I want to…

Respond to the Sewage Sludge Consultation

Make your voice heard with our no-nonsense, question-by-question guidance for responding to the Government’s Sewage Sludge Consultation.

Consultation on Sewage Sludge

🗓 Consultation deadline: The consultation closes on the 24th March. Responses must be submitted before this deadline to be counted.

⏱ How long will it take? Around 30 – 60 minutes. You don’t need to answer every question. This guide highlights the most important ones.

💬 What Happens Next? After the consultation closes, the Government will analyse responses and publish a response setting out its chosen approach. That decision will influence future regulation and environmental protections.

What is the Sludge Consultation

and why is it important?

The government is reviewing the rules that allow sewage sludge (the solid leftovers from treating sewage and wastewater) to be spread on farmland.

For decades, sewage sludge has been applied to UK farmland as fertiliser. But the composition of sewage has changed since the regulations controlling it were introduced decades ago. Modern sludge can contain a cocktail of persistent and poorly understood contaminants, including “forever chemicals”, microplastics, and pharmaceutical residues. The regulatory system has not kept pace with these risks. Contamination does not stop at the field boundary. Pollutants can accumulate in soils and enter rivers through run-off. 

In short, the system is outdated, fragmented, and not designed to manage modern contamination risks to human and environmental health. We are concerned because what is spread on land does not always stay on land. Nutrients and contaminants can run off into nearby streams, rivers, and groundwater.

This consultation is the Government’s formal process for deciding how sewage sludge will be regulated in future. Public responses are reviewed and summarised, and they help shape the final policy direction.

Your voice matters. Clear, thoughtful responses — even short ones — help show there is strong public support for safer, more modern regulation that prevents toxic sewage sludge contaminating agricultural land and holds polluters to account.

River action’s position on the regulatory framework for sludge

River Action believes the framework must be modernised, precautionary and based on the principle that polluters, such as chemical manufacturers and water companies, pay.

We believe this system requires fundamental reform. In simple terms:

Right now, sewage sludge is mostly spread on farmland. In 1989, the Government created rules to regulate what contaminants were being spread on farmland in sludge. Those rules were designed to prevent harmful substances from contaminating agricultural land.

But in 1989 we did not understand the full cocktail of contaminants that would later be found in our sewage. The regulations were never designed to deal with modern pollutants such as forever chemicals (PFAS), microplastics, or pharmaceutical residues. Instead, they focused mainly on heavy metals and bacteria. As a result, the 1989 framework is effectively frozen in time and fails to reflect today’s understanding of environmental and public health risks.

Currently, under the 1989 regulation, there are limits set for 7 heavy metals, and not for PFAS, microplastics,  pharmaceuticals or any other emerging contaminants. 

The difficulty is, because these contaminants are new and emerging, we don’t know how they behave. They may accumulate in soil over time, not break down easily, and combine harmfully with other chemicals. 

At the moment, regulatory controls for newer contaminants are generally introduced only once there is strong evidence of harm. We think protective safeguards should be put in place earlier, where there is credible concern about risk, and then reviewed as scientific understanding develops. This approach is known in environmental law as the precautionary principle – acting to prevent potential harm even where scientific certainty is uncertain or not fully established.

There is another, deeper problem: sludge does not sit within one clear, modern regulatory system, and that weakens oversight.

Most hazardous waste in England is regulated under one modern system: the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 (EPR). These regulations are:

  • Clear
  • Designed to manage risk
  • Able to respond when new threats emerge

Sewage sludge is not under EPR.

Instead, it is split across different rules:

  • Treatment may sit under EPR
  • Spreading sits under the 1989 Sludge Regulations
  • Nutrient application sits under the Farming Rules for Water

One waste. Multiple rulebooks.

That makes the system harder to oversee, less transparent, and slower to react to modern pollution risks.

The contaminants found in sludge enter the wastewater system from a range of sources. Some come from everyday household products, such as cosmetics, cleaning products, and fibres released from washing synthetic clothes, as well as pharmaceuticals in human waste. Others come from industrial processes, road run-off and chemical manufacturing.

Wastewater treatment plants were not designed to remove many modern synthetic chemicals. As a result, these substances can become concentrated in the solid by-product of treatment: sewage sludge.

Designing regulation around the contaminants in sludge spreading is trying to manage the contamination after it already exists. It is dealing with pollution at the end of the pipe, rather than preventing it upstream.

We want upstream control to stop harmful substances entering the wastewater system in the first place. This could include restricting or banning certain chemicals, like France has done with PFAS, as well as by requiring certain product standards (for example, filters to reduce microplastic release). 

