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

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

‘It’s the water, stupid’ – the big challenge for any new government

By Martin Salter, Angling Trust Head of Policy

‘When the world ends, someone will have daubed on a wall somewhere “It was the water, stupid” in a parody of Bill Clinton’s famous campaign reminder to his team to remain focused on what matters most.

As an angler I’ve lived all my life in, on or beside water. The rivers, oceans, lakes and ponds that have been my obsession for more than half a century are dying before our eyes. Either sucked dry by our relentless demand for more of this most precious natural resource or engulfed in a tidal wave of sewage and slurry, often both. Short sighted stupidity has been the hallmark of national water policy since before the Industrial Revolution. The current situation is little short of alarming:

  • Only 14% of our water bodies are now in good ecological condition.
  • In 2023 a total of 579,581 sewage spills recorded from storm overflows in
  • England and Wales for a total duration of 4.6 million hours.
  • Wastewater infrastructure replacement rate for pipes and main sewers is runnin at 0.05% of the network per annum – 10 times longer than the European average – meaning sewers with a 100-year life expectancy are meant to last for 2,000 years.
  • Environment Agency numbers show that in just the last year at least 120,000 fis were killed in sewage-related pollution incidents – the true figure will likely have been much higher.
  • The Atlantic salmon is now officially classified as an endangered species in the UK.

With a general election just a week away the condition of our rivers and waterways is higher up the political agenda than it has ever been. This follows years of relentless pressure from energised campaign groups such as Surfers Against Sewage, Angling Trust & Fish Legal, The Rivers Trust, Wildfish, River Action and many angling and local groups across the country, ably supported by celebrity angling activists like Feargal Sharkey, James Murray and Paul Whitehouse. Whilst it’s pleasing for campaigners like me to see our chosen cause front and centre of political debate, what is less encouraging is the failure of all political parties to acknowledge the depth and scale of the problem or to apply any serious thinking as to what needs to be done.

Last year over 579,000 sewage spills were recorded from storm overflows in England and Wales

Soundbites won’t fix our rivers and seas, but here’s 12 things that will make a difference if we elect a government with the guts to do what’s necessary.

My local water company, Thames Water, provides my three-bedroomed, semi-detached house in Reading with clean, drinkable water for a little over £1 a day. Absurdly, I can also use this heavily-treated liquid to water my garden, wash my car, and to flush my toilet. Speaking of which, my bodily waste is also taken away and allegedly treated before being discharged as effluent back into the same river system from which it came. That same pound will scarcely buy a bottle of water in a supermarket, or a glass of the stuff with added bubbles in a restaurant, yet people regularly hand over wads of cash without a second thought for both, even though what comes out of their taps costs almost nothing.

Water for almost nothing is no basis on which to build public policy about a basic resource on which all life depends, human, animal, bird or fish. Water needs to become as political in Britain as it is in other countries where living conditions are far harsher. Look behind many of the conflicts and tensions in the world today and what do you find? Conflict over water. Too much of it, causing sea levels to rise as we fail to heed the warnings of climate change and more of the earth’s surface becomes uninhabitable. Too
little of it, as warming temperatures turn once productive regions into searing dust bowls, causing millions of our fellow human beings to begin a giant migration in search of livable land.

In 2021, my organisation jointly published a report looking at the sheer scale of the investment backlog facing the water industry. Called ‘Time to Fix the Broken Water Sector’, it exposed the ticking timebomb at the heart of the UK’s wastewater infrastructure that threatens the health of almost every river and stream in the land. The key finding were:

  • A £10 billion investment funding gap over the last 10 years.
  • The declining condition of rivers and streams due to increased sewage spills every year.
  • The absurd expectation of a 2,000-year lifetime for sewage pipes and other infrastructure.
  • Failure to build any new reservoirs in the south-east since 1976 despite a 3 million population increase and huge projected growth in house building.
  • Lack of investment in water supply has seen excessive groundwater abstraction drying up some chalk streams altogether and damaging many other rivers.
  • The impossibility of delivering commitments in the Government’s own 25 Year
  • Environment Plan and our legal obligation under the Water Framework Directive.
  • Failure of both the Government and OFWAT to heed the promises in the 2011 water white paper, or indeed the warnings from the National Infrastructure
  • Commission and the National Audit Office, about the pressing need for investment in water and sewerage systems to address the challenges of climate change and population growth.
  • The prospect of severe drought events causing parts of southern England to run out of water within 20 years.
  • The consequences of failing to invest in water infrastructure that will cost more in the long term – £40 billion versus £21 billion, and thousands of jobs.

