Edited correspondence.

To the Severn Navigation Restoration Trust .

Dear Sir,

As a canoeist and environmentalist I wish to protest your plans for restoring the river Severn navigation above Stourport. It's bad enough when mill and factory owners canalise rivers, but at least they paid taxes and had the justification of earning a living and providing a service. For power boaters to not only to do the same thing, but to seek government grants for it is outrageous. I will be fighting you all the way.

Jim Thornton

Dear Jim

Thank you for your response to our website. I must take issue with your "What's wrong with weirs?" paper, although I agree that over abstraction is part of the problem. This Trust commissioned a report from Posford Duvivier which showed that, in October for example, the flow in the Severn had declined by 31% over the last 11 years. The recent heavy rains may have re-addressed the balance but the Environment Agency report "Water Resources for the Future - A Strategy for Midlands Region" suggests that we are in for wetter winters and drier summers.

We maintain that the existing compensation scheme on the Severn is unsustainable in the long term. The Severn is not the last "natural" river - it is actually the most regulated in the country. I attach an extract from National River Authority’s Ecological Survey in 1991 (at low flow) from which you will see that the majority of wildlife gravitates away from the suffering stretch of low water into deeper water under the influence of Lincomb Weir. During the last dry period I took some slides showing stress (and smell) in Bewdley at low water with, on the same day, a much better scenario lower down with the weir preserving deeper water. Weirs have always been the last defence against low summer water which was why the weir was put in at Shrewsbury when the headwater from Lake Vrynwy was diverted to Liverpool. This Trust's vision is not just about boats. It is to create a large regional wetland Nature Reserve between Bewdley & Bridgnorth (the area of major out of catchment abstractions) through which boats will pass and be the best possible way to see it. Our concept is for inflatable rubber weirs, neutral in flooding terms, which would act as a summer barrage and relieve the ecological stress of persistent low summer flows. If low flows continue then, in my view, impounding is inevitable and we should be getting together to recreate the wetlands that have been lost.

Incidentally, what you say about Ironbridge is just nonsense. We have no plans to flood Jackfield rapids - the scheme will only go to Coalport to enable a connection to be made with the Museum by road or on foot. Nevertheless, the traffic problems in Ironbridge could be eased by an inflatable weir above the rapids, which would actually make them more interesting as they have been declining for canoeists, to allow tourists to be taken down river by boat from a peripheral car park in the Power Station area. The danger to the river is not boats or weirs - it is lack of water.

Dear Charles,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I am relieved to hear that there are no plans to flood Jackfield, and will correct this on iGreens immediately.

However, you possibly misunderstand my case. Although I personally, a touring canoeist, will never be reconciled to weirs, I recognise that others have different views. What us "iGreens" really object to, is councils, governments and public authorities spending money to support one or other side of the argument. From what I understand of your Trust, you are tying to get the taxpayer, i.e. me to support your plan. That I don't like. If you really want a weir, buy the relevant stretch of riverbanks yourself and build one. People like me, who don't want one, will fight to buy the relevant stretch of land to stop you. It sounds a crazy idea, but there are some conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy that work just like that. They put their own money up to buy say woodland at risk and then sell it on with an entail preventing the development they object to. This means that the people who care about the environment pay the price of their concern.

We both agree that the fundamental problem is water abstraction. The solution to that is not to paper it over with weirs. One factor limiting abstraction at the moment is complaints about low water. I predict that if you solve that with weirs, abstraction will increase. People will forget how the free flowing river used to look, and stop complaining. The preferable solution is to increase charges for water so the people of Liverpool stop leaving their taps running and taking deep baths instead of showers every day! When you start campaigning for sensible water pricing I'll be right behind you.

With regard to the detail of your weir proposal, it is disingenuous to claim that no-one will suffer. First someone has to pay for them. Second, a weir above Jackfield rapids would flood innumerable small rapids above the power station. I've canoed through them many times. Some fishermen may get better fishing, but the fly fisherman will get worse. Similarly for weirs above Bewdley. Nor can a weir above Jackfield realistically raise the summer water flow through Jackfield. To do so it would have to impound an enormous volume of water and have summer releases at a higher rate than the summer inflow. The result would be a summer lake with dry margins upstream from Ironbridge. Surely no-one is intending that?

I cannot accept your claim that there is more wild life on the reaches above weirs than in the shallows. A count of a few ducks, moorhens and kingfishers on a bank holiday certainly does not convince me. The whole ecology of flowing water is different from still water, and we have plenty of still water in this country. I know the Severn isn't completely free flowing but it is at least flowing. We have few enough large rivers in this country to be able to afford to limit this one.

