The Environment Agency....

[nottskev]

Well, Tee-Cee, you are describing thorough investigation of the water, and that should, were it done, shed light on what's happened/happening.

The EA's replies to the club say they recognise the situation, lack data to explain it so suggest a few speculative possibilities. They do, in the letter extracts I posted, say that if the barbel study doesn't provide useful data that further investigation may be called for. (Kicking it into the long grass?) I asked the club through which I was inquiring if they'd push the EA to do so sooner - and the question drew no reply. I'll contact another of the clubs who control the affected stretches and ask whether they are pursuing it with the EA.

So far, unless I've missed something, nobody commenting has said why the river might support, simultaneously, a collapse in coarse species and a population explosion of grayling. If some insidious pollution is involved - the presence of chemicals not identified or reported in water standard tests - wouldn't all species suffer? If game fish are the canaries in the mine, how come the canaries are thriving but the miners have died?

 

[tigger]

I am wondering if it's right that water can be too clean for coarse species, they don't live in upper parts of rivers generally where the water is cleaner.

Coarse fish don't live in the upper parts of the rivers because the conditions don't suit them. In the upper reaches rivers are usually shallow and fast which only suites certain species and for the biggest part the fish are smaller.

Water cannot be to clean for any species of fish.

 

[peterjg]

The EA is a 'government department', it is not an independent authority.

 

[no-one in particular]

Coarse fish don't live in the upper parts of the rivers because the conditions don't suit them. In the upper reaches rivers are usually shallow and fast which only suites certain species and for the biggest part the fish are smaller.

Water cannot be to clean for any species of fish.

I think your right, thinking about the Royalty on the Avon, always looked very clean and clear to me yet, it holds most coarse fish, even some bream but its weedy and fairly deep. I will back track on that.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

If some insidious pollution is involved - the presence of chemicals not identified or reported in water standard tests - wouldn't all species suffer? If game fish are the canaries in the mine, how come the canaries are thriving but the miners have died?

I don't think there has been any pollution of any kind whatsoever. However, a lack of spawning habitat might be the problem or part of it. I just don't know even though it's headwaters are not far from where I once lived and I have seen it before now whilst hiking.

It could be endocrine disruptors, but that would affect the grayling also. BTW, the STWs can't remove a lot of stuff from sewage water and that includes many chemicals that have passed through bodies or in washing products, microplastics and particularly nanoplastics. There just isn't the technology available however you look at it. That said, our little stream that is 90+% treated sewage water is doing fine, the only thing we worry about is a prolonged period of heavy rain that comes through the sewerage. THAT's when the STW may have to release some semi-settled untreated sewage and that could kill all the hard work we've tried to achieve.

We are trying to convince the EA to change the STW's discharge licence so that untreated waste can be discharged into a much larger watercourse that immediately after has three large bubbler weirs to introduce oxygen to break it down, just as they do in the STW. Until such time we rely very much on prayer mats.

 

[Keith M]

I am wondering if it's right that water can be too clean for coarse species, they don't live in upper parts of rivers generally where the water is cleaner.

Some of the most productive parts of the rivers Lea and Gt Ouse are in their upper parts as long as there are a few slightly deeper areas and holes for the fish to hide out in; and the water is often crystal clear in these upper areas; with quality coarse fish of all species being present; and the lower areas of these rivers where it’s a lot deeper and wider and coloured and often siltier are just pretty average fisheries in comparison.

However if a water is too clean to the extent that it doesn’t have enough ‘bottom of the chain’ food for the smaller and larger invertebrates to thrive on and in turn for the fry and larger species to thrive on (which would be quite rare) then it would be a very unhealthy fishery with few fish in it.

Keith

 

[tigger]

However if a water is too clean to the extent that it doesn’t have enough ‘bottom of the chain’ food for the smaller and larger invertebrates to thrive on and for the fry and larger species to thrive on then it can be a very unhealthy fishery with very few fish.

Keith

Keith clean water would have all the food needed for invertibrates etc to thrive in.

