pushing for systemic change is crucial.

At the same time, grassroots action is powerful. The more people who stand up for their local rivers, whether by monitoring pollution, pressuring decision-makers, or supporting organisations like River Action, the harder it becomes for those in power to ignore the crisis. A combination of policy enforcement, legal action, and public mobilisation is what will turn the tide.

River Action to sue Ofwat over water bill rises

Posted on by Molly Allen

River Action is to take legal action against Ofwat, the water regulator, accusing it of unlawfully making customers pay for decades of neglect by the water industry.

A legal claim will be filed this month, arguing that bill rises for customers that have been approved by Ofwat could be used to fix infrastructure failures that should have been addressed years ago.

We’re calling for immediate regulatory action to ensure water companies stop passing the cost of failure onto customers – and start taking responsibility for the environmental damage they have caused.

 

WHAT IS OUR LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST OFWAT?

Our legal challenge focuses on funding allocated for wastewater treatment works and pumping stations by United Utilities in and around Lake Windermere.

The case is being taken after detailed investigations were carried out by Save Windermere and Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which revealed significant and systemic flaws in Ofwat’s approach.

We’re taking legal action to compel Ofwat to reassess its PR24 determination for United Utilities in relation to Windermere and to encourage Ofwat to reassess other water company schemes wherever there are concerns that customers are unfairly covering the cost of past failures.

 

WINDERMERE: A DAMNING EXAMPLE OF REGULATORY FAILURE

United Utilities, currently under fire after evidence obtained by Save Windermere, revealed 6,000 hours of raw sewage was discharged into Windermere last year, and is a case in point. We have commenced legal action claiming Ofwat has allowed the company to divert funds meant for future projects to deal with past failures—rather than investing in vital improvements to wastewater treatment and pumping stations around the lake.

 

A SYSTEM RIGGED AGAINST THE PUBLIC

We believe Ofwat has acted unlawfully by approving these funds without ensuring they are spent on genuine improvements to essential infrastructure. Instead, this so-called ‘enhanced funding’ is being allowed to be used to cover up years of failure.

Effectively, Ofwat has signed off on a broken system where customers are being charged again for services they have already funded—while water companies continue to mark their own homework and pollute for profit. This scandal must be addressed. The cost of fixing the UK’s crumbling water infrastructure should fall on the companies and their investors—not on the British public.

We are calling for immediate regulatory action to ensure water companies stop passing the cost of failure onto customers—and start taking responsibility for the environmental damage they have caused.

Dr Alison Caffyn: “Chicken farm… or factory?”

Posted on by Molly Allen

I have had to address this question twice in the last week. Both times I was chatting with people from conservation charities in Shropshire about the environmental impacts of intensive poultry operations locally. Both times the individual expressed sympathy with chicken farmers – along these lines: “It’s been so difficult for family farms in the last few years; what with low farm gate prices, huge shifts in support mechanisms and challenging climate changes. One has to symphathise if they feel their only option is to put up a chicken shed or two.” Each time I have tried to rebalance their perceptions of a typical ‘chicken farm’ in this area.

Firstly, it is true, there are some operations which fit the above description, particularly on and over the Welsh border. Small, one shed, free range egg units with, commonly, 16,000 birds operating in upland landscapes, diversifying from unprofitable sheep or cattle businesses. There are even some older chicken operations producing a few thousand organic and free range birds for the local market – but these are few and far between. The vast majority of intensive poultry units have capacity for 30-90,000 hens or many hundreds of thousands of broiler (meat) chickens.

When I interviewed farmers and land agents in Shropshire and Herefordshire for my research we discussed farmers’ motivations for going into poultry. I even developed a typology. The five ‘types’ included the ‘desperation factor’ described above. But there were also: older, large, well-established broiler operations – some dating back to the start of the industry in the 1960s and some still owned by the chicken processing company (Cargill). There were many large farms which diversified into poultry in order to support other farm enterprises. There were several large estates developing poultry as a new venture (for tenants) and finally, a few cases where investors had made speculative land purchases in order to set up a new poultry operation.

Some older sites have been expanded in stages over the decades with some IPUs now having 10-16 ‘sheds’ and up to a million birds. I was told the average return on investment (of about £500,000 per shed at the time) was ten years. Sooner, if the site installed biomass boilers and the like to receive generous Renewable Heat Incentive payments. Some IPUs were making substantial annual profits.