Much of this sorry state was triggered by the politicians’ wish to kick the can down the road rather than face up to the looming water crisis. And behind all of this has been the thoroughly useless regulator OFWAT whose former Chief Executive and previous water industry fat cat, Johnson Cox, promised in 2017 – ‘a decade of declining water bills.’ He did this at a time when OFWAT had neither the engineering nor environmental expertise to make these judgements, unless, of course, you didn’t give a fig for the environmental consequences. As a result, the price limits were set so low that under-investment was inevitable, making a bad situation worse.

Cover of the ‘Time to Fix the Broken Water Sector’ document – download the full report

It is patently absurd to have two regulators allegedly overseeing the water industry. You can’t separate the consequences of economic regulation (OFWAT) from the impacts on the water environment (Environment Agency). The consequences of the OFWAT investment roadblock are plain to see. Here are a few examples:

  • OFWAT directly cut planned investment in PR19 (between 2020-24) by £6.7 billion (or £1.34bn each year). They even boasted about the size of investment they had prohibited water companies from making.
  • OFWAT held down bills below inflation for over a decade, removing around £11 billion from investment that should have been ring-fenced for improvements.
  • Allowing bills to increase with inflation over the last decade would have provided more for investment, which could have been ring-fenced for the most urgent projects. This would have been the equivalent of sufficient funding for up to half a dozen reservoirs or meeting overflow targets five years earlier.
  • OFWAT decisions overturned. Four companies successfully appealed their PR19 decisions to the Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) who ruled as follows to:
  • Restore £7 million for Yorkshire Water to cut overflow spills, deliver wastewater upgrades, and the protection of tens of thousands of properties in Hull against flooding.
  • Restore £18.3 million for Northumbrian Water to prevent 365,000 properties in
  • Essex being cut off for a potentially extended period.
  • Protect £40 million investment in strategic water interconnection by Anglian Water, rejecting Ofwat’s decision that would have reduced the capacity of the interconnection pipes.
  • Restore £ 5 million for Anglian to increase its sludge capacity to minimise the operational resilience risk around their ability to deal with increased volumes.

OFWAT has clearly shown not to be fit for purpose. It should be abolished in favour of a publicly accountable single water regulator alongside a complete reform of the management and rebuilding of the UK’s water resources to deliver clean and plentiful water and wastewater infrastructure fit to meet the challenges of climate change and a growing population, without further damaging the environment.

OFWAT’s rejection of necessary investment has directly caused problems. For example:

  • The whole industry was denied sufficient funding for leakage improvements over more than a decade.
  • They refused almost all of five English and Welsh companies’ climate resilience proposals to fund wastewater capacity upgrades, cutting the budget from £403 million to £16.4 million. This stopped £387 million of investment that would have allowed a half-decade head start on the storm overflows programme while also reducing sewer flooding.

Given the scale of both the environmental and economic challenge posed by a failing water sector with a crumbling infrastructure, the next government has little choice but to introduce primary legislation to abolish the two regulator model and overhaul the entire regulatory oversight of the industry to put environmental needs front and centre in a complete sector reset.

When water was privatised in 1989, the new companies were able to acquire public assets that were completely debt free. Thirty-five years later, companies like Thames Water are now a staggering £15 billion in debt and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. A succession of private owners levered this debt mountain to strip out more than £7 billion in dividends to shareholders whilst paying eye-watering bonuses to top executives as a perverse reward for presiding over operational failure and turning a
blind eye to financial sharp practice. Vampire owners like Macquarie should never have been allowed to mortgage their company’s balance sheets to fund excessive dividends. OFWAT could and should have prevented it.

Every piece of this scandal took place right under the nose of OFWAT, whose senior directors see no contradiction in taking highly paid jobs in the same companies they are supposed to be regulating only the month before.

The next government needs a new Water Industry Act to either create entirely new community interest entities to operate the water infrastructure or, at the very least, to correct the gaping loopholes in the current legislation that allow public assets and vital public resource to be traded like Bitcoin irrespective of the looming threats to both the economy and the environment.

The EA has been systematically hollowed out by a 57% cutback in its resources since 2010 turning from the bulldog it should be into the ineffective lapdog it’s now become. Enforcement rarely occurs and when it does it can take years to bring polluters to court. Only a minority of reported fish kills will even trigger a visit from Agency staff who are now simply spread too thin to be effective.

