ROB HUGHES hits out on river pollution
“All of these initiatives take time and pots of cash”
SITTING in a queue on a bridge crossing the river Trent near Newark got me thinking, and has sparked today’s flame. Firstly, how great the river looked and secondly how the river season will soon be here again. As I look a little closer I can see a weir creating a wonderful habitat, with the plunge pool and subsequent gravel shallows and rapids below. By the side of the weir is a hydropower turbine. The screw is being turned by the force of water generating electricity in a green and friendly way. But is it?
Here’s where we have a conflict, and a seemingly permanent one at that! One gang of environmentalists will have you believe that hydropower is the way forwards, but another gang of environmentalist wants to do away with dams and hydro stations because they prevent the passage of migratory fish and change the nature of the river.
In the same breath we have environmentalists who fully accept that our watercourses are falling well below the standard they should, and that most are woeful when it comes to pollution levels and in particular effluent discharge. Others want to “re-wild” and “reintroduce” forgotten species and I’ve seen the burbot, the beaver and the twaite shad bandied about.
All of these initiatives take time and significant pots of cash, but they all have different aims and objectives. The one common ground they all have is a need for good habitat, so surely a combined voice against the horrendous solution we’re experiencing with effluent discharge would be a better way to achieve their aims?