Regulation must also avoid simply shifting environmental harm elsewhere. If tighter rules on land spreading are introduced without tackling contamination at source, there is a risk that more sewage sludge will be diverted to incineration. While incineration is already regulated, burning sewage sludge as a long-term solution would swap one environmental harm for another. Sewage sludge can be a valuable resource that reduces reliance on synthetic fertilisers. The real issue is the toxic contamination within it, which must be properly addressed rather than displaced.

There’s also an economic argument to this. 

Right now, the people paying the price for the chemicals in our land are the farmers and their soil.

In order for the toxic contaminants in sewage sludge to be removed, there would need to be a treatment called ‘quaternary treatment’. This would require mass infrastructure upgrades from the water companies treating the sewage. Meaning the customers pay – and our water bills go up.

But this contamination does not originate from the general public. It arises from industrial processes, chemical manufacturing, plastic production and pharmaceuticals.

We believe those who profit from producing and placing these pollutants into the market should bear responsibility for managing their environmental consequences.

This gives us an added bonus – if the polluters have to pay for the consequences at the end of the pipe, it will prevent them from manufacturing it at the start.

We believe the polluters should pay for the toxic elements in our sludge – not the farmers, and not the public.

We are calling for sewage sludge to sit under one clear and modern system that actually reflects today’s risks. We need proper limits and real oversight. But we also need to stop harmful chemicals entering the system in the first place. And the people who profit from those chemicals should be responsible for the damage they cause. The current piecemeal approach simply isn’t good enough.

Approaching the Consultation

This consultation includes 41 questions.  Some are multiple-choice, some ask for short written responses (with a 1,000-character limit), and some are optional while others are mandatory. We’ve broken them into sections to match the online form and highlighted the ones we think are most relevant to the public. 

We suggest opening the consultation in one tab and keeping this guidance open in another as you work through it.

You do not need to answer every question. We’ve focused on the questions where public input is likely to have the greatest impact. If you feel strongly about other areas, you are of course welcome to respond to those as well.

Our guidance reflects River Action’s priorities – updating outdated rules, creating a clear and modern regulatory system, stopping pollution at source, and ensuring polluters pay. However, we strongly encourage you to put your response in your own words. Responses that are clearly copied and pasted may be discounted, so speaking in your own voice really matters. Personal perspectives, local experiences, and your hopes for change can be especially powerful.

Your responses do not need to be long. Clear and thoughtful responses help show there is strong public support for modern, safer regulation.

Q1-12

Your details

The first 12 questions are for your personal and contact details. Questions 8-12 only appear if you are representing an organisation or group.

Government Objectives – Explanation

The first section sets out five objectives the Government has identified as areas for improvement. We’ve summarised them below and added our reflections.

What the Government says:
The Government recognises that the current rules may need to evolve so they can respond more effectively as new risks are identified.

Sewage sludge can contain different kinds of contaminants. These enter the sewer system from households, industry, road run-off and everyday products. When the current rules were introduced in 1989, certain contaminants, such as heavy metals, were well understood and regulated with clear limits. However, newer contaminants such as microplastics, “forever chemicals” (PFAS), and pharmaceuticals like antibiotics are not specifically regulated under the existing framework.

The Government has indicated that it will continue researching and monitoring these substances. If strong evidence of unacceptable risk emerges in the future, the system could then be updated to tighten limits or require more testing before sludge is spread.

What we think:
We welcome the fact that newer contaminants are being recognised. However, the current approach appears to rely on waiting for clear evidence of harm before strengthening controls. Given the uncertainty around how different chemicals mix together and build up in soil over time, this is too slow. We believe a precautionary approach is needed, putting sensible safeguards in place now, and adjusting them as scientific understanding develops, rather than waiting for damage to become obvious.

What the Government says:
The government is looking to create clearer nutrient rules when it comes to using sewage sludge as fertiliser. 

Sludge contains nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus. This can be useful to help crops grow. However, too much of it is unhealthy for the soil and can be detrimental to the surrounding environment. 

The current rules are vague about what “taking account of nutrient needs” actually means, which makes compliance and enforcement harder. They are asking for clearer wording, and supporting pollution reduction targets.

What we think:
Clearer rules around nutrient use makes sense and should help soil health and protect rivers from run-off. However, this does not address the wider issue of toxic contaminants in sludge, which also needs urgent attention.

What the Government says:
The system for using sludge as fertiliser isn’t as simple as it used to be, which means oversight needs to change to reflect this.

