Water companies are panicking they will be left unable to dispose of millions of tonnes of sewage sludge due to tougher pollution rules, and rising concern over the contaminants sludge contains.
Read the full investigation with supporting documents from Unearthed, here.
Sewage sludge is the human faeces and other solids left behind when wastewater is cleaned. Around 90% of the UK’s sludge is treated and spread on farmland as a source of nutrients to fertilise crops. However, concern is rising in the UK that this could be introducing damaging levels of contamination to agricultural land.
An analysis for trade association Water UK last year found that in a “worst-case” scenario the industry could be left with “3.4 million wet tonnes” of sludge with nowhere to go, documents obtained by Unearthed under freedom of information laws show.
The key documents not already in the public domain (available via the Unearthedwebsite) include:
National Plan B: water industry analysis of sludge disposal crisis
The National Landbank Assessment Report 2024: water industry capacity modelling
EA CEO internal briefing: prepared by the Environment Agency
Earlier this year, environmental regulators in the United States warned that toxic PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ in sewage sludge spread on American pastures were posing a cancer risk to people who regularly ate meat or dairy from those farms. This came after investigations by Unearthed and others found that sludge destined for British farmland also contained a range of harmful contaminants, including microplastics and forever chemicals.
The water companies fear increased scrutiny of sludge-spreading in the UK could trigger a ‘backlash’ akin to the public outrage they have faced over sewage released into rivers and seas, Unearthed has learned.
Reshima Sharma, political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said:
“This investigation is yet more proof that we can’t trust the privatised water companies to deal with waste responsibly. So long as they can get away with it, they will just pass any problems on to our countryside and pocket the money they should be investing in solutions.
“In addition to the national scandal of river pollution, their negligence has led to a cocktail of toxic contaminants being spread on the soil that grows our food. The government must stop toxic sludge from being spread on farmland immediately and water companies must be made to pay for disposing of it safely, without passing the buck to bill payers.”
Emissions are seen from a smoke stack at the Phillips 66 Refinery on February 6, 2024, in Linden, New Jersey. (Photo: Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)
“This chaotic administration is obviously desperate to smash through every environmental guardrail that protects people or preserves wildlife, but steps like this will be laughed out of court,” said one advocate.
Numerous environmental protection groups were preparing to file lawsuits Friday after President Donald Trumpdirected federal agencies to repeal what he called “unlawful regulations” aimed at protecting the public from pollution, oil spills, and other harms—sharply curtailing the process through which rules are changed as he ordered agencies to “sunset” major regulations.
The order was issued a week-and-a-half before the deadline set by another presidential action in February, when Trump required agencies to identify “unconstitutional” and “unlawful” regulations for elimination or modification within 60 days.
Those restrictions, under Wednesday evening’s order, can be repealed without being subject to a typical notice-and-comment period.
Trump named the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement among several agencies affected by the order, and listed more than two dozen laws containing regulations that must incorporate a sunset provision for no later than September 30, 2025.
The laws include the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987, and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, suggested the order was Trump’s latest push to benefit corporate polluters.
The Trump corporate regime orders agencies to ‘sunset’ environmental protections, as part of an effort to make it easier for industry to pollute. thehill.com/policy/energ…
Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said it was “beyond delusional” for Trump to attempt to repeal “every environmental safeguard enacted over the past 50 years with an executive order.”
“Trump’s farcical directive aims to kill measures that protect endangered whales, prevent oil spills, and reduce the risk of a nuclear accident,” said Hartl. “This chaotic administration is obviously desperate to smash through every environmental guardrail that protects people or preserves wildlife, but steps like this will be laughed out of court.”
In a memo, the White House wrote that “in effectuating repeals of facially unlawful regulations, agency heads shall finalize rules without notice and comment, where doing so is consistent with the ‘good cause’ exception in the Administrative Procedure Act.”
“That exception allows agencies to dispense with notice-and-comment rulemaking when that process would be ‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,’” said the White House.
As climate advocates scoffed at the suggestion that regulating nuclear power and pollution-causing energy infrastructure is “contrary to the public interest,” legal experts questioned the legality of Trump’s order.
