The Trust Deficit: How the Public Lost Faith in the Water System

Broken promises, media exposés and the fight for accountability

This is the sixth article in our series examining the findings of the 2025 Water Commission report. Today, we focus on an issue that cuts across every aspect of the sector: public trust. Without it, meaningful reform becomes difficult, public support weakens, and the entire system begins to lose legitimacy.

Over the past decade, many people in the UK have come to believe that the water system no longer works in the public interest. Widespread sewage discharges, rising bills, executive bonuses, and a perceived lack of transparency have led to what the Commission calls a serious trust deficit. This is not simply the result of poor communication. It reflects years of broken promises, inconsistent regulation, and growing disconnect between water companies and the communities they are meant to serve.

An industry under scrutiny

Public discontent has been simmering for some time, but it was the wave of investigative reporting, whistleblower accounts, and citizen-led monitoring in the early 2020s that brought it to national attention.

In 2022, widespread outrage followed reports that raw sewage had been discharged into English rivers and coastal waters more than 375,000 times in a single year. Footage shared by campaigners showed pollution pouring into bathing areas and nature reserves. Public anger was immediate and widespread. Water companies cited outdated infrastructure and heavy rainfall, but these explanations rang hollow for many observers.

Soon after, further investigations revealed that several water companies had paid out large dividends to shareholders while falling short on environmental targets. In some cases, executive bonuses were awarded using performance metrics that excluded pollution events or customer complaints. These revelations added to the growing perception that private profit was being prioritised over public responsibility.

What the Commission found

The Water Commission’s analysis is blunt. It describes the relationship between water companies and the public as deeply strained and getting worse. While acknowledging that some operational improvements have taken place, the report concludes that real accountability remains largely absent.

The current regulatory model was intended to drive efficiency and innovation. Instead, the Commission argues, the incentives have drifted towards short-term profits, financial engineering, and reputational management. The public, meanwhile, is left feeling powerless and poorly informed.

A survey referenced in the report showed that fewer than one in five people trusted their local water company to protect the environment over the long term. Confidence in the regulator was not much higher.

Repeated commitments, repeated failures

A major reason for the erosion of trust lies in the repeated failure to deliver on public commitments. Leakage reduction targets have been missed year after year. Investment plans have been scaled back or delayed. Customer engagement efforts often feel tokenistic. Many communities report that when they raise concerns about pollution, abstraction, or local infrastructure, they are met with silence or scripted replies.

The Commission also highlights a lack of transparency. Although companies are required to report on performance, the information is often buried in lengthy documents filled with technical jargon. By the time it reaches the public, it is frequently outdated and difficult to interpret.

This lack of clarity has created a vacuum. In many cases, it is campaign groups, environmental charities, and citizen scientists who are now publishing clearer, more accessible data. While this shift has improved public understanding, it is also a sign that people no longer trust official channels to tell the full story.

Media and community watchdogs

Much of the pressure for change has come from outside the system. Journalists, environmental campaigners, and local communities have played a critical role in exposing malpractice and demanding accountability.

Organisations such as Surfers Against Sewage and The Rivers Trust have deployed low-cost water monitoring tools and published independent pollution maps. Media outlets have investigated dividend payments, internal leaks, and regulatory blind spots. Wild swimmers, anglers, and walkers have mobilised in defence of their local rivers, forming new alliances and strengthening calls for reform.

These grassroots efforts have led to real consequences. Parliamentary committees have launched investigations. Shareholder meetings have faced public protests. Some companies have issued apologies and pledged to do better. However, the Commission notes that the public is no longer satisfied with promises alone.

What real accountability should look like

So how can trust be restored? The Commission proposes several practical reforms.

• Regulators must be given stronger enforcement powers, with serious consequences for major breaches. This includes the ability to impose significant fines and, where appropriate, pursue legal action for environmental harm or misinformation.

• Transparency must be mandatory and accessible. Performance data should be published regularly, in plain language, and made available to the public in real time.

• Executive pay must be reformed, with bonuses tied to long-term environmental performance and customer outcomes, not just financial results.

• Public involvement should be embedded in decision-making processes. This could include citizen advisory panels, catchment management boards, and formal consultation powers.

• An independent water ombudsman should be established, to handle complaints, review evidence, and publish impartial assessments of company conduct.

Trust must be earned

Above all, the Commission warns against treating trust as a communications challenge. Public confidence cannot be restored with rebranding or clever advertising. It must be earned through action.

People understand that climate change, population growth, and historic infrastructure all present real challenges. But they expect honesty about those challenges. They expect companies to meet their commitments and regulators to do their job.

Without that trust, even the best technical solutions may be rejected. Rebuilding legitimacy is therefore not just a matter of ethics. It is essential for the success of future reforms.

Reclaiming the social contract

This sixth article in our Water Commission series has shown how public faith in the system has been shaken by repeated failures and a lack of accountability. If we want to build a more resilient, more equitable water system, then rebuilding trust must be part of the foundation.

Next week, our series will turn to what a new social contract for water might look like. Who gets a say in the future of water? Who benefits? And what does it mean to treat water not as a commodity, but as a shared public good?