Andy Burnham is right: Government must act on Thames Water

Posted on 17 June, 202617 June, 2026 by Molly Allen

By James Wallace, CEO of River Action

Thames Water into the mainstream

Andy Burnham’s campaign in the Makerfield by-election has helped shift the political dial on the future of Thames Water, bringing the case for intervention firmly into the mainstream. That debate took a dramatic turn this week when the Environment Secretary opposed Thames Water’s latest market-led £10 billion rescue plan, warning that the proposals “don’t do enough to protect consumers and the environment”.

The Government is right to put the public interest first and now needs to follow these words with decisive action.

The UK’s largest water company is carrying almost £20 billion of debt. Thames Water remains locked in restructuring and refinancing negotiations with creditors and investors, including hedge funds and distressed asset investors who, like vultures picking over the bones, are searching for fresh flesh to enrich financiers at the cost of water quality and public health. Reports suggest up to £749 million could be paid in fees, interest and advisory costs to creditors, bankers and lawyers as part of the latest restructuring proposals.

Thames Water’s headquarters, ironically named ‘Clear Water Court’

This is not how a vital public utility should operate.

A company providing essential water and wastewater services to 16 million people should not be a money-making machine for international markets. Yet years of excessive borrowing, financial engineering and regulatory failure have left Thames Water in precisely that position.

At the same time, rivers continue to suffer. Since the start of this year, Top of the Poops estimates that Thames Water has discharged sewage into waterways for more than 123,000 hours across its catchments. It has repeatedly breached environmental standards and has had the cheek to ask Ofwat to let them pollute without further fines until 2030 as part of the current rescue deal being proposed by its creditors. Public trust has collapsed and still the Government fails to put an end to this charade.

Thames Water has been failing for years. The question is no longer whether intervention is needed, but why it has not happened already, and when will the Government take control?

Communities from throughout the Thames Water catchment protesting outside Thames Water headquarters as part of our ‘Make a nuisance’ campaign.

The Special Administration Regime

Parliament anticipated circumstances like these when it created the Water Industry Special Administration Regime for the privatised water industry over 30 years ago. The regime was designed for situations where a water company is unable or likely to become unable to fulfill its obligations to customers and meet its statutory and regulatory responsibilities, including those relating to the environment.

Yet despite Thames Water’s financial instability, environmental failures, deteriorating performance and colossal debt pile, ministers and Ofwat have so far been unwilling to use the regime designed to protect customers and the public interest

Some have claimed special administration would amount to a taxpayer bailout or take money away from the NHS. That is simply wrong.

The Special Administration Regime was designed to protect customers, essential services and the public purse while a failing company is restructured. Thames Water would continue operating and generating revenue from customer bills throughout the process – it’s a geographic monopoly with guaranteed income. Water would still flow from taps and wastewater services would continue, and the abysmal sewage pollution track record can start to be reversed.

The real bailout is what we are seeing now: a failing company burdened with massive debt, desperately searching for new financing while creditors, bankers and advisers collect hundreds of millions of pounds in fees all at the expense of billpayers.

And to rub faecal matter into our weeping wounds, Thames Water investors are demanding leniency on their criminal pollution: no fines for years while they pollute and extract yet more pounds of flesh from this already emaciated utility. That amounts to a public subsidy for the destruction of our treasured river and the communities that depend upon it, all to make a few quid for faceless and unscrupulous money men.

Special administration shifts the priority away from private interests and financial engineering and back towards customers, infrastructure and the environment. It would give the utility the opportunity to stabilise, restructure and invest in the public interest rather than simply service ever-growing and expensive debt.

The debate should therefore not be framed around how creditors are repaid under special administration, particularly when administrators can write down much of the accumulated junk debt and the Treasury would be first in line to recover costs. It should focus on what structure for Thames Water would best secure public benefit and environmental protection in the future.

Citizen science testing has become commonplace on the River Thames.

A New Future for Thames Water

The immediate priority is restoring accountability, public trust and critical infrastructure. If Thames Water enters and exits a Special Administration Regime, the Government would have choices about its future ownership and investment model. Those choices should be guided by Independent Water Commissioner Sir Jon Cunliffe’s recommendation to attract long-term, low-risk, low-return investors and could include mutual, municipal, not-for-profit or public ownership models. All of these options have been tried and tested across the world.

For too long, water companies have operated in a system where environmental damage has been tolerated, regulatory enforcement has been inadequate and investment in critical infrastructure has fallen short of what is needed. The consequences are visible in rivers, lakes and coastal waters across the country.

That is why River Action launched legal proceedings seeking clarity from the Government about when the Special Administration Regime will actually be used for a failing water company like Thames Water.

If not Thames Water, and if not now, then who and when?

Andy Burnham has helped bring this debate into the political mainstream. That is welcome.

The time for debate is running out.

The Government and Ofwat should act now to place Thames Water into a Special Administration Regime to protect customers, safeguard rivers and restore confidence that essential services are operated in the public interest. Clarifying the policy and triggers for the Special Administration Regime would also demonstrate to the wider industry that failing water companies will face meaningful intervention.

Parliament created the Special Administration Regime. Thames Water should be the first company to enter it.

The question now is whether ministers are prepared to use the powers they have or risk yet more outrage from an already disenfranchised electorate.

Find out more about our campaigning work for the River Thames here.

Why I’m taking a water company to court

Posted on 19 April, 2026 by Molly Allen

By Jo Bateman, Open Water Swimmer and Campaigner

I took a water company to court over sewage pollution. Here’s why I’m still campaigning.

My name is Jo Bateman, and I am taking legal action against South West Water because I am sick of sewage pollution ruining the sea where I swim.

A few years ago, I was living in the Midlands, about as far from the coast as you can get. I loved walking, so I decided to spend a week on the South West Coast Path, from Poole to Lyme Regis. That week changed everything. I fell in love with the sea. Not long after, I handed in my notice, sold my house, and moved to Exmouth to live by the coast.

Then one winter’s day, I was persuaded to get into the sea, reluctantly at first. From that moment, I was hooked. I have been sea swimming year-round ever since. When I am in the water, everything going on in my head gets left behind on the shore. All that exists is me, the sea, and the cold. When I get out, I feel completely transformed. The mental health benefits are huge. It reduces stress, lifts my mood, and gives me a sense of calm I cannot find anywhere else.

