Water, Water Everywhere...

[bennygesserit]

So the legal obligation of landowners to maintain ditches should be enforced as opposed to dredging ( of all associated rivers along a significant portion of their length ) .

Ditches deliver potentially 18,000,000 m cubed storage whereas dredging an , additional, 1.,700,000 m cubed per day capacity to deliver to the sea.

The only flaw i can see with that is , unless I have read the figures wrong , there must already be some storage capacity in the ditches and the cost of dredging must be enormous let alone the assumed eco impact.

 

[mick b]

Don't knock the Environment Agency.

The Environment Agency are only a Statutory advisor to the Local Councils.
The EA don't make planning decisions, they are just a consultee.

Its up to the Local Council if they take the advice the EA provides or ignore it.
The Local Councils have the final say on what is built in their area.

The EA do provide a Flood Risk Map to Local Councils and a Flood Risk Assessment should be submitted with a planning application.
The EA recommend the use of their Sequential Test to planning applications in flood zones, however this is only a recommendation not a statutory regulation.

If a Local Council gives planning consent nobody has right of appeal.
If a Local Council rejects an application only the Developer has right of appeal.
If a Local Council turns down an application it can go to a Public Inquiry where the Planning Inspector listens to presentations from objectors and makes the final decision.

It should be remembered that EA has lost a lot of staff over the past six years which this has had a serious impact on what they can or cannot do.
They now don't have the capacity to look at all planning applications and have to be more selective in the work they undertake.
In many cases the EA are relying on standard advice to local Councils rather than responding to each individual application.

The EA have also been instructed by Government to 'seek a positive solutions-focused approach' meaning they must look for solutions rather than raise objections (irrespective of the reason).

The bottom line is that the EA is a Government body, and if the Government instructs them to do something (or do nothing at all) they must obey or suffer drastic restructuring!

.

 

[Dave Smith]

Don't knock the Environment Agency.

The Environment Agency are only a Statutory advisor to the Local Councils.
The EA don't make planning decisions, they are just a consultee.

Its up to the Local Council if they take the advice the EA provides or ignore it.
The Local Councils have the final say on what is built in their area.

The EA do provide a Flood Risk Map to Local Councils and a Flood Risk Assessment should be submitted with a planning application.
The EA recommend the use of their Sequential Test to planning applications in flood zones, however this is only a recommendation not a statutory regulation.

If a Local Council gives planning consent nobody has right of appeal.
If a Local Council rejects an application only the Developer has right of appeal.
If a Local Council turns down an application it can go to a Public Inquiry where the Planning Inspector listens to presentations from objectors and makes the final decision.

It should be remembered that EA has lost a lot of staff over the past six years which this has had a serious impact on what they can or cannot do.
They now don't have the capacity to look at all planning applications and have to be more selective in the work they undertake.
In many cases the EA are relying on standard advice to local Councils rather than responding to each individual application.

The EA have also been instructed by Government to 'seek a positive solutions-focused approach' meaning they must look for solutions rather than raise objections (irrespective of the reason).

The bottom line is that the EA is a Government body, and if the Government instructs them to do something (or do nothing at all) they must obey or suffer drastic restructuring!

.

Mmmm just one thing to correct you on there : the E.A is a non-departmental public body (NDPB) or(quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). NDPBs are not an integral part of any government department and carry out their work at arm's length from ministers.
Although ministers are ultimately responsible to Parliament for the activities of bodies sponsored by their department.
Plus most of the policies comes from the EU not central UK government just look at the insane regulations on dredged silt from river which if removed from site/field then becomes classed automatically toxic as wastemg:mg:

As far the staff cut are concerned, they still have 11,200 employee's hardly understaffed! when compared to the USA's EPA which is staffed by (15,900) and responsible for land area 80 times the size of the UK!

When you look at the cost of the EA and where the money is actually spent £395 million on staff (£592 million including pensions) compared to £219 million on capital projects, and just £20 million on maintaining rivers. its easy to see why we are in the state we are with flooding and flood defence's :wh

 

[mike47]

Have enjoyed reading all contributions to this theme, but am staggered by the comparative figures for EA and U.S. EPA numbers. Makes you think eh!

