According to the Environmental Audit Committee the quality of English waterways is the worst in Europe.

Current government plans place the deadline for cleaning up Britain's waterways in 2063, and the financial burden solely on the shoulders of bill payers.

Against a backdrop where Britain's natural world is in steep decline, demand for water is forecast to increase, accompanied by massive wastage through leaky pipes and poor water management, droughts set to become much more common, and the cost of living crisis already leaving millions destitute, the complacency of this approach is unacceptable and will result in far greater costs down the line.

Rivers are the lifeblood of the country, they are powerhouses of biodiversity, help capture carbon dioxide and nourish the surrounding lands with water and fresh nutrients. Healthy rivers are fundamental to a thriving environment, which is in turn the basis of a strong nation and a prospering economy.

Here follows our petition to the House of Commons, on behalf of the residents of England and Wales listed below, to ensure the good health of our waterways for generations to come. The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to pressure the government until they have:

1.  Executed a national plan to have all water bodies in England and Wales in good ecological and chemical condition by 2030, in line with previous government plans and the Paris accords, as well as establish a commission to ensure actions match words.

2.  Banned the payment of private water company dividends, renationalised the water & wastewater industry, capped household water bills at current levels and ensured investment in the sector is sufficient to keep up with the plan mentioned above.

3.  Taken immediate action to cut agricultural pollution by banning new intensive animal farms, put more focus and funding into technological solutions, and increased financial support for farmers to aid the transition to sustainable agriculture.

4.  Protected our natural aquatic spaces by ensuring that all relevant bodies enforcing high standards of water protection and environmental conservation are properly resourced.

HERE ENDS THE PETITION; CONTINUE FOR NOTES

What does the government plan to do?

For decades, the government has made grand declarations of intent to restore English waters, setting lofty targets that, when it comes to execution, have been pushed further and further down the line. Now, in 2023, the majority of British waterways teeter on the brink, barely clinging to life.

Their latest plan, outlined in their own documents, admits that the goal of achieving good ecological condition by 2027 is unlikely to be realised1. But the most outrageous thing is the pushback of the deadline for our waters being in good health to the year 2063. 

Since 1989, an astonishing £72 billion has been funnelled into the hands of shareholders, many of whom are from outside the UK, all the while our public services are being stripped of their assets and funding. In this time water companies have piled up a crippling £53 billion debt2, and as shown by the near collapse of Thames Water, when things go right it is the shareholders who profit, but when they go wrong it is the taxpayer who foots the bill3.

This is a recipe for catastrophe and urgent action is needed. But who will pay for it? Under the current industry plan it will be paid for by hiking consumer bills an additional 40%4— ironic, considering bills have already increased 40% since privatisation. What makes it even worse is that much of these increases will take place in already deprived regions, such as the north and south west, meaning that these already disadvantaged regions will be punished all the more for the failings of water companies.

So why is our plan any better?

Under the plan that we have outlined we would end the extractive practices of the water companies, while ensuring that the cost of solving the problem is spread evenly across society and that the whole project is completed on time in order to preserve our precious natural environment.

The following is a point-by-point breakdown of our proposals:

1.   The first point addresses the need for planning and leadership on the national level. It is recognised that planning on individual catchment level is insufficient in order to address the varying needs of regions across the UK. In addition to this the level of funding needed to complete the project would only be available to the national government.
  So why by 2030? Well first and foremost; because that was always the goal. In the governments river basin management plans from 2009 and 2015 they laid out plans to have virtually all of England and Wales’ water bodies in good condition by 20275, goals which they have since gone back on. In addition to this we agreed in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement that we would have protected and restored 30% of our water biomes by 20306, in order to maximise Carbon sequestration and ecosystem services7. We currently stand at 0%8. In addition to this it is estimated by scientists that we have only 9 years left to avert the worst effects of climate change and ecological breakdown9 and natural solutions are some of the best and most cost effective methods we have available to us. So where better to begin the fight back for nature than where life itself began; our waters? 
   The reason for establishing a Commission for Clean Water is that it is both a powerful signal of intent and a practical necessity, as the task ahead is truly huge. Coordinating all the different elements of planning, construction, conservation and analysis is a task of such scale unheard of in 21st century Britain. None of England's waterways are in good condition, demand for water is set to outstrip supply by 40% by 203010, and poor quality water habitats pose a threat to a huge proportion of native species (being where a large proportion of invertebrates and other small creatures, that form the basis of the food chain, spend a lot of their development), this warrants a serious response.

