England and Wales have recorded their driest July since rainfall records began. But today’s hosepipe bans reveal only part of the problem. Some of the communities expected to absorb the greatest housing growth are already among the most water-stressed—and much of the infrastructure intended to close the gap will not arrive for years.
July 2026 did not merely feel unusually dry. It broke records extending back almost two centuries.
England received just 6.5 millimetres of rain during the month, equivalent to 10% of its long-term July average. That was less than half the previous record low of 13.4mm, set in 1911.
Wales recorded only 9.3mm, or 9% of its average July rainfall. Southern England received just 1.9mm, making it the driest calendar month ever recorded for that part of the country.
Nineteen counties received no more than one millimetre of rain across the entire month. They included Berkshire, Essex, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, East Sussex, West Sussex, Greater London and the Isle of Wight—many of the same places facing intense pressure to accommodate new homes. (Met Office)
The immediate effects are now familiar: falling reservoirs, depleted rivers, dry soils and restrictions on household water use.
Yet hosepipe bans are a response to current conditions. They do not answer the more consequential question:
Are the places being asked to build the most homes also the places least prepared to supply them with water?
The evidence suggests that, in parts of England, the answer may be yes.
A drought warning—and a long-term capacity problem
By 23 July, before the month’s final record-breaking figures were known, reservoir storage across England had fallen to 75.3% of capacity. That was 7.4 percentage points below the long-term average for the time of year.
The Environment Agency found that 84% of monitored river flows were classified as below normal or lower. July rainfall at that stage stood at only 3% of its long-term average. (GOV.UK)
Those figures describe a short-term hydrological emergency. They do not, by themselves, mean that household taps are about to run dry.
Public water systems are designed to withstand dry periods. Companies can move water, increase abstraction, use reservoirs, impose restrictions and ask customers to reduce consumption.
But climate conditions are only one side of the equation. The other is demand.
Every new home adds residents, appliances, gardens, businesses, schools and public services that require water. In rapidly growing areas, the cumulative demand can become substantial.
A region may therefore face water stress even outside an exceptional drought if:
- population growth outpaces supply;
- new infrastructure is delayed;
- abstraction from rivers and aquifers must be reduced;
- leakage remains high;
- household consumption does not fall as planned;
- environmental protections restrict the amount that can safely be taken.
That is why the current drought should be understood as a stress test of decisions being made over decades.
Eastern England combines low rainfall with rapid growth
The clearest collision between housing growth and water scarcity is in eastern England.
Water Resources East, the regional body responsible for long-term water planning, describes the east as “severely water stressed”. It says the region is already the driest in the country, receiving only around two-thirds of average UK rainfall, while also experiencing one of the highest rates of new housing development.
Its warning is direct: unless urgent action is taken, eastern England faces severe water shortages. (waterresourceseast.com)
This is not solely a consequence of one dry summer.
Much of the region depends on groundwater, rivers and chalk streams that are environmentally sensitive. Increasing abstraction indefinitely is not a sustainable solution. In some catchments, future plans depend on taking less water from the natural environment rather than more.
At the same time, Cambridge, Peterborough, Milton Keynes and parts of Bedfordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk are being positioned for significant housing and economic growth.
The resulting challenge is structural: authorities want more homes and businesses, while environmental policy requires lower abstraction and climate change makes reliable supply more difficult.
Cambridge is the test case
Few places illustrate the conflict more clearly than Cambridge.
The city and its surrounding districts are expected to accommodate substantial housing, research and commercial growth. But the area relies heavily on chalk aquifers that also sustain rare chalk-stream habitats.
When new developments are proposed, planners must decide not merely whether there is water somewhere in the regional system, but whether sufficient supply can be delivered reliably without damaging protected rivers and groundwater sources.
This creates several different risks:
- A development may receive planning permission before all long-term water infrastructure is operational.
- Water companies may rely on future demand reductions that have not yet been achieved.
- Supply may depend on major projects whose opening dates are several planning cycles away.
- Environmental regulators may require abstraction reductions before replacement resources are available.
- Housing targets may be revised without the water-resource assumptions being revised at the same pace.
Cambridge should therefore be treated as the lead case study in any national analysis—not because it is necessarily the community closest to losing supply, but because it exposes the gap between growth ambitions and environmental capacity most clearly.
The South East faces a large future supply gap
The South East combines high population density, sustained development pressure and relatively low rainfall.
Ofwat has previously said there is an urgent need to close the gap between water supply and demand in parts of South East England. Strategic projects in the region have been placed on accelerated development routes, with some intended to begin providing water around 2030. (Ofwat)
These schemes include proposals for:
- new reservoirs;
- transfers between water-company regions;
- water-recycling systems;
- desalination;
- abstraction changes;
- leakage reduction;
- lower household consumption.