In the past, sludge often moved directly from treatment works to farmland. Today, the pathway can involve several stages, from contractors, transporters and brokers, before it reaches land application. As more actors are involved, it becomes harder to clearly assign responsibility and ensure effective oversight.

The Government also points out that there is currently no clear mechanism to properly fund monitoring and enforcement. It suggests there is a strong case for those creating environmental risk to contribute to the cost of overseeing it. If activities carry a risk of environmental harm, it makes sense that the companies responsible – whether manufacturers of the contaminants or industries discharging waste – should help cover the cost of keeping the system safe, rather than leaving it to the public purse.

What we think:
We agree that oversight needs to be strengthened. The system has become more complex so stronger tracking and properly funded enforcement is essential. Those responsible for potential environmental harm should contribute to those costs.

What the Government says:
 Under the current rules, untreated sludge can technically still be spread if it is quickly mixed into the soil. Water companies say they have stopped doing this voluntarily, but sludge from private sources such as septic tanks may still be spread without proper treatment. This part of the system is less visible and harder to monitor.

What we think:
 We support closing any loopholes that allow untreated sludge to be spread. Untreated waste should not be applied to land. However, this should not distract from the wider issue of contaminants in treated sludge, which also needs urgent attention.

What the Government says:
At the moment, the rules around sewage sludge are spread across different pieces of legislation. Sludge spreading on farmland is governed by the 1989 Regulations, while most other types of waste applied to land sit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). This split largely exists for historical reasons. The Government recognises that this makes the system more complex and that streamlining it could improve clarity, consistency and oversight.

What we think:
We agree that the current system is too fragmented. One waste should not sit under multiple rulebooks. Bringing sludge into a single, modern regulatory framework would make oversight clearer, improve accountability and allow the rules to keep pace with emerging risks.

Q13-16

Government Objectives – Feedback

Mandatory 

Agree

Do Not Answer

Not Mandatory but important

You may wish to include some of the following points (choose 3–4 that feel most important to you):

  • The current rules don’t set clear legal limits for newer contaminants like PFAS and microplastics.
  • We need to take the ‘cocktail effect’ into account. Even if each chemical is present at a low level, we don’t yet fully understand how different chemicals mix together in soil and water over time.
  • The current system tends to wait for clear proof of damage before changing the rules. With newer contaminants being made, that approach is too slow. Where there is credible concern, safeguards should be introduced sooner rather than later.
  • At the moment, much of the compliance information relies on sewage treatment companies reporting on themselves. More independent oversight is needed.
  • Farmers and the public should be able to clearly see what has been found in sludge through accessible and transparent testing data.
  • It makes more sense to stop harmful chemicals entering the system in the first place, rather than only dealing with them once they’ve built up in sludge.
  • Regulation must also avoid simply shifting environmental harm elsewhere. If tighter rules on land spreading are introduced without tackling contamination at source, there is a risk that more sewage sludge will be diverted to incineration. While incineration is already regulated, burning sewage sludge as a long-term solution would swap one environmental harm for another. 
  • Some parts of the current system rely on voluntary industry schemes. These are not a substitute for proper, enforceable rules.

Do Not Answer

Government Reform Options – Explanation

The next three sections are about three different options of how to regulate sewage sludge. Each section asks about your opinion on a different option. 

Here we have outlined each option, and given reason to why we strongly favour Option 1.

Option 1 is the only option that will achieve real reform by replacing the outdated 1989 system and bringing sludge into a single, modern regulatory framework that can adapt to emerging risks and hold operators properly accountable.

Option 1 replaces the outdated 1989 sludge regulations, bringing sludge fully into Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR). Option 1 would require water companies and contractors who spread sludge to obtain permits and demonstrate that they have tested for contaminants.

Option 1 does not ban sludge spreading. It regulates it properly. 

This means:

  • One streamlined regulatory framework, with legally binding permit conditions
  • Sludge is treated like other waste
  • There are stronger enforcement measures under EPR, with operator fees funding monitoring and oversight
  • The Environment Agency can respond quickly to non-compliance and take enforcement action where standards are breached.
  • Future contaminant controls can be easily introduced through updated permit conditions.

Option 2 outlines how the government could patch up the old system. It would keep the old 1989 regulations, but amend and modernise them. The government has also proposed options to possibly add contaminant limits and improve oversight. 

This would mean: 

  • The old fragmented structure would remain
  • Sludge would still be regulated separately to other waste and not sit under EPR
  • Enforcement tools remain weaker
  • Regulations would remain structurally constrained and too slow in responding to emerging contaminants because updating limits would require further legislative amendment.

