Pollution

Is there no way the ACA can become involved with this?

I know the ACA is a reactive organisation, in that they fight for compensation following the successful prosecuting of pollutors, but surely in clear-cut cases like this they could send a letter to the EA threatening court procedings if they don't do something about it?

I've always felt that the ACA should be more pro-active rather than just reactive.

Hi Graham,

I've been in touch with Martin about this whole issue personally after hearing about it on is website. As I understand it the ACA cannot do anything in this instance as the clubs who own the waters are not members of the ACA.

This brings a further point to mind. From a game angling point of view i pay a lot to fish some waters (compared to the day ticket fees I pay as a coarse fisherman), However this gives the owners alot of funds and clout should something like this happen.

When you think what annual club fees are to be a member of one of the bradford clubs per year, divide that by their number of waters then attribute how much they have to spend on the river and looking after it after rent etc it can't e much at all.

From this point of view the ACA would seema much cheaper solution as a club to insure angainst the costs of ammending the problems caused by such incidents.

As for the EA's actions, I loose more faith in them as an organisation every week. I have religiously bought a rod licence but now its seeming like money for old rope.

Regards

Richard

Hi

Many thanks Graham and everyone involved for rushing this through, I am very grateful.

Before I make my comment here?s the latest update on the situation.

Martin has contacted Dafydd Evans again, this is his letter.

Dear Dafydd So the problem has been solved. That?s a lie which I am quite prepared to repeat in the media and publicly. The problem is still there Take a look at the picture JPG1049 attached. It?s still killing fish, they might be fry but they are the future of the river. This is a class 1 river and if no action is taken it will end up as a class 4 river.
I feel as Head of Fisheries its time you got out of the office, forget the salmon and headed north to inspect this problem on the River Aire and ensure its stopped immediately. Yes, they might be chub but there are many more coarse anglers than game fishers. Remember this is not only killing fry but what about the aquatic insect life.
I have always supported the NRA then the EA sadly I have been let down badly by the EA and not for the first time. The excuses are over its action we demand NOW. No one has discussed the manhole cover and what it contains. Also to the best of my knowledge its not been inspected. You cannot possible argue the so called problem is solved is just a botch up. May I remind you that though our rod licence fees and our taxes we pay your wages. As Head of Fisheries the buck has to stop with you. I look foreward to your reply within 24 hours. This situation is serious.

And following on from this here's a copy of a letter sent by Martin Salisbury who's a Solicitor.


FAO Mr O'Brien.

I have been monitoring the River Aire pollution situation with interest as I have fished on this beautiful little river several times and would love to return time and time again.
I am aware that effleunt has been discharging into the river for several days (if not weeks) and that it has been drawn to the attention of the EA as a matter or priority.
I was disgusted to witness firsthand your solution to the problem. It appears that the black sludge that had built up on the river bed/bank had simply been covered up with sand from further along the bank. Out of sight, out of mind? There appears to have been little or no attempt to identify and rectify the problem.
I have held a rod licence for over 20 years and have never had to call upon the assistance of the water authority/environment agency before and hope I will not need to for another 20 years. I trust that this pollution will be given the attention it deserves before it causes any further damage to the water and bankside habitat.
Yours in hope
Martin Salisbury
Solicitor

And here is the reply from the EA

Dear Mr Salisbury
Thanks for your E-mail regarding the pollution on the River Aire, near
Carlton.

As far as I understand from colleagues managing this matter, all appropriate action has been taken to remove the problem, no serious damage has occurred to the fishery, and any continued effluent discharge is non- harmful and temporary.
I have passed on your E-mail to the appropriate persons who will respond in due course.
Regards
Pat

Martin Salisbury replied with the following.

FAO Mr O'Brien

I thank you for your email. I would be grateful if you could clarify the
following points as I have today seen photogarphs that clearly show the
problem has not been solved.

"...all appropriate action has been taken to remove the problem,.."

1. How can burying the offending pollution, where it lay on the river
bank/bed, beneath sand and soil constitute removing the problem?
2. Furthermore, please can you confirm the source of the pollution and steps
taken to remedy it if you can state that you have now been able to remove
the problem.

"...no serious damage has occurred to the fishery..."

1. What investigations have been made to justify this statement?

"..any continued effluent dischargeis non- harmful and temporary...."

1. What tests have been carried out on the discharge and what were the
results to back up your statement that the discharge is non-harmful?
2. The effluent discharge is non harmful to who/what?
3. Please confirm that the source of the pollution has been identified and
rectified to allow you to state that the pollution is temporary.
4. What information/investigations have led you to believe that the
pollution is temporary?
5. Why is the discharge continuing if it is a temporary problem and when
will it cease to be a problem?
I apologise for any inconvenience that this matter may be causing but I look
forward to receiving your further comments.
Regards
Martin Salisbury

I have contacted Martin Salter in the hope he can help us with this issue and I'm now waiting for a reply to my email.

I've also expressed my concerns to the EA in the hope they will listen and again I'm waiting for a reply.

I just don't understand this, how far do we have to push the EA for action to take place and for someone to take responcibilty. This is what they should be doing and instead of cleaning up they are covering up. I am so angry, do they not care!!

If anyone would like to express their feelings to Martin Salter please copy and paste this ( sorry not sure how to link )

http://www.martinsalter.com/enquiryform.htm

I would like to try the EA again but have given up on them as I feel they no longer care.

We need action NOW!!!

"I apologise for any inconvenience that this matter may be causing but I look
forward to receiving your further comments." was Martin Salisbury's comment at the end of that letter.

