{"id":283760,"date":"2025-07-22T23:46:15","date_gmt":"2025-07-22T23:46:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/283760\/"},"modified":"2025-07-22T23:46:15","modified_gmt":"2025-07-22T23:46:15","slug":"how-doomed-regulator-lost-control-of-sewage-dumpers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/283760\/","title":{"rendered":"How doomed regulator lost control of sewage dumpers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\t\t\t\t\tWatchdog fails to grasp the pollution scandal and had too close a relationship with water companies, say insiders\t\t\t\t\t <\/p>\n

The Government\u2019s decision to abolish Ofwat<\/a> was inevitable given its \u201cdisgraceful\u201d failure to get sewage-spilling water companies under control, insiders have told The i Paper.<\/p>\n

One former senior Ofwat official said the doomed water watchdog failed to take the sewage scandal seriously<\/a> \u2013 agreeing with environmental activists that regulation had been a \u201cshitshow\u201d.<\/p>\n

Another former top civil servant involved in water policy said Ofwat\u2019s failure to insist on investment in the nation\u2019s creaking sewage system had \u201ccome back to haunt us\u201d.<\/p>\n

Environment Secretary Steve Reed confirmed on Monday that Ofwat, the water regulator for England and Wales, will be scrapped in an overhaul of a \u201cbroken\u201d system.<\/p>\n

It marks a victory for The i Paper\u2019s Save Britain\u2019s Rivers<\/a> campaign, which has called for tougher regulation.<\/p>\n

Sewage spills have soared under Ofwat\u2019s watch in the past decade. Discharges into England\u2019s waterways came to a record 3.6 million hours in 2024, up from around 100,000 hours in 2016.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

One former senior official at Ofwat \u2013 who worked for them for more than five years up to 2019 \u2013 said they had been frustrated that bosses had prioritised lowering bills over tackling sewage dumping.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnything that wasn\u2019t about driving efficiency and driving bills down for customers had no place in Ofwat\u2019s thinking,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n

The ex-official said Ofwat \u201crefused to accept\u201d the scale of discharges from sewage overflows, from which water companies release sewage into rivers, lakes, and seas during periods of high rainfall<\/a>.<\/p>\n

They added: \u201cIf you looked at the amount of money coming into the sector, and going out of the sector, the water companies did have money to invest more.<\/p>\n

\u201cOfwat could have made sure that for the same water bills [for customers], more investment could have been required. Their approach delayed a lot of the spending that was needed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"(FILES)Sewage outflows, such as this one into the River Thames in south east London, have regularly been used during periods of heavy rainfall (Photo by Ben Stansall\/AFP\/Getty)<\/p>\n

Dr Martin Hurst, a former No 10 water policy advisor, was a senior official at Defra from 2007 to 2015 \u2013 spending several years at the environment department as water director.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s no doubt Ofwat in the past turned a blind eye to the future,\u201d said Dr Hurst, now an associate at the environmental think tank Sustainability First.<\/p>\n

He said the economic water regulator had \u201callowed underinvestment and had insufficient oversight on what water companies were doing\u201d.<\/p>\n

Dr Hurst said the Ofwat board \u201cdidn\u2019t have the expertise to see what was happening on the environment\u201d. He also said the relationship between Ofwat and pollution experts at the Environmental Agency was \u201cdysfunctional\u201d because \u201cthey didn\u2019t talk enough\u201d.<\/p>\n

He added: \u201cLooking back, when you had cheaper borrowing and healthier water companies, we should have made sure the companies invested much more in the long-term assets. It\u2019s come back to haunt us. It was a failure of the entire system.\u201d<\/p>\n

Huge pay packets and bonuses enjoyed by water company bosses<\/a> have been met with public outrage in recent years. But there have also been question marks over the activities of top Ofwat officials.<\/p>\n

Last week, it emerged senior staff at the public body put over a dozen international flights on expenses in recent years \u2013 despite the watchdog being solely focused on the UK.<\/p>\n

There were trips to Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada between 2022 and 2025, according to a FOI response. Ofwat said the trips were for work-related activities.<\/p>\n

There were also repeated concerns about the \u201crevolving door\u201d of top executives moving between Ofwat and the water companies, which prevented the regulator from taking tougher action.<\/p>\n

Two-thirds of England\u2019s water giants employed senior people who had previously worked at the regulator, according to a 2023 report.<\/p>\n

