The top line
Water quality in our rivers and at our coasts has generally improved over the last twenty or so years. But not everything is getting better and some things are getting worse. There is still much to do.
Many things have got better
Since 1995 some of the worst pollutants in our rivers have been cut dramatically: ammonia levels are down 70% and phosphates down 60%. Toxic metals like copper, lead, cadmium and mercury have also been reduced, the last two by 50% since 2008. Serious water pollution incidents have been cut by nearly two thirds, from 765 in 2002 to 266 in 2019.
Since the 1990s there has been a big increase in the numbers of small animals that live in rivers like snails, worms and insects – a key indicator of the overall improving health of our waters. Many of the artificial barriers to fish and other wildlife have been removed: in the last ten years the Environment Agency and its partners have removed over 130 weirs and improved fish passage at more than 420 other sites, allowing salmon, other fish and eels to migrate and breed.
Meanwhile the bathing waters around our coasts are in a much better state than they were twenty years ago. In 2019 98.3% met or exceeded the minimum standard and for the first time more than 70% achieved the Excellent standard.
But some things haven’t improved
Nitrate levels in our rivers, mostly from agricultural fertilisers and slurry, have come down slowly over the last twenty years but have risen in the last two years. Nitrates can pollute our water and can cause some plants and algae to grow excessively, taking oxygen out of the water and killing off other wildlife.
And some things have got worse
In the last five years there has been a steady rise in the number of water pollution incidents, from fewer than 6,500 in 2015 to almost 7, 600 in 2019. Most of these are caused by water/sewage companies and farmers.
Storm overflows are operating more frequently due to growth and climate change, putting more sewage into rivers than in the past. In 2019 storm overflows spilled an average of 35 times each and nearly one in ten spilled more than 100 times.
The net result
… is that after two decades of improvement, the quality of water in our rivers is now flatlining. Only 14% of our rivers meet Good Ecological Status under the Water Framework Directive: that figure has not changed since 2009.
Why are we where we are?
Most of the progress we have seen has happened because of stronger laws, better practice, public pressure, investment by the water companies, action by environmental NGOs, and effective regulation by the Environment Agency. That progress has been offset by countervailing pressures: climate change and population growth, both of which are damaging the environment; and by the fact that some water companies, farmers and others are still not doing enough to protect it.
The other key factors are regulation and resources. Where there is a strong regulatory framework and the resources to enforce it, we have seen dramatic improvements. Example: the progressive reduction of river pollution from sewage treatment works due to substantial water company investment and effective EA regulation through the Environmental Permitting Regime. Where there isn’t a good regulatory framework or the resources to enforce it, things have got worse. Example: farming, particularly the dairy sector, is causing an increasing number of pollution incidents, but the EA lacks the powers and resources to tackle this effectively.
Resources are an issue for the EA. In 2019/20 we received £15m from the government to fund our water quality work – enforcement of the regulations, monitoring of what is happening in our rivers and coastal waters, tackling pollution incidents. With roughly 240,600km of rivers and streams in England, that equates to just £62 to protect and enhance each kilometre of watercourse.
What the EA is doing about this
We are:
- Working with the water companies to reduce pollution, tackle the areas of biggest concern like storm overflows, and invest in an improved water environment: the companies are putting in £5bn over the next five years to do that.
- Working with farmers to support environmentally friendly farming that doesn’t damage water quality.
- Working with the government to develop future laws and policy that will drive better water quality.
- Working with NGOs and others to protect and restore chalk streams and other water environments under threat.
- Responding to environmental incidents (one every 45 minutes) to stop and reverse damage to our rivers.
- Prosecuting the most serious polluters: 44 prosecutions against water companies in the last five years securing fines of £34m.
- Making the case for the funding we need to monitor what’s happening to our rivers and coastal waters, enforce the rules that protect them, and enhance nature rather than just slow its degradation.
15 comments
Comment by Raymond Lee posted on
The Environment Agency is unable to do its work, despite dedications, because of the government inaction and ignorance as to the polluted state of our waters; and it is getting worse.
