How to save England’s rivers

In the rural shires of England, discontent has been quietly, yet steadily growing. Following years of complaints about declining river health, the problem has exploded into the public consciousness, with one report, released in September, revealing that only 16 per cent of English rivers were in ‘good ecological health’. It came just months after BBC Panorama revealed that some water companies were illegally discharging sewage into rivers outside of their regulatory permits.

How can we save England’s rivers? That was the question at the top of the invitation as The Spectator gathered a panel of politicians, conservationists and industry figures for its first dinner of the 2021 Conservative party conference. The sponsor for the discussion was Water UK, the representative body for Britain’s water industry. Working with 17 private water companies (as well as the government-owned entities in Scotland and Northern Ireland), the organisation was acutely aware of its own responsibility for the issue and keen to solve it.

So was the problem as bad as the headlines made out? ‘The numbers in the Panorama programme are correct,’ said Toby Willison – a former Environment Agency regulator and now director of environmental affairs at Southern Water. ‘What they didn’t necessarily explain, though, is that those storm overflows are there to stop houses from flooding when the system is overwhelmed with rainwater.’ The vast majority of the 400,000 overflows, he explained, were actually allowed under the rules set by the Environment Agency. ‘But even if they’re allowed, the question is should they be?’ asked Spectator editor Fraser Nelson. ‘No, they shouldn’t,’ he answered.

‘There’s a key issue here – and that’s climate change,’ interjected Jesse Norman, a former Treasury minister and sitting MP for Hereford. ‘Whatever you think the reason behind it is, the changes in rainfall have had the effect of increasing the amount of water the system has to process.’ But as Stuart Colville from Water UK explained, the costs of totally overhauling the system would probably be extremely expensive, even for a Prime Minister attracted to big infrastructure projects. ‘We estimate it could cost up to £600 billion, as it would basically be equivalent to re-plumbing much of England,’ he said.

But there are other factors putting strain on the system: not least the proliferation of non-degradable wet wipes which had ended up going down the nation’s toilets. ‘The wet wipes are causing fatbergs which then block the system, meaning the sewage has nowhere to go,’ explained Mr Colville. ‘Then it goes into the emergency overflow, ending up in rivers and – quite rightly – causing outrage among those who use them.’ It was a topic of consternation, he said, for the water industry. The government had got tough on polluting and single-use plastics – so why not non-degradable wet wipes? ‘It’s costing the billpayer more than £100 million a year,’ Mr Colville added.

While the sewage overflows had, understandably, received much media attention, there were numerous other issues affecting water quality. Mr Norman – who lobbyied the Prime Minister for a coordinated plan to clean up the River Wye – had observed a particularly novel contributor. ‘We have a significant issue with chicken sheds,’ he said, explaining that chicken excrement was an unusually strong and concentrated form of phosphate. In a classic example of unintended consequences, the problem had been further exacerbated by the societal shift away from red meat.

It wasn’t the first time that agricultural practices had been noted in relation to declining river health. Stuart Roberts, deputy president of the National Farmers Union, said his members were increasingly engaging with the issue. ‘There was definitely a period where water companies were blaming farmers and farmers were blaming water companies,’ he said. ‘But I think, for me, the first step is that all of us have to accept that we’ve been part of the problem.’ It was an approach which struck a chord with Darren Moorcroft, chief executive of the Woodland Trust, who noted that – despite some localised examples of water companies doing their bit – the problem had been persistent for a long time.

Having heard from constituents about the state of River Darent, Sevenoaks MP Laura Trott was keen to get on with finding a solution – and quickly. ‘I feel like the Environment Agency should really know what’s going on in our waters, particularly as they’re given quite a lot of money,’ she said. ‘Why are they not prioritising this?’ Drawing on his background working there, Mr Willison argued that, although the agency received a capital grant for building flood defences, its operational revenue had been cut.

‘The Environment Agency does not have the resources to do proper monitoring of river health in any of its catchments, said Mr Colville. ‘If you look at how they assess rivers it’s based on a very small number of data points. One of the things that we’ve been calling for is a proper monitoring system, which combines citizen science with a decently funded and objective regulatory system. That way we can find out exactly what’s going on in rivers – because right now we don’t know for sure.’ There were also issues, noted Mr Moorcroft, with the Environment Agency’s dual role as both an advisory and regulatory body.

Mr Norman explained that he’d devised a plan. ‘Realistically, we’re never going to solve this problem unless we have a task force empowered by the various agencies (including Natural Resources Wales which has part-responsibility for the Wye) and then led by a single individual who is personally accountable for a particular river,’ he said. The task force leader would work with MPs, the agencies, and the relevant ministers, including in the devolved assemblies, to take action to protect it, he said.

For Mr Roberts, the trick would be ensuring the overall scheme was overseen by someone who understood the situation. ‘Perhaps it could be a task for the Office for Environmental Protection,’ he suggested, pointing to the new oversight body established in the Environment Act. ‘I think DLUHC and DEFRA need to own this problem: because you can’t level up rural areas unless you can address these issues,’ added Mr Norman. ‘There you go then: we have a solution,’ said Mr Nelson. ‘Something we don’t always get at these dinners.’