I've been corresponding with my MP about the destruction of fish and other damage to our rivers from hydropower schemes. He sends my letters on to the EA. The EA responds by saying everything is all right. He then accepts what the EA says. I have continued feeding him with information from Angling Trust that demonstrates very clearly that everything is NOT all right and that there are folk in the EA with some serious question marks over their heads with regard to potential conflict of personal commercial interests with the interests of our rivers and their inhabitants. My last email to him I copied in to the Minister for the Environment and received an automated reply saying:

You see the problem here? My criticisms of the EA are not considered by the person who can do anything about it. Instead they are automatically passed on to the EA for attention. It's like reporting a protection racket to the police and the police sending the complaint round to the Mafia for attention!

There is a glimmer of hope though. If one of the minister's constituents makes the complaint then she gives it her attention.

Is anyone on here a constituent of Caroline Spelman's? If so would you be prepared to draw to her attention the serious problems that hydropower schemes present to our rivers and their inhabitants? I can help you by passing over copies of the correspondence I have had with my MP and all you would need to do would be to cut and paste it into a similar complaint that you send over to your MP.

What say you all?

richard

__________________
Who resides on the right bank of the Derbyshire Wye and is lulled to sleep each night by the mutterings of a weir, dreaming that "When the rivers and their inhabitants come first, we ALL win..."

Sounds to me like your email should be getting through, provided it's DEFRA business you're mailing about and not a complaint about the new traffic lights in Bakewell or some such!

Did I read this correctly? Is Richard really suggesting that some EA personnel have a commercial involvement with the purveyors of hydropower schemes and that this is influencing their decisions? A very serious allegation and one that needs to be backed up with solid evidence and not vague rumour and assertions.

That certainly isn't the way I read it and I#m sure it wasn't Richard's intention but having said that the EA do behave in the manner of an interested party in their dealings with hydropower schemes, at least as far as my experience goes.

I'm currently challenging a hydrpower construction on one of my home rivers with the help of Fish Legal and I'm very pleased to see Richard is doing his bit too. He deserves a little support for that rather than apparently deliberate misinterpretation.

__________________
Musha rig um du rum da

The EA will always be a problem, but as long us 1.357 million licence buying people continue to fund them, they'll act in the same manner they always have. By ignoring us!

Best Regards

Stuart

Figures from the EA web site

I've known Richard to overdefine in pursuit of a point before now, but I also think he always means what he says, and the suggestion of personal commercial involvement is certainly how I read this...

I've heard on my own grapevines that the EA are (were?) effectively gagged from commenting truthfully on hydropower schemes by overriding political imperatives, but if true, this takes the situation to a whole new level.

(Rikileaks, anyone?)

Theo

__________________
theopike.com
wandletrust.org
urbantrout.net

Does anyone on here reside in the Minister's constituency?

If so, do they want to try and help save our rivers and their inhabitants from the negative impact of hydropower schemes?

If they do, I can help them by sending all the correspondence over that they can reuse with the Minister but acting in the position of their MP.

If you all read your newsletters from Angling Trust you would soon see that there is a serious problem here and it is almost certain that there are some cases where there is a conflict of commercial interests within the side opposed to fish welfare.

EA should be acting on behalf of the rivers and their inhabitants NOT the businesses who damage them wherever they are allowed so to do.

richard

__________________
Who resides on the right bank of the Derbyshire Wye and is lulled to sleep each night by the mutterings of a weir, dreaming that "When the rivers and their inhabitants come first, we ALL win..."

I am also reading that the same way!
If that is the case, then Richard should be sending his info to his own M.P to have relevant question asked!
regards
bert.

I note that Richard has remained silent about the responses concerning EA staff having commercial involvement in hydropower schemes. He is, as usual, ill-informed about the way EA personnel go about their business and the constraints under which they work.

All I can say is that in my part of the country EA staff address each hydropower application on its merits and particular attention is paid to the issues of fish passage, including eels, to the extent of requiring bypass channels and eel passes where applicable. A lot of work has been done by the HEP industry to ensure that fish can use the hydropower schemes without damage because they know that applications will be rejected if there is any doubt.

This, by the way is fact - not wild supposition - and I don't work for the HEP industry.

I re-read Richard's post and I owe you an apology Bob, Richard does say some members of the EA of have a "potential" commercial interest in hydropower consents. Sorry about that.

__________________
Musha rig um du rum da