nrw nrw told us they have yet to receive any funding to enforce those new rules. this is a simple solution around investment and funding into that. scottish government have invested in that and we need to look at how we can achieve that in wales. we can put in as much change in policy and legislation as we like. it is only as good as the strength of our regulation and enforcement and against the policy. if there is little enforcement of the new regulations in wales, it would stand to farmers to follow the rules as best they can. this chicken farmer is birds for their meat. this year it was granted permission to double its capacity to 180,000 broiler chickens. once that new shed is built, this farms's muck will be taken off—site to an anaerobic digestion. he is following the rules. that digester is licensed to take animal waste from farms and after producing energy it sends the phosphate rich leftovers to be spread on the land. we've followed some of that waste product. it's being spread on this field. but as we were filming, we noticed that on this occasion muck appears to have been spread here around two metres from the water in this culvert. legally, this gap should be at least six metres. i took a walk in the field a few months later. it's been a bumper summer. crops have been planted, harvested and taken away already. and over there is the culvert that runs on the edge of the field and it finishes just over here. and this is what we are looking for, this is a culvert or gully right on the edge of the field. this is where we saw apparently muck being spread far too close of the edge of the field to the culvert. and the concern is that whatever is in the culvert, water and muck and goes down here into the riverjust there and then three miles downriver to the big old river wye itself. so who was responsible for the questionable spreading? we asked the digester company but they didn't respond. the farmer whose land it is didn't want to comment. we followed muck to just one farm and found that rules appeared to be broken. the question is, could this also be happening elsewhere? who is actually responsible for inspecting this? powers council says it isn't them unless there's been a breach of planning conditions. and it's actually nrwk in and force regulations around muck management. when it comes to muck spreading itself, they told us they don't proactively check how it's done. if you are not inspecting the actual spreading of muck, isn't there an obvious loophole in the system? it's about how we can be better at doing a lot of the stuff so monitoring will pick up issues in catchments. we are monitoring better now that we have done before. so it's important that were using our evidence, using the data, and responding to that in targeting our business in the right places. even if monitoring finally improves, is that enough? we have failure on lots of different parts of the system. it's not just about land spreading, have we got sufficient enforcement and regulations on sewer overflows and waste water treatment discharges? is a huge cumulative impact to the river wye and i think all of our rivers. and perhaps that is not what's being understood at the minute. ijust think, i would like to carry on and i would like to

nrw who oversees _ for for quick gains too. nrw who oversees much - for for quick gains too. nrwreading are you prepared to tell farmers that they can't spread muck on their land because it's too much phosphate in the river already? we have to look at the regulations. we have to look at the individualfarmerfor the one of the things and bring forward in relation to delaying the one regulation is a licensing scheme if a farmer wants to apply for a and thank is not pertinent for that farm, we can do that. abs, is not pertinent for that farm, we can do that.— we can do that. a lot of this is legacy — we can do that. a lot of this is legacy phosphorus - we can do that. a lot of this is legacy phosphorus was i we can do that. a lot of this| is legacy phosphorus was up at that as part of the problem. brute that as part of the problem. we are now. that as part of the problem. we are now- if _ that as part of the problem. 9 are now. if that's part of it obviously we can look at it. do ou take obviously we can look at it. do you take responsibility for what's happening to our rivers? well