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