Water UK is warning that a new Government proposal to tackle nutrient pollution in rivers will have the unintended consequence of forcing water companies to rebuild sewage treatment works with solutions that must (without exception) use new concrete and steel – rather than creating woodlands, reed beds and wetlands that can be faster, more effective, and cheaper.

According to Stuart Colville, Director of Policy at the water sector trade body, the Government intends to address the problem via an amendment (New Clause 77) to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill (LURB).

Both sewage treatment works and agriculture are large contributors to nutrient pollution in rivers and lakes. Nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates can damage ecosystems by promoting the growth of algae and weeds - in designated ‘Habitat Sites’, developments must now be ‘nutrient neutral’.

In Water UK’s view, the LURB in its current form contradicts the government’s own ambitions for nature, and directly runs against the UK’s nature agencies’ commitment to “drive public and private investment in nature-based solutions”.

Setting out the issue in a blog post, Stuart Colville explains it has been half a century since England last managed to build the 300,000 new homes government says we need each year,commenting:

“Those 50 years of failure – with their consequences of inflated prices, reduced opportunity and debilitating commutes – have had profound consequences for quality of life, particularly for young people. In addition, announcements this year by Natural England make the problem worse by effectively blocking a further 100,000 homes from going ahead.

“To be fair to government and regulators, the new restrictions aim to deal with a problem that is serious and urgent – the presence of far too many nutrients in rivers, which are killing wildlife and strangling habitats”,he writes. Nutrients are the number one cause of rivers failing national ‘water framework’ standards, so new action is essential (including by water companies, which are the second biggest source).

However, he goes on to emphasise:

“In choosing, as that action, the prohibiting of new homes, regulators have completely thrown builders and officials, who have been scrambling for months to find a way of restarting construction within the rules.

“Unfortunately, that scrambling has produced a blunt solution that won’t solve the problem for nearly a decade, cost bill payers much more money than it needs to, stymie the growing practice of using markets and partnerships, and prevent the generation and restoration of habitats.”

“Reflecting the complexities of industrial design and permitting, the deadline set in legislation is a distant 2030.

“This seems like an unintended consequence. We’re asking government to make a small change to their amendment that could unlock tens of thousands of homes years sooner.“

According to Stuart Colville, Defra argues that because sewage treatment works are the second biggest source of nutrients, it is logical that efforts are targeted at those works.

"Blanket approach means solution will take years longer than it should - nearly a decade of further stagnation" 

However, he goes on to warn:

“Their blanket approach of specifying not just ‘what’ should be achieved (tons of nutrient to be removed from a river) – but also ‘how’ this should always be done (via specific engineering solutions at sewage works), means we are going to miss some huge opportunities for farming and nature.

“It also means a solution will take years longer than it should – nearly a decade of further stagnation, as opposed to the roughly 18 months in which some nature-based alternative schemes can be deployed once approved.“

Where there are good opportunities for locally-supported, high-impact schemes, the water industry would prefer to use catchment-based solutions, Colville says.

Projects could include developing more species-rich wetlands, for example, or supporting farmers and landowners in activities that have wider benefits for soil and flooding, like hedgerow maintenance, use of cover crops, best-practice fertiliser use, and creating riparian woodlands.

Apart from the environmental benefits, this could see farmers and land managers in England benefitting by around £50 million a year, if they were incentivised to contribute to the schemes -whichcould be worth over £1 billon between now and mid-century.

“Without change, we will lock-in old-fashioned, heavy engineering approach to nutrients”

 Water UK is calling on the Government to look again at the amendment and for ministers to confirm that they are committed to enabling catchment-based solutions to all nutrient issues through primary and secondary legislation or through clear guidance.

Stuart Colville concludes:

“Without that change, we may lose the possibility of community-led and market-based approaches to nutrients for good. We will instead lock-in the old-fashioned, heavy engineering approach to nutrients – with all the chemical and energy use that goes with it (which, alongside construction costs, could push annual water bills up by as much as £40).

“This is a crucial moment for nature and for environmental markets: kickstart them now using water company investment or lose the opportunity to harness this capital once the investment has instead been made in hard-engineering solutions.”

Click here to read Stuart Colville's post in full