Renewed call for water regulation overhaul

An end to self-reporting, more robust monitoring and increased enforcement have been called for as part of an overhaul of water regulation.

Not for the first time, a reexamination of the regulatory frameworks governing the water sector was recommended by industry experts, supported by public opinion, to keep regulation at pace with societal expectations in the face of climate change and population growth.

As part of a landmark report, A Fresh Water Future, the Chartered Institute for Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), surveyed water industry professionals and stakeholders as well as the general public.

Environmental regulation was described by respondents as “adequate, but inadequately monitored and enforced; outdated and in need of update; weakened or at risk of this due to political priorities, or poorly developed because of knee-jerk responses to single-issue media and campaigner pressure”.

CIWEM said policy and regulation failed to keep on top of a wide range of activities and impacts: “Water company performance is of great concern to both the public and professionals, and governments have failed to ensure enough investment in maintaining and upgrading infrastructure.”

Experts and the public alike agreed (75%) that government must bear responsibility for action, with policy and regulation considered critical to solving water challenges.

CIWEM recommends that the next government undertakes a full, independent review of water management and regulation commissioned by the Cabinet Office within its first year in office.

It pointed to budget cuts for inadequate monitoring and enforcement and called for self-monitoring to be backed up with a return to spot-check inspections, which would need funding for the Environment Agency to upskill and train – and retain – more officers.

Respondents said self-monitoring drove widespread non-compliance and sweating of assets.

Another space for reform of regulatory efficacy was the Water industry national environment programme (WINEP). Respondents queried whether it is too rigid to be efficient and beneficial.

“Despite its environmental focus and the emphasis on nature-based solutions in its guidance, risk-aversion has widely resulted in single-outcome, hard-engineered solutions within WINEP programmes rather than multi-functional, nature-based ones,” the report stated and called for the imbalance to be reconfigured. WINEP is the largest expenditure in water company business plans, largely due to phosphorous removal during 2025-30.

Alastair Chisholm, director of policy at CIWEM, said industry experts indicated money was not necessarily being spent in areas that will deliver the biggest improvements to river health and resilience.

“They think we’re not using money efficiently,” he said. “Despite some movement in the right direction, funding pots and rules remain too siloed and rigid. Still too often driving single compliance actions, not multiple benefit outcomes.”

He said the regulatory frameworks reflect expectations from the time of privatisation, but climate change, population growth and societal expectations have shifted the dial since then.

“Bigger pressures need stronger regulators to protect an environment that cannot protect itself and that we as a society rely on,” Chisholm said.

The survey suggests only one-third of the public is aware of farming’s impact on water and continued to see sewage as the predominant cause. CIWEM said farm inspections and necessary enforcement action are required to address nutrient pollution in waterways.

“The only rational way of tackling this is at source,” Chisholm said and called for land managers and farmers to be supported to ensure land use is sustainable. He cited poorly managed intensive livestock production sites as “absolutely devastating” for some river catchments that are in urgent need of regulation.

The report also shows low support for the current models of ownership and governance.

Below 6% of respondents agree with it while others said they would favour an alternative based on not-for-profit, national ownership, or privately-owned with stronger public purpose governance.

However, the survey also found extensive concerns over the ability of a renationalised industry to compete with other public spending pressures, or for a smooth transition to an alternative ownership model.

“A combination of stronger regulation, greater transparency and purpose-led companies may represent an appropriate balance between improved practice and assurance, and an investable for-profit industry. But this will need companies to demonstrate convincingly that they are willing to change,” CIWEM said.