Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘It won’t wash’: Environment secretary’s bid to cosy up to water pollution protesters backfires

News Feed
Thursday, October 31, 2024

The environment secretary has caused a backlash among groups demanding an end to the pollution of rivers by water companies, after a direct appeal ahead of a demonstration backfired. The intervention by Steve Reed, who wrote to activists saying they could trust him with forging change within the water industry, was met with anger by campaigners who said he was avoiding the key issue – that water privatisation has failed.In his letter to members from the 130 groups taking part in the March for Clean Water on Sunday, who include Surfers Against Sewage, the GMB union, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB, Reed said he shared their anger about record levels of sewage pollution. He wished them a well-attended march and said he looked forward to working with them towards a shared ambition of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas for good.But since Labour took power, Reed has ruled out what many who will take to the streets are calling for: the return of the water industry to some kind of public ownership. In making the decision, using powers available to him under the special administration regime, he was accused of relying on flawed analysis paid for by water companies.The environment secretary, Steve Reed. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty ImagesIn the letter, distributed by the march organisers River Action, Reed said the independent commission he set up, along with the water (special measures) bill going through parliament, would start the change needed in the sector.Some campaigners criticised Reed’s attempt to claim allegiance, saying he had failed to address deep-rooted problems in the privatised water industry in England, where ownership has become concentrated in a web of private equity, foreign investment and pension funds.Becky Malby, of Ilkley Clean River Group, said Reed should use his existing powers to take failing water companies into special administration. She said the public would not tolerate paying increasingly large bills to companies which remain under criminal investigation by the Environment Agency for suspected illegal sewage dumping and the financial regulator Ofwat.Ash Smith, of Windrush against Sewage pollution, who is scheduled to speak on Sunday, said attempts to win over the marchers would not wash. “Steve Reed is trying to own the march by supporting clean water,” said Smith. “But there is massive public support to end the scandal that privatisation has brought. His refusal to face the facts and to rely on water company-funded fiction about costs is setting captive bill payers up to bail out private equity and keep the unforgivable exploitation going on for another five years.”River Action said it had concerns about Reed’s repeated references to the need to promote economic growth within the sector. “Our polluted water bodies do not need economic growth,” a spokesperson said. “They need effective and uncompromising environmental protection and regulation. As we can see with recent developments at Thames Water, the financial model of the water industry is unravelling fast and in some cases broken beyond repair.”Matt Staniek, of Save Windermere, said Reed’s intervention was a weak attempt to pacify public anger. “The government is clearly failing to enforce existing laws and continues to allow private equity to profit at the expense of bill payers and the environment,” he said. “They are proposing measures that fail to address the core issue – that privatisation has failed.”A Defra spokesperson said: “We share the public’s concern about the health of our waterways, and it is encouraging to see so many people actively engaged in this important cause. This government is committed to cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas and has wasted no time in acting.”The spokesperson added that the new bill would hold companies to account and ensure they met the high standards the public rightfully expected. “This includes strengthening regulation to ensure water bosses face personal criminal liability for lawbreaking, and giving the water regulator new powers to ban the payment of bonuses if environmental standards are not met,” they said.

Steve Reed’s letter to campaign groups ahead of demonstration met with anger from those who say he has ignored the key issue of privatisation The environment secretary has caused a backlash among groups demanding an end to the pollution of rivers by water companies, after a direct appeal ahead of a demonstration backfired. The intervention by Steve Reed, who wrote to activists saying they could trust him with forging change within the water industry, was met with anger by campaigners who said he was avoiding the key issue – that water privatisation has failed.In his letter to members from the 130 groups taking part in the March for Clean Water on Sunday, who include Surfers Against Sewage, the GMB union, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB, Reed said he shared their anger about record levels of sewage pollution. He wished them a well-attended march and said he looked forward to working with them towards a shared ambition of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas for good. Continue reading...

The environment secretary has caused a backlash among groups demanding an end to the pollution of rivers by water companies, after a direct appeal ahead of a demonstration backfired. The intervention by Steve Reed, who wrote to activists saying they could trust him with forging change within the water industry, was met with anger by campaigners who said he was avoiding the key issue – that water privatisation has failed.

In his letter to members from the 130 groups taking part in the March for Clean Water on Sunday, who include Surfers Against Sewage, the GMB union, the Wildlife Trusts and the RSPB, Reed said he shared their anger about record levels of sewage pollution. He wished them a well-attended march and said he looked forward to working with them towards a shared ambition of cleaning up rivers, lakes and seas for good.