Jo, in the water

From sea swimming to sewage pollution awareness

At the beginning, I knew nothing about sewage pollution, and ignorance really was bliss. I could enjoy the sea without thinking about what might be in it. But over time, that changed. I started seeing alerts warning of sewage discharges into the water. There were days when the sea was unsafe, days when I could not swim, and days when something that had become essential to my wellbeing was taken away from me.

The more I learned about sewage dumping by water companies, the more shocked and angry I became. It was not just occasional incidents. It was frequent, systemic, and deeply damaging. What had started as a personal passion quickly became a source of frustration and concern. Eventually, I reached a point where I felt I could not just stand by and accept it.

Jo at the March for Clean Water, 2024

Why I took legal action against a water company

In 2024, I decided to take South West Water to court. I filed a claim in the small claims court, seeking compensation for loss of amenity because repeated sewage pollution was preventing me from swimming. The cost to file the claim was £50, and I asked for £379.50 in compensation.

But this was never really about the money. It was about the principle. Why should water companies be allowed to pollute our rivers and seas and face so few consequences?

Water companies often argue that sewage discharges are unavoidable, particularly during heavy rainfall. They say the system cannot cope and that dumping sewage is necessary to prevent worse outcomes. I do not accept that explanation. Rain is not new. The UK has always experienced heavy rainfall. The real issue is decades of underinvestment in infrastructure, combined with a system that has prioritised shareholder payouts over environmental protection.

Jo talking to Jeremy Vine on BBC Radio 2

From one legal claim to a growing movement

What happened next was something I never expected. My case resonated with people far beyond Exmouth. What started as a small claim quickly grew into something much larger.

The case is now supported by the law firm Leigh Day and has progressed to the High Court. Alongside this, a group legal action has been launched on behalf of the people of Exmouth, with more than 1,300 claimants taking action against South West Water.

Personally, my life has changed beyond recognition. I have become part of a wider community of people who care deeply about clean water and are willing to speak out and take action. I have gone from being a relatively quiet person to speaking in Parliament, appearing in national media, and addressing large crowds at protests and events. There is even a documentary telling my story (find out more).

‘Jo in the Water’ documentary premiere

Why I am still taking on water companies

Taking on a water company can feel like a David and Goliath battle. These are large, powerful organisations with significant resources. I am just one individual. But I believe this fight is necessary.

Clean water should not be a privilege. It should be a basic right. We should be able to swim in the sea without worrying about sewage pollution. We should be able to trust that water companies are protecting the environment, not harming it.

We live in a world where extraordinary technological achievements are possible. It should not be beyond us to build and maintain a sewage system that does not pollute our rivers and seas. Real change requires accountability. It requires proper enforcement of environmental laws, and it requires water companies to stop putting profit before pollution.

Jo campaigning outside 10 Downing Street

A message to others fighting sewage pollution

If there is one thing I have learned through this experience, it is that individual action matters. You do not have to accept the status quo, and you do not have to stay silent.

There are thousands of people who feel the same way, and together we are far more powerful than we are alone. Collective action can drive change, even in the face of powerful institutions.

This is about all of us. It is about the future of our rivers, our seas, and our environment. And it is a fight we cannot afford to lose.

Because nature needs us.

If you would like to find out more about Jo’s incredible story, you can book a ticket to a screening of her documentary here.

The “Make a Nuisance” Campaign: Using the Law to Speak Up for Our Rivers

Posted on 26 January, 20264 February, 2026 by Molly Allen

By Chloe Peck, Senior Engagement Coordinator at River Action

When River speaks, what does River say?

When River is harmed, how does a body of water make its cries heard?

And when we step in to speak for River, through our human legal systems, whose voice do we really use?

At River Action, we recently helped amplify a cry for the river through the launch of the ‘Make A Nuisance’ campaign. The campaign creates a way to speak through the law. Working alongside Friends of the Thames and 15 people from 13 different areas across the Thames catchment, we supported local residents to submit Statutory Nuisance complaints about Thames Water to their local authority. The aim of the campaign is to create a collective noise, which further holds Thames Water to account by enabling community members to take direct action using a powerful legal tool.

Statutory nuisance law is a long standing area of UK law which requires local councils to investigate harms from pollution or noise. If the pollution is found to be causing a problem, the council enforces the polluter, Thames Water, to seize and desist the action, sewage pollution, through Abatement Notices.

In order to ensure the letters were rooted in real life experiences of pollution, the participants were responsible for gathering stories and data to evidence their complaints. This included photos of sewage smears on rowing boats, data from nutrient and pathogen tests, and testimonies from local people who had become sick from swimming. This was complimented by compelling evidence on failing sewage treatment works gathered by River Action’s Campaigns Analyst Dr Samir Seddougui. Their letters were accompanied by an attachment outlining the relevant legal procedures, prepared by our Head of Legal, Emma Dearnaley, alongside lawyers from Leigh Day.

Using statutory nuisance as a campaigning tool is powerful, as it uses the law to allow local people to have their voice heard. This is useful where previously the community’s lived experience of the sewage crisis has been dismissed and sidelined. The campaign challenges this by forcing responsibility back into a system where regulation repeatedly stalls and accountability slips. The process creates formal records, duties, and pressure. It is slow, procedural, and intentional — not a protest stunt – however, it has the potential to make substantial change.

Statutory nuisance as a form of protest offers a unique way to demand action, however, when used to speak for nature, we must consider its limits. Statutory nuisance is unapologetically human-centred. The law exists to protect residents from activities that interfere with their health, comfort, or enjoyment of their home or local environment, and it places a duty on local councils to investigate and act when such interference occurs. It fundamentally is concerned with human’s experience of the environment, not the environment’s own experience. The river has no legal standing without humans.

This is not to say this is the perception across the world. The Whanganui river is often cited in nature writing as an example of a river with legal personhood. The river was granted personhood in 2017 after 140 years of negotiations fought by the Māori group of Whanganui, who consider the river as their ancestor. With personhood status, if the Whanganui river is harmed, the law recognises this as a harm to the Maori group. The group and the river are one connected being. In the UK, we do not have the same recognitions in place; in legal standing what harms nature does not harm us. Lawfully, we are not one and the same with the world around us.