It's dirty/sewage etc water that kills off the invertibrates/foodchain of which fish are obviously a part.

 

[The bad one]

It could be endocrine disruptors, but that would affect the grayling also. BTW, the STWs can't remove a lot of stuff from sewage water and that includes many chemicals that have passed through bodies or in washing products, microplastics and particularly nanoplastics. There just isn't the technology available however you look at it.

Sorry Jeff if that's what TW are telling you then I suggest very strongly you stop listening to them.
It's bullsh1t!
All chemicals can be removed by Active Carbon Filtering it's used in the States not cheap but very effective. But Whilst the EA, DEFRA and Govt refuse to bring the Water Companies to heal and regulate to bring it about then the WCs are never, and I do mean never, going to do it on their own because it cuts their profits, bonuses and dividends to the shareholders.

Micro plastic can also be removed by the use of Graphene mess but again the above reasons prevail.

We also don't know whether it's impacting on the grayling? It could very easily be they are the last in the fish spawned cycles in the river and as the niche/food supply they have come across is now very under utilised, due to lack of alleged coarse fish. The grayling finding it have been able to exploit fully. Even being free to have good spawning years due to lack of predation by coarse fish.

It's also possible that they have moved down river more readily from the less EDS affected areas. Greyling are more a Trout Zone species or upper course zone species.

One of the possible reasons the coarse fish are less so now on the Dove Derwent than they were 10-20 years ago is that they are migrating into the Upper Trent as that area and river water has become better for fish to survive in it. Both rivers have for a 100 years+ or more been much "cleaner" than Trent Water. There was a time, in living memory when the upper Trent water had very little fish life in it.

One thing's for sure there will not be a single or double reason why the coarse fish appear not to be in the numbers they were a few years back. It will be a very complex and many faceted problem why.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Sorry Jeff if that's what TW are telling you then I suggest very strongly you stop listening to them.
It's bullsh1t!
All chemicals can be removed by Active Carbon Filtering it's used in the States not cheap but very effective. But Whilst the EA, DEFRA and Govt refuse to bring the Water Companies to heal and regulate to bring it about then the WCs are never, and I do mean never, going to do it on their own because it cuts their profits, bonuses and dividends to the shareholders.

You say 'not cheap' and perhaps that's the reason why and just how effective is the method when dealing with fats etc. amongst all the other chemicals. I'd like to remind you that this company mentioned is already investing £billions in the super sewer in London and spent £3m on an eel screen in front of their water intakes at Walton that serves a third of the population of London and part of a £30m investment across the network. So they're not afraid of investing money where it's needed and justified.

 

[nottskev]

Certainly, the malaise of the lower Derwent will have a lot of factors. When an angler is trying to make sense of it, it's likely they don't have much wool to knit with, aside from circumstantial evidence, like changes to water treatment plants etc. Grayling have definitely moved down the river - we're catching them in the last mile of the river, well below the deep, slow sections below Derby - and the small size shows successful recent spawning, and they may well be profiting from the "gaps" left by the absent coarse fish.

Another odd thing, at least it appears odd, is the state of the Derwent relative to the Trent it runs into. There was a time when both were out of sorts for a few years and offered poor fishing. In recent years, the Derwent has continued to decline while the Trent above and below the confluence has been improving all the time. You might think, given that the Trent is exposed as much or even more to the kinds of issues that affect the health of rivers, that they would be equally affected or the Trent relatively worse, but it's the other way around.

 

[tigger]

You say 'not cheap' and perhaps that's the reason why and just how effective is the method when dealing with fats etc. amongst all the other chemicals. I'd like to remind you that this company mentioned is already investing £billions in the super sewer in London and spent £3m on an eel screen in front of their water intakes at Walton that serves a third of the population of London and part of a £30m investment across the network. So they're not afraid of investing money where it's needed and justified.

They're not scared of spending money, you gott'a be kiddin' Jeff mg:.
Then again, they arn't scared of spending it, they just don't want to spend it and take anything outt'a their precious banks accounts!

