‘Don’t Swim’ Warnings in Place at Nearly All of England’s Official River Bathing Sites

The Environment Agency’s latest river bathing site designations have sparked both hope and frustration among those who advocate for cleaner waterways. The addition of six new sites, including a first location on the River Thames in London, means more areas will be monitored for contamination from bacteria linked to human and animal faeces.

However, a closer look at the numbers reveals a concerning trend: 12 out of 14 existing inland river locations tested by the Environment Agency had unacceptable levels of E.coli. Only the River Stour in Suffolk and the River Thames in Oxfordshire met the required standards. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the current system.

Designating a polluted river as a bathing site can be an effective way to force water companies to take action. By making it clear that swimmers will be present, local authorities can pressure utilities to invest in infrastructure upgrades and reduce sewage spills. However, this approach also creates a Catch-22 situation where swimming is encouraged precisely because of the pollution.

The government’s emphasis on designating more bathing sites appears to prioritize short-term gains over long-term solutions. By focusing on tourism and public engagement, policymakers may be inadvertently creating a culture of complacency around water quality issues. This is evident in the case study of the River Wharfe in Ilkley, Yorkshire, which was designated as a bathing site in 2020 but still has poor water quality.

Despite £60m investment by Yorkshire Water, it’s unclear whether this will be enough to reverse years of neglect. Local activists like Karen Shackleton and Di Leary are hopeful that their efforts will lead to tangible changes, but their frustration with the system is palpable. “It’s disgustingly bonkers” that swimming in a polluted river can become a catalyst for improvement.

As more sites are added to the list of monitored bathing areas, it’s essential to consider whether this incremental approach will ultimately lead to meaningful change. Will the prospect of swimmers, signs, and sonde-testing devices be enough to prompt water companies to take action, or is this just another case of treating symptoms rather than addressing root causes?

Campaigner Alison Biddulph in Shropshire has overseen the designation of three bathing sites, all of which have so far rated “poor”. Despite this, she remains optimistic about the potential for long-term improvement. When asked how soon swimmers can expect to see real change, she cautions that it may take five years or more – a sobering reminder that environmental progress is often incremental.

The swim-and-clean-up conundrum will persist until policymakers and utilities address the underlying issues driving pollution. Until then, campaigners like Shackleton and Leary will remain vocal critics of a system that seems more focused on appearances than actual change. Ultimately, it’s up to us – as citizens, advocates, and policy-makers – to demand better from our water companies and local authorities. The future of our rivers depends on it.