ERA Engaging with Our MP

At the end of January members of ERA’s E.coli testing team were pleased to be joined by Andrew Griffith MP as they took a sample of river water from the Rother, near Rogate, and prepared the sample for E.coli testing. That test gave us our second highest E.coli Count since we began testing. (See all our results at https://ecorotheraction.org/fluidion-alert-one ) We spent an hour telling Andrew about the many issues that afflict our river. His write up of the visit can be seen at https://www.andrewgriffith.uk/news . We provided him with the following briefing sheet which we also thought worth publishing here:

ERA – Eco Rother Action, Testing E.coli in the River Rother between Midhurst and Petersfield

The Rother faces many problems which lead to its poor state:

Sedimentation: Often quoted as the most erodible river in the UK, for much of its journey the Rother flows through sandy soils. The colour of the Rother demonstrates the sediment load. We need buffer zones to protect banks, and control of INNS such as Himalayan Balsam.

Impoundments: The Rother has many weirs and other manmade structures that interrupt the flow of the river, making it difficult for wildlife such as fish to travel up and down the river. Sediment settles upstream of these structures creating extending dead tailbacks where riverfly (all the tiny insects that live in the river and which underpin the river food chains) cannot live and fish cannot spawn. We need to start removing the ones with no heritage value and to monitor the effect of such removals.

Other human interference: Over its history humans have straightened parts of the river or made artificial hard banks (canalisation) resulting in the river water flowing faster than it would do naturally. The river is often disconnected from its floodplain. In severe rains we need to hold water back, nearer where it fell, releasing it slowly to avoid flooding downstream. We need SUDS (sustainable urban drainage systems) and, in the right places, beavers.

Pollution: Road run-off (including PFAS), agricultural run-off, litter, sewage from Wastewater Treatment Works, sewage from septic tanks (something like a third of the dwellings in the SDNP are not on mains drainage), insecticides from flea and tick treatments. We need to minimise sewage discharges and address road run-off eg make tyres from materials less damaging to the environment, create and manage roadside SUDS, regulate the use of PFAs etc.

Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS): Plants such as Himalayan Balsam and Skunk Cabbage have no natural enemies here to keep them in check and they become the bully boys of the banks. Similarly non-native Mink have killed off Water Voles, and impacted other species. We need to continue, and ramp up, control measures.

Absent Species: Beavers previously created the conditions to hold back water, releasing it slowly through their leaky dams, but are currently absent – yet so needed. Similarly, we need to bring back the Water Voles. These creatures co-evolved, together with the rest of the river ecosystem. Take them out and the system is unbalanced. We need controlled and well manged reintroductions.

Water extraction: over extraction of water be it for agricultural use or for our own use (water is extracted from the Rother at Hardham and comes back to us in our taps). We need to harvest winter rain better.

Issues which we look to you, our MP, for some support

Swimming: Our rivers should be swimmable, without concerns arising from pollution. Many people swim in the Rother but all have their own favourite spot. One can only get Designated Bathing Area status if a lot of people swim in one place. The only place that might work on the Rother is at Cowdray but they have considered and dismissed the idea, so that is not an option. If the river had Designated Bathing Area status then the Environment Agency (EA) would monitor E.coli levels. As it doesn’t have that status then there is no top limit to the level of E.coli in the water that they can act to enforce.

ERA does not consider the system for Designated Bathing Areas to be fit for purpose as those who swim in the Rother are left without protection that others who swim in Designated Bathing Areas elsewhere receive. Also, even the testing that does happen for those other areas is seasonal, not taking into account the current interest in cold water swimming, in swimming throughout the year. We understand the forthcoming Water Act may address some of this but haven’t seen the details. Please look out for opportunities to support suitable changes.

The E.coli levels in all inland waterways and water bodies should be regulated. Please ask an oral or written question of DEFRA concerning E.coli levels and how poorly they are currently monitored in areas that are not Designated Bathing Areas.

