Calls for urgent law change as UK’s largest water reuse system cannot be switched on
The UK's largest water reuse system, built into the Eddington development on the edge of Cambridge, has never been switched on since it was completed in 2021 because the Drinking Water Inspectorate has ruled it does not comply with drinking water regulations. The scheme could save thousands of residents around 25 litres of water per person per day by recycling rainwater for non-drinking purposes, but it remains locked down even as Cambridgeshire, one of England's driest regions, endures drought conditions and hosepipe bans imposed by Cambridge Water and Anglian Water. Campaigners say the legal block, which ministers in successive governments have known about but failed to resolve, is also preventing water companies from rolling out similar large-scale recycling schemes elsewhere at a time when experts warn England faces severe water shortages by 2055.
Eddington, developed by the University of Cambridge, will eventually house 8,000 people and uses swales to capture rainwater, feeding it into a lagoon that also protects nearby brooks from flooding. Cambridge Water designed a treatment system to recycle this water back into homes for toilet flushing and similar uses, but the Drinking Water Inspectorate deems the setup unlawful. Lutz Johnen, chair of the UK Water Reuse Association, called for urgent government action, noting that countries such as Belgium and Germany have run reuse systems for over 20 years, with Belgian households using around 90 litres of mains water per person daily compared with 140 litres in England and Wales.
- UK's largest water reuse system in Cambridgeshire has never been switched on since 2021.
- Drinking water regulations block it despite droughts and hosepipe bans nearby.
- Experts urge law change so similar recycling schemes can be built nationwide.
New here? Start with this
Water reuse systems collect and treat rainwater or wastewater so it can be used again. At Eddington, a development built by the University of Cambridge, rainwater is gathered in swales and a lagoon, then treated for uses such as flushing toilets. The site is planned to house about 8,000 people.
The Drinking Water Inspectorate checks whether water supplies meet legal safety and quality rules. Its ruling that the Eddington system does not comply has left the system unused since it was completed in 2021. The dispute is about whether the rules allow this kind of treated water to be supplied for non-drinking uses in homes.
The issue matters because reusing water could reduce demand on mains supplies, particularly in dry areas such as Cambridgeshire. Water companies and campaigners say uncertainty over the rules may affect plans for similar schemes, while England faces concerns about future water shortages.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
England faces acute water shortages with projections of severe scarcity by 2055, yet a completed, professionally engineered system sits dormant. Belgium and Germany have safely operated comparable water reuse schemes for over twenty years, demonstrating that the technology poses no meaningful public health risk when properly designed. The savings of 25 litres per person daily would be transformative during drought conditions; the fact that successive governments have known of this regulatory block yet failed to resolve it suggests the rules have become disconnected from genuine safety requirements rather than protective of public interest. Urgency is warranted when proven infrastructure exists and peer nations show it works.
The case against
The Drinking Water Inspectorate's determination that the system does not comply with drinking water regulations reflects legitimate caution in protecting millions from water-borne contamination, not mere obstruction. Regulatory frameworks differ across nations; approving non-compliant systems under pressure would set dangerous precedent and potentially encourage cost-cutting elsewhere. Proper change requires rigorous consultation and updated guidance, not expedited rule-waiving during crises; a public health failure from hastily approved schemes would prove far costlier than current water restrictions. The DWI's conservatism exists precisely for infrastructure as critical as water supply.