Photo credit: Seiya Maeda
Most people in England support hosepipe bans when water levels fall, but a substantial minority think it unfair to be asked to cut back before water companies have taken visible steps of their own. The finding comes from research by Ipsos for the Environment Agency, published on 15 July, based on a survey of 2,100 adults alongside four focus groups.
Support is broad
Two-thirds of respondents (66 per cent) supported temporary use bans when water levels fall, with only 10 per cent opposed. Large majorities agreed the bans are necessary to protect supplies during droughts (80 per cent), a fair way of asking everyone to reduce use (78 per cent) and an effective way to cut demand at times of high pressure (76 per cent). Saving water during drought was identified as the main rationale by 81 per cent.
Experience appears to soften rather than harden attitudes. Among those living in areas subject to a ban in 2025, 80 per cent reported no impact or only minor inconvenience, and support remained high at 61 per cent, though opposition was slightly greater at 14 per cent. Those with direct experience were also markedly more likely to expect bans to become routine: 43 per cent anticipated one every year for the next five years, against 21 per cent overall.
Trust is the fault line
The sharpest finding concerns sequencing where nearly half of respondents (47 per cent) felt it unfair for companies to ask customers to reduce use before taking visible action themselves, rising to 58 per cent in areas that had experienced a ban. Lack of trust that companies had done enough was the single most cited barrier to compliance among hosepipe owners (25 per cent), climbing to 46 per cent among those opposed to bans.
Focus group participants returned to leaks and infrastructure repeatedly, arguing that companies should fix leaks and invest in future-proofing before restrictions fall on households. Bill rises sharpened the resentment. That scepticism extended to messaging: participants said communications from water companies carried more weight when paired with an independent body such as the Environment Agency, which was seen as more credible.
Where restrictions should fall
Asked to rank eight categories of user, respondents put farmers last for restriction, with crop farmers (average score 6.67) and livestock farmers (6.51) seen as protecting food supply. Sport pitches and grounds (2.98), leisure and hospitality (3.14) and public green spaces (3.31) were viewed as the appropriate early targets. Seventy-one per cent thought it fair for households to face a ban while farmers irrigated using water stored from winter, while 53 per cent thought it unfair for households to be restricted while some businesses carried on as normal.
Support for alternatives was high: 80 per cent backed temporary bans on specific high-use appliances and stronger public messaging, and 76 per cent supported restrictions on non-essential business use. Price-based measures were the least popular, with just 32 per cent accepting higher prices at peak times. On longer-term investment, 86 per cent supported improved water recycling and reuse, and 84 per cent each backed accelerated leak reduction and more storage and reservoirs. Willingness to fund it was thinner: 47 per cent would pay nothing extra on their bill to halve the likelihood of a ban.
Gaps in understanding
Awareness of enforcement was low. Only 4 per cent said they knew a lot about how bans are enforced, and 63 per cent had limited or no knowledge. A quarter saw enforcement as a strong deterrent. Understanding of the rules was generally sound, with around nine in ten correctly identifying hosepipe garden watering and car washing as restricted, though mains-fed irrigation systems were a grey area, recognised as restricted by 65 per cent. Younger respondents and Greater London residents were consistently less clear.
Participants also criticised how bans end, saying companies announced them promptly but were slow to confirm when restrictions lifted, which further eroded confidence. Direct contact from the water company was the preferred channel for messages at 51 per cent, ahead of television news at 47 per cent.
Sources: