Excellent 5* RatingCompare and switch your food production site's water supplier
Compare business water suppliers now!
Compare NowCompare business water suppliers for food production sites and see how much switching could save. Free to check, no obligation.
- Compare the market in 2 minutes
- Backdated refunds available up to 6 years
- No saving found, no fee
Compare business water suppliers now!
Compare NowBusiness Water for Food Production
A food production site is two water bills inside one envelope. The first bill is process water and sanitation, which a plant manager can often picture down to the litre. The second bill is trade effluent, calculated under the Mogden formula on BOD, COD and TSS readings the retailer set years ago and rarely revisits. That second bill is where the overcharging tends to live.
You can switch retailer. Food production sites have had that right in England since 2017. Most never have.
This page covers what a food production water bill actually contains, why CIP cycles and trade effluent banding so often sit above their real load, the five places we see processors overpay, and the three procurement routes most plants use to bring a contract in. It is written for the operations director, finance lead or technical manager who needs to defend the line to a board or a BRC auditor.
- England’s non-household water market opened to competition on 1 April 2017 under the Water Act 2014.
- Around 20 retailers are licensed by Ofwat to supply food production sites.
- Wholesale supply still comes from regional water companies (Thames Water, Severn Trent, Yorkshire Water, and others).
- Trade effluent regularly accounts for 35-50% of a processor’s total water bill, and the Mogden formula behind it is rarely re-tested once a consent is signed.
- Typical fresh-water use is 3-7 m³ per tonne of finished output. Plants well above that usually have a CIP frequency or makeup-water assumption that no longer reflects production volume.
- The three biggest savings levers: trade-effluent banding rebased on actual BOD/COD samples, CIP frequency sub-metered against real production, and surface drainage on yards reclassified.
Why food production sites pay more for water than they should
A busy food production cycles water through CIP systems, dishwashers, ice makers and back-of-house prep at a far higher rate per square metre than most commercial sites. That alone is fine — what isn’t fine is paying daily standing charges on a tariff that hasn’t been touched since the contract was signed, drainage charges on a forecourt that drains to a soakaway, and meter estimates that have been creeping up for two years.
Food production sites also tend to sit on tenanted commercial leases — the landlord is often named on the bill, but the operator is the one bleeding money. The retailer doesn’t volunteer corrections, and most food production owners haven’t been told the market is competitive.
The five places food production sites overpay
| What’s going wrong | Why it costs you money |
|---|---|
| Trade-effluent banding above actual Mogden loading | Most plants’ Mogden coefficients are set on commissioning and rarely re-sampled. As recipes, cleaning chemistry or production lines change, the COD and TSS load typically drops, but the banding doesn’t follow. |
| CIP cycle frequency on theoretical maximum | Clean-in-Place cycle volumes are usually quoted at design-spec frequency. In practice, plants run fewer cycles (or shorter cycles) than the bill assumes. A 6-month meter trace usually proves it. |
| Boiler blowdown and steam losses not separately metered | Steam systems lose volume to atmosphere. Without a deduct meter on the boiler feed line, the wastewater retailer bills the lost volume as if it returned to sewer. |
| Process water and domestic supply on one tariff | Production process water has a different value to the operation than domestic taps and WCs. Most plants pay the same retail margin on both, when separating the two via sub-metering opens up a process-tier price. |
| Surface drainage on production yards at full rate | External wash-down yards, loading bays and dispatch zones default to public-sewer drainage. A drainage audit against actual interceptor and soakaway layout usually unlocks a chunky historic refund. |
Can food groups and independent operators switch water supplier?
Yes, and the mechanism is different depending on who’s signing the contract.
An food production is its own legal entity, so it can enter a water contract directly — no council approval needed. Multi-academy trusts can contract centrally for every food production site in the chain, which usually unlocks better volume pricing. Independent operators sign for their own site, with the contract in the trading entity’s name.
The 12 retailers below are all licensed by Ofwat to supply non-household water in England. Pricing, service, and hospitality-sector experience vary — most trusts shortlist three and go to a simple comparison exercise.
Routes to procurement
Three ways operators in this sector typically bring a new water contract in. Each comes with its own trade-off between control, effort and how sharp the price lands.
Food and Drink Federation members and BRC-audited processors can call off pre-tendered utility contracts that aggregate volume across hundreds of sites. The unit rate is competitive. The trade-off: framework deals don’t include a Mogden recalculation, a CIP-cycle sub-meter review or a yards drainage audit. The headline rate looks fine; the backdated refund opportunity is left on the table.
Food production site water FAQs
How is trade effluent calculated under the Mogden formula?
Mogden multiplies your effluent volume by a unit rate built from four components: reception and conveyance, biological treatment based on COD load, sludge treatment based on TSS, and a volumetric primary treatment charge. Each is multiplied by your sample readings against an average reference. If your COD has dropped because product mix has changed, the band needs resampling and recalculating.
Can I challenge an old trade-effluent consent if my discharge has changed?
Yes. The wholesaler issues the consent, but either you or your retailer can request a resampling exercise and a banding review. If the new readings show you have been discharging below the consented strength for an extended period, the historic charge is correctable up to the 6-year limitation window.
Does my BRC Issue 9 audit need a water risk assessment?
Yes. BRC Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 (clause 4.5) requires a documented water source risk assessment with potability evidence and consumption tracking. A clean retail bill, sub-metered by area, makes this audit point straightforward. A consolidated unmetered bill makes it harder to evidence.
How is a CIP cycle billed if I am not sub-metered?
It is billed on whatever volume goes through your supply meter, and treated as 95-100% return-to-sewer for the wastewater calculation. Without a deduct meter on rinse-to-drain or a sub-meter on the CIP skid itself, the retailer has no reason to assume anything different.
We are a primary producer running parlour washdown — is this the right page?
Probably not. Primary agriculture, including dairy parlour washdown and slurry handling, sits under our farms water page. This page is for secondary processing — once the product is past the farm gate and into a factory.
What does a free audit actually look at?
Three things at the same time. We compare the unit rate against the live market across all 12 retailers. We audit surface drainage, trade effluent and standing charges for historic billing errors that can be backdated up to six years. And we check whether the contract structure fits your actual usage profile better than the default. If we don’t recover anything, you don’t pay a fee.
How do I get a quote without committing?
Send a recent water bill. The SPID, annual cubic-metre volume and current retailer are all on it. We come back within two working days with a like-for-like alternative quote and a flag if anything looks worth auditing for historic refunds.
