ʼһ

Farming Rules for Water (River Action) court case – what does it mean?

Nutrient Management Slurry Injector Nitrogen

After the High Court dismissed River Action’s claim against the EA regarding its approach to enforcing the Farming Rules for Water, this has prompted questions from members on what the judgment means.

What was the case about?

River Action brought a Judicial Review claim in March 2023, challenging the EA’s (Environment Agency) policy in relation to the enforcement of the Farming Rules for Water.

River Action essentially argued that the EA was not doing enough to enforce the Farming Rules for Water, and was therefore failing to address nutrient issues in the River Wye.

How was the NFU involved?

ʼһintervened in the proceedings on a narrow point of interpretation relating to Rule 1 of the Farming Rules for Water to ensure the court was aware that the interpretation put forward by River Action and the EA was not universally accepted.

ʼһand Secretary of State took the view that the Farming Rules for Water allowed for nutrient applications to be planned based on the needs of the soil and crop beyond immediate needs, i.e. over a longer period of time, such as an annual crop cycle.

We understand that many farmers may be struggling to understand what this judgment means in practice for their business. 

If members have concerns about their situation they should take independent professional advice regarding their nutrient applications, for example, from a suitably qualified agronomist.

For the latest information visit: Farming Rules for Water court case explained.

This was at odds with the position taken by River Action and the EA who asserted that nutrient applications should be planned so as not to exceed the needs of the soil and crop at the time of the application.

What did the court decide?

River Action’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, with the court finding the EA’s approach to enforcement of the Farming Rules for Water to be lawful.

The judge concluded that the interpretation favoured by the EA and River Action was correct, and that nutrient applications have to be planned on the basis of soil and crop need at the time of application.

NFU reaction

Responding to the news, NFU Vice President Rachel Hallos said the NFU was “disappointed that the judge disagreed with the interpretation of the legislation put forward by the NFU and Defra”.

She added: “Farmers and growers care deeply about water quality in rivers, including in the Wye catchment, and they will continue to work hard to prevent valuable nutrients and soil – vital for farming systems and food production – from contributing to water pollution.

“ʼһwill consider the judgment in detail and will continue its work with government, local authorities and regulatory bodies such as the Environment Agency to continue to drive further improvements on water quality, so we can maintain and protect the health of the nation’s rivers.”


Ask us a question about this page

Once you have submitted your query someone from NFU CallFirst will contact you. If needed, your query will then be passed to the appropriate NFU policy team.

You have 0 characters remaining.

By completing the form with your details on this page, you are agreeing to have this information sent to the NFU for the purposes of contacting you regarding your enquiry. Please take time to read the NFU’s Privacy Policy if you require further information.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google and apply.