Guardian environment correspondent Sandra Laville’s reporting on the sewage crisis in English water has helped expose a privatisation scandal that has sparked widespread anger across the political spectrum. Sandra has now finished answering your questions. Read the Q&A and join the discussion below.
Should the water industry be renationalised?
Pregoid asks: Can you outline a route to renationalisation?
Sandra:
“The government has put the cost of renationalising water at £100bn. But this is a disputed figure. Academics working with the People’s Commission on the Water Sector say this figure is ‘serious scaremongering created on biased evidence’ which was paid for by water companies. It is based on the Regulatory Capital Value of companies as determined by Ofwat, not the ‘true and fair value in law’, which reflects losses from market failures, like the cost of pollution or the monopoly profits taken by shareholders and banks.
The route to renationalisation could come via the system set up legally when the companies were privatised. Under the law, companies can be put into special administration if they are unable to pay debts, if they breach licence obligations, such as on sewage pollution or failing to supply water, and if it is considered in the public interest to do so. Special administration is a form of temporary renationalisation.
Companies are arguably already in many cases in breach of their licence conditions on sewage pollution, and in some cases on water supply, given, for example, the multiple supply outages by South East Water in Kent and Sussex. Ewen McGaughey, a professor of law at King’s College London, argues the special administration system can be used to renationalise water companies at near zero cost to the public.”
View image in fullscreen: ‘Companies are arguably already in many cases in breach of their licence conditions.’ Photograph: Yui Mok/PA Wire
Could we separate out rainwater and wastewater systems?
MaggieObank asks: Is it feasible for the water companies to develop separate rainwater and wastewater systems and would that solve the problem?
Sandra:
“This is the million-dollar question! While tackling separation across the whole network at once is considered too disruptive and costly, particularly in urban environments, the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management says moving towards separated systems is their key focus to address urban pollution and stormwater sewage releases. New developments, for example, are now mandated to have separate pipes for foul wastewater and surface water runoff.
They also want to see the increased use of sustainable drainage systems like water butts and storage basins for existing properties, to reduce the amount of runoff into the system. Keeping gardens rather than paving them over, and creating so-called sponge cities, is also key to tackling pollution.
In sponge cities, the creation of wetlands, green roofs, and permeable pavements mimics natural water absorption and reduces runoff into the sewage system. Householders could be incentivised to use these systems, to keep gardens instead of paving them over and thereby help reduce runoff into the system.”
Is it Brexit’s fault?
Zebster asks: How have things changed since leaving the EU? I remember our rivers and seas being clean and keeping to strict EU regulations. Am I remembering incorrectly or have things got increasingly bad since Brexit?
Sandra:
“The UK was described as the dirty man of Europe back in the 70s and 80s, due to levels of pollution. For example, in coastal towns there were no water treatment plants to treat sewage; raw sewage was just pumped and dumped into the sea. It was only when the EU directives came in that the clean-up began. Chief among these were the Urban Wastewater Directive, the Water Framework Directive, and the Bathing Water Directive.
Since leaving the EU, there have been fears that these pieces of legislation could be watered down. James Bevan, as CEO of the Environment Agency…”The Environment Agency discussed amending the Water Framework Directive to make it easier for rivers to meet standards for chemical and biological health. Currently, no river is classified as being in good overall health under the directive, which requires passing both types of assessments.
What else has changed since privatisation?
A reader asks what other factors, besides population growth, have made this problem so difficult to solve, leading the Environment Agency to accept self-regulation and an “acceptable level of pollution events” as the norm.
Sandra responded:
“I believe a key issue is the lack of investment, both in the regulators and by the water companies. For example, in the Southern Water case, where they were fined £90 million for dumping billions of litres of raw sewage into protected coastal waters over several years, court evidence showed employees dealing with crumbling infrastructure. They kept handwritten records as they struggled with broken pumps, pipes, and storage tanks that hadn’t been upgraded for years. Sewage was illegally stored for weeks before being released into the sea. Thames Water has also admitted to overusing its assets for decades.
“So, what has changed is that time has passed, the systems have aged without being upgraded. Combined with population growth and wetter winters due to climate change, this has created an environmental disaster that is only now being addressed.”
Should water firms become public benefit companies?
Another reader, whose family has lived near Chichester Harbour for over 50 years, notes the decline in the harbour’s condition despite thousands of new homes being built, with no new wastewater treatment plants added. They ask whether private equity or public benefit companies are the better model for maintaining and expanding necessary infrastructure.
Sandra replied:
“In my view, the record of privatisation over the last 30-plus years has not benefited the environment. From the start, the regulator’s main focus was on keeping bills low, with environmental concerns taking a back seat. Companies were allowed to take on high levels of debt and pay large dividends for many years. Private equity entered the scene, creating a complex and opaque financial system around something essential to human well-being—providing clean water and managing wastewater.
“When public outrage grew about six years ago over the scale of raw sewage pollution in rivers, I believe the regulator was forced to pay more attention to environmental damage. Water companies were exposed for routinely using rivers as dumping grounds for raw sewage while failing to update infrastructure to handle population growth and climate change.