Option 3 looks to update the guidance only. The 1989 regulations would remain, and instead the government would update the code of practice. They would instead create an assurance scheme that water companies could voluntarily follow. This would be a quicker option, because there is no legislative change, but it would depend on water companies voluntarily spending time and money on de-toxifying the sludge. Guidance is not legally enforceable and Option 3 depends entirely on industry will to change.

This is how we see it:

Option 1 = coherent modern system
Option 2 = partial fix, patching up the old system
Option 3 = weak, guidance only

We’ve also created this table so you can view it clearly:

A grid table with the three government options as columns on the x axis, and whether they meet the 5 objectives of the reform, address contamination at source, and ensure polluters pay (as rows on the y axis). Option 1 meets all 5 objectives, addresses contamination at source (but only if paired with upstream controls), and could possibly ensure polluters pay if that is included in permit and cost design. Options 2 and 3 don't meet all 5 objectives and don't meet contamination at source or polluters pay concerns.

Q17-26

Reform Option 1 Feedback

Mandatory 

Strongly Agree

Not Mandatory but important

Keep your answer short.

You may wish to say:

  • The current 1989 regulations are outdated and no longer fit for purpose.
  • Moving sludge into EPR would provide stronger and streamlined oversight and enforcement.
  • Regulation must be able to adapt to emerging risks.
  • The long-term environmental risks of inaction outweigh short-term administrative costs.
  • Option 1 is the only option that will achieve real reform by replacing the outdated 1989 system and bringing sludge into a single, modern regulatory framework that can adapt to emerging risks and hold operators properly accountable.

Write in your own words. 3–4 sentences is enough.

Not Mandatory but important

You may wish to comment on possible cost and implementation impacts.

  • Costs being passed on to customers or farmers. Moving sludge into EPR may increase compliance and treatment costs. Without safeguards, water companies could pass these costs on through higher water bills or onto farmers.
  • Delays to reform. If companies argue that new requirements must wait for future funding approvals, reform could be pushed back for years. Changes should be implemented promptly.
  • Strong upstream controls on contaminants are also needed. Option 1 will only deliver its full benefits if it is paired with strong upstream controls on harmful chemicals, so that tighter regulation on sewage sludge spreading does not simply push contaminated sludge toward incineration instead of making it genuinely safe and sustainable to use. Reform should focus on removing contamination, not shifting environmental harm elsewhere.
  • Costs should sit with those responsible for pollution. In simple terms, companies that produce and profit from persistent pollutants should bear the costs of managing their environmental impacts, rather than passing those costs on to farmers or water bill payers. This is often referred to as Extended Producer Responsibility. Without it, there is a risk that tighter regulation will lead to higher water bills for the public rather than encouraging pollution to be reduced at source.

Mandatory 

Yes

Not Mandatory but important

Keep your answer short.

You may wish to say:

  • A short transition period may be needed to implement permitting changes. Companies have been aware of these issues for years. 
  • Reform should not be delayed until the next water industry funding review in 2030. The necessary regulatory changes are already well understood and should be implemented without delay.
  • Regulation should be designed so that those responsible for pollution bear the costs, rather than passing them on to water bill payers. This would remove any excuse for delaying reform because of funding cycles.
  • Extended Producer Responsibility would likely require new or amended legislation and would involve a transition period. However, that should not delay strengthening sludge regulation as soon as possible. Upstream producer responsibility and downstream sludge reform can and should progress in parallel.

Mandatory  

This question relates to technical agricultural regulation. If you are not a farmer or familiar with the current regulatory requirements, you can select “Don’t know.” If you have direct experience of these requirements, you are welcome to provide your view.

Not Mandatory but important

You can leave this blank unless you feel confident responding.

Mandatory  

Strongly disagree

Not Mandatory but important

You may wish to say:

  • The priority must be clear permit conditions, proper monitoring, and effective enforcement.
  • Strong, enforceable regulation is what ensures sludge is safe. Assurance schemes should not replace clear legal standards and effective enforcement.

Keep it short and in your own words.

Do Not Answer 

You can skip this question unless you wish to comment further.

Q27-31

Reform Option 2 Feedback

Mandatory 

Strongly disagree

Not Mandatory but important

River Action believes Option 2 does not go far enough and is inadequate.

In your answer you may wish to say:

  • Simply amending the outdated 1989 regulations would not deliver the comprehensive reform needed. 
  • The current system is fundamentally flawed and requires modern, enforceable regulation.
  • Regulation should be streamlined under one framework, not remain fragmented.
  • The regulations are not fit for the current system and would not allow reactive and flexible updates as emerging contaminants are identified.

