- Email: [email protected]
Water storage in Morecambe Bay
The Planner's Dilemma News
49
Water Storage in Morecambe Bay Royal Commission Reports Oyster Creek Fish Kill Ducks Die in the Forth Controlling Offshore Developments
50 52 52 53 53
Parliament Germania Sinking Heavy Metals Bacterial Contamination Pollution Debate
54 54 54 54
Reports Benthic Algae in Polluted Estuaries
55
Peter Edwards
Method for Queen Scallop Culture
60
E. J. Perkins and E. Gribbon
Marine Waste Deposits near New York
61
M. G. Gross
Book Reviews Ecology of oil pollution
63
Conference Letting off steam
64
excitable documents that have appeared lately. But to say this and even to seek to bring these changes about is not the end of the matter. The fact is that the mass of the population does not see things this way and no government can move far in a direction opposite to the will of the overwhelming majority. The social machine has enormous m o m e n t u m and changes of direction take a long time to achieve. F r o m the conservationists' point of view, the first task is a radical re-education of public opinion and this can hardly be helped by the division there is in their ranks. Dr Paul Ehrlich has long argued very strongly that the solution lies in population control but now Dr Barry Commoner, who is an equally forceful advocate, claims that really we should be concerned with rectifying technological errors that have led to the destructive use of natural resources. The 'Blueprint for Survival' published by the Ecologist has equally opened rifts among the informed. Part of the scientific community takes the attitude that it must be partisan in such an issue and throw scientific caution to the wind, the rest of it regards these activities as prejudicial to the good name of science and scientific objectivity. The result is that no one knows what to believe and it is pretty certain that whatever else the uproar is doing, it is not furthering the cause of public re-education. Without examining the justification for the extreme environmentalists' analysis of the situation or its remedy, it is clear that there is not going to be a reversal of public attitudes overnight if, indeed, they are ever reversed and whether or not they need to be reversed. This means that the L y m e Regis sewage problem will not be solved by halving the population of the town, that the demand for water in the next decade 50
will entail a Morecambe Bay scheme or something like it. Whatever the long-term problem and its solution we have immediate problems which, like it or not, will be solved by existing technology. The great environmental debate is disastrous to the extent that it deflects attention a w a y from the need for rational environmental management here and now. To achieve this it is essential to have an objective scientific assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the various options so that the best, or least damaging of these can be selected. This is difficult enough to do at the best of times. It can be argued that our means of assessing the social cost of these schemes in loss of amenity is rudimentary, often the scientific basis for estimating the consequences of new developments is not as adequate as it might be; nevertheless, some progress is being made. It is not a serious contribution to the debate over the Morecambe Bay scheme, for example, to suggest that if the public used less water it would not be necessary, when, in fact, it is reasonably predictable that the country at large is not yet prepared for a cut in its water supply. If we are to minimize the damage to the natural environment and make good some of the dereliction inherited from the past, we shall require good management today and tomorrow, whatever approach may be adopted in twenty years time. It is a fact, as Dr Kenneth Mellanby explained in an article in The Times recently, that there have been marked improvements in the British scene in the last two or three decades. This shows what can be achieved by good management. However, Mellanby's article was later attacked in the correspondence columns of the paper as being complacent and revealing an ignorance of what 'ecologists' were seeking. It is as if any improvement is to be deprecated or better denied, presumably on the grounds that it deflects attention from the extreme solutions that are advocated. If any change is to be resisted tooth and nail and scientific judgement or even fact is to become unacceptable, as these latest moves suggest, we shall be in for a very bad time. In the short term we need rational environmental management and even in the long term, if all the dreams of the conservationists are realized, rational management of our resources will still be a good thing. The present confusion helps neither the education of the general public nor the planners we call upon to manage affairs for the public good.
