Steve Loftus is a businessman and utility industry analyst.
Rachel Reeves’s big talk about “new” reservoirs sounds great on the surface – until you realize that what she’s announcing has been in the pipeline for years.
In her speech last week, she mentioned unlocking £7.9 billion of investment for water resources, including the Fens Reservoir serving Cambridge, and the South East Strategic Reservoir near Oxford. At first glance, it seems like a bold, forward-looking move to tackle water scarcity.
But these projects aren’t the fresh ideas she’s making them out to be. They’re part of existing water resources management plans that have already been approved for investment in the next five years, right down to the last detail.
While Reeves claims her administration is backing nine “new” reservoirs, at least seven of them – Cheddar 2, Lincolnshire, Havant Thicket, the Fens Reservoir, Abingdon, North Suffolk Winter Storage, and Broad Oak – were already in progress. Meanwhile, official water management plans show no actual brand-new reservoir projects in Somerset outside of Cheddar 2, and nothing listed for the West Midlands at all.
Anyone following how the water industry works knows these plans don’t just spring into existence because of one press conference; they’re formed through the careful, years-long process known as the Asset Management Plan (AMP) cycle. Each AMP cycle spans five years, laying out exactly which projects the industry needs to deliver, factoring in everything from population growth to climate risks.
The fact that Reeves is highlighting these reservoirs as if they’re novel undertakings shows a misunderstanding – or a convenient sidestepping – of how meticulous the planning really is.
Her speech specifically pointed to government interventions that cleared Environment Agency objections so 4,500 new homes, schools, and commercial space can now go ahead in Cambridge. While it’s worth celebrating any progress that unblocks economic development, you still have to be upfront that the reservoir plans were already on the table. They didn’t just appear when Reeves decided to spotlight them.
Water resources management plans are hammered out well before a shovel hits the ground. They involve the cooperation of water companies, local authorities, environmental bodies, and the national regulator, all working out how to meet demand while protecting ecosystems. That’s why these major reservoir projects have been under discussion for years.
In fact, the concept of building or expanding reservoirs in England has turned up in multiple planning documents, consultations, and strategic reviews across more than one AMP cycle.
The question, then, is why Reeves is presenting them as if they’re brand-new solutions. The obvious explanation is that reservoirs are politically appealing right now. With water shortages in the headlines – especially after high-profile sewage discharges and lingering drought concerns – it’s easy to say, “Look, here’s a massive infrastructure project that fixes our water issues and also boosts housing and jobs.”
It’s a nice story, but it glosses over the details of how the water sector really operates. The line about “government intervention to address water scarcity” might make it sound like the Government single-handedly rescued these developments, but in reality, the scarcity angle has been a top concern in strategic planning for a long time.
People in and around the water industry find this frustrating for a simple reason: accountability. Re-announcing old commitments can blur the lines about who is actually responsible for carrying them out. If local authorities, water companies, and regulators already agreed to build these reservoirs under a set timeline and budget, what does Reeves’s speech actually change?
If nothing in the schedule or budget shifts – and the same players still manage the day-to-day – then her announcement is effectively just re-branding existing projects. That might grab headlines, but it doesn’t necessarily speed up or improve the actual infrastructure.
Ultimately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (and the Government in general) has little direct influence on what gets built in the water industry. That is decided through years of planning between water companies, the Environment Agency, and Ofwat. The Government can only affect the process by making planning permission easier or harder to obtain, or by changing legislation in the industry that the water companies must comply with.
Had Reeves truly wanted to help expedite reservoir construction, she could have granted Development Consent Orders (DCOs) to those projects that have not yet secured planning permission. She has not.
Ultimately, no one’s disputing that building or expanding reservoirs is the right call but taking projects that have been in the works for years and re-branding them as ‘new’ doesn’t help anyone. It brushes aside the painstaking planning that went into them and risks misleading the public into thinking Reeves’s administration is solely responsible for any of this happening in the first place.
That might be good for political optics, but it’s hardly honest – or constructive – when it comes to delivering real solutions for water scarcity.