 

[The bad one]

Mick sorry to disagree with you here, but criticism where criticism is due! And development on floodplains is where the EA is weak, sequential test or not! As a Stat Consult, they do have the power and right to object but rarely do they us it. Fact!

They do not have the right to stop a development, and yes you are right the ultimate decision rests with the Local Planning Committee.
That stated they are the Experts and only a fool of a committee would not take cognisance of an unequivocal statement that development (objection) should not take place on a given site because of the severe flood risk.

I’d also point out that recent events have thrown into total disarray their Flood Risk Maps up and down the country. In short they are outdated and need overhauling.

I do on many occasions talk to Planning Officers and regularly us Planning Aid (PA). PA is a charity that works on behalf of communities to give them equality under the law in planning terms. They are practicing Planning Officers with a social conscience who know that the system is weighted in favour of the developer because of the money and expertise they can throw at it.
Many times when development on floodplains has been discussed with them, they have criticised the EA for being weak and lack of forcefulness (objecting) over such developments. And for me that’s good enough to make the criticism I have.

Yes objectors don’t have the right of appeal only the developer has that, but objectors do have the right to a Judicial Review on narrow points in the decision process. And this is increasing in usage amongst communities and objectors even though it is expensive, av 10K for a hearing.

If a council makes a refusal the developer appeals to the Sec of Stat and he refers it to the Planning Inspectorate…. Independent allegedly? The Inspector assigned weighs the grounds for refusal against planning law, local plans etc and make a decision based on that.
The Council then can have the cost awarded against them if he/she sides with the developer. And that cost av. 100k and this can stop councils refusing some planning applications for good reasons. And in my view the award of costs against needs removing from the process, as it’s skewing the system. It should go back to what it was and each side carries the costs themselves.

If the inspector is undecided he can recommend to the SS an inquiry that can take two forms a Local Inquiry or a full Public Inquiry. The SS also has the power to make the decision on his own.
This Govt doesn’t like the inquiry process and the SS has on many occasions made the decision himself. Strangely most of his decisions favour the developer….piper and tunes come to mind.

I take your point re reorganisation if they EA don’t do as they are told but would point out to all they are a Qango and are supposed to be independent of Govt and why the have a board and a chair at the head of it.

 

[Dave Smith]

Have enjoyed reading all contributions to this theme, but am staggered by the comparative figures for EA and U.S. EPA numbers. Makes you think eh!

Yeah, don't it just
couple of more figures for you.
Nearly 7,000 vehicles or 1 for every 2employee's

Despite complaining about cuts to budget the Environment Agency’s total expenditure has actually increased, up from £1,166.6 million in 2011/12 to £1,207.4 million in 2012/13. mg:

And despite blaming staff cut backs for the lack of action on flooding the agency’s workforce has expanded over the last year, with the number of personnel rising from 11,363 to 12,252.

Lord Smith, who is on a salary of £97,365-a-year for a three-day week,
nice work if you can get(if you call it work)

 

[The bad one]

Have enjoyed reading all contributions to this theme, but am staggered by the comparative figures for EA and U.S. EPA numbers. Makes you think eh!

It's comparing apples with pears guy. The remit is a holistic approach covering land water and air. In the US each is separate and employs three times the numbers the EA does. Even taking into account the larger country and area. Don't take everything the Daily Mail Tells you!

And so should silt be classed as toxic waste it's full of toxic substances from sewage works and industrial process that legally discharge to the rivers.

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Lord smith is standing down this year and no doubt will be replaced with a Tory Gandee at 100k a years He ho eh!

 

[mick b]

Have enjoyed reading all contributions to this theme, but am staggered by the comparative figures for EA and U.S. EPA numbers. Makes you think eh!

Daviboy,

Point of correction;
Nationally, the Environment Agency spent £45 million in the last financial year on improving rivers not the £20 million you state.
Ref: EA website, role of dredging, 28:01:2014

Also,
In a previous post you stated that 30,000 + pensioners died because they couldn't heat their homes....surly that is a typo??......


