‘Pay to Pollute’ is not justice for our rivers

The Environment Agency (EA) and Defra have announced that a record £8.5 million funding had been secured through enforcement action for investment into the restoration of rivers and habitats.

£8.5 million of voluntary payments into environmental restoration projects can be seen as nothing other than paying to pollute. In the same year, total pay for water company bosses in England and Wales reached £15 million, and raw sewage dumping hit record highs (1).

Fines and voluntary environmental restoration payments continue to be treated as operational ‘overheads’ by water companies. Fish and other wildlife reliant on clean waterways will only benefit when the whole enforcement system is overhauled, which will include an imperative to build resilient water and sewerage networks and not ‘bake in’ pollution. ‘Pollute now, pay later’ is not the solution – pollution must be stopped at source and the two main contributors steadfastly remain water companies and agriculture.

Enforcement Undertakings versus Prosecution

The £8.5 million figure referred to in the announcement captures the total amount received through Enforcement Undertakings – voluntary agreements between polluters and the Environment Agency, in which water companies pay into environmental restoration projects, rather than to the Treasury through fines and the stigma of being prosecuted.

The Government remarked that these voluntary agreements “can help deliver immediate benefits to the environment, without requiring lengthy and uncertain court proceedings”. In other words, making the voluntary agreement to pay into environmental restoration, water companies can avoid prosecution for breaching environmental permits.

The welcome news mentioned in the announcement was the increase in inspections of water company sites to a record 10,000 in 2025/26, up from 4,600 in 2024/25. Of these 10,000 visits, more than 3,000 permit breaches were revealed.

The solution to stopping pollution from the water sector at source is through securing commitment to huge investment into fixing the thousands of issues identified by the EA – not retrospective payments into nature restoration whilst infrastructure continues to crumble and pollution flows into our waterways as a result.

Enforcement Undertaking No Longer the Exception

The Angling Trust obtained information from the EA through an information request which revealed that 272 Enforcement Undertakings were accepted and/or completed since 2011 (2). Since 2013, only 245 prosecutions were completed (regardless of verdict) in relation to water pollution incidents.

Zoe Wedderburn-Day, Head of Policy and Strategy, Fish Legal, commented:

“Enforcement Undertakings were meant to be used sparingly, in genuinely exceptional cases. What we are seeing now is something quite different, where polluters can avoid prosecution by funding ‘shovel ready’ projects that are often unrelated to the damage they have caused. That creates a ‘pay to pollute’ culture, where serious pollution becomes a routine cost of doing business and the focus shifts away from fixing the damage where the pollution actually happened.  Ultimately, it’s a fudge and one polluters like the water companies are only too happy to play along with.”

The EA’s own Enforcement and Sanctions Policy says that the normal response to a category 1 or 2 pollution incident is prosecution, formal caution or variable monetary penalty. An Enforcement Undertaking is supposed to be the exception, reserved only for cases that are “exceptional or otherwise in the public interest”. Yet, on the EA’s apparent approach, 272 incidents over the last 15 years have fallen into that supposedly ‘exceptional’ category. An unlikely state of affairs given there have been fewer prosecutions than this in the last 13 years and prosecutions are supposed to be the “normal” response to a category 1 or 2 pollution.

Our data suggests that Enforcement Undertakings have now become the norm and not the exception. It is not difficult to see the attraction, less outlay by the EA on the prosecution process and less delays in getting cases through the clogged-up court system.

However, many of these cases are still taking far too long to conclude and are not being promptly publicised, so many people are still left in the dark as to what has actually happened and whether ‘justice’ has been meted out.

Inappropriate Use of Enforcement Undertaking Funds

Fish Legal has worryingly noticed that in some cases, remedial action funded by the Enforcement Undertaking is performed at sites other than that which was polluted in the first instance and without any consideration of the direct victims of the pollution, i.e. angling clubs. This is to the great frustration of our members who have seen their fisheries damaged and destroyed. Fish Legal members have heard from the EA that the reason certain projects are chosen is not necessarily in consideration of the site of damage or the victims, but instead to prioritise projects that are ‘shovel ready’ to speed up the allocation.

This smacks of laziness and an imperative to ‘clear the desk’ as easily as possible. Of the £8.5 million quoted by the EA, it would be interesting to know how much of this was spent on remediation projects addressing the actual site of the pollution and not just convenient ‘shovel ready’ projects nearby.

Fish Legal understands that the EA is soon to consult on a revised Enforcement and Sanctions Policy. We hope to see in this a greater consideration towards identifying and working with victims of pollution and prioritising remediation action which addresses the site of the pollution. We urge all our members to have their say when this consultation starts.

 

[1] Enforcement Undertakings and water company boss payments are reported during the financial year (April 6, 2024 – April 5, 2025). Whereas, record sewage spill figure relates to the calendar year (January 1 2024 – December 2025).

[2] Data up to date as of 13 March 2026. Enforcement Undertakings captured are those relating to the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 Water, and/or Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 Water ,and/or Water Resources Act 1991, and/or Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.