Conservation Corner

kingf000

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
2,087
It is the river Stort, which much of it is now managed by Canal and Rivers Trust, but I believe that before 2012 it was the EA. At least when I reported to the EA on people fishing in the close season, the EA put up close season notices. Those EA notices have now been removed!
 

BobP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
9,321
Location
Wiltshire
As I explained above the EA licences abstractions. The Licence of Right as the name indicates, remains inviolate with only the time limited variations up for discussion. I heard some years ago when I was still working for the EA that a water company would demand at least 20 years of profit, index linked, per Licence, and there are a heck of a lot of them. Many licence variations have been reduced or even ceased altogether, but the essential point remains - the water has to come from somewhere.

A reservoir, as I've already stated, takes a very long time to get from the basic idea to getting it past planning and endless public enquiries let alone getting boots on the ground to start digging.

The idea of transporting water from the north down to the south via river and canals was considered many years ago. Apart from the infrastructure needed it it not too good an idea to bring water that is highly acidic in nature down to waters that are highly alkaline in nature. It would destroy the ecological balance of hundreds, if not thousands of rivers.

I would say it is perfectly true that millions have no idea how their water arrives in the tap, and equally don't care. You appear to have some idea.
 

BobP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
9,321
Location
Wiltshire
I can't find anything about the particular project but this is from 2013 where the EA were partners in the management of bankside vegetation on the Stort:
Nothing wrong with that. Pollarding is a perfectly normal method of tree management. Note that the EA were partners in the project as were Natural England. I also note that your anger is directed only at the EA and NOT NE. Not a very balanced approach.
 

kingf000

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
2,087
Nothing wrong with that. Pollarding is a perfectly normal method of tree management. Note that the EA were partners in the project as were Natural England. I also note that your anger is directed only at the EA and NOT NE. Not a very balanced approach.
What anger? That is your interpretation. It is just an illustration of my point.

My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that before any bankside work such as this is done, the permission of the appropriate authority that looks after the river needs to be obtained. The fact that the EA was a partner in this project clearly shows that it was the EA that was the relevant authority looking after the river at that time, not British Waterways or any other body.

So no, I don't have any photos or any other evidence that would stand up in a court of law, but IMO this is pretty good circumstantial evidence.
 

JoeOh

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2020
Messages
414
A World Wildlife Fund report that established that burbot and sturgeon are extinct in the UK.
[/QUOTE]
A number of lower double figure sized Sturgeon have been caught recently on the River Trent
There is debate that the sturgeon being caught are escapees from stillwaters or ornamental ponds and not Common/European Sturgeon (Acipenser sturio).
 

smallmouth

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
369
I think the Trent sturgeon are probably flood escapees or abandoned pets. A local commercial coarse fishery holds a couple of sturgeon that have been there decades, one is around fifty pounds, the other a mid double. I don't what what species these are.

Two mid double figure sturgeon were caught during a series of winter matches on a large and very deep local reservoir. They looked like the smaller sturgeon sold in garden centre aquatic outlets as sterlets. They fit right in with the other unwanted pets in there, such as double figure koi and large terrapins. They've got plenty to eat anyway, as the bottom is paved with signal crays............
 

BobP

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
9,321
Location
Wiltshire
What anger? That is your interpretation. It is just an illustration of my point.

My understanding, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that before any bankside work such as this is done, the permission of the appropriate authority that looks after the river needs to be obtained. The fact that the EA was a partner in this project clearly shows that it was the EA that was the relevant authority looking after the river at that time, not British Waterways or any other body.

So no, I don't have any photos or any other evidence that would stand up in a court of law, but IMO this is pretty good circumstantial evidence.
What are you referring to? The mythical work supposedly done 15 years ago for which you have absolutely no evidence or the partnership project done several years later on a presumably different river. If it was the former the work would have been done by contractors appointed by BW as it then was as they are responsible for the navigation on canals.

The work on the Stort may, or may not, have been done by the EA with Natural England's assent, it being a SSSI. It may equally well have been done by contractors appointed by the River Lea Partnership and the EA and NE would have approved the work and may have contributed financially. The latter is the more likely.

If a landowner wishes to do works along a main river he submits a Land Drainage application which is dealt with by Flood Defence with input from Fisheries and Conservation. When his plans are approved he gets on and carries out the work. The EA doesn't do it. The landowner engages a contractor. The EA no longer removes fallen trees from rivers unless they pose a flood risk to property, eg if they can break free and drift downstream until they block a bridge.
 

kingf000

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
2,087
What are you referring to? The mythical work supposedly done 15 years ago for which you have absolutely no evidence or the partnership project done several years later on a presumably different river. If it was the former the work would have been done by contractors appointed by BW as it then was as they are responsible for the navigation on canals.

The work on the Stort may, or may not, have been done by the EA with Natural England's assent, it being a SSSI. It may equally well have been done by contractors appointed by the River Lea Partnership and the EA and NE would have approved the work and may have contributed financially. The latter is the more likely.

If a landowner wishes to do works along a main river he submits a Land Drainage application which is dealt with by Flood Defence with input from Fisheries and Conservation. When his plans are approved he gets on and carries out the work. The EA doesn't do it. The landowner engages a contractor. The EA no longer removes fallen trees from rivers unless they pose a flood risk to property, eg if they can break free and drift downstream until they block a bridge.
As I said, it was only from memory and I believed that the EA was involved. Trawling through the internet the only thing I could find was a plan from 1995 to do the work I described plus similar work upstream of the navigable section. It was proposed to be a joint project between BW and the EA.
In any case, you have no cause to accuse me of lying about 'mythical' work, when you have absolutely no basis for that assertion. The partnership project was the same river, just a few miles downstream.
 

