Dear Yorkshire Water

Heather burning Great Hograh moor. Photo: Colin Grice
Heather burning Great Hograh moor. Photo: Colin Grice

Dear Yorkshire Water

I’m not a customer of yours but I am interested in your position on management of the uplands for grouse shooting.

You will be aware, because you supported the study, that last October an important study was published by Leeds University on the impacts of intensive moorland management for grouse shooting on aquatic hydroecology. It showed that the intensive management of upland areas for grouse shooting increased greenhouse gas emissions, increased acidity of water, increased particulate levels in water, reduced aquatic biodiversity and may also increase flood risk through increased ‘flashiness’.

An ugly view in Scotland. Ripe for reform. Photo: Donside April 2014 by Peter Cairns
An ugly view in Scotland. Ripe for reform. Photo: Donside April 2014 by Peter Cairns

These findings seem to me to be important for a water company and landowner like yourselves.  And the Committee on Climate Change in a report to government last week said ‘The damaging practice of burning peat to increase grouse yields continues, including on internationally protected sites.’ see also coverage in the Observer at the weekend.

In addition I am sure you are aware that there are huge concerns about the persecution of birds of prey by grouse shooting interests – particularly Hen Harriers and Peregrines in the area where Yorkshire Water operates.

As a landowner, I believe that you allow grouse shooting on some of your land. What plans do you have to reduce and ideally stop this damaging practice?  The profit you make as a company through your shooting tenants cannot be justified if the practice is environmentally damaging, as this research shows it to be.  As I say, I am not a customer of yours but I’d be interested to know what your position is on this matter.

As a water supplier you must be concerned at the increased costs that you face from needing to treat water that comes from catchments dominated by grouse shooting. I am sure that you pass these costs on to your customers but surely it would be better if they were removed altogether. It seems to me that the expensive hobby of a few (grouse shooting) is responsible for increased water bills (and home insurance costs) for many of your customers.  That can’t be a satisfactory position, made even more uncomfortable for your company if you are, as I believe, letting grouse shooting on your own land.

I shall be making similar enquiries of other water companies with upland catchments, but as a supporter of the EMBER study I am particularly interested in your response and I wondered whether your position has moved on since last autumn.

 

I sent this to Yorkshire Water yesterday morning and they replied yesterday afternoon. Their cogent response will be posted on this blog soon after midday today – and it’s well worth a read.

 

 

[registration_form]

2 Replies to “Dear Yorkshire Water”

  1. In addition to the water companies it might be interesting to ask OFWAT, the economic regulator, what their opinion is of the grouse farming industry imposing its externalised costs upon water company customers. They have plenty of very bright economists and if they haven’t thought about this already then perhaps they should? It’s worth noting that there are already regulatory regimes in place that control land use for wider societal benefits, e.g. nitrate vulnerable zones. Perhaps we should have burn-free zones too?

Comments are closed.