Water bills in southern England have surged dramatically, with Southern Water customers facing an average increase of 47%, and some residents seeing their bills nearly quadruple overnight. This steep rise has pushed Southern Water to become the highest charging water provider in the UK, raising serious questions about the value customers are receiving for their money.
Southern Water’s track record has been widely criticised. The company has been responsible for dumping millions of litres of untreated sewage into Hampshire’s delicate chalk streams, including the Test and Itchen rivers, year after year. Despite this environmental damage, the firm continues to reward its executives with hefty pay rises. Most notably, Southern Water’s chief executive, Lawrence Gosden, recently received an 80% pay increase, doubling his salary to £1.4 million—a move that has sparked outrage.
The company insists that this pay hike is part of a "two-year long-term incentive plan" rather than a bonus, and that the full amount may not be paid if Southern Water fails to meet certain environmental standards. Nonetheless, critics argue that such rewards are unacceptable given the company’s ongoing failures and the financial burden falling on customers.
Southern Water is not alone in this trend. According to an analysis by The Guardian, the pay for chief executives of water companies across England and Wales rose by 5% in the 2024-25 financial year, reaching an average of £1.1 million. Total reported pay for 14 companies hit £15 million, up from £13.8 million the previous year. This increase has come despite a ban on bonuses for several water companies and widespread public anger over the sector’s poor environmental and customer service records.
Ofwat, the water industry regulator, has recently gained powers to insist that bonuses are paid by shareholders rather than through customers’ bills. In June 2025, new rules allowed a ban on bonuses for bosses of companies guilty of the most serious environmental damage. Six companies—Thames Water, Anglian Water, Southern Water, United Utilities, Wessex Water, and Yorkshire Water—were banned from paying bonuses to their chief executives and chief financial officers for the 2024-25 financial year.
While the bonus ban led to an 8% pay drop across these companies, Southern Water’s CEO still enjoyed a significant pay rise. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from politicians and campaigners alike. Environment Secretary Steve Reed publicly suggested that Gosden should decline the extra payment, highlighting the tension between regulatory efforts and company actions.
Critics like Sophie Conquest, lead campaigner at the public ownership advocacy group We Own It, have voiced strong condemnation. She highlighted the disconnect between executive pay and service delivery, stating: "The public is rightly angry about the obscene levels of cash being handed over to the private water bosses. What has their highly valued commercial brilliance delivered for us? Water bills hiked by 30% and the ongoing vandalisation of our rivers and lakes. No new reservoirs built in 30 years, and 3bn litres of water lost daily to crumbling pipes. Never in the field of essential public services has so much been earned by so few for doing so little."
Indeed, the lack of investment in critical infrastructure is a common theme. Since the privatisation of water companies in 1989, the promise was that competition would drive efficiency and improvements. Instead, water companies operate as regional monopolies, raising prices while failing to invest adequately in infrastructure or environmental protection. The result has been a steady decline in service quality and environmental stewardship.
Luke Hildyard, executive director of the High Pay Centre, which campaigns against excessive executive pay, questioned the justification for such high salaries: "Many people have found it hard to reconcile the litany of financial, environmental and customer service disasters variously afflicting these companies with top pay awards that have frequently exceeded £1m. Is a clean, reliable water supply really so contingent on these seven-figure pay awards?"
Pay disparities within the sector are also notable. The highest-paid water boss in the 2024-25 financial year was Liv Garfield, CEO of Severn Trent—a FTSE 100 company serving 4.6 million households—who received £3.3 million. On the other end of the spectrum, David Hinton of South East Water earned £456,000, still significantly above the £270,000 salary of the NHS head.
Chief financial officers’ pay showed a slight decline overall, falling 3% to £7.6 million across 12 companies that disclosed figures, largely due to a steep drop at Thames Water. However, excluding Thames, CFO pay rose by 7% on average, indicating that executive remuneration remains robust despite regulatory scrutiny.
Government officials maintain that reforms are underway. A spokesperson stated, "Undeserved bonuses for water company bosses have now been banned as part of the government’s plan to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good. We also have ringfenced customers’ bills to ensure investment must be spent on new sewage pipes and treatment works, not bonuses. Any instances of companies trying to circumvent the new rules are completely unacceptable. The government will leave no stone unturned against any bosses being made these payments."
Meanwhile, Water UK, the industry’s lobby group, emphasized that executive pay is independently determined by remuneration committees in line with laws and government regulations. They also pointed to a record £104 billion investment planned over the next five years aimed at securing water supplies, ending sewage discharges, and supporting economic growth.
Despite these assurances, public frustration remains high. Thomas Gravatt, a Southampton resident, voiced a sentiment shared by many: "It is unacceptable that a company that is providing an essential service can raise prices this extensively only to pump the extra cash into executive pay. Particularly when their environmental record is so poor." He called for the state to take more direct control of water companies, whether through public interest company status or full nationalisation, arguing that access to clean water is a fundamental human right and must be protected from reckless private interests.
As water companies continue to grapple with environmental challenges, infrastructure needs, and public trust, the debate over privatisation and executive pay is far from settled. What is clear is that many customers are paying more than ever, while receiving a service that falls short of expectations—and that disparity is fueling calls for radical change in how water is managed and governed in the UK.
