You know we’re on the same page here Lukey-boy and are only looking out for the rivers best interests, but I for one am not ready to accept defeat over abstraction levels yet. It’s not a foregone conclusion that abstraction licensing reviews can’t have a positive impact. Let’s be honest, the ‘super-duper-grid’ is a smoke screen and will just allow more tinkering with levels and playing one river off another. I don’t want Joe to grow up with small streams where once good sized rivers flowed and I can’t give up on that.

“no one gets remembered for the things they didn’t do” as Frank Turner so wisely puts it.

The aim of river narrowing is to restore crucial ecological functions to stretches of river that are low in physical and biological diversity, not only because of abstraction, but because of historic dredging and over widening. Yes, I have seen narrowing that is questionable in some places but those instances are few and far between. Year upon year many local stretches of river (both of you know them) struggle because of the actual physical constraints of poor channel condition. Narrowing, particularly the two stage channel approach can be beneficial, albeit expensive in some cases, and there are many reasons for that. It’s a well known that EA/NE constraints often make it difficult as with many other techniques involved in habitat rehabilitation, but it works and I have firsthand experience of that. So I disagree with you both, I think it’s a very credible and valuable way to maintain a healthy ecological function in our chalk streams for the future.
Lets for instance look at 10 years from now…. the population has increased, climatic conditions have changed and the uk climate has become drier in the winter and wetter in the summer, the campaign against sustainable abstraction has been and gone and the abstraction licenses have been reviewed and there is still no cohesive action against the biggest threat of all (yes Malc I do agree). And we are still in the same position with regard to low flows, except with even lower flows. A narrowed river might be the only thing that would allow our rivers to function with relative health and to support many of our chalk stream species.

Now these rivers can take SOME narrowing for the good! They have been massively over widened, particularly the Wylye (look at the current state of it). Now I’m not saying narrow everything, but there’s massive scope for a more aggressive approach here. Yes it should be done properly, and with the right planning and consultation and the right permissions, and with the right care and attention to the chalk stream environment. But the rivers can take it. They’ve already been butchered to oblivion by diggers! On many stretches we have nothing to lose and plenty to gain in terms of habitat benefits.
I’d also like to add that I’ve personally seen very little evidence of them being narrowed to the width of a winterbourne or tiny tributary. Those comments sound like slight exaggeration to me, and I think you’re both pouncing on the guys and gals that are involved in trying offer sustainable solutions to some of the problems we face on our rivers because there’s nowhere else to turn. Just because the PR gurus at WXW have got their claws into restoration and rehabilitation for the obvious reasons that it looks good for them, it shouldn’t mean that narrowing is some kind of monster. All I’m saying is that the problems facing our rivers are more complicated than just reducing abstraction. I think the answer for our rivers lies with radical thinking in many areas, holistic catchment management and through cohesive and informed action against the threats to the chalk stream environment . And dare I say it, sometimes that might even mean sleeping with the old enemy to make improvements, what choice do we have otherwise? Simply put we all need to stop running around in circles banging our bloody heads together on the chalk streams. It’s not getting us anywhere. Greedy water companies, too many committees, too many organisational acronyms, too many old farts concerned only with how good the fishing is and clinging on to what once was…and dare I say it too much greed.

Agree entirely about the river narrowing issue. If we are stuck with abstraction at unsustainable levels it may be the only solution but it’s not tackling the root cause and we’re left with tiny tributaries when we used to have beautiful rivers. Interestingly, Wessex Water have themselves been funding the ‘narrowing’ restoration type works as you know. It’s a great way for them to win brownie points, that is until people realise that they’re only paying for it because if they didn’t then ecological status would start to decline rapidly and the sleeping regulators may finally wake up as they are hit over the head with water framework directive failures.

Malcolm

P.S Tell Luke to get his camera out once in a while eh?;)

Nice to see that you have composed and published such a robust response, Malcolm.

Alan