“Therefore, I think a different form of ownership would be better—one that focuses more on providing a public benefit rather than being designed to deliver dividends to shareholders. In many ways, the privatised companies did exactly what they were supposed to do in a capitalist system: they served their shareholders, and the regulator allowed it.”
How can we make things better?
An activist and academic working on water issues asks Sandra what she believes are the most effective strategies for protecting and improving the health of Britain’s waterways.Citizens can get involved with waterways in several ways. I’m particularly interested in the benefits of council declarations on the Rights of Rivers, like the one for the River Ouse in Sussex.
Sandra says:
“The most successful campaign groups have combined testing their river—near treatment works, outflows, etc.—with using that data to hold companies accountable. They’ve been very tenacious in pushing for meetings, bringing local people on board, and forming coalitions with other groups. Personally, I think Rights of Rivers declarations really help. They focus attention on the river, create an emotional connection between local people and their river, and give nature a voice. For too long, the environment has been a silent victim—giving rivers rights can only empower those who want to protect them.”
Zebster asks: “We hear so many appalling things about water companies releasing sewage, not maintaining infrastructure, and failing to invest. Are all companies the same? Or do most actually invest and avoid pollution, and we just don’t hear about the good ones?”
Sandra replies:
“I don’t think all companies are the same, which is reflected in the Environment Agency’s rating system. For example, Thames Water received just one star in the 2024 environmental performance assessment. The ratings published last October aren’t good for most water companies. The nine water and sewerage companies collectively achieved only 19 out of a possible 36 stars, down from 25 in 2023. Severn Trent has the highest rating of four stars and, according to the data, maintained a low record of serious pollution incidents—just one in 2024. However, the company’s total pollution incidents did increase. It’s worth noting that the system of water companies reporting their own sewage pollution has been heavily criticized and compared to marking your own homework. The Labour government is committed to this operator self-monitoring but hasn’t set a date for ending it.”
Thesnufkin asks: “Citizen action groups have played a huge part in bringing this issue to public attention. What more can citizen activists do?”
Sandra says:
“Citizen groups have been central to exposing what water companies have been doing. When I started reporting on this over six years ago, I found tenacious campaigners who were monitoring, measuring, and trying to shed light on the situation. That movement has only grown, and we now have a network of citizen groups looking out for our waterways. I think we simply need more of this—to cover more rivers and act as guardians for more coastal areas.”
JudithPRoberts asks: “A short question that may require a longer reply: when are our rivers likely to start improving?”
Sandra replies:
“That’s difficult to answer! We’re far from the target of having all rivers in good overall health by 2027. Small, localized pollution can improve quickly once the source is stopped. Physical pollution like plastic waste, litter, and shopping trolleys can be removed for immediate improvement, but reversing damage across entire river systems requires long-term investment and work. However, past evidence shows improvements are possible. Coastal waters have improved since EU-derived directives like the Urban Wastewater Directive were introduced. Awareness of river pollution is much greater now. There are also examples in Europe of inland lakes that have been protected with…”Strict limits on dumping raw and treated sewage, as seen at Lake Annecy, prove that water quality can be restored. The cleanup of Annecy began in the late 1950s, and today it is regarded as one of the cleanest lakes in Europe. The sooner we act, the better!
Thank you for all your excellent questions!
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions Should Water Services Be Renationalised
BeginnerLevel Questions
What does renationalising water services actually mean
It means taking the ownership and control of water companies back into public hands run by the government or a public body on a notforprofit basis
Why is this even being discussed
Because of widespread public frustration over sewage spills into rivers and seas high executive pay and shareholder dividends rising customer bills and perceived underinvestment in infrastructure by the private water companies
Werent water companies always private
No In England they were publicly owned and run by the government until 1989 when they were privatised Scotland and Northern Ireland have publicly owned water authorities Wales has a notforprofit company owned by Welsh water customers
Whats the main argument FOR renationalisation
Supporters argue it would remove the need to pay dividends to shareholders allowing all profits to be reinvested into fixing leaks upgrading pipes and stopping sewage pollution potentially leading to lower bills and better service in the long term
Whats the main argument AGAINST it
Opponents argue it would cost the government tens of billions to buy the companies back taking money away from other public services like schools and hospitals They also claim private ownership has driven investment and efficiency that public ownership lacked before 1989
Advanced Practical Questions
Would my water bill go down immediately if it was renationalised
Not necessarily and probably not immediately The huge cost of buying the companies and the massive investment needed in infrastructure would still have to be paid for likely through bills or taxes The goal is better longterm value and investment not an instant price cut
Has renationalisation worked elsewhere
Examples are mixed Paris took its water back into public hands in 2010 and reported savings and improved service However poorly managed public utilities in some countries can suffer from underfunding and political interference The success depends heavily on how its structured and managed
What about the massive debt water companies have Who would pay for that
This is a critical issue The private companies have built up significant debt If the government nationalises them it would likely take on that debt adding to the national debt This is a major point of contention in the cost debate
