From today's Metro:
Cynic as I undoubtedly am in matters relating to government bodies and the political correctness that now prevails, I still find it disgusting that the wishes of the tax-paying majority were ignored in favour of a non-taxpaying minority - in this case, oversexed salmon.
The people of Cockermouth which has suffered terrible flooding (Metro, Mon) had asked that the River Derwent be dug deeper to prevent this crisis but were turned down by government bodies because of the rights of salmon to procreate where they choose.
I would ask two questions. Firstly, how much money was spent by government agencies in protecting these over-libidinous salmon? Secondly, how much money was not spent on the basic maintenance of these bridges?
Sue Hudson, London W2"
----------------------------------
Not wishing to take anything at face value, I did a quick Google and find that this story was in The Daily Mail two days ago, and would appear to be true. From the article:
Jacqui White, Gote Road, Cockermouth, said: 'I attended a meeting with Natural England earlier this year when we told them we wanted to dig 10ft deeper so that the waters wouldn't flood and alleviate any flooding. But the officials there stood up and told the meeting that the salmon in the river were more important.'
Natural England have form for this. Bastards.
----------------------------------
UPDATE: if you have another half a minute to spare, please follow the link which Banned left in the comments.
Elevate their cause?
5 hours ago
8 comments:
Prior requests to dredge the river were also mentioned briefly on the TV news at the time.
On your link Mark you suggest that it is fine to protect your own bit of coast so long as the individual pays for it.
Not so if you are Tony Benn whose Essex coast farmhouse is the only one thereabouts to be protected from coastal erosion ( with public money ) while everyone else is left to fend for themselves.
No doubt his son, Hilary, who is the Governments man on the ground in Cumbria, will come to benefit in due course.
Tony & Hilary Benn, we're alright, Jack
From the DM: "However an Environment Agency spokesperson said: 'Digging a deep channel in a fast flowing river like the Cocker does not alleviate flood risk. Silt and gravel is dragged from upstream and refills the hole very quickly. Salmon spawning areas are therefore not a consideration in this case,'
Note that the DM failed to find an actual scientist, rather than pitchfork-wielding locals, to counter that statement - if there was actually anyone who knew what they were talking about & who believed digging a big 'ole would have made any difference, the DM would surely have paraded them gleefully?
B, excellent, I have updated accordingly.
JB, "Silt and gravel is dragged from upstream and refills the hole very quickly."
So? Then keep dredging it. If your logic is correct, then we could fill up all rivers with silt and stones and it would not increase flood risk to surrounding areas.
Have you been to Boscastle? The first thing they did after their flood was to dig the river bed about six foot deeper, and they haven't been flooded since. And put drainage holes in the car park at the top of the valley.
I am confused: Jacqui White's comment suggested that the people of Cockermouth, or their local authority, wanted to dredge the river (or presumably pay a contractor to do it rather then wielding pick and shovel themselves), but JB is quoting the EA saying that they have no objection, salmonwise, it would just be a pointless exercise. Or was this a bid for more of that lovely taxpayers cash by the people of Cockermouth, turned down with a specious piscine excuse (rather than "We don't think you are important enough to spend our money on")?
B, I wasn't at JW's meeting but I'd tend to believe her: the EA/NE have form (click link in post) for not giving a hoot about real people (obviously they care for members of the Benn family - click link in update), they'd rather let things rip - even if fish are the excuse - so that after the event they can blame everything on Global Warming.
Re the Benns, we are more third world than we like to think.
Re who'd be paying to dredge the Cocker, things are still unclear. (Who paid at Boscastle? The Nazional Trust?)
"However an Environment Agency spokesperson said: 'Digging a deep channel in a fast flowing river like the Cocker does not alleviate flood risk. Silt and gravel is dragged from upstream and refills the hole very quickly."
I think this is bollocks. True, a hole in the bottom will be filled, but with a trench with a sloping bottom that empties into the sea, the same mechanism that fills it will also empty it out, especially "in a fast flowing river like the Cocker", otherwise how does the stuff get from upstream in the first place?
Bayard, it was the taxpayer generally who paid for Boscastle to be fixed (via EA, NT, heck knows). This is the sort of thing that is crying out to be funded by LVT, if they want to dredge their own river, they should go ahead and do it and pay for it themselves without central govt. let, hindrance or subsidy.
Post a Comment