I’ve done a bit of number crunching to check my facts. The average size of all 150 odd IPUs in Shropshire is 131,000 birds. Broiler units are larger on average, housing around 200,000 birds per four sheds. Egg units are generally smaller averaging 83,000 hens – but that includes both several units with only around 4,000 birds and one large egg operation with nearly 2 million.

I have walked close to or through many IPUs in Shropshire and Herefordshire and spent more hours than I care to admit poring over satellite imagery of all the others. Most don’t look or sound or feel or smell like a farm. The brooding 100m long sheds, the acres of concrete, sickly reek and eerie stillness are not what you would expect on most farms. The operation is overseen on the site manager’s laptop or phone. There is a periodic rattle of feed being pumped along automatic feeding tubes. There will be someone who walks through each shed once a day to pick up the dead birds. Until, after six weeks, the lorries arrive to take the birds away to the processing factory.

You get the picture. And that picture is more factory than farm. An agricultural factory, in a rural location. But not a farm. And, indeed, many farmers say exactly this themselves.

We need to take this growing diversity of agricultural operations into account when addressing the impacts of the industry. No one want to accuse all farmers of environmental harm. Many are doing amazing, progressive things to transition towards more sustainable farming systems. Only a small percentage of farms locally have intensive livestock operations, but their environmental impacts far outweigh those that do not. But out of date perceptions and misplaced sympathy are not helpful – although they are often promoted by farming lobbyists.

Dr Alison Caffyn – River Action Advisory Board member

Dr Alison Caffyn: “We need Shropshire Council to stop allowing ever more levels of unsustainable industrial agriculture in Shropshire.”

Posted on by Molly Allen
Dr Alison Caffyn at the River Teme

It’s been an interesting start to 2025 as someone with my name on a current judicial review against a proposed new ‘chicken shed’ in Shropshire.….

First, both Steve Reed and Daniel Zeichner, perhaps panicked by angry farmers, say planning processes will be made easier for farm developments, so farmers can grow their businesses by putting up new ‘chicken sheds’. Then, Keir Starmer announces that judicial review (JR) rules will be amended to make it more difficult for NIMBYs to block and delay developments. Both announcements seem to be part of Starmer and Rachel Reeves’ growth agenda being pushed across all government departments.

To take the JR point first, I’m no legal expert but as I understand it you already have to prove there is a case to answer at the start of the process. It’s already a tough road to go down, with only a small proportion of cases being successful. So I’m not sure making it more difficult is necessary – maybe the announcement was just sending a pro development signal. With the case River Action and I are taking against Shropshire Council the judge agreed there was a case to answer on several grounds in our argument that Shropshire Council had inadequately assessed the environmental impacts of the proposed Intensive Poultry Unit (IPU).

It is unfortunate that citizens must take their local planning authority to court to stop more and more IPUs spreading across the landscape. But Shropshire Council has approved 64 applications for around 120 additional ‘chicken sheds’ housing over 5 million birds in the county in the last 10 years, taking the total chickens in the county to over 20 million at any one time. That’s 64 chickens per resident and maybe ten
times the amount of chicken poop than human poop.

Despite objections from local communities and businesses the Council continues to grant permissions without properly assessing the cumulative impacts of this industrial scale agriculture on air and water quality. That’s before you factor in risks such as antimicrobial resistance and bird flu. (Shropshire’s biggest IPU has had to cull two million birds in an outbreak this month.)

And that’s why it’s alarming to hear ministers suggesting government policies should support more ‘chicken sheds’ and make it easier to build them. There are many parts of the UK that are well beyond saturation point with intensive livestock farming. The River Wye catchment has proved the point and Shropshire, Lincolnshire, East Anglia, parts of Yorkshire and Northern Ireland are all on, or over, the brink of the same situation. Building more intensive livestock units will lock the UK even further into an industrial agriculture system, controlled by global multinational corporations, producing cheap but unhealthy food at the cost of nature, climate and communities.

And the crazy thing is we don’t even need more ‘chicken sheds’. The UK is already 90% self-sufficient in chicken and eggs. In fact, if we follow the advice of the Climate Change Committee and the National Food Strategy, we should be reducing meat consumption by 30%.

This type of agriculture is unsustainable and simply generates profits for supermarkets, fast food chains and global commodity giants. By all means make the planning system simpler and reduce the need for citizens to challenge planning decisions, but I would suggest doing it by developing clearer guidelines on, for example, how close IPUs can be built to neighbours, to watercourses and to other IPUs. In fact, why not introduce a moratorium on more IPUs in some areas? That would save everyone time and money!