Re; The EA.
If the CEO/Chairman of a Public Body (the EA) quasi or otherwise, goes against the 'wishes' of the Government Minister who is providing its funding what do you think the result would be?
A pat on the back and a Knighthood or funding cuts and a fast exit?
Yes the remit may say 'at arms length from Government Ministers' but the way the funding is set-up ensures they cannot be autonomous.

Another correction;
I did not state they were understaffed, but that staff cuts had impacted on the work they could undertake.

Further;
The USA's EPA do not carry out the same work as the EA so comparisons are irrelevant (although they might look good if your trying to derogate the EA).

As for the staffing costs of the EA...
I can only assume you work for nothing and/or that you believe highly qualified employees shouldn't be paid the rate for the job.

.

 

[Dave Smith]

It's comparing apples with pears guy. The remit is a holistic approach covering land water and air. In the US each is separate and employs three times the numbers the EA does. Even taking into account the larger country and area. Don't take everything the Daily Mail Tells you!

And so should silt be classed as toxic waste it's full of toxic substances from sewage works and industrial process that legally discharge to the rivers.

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:24 ----------

Lord smith is standing down this year and no doubt will be replaced with a Tory Gandee at 100k a years He ho eh!

If discharge was toxic it wouldn't be allowed to be discharged in to rivers legally would it! mg:
Here you can chew over the EU directive yourself
http://http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/pdf/z%201075.%20Dredging%20inland%20waterways.pdf

Should place a bet on Smiths replacement you could earn a few quid with "insider knowledge" you clearly have:wh

I don't read the Daily Mail
Guido Fawkes old chap much more reliable and accurate

 

[bennygesserit]

If discharge was toxic it wouldn't be allowed to be discharged in to rivers legally would it! mg:
Here you can chew over the EU directive yourself
http://http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/pdf/z%201075.%20Dredging%20inland%20waterways.pdf

Should place a bet on Smiths replacement you could earn a few quid with "insider knowledge" you clearly have:wh

I don't read the Daily Mail
Guido Fawkes old chap much more reliable and accurate

My guess would be its toxic when disturbed because its heavier than water or buried so its safe in situ.

 

[mick b]

As a Stat Consult, they do have the power and right to object but rarely do they us it.

Yes I totally agree.
The biggest stumbling block is that however politely we express it this government wants to build thousands of houses come what may, and they and the Developers are linked together like Siamese twins!
(Next time your out and about keep looking for all those thousands of people living in cardboard boxes because they cant find a house to buy..:wh)

The problem with walking softly and carrying a big stick is if you never use it, no-one thinks you have it!

All your detailed points are correct especially those concerning planning decisions made by the Secretary Of State all going in favour of the Developers.

 

[Dave Smith]

Daviboy,

Point of correction;
Nationally, the Environment Agency spent £45 million in the last financial year on improving rivers not the £20 million you state.
Ref: EA website, role of dredging, 28:01:2014

I stand corrected
Also,
In a previous post you stated that 30,000 + pensioners died because they couldn't heat their homes....surly that is a typo??......
See Here

http://http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

Re; The EA.
If the CEO/Chairman of a Public Body (the EA) quasi or otherwise, goes against the 'wishes' of the Government Minister who is providing its funding what do you think the result would be?
A pat on the back and a Knighthood or funding cuts and a fast exit?
Yes the remit may say 'at arms length from Government Ministers' but the way the funding is set-up ensures they cannot be autonomous.

I don't think I said they go against government "wishes" I said they HAVE to follow EU regulation not UK central government wishes
Another correction;
I did not state they were understaffed, but that staff cuts had impacted on the work they could undertake.
How can staff cuts impact? when they have increased staff numbers!! from 11,363 to 12,252.
Further;
The USA's EPA do not carry out the same work as the EA so comparisons are irrelevant (although they might look good if your trying to derogate the EA).

So why are both called Environmental Agencies..one might have separate sections for water,air ect but both cover the same ground

As for the staffing costs of the EA...
I can only assume you work for nothing and/or that you believe highly qualified employees shouldn't be paid the rate for the job.