The organisation has suffered from poor leadership and is massively risk averse at a time when environmental stakeholders and the public at large are looking to it to take tough action in defence of our rivers and waterways. The Environment Agency is now under new leadership. The next government must give them the resources to do the job, and make it clear it must hold polluters to account, and ensure the protecting the environment is its first, last, and only priority.

Only a minority of reported fish kills trigger a visit from Environment Agency staff

Part of any new deal for water must involve getting serious about planning and building control.  It must treat water as a national infrastructure priority. It’s crazy that planning for capital projects is squeezed into a five-year time frame. Something the nuclear industry, for example, would consider laughable. Reservoirs take years to plan, years to build and a long time to fill. We need long term investment planning if we are to be in anyway serious about resolving the challenges posed by declining water quality, climate change and population growth.

Here are some much needed reforms the new Environment Secretary should bring in immediately:

  • The National Infrastructure Commission should be instructed to set out the funding needed to:
    • Adapt to climate change
    • Restore infrastructure to a decent standard (e.g. by setting a target to
    • Match European average replacement rates by 2030)
    • Eliminate ecological harm
    • Eliminate all serious pollution incidents.

OFWAT (or its successor) should be required to deliver consent to match that level of funding or explain to Parliament why it hasn’t.

  • The new government should replace the clunky and little heeded Strategic Policy Statement for Water – currently the only way ministers can seek to influence the ‘independent’ regulator – with an Outcomes Direction to force them to take decisions in line with the priorities above.

While a new Water Act is necessary in the next Parliament these immediate measures would not require legislation. The current Water Industry Act just says that government should provide high-level guidance to the regulator. The problem is that it doesn’t.

With 85% of the world’s chalkstreams located in England, our stewardship of these precious assets is little short of shameful. These globally recognised, iconic ecosystems should be exemplars of a pristine aquatic environment. Instead, some are now used as open sewers and others are sucked dry through over abstraction. The Hertfordshire chalkstreams such as the Rib, Beane, and Ver have been reduced to a shadow of their former selves and now are often completely dewatered in stretches that were once
home to a thriving population of brown trout and coarse fish. Water companies like Affinity find it easier and cheaper to suck the chalk aquifers dry rather than invest in the storage of winter rainfall.

A basic tenet of any water policy must be to collect surplus in times of plenty to guard against economic and environmental damage in times of scarcity. A new Water Act must enshrine this principle into law.

It should also do the following:

  • Streamline the planning process for water resources projects so that small projects, including nature-based solutions, that interlink are approved as one project.
  • Amend Development Consent Order legislation so that non-potable water schemes are eligible. This is crucial for speeding up delivery of water transfers in and between regions.
  • Set a clear target for drought resilience standards as legal minimums (currently they are advisory).
  • Reform building regulations to ensure proper water efficient homes (including appliance labelling and minimum efficiency standards).
  • End the developers automatic right to connect into the local sewerage system if it lacks sufficient capacity to treat the effluent to standard. Force developers to pay for local upgrades required by their proposals.
A reduction in abstraction is vital to stop rivers running dry.

The UK is well behind other countries in using wastewater sensibly. For example, in Spain it’s a requirement to use treated wastewater on golf courses rather than abstracting fresh drinking water from the public supply.

We need to quickly follow what is already happening in Europe by using treated wastewater for agricultural irrigation and businesses. This would reduce demand and abstraction and could make a significant difference to river health thereby improving the environment for invertebrates and fish.

If having a combined rainwater and foul water sewerage system complete with storm overflows delivers ‘pollution by design’ the anomalies in the current permitting system create ‘pollution by permission’. The whole system needs a complete overhaul focusing on the health of the rivers and seas rather than treating them as dumping grounds of last resort when the system fails or trigger points are reached.

A particularly absurd anomaly sees water companies measured on what they keep in the pipe not what spills out of it. And the counting of storm overflow spills makes little sense as currently a five-minute spill is counted the same as one that lasts 12 hours. We need to move to assessed volumetric measures. It’s the volume of shit that needs counting, not the length of time a pipe might be dribbling. It is also ridiculous that pipes at the same sewage treatment site are individually permitted rather than permitting all the combined output with an incentive to maximise the treated flow.