If would be helpful if government policy focused on encouraging green growth and the types of farming that produce healthy food, boost local economies and help address our climate and nature crises.

– Dr Alison Caffyn, River Action Advisory Board member

Emma Dearnaley joins River Action

Posted on by Molly Allen

We’re delighted to introduce Emma Dearnaley, our new Head of Legal at River Action. In our latest blog, we get to know more about Emma and the role that she will play to help rescue Britain’s rivers.

  Q1. Tell us about yourself

  Hello – I’m Emma.

I knew from pretty early on that I wanted to be a lawyer and, although I’ve now had a range of jobs, using the law has been the thread that has run through them all. I’ve charted my own course through roles in commercial and civil litigation at a global law firm, law enforcement, government policy and non-profits – before settling in environmental campaigning.

I decided to leave conventional City law in 2018 having become increasingly curious about the law’s societal role (and my own, as a lawyer) and frustrated by its lack of accessibility to those without power or deep pockets. A period of exploring roles acting in the public interest then followed. It was during my time at Good Law Project that I received a loud wake up call that made me realise I wanted to use my skills, experience and energy to find solutions to the interconnected climate, environmental and nature crises.

Alongside my day job, I am a trustee of two social justice charities – Cranstoun and Music of Life – who I support in their missions to, broadly put, empower people to make positive changes in their lives.

I am a pragmatic optimist driven by the need and opportunity to take action to protect and restore our rivers and environment, for us and for future generations. I believe nothing is more essential than this.

Q2. You were previously the Legal Director at Good Law Project (GLP).  Tell us more about the role and your biggest highlights leading its legal work.

  GLP is a campaign organisation that uses the law to hold power to account, protect the environment and uphold the rights of people and communities. As its Legal Director, I was responsible for developing and leading its strategic litigation and other legal work and I was part of its senior management team.

It was a fantastic role that provided a full immersion in legal campaigning – by which I mean the use of legal tools and processes to achieve change as part of a campaign strategy – and gave me the chance to work on many different issues of importance. GLP is probably best known for its work exposing the government’s ‘VIP lane’ for Covid-19 personal protective equipment contracts and Partygate, but it was the climate and environmental work that I was most drawn to and I proactively grew this strand of work.

The first case I developed was what became a judicial review against Defra’s Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan and GLP’s ‘Clean Waters’ campaign. As well as pushing for Defra’s plan to be improved (which it was as a result of one of our arguments), we looked to use the litigation to revive an English legal principle called the public trust doctrine that says the state has a duty to safeguard vital natural resources including rivers and hold them in trust for the public. That argument didn’t succeed in this case – we always knew it was very ambitious – but it may yet be used to protect water, as well as resources such as air, in cases that are to come – with its recognition in some US states giving cause for optimism. Beyond the legal outcomes, this campaign raised public awareness and – together with the work of other groups like River Action – helped to push the sewage pollution scandal up the political agenda.

I am also really proud to have worked with Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth to bring legal challenges that resulted in a High Court ruling that the government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan was inadequate. This significant win secured greater transparency, accountability and ambition, with the government required to revise its plans to include more robust measures to meet emission targets.

A major highlight came at the end of my time at GLP when the Supreme Court gave its landmark ruling in the Manchester Ship Canal v United Utilities case – in which GLP supported the Environmental Law Foundation to intervene and evidence the systemic nature of United Utilities’ failures – that ended the impunity of water companies for the damage they cause through sewage discharges. This judgment means that people and communities can now use private law nuisance and trespass actions to hold polluting water companies to account – and it is heartening to see claims being formulated off the back of this judgment and the law continuing to develop to provide clear avenues for challenge and protections for rivers and communities.

It was a joy and education throughout my time at GLP to meet so many inspiring people across the social justice, climate and environmental movements. It was through participating in a water strategy group that I first met Charles and James at River Action and started working with them, impressed by their focused and generous approach to environmental campaigning.

  Q3. Tell us about your new position as River Action’s first Head of Legal.  What can we expect to see from your role in 2025?

There is huge potential to use the law together with other forms of influence to move the dial on rivers in 2025 and beyond, especially with the newly formed Water Commission, public awareness at an all-time high, multiple routes of challenge available, and great opportunities for collective and community action across the country.

In my role, I expect to work with government to strengthen laws and policy. I expect to push organisations and companies to stop their polluting and environmentally damaging practices. And I also expect to take legal action to enforce the law or to make sure that others do, while recognising that you don’t need to bring or win every legal case in order to make people think harder about the decisions they make and what they choose to do.

