Whilst I applaud many activities of the Environment Agency there are two areas where, from my own experience, that of my associates and many others, there are severe difficulties. The first is the more general subject of the terms of reference under which the Environment Agency operates and the second is their attitude and actions regarding hydropower.

1.  THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY'S POWERS AND DUTIES

  The Environment Agency is primarily set up as a regulatory body and its organisation is predominantly designed to fulfil this purpose. However, it does have a number of functions where it is required to solve specific problems or deal with proposals such as are involved in Planning Applications. The fact that it is divided up into small specialist sections may be useful for their policing actions but it can be extremely cumbersome, time delaying, ineffective and costly to deal with, for instance, when Permissions are being sought. Often the E.A. individuals concerned are not technically competent (I understand a recent decision has been made not to declare their qualifications) and neither can they take a view beyond their speciality. They are extremely secretive in spite of their declared openness.

  I can quote an example of totally contrary instructions, with threat of legal action, being issued to the same person at the same point in time. A local mill owner was ordered to wash out his adjacent watercourses by opening his sluices by one E.A. officer and on no account to do so by another. Even with their own projects the E.A. have to consult so many internal and external sources, any one of which can place an embargo on the scheme, that it frequently takes years and is inordinately expensive. Recently on my own site, with a small E.A. instigated flood prevention scheme which had been progressed for nearly two years, an officer appeared that I had not seen before, inspected the site and announced that for some reason it could not be allowed. This was at a point when the work, which took one month, should have been completed but the start had been delayed. There often appears to be a lack of co-ordination and authorised overview. Fortunately in this instance the officer's report was apparently not acted upon.

  To compensate for their own lack of expertise within the E.A. the recognised practice is to employ consultants who incidentally seem to be the only ones capable of making innovative suggestions. Within the Agency any such activity appears to be carefully avoided presumably because it can only lead to trouble for the individual concerned if it goes wrong; recourse is usually made to quoting the Charter, Byelaws or consultants reports. Often these reports are lacking because the terms of reference given were inappropriate. The consultant is called in and asked to look at some specific aspects which he may do quite adequately yet can produce recommendations which are quite unsuitable because of lack of familiarity with the overall picture. I have two instances of this on a current ongoing problem and in neither case did the Agency mention the errors until they were pointed out to them.

2.  THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY'S ATTITUDE TOWARD WATERPOWER

  As per the Agency's charter the Agency is supportive of waterpower and its potential for renewable energy in their public statements. However, unlike aspects of their concern such as flood prevention, fisheries, pollution, ecology etc., they have no actual positive remit in relation to waterpower. In other words any other of their concerns take precedence over waterpower. In practice this means that any such proposals are rejected almost out of hand even though individual Agency staff can be supportive.

  A typical outcome of this dichotomy is that a very different attitude can be directed toward mill-owners than to other riparian owners. I attach a copy of "Little Clanfield Mill—Future Proposals"[11]. Item 6) refers to severe erosion of raised river banks by an upstream farmer who had consistently ploughed away the blanks and planted crops well within the statutory exclusion boundary. The farmer had also taken legal steps against the mill owner on two occasions over the resultant flooding and failed. Item 4) refers to a relatively minor leakage of water at a sluice (less than examples of E.A. controlled and owned sluices in the same Area). This had arisen due to poor workmanship by the N.R.A. some years previously which had resulted in further repair being very difficult. At the E.A.'s insistence the mill owner had attempted to effect a repair at his own expense during high winter water flows. Because of the very unfavourable conditions their remained some seepage as mentioned. It had already been agreed that this would be handled by the end of June. The contrast in attitude shown toward the two riparian owners could not be more stark.

  The saga relating to this particular mill has been going on for many years. Some two and a half years ago I was asked by the mill owner to liaise with the Environment Agency on his behalf to determine a technical solution to the river problems. In all that time no work has been sanctioned and I have a thick file full of examples like the above and endless delays. Meanwhile, year by year, the problems persist—flooding when it rains and poor flow distribution when it doesn't.

  This kind of situation is repeated all over the country to varying extents as different regions of the Environment Agency interpret their brief according to their own wishes or understanding. In spite of considerable potential for development of hydro sites in this country the small number of U.K. manufacturers of small turbines remaining are surviving almost entirely on export.

SUGGESTIONS

  A possible solution would be to separate the pro-active tasks of the E.A. from the policing functions. This could be achieved by setting up an entirely new Agency to deal with new proposals in, for example, the field of renewable energy. I believe such a suggestion has been made but if this resulted in having yet another assembly of bureaucrats to contend with then the mire would merely be deepened. What is needed is a single person to deal with who has a good, experienced overview in the field concerned and who has specialists he can call upon to advise him as necessary. He should be empowered to make the necessary decisions himself and his remit should be such that he be judged on his visible success in advancing new desirable projects. This could be achieved inside or outside the current E.A.