“If this action were upheld, it would be a significant change to the way regulation is typically done, which is through notice and comment,” Roger Nober, director of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center, toldGovernment Executive. “If the agencies determine that a rule is contrary to the Supreme Court’s current jurisprudence, then [this order says they] have good cause to remove it and [they] can get around notice and comment. That’s certainly an untested and untried way of implementing the Administrative Procedure Act.”
Georgetown University law professor William Buzbee toldThe Hill that the Supreme Court “has repeatedly reaffirmed that agencies seeking to change a policy set forth in a regulation have to go through a new notice-and-comment proceeding for each regulation, offer ‘good reasons’ for the change, and address changing facts and reliance interests developed in light of the earlier regulation.”
“Adding a sunset provision without going through a full notice-and-comment proceedings for each regulation to be newly subject to a sunset provision seems intended to skirt the vetting and public accountability required by consistency doctrine,” he said. “Like many other attempted regulatory shortcuts of the first and second Trump administration, this [executive order] seems likely to prompt legally vulnerable agency actions.”
Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert suggested that the executive order is the latest example of Trump’s push to govern the U.S. as “a king.”
“He cannot simply roll back regulations that protect the public without going through the legally required process,” Gilbert told Government Executive. “We will challenge this blatantly unlawful deregulatory effort at every step to ensure it doesn’t hurt workers, consumers, and families.”
Michael Wall, chief litigation officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the order “a blatant attempt to blow away hundreds of protections for the public and nature, giving polluters permission to ignore whatever is coming out of their smokestacks while developers disregard endangered species protections and Big Oil no longer heeds the reforms put in place after the Deepwater Horizon disaster.”
“This executive order is illegal,” he said. “Congress passed these laws, and the president’s constitutional duty is to carry out those statutes; he has zero power to rewrite them.”
“There’s no magic wand the administration might wave to sweep away multiple rules on a White House whim,” Wall added. “Any changes to the rules the president wants rescinded would have to be justified, rule by rule, with facts, evidence, and analysis specific to that rule. He cannot do this by fiat.”
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
dizzy: There are other demands on my life dragging me away dear audience. There are always good articles at Common Dreams.
Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, talks with reporters in Washington, D.C. on February 18, 2025. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
“Lee Zeldin is willing to go so far as to break established law to pay back the corporate executives and polluters who spent millions to get Donald Trump elected,” said one climate leader.
Climate advocates said Wednesday that the Trump administration will be abdicating its “clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution” if it moves forward with repealing the 16-year-old scientific finding that has underpinned the federal government’s actions to protect people and the planet from fossil fuel emissions.
As The Washington Post reported, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin is pushing the White House to repeal the endangerment finding, an official determination announced in 2009 that affirmed what the fossil fuel industry had known for decades: that emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane cause planetary heating and threaten public health.
The finding gave the government the authority to regulate such pollution.
For several days, the White House and EPA refused to release the results of a 30-day review of the endangerment finding, which President Donald Trump called for under an executive order he issued on his first day in office.
Three people with knowledge of the issue, who remained anonymous, told the Post that former EPA Chief of Staff Mandy Gunasekara—who wrote the chapter on the agency in the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025—has been advising the administration on the potential repeal of the endangerment finding.
Another former official from Trump’s first term, attorney Jonathan Brightbill, is also providing legal advice on repealing the scientific finding, which has provided the basis for federal regulations on automobile, aircraft, and power plant emissions.
By repealing the endangerment finding in place, the administration would throw out thousands of scientific studies showing how fossil fuel emissions heat the planet and are linked to heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, and other life-threatening health problems—and clear the way to overturn climate policies introduced by former President Joe Biden.
Denying the science underpinning the finding, said Green New Deal co-sponsor Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), makes the administration “a danger to our country.”
I challenged Lee Zeldin to his face on the endangerment finding. I knew he wouldn’t stand up to Trump's fossil fuel donors. If this admin wants to say that climate-fueled hurricanes, wildfires & droughts aren't a danger to our country, the admin itself is a danger to our country.…
Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate and Energy Program, said that any attempt by the Trump administration to gut the endangerment finding would be “fully challenged in court.”