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

Rescuing the UK’s rivers is a big and complicated challenge that requires a big and committed ecosystem of actors. Collaboration will be key.

It will require government, agricultural producers, industry, supply chain participants and water companies to make systemic changes and for them to be held to account by regulators and civil society. It is essential that the government sets ambitious policy and that regulators are effective after decades of inaction and underfunding. There are plenty of water and environmental laws that exist already and they would be good laws if they were adhered to and enforced. Now more than ever it is vital that we hold feet to the fire over failures and push for sustainable solutions to be identified and implemented.

Ultimately I think the power to deliver change comes from political and corporate will. But there is plenty that can be done to influence and apply pressure – and I’m excited to be at an organisation that is able to do that using a full toolbox, including by using the law and litigation when necessary.

Introducing ‘Friends of the Thames’ (FoTT)

Posted on by lewis

Grassroots action is fundamental in driving change for our rivers. At River Action, our most significant successes have started from local communities taking a stand for their rivers. This is why we’re excited to introduce Friends of the Thames (FoTT), a new not-for-profit organisation dedicated to uniting communities along the Thames. From swimmers and citizen scientists to schools and campaigners, FoTT aims to bring together diverse voices, creating a unified movement to fight for cleaner rivers and hold Thames Water accountable.

Laura Reineke, a passionate swimmer, campaigner, and community coordinator, is leading this initiative. Her deep connection to the Thames and commitment to action make her the perfect person to head up this exciting new venture.

What is FoTT?

Friends of the Thames is a unifying force for the many groups, citizen scientists, and campaigners across the Thames catchment. From the Kennet to the Wandle and the Mole, there are already plenty of amazing initiatives in action. FoTT aims to be the link between these missions, aiming to create a supportive network that can amplify each other’s voices.

One of FoTT’s key tools will be an online map, highlighting groups across the Thames. This resource will offer a clearer picture of pollution throughout the catchment by compiling data from citizen scientists, the Environment Agency, and Thames Water themselves. By providing communities with this evidence, we aim to strengthen campaigns, advocacy efforts, and legal actions to better protect our river.

Why River Action Seed-Funded FoTT and How We Are Supporting It

Friends of the Thames aligns with River Action’s commitment to empowering communities to protect local rivers. After two years of taking action along the Thames—collecting data, working with communities, and creating impactful news stories—we were eager to assist in the creation of a unified voice for lasting change. As River Action’s Senior Communities Coordinator, I’ve been working closely with Laura to lay the foundations for FoTT. Our support extends beyond just initial funding; we’re actively helping to build key partnerships, raise awareness, and provide strategic guidance to ensure FoTT has the resources and momentum needed to make real long term impact.

What Excites Us About FoTT

The potential of FoTT to drive meaningful change is incredibly exciting. By uniting communities under one banner, we have real people power. One key initiative will be the creation of River Guardians, inspired by Paul Powlesland, founder of Lawyers for Nature and River Guardian for the Roding, who is now working alongside Laura to establish FoTT. These Guardians will serve as stewards for specific stretches of the Thames and its tributaries, deeply understanding the river, monitoring pollution, and championing their local waterways.

FoTT’s vision is deeply rooted in celebrating local action, and Laura’s passion and commitment ensure that this initiative will benefit both the communities it serves and the waterways they protect.

How to Get Involved

Are you passionate about the Thames or one of its tributaries? Whether you’re interested in citizen science, volunteering, or becoming a River Guardian, FoTT would love to hear from you. Stay updated with their campaign, connect with Laura, or explore ways to get involved by visiting their website or social media channels:

Website: friendsofthethames.org

Email: laura@friendsofthethames.org

Social Media: @friends.of.the.thames on Instagram, @friends_thames on Twitter.

Together, we can end pollution and put the Thames catchment first, for generations to come.

Drew Richardson joins River Action

Posted on by lewis

We’re thrilled to introduce Drew Richardson, our new Communities Coordinator, who will be joining our growing Communities Team at River Action. In our latest blog, we get to know more about Drew and the role that he will play to help rescue Britain’s rivers.

Q1. Tell us about yourself

Hello, my name’s Drew and I’ve just joined River Action’s Communities Team as a Community Coordinator. I studied Freshwater and Marine Biology at university before starting a career in the charity sector. I’ve worked for environmental charities, set up and managed York’s Volunteer Centre, secured over half a million pounds of investment into our local health and care system, and managed a squadron of Stormtroopers, an Ewok, and R2D2! 

