Ensuring England’s rivers meet legal environmental standards would cost an “eye-watering” £51bn, lawyers representing the Government have argued.
A landmark legal battle between Environment Secretary, Steve Reed, and a group of anglers fighting to clean up a river in North Yorkshire went before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.
The Pickering Fishery Association won a High Court case against the Government in November 2023 after a judge found ministers’ plans to clean up rivers in the region were too vague.
At the time, lawyers representing the anglers said the judgement could force the Environment Agency (EA) to rewrite its plans to improve thousands of rivers across the country.
The previous Conservative government challenged the decision, claiming that drawing up plans to clean up individual rivers and streams would be unworkable. Reed chose to proceed with the appeal upon coming into post with the new Labour government last July.
The case concerns the Water Framework Directive, a set of regulations derived from the EU but adopted under British law, which sets a target that all waterbodies achieve a “good or potential for good” ecological status by 2027.
Only 15 per cent of rivers in England currently achieve this standard and the Government’s own watchdog has said the 2027 target will most likely be missed.
To achieve this target, the Government is required to publish River Basin Management Plans every six years setting out how the waterbodies within the basin will be improved.
In 2023 the Pickering Fishery Association successfully argued that the plan for the Humber region was unlawful as it was “generic” and did not include any specific information about improving water quality in the Costa Beck, a former trout stream near Pickering.
Lawyers representing the Secretary of State and the EA told the court the Government’s River Basin Management Plans were not about “solving each and every difficulty” in rivers in England.
Richard Kimblin KC argued the law required them to be “high-level documents” that progressed the UK towards the 2027 goal.
Kimblin described the 2027 target as “ambitious” and said no other EU member state had met it to date.
He pointed to an analysis by the EA that found meeting environmental objectives under the regulations would cost £51bn, albeit while providing £64bn in benefits.
“The short point is that to get to a point whereby one is reaching the environmental objectives that requires a sum of money that is startlingly large, indeed eye-watering,” he said.
Kimblin added that there were some rivers where it may not be “appropriate” to restore them to a “good” standard.
He described Costa Beck as one such “heavily modified” river where it’s possible that the “water body is so affected by human activity, or its natural condition, that you can’t get to good”.
Environmental organisation Fish Legal, which is supporting Pickering Fishery Association in the case, criticised Reed for pursuing the appeal.
“This new Government came into power promising that cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas was a top priority. But do they actually want to regulate polluting industries?” said Penny Gane, head of practice at Fish Legal.
The Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the watchdog set up post-Brexit to ensure ministers comply with environmental legislation, will provide evidence to the court after intervening in the case due to its wider ramifications.
Confirming the body’s intervention in October last year, OEP General Counsel, Peter Ashford, said the case provided opportunity to “clarify the law here to ensure proper decision-making that promotes positive outcomes for English water bodies”.
The i Paper’s Save Britain’s Rivers campaign is pressuring the Government to outline how it will meet its 2027 legal targets.
In a five-point manifesto released ahead of the general election last year, The i Paper said the Government must publish a roadmap outlining how it will achieve a ‘good’ ecological standard for England’s rivers.
The case continues on Wednesday and a ruling is expected at a later date.
