Government accepts EAC recommendations on sewers

The government has declared its support for further investment in sewerage systems in England and Wales in its response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s (EAC) damning report on water quality in rivers.

However, the EAC’s recommendations to address pollution from agriculture and homebuilding, which both play a significant role in preventing rivers from achieving good ecological status, were not accepted.

The Water Quality in Rivers report was published in January following EAC hearings with water companies, regulators and other stakeholders, which found “multiple points of failure”. The inquiry was launched in response to growing public cries to address sources of river pollution, especially combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The EAC’s report called for the prioritisation of investment in sewerage systems and suggested that bonuses to water companies’ executives should be limited if they fail to tackle the issue.

In its response, the government together with Ofwat, said PR24 should prioritise long-term investment in sewerage networks along with the increased use of natural capital and nature-based solutions – something already outlined in Defra’s strategic policy statement to Ofwat for the price review.

The EAC heard evidence that the Environment Agency’s (EA) monitoring of rivers was “absolutely dreadful”, and lacked funding to properly carry out enforcement. The government response said it would “follow up” the EAC’s recommendation to carry out better analysis of data from event duration monitors (EDMs) adjacent to CSOs and “consider” how it would effectively communicate this with the public. It rejected a suggestion to install volume meters as well as EDMs.

Government will provide extra funding for enforcement but the EAC warned inspectors may not have sufficient powers to take enforcement actions against permit breaches and pollution incidents.

The EAC’s report highlighted the significant impacts agriculture and residential development have on waterways, particularly from diffuse pollution. It called for nutrient neutrality to minimise pollutants from agriculture entering watercourses, which the government rejected on the grounds that this could stall homebuilding and planning schemes. Instead it said it would “focus on reducing pollution at source”.

A recommendation against granting planning permission for intensive livestock farms in catchments that already have excessive levels of phosphates and nitrates in soils was likewise rejected. The government said it did not accept this “broad” presumption against approving farming infrastructure because other legislation – the National Planning Policy Framework – covered this. Poultry farms have been shown to be especially damaging to watercourses, particularly in catchments that contain multiple intensive farming sites such as along the River Wye.

Philip Dunne, EAC chair and the MP who championed the sewers bill that informed much of the relevant segments of the Environment Act, called the government’s response “broadly positive”.

“Enforcement of permit conditions is crucial, and the committee will in due course be examining the capacity of the relevant agencies to deliver effective environmental protection in this area. I look forward to evaluating the further action on effective monitoring of sewage discharges promised at the next update of the government’s 25 Year Environment Plan,” Dunne said.

“This is a critical period for transforming human impact on our waterways and I welcome the way in which the government is engaging and seeking to put right the indifference of successive previous administrations. The committee will continue to hold the government, its arms-length bodies and the water companies to account as they implement these plans to improve the water quality in England’s rivers.”

The Rivers Trust, however, was less positive about the response. Its director of communications Christine Colvin accused the government of having: “missed the urgency and level of ambition that the EAC, we and the public know is needed.”

She said the EAC’s report had drawn a line in the sand by acknowledging how far the current system is failing the environment and future generations.

“It was ground-breaking in honestly presenting evidence and asking for specific change,” Colvin said. “This response fails to respond to the challenge, in too many cases citing business as usual. Business as usual got us into this mess. Government is in danger of missing the chance to credibly respond to the evidence and recommendations from the EAC and step up.”

Rivers Trust chief executive Mark Lloyd added that a radical rethink is urgently needed to drive the step change in water quality called for by the committee.

Lloyd said: “An example is the complacent and duplicitous response on the management of the endemic problem of nutrient pollution from agriculture. The Farming Rules for Water have recently been relaxed to allow more spreading of slurry and sewage sludge, but the report claims that this new guidance will ‘raise standards of nutrient pollution management by setting clearer expectations for farmers.’”