By Professor David M. Hannah, UNESCO Chair in Water Science and Director of Birmingham Institute for Sustainability & Climate Action
The UK government’s publication of A New Vision for Water represents the most significant attempt at water policy reform in decades - arguably since privatisation itself. After years of mounting public frustration over sewage pollution, ageing infrastructure and fragmented governance, this White Paper has been presented as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset our approach to water management and governance.
In many respects, the government’s analysis is correct: our water system is not delivering the outcomes citizens expect or the environmental protections science demands. The White Paper rightly identifies three core goals - ensuring safe and secure water supplies, protecting and enhancing the environment, and delivering fair outcomes for customers. These are necessary priorities. However, good intentions alone are not enough.
The centrepiece of reform is a proposed new integrated water regulator that would absorb the functions of existing bodies such as Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the Environment Agency and Natural England into a single, cohesive authority for England. This structural reset is perhaps long overdue. The current patchwork has too often allowed gaps between economic, environmental and health regulation - gaps that some companies have been able to navigate in ways that have not always supported the wellbeing of rivers and estuaries, or public confidence.
The White Paper also commits to longer-term planning horizons - with strategic guidance over 25 years rather than five - and to consolidating dozens of overlapping plans into streamlined frameworks for water supply and environmental outcomes. This recognition that water systems do not adhere to political cycles is welcome. As someone who has spent my career studying sustainable water systems (particularly in the context of non-stationarity driven largely by climate change), I have long argued that short-term planning and fragmented governance are incompatible with resilience.
However, the document also reveals the tension between ambition and detail. Many of the most important commitments - for example, on environmental protection, public health and storm overflow reform - are still high-level statements without binding, measurable targets attached. There is no clear mechanism in the White Paper that guarantees water companies will be held legally accountable for failing to meet the environmental and public health standards the public expects. This is a serious omission when we consider the scale of harm suffered by rivers, beaches and groundwater in recent years. (See Surfers Against Sewage)
Moreover, while the government signals a desire to attract private investment by smoothing regulatory burdens and creating stability for investors, it is less clear how the reform agenda will rebalance the incentives that have driven shareholder returns at the expense of infrastructure performance and environmental outcomes. At a time when public trust has been eroded, reform should not simply make water companies more “investor friendly.” It must ensure they are public-serving, sustinable and ecologically responsible.
Equally important is the lack of fully articulated commitments on pollution prevention at source - particularly for known (e.g. sewerage, agricultural and industrial discharges) and ‘emerging’ (e.g. microplastics, PFAS) contaminants f) - that the scientific community and environmental advocates have urged be central to reform. Long-lasting water quality cannot be delivered by better monitoring alone; it requires proactive regulation that prevents harmful discharges and contaminants from ever entering water bodies.
There is also a vital role for regional planning and cross-sector integration - aligning water policy with land use, agriculture, urban design and climate adaptation. The White Paper proposes a strengthened regional planning function; but the success of such mechanisms depends on resourcing, genuine stakeholder engagement and the willingness to share data and power across sectors.
In principle, this White Paper lays the foundation for transformative change. In practice, it remains a framework of possibilities rather than a blueprint for decisive action. For scientists, practitioners, community organisations and citizens alike, the forthcoming Transition Plan and the eventual Water Reform Bill will be the real test of whether this new vision moves beyond rhetoric to deliver measurable protection for public health, ecological integrity, and long-term water security.
If we are serious about safeguarding our rivers, wetlands, aquifers, estuaries and communities in a changing climate and with other increasing human pressures, reform must be anchored in science-led targets, legal accountability and genuine systems thinking - not just structural reorganisation or regulatory rebranding.
Water is both a natural resource and a public trust. Its governance should reflect that dual reality.
Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Sustainability)
Professor David Hannah studies hydroclimatology in cold regions, focusing on river dynamics, climate interactions, and ecohydrology.
