The head of the Environment Agency has warned that environmental protection and enhancement will come at a cost.
James Bevan commented alongside a new report from the EA that showed the number of serious pollution incidents by water companies has plateaued since 2017.
Overall, serious pollution incidents in 2019/20 fell by 12 per cent year-on-year to 467, but the number caused by water and sewerage companies was the same as the previous two years at 52.
The report Regulating for people, the environment and growth showed around 40 per cent of water body failures were attributed to agricultural and rural land management practices – many of which are unregulated.
More than half (57 per cent) of the total pollution incidents were caused by industrial activities without permits. In September the EA published data that showed more than 80 per cent of waterways failed its standards and no surface waters met the criteria for good chemical status.
As well as land management, the report states the water industry, transport and urban pressures all contributed to the waterway pollution.
The latest figures show that of the 400 serious incidents where the source was identified, 57 per cent were caused by industrial activities without permits.
Bevan said when balancing the need to tackle climate change with post-Covid economic recovery regulators should “reject false choices” between regulation or sustainable growth, because both are possible.
“Good regulation isn’t complicated, bureaucratic, and costly; it is simple, impactful, and money-saving,” he said. “The best regulation will stop environmental damage at the source, rather than the costly impact to the public purse and the environment of responding to damage after the event.”
He warned against defunding, which Bevan previously told the Environmental Audit Committee that EA monitoring and enforcement activities had been limited by budget cuts.
“Long term success in enhancing nature will require more investment,” Bevan said. “Ultimately we will get the environment we are prepared to pay for.”
Having previously come under fire for comments about re-designing EU regulatory structures used by the UK, Bevan underlined that change did not mean deregulation, but an opportunity to introduce better regulation.
“We should now have a debate about which parts of EU environmental law repatriated into UK legislation we should keep, reform or repeal,” Bevan said. “The test for any change should be simple: will it deliver better environmental outcomes?”