Thousands of pollution incidents in England are being swept under the rug without proper investigation—and it’s worse than you think. Shocking data uncovered through freedom of information (FoI) requests reveals that the Environment Agency (EA) has downgraded thousands of serious pollution incidents reported by water companies, often without even visiting the sites. But here’s where it gets controversial: Is this a case of regulatory failure, or something more systemic?
The numbers are staggering. In 2024, 2,778 serious pollution incidents were reported by water companies. Of these, a jaw-dropping 98%—or 2,735 incidents—were downgraded to minor events by EA officials. The kicker? Only 496 of these incidents were actually investigated on-site. The rest were deemed minor based solely on evidence provided by the water companies themselves. This marks a nearly 1,500% increase in downgrades compared to 2021, when just 174 incidents were reclassified, with only 60 investigated in person.
And this is the part most people miss: Out of the 2,778 serious incidents initially reported, the EA officially recorded just 75 as serious—a 60% rise from 2023, according to their own figures. So, what’s really going on here?
Robert Forrester, a whistleblower who spent nine years exposing the water industry’s practices before leaving the EA in January, has been sounding the alarm. His identity was recently revealed in the Channel 4 docudrama Dirty Business, and he’s vowed to keep fighting for transparency. Forrester points out a troubling trend: water companies appear to be dictating the EA’s investigative process. “As an officer with 21 years of experience, I’ve seen a dramatic shift over the past decade,” he explains. “We used to prioritize site visits, enforcement, and protection. Now, it’s like the water companies are calling the shots.”
For the 2025-26 financial year, the EA expects to receive £149 million from water companies through permit charges and a new enforcement levy—nearly 80% of its £189 million budget for water regulation. Forrester argues this funding model creates a glaring conflict of interest. “The regulator is too cozy with the water companies,” he says. “They’re funded by the very companies they’re supposed to oversee, and it’s weakening their ability to enforce regulations.”
But here’s the real question: Is this a deliberate oversight, or a symptom of a broken system? Forrester’s journey hasn’t been easy. After years of restricted duties and suspensions—which he believes were retaliation for his whistleblowing—he left the agency in January. In 2021, while Forrester was on a 12-month suspension, the EA’s then-chief executive, James Bevan, warned staff against speaking to the media. Andrew Pepper-Parsons, head of policy at the UK whistleblowing charity Protect, condemned the move, stating, “Regulators should encourage whistleblowing, not silence it.”
Forrester’s concerns date back to 2017, when a report on the toxicity of sewage sludge was withheld from public scrutiny. The report, eventually published by Greenpeace in 2020, revealed that sewage waste intended for UK crops was contaminated with dangerous chemicals like dioxins and furans—posing a potential risk to human health. The report also highlighted the challenges faced by EA staff, who were stretched thin due to budget cuts and increased workloads.
“The findings were horrifying,” Forrester recalls. “It was like something out of a nightmare. The report was supposed to be released, but it never saw the light of day. That’s when I knew I had to speak out.”
Now unemployed, Forrester is teaming up with campaigners to continue exposing sewage pollution and holding water companies accountable. Meanwhile, the EA defends its practices, stating, “We assess every pollution incident carefully and prioritize the most serious cases using real-time data and on-site inspections. With our largest-ever budget, we’re conducting 10,000 inspections this year to root out wrongdoing.”
But is that enough? With water companies funding the regulator’s budget and thousands of incidents being downgraded without investigation, it’s hard not to question the system’s integrity. What do you think? Is this a case of regulatory capture, or are there other factors at play? Let’s start the conversation—because the health of our environment depends on it.