\"BRIGHTON,Record levels of sewage dumping have led to public outrage (Photo by Vuk Valcic\/SOPA Images\/LightRocket\/Getty)<\/p>\n

Dr Kevin Grecksch, a leading water policy expert at Oxford University\u2019s School of Geography and the Environment, thinks the \u201cmerry-go-round\u201d relationship \u201cjust shouldn\u2019t have happened\u201d.<\/p>\n

Dr Grecksch added that the fines dished out by Ofwat to the water firms had amounted to \u201cpocket money\u201d compared to the firms\u2019 mammoth profits since privatisation in 1989<\/p>\n

He said: \u201cFor the water companies, it\u2019s been like owning an ATM. Profit has been guaranteed.<\/p>\n

\u201cOne of the big problems was that you only had finance people in senior roles, when you also need water people. They apparently didn\u2019t understand [water infrastructure].<\/p>\n

The former Ofwat official told The i Paper there had been \u201ca lot of movement\u201d between the regulator and water companies \u201cin both directions\u201d, adding: \u201cIt wasn\u2019t seen as an issue. It wasn\u2019t an organisation that asked questions of itself.<\/p>\n

\u201cRegulation has been too weak,\u201d they added. \u201cSh**show is a probably a good word to describe it. You need a much tougher relationship [with the water companies].\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m mildly optimistic it will get better under a new regulator \u2013 partly because it can\u2019t get much worse. Just getting everyone under the same roof won\u2019t work unless the new regulator is given a very clear mandate.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ofwat\u2019s demise follows the wide-ranging review by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, who said Ofwat had failed by taking a \u201clight touch\u201d approach to tackling polluting water firms.<\/p>\n

The review recommended a radical shake-up so that Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI), and the part of the Environment Agency which monitors water pollution are replaced by a single \u201cjoined-up\u201d and \u201cpowerful\u201d regulator.<\/p>\n

However, a new super-regulator must have stronger powers and avoid the major mistakes made by Ofwat, say environmentalists and those who have worked in policy and regulation.<\/p>\n

\"LONDON,Environment Secretary Steve Reed announced Ofwat will be scrapped following recommendations made by the Cunliffe report (Photo by Leon Neal\/Getty)<\/p>\n

Criticism of Ofwat has been fierce in the wake of the damning review. Gary Carter of the GMB union said Ofwat had overseen a \u201cdisgrace\u201d of crumbling infrastructure, polluted rivers, and rising bills while \u201cfat cat bosses get rich\u201d.<\/p>\n

Some campaigners have joined the union in calls for re-nationalisation. River Action chief executive James Wallace said the Cunliffe commission had \u201cblinked\u201d at a \u201conce-in-a-generation opportunity\u201d to look at public ownership.<\/p>\n

But there is a cautious welcome about the plan to bring the economic and environmental regulation together.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m broadly in favour in order to end the confusing web of different requirements,\u201d said Mark Lloyd, chief executive of The Rivers Trust.<\/p>\n

\u201cDoing something radical to make regulation stronger and more nimble is very sensible. But I\u2019m nervous that it could lead to a long period of disruption. They need to get on with it quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is not yet clear whether the looming shake-up could see widespread job losses across the water regulators. Sources said they expected any redundancies to come at the top through streamlining in management.<\/p>\n

The PCS union \u2013 which has members in Ofwat, Defra and the Drinking Water Inspectorate \u2013 said civil servants were \u201cready to do their part\u201d in the restructuring.<\/p>\n

An Ofwat spokesperson said the Cunliffe report was \u201can opportunity to reset\u201d. The body will \u201ccontinue to work hard within our powers to protect customers and the environment,\u201d before a new regulator is set up, they added.<\/p>\n

Philip Duffy, chief executive of the Environment Agency, said the \u201cmerger\u201d between regulators could help ensure more is done to prevent pollution.<\/p>\n

\u201cOn structure, none of us who have worked in the regulation of the water industry in recent years would defend the current system,\u201d added Duffy, saying it will be \u201cvital to get the detail right\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Watchdog fails to grasp the pollution scandal and had too close a relationship with water companies, say insiders…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":283761,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3843],"tags":[728,94476,70,94477,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-283760","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-environment","9":"tag-save-britains-rivers","10":"tag-science","11":"tag-sewage","12":"tag-uk","13":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114899556053645019","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/283760","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=283760"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/283760\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/283761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=283760"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=283760"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=283760"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}