The existence of an infrastructure plan does not mean that the risk has disappeared.
A credible local assessment must ask:
- When is the additional housing expected to be occupied?
- When will the replacement water become available?
- Is the project funded and approved, or merely proposed?
- What happens if construction is delayed?
- What demand assumptions are being used?
- Is the plan dependent on people using substantially less water?
- Are environmental abstraction reductions included?
The critical measurement is not simply the size of a proposed reservoir. It is the timing gap between new demand and dependable new supply.
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight depend on sensitive rivers
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight entered prolonged dry weather status in July.
The Environment Agency highlighted the region’s dependence on the River Test, a rare chalk stream that supports both public water supply and a sensitive ecosystem. (GOV.UK)
This creates an inherent limit on how water scarcity can be managed. Taking substantially more from the river during prolonged dry conditions could protect household supply while worsening environmental damage.
Housing growth must therefore be assessed alongside:
- river-flow protections;
- abstraction licence conditions;
- available reservoir capacity;
- planned transfers;
- drought permits;
- demand-reduction measures.
A conventional housing table may show that land is available and infrastructure contributions have been agreed. It may not show whether the underlying water source can sustain the additional demand during a severe multi-year drought.
London’s problem is scale
London uses more than 2.6 billion litres of water each day. (London City Hall)
Its challenge differs from that of Cambridge or rural East Anglia. London is not dependent on a single local source, but its scale means that even modest population growth or changes in per-person consumption translate into very large additional volumes.
The capital also depends on water drawn from a wider regional system. Its resilience cannot therefore be measured only through rainfall within Greater London.
A meaningful assessment must include:
- Thames Valley reservoir storage;
- abstraction from the Thames and Lee;
- population projections;
- leakage;
- planned strategic resources;
- transfers from neighbouring regions;
- the dates when major schemes become operational.
London’s risk is less likely to emerge as one planning application being rejected for lack of water. It is more likely to appear as a widening regional supply deficit that requires large, expensive infrastructure and increasingly severe restrictions during drought.
Leakage remains part of the capacity equation
Water companies frequently argue that new reservoirs, transfers and recycling projects are required to meet future demand.
Those projects may be necessary. But the industry is also losing substantial quantities of treated water before it reaches customers.
Ofwat reports that England and Wales lost an average of 46.4 litres per person per day through leakage in 2024–25. (Ofwat)
Across the sector, leakage fell by 9% between 2020 and 2025—an improvement, but below the reduction the industry had originally been expected to achieve. (Ofwat)
Performance also varies considerably between companies.
Ofwat opened an investigation into Thames Water after it missed its leakage performance commitment. The failure triggered the maximum automatic penalty available for that target: £8.55 million. (Ofwat)
Leakage alone does not explain regional water shortages. Eliminating every leak is neither technically nor economically possible.
But leakage affects the credibility of a water-resources plan. An area whose future supply depends heavily on ambitious reductions is more exposed if its provider repeatedly misses those targets.
For that reason, leakage should be treated as a resilience factor—not merely as an industry-performance statistic.
A hosepipe ban does not prove an area is running out of water
It is important not to overstate what restrictions mean.
A hosepipe ban can be introduced to reduce peak demand, preserve reservoir storage, protect river flows and delay more severe drought measures. It does not necessarily mean that ordinary domestic supply is close to failing.
Equally, an area without a current ban should not automatically be considered resilient.
Some companies may have:
- larger reservoirs;
- more transferable supplies;
- lower immediate demand;
- different drought thresholds;
- access to groundwater;
- greater operational flexibility.
Conversely, a company may avoid restrictions during one dry summer while still forecasting a substantial long-term supply deficit.
Current restrictions are therefore one indicator among many. They should not determine the final ranking by themselves.
How we will identify the most exposed communities
To establish which communities are closest to a water-supply crisis, Politicsphere will combine seven categories of evidence.
1. Present water conditions
We will measure:
- drought status;
- reservoir storage;
- river-flow classification;
- groundwater levels;
- active restrictions;
- recent supply interruptions.
2. Existing supply headroom
Water-company plans include forecasts of the balance between deployable supply and demand.
We will identify areas with:
- little remaining headroom;
- an existing deficit;
- reliance on emergency drought measures;
- unusually low resilience to a severe drought.
3. Housing growth
For each local authority, we will collect:
- adopted local-plan housing requirements;
- government housing expectations;
- outstanding planning permissions;
- major strategic sites;
- projected completions;
- proposed new settlements.