The headline figures on sewage pollution are primarily around storm overflows, but just wait until the rising mains start crumbling as is already happening in the Thames Water region. That’s when we get total wipe out – when a problem becomes an environmental catastrophe. By 2050, in many of our water companies a majority of their rising mains will be over 100 years old and well past their sell by dates. In a few cases we are still relying on the brilliance of Victorian engineers to keep untreated sewage out of the
rivers. This is clearly not sustainable.

Of course, storm discharges are unacceptable, they are horrible and stink, but do a lot less damage than a fractured rising main sewer. Investment priorities need to be focused on reducing the most harm and this should include getting ammonia and phosphorus levels down in small streams in dry weather where the harm caused to fish and invertebrates is acute.

Anglers and local river groups invest millions of hours of volunteer time every year into the maintenance and improvement of water environments by clearing litter, restoring habitats and monitoring and fighting pollution. They see what is happening and are often ‘the canaries in the coal mine’. Currently the EA does nothing about discharges from septic tanks or from the growing army of live-aboard boaters. Local intelligence can help plug these gaps.

In 2022, in response to record levels of sewage discharges and the continued failure of the Environment Agency to properly monitor the threats to our rivers, the Angling Trust established a national Water Quality Monitoring Network of citizen volunteers to collect and analyse water samples in their areas. It has now engaged over 784 anglers from 278 clubs operating on 202 rivers across 68 catchments collecting around 5,600 individual samples. The results are alarming with 44% of samples exceeding recommended phosphate and nitrate levels, 200 incidents of algae blooms and 300 pollution incidents observed.

Citizen science clearly has a big role to play as we need much better data to make proper decisions but currently the EA won’t accept their results. This is absurd and we need the government to intervene and ensure a role for citizen volunteers alongside an accreditation scheme with independent verification.

Our Water Quality Monitoring Network shows citizen science has a big role to play in river management

The privatisation of our water industry has been a disaster and I doubt if any of the politicians likely to be in the hot seats in DEFRA have any real comprehension of the extent and scale of the problems they are about to inherit. But let’s not get too starry eyed about the record of the sector in public ownership for there really was no ‘golden era’ when the rivers flowed bright and clear and the taps kept running. In the 1950’s the tidal Thames in London was declared ‘biologically dead’ and further upstream around Staines, where I grew up, there were signs advising us not to bathe in its polluted waters.

There are now many rivers and streams that have been brought back from the brink primarily thanks to European legislation like the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, as well as tougher domestic controls. But rules and regulation require properly funded and empowered regulators with a clear sense of purpose that put the environment first. They also require an industry that is accountable and an infrastructure that it fit for purpose rather than the ‘creaking and leaking’ timebomb that is about to land on the desk of the new Secretary of State for the Environment.

By all means, play around with different ownership models that deliver proper accountability for this most vital of our public assets. But please, please don’t forget to fix the pipes.

Download a copy of our Angling Manifesto – Vote for a Fishing Future

Anti-sewage campaigners stage paddle-out protest on river next to Thames Water HQ

River users alarmed at water pollution caused by Thames Water sewage spills will tonight at 17:30 stage a paddle-out protest on the River Thames near to the water company’s HQ, in an action coordinated by River Action and Surfers Against Sewage.

It follows localised water quality testing by citizen scientists in the area revealing E.coli to be present in the water. The testing took place between 9th June and 19th June and found an average of 741 E.coli colony forming units (CFUs) per 100ml. This is considered just below poor water quality by the Environment Agency (which is at 900CFUs) for bathing water quality standards, indicating that sewage is present in the river near to the headquarters of Thames Water and could cause sickness.

Chloe Peck from River Action, the group that supervised the water quality testing, said, “It is ironic that the testing we’ve done on the water near to Thames Water’s HQ indicates the river there is just about safe to swim in because wherever else they operate and we have taken water samples their sewage pollution presents a major health risk.  

“Earlier this year we found extraordinarily high levels of E.coli on the Thames used for the university boat race – 9,500CFUs – and in that case rowers did get very sick. Our message to Thames Water is a simple one: take responsibility for polluting the nation’s capital river, clean up your act and invest to fix your leaky infrastructure. Meanwhile, in this General Election we urge voters to hold politicians accountable and prioritise candidates that want clean rivers. Nothing short of a total overhaul of the water regulators and refinancing of Thames Water – putting people and nature before profit – will do.”