2.   First of all we propose to stop the payment of private water company dividends. Why? There are a number of reasons. One is that since 1989 water companies have paid out £72bn in dividends since privatisation, all while failing to invest properly in environmental protection, leading to the state that we’re in today11. Almost £1bn of that was in 202112, when raw sewage was released into our rivers a staggering total of 370,000 times13. Another is that the private water industry currently has a total debt of £53bn. Why should investors continue to reap huge benefits when they cannot even run an economically sustainable company? The third reason is that it would dramatically collapse the value of the water companies, making renationalisation much cheaper to the taxpayer.
    Secondly we propose that we renationalise the provision of water and wastewater industries. It already costs the public billions to keep these companies in private hands, take the near collapse of Thames Water14. And this is all while a majority of our water is owned by foreign multinationals; e.g. Blackrock, various Canadian pension companies, and Adia (a subsidiary of the sovereign wealth fund of Abu Dhabi), to name a few15, so billions of pounds of public funds are being funnelled out of the country into the pockets of these groups. Of course at the end of the day the main problem of privatisation is that water, a basic utility and human right, is no longer run for the public good but to make profit for shareholders. Having a nationalised water industry would once again ensure that it is being run in the public interest, would be fully accountable to parliament and the people, and would be able to access investment at much more favourable rates.
    Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, we demand that domestic water bills are frozen at current levels. Millions in this country are already suffering under the cost of living crisis, the last thing we all need is another bill hike. Under the current government, as outlined in their Storm Overflow Discharge Reduction plan16, the regions to be paying the most would be Yorkshire, the North West and the South West, areas that are already some of the most disadvantaged in the UK. Why should they pay more when it’s not them who caused the problem to begin with?
   Lastly, £56bn is the amount it will take to fix our water and sewage infrastructure, according to a House of Lords Committee17.  Although this figure would be a high estimate as this figure is based on old techniques of water processing, and so new technologies coming to market will serve to decrease the total price over the coming years. Taking care of our sewage and drainage infrastructure could account for 54% of total pollution18 (36% from sewage, 18% from run-off from roads and towns), that means maximum £8bn a year invested in clean water for generations, £8bn a year in jobs for British workers, £8bn to safeguard our nature and to begin saving our Planet. Sounds worth it doesn’t it? It does to us. In the 1930s after the Great Recession, FDR led the US economic resurgence largely by investing in key infrastructure for much the same reasons, serving to provide America with a rock-solid foundation for sustained growth through the rest of the 20th century. By no means is this a small amount, but if the government can find £200bn to spend on HS2, £30bn for a Test & Trace App that doesn’t work, and nearly £9bn on crony contracts for PPE that didn’t arrive or wasn’t usable when it did19; why can we not find another £8bn just for the next seven years to ensure clean and plentiful water for all, for generations to come? 

3.   Agriculture accounts for roughly 40% of all water pollution instances nationwide20. One of the main causes of agricultural pollution being insufficient storage and poor spreading practices of animal waste when it is reused as fertiliser, causing it to run off into surrounding water sources21. According to data from the Environment Agency and National Farmers Union, dairy farms in the UK have on average only 50% of the minimum legal storage for animal waste22. Using this number we extrapolated the  total storage requirement factoring the size of the UK herd, volume of waste it would produce, and how much it would cost to build 50% more storage for that waste. The number we got was roughly £360 million. This would be one of the biggest and easiest wins we could get for the size of investment, so why not move fast on it?
  Intensive farming facilities, especially those for poultry and pigs, are some of the most damaging things to the aquatic environment23. This is demonstrated by the state of the River Wye, where intensive poultry farming has caused some of the highest rates of pollution in the UK24. At this point, closing all intensive farming sites would pose a risk to the UK’s food security, so we propose that a ban is implemented on all new sites, which will allow for a smoother transition to more sustainable farming practices.
  This is also one of the areas that can benefit from developing technologies, as the need for proper nutrient recycling will become more important due to global supply chain issues and dwindling sources of chemical fertilisers. All this waste being allowed to flow through our rivers into the sea is a resource that we are failing to capitalise on, one that will be vital to building any kind of circular society.
   British farmers have, especially since Brexit, been facing hard times. They’ve lost subsidies they relied on, been hit by Covid and the cost of living crisis as hard as anyone, all while being a very costly business to operate. Given these circumstances it is understandable why they might be reluctant to spend even more on the transition to sustainable agriculture. Under the current Environmental Land Management scheme, the government will pay at most £216 per annum per hectare, this being for an already biodiverse grassland25. We believe that more care must be given to the farmers from the very start of the transition to sustainability, because in farming, as it is in life, the hardest labour always comes before you can enjoy the fruits.
  In the long term the UK needs to move towards regenerative agriculture. This is for a variety of reasons, such as the more obvious benefits to soil health, air and water quality, biodiversity and the like; but also for economic and political reasons such as the volatility of global supply chains and increased costs for energy. Beginning the journey now in earnest will put us in a much better place in 10 years than if we were to push the issue further down the agenda, and it is not just us who recognise this, many other major powers such as the US, China, the EU, as well as France and Germany specifically, have all got programmes to support their transition to sustainable agriculture26.

