Water companies and grouse shooting

IMG_7018 - Copy

Given what we know about the impacts of intensive grouse moor management on flood risk and water quality it would be interesting to know the state of play with United Utilities, Northumbria Water, Severn Trent Water and Yorkshire Water, on how much land they own and how much is managed for grouse shooting. Of this land, for what area do they own the shooting rights? Where they own the shooting rights, how much of it is shot?  Where the shooting rights are let, then what proportion of those rights are coming up for renewal in the next five years? 10 years? 15 years?  What plans they have to reduce the area of land that is managed intensively for grouse shooting?

Water companies are also rather coy about how much they spend on treating the water from different catchments and what, roughly, are the extra costs of treating water running off intensively managed grouse moors.

I think we should start asking them questions like these. I’ll start today.

 

 

[registration_form]

6 Replies to “Water companies and grouse shooting”

  1. A ruling last year means that they are covered by the Environmental Information Regs. So you should get an answer.

  2. You might also ask Ofwat? Several water companies (e.g. United Utilities and Yorkshire Water), their customers and the wider public have benefited from catchment management schemes funded, at least in part, under previous water prices reviews (otherwise known as asset management programmes or AMP).

    A strong case can be made if the water company can demonstrate no additionality (e.g. other public subsidies via Basic Payment Scheme and Cross-Compliance or Countryside Stewardship are not paying for the same public benefits) and the total cost/benefit return of upstream catchment management is better than downstream water treatment.

    Brexit will change BPS and CS, there may be new agri-environment schemes and the principle of payments for ecosystem services is well established in public policy. Whether those payments, combined with AMP, provide sufficient incentives for water companies and their shareholders to act differently when reviewing grouse shooting tenancies on their upland catchment areas remains to be seen – public pressure has a key role to play, as do this blog and the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting.

  3. I was very pleased to see this happen at Haweswater –
    http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.aspx?id=311405
    Not shooting but water quality.
    In the long run saving the public lots of money and enhancing the wildlife at the same time. Sadly not happening in Geltsdale Valley due to too many interests with Croglin Estate – shooting Red Grouse, United Utilities – Water extraction, Weir – farming, Environment Agency – Playing a game! Natural England – SSSI, SPA, RSPB – shooting rights only on 6500 acreas.

    Movement of 300 tons of boulders recently to improve water extraction to me was damaging the SSSI but not according to Natural England!

  4. I heard today (29/7/2016) that United Utilities are currently about to either sell off land or sell of shooting tenancies on some of that land in and around the Peak District. It comes from someone working in a council Countryside Unit, though I can’t confirm anything further. It may be that these questions do indeed need asking immediately.

Comments are closed.