I live in Yorkshire and spend my free time renovating, volunteering, reading, and getting out into nature whenever I can. 

Q2. How did you become interested in river protection?

I’ve always enjoyed wild swimming. Living in mid-Wales for 10 years I was lucky enough to have a local walk with a rarely trod path that allowed me to swim in a section of the Ystwyth between two waterfalls; it felt like my own hidden oasis. This love of the water led to my studying Freshwater and Marine Biology at University where I really started to learn about the dangers to our rivers. Having moved to Yorkshire a few years ago, I’ve become really aware of the lack of clean wild swimming spots and it feels like that escape, that ability to literally immerse myself in nature, has been cut off to me. I want to restore our rivers so everyone can enjoy the benefits that they bring again.

Q3. You have spent your career working in the third sector.  What have you enjoyed most about in this sector and what have been its biggest challenges? 

The thing I enjoy most about working in the charity sector is everyone you work with is passionate about what they do in a way that just isn’t comparable when you’re working for someone’s profits. I spend the majority of my waking life working, so I want to use that time to leave the world in a better state than it was, and work around people with the same ethos. The biggest challenges I’ve seen are the increasing demand on charities, a decrease in funding, and fatigue. We’re so exposed to all the woes of the world, and simply don’t have the capacity to be experts in every cause and fight every battle, so it can be overwhelming. I just try to focus on a few causes I can throw my whole self into, and trust that others will do the same for those fights I can’t champion. 

Q4. You are also a trustee for the Charity, Time to be Out.  Tell us more about the charity and the role you play to support their work.

Time To Be Out supports people who have had to flee from their own country because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. We support people throughout every stage of their claim in hopes that they can move on from past trauma and build a life as an openly LGBT+ person for the first time. 

As a Trustee my role on the board is to make sure our charity is compliant with the law, that we use our resources for the most benefit, and that we tactfully navigate the current climate towards those seeking asylum. As a micro-charity with no staff though, I do get stuck in with operational responsibilities too, like checking in on our clients. Whilst we are small, we punch way above our weight, and were even awarded Small Charity of the Year 2023 Finalist at the Third Sector Awards.

Q5. Tell us about your new role as Communities Coordinator at River Action…what can we expect to see from your role in 2024 and beyond?

Initially I’ll be working with community groups to ensure all their voices are brought together in our upcoming March for Clean Water so that their local campaigns are highlighted at a national level. Soon we’ll be launching our River Rescue Kit to support local community groups to have the maximum impact, wherever they are in their journey. So I’m looking forward to helping groups to use that kit and see what exciting things they can achieve with it. As the Communities team has grown, I’m particularly looking forward to meeting and working with groups we might not have met or had much involvement with yet, especially in the north. I’m excited to see what we can achieve together.

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

It’s such an exciting time to be joining River Action, with many new MPs being elected with local rivers in their manifestos, with rivers being mentioned in the King’s Speech, and river pollution being such a prominent part of the national discourse. It feels like there is a lot of potential for change, we just need to work to make sure that potential is realised. At the moment, water companies and the agriculture industry can get away with polluting our rivers; it’s cheaper and easier for them, so there is no motivation for them to change. We need that to change so polluting is just not worth the risk which means we need empowered regulators that can hold polluters to account effectively and that takes a change from the government. What we need to do is continue to support community groups with their local campaigns, and to collect data as citizen scientists, so we can keep the public informed, keep river health in the public consciousness, and show the government they have a mandate from the people they represent to make impactful change. 

UK’s polluted rivers are sparking fury – and could decide the next General Election

Posted on by lewis

By Charles Watson

When Labour published its election manifesto, a resounding cheer went up from River Action and many other groups campaigning to clean up our horrendously polluted rivers. We were delighted to see nature restoration and the need to improve water quality being acknowledged as priorities for the new government. We were also encouraged to see some tough talk around getting to grips with the disaster of our failing water industry and its equally poor regulator, OFWAT.

However, despite plenty of catchy soundbites designed to capitalise on the escalating public anger, these manifesto pledges were worryingly short on detail. There was no mention of the urgent need to tackle other sources of pollution, such as agricultural and road run-off – both massive issues for our waterways. There was no insight offered as to how the commitment for tougher regulation and water quality monitoring would be funded given the cash-strapped state of our water regulators.