Water Storage in Morecambe Bay Unless new sources are tapped, the densely populated and industrialized parts of Britain will suffer an acute shortage of water in the not very distant future. The industrial north-west of England relies heavily upon the Lake District for its supplies, but this is a national park, an area of outstanding natural beauty and a vital lung and recreational area particularly for the urban population that depends upon it for its water. There is a clash of interests here that is pointed up in an unusually
sharp and direct way. Schemes to draw greater quantities of water from the lakes elicit a steadily increasing resistance on amenity grounds and wherever the balance is ultimately struck it is clear that major supplementary sources of water outside the lakes will have to be found. One of the alternatives that has been in the air for a number of years is the construction of a barrage in Morecambe Bay to impound the outflow of the rivers Kent and Leven. The feasibility of a Morecambe Bay water storage scheme ihas been under study for the last five years and the Report of the Water Resources Board (HMSO, £0.90) and of the Economic Study Group (HMSO, £1.90) on Morecambe Bay Estuary Storage were published at the end of February. They have to be read in conjunction with the earlier report of the Water Resources Board (Water Resources in the North, HMSO, £1.80, 1970) on inland alternatives. The Morecambe Bay barrage scheme has wide-ranging economic, social and ecological implications so that it is impossible to view the feasibility study simply as one of solving engineering problems to get the greatest quantity of water for the least expenditure. On water conservation grounds alone, the Water Resources Board is quite firm that the best scheme would be to construct river barriers on the Kent and Leven, with separate pumped storage reservoirs off the Cartmel peninsula and at Silverdale (Fig. 1). Nature Conm
,
,
~" i
k
+,,B
1
Fig. 2 Intermediate scheme. same time relieve the pressure on the Lake District from the water undertakings. A full barrage with a road on it (Fig. 3) would satisfy all these requirements and provide the greatest economic stimulus to the area. Unfortunately, the Water Resources Board has concluded that it would also have the most damaging ecological effects of any of the alternatives before it. The shallow waters of Morecambe Bay are the chief nursery grounds for the Irish Sea fisheries and also support significant shrimp and shellfisheries, besides providing important feeding grounds for immense numbers of wildfowl.
Ulverston
BARROW -
O
km .o.o
(S[
I
/
I
CAM~BE~O'~I'S i(' Uiverst°nlii!~,-~iiiii~
~-~ I servancy has raised the strongest objection to the Cartmel reserv°ir" but it w°uld n°t be required until a later stage and could be replaced by a barrage lower down the Leven estuary (Fig. 2). Neither of these schemes takes into account another economic consideration. The Furness peninsula is now economically depressed and suffers particularly from bad road and rail communications. Its present links are through the Lake District and proposals to improve them are naturally meeting serious opposition. One of the attractive features of the Morecambe Bay barrage scheme has always been that it might provide a direct road link on the barrage between Barrow in Furness and industrial Lancashire. This would eliminate much of the heavy traffic crossing the Lake District national park, avoid the necessity of road improvements there, which would seriously damage amenities, and at the
BARROW lI
~ ~l
~)
O
km
~
5 '
MORECAMBE
I
Fig. 3 The full barrage. If a road crossing is regarded as an essential economic benefit from the scheme, the ecological damage could be mitigated by constructing separate barrages across the Kent and Leven with a pumped storage reservoir on Warton Sands (Fig. 4). The snag with this scheme is that it will cause siltation and this might present a threat to Heysham Harbour. At this point a number of policy decisions are required of the Government. It must decide whether the benefits of a road crossing outweigh the possible con-
51
sequences of siltation at Heysham Harbour. It would be possible to defer a decision by starting with the Leven barrage only to provide experience of the extent of siltation. It would then be able to proceed with the Kent barrage and complete the road connection or, alternatively, abandon the idea of a road link and settle for a barrage higher up the Kent with a pumped
,
Fig. 4
,
.
Twin barrages with Warton reservoir.
storage reservoir at Warton (Fig. 2), The idea of having its options open until the early 1980s will no doubt be appealing, but the Economic Study Group was very concerned at the possible blighting effects of deferring a decision on the Kent half of the scheme until after the Leven barrage is completed. The Water Resources Board has placed the alternatives, with the advantages and disadvantages of each, clearly before the Government. At this stage they do not offer advice as to whether or not Morecambe Bay should be developed for water conservation. They propose to offer their advice on this major question in their report on the future development of water resources in England and Wales as a whole, which they hope to present later this year. This is likely to be the swan song of the Water Resources Board which is due to be wound up. Its contribution in providing thinking on a national scale about the future development of water supplies can hardly be over-estimated. One thing that is certain is that for a country the size of Britain planning for almost anything has repercussions throughout the whole country and throughout most of the activities that go on in it. Above all, coastal waters are as much involved in conservation measures on land as any terrestrial environment.