No! I work for a wage just as they do and I'd expect them to! if you look back at those figures surely something sticks out, the cost of manning the Agency and the money spent on capital projects nearly £600million against £220million, nearly 3 times more spent on staff cost...and you think that's OK??
and who say's they are all highly qualified??...something you not telling us all here is there?

 

[The bad one]

If discharge was toxic it wouldn't be allowed to be discharged in to rivers legally would it! mg:
Here you can chew over the EU directive yourself
http://http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/pdf/z%201075.%20Dredging%20inland%20waterways.pdf

Link doesn't work. And you really shouldn't talk about subjects you know little about. Of course toxic substances are released constantly in the nations rivers through water treatment works and other routes. Include heavy metals, endocrine disrupters and there's 300 known of them going in the rivers every hour, Hydrocarbons with little and in many cases no treatment from road runoff. Other toxic pollutants from industrial processes and farming. Then there's 1300 identified old landfill site nationally, leaking all sorts of historic toxic **** directly into water courses and rivers. Many of which are now banned because of the known toxicity and threat to human and animal health.

Locally, only 3 weeks ago, 5 million litres of fracking water was put through Daveyhumle treatment works (Larges in Europe) and into the Manchester Ship Canal and ultimately the River Mersey containing radioactive materials 50 times the background normal level. United Utilities (Water Treatment Authority) and Cuadrilla (Frackers) didn’t even know they were not allowed to put it through the treatment works, as it wasn’t licensed for it or have the ability to treat radioactive contaminated water.
We wait with baited breath as to whether the EA will prosecute over this.

All of these toxic substances accumulate in the river silts and why the EU thankfully have banned dredging waste being piled up on the banksides.

Doh silt dries out and gets picked up by the wind and put back into the wider environment, posing significant threats to health by many pathways. Eg Breathing them in, ingestion from contamination on thinks we touch through the skin and/or eat. By plant take and consumption of them, where they bioaccumulate in the body.

The simplistic sound biting of UKIP about such EU regulations become very threadbare when you start to look at them in detail and why they were brought in.

 

[Dave Smith]

Link doesn't work. And you really shouldn't talk about subjects you know little about. Of course toxic substances are released constantly in the nations rivers through water treatment works and other routes. Include heavy metals, endocrine disrupters and there's 300 known of them going in the rivers every hour, Hydrocarbons with little and in many cases no treatment from road runoff. Other toxic pollutants from industrial processes and farming. Then there's 1300 identified old landfill site nationally, leaking all sorts of historic toxic **** directly into water courses and rivers. Many of which are now banned because of the known toxicity and threat to human and animal health.
Locally, only 3 weeks ago, 5 million litres of fracking water was put through Daveyhumle treatment works (Larges in Europe) and into the Manchester Ship Canal and ultimately the River Mersey containing radioactive materials 50 times the background normal level. United Utilities (Water Treatment Authority) and Cuadrilla (Frackers) didn’t even know they were not allowed to put it through the treatment works, as it wasn’t licensed for it or have the ability to treat radioactive contaminated water.
We wait with baited breath as to whether the EA will prosecute over this.

All of these toxic substances accumulate in the river silts and why the EU thankfully have banned dredging waste being piled up on the banksides.

Doh silt dries out and gets picked up by the wind and put back into the wider environment, posing significant threats to health by many pathways. Eg Breathing them in, ingestion from contamination on thinks we touch through the skin and/or eat. By plant take and consumption of them, where they bioaccumulate in the body.

The simplistic sound biting of UKIP about such EU regulations become very threadbare when you start to look at them in detail and why they were brought in.

Which was the point I was making.. Hence they can not be discharged in the a river LEGALLY, you made it sound as if its a free for all just dump any thing in to rivers scenario! it's not!.
Road run off is a unfortunate product on modern living ?what would you have us all do, go back to horse and cart, stop producing plastics because they contain hydrocarbons, and start wearing cambric shirts

We have be bioaccumulating for 100's if 1000's of years and we don't seem to have suffered too much as a species do we?