“Eliminating the endangerment finding would be a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, which has spent decades lying to the public about the harms of their product,” said Cleetus. “The science backing the EPA’s finding is rigorous and unequivocal—heat-trapping emissions pose serious threats to public health and well-being. EPA has the authority and legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate sources of these pollutants, including vehicles, power plants, and oil and gas operations.”
Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club, also warned that the organization “will meet [the EPA] in court” if it moves forward with the repeal.
“Lee Zeldin is willing to go so far as to break established law to pay back the corporate executives and polluters who spent millions to get Donald Trump elected,” said Jealous. “This breathtakingly illegal power grab defies both the Supreme Court and Congress, and if Trump agrees to this plan, the Sierra Club will meet them in court. We will never allow any administration to sell out the climate, our health, our clean air, and our future.”
Zeldin is reportedly recommending that the finding be repealed weeks after wildfires destroyed more than 12,000 homes and other buildings in the Los Angeles area and after meteorologists reported a record 143 days last year of 100°F heat or higher last year. More than 100 people were killed last year by Hurricane Helene, which damaged about 74,000 homes.
“If the Trump EPA proceeds down this path and jettisons the obvious finding that climate change is a threat to our health and welfare, it will mean more polluted air and more catastrophic extreme weather for Americans.”
Experts found that the fires that devastated Los Angeles were made 35% more likely by dry, hot weather conditions and that planetary heating made Helene more dangerous and destructive.
“Any recommendation to strike the finding would be a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the law and best available science with the sole aim of boosting fossil fuel use and the profits of polluting companies,” said Cleetus. “Meanwhile, people around the nation, especially in communities acutely exposed to climate impacts or pollution, will pay the price.”
Dominique Browning, director and co-founder of Moms Clean Air Force, said the new reporting revealed that Zeldin “is contaminating EPA with a virulent strain of climate denial that has seized hold of many of the Trump administration’s Cabinet members.”
Browning noted that the EPA issued its determination in 2009 in response to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, which established that the agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
“EPA’s action respected the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Browning. “It respected the bedrock science and respected what we all know to be true: Families across the country are experiencing the extreme weather fueled by climate emissions. With every new supercharged wildfire, hurricane, flood, and heatwave, the danger takes on a terrifying intimacy: Think of the summers that have become too hot for children to play outside, of the lifetime trauma of losing a home in a flood or fire.”
“Administrator Zeldin’s recommendation to strike down the endangerment finding will only bolster the billions of dollars of profit being made by the oil and gas industry—while ransacking our children’s safety,” Browning said.
David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Zeldin’s reported plan “only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.”
The fossil fuel industry poured nearly $450 million into Trump’s campaign, and the president promised to roll back climate regulations if oil and gas companies donated heavily to him in what critics called a quid pro quo.
“This decision ignores science and the law,” said Doniger. “Fifteen years ago, the EPA determined that climate pollution endangers our health and well-being. The Denali-sized mountain of scientific evidence behind that decision has only grown to Mount Everest–size since then. The courts have repeatedly upheld the EPA’s legal authority and its scientific conclusions.”
“This is the clearest example of the Trump administration putting polluters over people, and that’s saying a lot,” Doniger added. “If the Trump EPA proceeds down this path and jettisons the obvious finding that climate change is a threat to our health and welfare, it will mean more polluted air and more catastrophic extreme weather for Americans. We will see them in court.”
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Water bills are going up in England and Wales, even after the series of scandals around water companies. Last year water firms paid £158 million in fines following a record-breaking number of sewage dumps in rivers and seas.
Severn Trent Water and United Utilities alone reportedly made 1,374 illegal sewage spills over two years. (Both companies took issue with the analysis that led to this figure but acknowledged concerns about sewage discharges.)
There have been other notable incidents. Whistleblowers have told of water companies that fail to treat legally required amounts of sewage and divert that sewage to public waterways. To add to the disgrace, water companies have generally failed to invest enough in the UK’s water infrastructure.
Research suggests that governments have been pressured to become more “business-like”. This has given rise to the use of public-private partnerships (PPPs) to run important public services, such as water, transport and even prisons. Water companies in England and Wales are private companies that bid for their contracts, while in Scotland, the water provider is a public organisation.
