Prof David Hannah explains how England and Wales have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform water security - but only if reform delivers real change.
Photo by Ali Soheil
At this week’s Labour Party Conference, Andy Burnham signaled the most significant shift in UK water policy since privatisation, announcing plans for a strengthened Water Bill that would enable greater public control of water companies and give local leaders stronger powers to hold them to account. Framing water as “a symbol of what has gone wrong with Britain”, the reforms are intended to deliver cleaner rivers, stronger accountability, fairer bills and a long-term pathway to a more resilient and publicly focused water system.
Our water system is under pressure like never before. Population growth, plans for 1.5 million new homes, increasing demands from industry and agriculture, ageing infrastructure and a changing climate are all placing strain on finite resources. At the same time, rivers, groundwater and wetlands face growing environmental damage from human activity and a warming world.
The question is no longer whether reform is needed. It is whether reform can actually deliver lasting water security.
The Government's White Paper, A New Vision for Water, has been presented as a turning point for the sector - and it contains genuinely ambitious ideas. But its success will depend less on institutional restructuring and more on whether the reforms create a truly integrated, resilient approach to managing water as a shared national resource.
The most significant shift on offer is a move away from fragmented regulation towards joined-up, whole-system thinking. For years, economic, environmental and public health responsibilities have been split across multiple regulators - often leading to conflicting incentives and delayed decisions. A more integrated framework could align investment, environmental protection and service delivery around shared outcomes.
Equally important is the proposed move towards long-term planning. Water infrastructure and environmental recovery operate over decades, yet decision-making has too often been shaped by shorter regulatory cycles. At the minimum, a 25-year planning horizon, with clear interim milestones and investment pathways, could finally provide the certainty needed to unlock both infrastructure investment and nature-based solutions.
Meeting future demand cannot be achieved simply by building more reservoirs or transferring water across regions. Water security requires a portfolio approach - combining demand reduction, efficiency, reuse, storage and environmental protection. The White Paper rightly places greater emphasis on reducing demand before expanding supply. Smart metering, leakage reduction and higher efficiency standards are not alternatives to infrastructure investment; they are essential components of any resilient system.
The reforms also recognise something that has not always been obvious to policymakers: environmental protection and water security are not in competition. Healthy rivers, aquifers and wetlands are not constraints on the system - they are fundamental assets that underpin long-term water availability. Investing in catchment management, reducing agricultural pollution and restoring natural processes can often deliver greater benefits at lower cost than purely engineered solutions.
The risks, however, should not be underestimated.
The first is implementation. Replacing existing regulatory arrangements while simultaneously maintaining oversight of a sector facing serious operational and environmental challenges is a major undertaking. Institutional restructuring can absorb attention and resources at precisely the moment when delivery needs to accelerate.
The second is governance complexity. Regional planning offers clear advantages, but additional structures can also blur accountability. Without real decision-making powers, regional bodies risk becoming forums for discussion rather than vehicles for delivery.
The third is whether flexibility comes with sufficient safeguards. Greater local discretion can encourage innovation, but without accountability it can lead to inconsistency and uneven environmental outcomes.
This is why implementation matters as much as legislation.
Regional planning bodies need real authority - not simply the ability to produce advisory plans, but genuine influence over funding decisions. Long-term investment arrangements must be stable and predictable across political and regulatory cycles. Environmental safeguards must remain strong; resilience should never become a justification for weakening environmental standards.
Shared metrics are also essential. Success must be measured not only through compliance targets but through indicators of resilience, water security, environmental condition and system performance. And collaboration must go beyond consultation. The greatest opportunities lie at the intersection of sectors - water and agriculture, water and spatial planning, water and energy, water and environmental management. Shared data, joint funding mechanisms and genuine collective accountability will matter far more than the number of meetings held.
The ultimate prize is significant. England and Wales have a real opportunity to move from managing isolated assets and individual problems towards managing connected water systems - where reservoirs, canals, rivers, groundwater, wetlands and sustainable drainage all work together within a more integrated framework.
The success of water reform will depend on a simple but profound shift: from regulation as an end in itself, to resilience as the guiding objective. If the reforms achieve that, they could strengthen water security for decades to come. If they do not, we risk replacing one complex system with another while the underlying challenges continue to grow.
Deputy Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Sustainability)
Professor David Hannah studies hydroclimatology in cold regions, focusing on river dynamics, climate interactions, and ecohydrology.
