FAQs

Why has the figure fallen from 16.3% in 2019 to 14.3% in 2025? Does this mean water quality is getting worse? 

Not necessarily. While the figure reported in 2019 was 16.3%, the two datasets are not directly comparable, because assessment methods, monitoring approaches and the evidence available to us have advanced since then. This means some water bodies may be classified at a lower status today because we have new information about their condition, rather than because water quality has actually deteriorated. More work is required to determine the specific causes of the perceived decline in each case, and this is one of the ways the Environment Agency is equipping itself to rigorously regulate the industry, with the best data available. 

If only 14.3% of waterbodies achieve good status, doesn't that mean most of our rivers are in a bad state? 

To understand the full story of the results, we need to look beyond the headline figure. Every single element must pass for a water body to be classified as good overall, reflecting how deliberately demanding the system is. Looking at individual ecological indicators 82% are at good or high. For example, 92.9% of the water bodies we've classified for ammonia are at good or better status. Around a third water bodies fail on just a single element, meaning many are much closer to good status than the headline figure suggests. 

Have you changed the way classifications are calculated? Could this explain the change in results rather than genuine environmental change? 

Yes, several methodological and technical changes have been made since 2019, including automation of Heavily Modified Water Body assessments and updated baselines. These changes are part of improving the robustness, consistency and transparency of the system, not weakening it. Where we have reason to believe an apparent change in status is not due to a genuine environmental shift, we investigate before drawing conclusions. 

Methodological changes include: 

If the classifications can't be compared like a trend measure, what should I use to understand whether things are getting better or worse over time? 

WFD classifications are a periodic status assessment, not designed to track change over time. Differences between 2019 and 2025 reflect a combination of environmental change, improved monitoring and methodological updates. 

Trends can only be produced from long term consistent data sets. Some great insights into trends have been produced based on the harmonised monitoring network of sample points. This is explained in more detail in the State of the water environment: long-term trends in river quality in England: 2024 - GOV.UK. 

We're now exploring whether this same approach can work with classification data too, so we can report at different scales, such as River Basin District. We expect the first report in December 2027. 

We're also learning from Defra's NCEA programme, a shorter-term project that's developed a statistically robust way of understanding the state of the environment. What we learn from it will help us build a stronger, more reliable monitoring network for the future. 

What is the Environment Agency doing to improve water quality? 

Improvement will take concerted effort from water companies, businesses, farmers, councils and communities, and we are playing our part. In recent years we've significantly increased our capacity to tackle water pollution, with more staff, better data and stronger powers. Last year we completed over 10,000 inspections of water company assets, and we're set to increase farm inspections to 6,000 annually over the next three years with higher levels of government funding. Since 2015 we've concluded over 70 prosecutions against water and sewerage companies, securing fines of over £158 million. The Water (Special Measures) Act will further strengthen our ability to drive the improvements the public rightly expect. 

What impact will the recent investment in water infrastructure have? 

The latest funding round in 2025 secured a record £22.1 billion investment allocated to water company improvements by 2030. This is being used to upgrade 2,350 storm overflows, an estimated annual reduction in sewage spills of 85,000; reduce phosphorus inputs at over 800 sewage treatment works; and reduce the amount of water abstracted, retaining an estimated 60 million litres in the environment every day.  

If all this investment is happening, why aren't we seeing the benefits in the classification results yet? 

Investment takes time, and the environment takes longer to recover. We know the public wants to see change faster, and we share that ambition. There is a natural lag between a measure being delivered, an ecological response occurring, and that improvement being reflected in a classification. 

What are these classifications actually used for? 

The 2025 classifications give us a detailed picture of England's water environment and are a powerful indicator of where action is needed most. They are a tool for improvement, and we will use them as such. The results are a rigorous dataset that will drive evidence-led action through River Basin Management Plans, where communities, farmers and water companies work together to make improvements. 

Isn't "one out, all out" a flawed way to measure water quality if a single failing element can mask genuine improvement everywhere else? 

The approach is deliberately precautionary rather than flawed. It ensures that any single failing element is identified and addressed, rather than being masked by good performance elsewhere. This protects against a water body being labelled a success when it still has a real problem that needs fixing. The underlying element-by-element data is also published alongside the headline figure, so anyone wanting the fuller picture, including where a water body is failing on just one element, can see it. 

Will these results lead to tighter restrictions on water abstraction, especially given the current dry weather? 

The classifications are a measure of ecological and chemical status, and are separate from decisions on abstraction licencing, which follow their own regulatory processes. We are not commenting on future abstraction limits as part of this publication.  

Where can I find out more? 

The headline figures are only part of the story. Visit our Engagement HQ pages to explore the classifications, access the data, and learn about the science, methods and context behind the results.