United Utilities Water Limited has been fined £60,000 and ordered to pay a £2,000 victim surcharge and £24,098.06 in costs after pleading guilty to introducing fish into inland waters without a permit. The Environment Agency confirmed on 10 April 2026 that this is the first sentencing of a water company under the Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015. (gov.uk)
The offence arose during a scour valve test at High Rid Reservoir, Horwich, when more than 30,000 fish were flushed into Bessy Brook, a smaller and unsuitable watercourse. The Agency recorded over 16,000 fish deaths, with contractors returning about 18,000 fish to the reservoir. Officers reported trauma consistent with high‑velocity discharge. (gov.uk)
Environment Agency officers attended Bessy Brook on 13 December 2024 following public reports of dead fish. Water sampling found no pollutants. The company told the Agency it believed a large shoal of roach had entered scour pipework, possibly in response to bird predation, before the test was undertaken. (gov.uk)
Under the 2015 Regulations, introducing fish into inland waters requires a permit. The charge list records that on 12 December 2024 United Utilities introduced roach from High Rid Reservoir into Bessy Brook ‘otherwise than under and in accordance with the terms of a permit’, contrary to Regulation 4(a). (legislation.gov.uk)
The Environment Agency categorised the incident as ‘Category 2’, meaning a significant adverse impact on animal health within the Common Incident Classification Scheme used for performance assessment. The Agency stated the introduction of approximately 34,000 fish met that threshold. (gov.uk)
In mitigation, the court heard that United Utilities had revised its procedures and successfully completed a subsequent scour valve test. The company also made a voluntary £500,000 donation to Groundwork Greater Manchester towards proposed restoration on the Middle Brook. (gov.uk)
For operators, the compliance signal is clear: fish movement triggered by asset testing can fall squarely within the permit regime even where no pollutant is present. Risk assessments for scour valve exercises should anticipate fish ingress to pipework and downstream relocation, and treat any potential ‘introduction’ as a permitting decision rather than a by‑product of maintenance.
Operationally, reservoir and network managers should document pre‑test controls such as temporary fish exclusion screens, soft‑start ramp‑up of flows, temporary barrier nets, and contractor stand‑by for rescue and return. Scheduling tests to avoid peak shoaling periods and confirming permit coverage for any unavoidable movement of fish can materially reduce enforcement exposure.
Regulators have signalled a tougher stance. The Environment Agency said it expects full compliance with all legislative requirements and will take robust enforcement where breaches are identified. In parallel, ministers have set out ‘MOT‑style’ health checks for water assets and plans for a stronger, single regulator in the government’s Water White Paper published on 20 January 2026. (gov.uk)
The enforcement backdrop is expanding. The Environment Agency reports completing over 10,000 inspections of water company assets in the last year, issuing thousands of improvement actions, alongside growth to its largest‑ever water enforcement workforce. (gov.uk)
Governance teams should map test regimes that could relocate fish, embed permit checks into change control for maintenance, and pre‑agree rapid mobilisation with fisheries specialists. With a White Paper transition plan due to shape implementation through 2026, boards should expect deeper scrutiny of asset testing and maintenance. (gov.uk)
Public reporting remains integral to incident response. In this case, officers attended following reports of dead fish to the incident hotline, underlining the role of prompt community reporting in enabling rapid regulatory action. (gov.uk)