INTRODUCTION

  This submission is made by Western Hydro Ltd., a company whose sole business is the production of renewable energy—electricity—using water power. The generation of electricity in this manner produces absolutely no atmospheric pollution and the water used is returned to the river. The electricity is supplied to the national grid.

  The company's experience with the Environment Agency (EA) relates solely to the South West Region and, in particular, the Bodmin office. However it would appear that the attitudes and behaviour of this office are similar to those in other locations, though perhaps more extreme.

  The EA has responsibility to protect the environment and in this role it should encourage other organisations who are working towards the same objective. Among these are companies such as ours who are seeking to decrease environmental pollution through the generation of clean electricity.

WATER ABSTRACTION

  The problems that the Company has encountered with the EA relate to water abstraction licences for the generation of renewable energy and the conditions attached to them. In particular the conditions that deal with the requirement for, and installation of, fish screens. However we do not feel that it would be useful to go into details of one particular case although we would be happy to provide the committee with them as an illustration if required.

  Many existing water abstractions are not subject to EA control as they pre-date current legislation. These are frequently carried out by water companies or agricultural concerns and can have significant effects on water levels in rivers. In this company's area of operation there is a major water company abstraction point upstream of the company's own abstraction point. The rate at which water is removed frequently makes a significant reduction in the amount of water flowing down the river. The EA has no control over this abstraction.

  There is also an agricultural user who places a very powerful mobile pump in the river downstream of the company's plant. This does not affect the company's operation but has the potential to do great damage to the fish population of the river.

  The EA is apparently powerless to control such abstractions. We feel that it should have legal powers to impose reasonable standards on such water use.

THE WORK PHILOSOPHY OF THE EA

  Over a number of years we have tried to build up a good working relationship with the EA. While we have usually been treated courteously there has never been any initiative from the EA in a similar direction. This is very disappointing as the issues involved are of wide importance and relevance. Our experience with the EA shows that it operates in a very bureaucratic fashion. This is inefficient and wasteful of time and resources and results in general mistrust and public disaffection.

  The particular comments we would like to make about the EA are as follows:

—  It takes a very long time to reply to requests for information or co-operation and to process formal applications even when it is aware of urgency.

—  It is extremely defensive in its approach to problems where it might be considered to bear some responsibility if any criticism arises.

—  It considers itself to be totally constrained by its own interpretations of its statutory responsibilities and uses this as an excuse for inactivity and lack of initiative or flexibility.

—  It appears to be far more important to the EA not to be held accountable for an error than to make a positive contribution to environmental improvement.

—  This has led to a negative philosophy of obstruction of change and insistence on going through formal motions and making standardised demands in situations where alternative measures may be equally sound if not better for the environment.

—  There appears to be no desire to foster an atmosphere of trust and co-operation with other bodies or individuals with whom the EA comes into contact.

—  Despite its considerable resources and wide knowledge, the EA usually refuses to take any part in problem solving. It makes demands without giving any advice as to how these demands should be met and reserves the right to insist on changes if it does not approve of the results.

—  There is an apparent lack of any clear leadership or defined objectives. This has led to staff becoming demoralised and defensive in their attitudes.

  The country needs a strong and purposeful EA with the financial and legal means to carry out its responsibilities. It should have the flexibility and courage to make decisions in the interests of the environment as a whole taking due regard of the views and reasonable requirements of other bodies or individuals. If this cannot be achieved within the existing legislation then the necessary changes should be implemented as a matter of urgency.

  The research programmes and consultant reports commissioned by the EA should be freely available to the public instead of being kept confidential within the EA. A climate of confidence cannot be created through secrecy and it is, of course, public money that pays for such reports. Leading scientists are retained by the EA in consultant roles. They are then unwilling to work for other bodies in case a conflict of interest results which might cause them to lose their EA work. This is an unhealthy situation.

  The EA needs a leadership that will take firm control of the organisation and ensure the proper motivation of staff so that they have a clear idea of what they are trying to achieve. At present far too much time and resource appears to be being wasted on minor issues while important ones are hamstrung for lack of resource or political will.

September 1999