Despite these legal limitations, the people who wrote nuisance complaints are deeply connected to the Thames and its tributaries. They are rowers, swimmers, house boat dwellers, kayakers, and citizen scientists. They rely on the river for community, exercise, business, as well as spiritual and mental wellbeing. And despite its limitations, the campaign is genuinely exciting, as a community-led action, with people taking initiative to use law as something real; not a distant inaccessible tool, but something that propels momentum and possibility for change.

This connection is reflected in the experience of campaigner Blake Ludwig, who took part in the Make A Nuisance campaign on the River Kennet:

“We have to see that water isn’t simply a dead material for us to use at our leisure, or as a waste receptacle… Through collecting evidence and building a nuisance complaint, I’ve come to understand how invisible pollution can be — and how only long-term relationship, observation and care allow us to really see what’s happening to our rivers.”

What the system of nuisance complaints tells us is that we live in a climate which recognises people and nature as separate. We have not retained the historic kinship between human and nature which the Maori people have. In our social system a person is legible through documents, numbers, and certificates. Personhood is administrative. Within this system, the river’s voice is only heard when it passes through us. So we therefore have a duty to nature to ensure that nature’s voice is heard.

And how do we do that authentically? By knowing a river as we might know a family member, and caring for it as we would a friend. And all the while recognising that a river is not human at all. A river is a living system with its own rhythms, flow, and resilience, deserving of respect not because it resembles us, but because it exists in its own right.

When I talk about sewage pollution, I am often asked by wild swimmers if they should stop their beloved sport. The answer is no. Not because the dangers aren’t present, they are, but because connection matters. By spending time and interacting with the river, we are able to create a deep and intimate relationship with the river.

The power of the Make a Nuisance campaign has come from people who live entwined, not separate, from the river. So the work, for now, is slow, careful and continuous. Keep swimming, keep connecting, keep being with the river. Speak to the river, and the river may well speak through you.

Sir Steve Redgrave Joins Communities in Legal Action Against Thames Water Pollution

Posted on 2 December, 20253 December, 2025 by Molly Allen

Thames Water knew over 90 sewage sites were failing as 13 communities and Sir Steve Redgrave launch UK’s first coordinated sewage pollution statutory nuisance action

We can today reveal, using documents submitted by Thames Water to Ofwat, that 93 sewage treatment works and water pumping stations the company promised to upgrade remain unfinished, leaving rivers across the Thames catchment exposed to continued pollution and dangerously high levels of bacteria.

With Thames Water failing to act, 13 communities from Buckinghamshire and Elmbridge to Hackney, Hammersmith & Fulham, Oxford and Richmond to Wokingham are now fighting back, sending statutory nuisance complaints to their local authorities to demand accountability and urgent action.

This marks the launch of the first coordinated statutory nuisance action of its kind, with communities uniting to ask local authorities to hold Thames Water legally accountable for the impact of sewage pollution. Rowing legend Sir Steve Redgrave and Olympic champion Imogen Grant MBE have also submitted nuisance complaints, joining residents from across the Thames. It follows a nuisance complaint brought by Matt Staniek of Save Windermere after pollution by United Utilities harmed England’s most famous lake.

Communities fighting back

With Thames Water failing to act, residents across the Thames catchment are turning to the law to challenge sewage pollution in the River Thames. communities in Buckinghamshire, Elmbridge, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Oxford, Richmond upon Thames, South Oxfordshire, Southwark, Vale of White Horse, Wandsworth, West Berkshire and Wokingham have today sent statutory nuisance complaint letters to their local authorities based on the sewage pollution experienced in their area, asking them to make Thames Water take decisive action to stop its sewage pollution that is causing harm along the River Thames.

River Action and these communities believe that discharges of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from infrastructure operated by Thames Water constitute a statutory nuisance under section 79 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

This type of complaint should trigger an investigation by the local authority to determine whether a statutory nuisance has occurred or is occurring and take reasonable steps to investigate the issues raised. If sewage is found to cause a statutory nuisance, an abatement notice — a legal order that would require Thames Water to stop causing the nuisance or face criminal prosecution – is required to be served on Thames Water by the local authority.

A statutory nuisance is an activity that unreasonably interferes with peoples’ use or enjoyment of land and is likely to cause prejudice or injury to health – for example, through noise, smells or other forms of harm. A ‘nuisance’ is described in case law as being a state of affairs which is not something “objectively a normal person would find it reasonable to have to put up with”. In this case, residents argue that sewage pollution from Thames Water’s failing sites and infrastructure has made rivers unsafe, disrupting recreation, sport, local businesses and everyday enjoyment.

Real-world examples underline the risks:

A 16-year-old rower from the Henley Rowing Club became unwell after training on the river; tests confirmed he had contracted E. coli. His illness coincided with his GCSE exams, preventing him from revising and sitting some papers.
In West Berkshire, a kayaker capsized and became unwell over the following days.
At Taggs Island, five children fell ill after playing in the River Thames near Hurst Park.

These complaints seek to hold Thames Water legally accountable for the harm and interference caused by sewage to riverside communities, recreation, business and public health.

Community member from Oxford, delivering her statutory nuisance complaint letter.

Calls for intervention

We are calling on local authorities to investigate these complaints and for the Government to apply to the High Court to put Thames Water into special administration to prioritise investment in sewage infrastructure and protect bill payers and the river that sustains our economy.

Our Head of Campaigns, Amy Fairman said:

“This action is about fixing sewage pollution in the Thames for good, not compensating people for past failings.

Each local authority must investigate these complaints and, where statutory nuisance is found to exist, issue an abatement notice and take enforcement action. Councils now have a legal duty to act.

Despite extensive evidence of performance failures and being on the brink of insolvency, the Government has not taken steps to place Thames Water into a special administration regime, a process that would allow for urgent infrastructure upgrades, put public interest ownership and governance first, and protect communities and the environment.

River Action is calling on the Secretary of State for the Environment to act now: the Government must take temporary control of Thames Water to end the era of private profiteering and stop polluting the river.”

Dirty discharges and dangerous bacteria levels

At several sites, it’s not just sewage overflows that are causing pollution but also the quality of treated effluent which also presents a direct threat to public health.

At Henley-on-Thames Treatment Works, Thames Water’s own data – obtained by River Action from Thames Water via an Environmental Information Request – shows E. coli levels in treated effluent reaching 28,000 cfu/100 ml in September 2023 – more than 30 times the safe limit for designated bathing water. This toxic cocktail is a direct threat to swimmers, rowers, anglers, and wildlife.