Royal Commission Reports The Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (HMSO, 18p) has been criticized by a group of Labour MPs for being a small thing. In fact, it introduces at least one important new principle. The Report raises discussion on three issues: should information about toxic industrial wastes remain secret or should the information be registered and available to investigators; should an early warning system be developed about the possible impact on the environment of new industrial products; and should there be 52
immediate emergency legislation to control the dumping of poisonous wastes. So far as the third of these is concerned, the Royal Commission has been overtaken by events. The discovery of the illegal and dangerous dumping of cyanide at many tips in the midlands has caused an outcry which has led to some prompt action by the Department of the Environment. The Chairman of the Royal Commission is anxious to have tipping of noxious chemicals properly registered and out in the open where it can be properly regulated. Fines and threats of imprisonment have only a marginal effect, particularly if the courts are unwilling to impose realistic penalties, and unless industry is given clear guidance as to what it can do with its wastes instead of a series of prohibitions, clandestine dumping is likely to continue to be a problem. The other proposals are more important if less immediate. The old legislation which imposes confidentiality on information about trade wastes made available by industry to river boards, the Alkali Inspectorate and so on, seriously hampers environmental investigations and it is proposed that it should go. The usual claim that confidentiality is needed to protect industrial secrets is not regarded very seriously. The fact is that much of the time industry does not know what is in its effluents beyond the major constituents and the major constituents, if published, will not give away any secrets. The matter of environmental impact is the most important of all. Until now, the policy has been to allow industry to discharge what it likes unless or until it appears to be doing harm, whereupon polite negotiations begin to have the effluent changed. In estuaries and coastal waters it is already becoming clear that damage on a scale detectable by the sort of monitoring that goes on today would be of immense proportions. By that time, remedies would probably be too late. It is a major change of philosophy to suggest that even if all new products should not be regarded as guilty until proved innocent, at least they should be regarded as under suspicion. It is suggested that industries which initiate marketing of new products should undertake 'sustained monitoring of their impact on the environment and should voluntarily publish the results of the monitoring'. Far from being a meagre affair which in no way matches the urgency and breadth of the subject, this Report, if its proposals are implemented, could produce major changes in the British scene and provide a new outlook on industrial pollution. It is not a very dramatic document, but its low key may make it the more effective.
Oyster Creek Fish Kill According to a report from the US Environmental Protection Agency circulated by the Smithsonian Institution Center for Short-lived Phenomena, thousands of dead fish were seen floating oll the surface and washed up on the shores of Oyster Creek, a tributary of Barnegate Bay, New Jersey, during the weekend of 28 January. Most (99 per cent) of the fish were menhaden juveniles, 8-15 cm in length, but there were also reports of dead anchovies, blue fish, striped bass and herring.
49
Water Storage in Morecambe Bay Royal Commission Reports Oyster Creek Fish Kill Ducks Die in the Forth Controlling Offshore Developments
50 52 52 53 53
Parliament Germania Sinking Heavy Metals Bacterial Contamination Pollution Debate
54 54 54 54
Reports Benthic Algae in Polluted Estuaries
55
Peter Edwards
Method for Queen Scallop Culture
60
E. J. Perkins and E. Gribbon
Marine Waste Deposits near New York
61
M. G. Gross
Book Reviews Ecology of oil pollution
63
Conference Letting off steam
64
excitable documents that have appeared lately. But to say this and even to seek to bring these changes about is not the end of the matter. The fact is that the mass of the population does not see things this way and no government can move far in a direction opposite to the will of the overwhelming majority. The social machine has enormous m o m e n t u m and changes of direction take a long time to achieve. F r o m the conservationists' point of view, the first task is a radical re-education of public opinion and this can hardly be helped by the division there is in their ranks. Dr Paul Ehrlich has long argued very strongly that the solution lies in population control but now Dr Barry Commoner, who is an equally forceful advocate, claims that really we should be concerned with rectifying technological errors that have led to the destructive use of natural resources. The 'Blueprint for Survival' published by the Ecologist has equally opened rifts among the informed. Part of the scientific community takes the attitude that it must be partisan in such an issue and throw scientific caution to the wind, the rest of it regards these activities as prejudicial to the good name of science and scientific objectivity. The result is that no one knows what to believe and it is pretty certain that whatever else the uproar is doing, it is not furthering the cause of public re-education. Without examining the justification for the extreme environmentalists' analysis of the situation or its remedy, it is clear that there is not going to be a reversal of public attitudes overnight if, indeed, they are ever reversed and whether or not they need to be reversed. This means that the L y m e Regis sewage problem will not be solved by halving the population of the town, that the demand for water in the next decade 50