But since Labour took power, Reed has ruled out what many who will take to the streets are calling for: the return of the water industry to some kind of public ownership. In making the decision, using powers available to him under the special administration regime, he was accused of relying on flawed analysis paid for by water companies.

The environment secretary, Steve Reed. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Future Publishing/Getty Images

In the letter, distributed by the march organisers River Action, Reed said the independent commission he set up, along with the water (special measures) bill going through parliament, would start the change needed in the sector.

Some campaigners criticised Reed’s attempt to claim allegiance, saying he had failed to address deep-rooted problems in the privatised water industry in England, where ownership has become concentrated in a web of private equity, foreign investment and pension funds.

Becky Malby, of Ilkley Clean River Group, said Reed should use his existing powers to take failing water companies into special administration. She said the public would not tolerate paying increasingly large bills to companies which remain under criminal investigation by the Environment Agency for suspected illegal sewage dumping and the financial regulator Ofwat.

Ash Smith, of Windrush against Sewage pollution, who is scheduled to speak on Sunday, said attempts to win over the marchers would not wash. “Steve Reed is trying to own the march by supporting clean water,” said Smith. “But there is massive public support to end the scandal that privatisation has brought. His refusal to face the facts and to rely on water company-funded fiction about costs is setting captive bill payers up to bail out private equity and keep the unforgivable exploitation going on for another five years.”

River Action said it had concerns about Reed’s repeated references to the need to promote economic growth within the sector. “Our polluted water bodies do not need economic growth,” a spokesperson said. “They need effective and uncompromising environmental protection and regulation. As we can see with recent developments at Thames Water, the financial model of the water industry is unravelling fast and in some cases broken beyond repair.”

Matt Staniek, of Save Windermere, said Reed’s intervention was a weak attempt to pacify public anger. “The government is clearly failing to enforce existing laws and continues to allow private equity to profit at the expense of bill payers and the environment,” he said. “They are proposing measures that fail to address the core issue – that privatisation has failed.”

A Defra spokesperson said: “We share the public’s concern about the health of our waterways, and it is encouraging to see so many people actively engaged in this important cause. This government is committed to cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas and has wasted no time in acting.”

The spokesperson added that the new bill would hold companies to account and ensure they met the high standards the public rightfully expected. “This includes strengthening regulation to ensure water bosses face personal criminal liability for lawbreaking, and giving the water regulator new powers to ban the payment of bonuses if environmental standards are not met,” they said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

EPA urged to classify abortion drugs as pollutants

It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the drug.

(NewsNation) — Anti-abortion group Students for Life of America is urging the Environmental Protection Agency to add abortion drug mifepristone to its list of water contaminants. It follows 40 other anti-abortion groups and lawmakers previously calling for the EPA to assess the water pollution levels of the abortion drug. “The EPA has the regulatory authority and humane responsibility to determine the extent of abortion water pollution, caused by the reckless and negligent policies pushed by past administrations through the [Food and Drug Administration],” Kristan Hawkins, president of SFLA, said in a release. “Take the word ‘abortion’ out of it and ask, should chemically tainted blood and placenta tissue, along with human remains, be flushed by the tons into America’s waterways? And since the federal government set that up, shouldn’t we know what’s in our water?” she added. In 2025, lawmakers from seven states introduced bills, none of which passed, to either order environmental studies on the effects of mifepristone in water or to enact environmental regulations for the drug. EPA’s Office of Water leaders met with Politico in November, with its press secretary Brigit Hirsch telling the outlet it “takes the issue of pharmaceuticals in our water systems seriously and employs a rigorous, science-based approach to protect human health and the environment.” “As always, EPA encourages all stakeholders invested in clean and safe drinking water to review the proposals and submit comments,” Hirsch added. Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Trump’s EPA' in 2025: A Fossil Fuel-Friendly Approach to Deregulation

The Trump administration has reshaped the Environmental Protection Agency, reversing pollution limits and promoting fossil fuels