The main point of our paper is to remind people that a weir is a river pollutant. They may sometimes be necessary, but should be minimised as much as possible. In the US there are growing campaigns to remove weirs and dams of various sizes and return rivers to their natural state  Some dramatic successes have been achieved.  iGreens think we should be moving in that direction in this country.

I still suspect that you're a secret power boater who wants to cruise up to Ironbridge, and all the concern about abstraction is a smokescreen. Tell me I'm wrong!

Best wishes

Jim Thornton

Dear Jim,

Very many thanks. I am not a crazed power boater but an ocean-going yachtie. I do not like river boating at all and am not interested in it - the only real trip I have done was from Gothenburg over the incredibly beautiful Gota Canal (built by Thomas Telford) with its two mountain ranges and two lakes to Stockholm. I believe in this scheme for the good of rural Shropshire, particularly the wetland creation side of it linked to a large wetland Nature Reserve. I came off the County Council to be the Chairman of the Trust.

I agree entirely with what you say about over abstraction but all the signs are that the problem will not be addressed in the way you suggest. We objected to each and every Abstraction Licence Application in the past but have given up that exercise as the Environment Agency  took absolutely no notice, even granting spray irrigation licences (100% loss) in the main river in the summer without any cut off at low flow. Lord Hamilton at Apley Estate had his spray irrigation licence increased by no less than 267% in the summer months! It is likely that even more will be taken directly out of the river to allow the over abstracted boreholes in the Worfield area, which dry up about one third of the length of the River Worfe, to be discontinued. There may also be transfers of water from the Severn in the future.

The real question is whether the present regulation regime is sustainable in the long run. I am afraid I cannot agree with your main argument. Whilst some shallows may be affected by increasing the water level, they will reform, or could be reformed, higher up. There is absolutely no doubt that wildlife and the ecology suffers at persistent low flow. The scheme in reality will only come about after a series of severe droughts when impounding will be inevitable, in my view. If that does happen there would be no point in buying up riparian land to defeat the project as it would be carried out under a Transport & Works Act Order which can provide compulsory powers.

At the Rive Wye Inquiry, I was able to cross-examine the Environment Agency’s ecological witness. I showed him a picture of a heron nesting on the riverbank, taken from a boat on the Broads, and asked him what the significance of it was. It was that there was not a public footpath on that side. I then drew a diagram showing all the probable activities on the riverbank - walkers, dogs, cyclists, anglers, canoeists and a cruiser, which has to keep to mid channel. In the end he had to admit that a small cruiser in mid channel has the least effect on the riverine habitat - it really is a question of perception linked to prejudice, often self interested!

Charles

Dear Charles,

I’m glad to hear you're not a power boater. However, I presume many of the Trust’s activists are. I also take the point about motor boats in the central channel not damaging habitats on the bank.

You may well be right that implementing proper water pricing is not feasible in the short term. It is certainly beyond the power of local government. However, us iGreens are going to keep dripping away at it (excuse the pun!). People are getting the message that environmental benefits come from paying for their water, roads or whatever.

I am interested to learn about your bad experiences with the licensing system for water abstraction. Essentially local council and environmental agency licensing systems practice "command-and-control" environmental regulation. In this system politicians decide what to ban or licence, in response to pressure groups, either environmental organisations or big business. They decide who gets licences and the size of quotas, and they enforce the regulations. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and all the other usual environmentalist suspects advocate this approach. It gives them a big role and makes them feel important. Big business likes it too because it can always buy politicians. We iGreens just think it is the WRONG way to go. Your experience shows that it's not working on the Severn. Everyone else can see it's not working in fisheries, tropical rain forests etc. Some farsighted people are beginning to realise it won't work for global warming!

There is an alternative, economic incentives (such as tradable permits or pollution charges, or in this case water pricing). I do hope that if you commission another expert review of the Severn that you get the consultants to consider that sort of option.

Best wishes Jim

Dear Jim

Farmers do pay for abstraction but it’s difficult to find out how much. The Environment Agency benefit from "selling" licences, but there is no control of the cheating that goes on. The Environment Agency only prosecutes on the figures returned by the operator, and bent ones are not going to return figures above their licence quota. Another problem is that meters can be disconnected from pumps and a friend in the trade tells me turned round! The Environment Agency has very few enforcement officers to check what is going on in a dry summer in the middle of the night. The problem goes back, in this area, to the days when Severn Trent were both Water Company and Water Authority and granted themselves and others Licences of Right which cannot be rescinded without paying compensation. I will send you a resume of the report we commissioned - we have tried to get the Environment Agency to publish updates showing the trend over a 10 year period and aquifer level charts but they have not done so.

Charles

Dear Charles,

Your disillusion with the Environment Agency rather makes my case. Government civil servants have no incentive to bother to enforce their rules. A private seller of water would go out of business if he did not ensure he got paid!

Best wishes

Jim

Dear Jim