Giles Bristow, chief executive of Surfers Against Sewage, whose End Sewage Pollution campaign is touring the nation in the run up to the General Election and helped to organise the paddle-out protest said, “Thames Water’s greedy, grasping hands are stained with the utter filth they have been spewing into this iconic river. Our waterways should be havens for wildlife and wild swimmers but these precious public spaces have been hijacked by an industry single-minded in its pursuit of profit. From the riverbanks to the beachfront, we’re hearing loud and clear that a furious British public is ready to reclaim our waterways from the polluters.

“Communities across the UK helped lift the lid on the sewage scandal and they are now demanding to know how their prospective parliamentary candidates plan to end sewage pollution. Working alongside our friends at River Action, we’re delighted to give those in Reading a platform to do just that.

“A week in to our UK election road trip, we have been blown away by the passion and pride people have for their local waterways. One thing is clear: no matter who wins the election, the public demands an end to the sewage scandal and a thriving future for our rivers and seas.”

Hustings tonight

Tonight at 1830, River Action and Surfers Against Sewage co-host a General Election hustings where candidates from the constituencies of Reading West & Mid-Berkshire and Reading Central will provide voters with the opportunity to understand how they would address water pollution on the River Thames and how their parties will solve the crisis nationally.  Attending:

  • Carolyne Culver, Green (confirmed)
  • Henry Wright or Helen Belcher, Liberal Democrats (confirmed)
  • Tony Page, former Mayor of Reading (confirmed)
  • Olivia Bailey, Labour (not yet confirmed but likely)
  • Raj Singh, Conservative (not yet confirmed but likely)

ENDS

For interviews call Ian Woolverton on 07377 547 362 or email media@riveractionuk.com

Media can attend both the paddle-out protest and the hustings. For the paddle-out at 17:30 the meeting point is Hill Meadows Car Park, RG4 8DH. The hustings take place at the same location.

How do rivers fare in the manifestos? A review by River Action

By James Wallace CEO, River Action UK

The water pollution crisis in our rivers, lakes and seas is one of the leading issues for the 2024 general election. River Action, joined by communities and organisations nationwide, has raised the alarm and called on voters to join the campaign. But are suggestions like The Charter for Rivers reflected in the manifestos?

Freshwater is the lifeblood of our land, enabling food and water security, underpinning our economy, literally sustaining lives. But our rivers and lakes are dying – only 14% of rivers in England are in good ecological condition and 83% of rivers are highly polluted by sewage and agriculture. 

Earlier this year, water quality testing from River Action revealed high levels of dangerous E.coli bacteria in the River Thames ahead of the famous Boat Race. With 3.6 million hours of raw sewage spilled in 2023 and water companies accruing £64 billion in debt since privatisation while rewarding shareholders with £78 billion of dividends, this is no surprise. Known by many of our neighbours as ‘The Dirty Man of Europe’, the UK has some of the worst water quality.

Meanwhile, we risk running out of clean freshwater with no joined-up national plan. Water companies leak 3 billion litres every day, and we are facing a shortfall of 5 billion litres a day in just a few years.

Now that we are clear on the scale of the crisis, let’s look at how our rivers, lakes and seas could be protected and restored in the next government.

Labour

Starting with (according to the polls) the frontrunner candidate for the next government. The manifesto essentially wrote itself from various recent Labour announcements. Having first trumpeted it would ban bonuses for polluting water company bosses’ in October 2023, they have made it a top feature in the manifesto. Likewise bringing criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers. This is a welcome policy but not the urgent systemic root and branch regulatory reform needed.

How, we wonder, will they accelerate the penalty and prosecution process, having committed to automatic and severe fines? It took 6 and 4 years respectively for Thames Water and Southern Water to be prosecuted for major fish kills by the poorly performing Environment Agency. It needs a new bold government to give the enforcers back their sharp teeth. Labour’s commitment to independent pollution monitoring is well received. We can’t have polluters marking their own homework. But, with the Environment Agency notoriously turning-up late and downgrading serious pollution incidents, we need the threat of immediate inspections reinstated to rattle illegal polluters.

In March this year, Labour vowed to put water companies into special measures to force them to clean up their toxic mess and protect people’s health. This made the manifesto, but the party has been light on detail of what these special measures would be. For example, what is their commitment to ensuring the taxpayer does not bail out a failing water company like Thames Water?

