Marching forward on water?

27 November 2024

Will the March for Clean Water and the first meetings of the Independent Water Commission herald a step change in water management for England and Wales?

The March for Clean Water, which took place on 3 November in London, had been promoted by high profile campaigners as a chance to “flood the streets” with “rage” at the condition of our rivers, lakes and seas. It was a protest march of the traditional kind, and hence a source of concern for a small number of CIWEM members when we announced that some of our staff would be joining.

But the organisers had always been clear that the event was to be a celebration of the public’s love and concern for the health of our water. And so it proved. While there was plenty of ire expressed at water companies, sewage pollution, past profiteering and the usual media fodder, alongside that was art, poetry, music, passion and an incredibly broad spectrum of participants.

CIWEM's Alastair Chisholm and Paul Shaffer at the March for Clean Water

This was no better exemplified than by the young people who attended the post-march rally in Parliament Square - authentic passion coupled with detailed knowledge. When a young teen stood up and extolled the virtues of treatment wetlands, sustainable drainage schemes (SuDS) and keeping surface water out of combined sewer networks, it felt like the future of the profession was stepping out.

And plenty present wanted to know about CIWEM and why we were marching for A Fresh Water Future. There was a feeling of, “If CIWEM is marching, then things must be serious”. We were pleased to be joined by a few early careers members on the day, young professionals who welcomed the fact that we were taking part.

Water review

Overall the event was a high-profile expression of a desire for change and an improvement in how water is managed. This speaks to what so many members have told us in recent years, and was recognised in a letter by environment secretary Steve Reed to march participants ahead of the event. His letter emphasised that the Independent Water Commission (IWC) he announced in October would examine the issues behind the public’s concerns, and address them.

This review was a big win for us at CIWEM, being the headline recommendation of A Fresh Water Future back in January and we look forward to being actively involved in the review as an independent and expert body on water.

But there is a risk – identified in part by the young person talking about SuDS – that the wider nuance of many systemic challenges could be missed by the scope of the review and the timeframe in which it has to operate. We expressed these concerns in our response to the formal announcement of the commission.

Whilst the review will focus heavily on water industry governance, and does technically encompass wider catchment considerations linked to agricultural and other land use, and urban water management, this will happen through the lens of “strategic planning”, rather than as dedicated strands of the Terms of Reference.

Review roundtable

This concern was a clear message when leaders of a select group of eNGOs and water organisations including CIWEM took part in the first roundtable meeting with Sir Jon Cunliffe, the chair of the IWC, and members of the supporting review team.

All present advised that a wide-ranging, systems (or water cycle) focus for the review would be vital in terms of enabling the kinds of improvement the government would clearly like to show progress on. Whilst the range of organisations present was wide, across the understandable span of perspectives there was clear agreement that unless land management and urban water management (and thus planning policy and agriculture policy) and the activities of wider government departments were considered, then much of the review’s value could be missed.

(Meanwhile, CIWEM’s A Fresh Water Future conference on 3 December will focus in particular on this multi-dimensional planning, delivery and regulatory challenge.)

Sir Jon seemed to take this point on board, assuring that within the scope he’d been set, he would flex things to focus on the issues of greatest relevance. He also said that he intended to put his own stamp on things, though he noted that the government “would have its priorities” in terms of what it wished, and felt most able, to address.

Whether one of those priorities might be considering the ownership and structural models for the water industry remains to be seen. This was an area of significant interest for some in the room. The chair confirmed that whilst wholesale renationalisation was off the table, anything that might be done within the bounds of a privatised sector was potentially on it.

An opportunity for solutions

Things will become clearer when the IWC publishes its call for evidence. Phase one of the outreach will be to – in part at least – frame that call, which should come early in 2025. The volume of evidence the review team will need to sift through will undoubtedly be huge. This suggests that having just six months in which to amass, assess and report on everything is either optimistic or limiting.

Nevertheless, this is an opportunity to put thinking, arguments and evidence on the table in a review the likes of which hasn’t been seen in the water space for some considerable time. With a reporting deadline of June, the subsequent big question will be how much of what the review recommends will government wish to take forward.

Whether we march forward on water in 2025 or take two steps forward and one step back will become clear over the next 12 months. For now, there is a lot to play for. We’ll be mobilising our specialist panels, groups and wider stakeholder networks to help assemble CIWEM’s own evidence submission. Look out for further communications on this in the coming weeks.

Author: Alastair Chisholm is CIWEM’s director of policy