Steve Loftus is a businessman and utility industry analyst.
Rachel Reeves’s big talk about “new” reservoirs sounds great on the surface – until you realize that what she’s announcing has been in the pipeline for years.
In her speech last week, she mentioned unlocking £7.9 billion of investment for water resources, including the Fens Reservoir serving Cambridge, and the South East Strategic Reservoir near Oxford. At first glance, it seems like a bold, forward-looking move to tackle water scarcity.
But these projects aren’t the fresh ideas she’s making them out to be. They’re part of existing water resources management plans that have already been approved for investment in the next five years, right down to the last detail.
While Reeves claims her administration is backing nine “new” reservoirs, at least seven of them – Cheddar 2, Lincolnshire, Havant Thicket, the Fens Reservoir, Abingdon, North Suffolk Winter Storage, and Broad Oak – were already in progress. Meanwhile, official water management plans show no actual brand-new reservoir projects in Somerset outside of Cheddar 2, and nothing listed for the West Midlands at all.
Anyone following how the water industry works knows these plans don’t just spring into existence because of one press conference; they’re formed through the careful, years-long process known as the Asset Management Plan (AMP) cycle. Each AMP cycle spans five years, laying out exactly which projects the industry needs to deliver, factoring in everything from population growth to climate risks.
The fact that Reeves is highlighting these reservoirs as if they’re novel undertakings shows a misunderstanding – or a convenient sidestepping – of how meticulous the planning really is.
Her speech specifically pointed to government interventions that cleared Environment Agency objections so 4,500 new homes, schools, and commercial space can now go ahead in Cambridge. While it’s worth celebrating any progress that unblocks economic development, you still have to be upfront that the reservoir plans were already on the table. They didn’t just appear when Reeves decided to spotlight them.
Water resources management plans are hammered out well before a shovel hits the ground. They involve the cooperation of water companies, local authorities, environmental bodies, and the national regulator, all working out how to meet demand while protecting ecosystems. That’s why these major reservoir projects have been under discussion for years.
In fact, the concept of building or expanding reservoirs in England has turned up in multiple planning documents, consultations, and strategic reviews across more than one AMP cycle.
The question, then, is why Reeves is presenting them as if they’re brand-new solutions. The obvious explanation is that reservoirs are politically appealing right now. With water shortages in the headlines – especially after high-profile sewage discharges and lingering drought concerns – it’s easy to say, “Look, here’s a massive infrastructure project that fixes our water issues and also boosts housing and jobs.”
It’s a nice story, but it glosses over the details of how the water sector really operates. The line about “government intervention to address water scarcity” might make it sound like the Government single-handedly rescued these developments, but in reality, the scarcity angle has been a top concern in strategic planning for a long time.
People in and around the water industry find this frustrating for a simple reason: accountability. Re-announcing old commitments can blur the lines about who is actually responsible for carrying them out. If local authorities, water companies, and regulators already agreed to build these reservoirs under a set timeline and budget, what does Reeves’s speech actually change?
If nothing in the schedule or budget shifts – and the same players still manage the day-to-day – then her announcement is effectively just re-branding existing projects. That might grab headlines, but it doesn’t necessarily speed up or improve the actual infrastructure.
Ultimately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (and the Government in general) has little direct influence on what gets built in the water industry. That is decided through years of planning between water companies, the Environment Agency, and Ofwat. The Government can only affect the process by making planning permission easier or harder to obtain, or by changing legislation in the industry that the water companies must comply with.
Had Reeves truly wanted to help expedite reservoir construction, she could have granted Development Consent Orders (DCOs) to those projects that have not yet secured planning permission. She has not.
Ultimately, no one’s disputing that building or expanding reservoirs is the right call but taking projects that have been in the works for years and re-branding them as ‘new’ doesn’t help anyone. It brushes aside the painstaking planning that went into them and risks misleading the public into thinking Reeves’s administration is solely responsible for any of this happening in the first place.
That might be good for political optics, but it’s hardly honest – or constructive – when it comes to delivering real solutions for water scarcity.