4.   This point is very important as we already for the most part have the systems and legislation in place to ensure the health of our ecosystems, they’re just unable to perform their roles properly due to a lack of funding. The Environment Agency, which is responsible for enforcing current legislation around water quality, has had its personnel cut by 50% since 201027, leading to a state of affairs where it was said by the EA’s Chief Executive at one point that “unless there are dead fish in the water, you are unlikely to get a response”. We estimate it would take roughly £500 million annually to restore their staffing numbers to 2010 levels, enabling them to rebuild their base of expertise and be present on every occasion they are needed.
  In addition to this the relevant natural bodies such as Natural England, The Wildlife Trusts and The Canal and Rivers Trusts, all the bodies tasked with ensuring the health of our aquatic ecosystems, are all in need of further funding. According to Craig Bennett, Chief Executive of the Wildlife Trusts, they would need a total of £1.2bn in additional funding annually between them to safeguard our water biomes28. It should be provided to Natural England as that is the relevant government body and it would know how best to distribute it amongst the relevant groups.
   This is an area where a collaboration between government agencies, nonprofits and the general population could also definitely have an effect, so empowering citizens assemblies and working groups in local areas to deal with the problem at their own front door would go a long way.

   The time for action is now.

References

1: Targets unlikely to be met                   https://environment.data.gov.uk/catchment-planning/v/c3-plan/England/objectives  

2: Water company mismanagement
https://weownit.org.uk/public-ownership/water 

3: Collapse of Thames water
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jun/28/thames-water-in-crisis-talks-over-potential-10bn-black-hole-cost-possible-collapse                        

4: Bills to be hiked by 40%
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/28/Water-firms-push-for-bills-in-england-to-rise-by-up-to-40-per-cent-say-reports-sewage-climate 

5: Plan for clean waters by 2027
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/22/target-date-for-cleaning-up-waterways-in-england-is-moved-back-by-36-years 

6: Paris Agreement for Water (page 6)
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/ExecSumm_Water_0.pdf 

7: Ecosystem services: benefits provided by the natural environment such as food, water, air purification, materials for industry and more.

8: 0% of English Waters in good condition
https://www.wcl.org.uk/not-one-river-in-england-in-good-health.asp#:~:text=New%20figures%20from%20the%20Environment,waters%20were%20classed%20as%20good. 

9: Only 9 years left to avert the worst affects of climate change
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052267118/climate-change-carbon-dioxide
-emissions-global-carbon-budget#:~:text=The%20current%20rate%20of%
20greenhouse,future%2C%20a%20new%20study%20concludes. 

10: Water demand set to outstrip supply by 2030 
https://www.h2obuildingservices.co.uk/news/water-efficiency/water-demand-forecast-to-outstrip-supply-by-2030/ 

11: Water companies extracting profit since 1989
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/171766/economics/water-privatisation-pros-and-cons/

12: Nearly £1bn in dividends in 2021/22 year
https://www.sas.org.uk/water-quality/water-quality-facts-and-figures/

13: Sewage released 375,000 times in 2021
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/31/sewage-released-into-english-rivers-for-27m-hours-last-year-by-water-firms 

14: Taxpayers money to bail out private companies
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66103356 

15: Who owns our water?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2022/nov/30/englands-water-the-worlds-piggy-bank#:~:text=England%20is%20one%20of%20the,fully%20owned%20by%20private%20companies 

16: Storm Overflow Reduction Plan (check costing section)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1101686/Storm_Overflows_Discharge_Reduction_Plan.pdf 

17: £56bn bill
https://www.cityam.com/uk-taxpayers-face-a-56bn-billion-pound-bill-if-sewage-and-water-systems-are-to-be-fixed-house-of-lords-committee-warns/ 

18: Sewage and drainage being 54% of water pollution
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59898988 \

19: Scandalous spending
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/b4b/pages/3036/attachments/original/1667295649/Nov_22_-_Scandalous_spending_tracker_Breakdown.pdf?1667295649 

20: Agricultural pollution (section 2)
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/++preview++/environment-and-business/challenges-and-choices/user_uploads/agricultural-and-rural-land-management-challenge-rbmp-2021.pdf 

21: Effects of slurry pollution
https://www.envirotech-online.com/news/environmental-laboratory/7/international-environmental-technology/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-slurry/59462#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20primary%20causes,and%20other%20bodies%20of%20water 

22: EA and NFU Data (section 2.1.2)
https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/++preview++/environment-and-business/challenges-and-choices/user_uploads/agricultural-and-rural-land-management-challenge-rbmp-2021.pdf 

23: Effect of intensive agriculture
https://www.fairr.org/resources/knowledge-hub/intensive-farming-pollution/land-pollution-as-a-result-of-intensive-farming

24: Pollution of the River Wye
https://riveractionuk.com/Campaigns/the-poultry-farms-turning-the-wye-into-a-wildlife-death-trap/ 

25: ELM Plan
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-land-management-schemes-overview/environmental-land-management-scheme-overview#sustainable-farming-incentive 

26: Sustainable agriculture initiatives
US https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/sustainable-agriculture-programs EU https://commission.europa.eu/food-farming-fisheries/sustainable-agriculture_en 
China https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/exploring-sustainable-agriculture-china 
France https://innovin.fr/en/vitirev-project/
Germany https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-022-01892-5 

27: EA staff cuts
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/water-pollution-sewage-environment-agency-funding-b2154848.html 

28: £1.2bn needed for natural protection
https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/nature-recovery-needs-governments-new-plan-succeed-wildlife-declines-will-persist