Labour has remained quiet on agricultural pollution, likely due to its targeting of rural votes and pacifying the National Farmers’ Union. The manifesto recognises that the Environmental Land Management scheme (ELMS) must work for farmers and nature. But unlike the other manifestos it does not put a number on what support would look like. A missed opportunity to support struggling farmers.

Surprisingly, there is nothing on water scarcity – how can a party claim to prioritise growth when our freshwater, therefore economy, is at risk of drying up? 

Conservative

With the backdrop of an attack on net zero costs and threat of new oil and gas licensing rounds, the Conservative’s environmental manifesto pledges are a roundup of the policies introduced while in government. Why does it take an election to announce reviewing Ofwat’s dreadful Price Review process? They lack ambition compared with 2019 and what is needed to remedy more than a decade of environmental degradation. 

Their manifesto is marred by almost daily news about the failing water industry while under their tenure – most recently, analysis from the BBC found every major English water company has reported data showing they have discharged raw sewage when the weather is dry. We are concerned to see the returned threat of scrapping the nutrient neutrality rules which protect vulnerable waterways. If last autumn’s Commons v Lords debacle is anything to go by, can we expect the Conservatives to continue to set up housing against clean rivers? We can and must have both. And the proposal to use polluter fines to fund nature based solutions will only work if sufficiently punitive and hefty. At the moment it pays to pollute.

We were pleased to see the River Wye get a mention in the manifesto. However, it was in reference to the ‘Plan for the River Wye’ which local campaigners have ridiculed for falling ‘far short’, countering with their own action plan to revive the river. The manifesto does at least recognise the need for an increased farming budget, with a commitment to increase it by £1 billion over the Parliament; mimicking but not matching a policy first mentioned at the Liberal Democrat conference last autumn.

As the Conservatives fight to hold their rural seats, expectations were almost non-existent about the potential for a shake up on their water policy. With the announcement of banning wet wipes made three times over as many years, we have become accustomed to repeated broken/recycled promises. Perhaps a new version of the Conservative party, reverting to its small ‘c’ conservative roots might emerge post election, incorporating more of the Conservative Environment Network’s manifesto for rivers, seas and waterways; such as linking water company CEOs pay with environmental performance and ensuring housebuilding doesn’t contribute to storm overflow discharges?

Liberal Democrats

After Ed Davey fell off a paddleboard in Lake Windermere to highlight the sewage crisis, it was no surprise that our polluted waters feature as the top Lib Dem environmental message. While they have long trailed their sewage policies, the manifesto included a few interesting new ideas. Policies include ‘blue flag standards’ and ‘blue corridors’ to drive clean and healthy waterways and giving local environmental groups a place on water companies’ boards. Restructuring water companies into public benefit companies could help put people and planet before profit, giving a voice to communities and ensuring financial rewards relate to environmental performance. Their proposed abolition of Ofwat may be a good step too… will a tough new regulator rise from the swamp?

A Sewage Tax on water company profits may resonate with voters, a direct way of linking environmental and financial performance. An explicit reference to enforcing laws on sewage overflows is welcome, but should extend to other water pollution including agriculture. The current damp squib advisory approach to law enforcement has led to the ecological collapse of rivers like the Wye. As with the other manifestos reviewed, there is limited explicit reference to the essential ingredients to regulatory reform such as an increase in Environment Agency inspections and publishing independent pollution monitoring data. The public has a right to know what goes into their inland and coastal waters – and who is to blame – and all parties should commit to transparency (which would also save the regulators time and money on information requests and legal prosecutions).

The Lib Dem manifesto does make the direct link between farming and rivers, with a commitment to “support farmers to reduce the pollution of rivers, streams and lakes” and plans to properly fund the Environmental Land Management scheme with an extra £1 billion a year. The creation of an Environmental Rights Act – guaranteeing everyone’s right to a healthy environment could help them achieve the target of doubling nature by 2050.

It seems that beyond the confines of electoral targets, the Lib Dems have an opportunity to position themselves as the party for water and broaden focus out from just sewage pollution. This was demonstrated with voter approval in the rural Tiverton by-election last year and may be repeated in the general election. But as with the others, there was silence on water shortages, although a single social tariff for water bills to eliminate water poverty was a nod in the right direction.

Green

Finally, to the Greens, who recognised in their manifesto launch that they have no expectations of forming a government but instead will play a key role in holding the party in power accountable. Their manifesto states what they will push for in parliament rather than what they would implement as Government. 