I believe we are far too apologetic in this country. I know he's being polite, as a solicitor would, but this this amount of ineptitude drives people beyond the brink.

The situation could not have been worse if George Bush had been in charge. Why do we have to put up with these people in our organisations, particularly the EA who are supposed to be on our side?

I say this more in hope than anything concrete, but I trust the people I know down here in Thames Region would not allow this to continue for one minute longer than was necessary. I know I would be round at their offices banging some bloody heads together before now.

What else can I say now except to wish all the Martins (James, Salisbury and Salter if he gets involved) every success in getting this sorted - and quick!

Martin?s article for his local paper the Craven Herald can be seen here

http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/bradford__district/skipton/news/SKIP_NEWS8.html

Once again I'm lost at the response of the EA whose spokesman quoted
"This is a minor incident, it is very localised and has a negligible impact on the river."

A minor incident?
A negligible impact on the river?

Are they for real. This has killed hundreds of fry and is affecting the aquatic life of this river.
Again this statement confirms that they have little care or interest in our rivers.

What is our licence for? What do we pay taxes for?
Those concerned are taking our money and laughing at us.
I find this whole episode a disgrace. What chance has our rivers if nobody cares!!

I would like to hear more comments on this. If we do not stand together then there is no hope and more incidents like this will be allowed to happen and it could be your local river next.

Woops my pic has covered the link, here it is again.






http://www.cravenherald.co.uk/bradford__district/skipton/news/SKIP_NEWS8.html

Hi
Here's another update on the situation.
Martin has again contacted the EA with the following.

Dear Pat The effluent is still leaking from the pipe the stench is terrible and still we are finding dead fry In fact on Monday morning there were enough dead fry to attracted a group of 10 gulls to a free feast. Cheers Martin

Hi Martin

As previous E-mails, I can assure you this matter has been looked into
by my colleague Nick Reynolds, taken very seriously and a formal
response from our Area Manager Paul Tullett will be provided in due
course following our complaints procedure.I did happen to have a walk along the river yesterday, noted the
location of the pipe discharge and the vast quantities of healthy fry
both upstream and downstream of the pipe.
No evidence of any fish losses, but as you point out, fry are quicky
eaten by gulls. The small number of fry deaths that you reported is very
minor and as I'm sure you know, it is normal for significant losses of
fish fry every year as part of the normal cycle.
I am confident that any damaging discharge has been rectified and that
any small continued flow is the remnants contained within the pipe.
Please await the formal reply to your previous E-mails before making
further contact and be assured that the river and it's fishery is safe.
Many thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Regards Pat

Following on from this Martin wrote back with this.

Dear Pat Nice to know you had a walk, did you notice the stench and the colour of the effluent? I was also on the river today and we only witnessed a few fry compared with what we had previously. Any loss of fish fry is a loss to many. It shouldn't happen I do not believe its the residue in the pipe because I flushed the pipe out with many gallons of water which I carried from the river. When I had finished there was no smell or run off. Please do not treat us as idiots. Also what is happening about the wire fence across the river just down stream of the discharge. Fish are getting damaged We have had several good size chub with damage to their heads and body, If puting a length of 10' X 4" X 4" length of timber in the for a few weeks to get rid of silt and being told its a major flood hazard then surely this fence is a flood hazard Cheers Martin

Martin Salisbury wrote the following to the EA.

I have been monitoring the River Aire pollution situation with interest
as I have fished on this beautiful little river several times and would
love to return time and time again.
I am aware that effleunt has been discharging into the river for
several days (if not weeks) and that it has been drawn to the
attention of the EA as a matter or priority.
I was disgusted to witness firsthand your solution to the problem.
It appears that the black sludge that had built up on the river
bed/bank had simply been covered up with sand from further along the bank. Out
of sight, out of mind? There appears to have been little or no attempt
to identify and rectify the problem.
I have held a rod licence for over 20 years and have never had to call
upon the assistance of the water authority/environment agency before
and hope I will not need to for another 20 years. I trust that this pollution will be given the attention it deserves before it causes any further damage to the water and bankside habitat.
Yours in hope
Martin Salisbury

Here's the reply from the EA.

Martin
I have noted all your comments and routed your E-mail through our
Complaints procedure to ensure a full detailed response is provided.
A letter from Paul Tullett, Ridings Area Manager will be issued before
19th September containing responses to all your observations and questions.
Regards Pat

Thanks for looking into my complaint. I understand that the pipe is still
discharging and I hope the 19th September will not be too late.
Regards
Martin Salisbury

Martin has today rec'd this from the ACA who have very kindly offered to help with the incident.

Dear Martin,
Thank you for your copy letter to Mr Evans of the Environment Agency concerning the pollution at Funkirk Farm on the River Aire near Skipton.
I would be grateful if you could let me know what feedback you get from the Environment Agency and whether or not you wish the ACA to pursue this matter on your behalf.
I would recommend that you ask for full details of their investigations of the discharges and you should be aware that you have a legal right of access to the information once the Environment Agency has decided whether or not enforcement action is required. In the event that a prosecution is planned, you may have to wait until that prosecution is completed before you are able to access the Environment Agency's files.
Nevertheless, it does appear to be particularly poor of the Environment Agency not to investigate this discharge more efficiently and I would be very pleased to write to the Agency in addition to yourself to see if we can get some action.
Many thanks for bringing this to our attention and look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Regards,
Guy Linley-Adams
Solicitor
Anglers' Conservation Association