 

[The bad one]

You say 'not cheap' and perhaps that's the reason why and just how effective is the method when dealing with fats etc. amongst all the other chemicals. I'd like to remind you that this company mentioned is already investing £billions in the super sewer in London and spent £3m on an eel screen in front of their water intakes at Walton that serves a third of the population of London and part of a £30m investment across the network. So they're not afraid of investing money where it's needed and justified.

Are you the unofficial/official mouthpiece for TW now?
So what that they have invested 1 billion in a Super Sewer, that's their business to do that. Return "Cleaned Water" back to the Themes to a regulated Standard! Clearly they were failing in that matter else it wouldn't have cost them 20 million quid in Crown Court fines for the second time of a major pollution. That released millions of gallons of raw untreated sewage past the noses of the MPs/Government, would it!
The TW bean counters must have looked at the potential fine numbers and come to the conclusion, better we invest some of out vast profits in stopping the pollution we've been getting away with for years. As the fines are moving to the true meaning of Unlimited by the courts. Therefore from a cost benefit analysis point of view, we will reach a point when we would be forced into it financially. And that reputationally speaking would wash off all the Greenwash we've spent years painting on.

Fats etc would have no more impacts than they do now as it End of Pipe Technology. ACF is carried out as the last process in the chain before the water is returned back as river water.

Likewise Graphene Mesh (not mess as typoed) Screening for micro plastics is also end of pipe techno as well.....last in the chain!

WCs will get away with whatever they can if the regulators fail to regulate them and as far as EDSs and micro plastics are concerned they are in my view.
Ask yourself the question why do all WCs pay millions of quid in lobbyist fees to lobbyist companies per year.

And to correct you on something you stated a few posts back about sewage sludge being spread on farmland. Whilst true it can be used, there are very tight regulation on its use. And only 2 Applications per field are allowed due to the toxic/heavy metals nature of the sludge.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Are you the unofficial/official mouthpiece for TW now?

NO! I do work with them in the interests of improving the environment, not for them; I don't get one penny!

I just think that a lot of people with, if you don't mind me saying so, 'left-wing ideas' criticise these privately owned companies now and it is totally unjustified. Despite fines (pollutions will continue because of breakdowns just as cars with new parts can breakdown on the roads) they are producing much better quality results and have more care for the environment than the previous government owned version of water companies ever did.

If you want to go back to a standard where these businesses didn't care at all, then by all means bring the present left into Government and see what transpires. Heaven help us! The profits that TW and others make are not that unreasonable considering the size of the company and many customers it supports.

Apologies to the thread for it being dragged aside. That's the last on this!

 

[tigger]

NO! I do work with them in the interests of improving the environment, not for them; I don't get one penny!

I just think that a lot of people with, if you don't mind me saying so, 'left-wing ideas' criticise these privately owned companies now and it is totally unjustified. Despite fines (pollutions will continue because of breakdowns just as cars with new parts can breakdown on the roads) they are producing much better quality results and have more care for the environment than the previous government owned version of water companies ever did.

If you want to go back to a standard where these businesses didn't care at all, then by all means bring the present left into Government and see what transpires. Heaven help us! The profits that TW and others make are not that unreasonable considering the size of the company and many customers it supports.

Apologies to the thread for it being dragged aside. That's the last on this!

I don't think it would matter what anyone put infront of you Jeff....for some (unknown to us) reason your definately on their side Jeff.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

I don't think it would matter what anyone put infront of you Jeff....for some (unknown to us) reason your definately on their side Jeff.

Quite true because I find out things that otherwise go unpublished. However, when they are in the wrong I do not hesitate tell them, but they know that already.

Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer!!!

 

[peterjg]

I believe that several of our water companies are owned by overseas businesses - are their priorities our environment or their profits. Water is our most important resource, the water companies should be nationalised - clean water and enough of it is beyond profit.