Backed by a promise to tax the super rich, the Green Party manifesto has the environment as one of its three key pillars, and directly recognises the food system as the “greatest driver of nature loss and pollution.” They would triple support for farmers to transition to nature friendly farming, and link payments to reduced use of pesticides and agrichemicals. And, they would end factory farming, which by default would significantly reduce agricultural nutrient pollution.

Greens would take water companies back into public ownership. Will that extend to reforming the environmental regulators and toughening enforcement? Under the current system, fines from water companies that are put back into protecting the environment equate to approximately 1% of funds distributed to shareholders. Such a derisory penalty, acts as a reward rather than deterrent for breaking the law.

The Greens propose tackling the water crisis through other means too. Setting aside 30% of land by 2030 to allow natural recovery of waterways, and assert a Right to Roam to increase access and people’s likelihood of caring about the environment that sustains them.

The potentially one or two new Green MPs will follow in the footsteps of Caroline Lucas, one of the few MPs to cast a wide net on raising river pollution issues, and after reading the manifesto we expect to see the new generation of Greens to do the same.

Reform

There is not much to say here. Reform’s manifesto commits to cancelling all EU inherited regulations (i.e. all our current environmental standards and protections) and abandoning any commitment to achieving net zero. The Reform Party will scrap climate-related farming subsidies and stop Natural England protecting wildlife. There is no reference to rivers or ending pollution.

In conclusion

It is very encouraging that four manifestos have cited water pollution but there’s little to get excited about. Whichever party forms the the next government has a long way to go to inspire belief that significant action will be taken to save our rivers, lakes and seas over the next parliament, as key measures were limited or missing from the manifestos including:

  • Sewage – significant reform of Ofwat’s failed regulation of the water industry to end decades of profiteering and pollution, and restructuring and refinancing failing water companies linking environmental and shareholder performance, putting people and planet before profits. 
  • Agriculture – strengthening regulation on intensive livestock farming and enforcing the law, limiting density of factory farms in catchments, supporting farmers with environmental incentives, enabling nutrient trading – turning farm waste into resource – and increasing farmers’ share of food pricing.
  • Water scarcity – restoring wetlands, building more reservoirs and fixing leaking water pipes so we do not run out of water; delivered through a nationwide plan to secure water within and between catchments, while decreasing demand for abstraction, protecting our most vulnerable waterways like chalk streams. 
  • Monitoring and enforcement – properly funding environmental protection agencies and water industry regulators, publishing independent pollution monitoring and sharing data with the public and between regulators, equipping and instructing them to take firm action against polluters. 

Protecting public health – ensuring the Environment Agency properly monitors our rivers and publishes transparent data and guidance about when it is safe to use rivers, and making water companies introduce tertiary treatment of final effluent in areas of high use and risk.

It’s not our job to tell anyone how to vote on July 4th, but as we head to the polls what we can do is constantly urge all politicians to put water – rivers, lakes and seas – at the heart of the next parliament. 

We must value water as if it’s the elixir of life and enabler of every aspect of our economy. We must start acting like we are in a freshwater emergency. That means a government that prioritises this urgent mission. One that will provide the financial and policy commitments, but also the leadership to rebuild trust and mobilise regulators, civil servants, politicians and industry into action. We need to welcome in a new era of collaborative working – across parties, sectors and communities – moving beyond blame and deceit to achieve rapid transformational systemic solutions. To do this, the new government must define and own the problem, be transparent and fulfil its promises now, not in future decades, and that starts with committing to wholesale regulatory reform backed by sufficient funding.

For real change, we need the new Secretary of State for the Environment to sit opposite the Prime Minister at Cabinet, next to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and for the environment to be front and centre in our nation’s political future.

#VoteCleanRivers

James is Chief Executive of River Action. He is a naturalist, archaeologist and social entrepreneur and has established enterprises ranging from renewable energy, regenerative agriculture and green finance to ecotourism, nature restoration and deep sea exploration. Prior to helping Charles Watson develop River Action into a national charity, James was CEO and Co-founder of Beaver Trust where he led the coalition to protect and live alongside native beavers.

James campaigns to rescue Britain’s rivers using systemic, local solutions, working collaboratively in the freshwater emergency. He convenes national stakeholders, bringing together government, industry, NGO and community leaders to secure abundant, clean water and restore wildlife habitats, while holding polluters and regulators to account in the courts of public opinion and law.