UK River Pollution Concerns

UK River Pollution Concerns

Tracy&James | Sunday, 30 April 2023

I worry sometimes about our waterways in the UK. The local river has a sewage works on it that has just been listed by the Welsh heritage society, which I find peculiar. This is because in the river downstream from this works, I have often seen tissues and other items that I wouldn’t expect to see in the natural flora and fora. Clearly these unnatural items have been discharged from the sewage works and have not just appeared there due to littering. Last summer, on many of our walks along our local river, James and I saw algae growth on the river bed, particularly down-stream from this sewage plant. This algae results in a reduction in insect life as it ‘sucks’ the oxygen from the water, in fact we haven’t seen a hatch of insects of any kind for a long time along the stretch of water that we routinely walk. Each year we have seen fewer fish in this river and we worry about the future – when will it be that we won’t see any fish at all?

There has been a lot of programmes recently about the damage we humans are doing to our waterways, not just the rivers, but also the sea. James and I now live close to the coast and are often concerned about the discharge from our local water companies into the sea. Personally we do not paddle when at the local beaches as we know how much sewage is pumped into the water from the Welsh and English water companies. It always intrigues me during our summer walks along the promenades as to whether the tourists are aware of the risks they are taking when they go for a dip in the sea?  

Then there’s the continual reduction in the numbers of salmon in our rivers. Much of this is as a result of salmon farms causing our wild fish to die and decline in numbers. Yet this is rarely reported on and the celebrity chefs in the UK seem to ignore the need to publicise this plight and instead appear to promote farmed salmon.

989F462D-8605-46A2-A758-8E6E2536A29C

As an angler I wonder what we should be doing to mitigate the damage to our waterways and the species reliant on them. I only buy wild salmon, I go litter picking around our local rivers and I only buy sustainable seafood species. I also subscribe to several associations that are keen to protect watercourses and the creatures that live in and around them. However this is clearly not enough and perhaps as anglers we should all do more. I started to research this problem in order to write this FP and I found the following facts:

Every day sees river pollution from chemical fertilizers, pesticides and slurry, with watercourses impacted by run-off from both soils and hard surfaces. The main reasons for poor water quality are:

Excessive use of fertiliser and pesticides in agriculture – responsible for 40%
   Wildlife in the UK Rivers is threatened by the impacts from some forms of farming. Where maize is grown close to waterways, rivers are clouded by soil washed off the land by heavy rainfall. Phosphates used in chemical fertilizers move from soil to rivers in the same way, causing the growth of algae in the water. Where grazing animals can access a riverbank this adds to soil erosion, meaning even more sediment ends up in the river.
Untreated sewage released by water companies – responsible for 35%
   I found a report that stated that investigated sewer blockages and found that non-flushable wet wipes make up around 93% of UK fatbergs.
“Run-off” from roads and towns that contains pollutants such as oil – responsible for 18%

26A80060-2A94-45BF-9B87-D969516C6F7B

There are also other threats such as pharmaceuticals and microplastics that could be a problem in the future.

The issues affecting our rivers are complex, with no quick fix, however there are many associations across the UK that as anglers we can support to increase the diversity and abundance of wildlife on farms, woods and waterways. Managing land next to rivers and streams will benefit a wide range of wildlife, from orchids and butterflies on wet grasslands, to the declining populations of Atlantic salmon and endangered freshwater mussels.

Considering the main reason for water pollution, many of these associations work with landowners and water companies to improve river health, water quality and increase the spreadof good wildlife habitat on riverbanks by:

planting trees, enhancing hedges and installing fencing to keep cattle away from the river reducing erosion of riverbanks. This also benefits the plant and animal species that can thrive in these trees and hedges;

improving soil health to ensure more soil stays on the land and doesn’t end up in rivers and helping landowners access equipment they need to ‘aerate’ soils to ensure they’re in better condition;
creating ponds and wildflower-rich grassland alongside waterways and restoring wet grassland to improve water quality in nearby rivers and ensuring better habitat for wildlife.

Considering the second reason, one quick and simple action we can all take is to never put unflushable items, like wet wipes and sanitary products, down the toilet or pour fats, oils and grease down the sink.

Considering the third reason, then we should consider what happens to the ‘run-off’ when we wash our cars with chemicals and we should not pour chemicals, oils, paints, etcdown the surface water drains outside our properties and workplaces.

93BFDAE4-E515-4F65-A272-C3786E6F7B4D

It is also worth considering that water companies do abstract water from our rivers due to our ever increasing ‘human’ consumption requirements and that pollution in these lower water levels can then be more concentrated and cause more damage. Hence we should also ensure we all conserve water in our homes, workplaces, etc so these water companies do not need to abstract as much water as they currently do.

It’s interesting to note that we have another reason to ask the farmer to barricade those scary bullocks away from the river bank and not just so we can fish some of our favourite spots. In the process of doing the research, I came across a fantastic article from New Scientist printed in February 2023 and these are extracts from it:


 

No rivers in England, Wales or Northern Ireland are considered to be in high ecological health, and only 14 per cent of England’s rivers qualify as good. When you take chemical pollution into account, no rivers in these three nations are deemed as being good. Not one.

The UK has legislation in place to protect its rivers, yet it appears to make little difference.

Rivers and other wetlands make up a very small fraction of Earth’s surface, but, according to the United Nations, they are home to 40 per cent of all plant and animal species. In the UK, a tenth of biodiversity depends on them. Their significance to our biosphere is tremendous. So how we treat our watercourses has vast implications for our future, far beyond the poisoning of swimmers forced to pass through sewage, or unsightly “wet wipe beaches”.

New Scientist hasn’t committed to a campaign in many decades, but over the course of the next year, we will be fighting to save the UK’s rivers. We are a global magazine, but for a campaign to make sense, it must have achievable targets, so we have decided to start with the UK, a relatively small and rich group of islands where there is no excuse at all for how filthy its rivers are.

Over the next year, in tandem with the i [their sister publication - a newspaper with impressive reach in the UK and a shared passion for environmental causes], we will be doing deep dives into the science of what is happening to UK rivers, as well as a host of hard-hitting news stories, films, podcasts and events on the subject. We will also be celebrating the glory of our rivers, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and asking readers to tell the story of their local watercourse.


 

I’m going to continue to research into this topic and follow the New Scientist and I will report back in future FPs.

Regards,

Tracy

DFBF8554-C700-493A-8B2D-BBDA0B6C9C8F

Link to New Scientist article Save Britain’s Rivers: Why New Scientist is campaigning to rescue UK waterways | New Scientist