A swan swims through pollution and plant debris on the River Thames © Getty Images

Case study: Newbury Sewage Treatment Works (STW)

Newbury STW discharges into the River Kennet, within a globally rare chalk-stream catchment. The river is designated as a Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Thames Water classifies Newbury STW as one of Thames Waters top 26 most polluting sites (Ofwat, May 2025).

Sewage spill hours increased 240% between 2019 and 2024, rising from 482 hours to 1,630 hours.
Over five years, the site has released almost 4,000 hours of untreated or partially treated sewage.
An upgrade was scheduled under Price Review 24 (PR24), while the linked London Road Pumping Station, due to be completed under PR19, remains unfinished.

Citizen science monitoring (22 September – 24 November 2025)

Local citizen scientist Blake Ludwig monitored E. coli levels in treated effluent at the Newbury Sewage Treatment Works and upstream sites along the River Kennet and Kennet & Avon Canal between 22 September and 24 November 2025, conducting 9 tests in total. All testing was conducted using a WHO-approved Fluidion Alert One E.Coli tester, in coordination with Planet Ocean.

Three highest readings: 2,650, 2,271, and 1,945 cfu/100ml – far above the safe swimming limit
Average E. coli level across all tests: 1,076 cfu/100ml

For an inland bathing site, the Environment Agency considers E. coli levels above 900 cfuCFU/100 mL to be poor and unsafe for swimming.

Local citizen scientist, Blake Ludwig, delivering his letter.

Citizen science monitoring (11 June 2024 – 16 September 2025)

Complementing the findings at Newbury, Citizen Scientists Buckinghamshire monitored E.coli levels in the treated effluent discharged from Little Marlow Sewage Treatment Works (Bourne End) between June 2024 and September 2025. The water quality testing groups conducted 14 tests on the final outflow.

6 out of 14 results exceeded 10,000 cfu/100ml
2 out of 14 results measured 1,000 cfu/100ml
9 out of 14 results were above 7,000 cfu/1200ml

As with the Newbury dataset, these readings sit well beyond the Environment Agency’s inland bathing-water threshold of 900 cfu/100ml, again indicating conditions that are unsafe for recreational water use.

Peaceful protest at Thames Water HQ

Campaigners from across the catchment staged a peaceful demonstration outside Thames Water’s headquarters, Clear Water Court in Reading. Many of those taking part were the very people who have submitted statutory nuisance complaints, and they carried placards naming the boroughs and districts involved. Groups from across the Thames basin joined the action.

Campaigners outside Thames Water’s HQ in Reading

Community groups and rowing legends join the action

Laura Reineke, founder of Friends of the Thames and a resident of Henley-on-Thames, said: “People here are fed up with living beside a river that’s being treated like an open sewer. We’ve submitted a nuisance complaint to our local authority because what Thames Water is doing is unacceptable.

“To find that treated effluent leaving their plant here has contained E. coli at levels 30 times higher than what’s safe for bathing is shocking. Local residents are angry and determined to hold this company accountable for the damage it’s causing to our river and our community.”

International rowing legend Sir Steve Redgrave said:
“As someone who has spent my life on the water, I am appalled by the pollution that Thames Water continues to allow. That’s why I’m joining River Action and communities along the River Thames in taking action to hold this company to account. Our rivers should be safe for everyone. It is unacceptable that people are being forced to fight for clean, healthy waterways.”

Olympic rowing champion Imogen Grant MBE said:
“Rivers are our lifeblood, for sport, wildlife, and community, and it’s shocking to see them poisoned by untreated sewage time and time again. I have filed a nuisance claim with Wokingham because I’ve had enough of pollution putting me and other river users at risk. I stand with River Action to hold Thames Water accountable and protect the rivers we all rely on.”

Friends of the Thames, CEO, Laura Reineke outside Thames Water’s HQ in Reading

Notes to editor

This document, submitted by Thames Water to Ofwat, outlines the 93 improvement projects the company requested permission to carry over from PR19 to PR24. For ease of use, we have extracted the relevant data and displayed it in this document.

In response, Ofwat expressed concerns about non-delivery and whether customer protection is adequate. In this document it stated, “The company does not provide sufficient and convincing evidence that the proposed investment does not overlap with base activities or was not already sufficiently funded for delivery for the period 2020-2025 (PR19). It provides no evidence that non-delivery could have been mitigated.

“This enhancement request is for £172.99m within the water price control (out of a total £1,134m claim). There is a need for Thames Water to complete the outstanding PR19 WINEP schemes by 2030. The company has provided a short business case covering the total claim, but it provides no other supplementary evidence to explain the additional requested funding for ‘Water other’ WINEP drivers.

“The proposed funding covers additional investment for schemes under regulatory drivers including the Water Framework Directive (WFD), biodiversity and raw water deterioration. It also includes some capital maintenance costs to support scheme delivery. For capital maintenance, this is base expenditure rather than enhancement. For raw water deterioration, this was not an WINEP driver at PR19 for 2020-25 and should not attract additional enhancement funding under this category.

“Some of the reasons for non-delivery of the total WINEP enhancement claim are stated by the company as: cost increases over 2020 to 2025; the scale of the WINEP programme; under-funding in its PR19 final determination; new framework contractors and delays due to Covid. Many of these issues impact other companies equally and are within management control.”

In this correspondence from Ofwat to Thames Water, known as an enforcement order, the regulator explains that while the company can carry over the 93 projects for which funds were already allocated, it can only access an additional £250 million to upgrade these sites, projects that should have been completed during PR19. Ofwat also fined the water company £104.5 million for failure to upgrade these sites in PR19.

To date, 13 statutory nuisance letters have been submitted to local authorities across the River Thames catchment. They are: Buckinghamshire, Elmbridge, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow, Oxford, Richmond upon Thames, South Oxfordshire, Southwark, Vale of White Horse, Wandsworth, West Berkshire and Wokingham.

The Oxford Rivers Improvement Campaign used an Environmental Information Request (EIR) to obtain data on Newbury STW. The data show that sewage spill hours rose from 482 in 2019 to 1,630 in 2024, an increase of 240%. Over five years, the site discharged almost 4,000 hours of untreated or partially treated sewage. River Action used its analysis of this data to calculate these figures. You can view the calculations here.

Download stills and footage from the peaceful protest outside Thames Water HQ here.

