Flood and Water Management Act 2010: What’s in Force

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (FWMA) is the law that governs how flood risk is managed in England and Wales. It received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010, made county and unitary councils responsible for local flooding, gave the Environment Agency a national strategic role, reformed reservoir safety, and created the machinery to make sustainable drainage compulsory before construction begins.

That last part has never been switched on in England, and nor has the reservoir threshold meant to accompany it. Sixteen years on, the Act as it sits on the statute book and the Act as it operates on a live planning application are two different documents, and only the second is any use to you. This guide is organised around the jobs the Act actually creates: submitting an application, designing drainage, working in Wales, evidencing a flood, co-operating as a risk management authority, and managing a reservoir.

As at October 2026, Schedule 3 has not been commenced in England and no date has been set for it, while the reservoir registration threshold is held at 25,000 cubic metres by a transitional saving rather than by the 10,000 figure the statute contains.

What is the Flood and Water Management Act 2010?

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 is a UK Act of Parliament extending to England and Wales that gives local flood risk a single accountable authority, requires national and local flood risk management strategies, reforms reservoir safety, and provides for a statutory approval regime for sustainable drainage. It runs to 49 sections across three parts plus five schedules, and each schedule has its own commencement history.

The Act exists because the arrangements in place in 2007 failed, publicly and expensively. Exceptionally heavy summer rainfall flooded around 55,000 properties across England, cut power and water supplies to hundreds of thousands of people, and caused an estimated £3.2 billion of damage, according to the Environment Agency's review of the costs of the summer 2007 floods. Thirteen people died.

Sir Michael Pitt's inquiry reported in June 2008 with 92 recommendations. Its central finding was structural rather than technical: responsibility for flood risk was scattered across too many bodies, and nobody owned surface water flooding at all. Which of those recommendations the Act delivered, and which were dropped along the way, is traced in a separate analysis of the Pitt Review and its gaps.

Part 1, sections 1 to 31, builds the flood risk management framework. Part 2, sections 32 to 46, is headed "Miscellaneous" and is where the sustainable drainage, reservoir and special administration provisions sit, alongside water measures that have nothing to do with flooding. Part 3 is procedural. The full text is on legislation.gov.uk, stated there as up to date with all changes in force on or before 14 August 2026.

How does the Act fit with the other main water legislation?

The FWMA did not replace the older water statutes. It sits on top of them and amends several, so a practical question about drainage or flooding on a site usually turns on two or three Acts at once. The Land Drainage Act 1991 decides who consents a culvert, the Water Industry Act 1991 decides whether the sewer connection is a right, and the FWMA decides who is accountable for the flood risk in between.

Which parts of the Act are actually in force?

Three of the five schedules of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 are fully in force on both sides of the border. Schedule 3 has never been commenced in England. Part of Schedule 4 operates in England under a transitional saving that suspends the figure the statute actually contains. Commencement is a devolved decision, so one piece of legislation now produces two materially different regimes.

Schedule 2 makes the consequential amendments to the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Act 1991 that underpin the LLFA's role in consenting works on ordinary watercourses. Schedule 5 deals with special administration orders for water and sewerage companies that fail financially or operationally, and is the part of the Act least connected to day-to-day flood risk. The gaps are in Schedules 3 and 4.

The Act has been switched on in pieces rather than all at once. There have been eleven commencement orders, each made under section 49(3), the most recent, the Commencement No. 11 Order 2024, taking effect on 15 March 2024.

What the Act means for a planning application

If you are submitting an application, the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 reaches you through the lead local flood authority rather than through the statute directly. Since 15 April 2015 the LLFA has been a statutory consultee on surface water drainage for major development, so its view on your drainage strategy carries real weight, and an unresolved objection can hold a scheme for months.

The Act is also the reason the evidence is asked for at all. By making local flood risk a county or unitary council responsibility, it created a body with both the remit and the standing to require a drainage strategy and to comment on a flood risk assessment. Where a site sits in Flood Zone 2 or 3, is a hectare or more, or is shown at risk from surface water, that evidence is what determines whether the scheme moves. If your site needs one, a site-specific flood risk assessment for planning and a compliant surface water drainage strategy are the two documents the Act ultimately generates.

