The evangelically-titled government White Paper, “A New Vision for Water” (January 2026) is supposed to set out the Government’s “action plan” for the water and sewage industry. This is the first we have seen of the great leap forwards since the Cunliffe review and the resulting report. But after a careful read, we are left none the wiser as to what exactly the government has in mind other than ensure the environment does not get in the way of economic growth and that investors will not be deterred from footing the bill.
That being said, the headline threads from the earlier government announcements following the Cunliffe Review are all present: the strategic (but unspecified) re-organisation of water planning, the abolition of Ofwat with a new super regulator emerging from the bonfire of the environmental regulators, with some functional but unspecified debris from the Environment Agency (EA). It is also taking forward the recommendation for ending Operator Self-Monitoring with the parallel introduction of public-facing accessible data (proposed by WildFish in the Cunliffe Review and in amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Bill).
The changes are very loosely outlined under a number of “themes”: the immodestly titled “New Direction for Water”, for instance, includes the government’s long-term strategy with “better joined-up regional water planning function” , including a reformed approach to Strategic Policy Statements, proving forward thinking for 25 years with new strategic guidance every five years (not a million miles away from the current price reviews and Water Resource Management Plans).
Under the heading “Resetting Regulation” we see the intention to abolish Ofwat, combining functions of the economic operator for the water industry, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and some water-related functions of the Environment Agency and Natural England with a new “supervisory approach” to regulation.
But there is none of the essential detail for the public to understand not only the intentions of the government but its methodology. Ofwat is a creature of the Water Industry Act 1991 (WIA). Cobbling together a new regulatory body may well require a complete overhaul of the WIA and the Water Resources Act 1991 (WRA), not to mention amendments to myriad related laws (Environmental Permitting Regulations, Environment Act1995 and so on). The “how” and “when” of the changes is unclear.
The “Clear Action for Clean Water” section is not so clear on content but it contains a list of all the good work the government is doing with “record investment” for the wastewater treatment and so on. Apart from the issue of sewage, the government will, we are told, simplify and streamline agricultural pollution regulation – though we would say this seems to be rather off-theme and the regulations – Farming Rules – are not at fault – just the failure to regulate and enforce.
One of the few positives following the Cunliffe Review is the introduction of the “system of open monitoring – where companies are not marking their own homework on environmental performance.” This would mean publication of data in real time with proper public access. The details are not given, but NGOs such as WildFish and Fish Legal have been saying this is the way forward for years – right back to when operator self- monitoring was proposed and put into effect over 16 years ago.
To achieve “Water Security” the industry will need to meet “statutory resilience standards while cutting leakage and increasing water efficiency with more water reuse, smart metering, and innovative regulation.” Crucial to this will be changes brought in under the new Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025: “We are also streamlining infrastructure delivery with new planning systems, support for stronger supply chains and better regulatory oversight to protect infrastructure from growing risks. These reforms will help water companies get spades in the ground faster to build and maintain more resilient infrastructure.” It is not immediately clear how that will happen in practical, legal terms. It is certainly the case that the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 will allow the circumvention of procedural blockages for large infrastructure such as reservoir construction by removing applications from the Development Consent process – though it remains to be seen whether this does speed things up.
One crucial suggestion that WildFish has been making in its “No Capacity, no Development” campaign has been to make water companies statutory consultees in planning applications. The government has confirmed in the White Paper that it is taking this sensible suggestion forwards at last. But it is unclear how the new “joined up thinking” will work to make sure that water companies provide the infrastructure for sewage treatment.
The White Paper says that “planning frameworks will be enabled by an enhanced, better joined-up regional water planning function” which will “fill the ‘missing middle’ in the current system and enable a more holistic, coordinated approach to water environment and supply planning which aligns with the long-term priorities.” Regional water planning will lead to more “joined-up plans across sectors including the water industry, agriculture, transport, and development and better consider currently overlooked objectives like public health.” Again, this is such a cluster of ideas that it is difficult to understand exactly what is intended and how it will be achieved. What exactly is the “missing middle”, for instance?
WildFish has significant concerns at the White Paper’s framing of undefined changes to regulatory and enforcement policy, on the back of the Corry Report and Cunliffe. There is an assumption throughout the White Paper that failures of compliance with the law are really failures of the law. The industry, we are informed, is over-regulated and hinders growth. Such an assumption has led to the “risk based approach” to regulation and enforcement. Reliance on the new and vague concept of “constrained discretion” is an example. It is so vaguely articulated in the White Paper that it will leave even the Environment Agency scratching its head. Take, for instance, this paragraph explaining “constrained discretion”:
“We will therefore embed the concept of ‘constrained discretion’ into the reset of water regulation. The aim of constrained discretion is to empower the regulator with greater flexibility to support improved outcomes for people, the environment, and economic growth, within appropriate constraints set out in legislation. For example, a regulator that is more empowered to regulate on outcomes, rather than process, will be more able to prioritise sewage treatment works upgrades where they will have the most impact and consider where a change in approach may remove regulatory barriers to the use of nature-based solutions.”
. . .Or the truly mysterious sentence, “The new regulator’s discretion will be constrained by appropriate guardrails.”
What does it all mean, one may ask? That is, if not to make it easy to sacrifice our rivers on the altar of unconstrained growth.
Another real concern for NGOs specialising in water health is the on-going assault on the Water Framework Directive (WFD) – which should be the backbone of environmental planning for the water environment. As with Cunliffe, the argument from the government is that because targets have not been met, there must be something wrong with the law, so it needs changing. The White Paper hints at the changes afoot:
“Through an upcoming water bill, we intend to progress an ambitious, coherent reset of the legislative framework. This includes elements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations and exploring updates to the Water Framework Directive Regulations, where needed.”
The new water bill will be “setting new ambitious targets for the water environment”. Many environmental groups including WildFish fear this will mean a watering down of targets so that they can be met more easily. One way to do that is to broaden the targets to include amenity and use value which clearly conflicts with environmental standards; the other is to do away with the “one-out; all-out” rule so that rivers that currently fail to meet standards may be able to pass in the future with no change required to their ecological health (rather like moving the goal posts).
In the end, it is all about “better outcomes”: as with the planning reforms, that essentially means growth, probably at the cost of the environment. Or where the environment is compromised, it can be compensated. But how do you compensate for the destruction of a sensitive ecosystem, such as that found in chalk streams?
As for mis-behaving water companies that have appealed Ofwat or the new super-regulator’s decisions on how much customers’ money they can spend on infrastructure and how far bills may rise, the water companies will be wringing their hands as the Competition and Markets Authority will no longer decide appeals. There will be a “more focused appeals process” to “help create a price review process that is faster, more resource-efficient, and more predictable for water companies and investors.”
And with timing, the minister informs us that, “Some reforms will be taken forward immediately, whilst others will form the foundations of a new water bill which we will introduce during this Parliament to set the course for lasting change”. We are left none the wiser over the timetable and which of the measures will be brought forward immediately. The confusion may be alleviated: the “Transition Plan” will apparently set out how it is all going to happen. But there is currently no clarity on timeframes. In fact, a lack of clarity pervades the entire report. There is scant detail on the “what” and the “how” to meet the vague slogans of the White Paper.
Support like yours allows our determined campaigning team to fight the destruction caused by open-net salmon farming, pollution and over-abstraction
Find out about all the ways in which you can help wild fish…