Comment by Mrs T Stephenson posted on
I agree! when you report pollution whether river or land, they ignore you - they only play lipservice to causes - it looks good paper, but nothing happens.
Comment by Raymond Lee posted on
Yes. Our comments will be ignored by government as well...Mere publication fulfils their practical obligations.
Comment by Diana posted on
Problem is water authority’s need to pay their shareholders consequently investment into sewage storage as not been happening quick enough
Government need to intervene and de nationalise
Comment by Patricia Hopkins posted on
Prosecution should occur for all occurrences not reserved for the most serious. It is imperative that we know who our representatives are and hold them accountable for adhering to the legislation and passing necessary regulations to secure our waterways; voting to be sure that the interest of the people, all people, is their interest.
Comment by Mark Harrison posted on
I think the EA is in a difficult position on delivering measurable results without adequate funding. In one area for example the volume of livestock manure produced annually, an essential source of nutrients for producing food coupled with the vast and increasing quantities of treated sewage solids from water treatment processes and equally a valuable fertiliser, soil conditioner (and major pollutants) are both part of our food production ecosystem. This needs a more systems thinking approach than what is currently happening. The unintended consequences of not using systems thinking will result in a catastrophic failure of a complex system that covers fundamental human rights covering, healthy food, clean air and water provision.
Comment by Jay posted on
We the People want clean unpolluted rivers. We the people give the government a mandate to ensure this simple environmental service. The government is failing at this task by not adequately holding waste water companies to account. Please do better!
Comment by Darren Snaith posted on
We the people pay for fishing licence i only fish the river thames but i frear for my health so am not fishing at the moment can i get a refund as i dont fell that the E A are doing there job
Comment by John Brennand posted on
Actions speak louder than words, the vital importance of our waterways should never be run as a commercial business, it’s our responsibility for the next generation to leave them clean rivers ,lakes and beaches , and we are failing in that responsibility take a look with your own eyes .
Comment by Robert Hilsdon posted on
We need hold the water companies, road management and farmers to account for their bad practice's. It should be in there interest not to pollute.
Some people seem to have forgotten how bad government run businesses can be. I remember British Rail and government run water services!
Comment by Mark Adams posted on
It appears to me, the threat of a fine for polluting our waterways is insufficient on it's own. Prison sentences should be applied as well as fines,
and enforcement more robust.
Comment by Jacqui Watson posted on
Having watched Paul Whitehouse's programme about the state of our rivers on the BBC, I want to weep. The Environment Agency has known for years that this level of pollution is going on and getting worse and can only winge about lack of resources. There are thousands of people out there who would volunteer to monitor river water quality, why not use them and then the people who work for the Environment Agency could spend their time tackling the water companies effectively.
I spoke to someone in Southern Water about the amount of raw sewage being dumped in the rivers in Kent - they have a plan, to build large holding tanks instead of dumping it in the river. Building more treatment plants wouldn't be possible because residents would complain. How come those complaints are taken into account but the people who complain about the state of the rivers and beaches in Kent are effectively ignored?
Comment by Jon Collier posted on
One thing we the public could do is manage our own rain water run off from our houses. Many rainwater gutter outlets are connected to the sewage system, this puts excess flows into the sewage system which it then can't handle. If we take action to stop this we are actively helping. Catch your rain water or divert it to a soakaway.
Comment by Andrew Gunn posted on
The Environmental Codes of Practice require farmers to only apply sufficient nutrients to crops at a time when the crops can utilise them. There may be practicalities with doing this to the letter but many farmers dump manure in stockpiles on the field headland and leave it there over winter before spreading it. This results in nutrient leaching to the watercourses, contributing to eutrophication. The codes need to be converted to regulations and these should be enforced.
Comment by ROGER WHITE posted on
Could anyone point to any evidence that " climate change" is causing more rain?
The Met Office data shows long term rainfall patterns unchanged.