1. Consultation. The LLFA must be consulted on surface water drainage for major development, and its response goes on the planning file where the case officer, and later an inspector, can read it.
2. A local strategy. Section 9 requires each LLFA to publish a local flood risk management strategy, which sets the local expectations your scheme is measured against.
3. Consent for watercourse works. Through the Schedule 2 amendments to the Land Drainage Act 1991, the LLFA consents works affecting an ordinary watercourse, which is a separate permission from planning and is frequently missed. The distinction between an ordinary watercourse and a main river decides whether the LLFA or the Environment Agency consents the work.
4. Designation. Under Schedule 1 the LLFA can designate a structure or feature on or near your site, which restricts what the owner may then alter.
5. Investigation and records. Sections 19 and 21 give the LLFA a flood history and an asset register for the area, both of which you can request before you design.

An LLFA objection is not a refusal, but on a major application it is close enough: a case officer will rarely recommend approval over an unresolved drainage objection.

A drainage condition attached at permission is the other common route. Discharging it means returning with the detailed design, the calculations and a maintenance plan, and it is a frequent point of failure on otherwise sound schemes. Foul drainage runs on a separate track under Building Regulations Part H and is not covered by the Act at all, which is why a building control sign-off is no evidence that a planning drainage condition has been met, as the guide to how building control and planning treat drainage explains. Where LLFA objections usually come from is set out in why LLFAs object to planning applications, and discharging drainage planning conditions is specialist work in its own right.

Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act: what it would do, and what applies instead

Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 would create SuDS Approving Bodies with power to approve drainage systems against national standards before construction begins, and would make the right to connect surface water to a public sewer conditional on that approval. It has never been commenced in England. There are no SABs here, and sustainable drainage is secured through the planning system instead.

What Schedule 3 would require

The mechanics are worth knowing, because they are what Wales operates today and what any future English regime would most likely resemble.

• The approving body. Paragraph 6 makes the unitary authority or county council for the area the SAB, with power for the Minister to appoint another body by order.
• National standards. Paragraph 5 requires the Minister to publish standards for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of drainage systems, against which applications are judged.
• Approval before construction. Paragraphs 7 to 11 require construction work with drainage implications to have approval before it begins, and oblige the SAB to approve where the proposed system complies with the standards.
• The right to connect. Paragraph 16 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 so surface water may connect to a public sewer only where the system has been approved and the approved proposals included that connection.
• Adoption. Paragraph 17 obliges the SAB to adopt a system built as approved, with exceptions in paragraphs 18 to 20 for systems serving a single property, publicly maintained roads, and systems built under section 114A of the 1991 Act.

The right-to-connect change is the provision developers feel most sharply. Today the automatic right still runs under section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991, as enacted, and a sewerage undertaker can refuse a surface water connection only on limited grounds. Under Schedule 3 that right becomes conditional on an approval you would have to obtain first.

When will Schedule 3 be implemented in England?

There is no date. The government has not set one, and its most recent stated position, in a written parliamentary answer in January 2026, was that a final decision on commencement "will be made in due course". Guidance that still gives a 2024 start date is out of date: that target was announced in January 2023 and passed without a commencement order being made.

The House of Commons Library's briefing on sustainable drainage systems, published on 4 February 2026 and last updated on 8 July 2026, records the government's January 2026 position in full.

Read closely, the answer does not rule Schedule 3 out. It says the planning route may deliver better and keeps the statutory route in reserve. For a scheme being designed now the consequence is the same either way: drainage is judged at planning stage, by the LLFA, against the national standards.

What binds drainage design in England instead

This is the part most explanations get wrong, and it changed on 17 August 2026. The National Planning Policy Framework published that month gives flood risk its own chapter, and Policy F8 requires drainage on new development to be designed to the 2025 National Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems, published on 19 June 2025. The standards remain guidance, not statute, but the policy requiring you to design to them is national planning policy, and it now reaches all development instead of major schemes alone. In practice that means designing against the four pillars of SuDS, working down the SuDS discharge hierarchy, designing to the CIRIA SuDS Manual C753, and completing whatever SuDS proforma the LLFA uses.

The gap Schedule 3 was drafted to fill has largely been closed from the other direction, which is close to what the government said it intended: better delivery through planning policy, not a separate statutory approval regime.

What a designer loses is the certainty of a single approval decision and an adopting body at the end of it. What binds you instead is a planning policy applied by an LLFA whose comments arrive as a consultation response, not a determination, with adoption still running through section 104 agreements or a private management company. Schedule 3's absence has never made sustainable drainage optional in England. It changes how the requirement arrives, and it puts the weight on the evidence submitted with the application.