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

Posted on 7 October, 202510 June, 2026 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:

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

Inflated Economics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cost of and case for special administration

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

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

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

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

References

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

Caution to Steve Reed: Don’t betray the public with Thames Water

Posted on 13 August, 202528 October, 2025 by Claire Birch

In response to recent developments, we have written to Environment Secretary Steve Reed to welcome recent steps to prepare for placing Thames Water into a Special Administration Regime. BUT we’ve warned that writing off Thames Water’s debts only to sell the company to another private foreign investor would be a profound betrayal of the public.

It follows news reports that the Government is preparing to take control of Thames Water, wipe its debts, and sell it to a Chinese infrastructure company, CKI.

READ THE LETTER

In the letter, we urge the Government to use Thames Water’s Special Administration Regime not as a prelude to another overseas takeover, but as an opportunity to restructure the utility so it is run for public benefit, transparency, and long-term environmental protection.

River Action’s Head of Campaigns Amy Fairman said:

“Writing off Thames Water’s debts only to sell it to another foreign investor would be a betrayal.

“This crisis is a chance to rebuild it for public benefit, not private profit. Labour campaigned hard during last year’s election on promises to get a grip on the water crisis and act tough on failing water companies. This is a chance to chart a new course, not repeat the mistakes of the past by selling to overseas buyers eyeing a bargain.

This is a moment for leadership, not short-term expediency. Running Thames Water for public benefit rather than private profit is the surest route to cleaner rivers and satisfying public demands. The Thames and its tributaries are a lifeline for millions – and their health is inseparable from the wellbeing of our environment, economy, and public health,”

The letter outlines the decades of failure that have left Thames Water in crisis: spiraling debt, chronic underinvestment in infrastructure, worsening pollution of rivers, and repeated breaches of environmental law.

Repeated changes of ownership – often to opaque overseas private investment groups – have consistently prioritised shareholder returns and high-cost debt over safe, clean water and the health of our waterways.

Our key demands to Government:

Rule out the sale of Thames Water to another foreign-owned private investor and ensure a public benefit ownership, investment and governance structure
Use the special administration process to fundamentally restructure Thames Water’s finances and operations to invest in infrastructure that will secure water and protect the environment
Ensure the public does not bail out private investors during the special administration regime and dispel the myth that Thames Water is worth tens of billions
Write-off the current high-interest debt and use Government-backed bonds to significantly lower the burden and attract low-risk, low return, long-term investors
Use the Special Administration Regime for Thames Water as an opportunity to design a permanent public benefit test model for water utilities

It’s clear that the public patience is exhausted and that repeating the same failed privatisation model would undermine trust further.

River Action launches legal challenge against the Government over Thames Water failures

Posted on 30 July, 202528 October, 2025 by Molly Allen

River Action launches legal challenge over Government’s failure to explain when it will trigger special administration for Thames Water

We have filed a legal claim over Environment Secretary Steve Reed’s failure to explain when he will trigger special administration for Thames Water and other failing water companies – despite having the legal mechanism to take action, serious breaches by Thames Water, rising harm to customers and rivers, and calls from the Independent Water Commission for a clearer policy.

Our legal challenge is simple: we say that the Environment Secretary has acted unlawfully by failing to have or publish a policy on when he will use his power to ask the High Court to put a water company in the Special Administration Regime (SAR) – a mechanism under existing legislation specifically designed to enable the government to take action to deal with failing water companies.

This comes amid the deepening crisis at Thames Water, which has repeatedly breached environmental law, mismanaged its finances, failed to invest adequately in infrastructure, and shattered investor confidence and customer trust. Thames Water is on the brink of collapse with £20 billion in debt and widely regarded as no longer investable, with customers and the environment paying the price.

Steve Reed as Environment Secretary or Ofwat as water regulator (with his approval) have the power under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to ask the High Court to place a water company in special administration on either financial or performance grounds.

Special administration is a temporary insolvency and restructuring process for companies that provide essential public services like water, energy or transport. It is designed to ensure continuity of service while the company is stabilised and restructured. There is a bespoke special administration regime for the water industry, created in 1991 and designed to prioritise customers and services, putting financial interests second. Where water companies are failing, special administration can provide better, fairer and more sustainable outcomes – with the major benefit that it gives the water company the ability to recover and refinance with the opportunity for funds to be redirected away from investor profits towards the urgent infrastructure improvements needed to solve the ongoing sewage crisis, all without exposing its customers and at little cost to the public purse. Yet special administration has never been used for the water industry.

Thames Water has breached its duties and violated its licence conditions, seriously and repeatedly. It is the clearest possible case for special administration.

River Action’s legal challenge

The judicial review is concerned with the legal requirement for the Environment Secretary to have a policy for when he will trigger special administration for water companies. The claim challenges two key failings by the Government:

Failure to publish a policy, breaching core public law duties.
Failure to develop a policy at all, breaching obligations under the Habitats Regulations and other planning and environmental law.

Special administration is not limited to insolvency. It can also be used to protect customers and the environment when a water company is failing to meet performance standards. Our claim focuses on the Government’s approach to triggering a performance-based special administration process.

Under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991, special administration can be triggered by a water company’s failure to meet performance standards and a breach of its statutory or licence duties in ways that are “serious enough to make it inappropriate for the company to continue to hold its licence”. We believe that Thames Water clearly meets this threshold and has done so for years.

Independent Water Commission on Special Administration

Last week, the Independent Water Commission, chaired by former Bank of England Deputy Governor Sir Jon Cunliffe said that “the policy around SAR assessment should be set out more clearly”. The Commission also said that “SAR should be a practical option for the regulator and government” and stressed the importance of water companies preparing a plan for SAR now.

A route to public benefit models

We believe that special administration represents the most effective and immediate means of addressing the failures within the water industry. We see special administration as the first step toward meaningful and necessary systemic reform including providing the opportunity for a shift to a public benefit model of water ownership, governance and financing, of the type seen successfully implemented across Europe.

We are calling for the urgent use of special administration procedures for Thames Water as a tool to stabilise and reset using public benefit principles, with other failing water companies to follow as necessary.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Water Industry Special Administration Regime (SAR)?