While other findings show that PPPs can support important public service needs, such as public health, research by my colleagues and I examines a consistent pattern in UK PPP scandals and wrongdoing. Over the past decade and a half, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ funds are unaccounted for. This appears to be largely because private interests have been prioritised over public needs.
As a researcher of PPP wrongdoing, the reasons for many of the scandals seem obvious. My colleagues and I studied parliamentary inquiries and reports that have scrutinised PPP wrongdoing. This research can tell us a great deal about the UK’s predicament with regard to the failings in the water industry.
The first lesson is that, in general, many PPPs are motivated actually to reduce the quality of the services they deliver. One parliamentary inquiry found that contracting services out from the public to the private sector had become a “transactional process” where cost-cutting is favoured and the “knock-on cost” to users results in a lower-quality public service.
Other findings showed that companies regularly reduced the quality of a service to maximise profits. One way was to bid for a public service at a low price. A Public Accounts Committee member observed that companies coming in with low quotes for contracts can end up damaging services by under-investing in them.
Another example is Sodexo – a private prison management provider. It cut employee numbers by around 200 and a subsequent BBC Panorama documentary detailed escapes and widespread drug use in the prisons they managed and also criticised a lack of safety for both prisoners and prison officers. Sodexo acknowledged the programme had highlighted problems and said it would investigate, but added that there had been “positive actions and improvements” already.
Similar practices were observed at a children’s prison run by security firm G4S, where an officer was left with brain damage after an attack by inmates. G4S admitted liability for the officer’s injuries and agreed a settlement with him.
Pay the fine, it’s cheaper
The second lesson is it can be cost-effective to breach contracts and pay fines. Companies sometimes breach the terms of their public-private contracts because it’s in their economic interest. This even has a name – economists call it “efficiency breach”.
When observing the fines in comparison to the profitable contracts, it’s easy to posit what the motivations of many in the UK’s public service system are. In 2017, despite previous indictments of wrongdoing, G4S won £25 million of government contracts.
In 2020 the firm won another £300 million contract to run Wellingborough “mega-prison” in England. Despite some raised eyebrows, G4S said at the time it aimed to make the site a blueprint for “innovation, rehabilitation and modernisation” in the prison service.
Pay the shareholders, invest later
The third lesson is that shareholders are more important than long-term investments in a service. This is perhaps the most notable feature of the UK’s public service system, where a vast array of shareholders benefit from the profits made by PPPs. In one of the parliamentary reports we analysed, which details the collapse of the facilities management firm Carillion, it was clear that shareholders’ interests trumped good management and long-term investment.
As was noted in the report, despite Carillion’s collapse, the firm paid out £333 million more to shareholders than it generated in cash between 2012 and 2017. Often, this shareholder primacy can even go against a firm’s own employees rather than just the state and taxpayers. One MP noted that despite its pension scheme being in deficit, shareholders were still receiving dividends.
Often, shareholders are prioritised because of short-term thinking. These processes can lead to firms passing these bad practices down their supply chains.
The behaviour of water companies is suggestive of these dynamics. Since water companies have been privatised, they have loaded themselves up with debt (£64 billion) but paid out £78 billion to shareholders. Some 70% of these shareholders are “foreign investment firms, private equity, pension funds and businesses lodged in tax havens”.
So what should be done? There are plenty of ways to enhance and improve the UK’s PPP problems. The most obvious may be to renationalise public services and renew the quality of public services through New Deal-style investments. After all, this is what what most of the UK electorate wants.
There are other options. An innovative and exciting frontier is opening for businesses to recognise their environmental responsibilities – initiatives in New Zealand, India and Ecuador are giving the status of personhood to rivers and ecosystems, for example.
Outdoor fashion brand Patagonia has “the Earth” as its only shareholder, and hair and skincare brand Faith in Nature has appointed nature to its board. Imagine if the UK’s water companies had the rivers and seas represented.
In the end, only time will tell how water companies will be held accountable. But for the moment it’s the UK taxpayer and consumer paying the price.
G4S was approached about this article but declined to comment.