Keep your answer short and in your own words.

You can skip these questions unless you wish to comment further.

Q32-38

Reform Option 3 Feedback

Mandatory 

Strongly disagree

Not Mandatory but important

You may wish to say:

  • Regulation is needed.
  • Voluntary standards are not a substitute for regulation. Experience in the water sector shows that relying on companies to monitor themselves (operator self-monitoring), or to follow voluntary schemes, has not prevented widespread sewage pollution. There is a real risk that similar weaknesses would arise if sludge regulation depended primarily on voluntary assurance rather than clear, enforceable legal standards.
  • The system requires structural reform, not guidance updates.
  • Updating guidance alone will not provide sufficient safeguards or enforceable protections.
  • Stronger legal limits and oversight is needed to effectively address contamination risks.

Keep your answer short and in your own words.

You can skip this unless you wish to comment further.

Mandatory 

You can answer: Don’t know

Since this option does not deliver the reform needed, detailed transition planning is less relevant.

You can skip these unless you wish to comment further.

Q39-41

Your preferred option

This section contains the most important question in the consultation.

Mandatory 

Option 1

Not Mandatory but important

This is the most important question in the consultation.

You may wish to include some of the following points (choose 3–5 that feel most important to you):

  • Option 1 is the only option that will achieve real reform by replacing the outdated 1989 system and bringing sludge into a single, modern regulatory framework that can adapt to emerging risks and hold operators properly accountable.
  • Option 1 offers the clearest and most robust option. It updates the old rules and puts sludge under the same proper system that other waste already sits under.
  • Bringing sludge under Environmental Permitting would create enforceable oversight rather than relying on outdated rules.
  • Sewage sludge itself isn’t the problem. It is a useful fertiliser and part of a sensible recycling system. The issue is the chemicals that are ending up in it.
  • That’s why we need proper legal limits on harmful contaminants. It’s not enough to just measure what’s in the sludge – there needs to be a clear line that can’t be crossed.
  • We need to act now. Scientific understanding of contamination is still developing, but we should not wait for years before putting stronger safeguards in place. 
  • We also do not yet fully understand how different chemicals interact with each other in soil and water. Acting early helps prevent long-term damage.
  • Solutions should not only focus on the end of the process. Contamination needs to be addressed at source. That means stronger controls on industrial waste and on contaminants such as PFAS before they enter the wastewater system.
  • The organisations making and profiting from these chemicals should be the ones paying to put things right. This is known as Extended Producer Responsibility: the principle that those who make and profit from harmful pollutants should pay for managing their environmental impacts. That includes the cost of removing contaminants from wastewater and preventing damage to land and rivers. If these costs fall on water companies, they can end up being passed on to bill payers through higher water bills. The financial burden should sit with the polluters. And if the law requires them to cover those costs, it also gives them a clear incentive to reduce contamination in the first place.

Not Mandatory but important

What happens on land can affect our rivers. Sludge spread on farmland can run off into nearby streams and waterways, carrying contaminants into river catchments.

This question asks what the impact would be if the proposed reforms are implemented in England only. However, rivers don’t stop at administrative borders.

Many river systems — including the Severn and the Wye — flow between England and Wales. If stronger rules are introduced in one country but not the other, pollution can still travel downstream and affect shared catchments.

You may wish to include points such as:

  • Sludge spread on land can affect rivers through run-off.
  • Rivers cross borders, so regulation should take a catchment-based approach.
  • Different standards in England and Wales could weaken protections in shared rivers.
  • A coordinated, joined-up approach across borders would be more effective.

You do not need to write a long answer — one or two clear points is enough.

Q42-43

Survey Feedback

These questions relate to your feedback on the consultation experience. Please answer or skip as you wish.

You’re done! What’s next?

Thank you for contributing to the consultation and for reading our guidance.

Please let us know if you submitted your consultation response below. We can use this information to keep the pressure on the Government but we won’t know how many public responses have been submitted unless you tell us. We’d love to know how useful you found this guidance too.

How useful did you find this page's guidance for responding to the Sludge Consultation? *
Prompt your network to respond to the Sewage Sludge Consultation:

🗓 Consultation deadline: The consultation closes on the 24th March. Responses must be submitted before this deadline to be counted.

💬 What Happens Next? After the consultation closes, the Government will analyse responses and publish a response setting out its chosen approach. That decision will influence future regulation and environmental protections.

📨 Join Our Mailing List: To keep up to date with this and our other campaigns, join our mailing list by heading to RiverActionUK.com and inputting your details at the bottom of the page.