will entail a Morecambe Bay scheme or something like it. Whatever the long-term problem and its solution we have immediate problems which, like it or not, will be solved by existing technology. The great environmental debate is disastrous to the extent that it deflects attention a w a y from the need for rational environmental management here and now. To achieve this it is essential to have an objective scientific assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the various options so that the best, or least damaging of these can be selected. This is difficult enough to do at the best of times. It can be argued that our means of assessing the social cost of these schemes in loss of amenity is rudimentary, often the scientific basis for estimating the consequences of new developments is not as adequate as it might be; nevertheless, some progress is being made. It is not a serious contribution to the debate over the Morecambe Bay scheme, for example, to suggest that if the public used less water it would not be necessary, when, in fact, it is reasonably predictable that the country at large is not yet prepared for a cut in its water supply. If we are to minimize the damage to the natural environment and make good some of the dereliction inherited from the past, we shall require good management today and tomorrow, whatever approach may be adopted in twenty years time. It is a fact, as Dr Kenneth Mellanby explained in an article in The Times recently, that there have been marked improvements in the British scene in the last two or three decades. This shows what can be achieved by good management. However, Mellanby's article was later attacked in the correspondence columns of the paper as being complacent and revealing an ignorance of what 'ecologists' were seeking. It is as if any improvement is to be deprecated or better denied, presumably on the grounds that it deflects attention from the extreme solutions that are advocated. If any change is to be resisted tooth and nail and scientific judgement or even fact is to become unacceptable, as these latest moves suggest, we shall be in for a very bad time. In the short term we need rational environmental management and even in the long term, if all the dreams of the conservationists are realized, rational management of our resources will still be a good thing. The present confusion helps neither the education of the general public nor the planners we call upon to manage affairs for the public good.
Water Storage in Morecambe Bay Unless new sources are tapped, the densely populated and industrialized parts of Britain will suffer an acute shortage of water in the not very distant future. The industrial north-west of England relies heavily upon the Lake District for its supplies, but this is a national park, an area of outstanding natural beauty and a vital lung and recreational area particularly for the urban population that depends upon it for its water. There is a clash of interests here that is pointed up in an unusually
sharp and direct way. Schemes to draw greater quantities of water from the lakes elicit a steadily increasing resistance on amenity grounds and wherever the balance is ultimately struck it is clear that major supplementary sources of water outside the lakes will have to be found. One of the alternatives that has been in the air for a number of years is the construction of a barrage in Morecambe Bay to impound the outflow of the rivers Kent and Leven. The feasibility of a Morecambe Bay water storage scheme ihas been under study for the last five years and the Report of the Water Resources Board (HMSO, £0.90) and of the Economic Study Group (HMSO, £1.90) on Morecambe Bay Estuary Storage were published at the end of February. They have to be read in conjunction with the earlier report of the Water Resources Board (Water Resources in the North, HMSO, £1.80, 1970) on inland alternatives. The Morecambe Bay barrage scheme has wide-ranging economic, social and ecological implications so that it is impossible to view the feasibility study simply as one of solving engineering problems to get the greatest quantity of water for the least expenditure. On water conservation grounds alone, the Water Resources Board is quite firm that the best scheme would be to construct river barriers on the Kent and Leven, with separate pumped storage reservoirs off the Cartmel peninsula and at Silverdale (Fig. 1). Nature Conm
,
,
~" i
k
+,,B
1
Fig. 2 Intermediate scheme. same time relieve the pressure on the Lake District from the water undertakings. A full barrage with a road on it (Fig. 3) would satisfy all these requirements and provide the greatest economic stimulus to the area. Unfortunately, the Water Resources Board has concluded that it would also have the most damaging ecological effects of any of the alternatives before it. The shallow waters of Morecambe Bay are the chief nursery grounds for the Irish Sea fisheries and also support significant shrimp and shellfisheries, besides providing important feeding grounds for immense numbers of wildfowl.
Ulverston
BARROW -
O
km .o.o
(S[
I
/
I
CAM~BE~O'~I'S i(' Uiverst°nlii!~,-~iiiii~
~-~ I servancy has raised the strongest objection to the Cartmel reserv°ir" but it w°uld n°t be required until a later stage and could be replaced by a barrage lower down the Leven estuary (Fig. 2). Neither of these schemes takes into account another economic consideration. The Furness peninsula is now economically depressed and suffers particularly from bad road and rail communications. Its present links are through the Lake District and proposals to improve them are naturally meeting serious opposition. One of the attractive features of the Morecambe Bay barrage scheme has always been that it might provide a direct road link on the barrage between Barrow in Furness and industrial Lancashire. This would eliminate much of the heavy traffic crossing the Lake District national park, avoid the necessity of road improvements there, which would seriously damage amenities, and at the
BARROW lI
~ ~l
~)
O
km
~
5 '
MORECAMBE
I
Fig. 3 The full barrage. If a road crossing is regarded as an essential economic benefit from the scheme, the ecological damage could be mitigated by constructing separate barrages across the Kent and Leven with a pumped storage reservoir on Warton Sands (Fig. 4). The snag with this scheme is that it will cause siltation and this might present a threat to Heysham Harbour. At this point a number of policy decisions are required of the Government. It must decide whether the benefits of a road crossing outweigh the possible con-
51
sequences of siltation at Heysham Harbour. It would be possible to defer a decision by starting with the Leven barrage only to provide experience of the extent of siltation. It would then be able to proceed with the Kent barrage and complete the road connection or, alternatively, abandon the idea of a road link and settle for a barrage higher up the Kent with a pumped
,
Fig. 4
,
.