Mrtrout

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
22,286
Location
England.
Swan numbers in some areas are very much higher now than they were forty years ago. They were probably lower than they should have been and that was partly down to anglers lead shot and the banning of that was a good thing.

But the fact remains that high swan numbers do have a huge impact on weed in some situations. 200 swans overwintering on three or four miles of river is too many. I saw the effect they can have several seasons on the Frome. They stripped out all weed in the shallower sections. It wasn’t low flow causing the weed to fail as it all went missing in late winter/early spring - and you could watch the swans eating it!

BTW the lower Frome below the trout beats isn’t stocked at all and is not a particularly good trout river. It is however a good mixed fishery with pike, grayling, dace, roach, sea trout and salmon. All of these suffered from the lack of weed cover.

Andy
Totally correct, Swans get rid of ranunculus at an alarming rate.
S.
 

Reg Wyatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
1,116
The idea of transporting water from the north down to the south via river and canals was considered many years ago. Apart from the infrastructure needed it it not too good an idea to bring water that is highly acidic in nature down to waters that are highly alkaline in nature. It would destroy the ecological balance of hundreds, if not thousands of rivers.
Never understood the complications of transporting water a few hundred miles via pipeline. Expensive I'm sure but not impossible. They transport oil thousands of miles around the world via pipeline so why not treat water in the same way and treat it just as carefully?
The acidic water from Scotland/northern England is not going to be pumped into alkaline river systems just so that water companies can suck it out again is it!? Why do you think they would do that? It would surely be used to help stop abstraction and go direct to water companies. How would that destroy hundreds of rivers?
Unfortunately the water companies are nothing more than money making parasites who rule the roost and take no notice at all of an irrelevant and completely toothless EA whether that be on discharge of sewage or over abstraction of water from our rivers. They don't give a flying toss and know that nobody can challenge them.

Reg Wyatt
 

JohnH

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
4,545
Location
Near Southampton
I could never understand why they don't want reservoirs darn sarf, is it because the poorer fishermen would have somewhere to fish :unsure:
All depends on what you mean by "darn sarf".

There's plenty of well known reservoirs in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall. And plenty in Sussex and Kent...the south-west and the south-east respectively. The central gap is south of the Thames between Yeovil (Sutton Bingham) and Brighton (Ardingly). Historically it's because that gap comprises the bulk of the chalk country, and water companies can abstract pure water from the aquifer.

However, that's becoming increasingly unsustainable as the amount of water is finite while the population is growing at fast pace down here. So there are plans for 2 remedies...

Havant Thicket Reservoir, outside Portsmouth. It will be about 2/3 the size of Draycote. Portsmouth Water went out to tender for contractors at the start of the year with work expected to start in 3 years time ... https://www.portsmouthwater.co.uk/new-reservoir/the-reservoir/

A desalination plant at Fawley on the Solent ... https://wwtonline.co.uk/news/southe...help-keep-hampshire-s-rivers-and-taps-flowing
 
Last edited:

kingf000

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
2,087
Birmingham already gets piped water, the elan valley pipeline is 73 miles long. Manchester gets water from Thirlmere, 95 miles long. The longest water pipeline is the Oguz-Baku pipeline 165 miles long. Even the romans built an 82 mile long aqueduct, about 1,900 years ago! No mixing with local rivers. So anything is possible!
 

Reg Wyatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
1,116
Birmingham already gets piped water, the elan valley pipeline is 73 miles long. Manchester gets water from Thirlmere, 95 miles long. The longest water pipeline is the Oguz-Baku pipeline 165 miles long. Even the romans built an 82 mile long aqueduct, about 1,900 years ago! No mixing with local rivers. So anything is possible!
Been talking about it longer than the EA has been in its current guise and will no doubt be talking about it for many years to come. The water companies won't do anything until forced by government so will continue to rake in the profits by sucking our aquifers dry. Beggars belief at the stupidity of it all and the total lack of response from those charged with looking after the environment.

Reg Wyatt
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACW

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
45,378
Unfortunately the water companies are nothing more than money making parasites who rule the roost and take no notice at all of an irrelevant and completely toothless EA whether that be on discharge of sewage or over abstraction of water from our rivers. They don't give a flying toss and know that nobody can challenge them.

Until the 1980s, universal provision of drinking water and sewerage services in England and Wales was considered a public health service. The water industry was privatised in 1989, according to the Conservative government's programme.
 

rusty

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
1,491
Location
Warwickshire
'Meanwhile, the government continues to plough money into the HS2, a scheme that has yet to show its merit or worth to the taxpayer.'

Passing ongoing work on HS2 in Warwickshire today I was thinking about the numbers.
The cost is now forecast at about £100 billion. Assuming there are about 25 million taxpayers that is about £4000 per head plus the ticket prices.

Is this value for money?

Rusty
 

vital

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
419
Location
South of England
Not wishing to be clever, but a UK billion is supposed to be one million-million, i.e. the mathematical value used in astrophysics, whereas in the US and common parlance a billion is one-hundred thousand million, there is a massive difference! I wonder which was used in the forecast you saw?
 

blue diamond

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
260
Not wishing to be clever, but a UK billion is supposed to be one million-million, i.e. the mathematical value used in astrophysics, whereas in the US and common parlance a billion is one-hundred thousand million, there is a massive difference! I wonder which was used in the forecast you saw?
I think you have a few too many zero's
 
Top