Come on Craig, that last sentence was a little dramatic. The rivers are far from critical. One thing that never ceased to amaze me when inspecting watercourses after a pollution event was the ability of nature to bounce back. This is not a defence to allow rivers to decline, but they will never be in such poor quality as yesteryear.
Cheers, Jon
A little dramatic, well maybe regards a few rivers but certainly
not my local one.
I've tried to scan fish census results from the Cherwell, sadly not that reader friendly and yes I know they are only an indicator of fish populations.
The figures are total fish bio-mass grams per square metre of water:
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Spiceball park 29.1 27.1 21.2 6.2 2.1
M40 roadbridge 21.4 26.8 5.2 28.8 7.4
Twyford mill 33.3 32.5 27.6 30.4 18.0
Nell Bridge 3.0 3.35 43.8 0.2 2.5
Somerton 4.57 15.2 23.3 8.3 4.9
Lower Heyford *** ***19.7 22.1 31.0
Gosford bridge 42.4 53.6 33.5 13.4 33.5
Islip 55.6 33.1 34.2 8.6 17.1
Strange though, no more EA fish census surveys to be conducted at one of the worst stocked areas (Northbrook), apparently it wasn't upto the EA's health and safety directive.
Thing is the river doesn't really have many issues not being faced by a lot of other rivers, only these issues each impact and compound each other and the EA do
NOTHING to rectify them.
Abstraction by Thames Water, well yes we all need water but nothing is said about TW's pipe network leaking 40%+ of all water they abstract, oh no they rather send out leaflets telling consumers to be more prudent with their usage.
The area has seen a 15% population increase over the past decade, so more water abstracted and more sewage discharged with less water to dilute into.
British Waterways manage/own the canal that runs parallel with the river and abstract water completely unmeasured or regulated, to the point last summer the Cherwell ceased to flow over one weir at Nellbridge, so strictly speaking the river from Nellbridge to Enslow 15 miles downstream (where the river and canal next meet) is in fact the Sor Brook.
Then at the end of the river and canal's length of mergence (the Wides) the canal yet again is left to use at will any amount of water regardless of the rivers needs.
Though of course BW's being a public owned organisation puts the environment at the fore of its considerations (well so they tell me).
Also as they point out all to quickly, they are currently exempt from abstraction licensing under the Water Resources Act (1991 s26)
BUT never fear the EA has the 2003 Water Act in its armoury, only seven years on the legal team at the EA has yet to work out how this parliamentary act is to be used.
You maybe asking (like my local fisheries officer) why is the canal's abstraction such an issue, as when a river has to work with a depleted quantity of water, they evolve very quickly to this burden.
Yes they do but this burden is only for aproximately 7 - 8 months of the year, co-incidently the seasons of poor rainfall, so natural period of poor flow rates.
Couple this with the turbid water that flows back into the river at locks, you're left with a murky river that has very little water in the warmer part of the year, impacting dramatically on weed growth, invertibrates and fish stocks.
If I were of a cynical disposition, I may suggest after contacting Natural England regards my concerns, the EA and BW, getting a common response of the EA are responsible for that area of the environment.... blah....blah....
That it is a simple case of quangos looking after each other.
It could be said that the EA as an organisation is weak or toothless but IMO the powers that be in that organisation are blatantly cowardly.
Ever reliant on the good will and humility of their staff in the field.
BUT what alternative???
(probably Natural England?)