Twin barrages with Warton reservoir.
storage reservoir at Warton (Fig. 2), The idea of having its options open until the early 1980s will no doubt be appealing, but the Economic Study Group was very concerned at the possible blighting effects of deferring a decision on the Kent half of the scheme until after the Leven barrage is completed. The Water Resources Board has placed the alternatives, with the advantages and disadvantages of each, clearly before the Government. At this stage they do not offer advice as to whether or not Morecambe Bay should be developed for water conservation. They propose to offer their advice on this major question in their report on the future development of water resources in England and Wales as a whole, which they hope to present later this year. This is likely to be the swan song of the Water Resources Board which is due to be wound up. Its contribution in providing thinking on a national scale about the future development of water supplies can hardly be over-estimated. One thing that is certain is that for a country the size of Britain planning for almost anything has repercussions throughout the whole country and throughout most of the activities that go on in it. Above all, coastal waters are as much involved in conservation measures on land as any terrestrial environment.
Royal Commission Reports The Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (HMSO, 18p) has been criticized by a group of Labour MPs for being a small thing. In fact, it introduces at least one important new principle. The Report raises discussion on three issues: should information about toxic industrial wastes remain secret or should the information be registered and available to investigators; should an early warning system be developed about the possible impact on the environment of new industrial products; and should there be 52
immediate emergency legislation to control the dumping of poisonous wastes. So far as the third of these is concerned, the Royal Commission has been overtaken by events. The discovery of the illegal and dangerous dumping of cyanide at many tips in the midlands has caused an outcry which has led to some prompt action by the Department of the Environment. The Chairman of the Royal Commission is anxious to have tipping of noxious chemicals properly registered and out in the open where it can be properly regulated. Fines and threats of imprisonment have only a marginal effect, particularly if the courts are unwilling to impose realistic penalties, and unless industry is given clear guidance as to what it can do with its wastes instead of a series of prohibitions, clandestine dumping is likely to continue to be a problem. The other proposals are more important if less immediate. The old legislation which imposes confidentiality on information about trade wastes made available by industry to river boards, the Alkali Inspectorate and so on, seriously hampers environmental investigations and it is proposed that it should go. The usual claim that confidentiality is needed to protect industrial secrets is not regarded very seriously. The fact is that much of the time industry does not know what is in its effluents beyond the major constituents and the major constituents, if published, will not give away any secrets. The matter of environmental impact is the most important of all. Until now, the policy has been to allow industry to discharge what it likes unless or until it appears to be doing harm, whereupon polite negotiations begin to have the effluent changed. In estuaries and coastal waters it is already becoming clear that damage on a scale detectable by the sort of monitoring that goes on today would be of immense proportions. By that time, remedies would probably be too late. It is a major change of philosophy to suggest that even if all new products should not be regarded as guilty until proved innocent, at least they should be regarded as under suspicion. It is suggested that industries which initiate marketing of new products should undertake 'sustained monitoring of their impact on the environment and should voluntarily publish the results of the monitoring'. Far from being a meagre affair which in no way matches the urgency and breadth of the subject, this Report, if its proposals are implemented, could produce major changes in the British scene and provide a new outlook on industrial pollution. It is not a very dramatic document, but its low key may make it the more effective.
Oyster Creek Fish Kill According to a report from the US Environmental Protection Agency circulated by the Smithsonian Institution Center for Short-lived Phenomena, thousands of dead fish were seen floating oll the surface and washed up on the shores of Oyster Creek, a tributary of Barnegate Bay, New Jersey, during the weekend of 28 January. Most (99 per cent) of the fish were menhaden juveniles, 8-15 cm in length, but there were also reports of dead anchovies, blue fish, striped bass and herring.