Housing figures will be matched to the year in which homes are expected to become occupied—not merely the year in which permission was granted.
4. Population growth
Housing does not translate perfectly into population.
We will therefore use ONS population projections and household-size assumptions to estimate the additional residents served by each water-resource zone.
5. Leakage and consumption
We will compare:
- total leakage;
- leakage per person;
- recent performance against target;
- household consumption;
- planned reductions;
- dependence on unachieved future savings.
Ofwat’s long-term leakage dataset provides company and regional figures through 2024–25. (Ofwat)
6. Environmental pressure
We will include:
- abstraction pressure;
- chalk-stream dependence;
- protected habitats;
- required abstraction reductions;
- water-neutrality restrictions;
- Environment Agency objections;
- Natural Resources Wales concerns.
This matters because theoretical supply is not necessarily environmentally sustainable supply.
7. Infrastructure timing
For every major supply project, we will record:
- expected capacity;
- planning status;
- funding status;
- construction start;
- expected completion;
- dependencies;
- delay risk.
A proposed reservoir due in 2040 cannot supply homes occupied in 2030.
The proposed Water–Housing Resilience Score
Each local authority or water-resource zone will receive a score from zero to 100.
Higher scores will represent greater exposure.
The initial model will weight:
| Indicator | Weight |
|---|---|
| Forecast supply-demand deficit | 25% |
| Planned housing and population growth | 20% |
| Delay before new capacity arrives | 15% |
| Current drought and storage conditions | 10% |
| Abstraction and environmental constraints | 10% |
| Leakage performance | 10% |
| Reliance on uncertain demand reductions | 10% |
No single indicator will be labelled proof of an impending supply failure.
Instead, the ranking will identify places where several pressures coincide:
- rapid development;
- limited supply headroom;
- stressed natural sources;
- weak leakage performance;
- infrastructure arriving after demand;
- heavy dependence on behavioural change.
The methodology and source data will be published so that councils, water companies and readers can challenge the results.
Areas likely to require the closest examination
Before the full dataset is assembled, official plans and regional warnings indicate several broad areas that deserve priority.
Cambridge and surrounding districts
The combination of ambitious housing and economic growth, groundwater dependence, chalk-stream pressure and delayed strategic infrastructure makes Cambridge the clearest initial test case.
Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and the wider Affinity Water area
These areas face significant development pressure while relying heavily on groundwater in one of England’s most water-stressed regions.
Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk growth corridors
Eastern England combines low rainfall, agricultural demand, environmental sensitivity and rapid housing growth.
Kent, Sussex and Surrey
Southern England experienced exceptional July dryness. Several counties recorded no more than one millimetre of rain during the entire month. The region also contains fast-growing communities supplied by companies with differing levels of resilience. (Met Office)
Hampshire and the Isle of Wight
Dependence on protected chalk streams means additional demand cannot be considered separately from environmental flow requirements.
Greater London and the Thames Valley
The capital’s enormous existing demand, continuing growth and dependence on major future infrastructure place it in a separate high-consequence category.
This is not yet a definitive ranking. It is the starting list for the investigation.
Wales requires a separate analysis
England and Wales should not be treated as a single water-planning system.
Natural Resources Wales reported that, by 21 July, parts of the Upper Severn, Gwynedd and Clwyd catchments had received less than 2% of their expected July rainfall. Much of north Wales had recorded no rain since 6 July. (Natural Resources Wales)
Wales also recorded its driest July since records began. (Met Office)
However, the places experiencing the driest weather are not necessarily those with the greatest housing-driven supply deficit.
The Welsh analysis must separately examine:
- Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water resource zones;
- Hafren Dyfrdwy’s supply area;
- Natural Resources Wales abstraction licences;
- local development plans;
- population projections;
- tourism-related seasonal demand;
- agricultural abstraction;
- cross-border supply arrangements.
A council-level map that overlays only rainfall and housing targets would be misleading.
Why council boundaries can hide the real risk
Water is not supplied according to local-authority boundaries.
One council can contain several water suppliers or resource zones. A single water-resource zone can serve parts of multiple councils.
That creates a methodological problem.
Housing targets are generally published by councils, while supply-demand balances are generally calculated by water companies for water-resource zones.
A credible analysis must therefore translate planned housing into the geography of the water system.
Where an exact match is impossible, the project should publish a confidence rating and explain the allocation method.
Without that step, a council could be incorrectly assigned the performance of a water company that serves only a small part of its population.