Will that change with the forthcoming Water Bill? The recent White Paper ‘A New Vision For Water’ says ‘People should not need to check sewage discharge at their local beach before deciding to make the trip’. Why just beaches? Why not rivers too? We aspire to the Rother being a swimmable river – how can you help with this aspiration?

Discharges from WTWs: Both treated and untreated effluent discharges cause an increase in E.coli levels in our waterways. During spills (discharges of untreated sewage) the amount is more, but fully treated effluent is discharged all the time. From our limited number of tests to date, the average difference between upstream of Harting WTW E.coli count and the downstream count is 3062 when not spilling, and 3679 when spilling. Normally when it is spilling the river is fuller due to recent rain, so what is in there is naturally diluted by that rain. Spills are going to decrease – but what about the effect of fully treated effluent, without E.coli being monitored or treated by UV, on our rivers?

Permits: Wastewater Treatment Works (WTWs) are governed by their Permits. Permits typically do not set targets for E.coli levels. (They do near shellfish or Designated Bathing Areas.) With E.coli targets water companies could get approval from DEFRA for funding of UV treatment to limit E.coli. They only get spending approved for things they have a statutory duty to achieve, such as the targets for phosphorus and ammonia. Permits need to cover a set spectrum of things eg most Rother valley WTWs do not have targets for phosphorus but surprisingly Harting does. There seems to be little logic to it. We need a more agile and consistent permitting system for WTWs, some existing permits have been in place since the 80s or 90s.

Sewage Sludge: Wastewater sits in a settlement tank during an early part of the treatment process. What settles to the bottom is taken away, dried and then sold to farmers as fertiliser. It contains the microplastics that are rinsed off of our clothes during being laundered, PFAs from the road run-off etc etc etc. There is no way any of that can be good for the soil. Agricultural soil is what we need to grow food – it is a precious, essential thing! We would argue that using sewage sludge as a fuel to be burned would make more sense. The Water White Paper, A New Vision for Water, states ‘we will consult on reforms on how sewage sludge use in agriculture is regulated and whether this should be included in the Environmental Permitting Regime’. Please will you monitor and, if possible, contribute to those consultations letting them know you have constituents who feel strongly that sewage sludge should not be used as a fertiliser but as a fuel.

Neonicotinoids: Flea and tick treatments can still contain neonics even though they are banned from agricultural use. Via dog owners washing their hands after petting their dogs, or washing dog blankets etc, or from dogs swimming in the rivers, these fiercely strong insecticides end up in the waterways (especially just below WTWs) killing the insects that live in the gravel on the river beds and which form the basis of the river food chain. This needs legislation. By comparison we do not routinely put insecticides on children’s heads because they might get headlice. With pets, as with children, we should treat when there is a problem, not prophylactically. Please support legislation to remove neonics from veterinary treatments.

Planning and building development: Although water companies are statutory consultees when local plans are being created, local authorities are not legally required to consult them on individual planning applications (although it is considered best practice to do so). The Water White Paper states, ‘The government intends to list water and sewerage companies as consultation bodies for the new plan-making system’. Please support this.

We also need to make it compulsory for Building Inspections to test that new building developments have been correctly plumbed ie that storm water is not being channelled into public foul sewer or vice versa. Time and again this is discovered to be the root of the problem when high E.coli is recorded or when ‘rag’ (solids associated with sewage such as wet wipes, tampons etc) is observed. There should be significant fines for developers who do this. For one example of this see https://www.newforestfoe.org.uk/post/not-quite-flushed-away-e-coli-returns-to-the-lymington-outfall

Lining Pipes to Reduce Spilling: Much of the spilling that occurs around here, and presumably elsewhere depending on the geology or topography, is due to rainwater ingress into the sewage pipes taking the sewage to the WTWs. Often these are old pipes but they can be successfully relined. Such work is frequently hampered when the work reaches pipes that are not owned by the water company but which they cannot identify or make contact with the owner to gain permission to line their pipes. They need to have a legal right to do so, with or without the pipe owner’s consent.