Working in Wales: the SuDS Approving Body regime

Wales commenced Schedule 3 in two stages under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Commencement No. 2) (Wales) Order 2018: first so that the standards and regulations could be made, in 2018, and for all remaining purposes on 7 January 2019. SAB approval is required before construction begins for any development of more than one house, or with a construction area of 100 square metres or more. The SAB is the unitary authority, and it applies Welsh statutory SuDS standards, not the English ones.

A scheme designed to English drainage expectations will not, by default, satisfy a Welsh SAB, and finding that out after planning permission usually means a redesign.

Sites in Wales also sit under a separate flood consequence assessment regime set by TAN 15, not the English flood risk assessment framework, so the divergence runs wider than drainage.

Schedule 3 is also still moving in Wales. It was amended by the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024 with effect from 15 December 2025, and carries prospective amendments to paragraphs 8(4) and 14(4) from the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Wales) Act 2026 that have not yet been applied to the published text.

Section 19 investigations and section 21 asset registers

Two of the Act's duties produce documents you can ask for, and both are more useful on a live site than their low profile suggests. Section 19 requires an LLFA to investigate a flood in its area to the extent it considers necessary or appropriate, to identify which risk management authorities have relevant functions and whether they have exercised them, and to publish the result. Section 21 requires the same authority to keep a register of structures and features with a significant effect on local flood risk.

A section 19 flood investigation report, where one exists, is a published account of why a specific area flooded and which authority did what about it. It is the closest thing to an official flood history for a location, and it carries far more weight with a case officer than an anecdote from a neighbour. Whether one was produced is a matter for the LLFA's judgement, which is why two similar floods can produce a report in one county and nothing in the next.

The section 21 register records structures and features the LLFA considers have a significant effect on flood risk, with a record of ownership and state of repair. The register must be available for public inspection, though the ownership and condition record behind it need not be, and the government's information note on the section 21 register and record sets out what LLFAs were expected to hold. Between them the two duties mean a good deal of the flood history of a site already exists in a form you can request, without commissioning anything.

On a constrained site both are strong evidence, yet neither is requested often enough, usually because nobody thinks to ask the LLFA whether they exist.

Section 13: the duty to co-operate, and the evidence behind it

Section 13 obliges a risk management authority to co-operate with other risk management authorities in exercising their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, and permits an authority to share information for that purpose. The risk management authorities are the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, district councils, internal drainage boards, water companies and highway authorities. What each of them does day to day is set out in who is responsible for managing flood risk in England.

The duty is drafted as a general obligation, not a procedural test, which is why practitioners ask what evidence actually satisfies it. There is no statutory checklist and no prescribed form of audit. The nearest thing to an official reference is the government's guidance for flood risk management authorities, which links to the government's guidance on co-operation and information sharing. An authority demonstrating compliance relies on the record it should be keeping anyway.

• The consultation record. Responses given and received on applications, strategies and schemes, dated and attributable to a named authority.
• Shared data. Modelling outputs, asset data and incident records passed between authorities, with the basis on which each was shared.
• Joint governance. Minutes and terms of reference for the local flood risk management partnership or equivalent standing group.
• Consistency with the strategies. A record of how decisions took account of the national strategy and of the LLFA's own local strategy under section 9.
• Section 19 and 21 outputs. Investigation reports and the asset register, both of which depend in practice on information other authorities hold.

Section 13 sits alongside section 14, which lets an authority require another person to provide information it needs for its flood risk management functions, and section 15, which requires authorities to act consistently with the national strategy. For a developer the practical value is different again: section 13 is the reason an LLFA can be expected to hold, or be able to obtain, the Environment Agency's modelling, the water company's capacity position and the highway authority's drainage records, which makes it reasonable to ask for all three at pre-application stage.

Schedule 4 and reservoirs: why England's threshold is still 25,000 cubic metres

The statute says 10,000 cubic metres. The regime operates at 25,000. Both statements are correct, and the reason is a transitional saving, not a failure to commence. This is the single most commonly misstated point about the Act, and it matters to anyone whose site holds water above ground level.