Planning permission does not guarantee water resilience
Water companies are statutory consultees in parts of the planning process, but the existence of a connection does not necessarily prove long-term regional resilience.
A developer may be able to connect a site while the wider water-resource plan still depends on future infrastructure, demand reductions or abstraction changes.
The investigation will therefore distinguish between:
- whether a development can physically connect;
- whether treatment and distribution networks can accommodate it;
- whether the water-resource zone has sufficient deployable supply;
- whether that supply remains reliable during drought;
- whether the abstraction is environmentally sustainable.
These are related questions, but they are not the same question.
The crucial dates may not align
The central test for every growth area will be a timeline.
On one side:
- planning permission;
- construction;
- first occupation;
- full occupation;
- projected population growth.
On the other:
- reservoir approval;
- funding decision;
- construction;
- commissioning;
- water-transfer completion;
- abstraction reduction;
- leakage and consumption targets.
Where demand arrives before dependable supply, the analysis will calculate the size and duration of the gap.
That gap—not the presence of a hosepipe ban—is the clearest measure of exposure.
Questions every high-growth council should answer
Councils promoting substantial development should be able to state:
- Which water-resource zones will serve the proposed homes?
- How much additional daily demand is expected?
- Which supply projects are required?
- When will each project become operational?
- What happens if those projects are delayed?
- Does the plan depend on lower household consumption?
- Has the water company achieved comparable reductions before?
- Will abstraction from sensitive rivers or aquifers fall or rise?
- What drought scenario has been tested?
- Has the housing trajectory changed since the water plan was prepared?
Where those answers are unavailable, the public cannot easily judge whether development plans and water plans are compatible.
Questions water companies should answer
Water companies should publish, at resource-zone level:
- annual supply-demand forecasts;
- drought resilience assumptions;
- housing and population assumptions;
- leakage targets and actual performance;
- per-person consumption targets;
- planned infrastructure;
- project delivery confidence;
- environmental abstraction reductions;
- consequences of a two-, three- or five-year delay.
A regional surplus can conceal a local deficit. Company-wide data should not be used where more granular information exists.
What the July drought tells us—and what it does not
July’s record dryness does not prove that England and Wales are unable to support new housing.
It does demonstrate how quickly several pressures can occur together:
- rainfall collapses;
- river flows decline;
- soil moisture falls;
- household demand rises;
- agricultural demand intensifies;
- reservoirs are drawn down;
- environmental stress increases.
Helen Wakeham, chair of the National Drought Group and the Environment Agency’s director of water, described the combination plainly:
“Dry weather depletes our water, while the hot conditions mean we use more of it.”
She added that the effects were already being felt by farmers, wildlife and the water available for public and business use. (Met Office)
The question is whether local and national planning decisions have allowed enough margin for conditions like these to become more frequent—or to last longer.
The data the public needs
A reliable postcode checker should eventually show:
- water supplier;
- water-resource zone;
- current restriction status;
- reservoir or source position;
- recent rainfall;
- leakage performance;
- projected population;
- planned homes;
- supply-demand balance;
- major infrastructure projects;
- expected completion dates;
- environmental constraints;
- overall resilience rating.
The tool should also show its limitations.
A red rating would not mean that taps are about to run dry. It would indicate that the area combines several pressures requiring closer scrutiny.
A green rating would not guarantee that no restrictions will occur during an exceptional drought.
The real question is not whether Britain has enough water
At national level, Britain is not a country without water.
Its problem is that water is unevenly distributed across seasons and regions, while homes, jobs and infrastructure are concentrated in particular places.
The wettest areas are not always those experiencing the greatest growth. Water cannot always be transferred cheaply or without environmental consequences. Reservoirs take years to approve and build. Rivers and aquifers cannot be treated as limitless reserves.
The debate should therefore move beyond whether a hosepipe ban is in force.
The more important questions are:
- Where will demand grow fastest?
- Which sources are already under pressure?
- What capacity has actually been approved?
- Will it arrive before the homes?
- Who carries the risk if it does not?
The communities closest to a water-supply crisis may not be those with the emptiest reservoir today.
They may be the places where thousands of homes are due to arrive before the water infrastructure intended to serve them.
How to contribute to this investigation
Politicsphere is seeking:
- water-company objections to developments;
- council water-cycle studies;
- planning applications delayed by supply concerns;
- water-neutrality assessments;
- internal council correspondence;
- evidence of repeated local supply interruptions;
- details of infrastructure projects facing delays.
Documents can be submitted through our secure reporting form. Personal information, account numbers and property details should be removed before submission.
This investigation will be updated as new data becomes available.
Last checked: 4 August 2026.