The General Election came and our rivers spoke out loud and clear. Of the five true-blue safe seats of the catchment of the River Wye (one of the UK’s most polluted rivers), only one was retained by the Conservatives – with all successful candidates having signed up to radical action to clean up the river.

Meanwhile, across the country other once unassailable Tory seats were lost where river pollution was at the heart of the winning campaigns. Amongst these was Henley, the ultra-safe seat of former Tory Prime Ministers, where a resounding Lib Dem win put the severe pollution of the River Thames front and centre. Former Environment Ministers Terese Coffey and Mark Spencer, on whose watch the pollution of rivers continued unchecked, both lost their seats.

There is an urgent need to tackle all sources of pollution affecting our waterways (© Getty Images)

When Labour published its election manifesto, a resounding cheer went up from River Action and many other groups campaigning to clean up our horrendously polluted rivers. We were delighted to see nature restoration and the need to improve water quality being acknowledged as priorities for the new government. We were also encouraged to see some tough talk around getting to grips with the disaster of our failing water industry and its equally poor regulator, OFWAT.

However, despite plenty of catchy soundbites designed to capitalise on the escalating public anger, these manifesto pledges were worryingly short on detail. There was no mention of the urgent need to tackle other sources of pollution, such as agricultural and road run-off – both massive issues for our waterways. There was no insight offered as to how the commitment for tougher regulation and water quality monitoring would be funded given the cash-strapped state of our water regulators.

The General Election came and our rivers spoke out loud and clear. Of the five true-blue safe seats of the catchment of the River Wye (one of the UK’s most polluted rivers), only one was retained by the Conservatives – with all successful candidates having signed up to radical action to clean up the river.

Meanwhile, across the country other once unassailable Tory seats were lost where river pollution was at the heart of the winning campaigns. Amongst these was Henley, the ultra-safe seat of former Tory Prime Ministers, where a resounding Lib Dem win put the severe pollution of the River Thames front and centre. Former Environment Ministers Terese Coffey and Mark Spencer, on whose watch the pollution of rivers continued unchecked, both lost their seats.

So with a new seemingly river-friendly government in power last month, we all found ourselves sitting on the edge of our seats to see if these commitments were for real. Lo and behold a Water (Special Measures) Bill was duly announced as part of the Government’s legislative programme in the King’s Speech.

However, on scrutiny of its detail, all we could muster this time was a slightly muted cheer. Its main contents included powers to ban the payment of bonuses to water company CEOs (isn’t that what happened somewhat ineffectively to bankers after the financial crisis?); regulations to make water company bosses face personal criminal liability for breaking laws on water quality (but aren’t company directors already subject to criminal sanction if their businesses act unlawfully?); requiring water companies to install real-time monitors at every sewage outlet (although didn’t the last government announce last year that all of England’s storm overflows are now electronically monitored?); and, finally, the new powers to bring “automatic and severe” fines for water company transgressions.

Whilst the last point is excellent news, the key issue here is how will this be enforced?

The severely cash-strapped Environment Agency simply does not have the capacity to execute a tougher enforcement regime – and no commitments were made to provide any extra cash to the EA. Above all, the most striking thing about these commitments, is what was absent. For example, there was no mention of tackling the biggest polluter of our rivers, intensive agriculture. Of course, the King’s Speech only summarises planned legislation and His Majesty had a busy day with a further 39 prospective Bills to announce.

The devil will be in the detail and, until we see the first draft of the Water Bill, it’s unreasonable to be too critical. What is certain, however, is that if Keir Starmer honestly thinks that stopping the payment of bonuses to water company CEOs is enough to remedy the appalling state of our rivers, then he has another thing coming.

The Water Bill must offer definitive reform of the failed regulatory system which allowed the pollution of our rivers to happen in the first place. This will require significant funding to repair and re-empower bodies like the Environment Agency. It also can’t just hang its hat on catchy sound bites to exploit public anger over sewage discharges

With latest figures from the EA showing agriculture to be the biggest polluter of our rivers, the blight of diffuse agricultural pollution must also be addressed.

We know the Government has a lot on its plate, not least the recent chaos on our streets, but ministers must not take their eye off the ball on key issues like the nation’s water.

Come the next election, the electorate of the Wye Valley, where the boom in intensive poultry farming has been the prime cause of the severe pollution of the river, will once more be totally unforgiving if their elected politicians renege on their many promises to save one of our most iconic rivers. And they are the tip of a very large iceberg of voters angry at the decline of our rivers and beaches and dereliction of water firms.

Charles Watson, Founder and Chairman of River Action UK
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.