The Water Industry Special Administration Regime (SAR) was introduced in England and Wales under the Water Industry Act 1991, with detailed procedures governed by the Water Industry (Special Administration) Rules 2009 and a comprehensive modernisation of the regime in early 2024. The legislative intent behind this regime is to protect consumers, public health and the environment in the event that a regulated water or sewerage company becomes insolvent (an insolvency SAR) or fails to carry out its statutory functions or licensed activities to such an extent that it is inappropriate for it to continue to hold its appointment or licence (a performance SAR).

An application for special administration of a water company may only be made by the Secretary of State or Ofwat with the Secretary of State’s consent. This contrasts starkly with normal administration under the Insolvency Act 1986 which can be applied for by creditors, the company or a director.

Special administration allows the Government to:

Appoint independent special administrators;
Restructure failing companies and their debt (the focus of an insolvency SAR);
Restore and maintain performance standards (the focus of a performance SAR);
Ensure water and wastewater services continue without interruption.

Importantly, the special administration regime is designed to keep services running using the company’s own revenues – from ongoing customer bills – not taxpayer funding. It is intended as a mechanism for accountability and reform, not a bailout.

What are the details of the judicial review claim?

On 7 March 2025, we wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“SSEFRA”) to ask whether the SSEFRA or the SSEFRA’s ministers had given consideration to whether it would be appropriate to exercise their discretionary power to apply to the High Court to have Thames Water placed into special administration in light of the contraventions of its “principal duties” in accordance with section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

In response, the SSEFRA has refused to provide details of any such policy and has simply contended that there was no requirement to have a “written document or policy”.

Accordingly, we have three grounds of review:

Ground 1: Failure to publish a policy. The SSEFRA has a policy on the circumstances in which he will exercise his discretion pursuant to section 24 WIA and has acted unlawfully in failing to publish that policy.
Ground 2: Failure to have a policy. If, contrary to Ground 1, the SSEFRA does not have such a policy, that is in breach of Regulation 9(3) of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).
Ground 3: Failure to have a policy. If, contrary to Ground 1, the SSEFRA does not have such a policy, that is in breach of section 85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as amended by section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023.

We are seeking a mandatory order that SSEFRA either provides details of any policy or, if there is no policy, requires a policy to be developed and published.

Why does Thames Water need to be brought into Special Administration?

Persistent failures: Thames Water has a long record of breaching environmental, financial, and regulatory obligations.
Record fine: In May 2025, Thames Water was fined nearly £123 million by water regulator Ofwat for breaches of rules relating to its wastewater operations (£104.5 million) and breaches of rules relating to dividend payments (£18.2 million). This is the largest penalty Ofwat has ever issued.
Investor confidence collapsing: KKR, Thames Water’s preferred buyer, pulled out of negotiations leaving its various existing lenders as the only option. Thames Water’s creditors have reportedly demanded that the company and its management be granted immunity from prosecution for serious environmental crimes as a condition of their restructuring proposals, without which Thames Water has said it would not be “investable”.
Inflated cost claims: The Treasury has claimed placing Thames Water into special administration could cost up to £4 billion – with reports it told DEFRA that it would have to meet these costs from DEFRA’s annual budget totalling £4.6 billion. Independent experts such as Professor Ewan McGaughey and Professor Dieter Helm believe the £4 billion figure is overstated and politically driven, with the likely costs being much lower and likely to be recouped by the Government on exit from administration.

What is the Independent Water Commission’s view on Special Administration?

On 21 July 2025, Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission published its 88 final recommendations to the UK and Welsh governments for the reform of the water sector.

Two recommendations were made in relation to the special administration regime:

Recommendation 46: The regulator in England and Wales should continue to adopt an evidence-based process to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether it would be appropriate for a water company to transition to an alternative ownership model where they request to do so or following a Special Administration Regime.
Recommendation 59: The regulator in England and Wales should develop and consult on a framework for ensuring companies are prepared for SAR.

In relation to Recommendation 59, the Commission said:

“793. The Commission believes the SAR should be a practical option for the regulator and government but that it should be very much a last resort. However well prepared, a SAR would be a major exercise which carries some risk of disruption to the company’s operation. The Commission notes that lowering the threshold for SAR would increase costs to customers through higher financing given the increased risk on investors. The Commission is also mindful of the risks in creating automatic triggers – experience in insolvency and similar regimes in other sectors, including financial services, is that conditions and circumstances of individual cases vary widely and cannot be anticipated. There is a need for broad, judgement based tests within a clear policy, that has been set out in advance, of how the regulator will assess failing companies against these tests, the factors it will take into account and the indicators it will consider. In the Commission’s view the two current tests for entry into SAR effectively balance objective and subjective factors and include an appropriate level of judgement. It believes, however, that the policy around making the SAR assessment should be set out more clearly.

794. The Commission believes that further practical steps can be taken to ensure the SAR is a credible, but low probability, threat. In particular, as part of the SAR policy set out above, the regulator should develop and consult on a framework for ensuring companies prepare a plan for SAR. This should consider what the practical barriers to SAR might be, and how these can be mitigated in advance.”

Although the Commission’s recommendations focus on the regulator, its comments around the need for a clearer policy for special administration logically apply to both Ofwat as regulator and SSEFRA, as the two authorities with the power to petition the High Court for a special administration order.

Thames Water is Gaslighting the Public – Here’s the Truth

Posted on 10 April, 202528 October, 2025 by Molly Allen

By Henry Shepherd, Community Campaigns Coordinator, River Action

Twisting and turning more than the Thames itself

As the boat race weekend approaches, Thames Water has gone on the offensive – not to clean up the Thames, but to spin the facts and put the public at risk.

Yesterday, we revealed that our 40+ water tests along the Boat Race course over the past month show the Thames would be classified as ‘poor water quality’ according to the Environment Agency regulations, with 29.5% of our samples exceeding safe limits for entering the water. This is despite it being the driest March in over 100 years….if they can’t keep the river clean in these conditions, how can they be trusted?

In a response statement, Thames Water attempted to cite ‘excellent’ water quality results, referencing data from a boat club in Hammersmith.

But here’s what they didn’t tell you.

That testing wasn’t done with Thames Water. The testing was carried out by our friends at Fulham Reach Boat Club and was actually funded by River Action. Thames Water conveniently cherry-picked a subset of this data, and, unbeknownst to them, we funded it!

Additionally, the data they selected came from a single weekly test at only one point along the course (4 tests in total). In contrast, our data, revealed yesterday, consisted of over 40 tests across the entire length of the Boat Race course from 10th March.