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has transformed the Environmental Protection Agency in its first year, cutting federal limits on air and water pollution and promoting fossil fuels, a metamorphosis that clashes with the agency’s historic mission to protect human health and the environment.The administration says its actions will “unleash” the American economy, but environmentalists say the agency’s abrupt change in focus threatens to unravel years of progress on climate-friendly initiatives that could be hard or impossible to reverse.“It just constantly wants to pat the fossil fuel business on the back and turn back the clock to a pre-Richard Nixon era” when the agency didn’t exist, said historian Douglas Brinkley.Zeldin has argued the EPA can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. He announced “five pillars” to guide EPA’s work; four were economic goals, including energy dominance — Trump’s shorthand for more fossil fuels — and boosting the auto industry.Zeldin, a former New York congressman who had a record as a moderate Republican on some environmental issues, said his views on climate change have evolved. Many federal and state climate goals are unattainable in the near future — and come at huge cost, he said.“We should not be causing … extreme economic pain for an individual or a family” because of policies aimed at “saving the planet,” he told reporters at EPA headquarters in early December.But scientists and experts say the EPA's new direction comes at a cost to public health, and would lead to far more pollutants in the environment, including mercury, lead and especially tiny airborne particles that can lodge in lungs. They also note higher emissions of greenhouse gases will worsen atmospheric warming that is driving more frequent, costly and deadly extreme weather.Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican who led the EPA for several years under President George W. Bush, said watching Zeldin attack laws protecting air and water has been “just depressing.” “It’s tragic for our country. I worry about my grandchildren, of which I have seven. I worry about what their future is going to be if they don’t have clean air, if they don’t have clean water to drink,” she said.The EPA was launched under Nixon in 1970 with pollution disrupting American life, some cities suffocating in smog and some rivers turned into wastelands by industrial chemicals. Congress passed laws then that remain foundational for protecting water, air and endangered species.The agency's aggressiveness has always seesawed depending on who occupies the White House. Former President Joe Biden's administration boosted renewable energy and electric vehicles, tightened motor-vehicle emissions and proposed greenhouse gas limits on coal-fired power plants and oil and gas wells. Industry groups called rules overly burdensome and said the power plant rule would force many aging plants to shut down. In response, many businesses shifted resources to meet the more stringent rules that are now being undone.“While the Biden EPA repeatedly attempted to usurp the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law to impose its ‘Green New Scam,’ the Trump EPA is laser-focused on achieving results for the American people while operating within the limits of the laws passed by Congress,” EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said. Zeldin's list of targets is long Much of EPA’s new direction aligns with Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation road map that argued the agency should gut staffing, cut regulations and end what it called a war on coal on other fossil fuels.“A lot of the regulations that were put on during the Biden administration were more harmful and restrictive than in any other period. So that’s why deregulating them looks like EPA is making major changes,” said Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of Heritage's Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment.But Chris Frey, an EPA official under Biden, said the regulations Zeldin has targeted “offered benefits of avoided premature deaths, of avoided chronic illness … bad things that would not happen because of these rules.”Matthew Tejada, a former EPA official under both Trump and Biden who now works at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of the revamped EPA: “I think it would be hard for them to make it any clearer to polluters in this country that they can go on about their business and not worry about EPA getting in their way.”Zeldin also has shrunk EPA staffing by about 20% to levels last seen in the mid-1980s. Justin Chen, president of the EPA’s largest union, called staff cuts “devastating.” He cited the dismantling of research and development offices at labs across the country and the firing of employees who signed a letter of dissent opposing EPA cuts. Relaxed enforcement and cutting staff Many of Zeldin's changes aren't in effect yet. It takes time to propose new rules, get public input and finalize rollbacks. It's much faster to cut grants and ease up on enforcement, and Trump's EPA is doing both. The number of new civil environmental actions is roughly one-fifth what it was in the first eight months of the Biden administration, according to the nonprofit Environmental Integrity Project. “You can effectively do a lot of deregulation if you just don’t do enforcement,” said Leif Fredrickson, visiting assistant professor of history at the University of Montana.Hirsch said the number of legal filings isn't the best way to judge enforcement because they require work outside of the EPA and can bog staff down with burdensome legal agreements. She said the EPA is “focused on efficiently resolving violations and achieving compliance as quickly as possible” and not making demands beyond what the law requires.EPA's cuts have been especially hard on climate change programs and environmental justice, the effort to address chronic pollution that typically is worse in minority and poor communities. Both were Biden priorities. Zeldin dismissed staff and canceled billions in grants for projects that fell under the “diversity, equity and inclusion” umbrella, a Trump administration target.He also spiked a $20 billion “green bank” set up under Biden’s landmark climate law to fund qualifying clean energy projects. Zeldin argued the fund was a scheme to funnel money to Democrat-aligned organizations with little oversight — allegations a federal judge rejected. Pat Parenteau, an environmental law expert and former director of the Environmental Law School at Vermont Law & Graduate School, said the EPA's shift under Trump left him with little optimism for what he called “the two most awful crises in the 21st century” — biodiversity loss and climate disruption.“I don’t see any hope for either one,” he said. “I really don’t. And I’ll be long gone, but I think the world is in just for absolute catastrophe.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.