After several years of PhD research which explored the water, flora and fauna of outdoor swimming practice, I have realised that my immersion in the rivers, lakes, tarns and seas of the North West and the Lake District might have been illegal. Whilst much of my research has analysed the transgression of boundaries which occur in water, including the physical, emotional, psychological and imaginary kind, outdoor swimmers are also knowingly or unknowingly flirting with legal boundaries in their everyday swims. In a practice where law and order is more commonly associated with natural order, such as following the seasons and tides, the legality of outdoor swimming might be considered an undercurrent, rather than making waves, in the outdoor swimming community.

Some might suggest that this is a tributary of outdoor swimming’s identity as subversive and non-conformist, however I would argue this can also be traced back to legislative ambiguity. Centuries after the publication of ‘De Arte Natandi’ or ‘The Art of Swimming’ in 1587 (see image above), the rights of outdoor swimmers in the UK are still up for debate. As the practice roars back into vogue, becoming increasingly popular and significant as a public health intervention, this piece explores how swimmers are navigating two streams of murky legal waters: firstly their right to access water, and secondly the right for this water to be clean. According to a survey by the Outdoor Swimming Society, these independent issues represent the two largest barriers to outdoor swimming practice.

It is often cited, though some declare it a myth, that only 3% of English and Welsh water bodies are legally accessible to the public. The Outdoor Swimming Society establishes that whilst the rights to swim in the sea and tidal waters are established under maritime law, when moving further inland, the legal landscape becomes subject to interpretation. Some suggest that waterways which can allow the passage of a boat by extension allows swimmers to also draw upon the public right of navigation. Furthermore, there is a historical consensus that if swimmers are using a public footpath, they are allowed to swim in the river beside it, although this is typically at the discretion of the landowner.

Scottish swimmers doesn’t face these issues. The Land Reform Act of 2003 introduced the ‘Right to Roam’ which allows the public access to, and the ability to, conduct activities upon land and water, if done in accordance with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. Before coming to power, the current Labour Government discussed introducing the ‘Right to Roam’ law in England and Wales, yet dropped this post-election.

An increased access to the countryside would have significant implications for many people in England and Wales, most notably hikers, climbers, campers and of course, swimmers. Whilst the Nature Minister and Environment Secretary are commenting, but not acting, on the possibility of introducing a diluted ‘right to roam’, (beyond the long-established Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), some outdoor swimmers are taking matters into their own hands.

In April 2025, outdoor swimmers participated in a mass protest by entering reservoirs around the UK. This was inspired by the Kinder mass trespass in the Peak District in the 1930s which is credited with the establishment of the National Parks. These efforts are yet to bear legal fruit. For now, outdoor swimmers will have to continue to exercise their own judgement about the legalities of where they could, should and ultimately do swim.

Another substantial factor in where swimmers decide to enter the water is the perceived or actual cleanliness of UK water bodies. My research documents how swimmers are immersed and implicated in broader environmental debates including the national sewage scandal, which captured public imagination in the previous local and general elections. What was once considered a purely recreational practice is, in some contexts, becoming a political and legal battleground, with swimmers putting their bodies on the line. In an unfortunate irony, swimmers often enter the water to improve their physical and mental health, often to find themselves immersed in agricultural, plastic, chemical and sewage pollution.

Therefore, many outdoor swimmers across the UK have become campaigners, lobbyists and protestors, engaging in a wide range of political action, hoping to turn the tide on poor water quality. In the first case of its kind, Devonshire outdoor swimmer, Jo Bateman, is suing her local water company South West Water for ‘loss of amenity’ because their sewage discharges are preventing her from swimming in the sea. Jo argues there is a claim to be made for how the releases are disrupting her legal right to swim, which in turn is affecting her mental health. This claim has been bolstered by a recent Supreme Court ruling which states that citizens can establish a claim for the ‘nuisance’ caused by sewage pollution.

My research discusses how the practice of outdoor swimming can facilitate an increased connection to swimmer’s sense of self, their bodies and their wider environments. An increased legal access to English and Welsh inland water bodies would increase the spatial possibilities of outdoor swimmers practice, and therefore the opportunities to support the physical and mental health of swimmers across the UK. Furthermore, as outdoor swimmers begin to assert their legal right to swim in clean waters, issues of water quality are made more visible in the public eye, which in time, may have implications for the health of the watery ecologies in which swimmers practice. As the number of outdoor swimmers rise, reflecting on how outdoor swimmers access, practice in and affect marine and inland ecologies, cannot and must not just be water under the bridge.

Related Blogs

• 

  The Disposal of Rights: Disposition and the Right to Remove in Darwall v Dartmoor National Park Authority

• 

  Reforming Corporate Insolvency Law for the 21st Century: Shaping the Future of Insolvency

• 

  Adverse Influence, Mental Ill Health, Risk, and Criminalisation: Does mental ill health increase the incidence of criminalisation of care-experienced children in England?

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.