 

[lutra]

Certainly, the malaise of the lower Derwent will have a lot of factors. When an angler is trying to make sense of it, it's likely they don't have much wool to knit with, aside from circumstantial evidence, like changes to water treatment plants etc. Grayling have definitely moved down the river - we're catching them in the last mile of the river, well below the deep, slow sections below Derby - and the small size shows successful recent spawning, and they may well be profiting from the "gaps" left by the absent coarse fish.

Another odd thing, at least it appears odd, is the state of the Derwent relative to the Trent it runs into. There was a time when both were out of sorts for a few years and offered poor fishing. In recent years, the Derwent has continued to decline while the Trent above and below the confluence has been improving all the time. You might think, given that the Trent is exposed as much or even more to the kinds of issues that affect the health of rivers, that they would be equally affected or the Trent relatively worse, but it's the other way around.

Even as an outsider on the trent I know it's had a shed loads of fish tipped into it. Possibly more than any other river in the county. So do we really know how healthy it is?

May be it is best if some rivers get polluted because they need the EA fish stockings that go with it to survive as they just couldnt do it on their own.

 

[The bad one]

NO! I do work with them in the interests of improving the environment, not for them; I don't get one penny!

I just think that a lot of people with, if you don't mind me saying so, 'left-wing ideas' criticise these privately owned companies now and it is totally unjustified. Despite fines (pollutions will continue because of breakdowns just as cars with new parts can breakdown on the roads) they are producing much better quality results and have more care for the environment than the previous government owned version of water companies ever did.

If you want to go back to a standard where these businesses didn't care at all, then by all means bring the present left into Government and see what transpires. Heaven help us! The profits that TW and others make are not that unreasonable considering the size of the company and many customers it supports.

Apologies to the thread for it being dragged aside. That's the last on this!

Nah, nah, nah, you don't get off that easy with... all these lefty loonies picking on those well caring Multinational Cos garbage. They have never introduced of their own volition higher Environmental Standard than the regulators have placed on them.
Now that would be the mark of an ethical caring company rather than a company throwing Greenwash all over the place.
As to the last lot, pre privatisation, and comparing that to today envo regs, is like comparing applies with spuds. Much of what today is know, wasn't even known about then, least invented in a lot of cases.

No Jeff, it's not about "lefty policies" towards Multi National Cos, it's about making sure that we pass on to future generations a better, healthier, sustainable, environment than the one we got given! And if those Cos can't or wont see that, then they deserve all the sh1t that falls on them from whatever quarter.. left, right or centreand I'll back them all.

Now here's a little tester for you Jeff, in 2 months time well be free from all those hated pesky EU envo regs. Free to make our own vastly superior regs. :flypig: Lets see if your friends 1) start to lobby for them or 2) lobby for vastly weaker one.

We can both start to hold our breath on leaving day and see who bursts first. I'll even go into this with a handicap of 1 and 2/3 lung to your 2. But I must warn you despite the handicap I'm pretty confident that the multi million pound lobbyists, will be lobbying on behalf of their clients those much maligned nice Multi National Water Companies, for weaker regulations.

 

[no-one in particular]

I agree with Badone on that, there is only one type of water, preferably clean and non-polluted. We dont get choices of types of water and decide which one to buy or do without it like a motor car or a packet of biscuits. Capitalism is great for producing multi choices with better cars and better biscuits but water! Would it be better if all the money we spent on water was ploughed back into making just the one cleaner water for all of us and start at the source, non polluted rivers, nothing to do with being left or right just money going abroad or in some individual pockets could be better spent where our water is concerned. The EA could make better use of it.

 

[The bad one]

Oh dear, I bet your mates Jeff forgot to tell you that OFWAT have knocked back their Business Plan for 019-025. Telling them it needs substantially rework for it to have any chance of getting past them the regulator.
Some solace for you though, as they were not on their own, two other companies were in the OFWAT jail with them. 8 other were told to do Community Service on their plans. And only 3 were not guilty of anything over their plans.