In short: Thames Water carefully curated the one stat that suited their PR and presented distorted information, putting public health at risk.

Thames Water simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth about basic water quality risks, and have once again willingly put river users’ health at risk, prioritising misleading headlines rather than fixing pipes.

The 2025 boat race course with River Action test sites

The Kew cover-up

It gets worse.

On Tuesday, we were alerted to the possibility of a burst sewage pipe near Kew Bridge, with sewage reportedly spilling directly into the river just upstream of the Boat Race finish line.

We immediately called Thames Water’s pollution hotline to enquire about the issue, but were assured there were no problems to report. However, after investigating the site ourselves, we found Thames Water vans and huge sewage tankers stationed on the riverbank at Kew Bridge. After speaking with the crew, they confirmed the incident. At that time, it appeared that sewage was simply entering the river, just a mile upstream of the Boat Race finish line.

Thames Water’s initial denial of the problem highlights their true priorities: managing headlines, not public health. How much sewage has been allowed to flow into the river without the public being informed?

This issue is compounded by a separate sewage pipe even closer to the Boat Race finish line, downstream at Kew Transfer. The monitoring system for that pipe had been offline since January 19th, mysteriously coming back online the day we published our testing results (how convenient?) This means that no one knows how much sewage has been flowing into the river unchecked from that sewage overflow.

When people, including hundreds of junior rowers, and professional boat race crews, rely on this critical information to stay safe, it’s not just unacceptable – it’s dangerous.

Thames Water vans and sewage tankers near Kew Bridge on Tuesday

A failure of infrastructure, regulation, and honesty

With almost no rain recently, this pollution isn’t just a result of outdated infrastructure and unmonitored storm overflows. It reveals a much deeper issue: that even after treatment, final discharged waste water from sewage works is still far from safe. Treated effluent has no legal limit on E. Coli levels, so it frequently contains high levels of dangerous contaminants, including fecal matter and bacteria. The treatment process used by Thames Water, though permitted, falls far short of the standards needed to protect public health and the environment.

The real issue lies in the regulatory framework – unless a waterway has “bathing water status,” is home to a fish farm, or serves as a place of abstraction, there are no legal obligations to ensure that treated sewage is free from harmful substances. That’s why we’re campaigning for sewage treatment plants to be upgraded, better water quality monitoring, and enforceable limits on water quality – something that bathing water status would require.

But even with this, the Tideway Tunnel – which Thames Water touts as the solution – won’t protect us. The Tunnel is designed to manage storm overflows, not the continuous discharge of untreated or poorly treated sewage. It’s a temporary fix for a much deeper, systemic problem, and only reduces downstream pollution, which for half of the Boat Race course is irrelevant. The other half of the course – upstream of Hammersmith – is exposed to all the sewage pollution flowing along the Thames accumulated from the upstream catchment.

It is no surprise that all our tests taken upstream of the Tideway Tunnel show high levels of E.coli. This is the end of the Boat Race course and why we implore the Oxford and Cambridge teams not to throw their cox in the water. It is not safe.

Time for accountability

This isn’t just about rowing. This is about whether people can trust water companies to keep them safe. Thames Water has failed across the board:

They haven’t invested in modern monitoring systems.
They’ve lobbied for billions in bailouts while paying bonuses to executives.
They’ve allowed infrastructure to rot – and lied about it when questioned.

We believe Thames Water has forfeited its social licence to operate. It’s time to put the company into Special Administration, restructure it in the public interest, and end the cycle of pollution-for-profit.

River Action will continue exposing Thames Water’s spin – not just this week, but every time they attempt to dodge accountability. This is your river, not theirs.

“Don’t Throw the Cox In”: Sir Steve Redgrave & River Action Warn of Failed Water Quality Standards

Posted on 9 April, 202528 October, 2025 by Molly Allen

River Action warns university boat race stretch fails basic water quality standards – Sir Steve Redgrave calls for urgent clean-up

As the iconic Boat Race between Oxford and Cambridge approaches this weekend, river campaigners have warned that water quality for the stretch of the River Thames set to host the event would be classified as ‘poor’ under environmental regulations if it were designated as a ‘bathing water’ site. New testing on the course from River Action raises fresh concerns about water quality, with rowing legend Sir Steve Redgrave backing calls for urgent action to clean up the river.

While wet weather often exacerbates pollution through increased sewage discharges, recent conditions tell a different story. Since River Action’s E.coli testing started on 10th March, there has been just 1 day of rain, yet the river champions found that 29.5% of samples exceeded safe limits for entering the water, almost three times the threshold for bathing waters rated ‘poor’. River Action worked alongside Fluidion and Planet Ocean to do the testing whilst using the Alert One system. Fludion further validated the results.

Campaigners highlight that treated wastewater from sewage treatment plants, which currently face no legal limits on E.coli levels, is a major but overlooked contributor to the pollution of the River Thames.

Our Senior Communities Coordinator, Chloe Peck testing for E-Coli on the River Thames

Paying Twice for Polluted Water?

Revealed: Out-of-service sewage overflow monitor on water used for the Boat Race

Despite public outrage, the construction of the Tideway Tunnel (which won’t resolve upstream pollution), a £3bn financial bailout plan, and Thames Water executives receiving massive salaries and bonuses, the company has failed to maintain its ageing infrastructure. Regulators have also failed to hold them accountable.

Immediately upstream of the boat race finishline, the monitoring system on the combined sewage overflow pipe at Kew (Kew Transfer) has been offline since 17 January, undermining the legal requirement for all sewage outfalls to be monitored. It is not known how much this pipe may have been discharging sewage into the Thames, near to the boat race finish line.

Campaigners are now demanding that Thames Water be taken back into public hands through Special Administration, branding the failing company a ‘busted flush.’

River Action’s Head of Communities, Erica Popplewell, said:

“The Mayor of London’s vision for clean and healthy rivers is simply a pipe dream without systematic reform of the water industry and its regulators. Right now, if the stretch of the Thames used for the Boat Race were an official bathing site it would be graded poor, the lowest possible rating. The government’s own advice for such water is ‘do not swim.’ So, we strongly suggest that the winning team on Sunday think twice before throwing their cox in the Thames.”

“We would also urge all rowers to follow the ‘Guidance for Rowing When Water Quality is Poor’ safety guidelines to mitigate risk. The Boat Race should be about sporting excellence—not about worrying if you’ll get sick from being dunked – and attracting people to take up water sports as a healthy activity.