Schedule 4 reformed the Reservoirs Act 1975, moving reservoir safety towards a proportionate, risk-based system in which the Environment Agency designates as high-risk those reservoirs where an uncontrolled release could endanger life. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule inserted a new section A1 into the 1975 Act, defining a large raised reservoir by reference to a structure capable of holding 10,000 cubic metres of water above natural ground level. That paragraph was commenced in England on 30 July 2013 and in Wales on 1 April 2016.

Article 4(1) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Commencement No. 2, Transitional and Savings Provisions) (England) Order 2013 then did the following.

So a structure holding 20,000 cubic metres above ground level in England sits outside the registration regime, while an identical structure in Wales does not. The Environment Agency's guidance for reservoir owners and operators, updated on 23 February 2024, states the English threshold as 25,000 cubic metres, which is the figure to design and register to.

Defra and the Environment Agency's reservoir safety reform programme, first published on 9 April 2025 and last updated on 24 March 2026, is weighing three routes: new primary legislation to replace the Reservoirs Act 1975, retaining and amending the 1975 Act, or using existing powers to bring reservoir safety inside the environmental permitting regime. The programme states no preferred option. On the threshold it records that the 10,000 to 25,000 cubic metre category was added to Welsh regulation in 2016, that the change has not yet been brought into force in England, and that applying it in England is now being looked at. The Environment Agency's reform engagement page puts the joint England and Wales public consultation later in 2026, timed to align with the water white paper.

Schedule 1: designating a structure that affects flood risk

Schedule 1 lets a designating authority formally designate a structure or natural feature that affects flood risk, after which its owner cannot alter or remove it without consent. The designating authorities are the Environment Agency, lead local flood authorities, district councils and internal drainage boards, and the schedule has been in force in England and Wales since 1 August 2012.

It matters on a development site in one specific way. A designated feature on or next to your site is a constraint that survives a change of ownership and does not always surface in a title search, so ask the LLFA about designations at the same time as you ask about the section 21 register. An embankment, a wall or a length of hedge bank can all qualify, and finding one after the layout is fixed is expensive. Designation is separate from riparian ownership, which arises from owning land next to a watercourse and applies whether or not anything has been designated.

How to check whether a provision is in force

Commencement of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 is not obvious from the face of the Act, and the version you read online is not necessarily the version operating where your site is. Five checks settle it, and the fourth is the one most people skip.

1. Read the banners. Open the provision on legislation.gov.uk and read the "Changes to legislation" note and the commencement banner at the top. These record whether the provision has been brought into force and by which order.
2. Check the extent. The Act applies to England and Wales, but individual provisions are commenced separately by the UK government and the Welsh Ministers, so the answer differs by jurisdiction.
3. Trace the commencement order. Every one is made under section 49(3) and sets out the exact provisions and the appointed day. There have been eleven.
4. Read that order's transitional and savings provisions. A provision can be in force and still operate on different terms, which is exactly what happens to the reservoir threshold in England.
5. Confirm against current guidance. Where a provision is dormant, the operative requirement usually sits in planning policy instead, which is why NPPF Policy F8 and the 2025 national standards, not Schedule 3, govern drainage design in England.

Where the Act goes next

The Schedule 3 question is not closed, but it is no longer the only route to the same outcome. The Independent Water Commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, reporting in July 2025, identified inconsistent use of sustainable drainage as a significant failing and recommended in its final report that the government make SuDS mandatory for new development in England. The government's water white paper, A New Vision for Water, published on 20 January 2026, endorsed a shift towards "pre-pipe" solutions including sustainable drainage on value-for-money grounds, without committing to the statutory route.

Then the August 2026 NPPF did much of the work by other means. With Policy F8 making the 2025 national standards a planning requirement across all development, the practical distance between the planning-led route and a commenced Schedule 3 has narrowed to two questions: who decides, and when. A SAB would decide before construction and adopt what it approved. Planning policy decides at permission and leaves adoption and maintenance unresolved, which is precisely the weakness the government said it wanted to address.

For reservoirs, three routes are still live and none has been chosen.

Reservoir reform is the more likely next statutory change, because the environmental permitting route would not need new primary legislation.

The position through the rest of 2026 is stable enough to plan around. A site going through planning now needs a drainage strategy for a planning application designed to the 2025 national standards under the NPPF flood risk policies, a flood risk assessment where it is at risk from any source and, where it applies, a Sequential or Exception Test report. Chartered flood risk consultants can scope all three, and the drainage condition that follows permission, with a tailored quote back within 60 minutes.

Frequently asked questions