Water Company Executives' Pay Surges to £1.1 Million Amid Pollution Outrage

In the financial year 2024-25, the remuneration for chief executives of water companies in England and Wales rose by 5% to an average of £1.1 million despite a ban on bonuses and ongoing public outrage over the environmental impact of sewage discharges. Total pay across 14 companies reached £15 million, a significant increase from £13.8 million in the prior year, as reported by The Guardian on July 26, 2025.

The increase in executive pay comes at a time when these companies are facing intense scrutiny for their record of environmentally damaging sewage discharges into the country’s rivers and seas. Politicians and environmental activists have voiced their anger over rising water bills, which increased by 30% in April, as sanctioned by the regulator Ofwat. The unsettling pay figures raise questions about the effectiveness of government measures intended to curb excessive executive compensation.

Ofwat, which gained new powers last year to impose restrictions on bonuses, mandated that any bonuses awarded be paid by shareholders rather than through customers’ bills. New regulations introduced in June allowed a ban on bonuses for executives of companies found guilty of serious environmental violations. Despite these measures, certain companies have found ways to circumvent the intent of the rules. For instance, Southern Water awarded its CEO, Lawrence Gosden, an 80% pay increase to £1.4 million, which the company claims is part of a long-term incentive plan rather than a bonus.

Keith Haslett, CEO of Affinity Water, saw the most significant pay increase, bringing his total compensation to £1.6 million, while Portsmouth Water’s chief executive Bob Taylor also doubled his pay to £754,000. Conversely, Thames Water, one of the companies banned from paying bonuses, reported a significant drop in executive compensation, with CEO Chris Weston earning £1 million—down from £1.7 million the previous year. This decline reflects the broader 8% reduction in pay across the six companies under the bonus ban, which totaled £5.5 million.

Sophie Conquest, lead campaigner for the public ownership advocacy group We Own It, expressed public outrage over the disproportionate pay awarded to executives, questioning, "What has their highly valued commercial brilliance delivered for us?" She emphasized the company’s failures, including a lack of new reservoir construction over the past three decades and the loss of 3 billion liters of water daily due to deteriorating infrastructure.

In contrast, Liv Garfield, the highest-paid executive from Severn Trent—a FTSE 100 company—was awarded £3.3 million during the financial year. The lowest-paid water chief executive, David Hinton of South East Water, earned £456,000, still surpassing the £270,000 salary of the head of the National Health Service (NHS).

Luke Hildyard, executive director of the High Pay Centre, criticized the compensation levels in the sector, suggesting that water company salaries should be capped to a maximum of ten times that of the lowest earners. He remarked, "Many people have found it hard to reconcile the litany of financial, environmental, and customer service disasters... with top pay awards that have frequently exceeded £1 million."

A government spokesperson reiterated the commitment to banning undeserved bonuses and ensuring customer bills are not used for executive compensation. They stated, "The government will leave no stone unturned against any bosses being made these payments."

Water UK, representing the industry, defended the compensation practices, asserting that executive pay is determined by independent remuneration committees and adheres to government regulations. They highlighted that water companies are set to invest a record £104 billion over the next five years to enhance water supply, mitigate sewage discharges, and support economic growth.

This situation raises critical questions about the governance and accountability of water companies, particularly in light of their financial rewards juxtaposed against environmental and service failures. Moving forward, the ongoing public scrutiny and regulatory reviews may prompt significant changes in the landscape of executive compensation within the water sector.