Fretting about such things will shorten your live quicker than any bioaccumulating of your body:w

 

[The bad one]

Like I said don't talk about matters you don't really know about, as it can make you look foolish! Discharge Consent means you can put pollutants into any water environment up to an agreed level which is set at human health levels.

Suggest you do some Googling on Lethal and sublethal doses to human health. Then look at the health impacts of sublethal bioaccumulation of lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, pcbs, et al. Then tell us all what you find and that it hasn’t harmed humans over the last 100 years and continues to harm even now.

Then do some more Gooling on lower life forms in the aquatic environment and the impacts a sublethal dose set for human health does on them.

Hydrocarbons runoff can be managed to virtually a nil input if the political will and money is there.

Your lassie far attitude to environmental impacts of toxins stinks and thankfully the vast majority of people don’t share it and are more enlightened than you.
Else we’d be living in a swiling toxic soup of an environment!

 

[Dave Smith]

Like I said don't talk about matters you don't really know about, as it can make you look foolish! Discharge Consent means you can put pollutants into any water environment up to an agreed level which is set at human health levels.

Suggest you do some Googling on Lethal and sublethal doses to human health. Then look at the health impacts of sublethal bioaccumulation of lead, zinc, copper, cadmium, pcbs, et al. Then tell us all what you find and that it hasn’t harmed humans over the last 100 years and continues to harm even now.

Then do some more Gooling on lower life forms in the aquatic environment and the impacts a sublethal dose set for human health does on them.

Hydrocarbons runoff can be managed to virtually a nil input if the political will and money is there.

Your lassie far attitude to environmental impacts of toxins stinks and thankfully the vast majority of people don’t share it and are more enlightened than you.
Else we’d be living in a swiling toxic soup of an environment!

Oooh aren't we the big bright boy. ..Typical watermelon and sanctimonious with it!
No doubt you agree the buffoon of a Green party spokes women who wants all climate sceptical advisors taken out of position of authority from Government??

 

[mick b]

Oooh aren't we the big bright boy. ..Typical watermelon and sanctimonious with it!
No doubt you agree the buffoon of a Green party spokes women who wants all climate sceptical advisors taken out of position of authority from Government??

Calm down davieboy,
As a new (ish) FM member please bear in mind that this is a friendly fishing forum not a facebook or whatever.

All we do on here is exchange our experiences and views, not make personal attacks just because another member disagrees with our post.

.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Calm down davieboy,
As a new (ish) FM member please bear in mind that this is a friendly fishing forum not a facebook or whatever.

All we do on here is exchange our experiences and views, not make personal attacks just because another member disagrees with our post.

And he's probably unaware TBO's credentials... even if he can be an infuriating SOB sometimes, he's usually right!
As for the climate change deniers - I certainly don't think we should have any in the EA, let alone in charge of what happens to it all over the country.

 

[Dave Smith]

Calm down davieboy,
As a new (ish) FM member please bear in mind that this is a friendly fishing forum not a facebook or whatever.

All we do on here is exchange our experiences and views, not make personal attacks just because another member disagrees with our post.

.

Apologies to all concerned

---------- Post added at 08:59 ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 ----------

And he's probably unaware TBO's credentials... even if he can be an infuriating SOB sometimes, he's usually right!
As for the climate change deniers - I certainly don't think we should have any in the EA, let alone in charge of what happens to it all over the country.

Every sceptic I know has never denied there's a climate and it changes!
a sad attempt to tar people with Holocaust deniers isn't it? to silence dissenters of the consensus..if they can ever be such a thing in science.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Every sceptic I know has never denied there's a climate and it changes!
a sad attempt to tar people with Holocaust deniers isn't it? to silence dissenters of the consensus..if they can ever be such a thing in science.

True-ish Davie. But when 98% of expert scientific opinion agrees on something, the other 2% are wrong, 99.999 times out of 100. The IPCC IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a carbon/oil fuel funded group of scientists in loud denial but it's a tiny amount. There IS a consensus