“The public demands Thames Water and regulators act now to improve sewage treatment infrastructure. Thames Water has profited from pollution for years whilst the Government have failed to enforce the law. It’s time to refinance the company without burdening bill payers and end pollution-for-profit. The decades-long water industry privatisation experiment has been a disaster. Thames Water should be put into Government hands and operated for public benefit. That process could start tomorrow with the right political will by putting Thames Water into Special Administration and restructuring the company.”

Erica Popplewell at the River Ver last month giving an interview for BBC News on how Thames Water’s sewage releases have impacted the Chalk Stream

Sir Steve Redgrave leads calls from the rowing community for action:

Leading figures, including Sir Steve Redgrave, are demanding urgent intervention to protect river users, including competitors in Sunday’s race.

“It’s a real worry that in 2025, unsafe water quality in the Thames is still a concern, Rowers, river users, and the public deserve better.”

Olympic champion rower Imogen Grant added:

“As rowers, we train on these waters every day, and the health and climate risks are deeply concerning. It’s unacceptable that we have to compete on a river with such an unavoidable threat to health”

Last month, Sir Steve Redgrave handed in a letter to Secretary of State for the Environment, addressing the need for urgent action to address the river’s pollution.

Thames Water dodging accountability

Thames Water, responsible for London’s wastewater, continues to evade responsibility. Instead of prioritising infrastructure upgrades, the company:

Went to the High Court to beg for £3bn to avoid going bust, while rewarding executives with excessive bonuses.
Allows unchecked raw sewage discharges, despite mounting public and political pressure.
Fails to invest in sustainable solutions, leaving the Thames in environmental freefall.

“Thames Water is a failing company, propped up by creditors while customers pay for a crappy service—literally,” added Erica Popplewell from River Action. “We need urgent reform—this is a scandal.”

With the Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, underway and due to report its recommendations in the summer, campaigners demand an end to the broken privatisation model and a complete regulatory overhaul to stop the destruction of UK rivers. Watch River Action’s water commission themed animated film – ‘Water: A Story of Hope’ – narrated by Deborah Meaden.

Athlete safety at risk

Boat Race organisers are aware of water quality concerns on the Thames, making safety a priority. British Rowing, The Rivers Trust, and River Action are ensuring competitors are informed of risks.

Participants have received ‘Guidance for Rowing When Water Quality is Poor’ safety guidelines.

Time to act

River Action urges policymakers, regulators, and the public to take immediate action. Thames Water must be held accountable, and tougher regulations enforced to prevent further environmental destruction.

“This isn’t just about rowing—it’s about the future of our rivers and the communities that rely on them,” says Ms Popplewell from River Action. “We cannot let water companies continue to get away with this.”

To help change the future of our waterways, you can make your voice heard by responding to the Water commission’s call to evidence. We’ve provided guidance for each question to help you get started.

Sewage Spill Duration Hits Record High in 2024

Posted on 27 March, 202528 October, 2025 by Molly Allen

2024 Sewage Scandal: New Data, Same Dirty Rivers

The Environment Agency (EA) has released its latest Event Duration Monitoring (EDM) data, revealing that sewage spills in 2024 remain alarmingly high. Despite some claims of progress, the figures show that little has changed – with sewage pollution still devastating Britain’s rivers, lakes, and coastlines.

Sewage Crisis by the Numbers

The latest data highlights:

Total spill duration hit record high – Sewage spilled into waterways for 3.6 million hours
Slight drop in average spills per overflow – While the number of spills per overflow have fallen slightly, there have been a shocking 450,000 spills which is 50% higher than 2022
Highest number of monitored overflows – With more EDM devices commissioned, the scale of the problem is becoming clearer.

Same Scandal, Another Year

River Action’s CEO, James Wallace condemned the figures, calling them further proof of a broken and corrupt water industry:

“We sound like a broken record—but that’s because nothing has changed. The water industry is still broken. A year on from last year’s catastrophic pollution figures, the true scale of the UK’s water crisis is only now coming to light, thanks to increased real-time monitoring. The numbers are staggering: 3.6 million hours of sewage spills from 450 thousand discharges. That’s equivalent to 412 continuous years of sewage polluting our rivers, lakes and seas”

He specifically called out Thames Water, the country’s largest water company, which discharged raw sewage for a shocking 298,081 hours with a 51% increase in sewage spills hours since 2023.

“Yet, despite this environmental catastrophe, they’ve been given the green light to saddle a company on the brink of collapse with an additional £3 billion in debt.”

Unmonitored Failings and Toxic Effluent

The CEO also warned that the true scale of the problem is even worse, as much of the industry’s pollution goes unreported:

“About 30% of Thames Water’s infrastructure is unmapped, meaning vast sections remain a mystery to both the company and regulators. On top of this, most sewage treatment permits don’t require the removal of dangerous pathogens, meaning even ‘treated’ effluent still poses a huge threat to public health and wildlife.”

The Public Pays the Price

Despite the ongoing sewage scandal, regulators have signed off on massive bill increases for customers, forcing them to pay for the industry’s failings.

“Instead of tackling this scandal, the water regulator has signed off massive bill increases for the public, while water company bosses continue to pocket obscene salaries and investors reap profits while costly debts soar. A third of my water bill services junk debt. It’s madness.”

River Action Calls for Special Administration and Reform

River Action is calling on the Government to place Thames Water into special administration to prevent further financial and environmental damage. The Water Commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, must also deliver a radical new model for the industry—one that prioritises people and the planet over profit.

“Rather than fixing leaky pipes and investing in infrastructure, these companies have treated our rivers and coastlines like an open sewer—and regulators have let them get away with it. The Water Commission must put an end to this failed privatisation experiment and force real reform of the industry and regulators. We need to learn from our European neighbours, and use finance and governance models that put people and nature before investors.”

Enough Excuses—It’s Time for Action

The latest sewage spills data proves that the water industry continues to fail the public and the environment. With the Water Commission’s recommendations looming, the UK stands at a crossroads:

Will we continue to tolerate pollution-for-profit, or

Will we demand a fair, public-first water system that protects our rivers and coastlines?

The public deserves more than excuses—it’s time for genuine reform.

Campaigns

Latest

Justice for Lough Neagh

Toxic Sludge