For far too long, the decline in the biodiversity of our rivers and lakes has been out of sight and out of mind. As a freshwater ecologist I have long felt frustrated as conservation and research is dominated by land and sea species, even though our rivers, lakes, ponds and other wetlands host a hugely disproportionate amount of the world’s biodiversity in their relatively small area.
The first comprehensive assessment of the risk of extinction of freshwater species, now published in the journal Nature, is set to change this. The scientists involved in the new study used the recently completed “red list” for freshwater fishes, and the one for dragonflies and damselflies.
Red lists are official inventories of conservation status compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). They combined this with data from the previously published red list for freshwater crabs, crayfishes and shrimps. In total, they assessed more than 23,000 species.
The authors conclude that close to a quarter (24%) of freshwater species are threatened with extinction. That is, they have been officially assessed as vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered or extinct in the wild.
These include the critically endangered European eel, and the endangered white-clawed crayfish, both of which were abundant in the streams of my childhood.
Once abundant, now endangered: a juvenile white clawed crayfish. valda butterworth / shutterstock
There is some uncertainty in the estimates, especially as there is insufficient data to establish the extinction risk for some species. The authors use an accepted and robust method to address this uncertainty but note that this lack of data affects a substantially larger proportion of freshwater species than those that live on land.
In fact, despite indications that a greater proportion of freshwater mollusc species are at risk of extinction, the authors could not include molluscs in their analysis as so many species are data deficient.
Furthermore, we have only the most rudimentary understanding of the status of the wide array other freshwater species, particularly invertebrates such as mayflies, stoneflies, or various beetles, many of which are highly sensitive to pollution. Although this new study represents an important step forward in our understanding, it should also act as a clarion call to galvanise efforts to fill these critical data gaps.
Freshwater species overlooked
While shocking, this figure of 24% of freshwater species threatened with extinction is comparable with the estimate for predominantly land-based amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, of which 23% are threatened. Comprehensive assessments of birds, amphibians and mammals have been available for over 20 years, with repeat assessments now available.
Rivers and lakes support whole ecosystems with all sorts of species. Martine Liu 58 / shutterstock
As the IUCN’s red lists are used to document trends in biodiversity and therefore to inform national and global strategy, data on terrestrial vertebrates has dominated conservation science and policy. Hence, to date, global environmental governance has focused on land and sea ecosystems, despite evidence that freshwaters require distinct management needs.
With this assessment, it is now clear that policy will have to be developed that protects and delivers improvements for freshwater species. That means thinking about entire river basins as a whole, rather than the immediate area occupied by the species.
It also means considering things like how rivers and lakes are connected and how the water available varies from season to season. Bodies of freshwater are like islands in a sea of land. Facilitating movement between these islands can help preserve species, particularly where they disappear seasonally.
Most species face multiple threats
In the new study, pollution, dams, water abstraction, land-use change, over-exploitation, invasive species and disease feature prominently as threats, with most species impacted by more than one. Freshwaters in areas of limestone and other porous calcium-rich rocks host consistently more threatened species than would be expected, highlighting the importance of chalk streams for example, where pressure due to exploitation of water resources and pollution is pronounced.
Chalk streams are valuable habitats for salmon, trout, otters, kingfishers and many other species. Tony Martin Long / shutterstock
While current efforts to hold UK water companies responsible for reducing inputs of sewage to rivers and lakes are commendable, water use efficiency and run-off should be considered throughout the decision-making process, from building design and town planning though to our individual daily use of water. Nature-based solutions such as tree planting or wetland protection offer a way forward that simultaneously benefit biodiversity and human well-being.
A lack of understanding can no longer be used as an excuse for inaction. As the authors of the new study point out, freshwaters support more than 10% of all known species, including about a third of vertebrates and half of fishes, while covering less than 1% of the surface of the Earth.
Many of the freshwater species considered in this study are socially and economically important. Freshwater fish provide an important source of protein for many human societies, and species such as Atlantic salmon support a fishing-tourism industry critical to many areas with limited opportunities to generate income.
Other species, while superficially unimportant to human society, thrive in clean water. The widespread decline in these species reflects increasing pollution and other pressures, which does not bode well for our society in the face of climate change and diminishing water availability.
