To further clarify: the transgression, according to the Guardian, wasn’t just removing waste, but the fact that “Powesland […] organised a team of volunteers to tackle the removal of litter, weed and silt from a section of the River Roding”, and they collectively “removed 200 bags of rubbish, branches and silt”, which goes beyond just picking up trash.
The EA [Environmental Agency] alleges dredging has been carried out and waste has been left on site within the flood plain, constituting a flood risk activity under the regulations that would have required an environmental permit.
Dredging is the act of removing material from the water environment, here presumably from the riverbed, which is a tad more involved than just picking up pieces of trash and might have ecological knock-on effects. I find it perfectly justified that the Environmental Agency would want to be involved in the decision to take such steps.
The only real scandal is this guy having petitioned the Agency about the trash problem for years without success. That they’d now get pissed when someone takes the matter into his own hands is understandable, but might just be the only way to get them to care about the issue.
I just watched a YouTube video showing them working. I was fine with it when they were just a group picking up litter. Then they brought in a backhoe and started digging.
Removing silt can be pretty bad in some cases, heavy metals sink to the bottom and will not cause problems if left undisturbed, if you start removing silt you will make those pollutants bioavailable again.
You don’t have to work for a three letter agency to be an expert. I guarantee you that if they took the time to consult anyone remotely connected to ecological science they would have said no to hacking up the river bed without a proper survey and sampling.
I mean, the agency did drag its feet until the guy got pissed enough to do something irresponsible. Doesn’t excuse his actions, nor does it make him an expert either.
If he had an expert advising him on this course of action, cool. The articles don’t seem to mention it, and the articles prey on outrage, so saying “he even had an expert telling him to do so!” would have been worth a note.
So if you’re right, we’ve got two bunches of idiots; one negligent in their inaction, the other reckless in their action.
You might be right, but in the grand scehme of things, allowing sewage plants, that combine industrial waste with sewage, to dump in the rivers without consequence, while prosecuting this guy, rubs many of us the wrong way.
Only regular people get the shaft, not big money, that’s why this outrage is here.
For sure, the priorities are screwed. I initially just wanted to point out that it’s not “guy picks up trash, gets punished for it” but “guy assembles a group to dig up riverbed”. If we’re gonna be pissed (and we should be), let’s be pissed accurately and for the right reasons. Let’s be pissed that the EA is doing jack squat about problems. Let’s be pissed that so many agencies have been defanged and staffed with industrial bootlicks to the point of wilful incompetence.
Even removing the branches and larger tree limbs can cause issues with removing habitat for aquatic critters and changes the currents and flow of the river.
Cleaning the trash by hand and hauling it away is one thing. They went beyond that.
I mean, the agency doing nothing for so long does deserve some righteous indignation. Keep your pitchforks and torches, just make sure you torch for the right reasons.
To further clarify: the transgression, according to the Guardian, wasn’t just removing waste, but the fact that “Powesland […] organised a team of volunteers to tackle the removal of litter, weed and silt from a section of the River Roding”, and they collectively “removed 200 bags of rubbish, branches and silt”, which goes beyond just picking up trash.
Dredging is the act of removing material from the water environment, here presumably from the riverbed, which is a tad more involved than just picking up pieces of trash and might have ecological knock-on effects. I find it perfectly justified that the Environmental Agency would want to be involved in the decision to take such steps.
The only real scandal is this guy having petitioned the Agency about the trash problem for years without success. That they’d now get pissed when someone takes the matter into his own hands is understandable, but might just be the only way to get them to care about the issue.
I just watched a YouTube video showing them working. I was fine with it when they were just a group picking up litter. Then they brought in a backhoe and started digging.
https://youtu.be/Kj9Hvdzu_zw
Yeah, that’s where you go from helpful volunteers to reckless vigilantes. Shame that they couldn’t leave it at cleaning up.
Also, shame that these articles bury the lede of “dug up the riverbed” for the sake of outrage.
And of course, shame that it came to this at all.
Removing silt can be pretty bad in some cases, heavy metals sink to the bottom and will not cause problems if left undisturbed, if you start removing silt you will make those pollutants bioavailable again.
I wasn’t aware of that. I suspect the guy in question didn’t either. That’s why experts should make those decisions who do know that stuff.
I suspect as an environmental lawyer he knew
Do you think the government environmental agency is trustworthy? You do realize the neoliberals are in bed with big money.
There is zero fucking chance of “experts” working in the public interest at the EA. 0%.
You don’t have to work for a three letter agency to be an expert. I guarantee you that if they took the time to consult anyone remotely connected to ecological science they would have said no to hacking up the river bed without a proper survey and sampling.
I mean, the agency did drag its feet until the guy got pissed enough to do something irresponsible. Doesn’t excuse his actions, nor does it make him an expert either.
If he had an expert advising him on this course of action, cool. The articles don’t seem to mention it, and the articles prey on outrage, so saying “he even had an expert telling him to do so!” would have been worth a note.
So if you’re right, we’ve got two bunches of idiots; one negligent in their inaction, the other reckless in their action.
You might be right, but in the grand scehme of things, allowing sewage plants, that combine industrial waste with sewage, to dump in the rivers without consequence, while prosecuting this guy, rubs many of us the wrong way.
Only regular people get the shaft, not big money, that’s why this outrage is here.
For sure, the priorities are screwed. I initially just wanted to point out that it’s not “guy picks up trash, gets punished for it” but “guy assembles a group to dig up riverbed”. If we’re gonna be pissed (and we should be), let’s be pissed accurately and for the right reasons. Let’s be pissed that the EA is doing jack squat about problems. Let’s be pissed that so many agencies have been defanged and staffed with industrial bootlicks to the point of wilful incompetence.
have you ever been to a wastewater treatment plant? the modern ones are really cool. only the fertilizer drying fields smell.
Even removing the branches and larger tree limbs can cause issues with removing habitat for aquatic critters and changes the currents and flow of the river.
Cleaning the trash by hand and hauling it away is one thing. They went beyond that.
In this case the silt is a good share shit overflows from sewage releases though, which go unpunished I would add.
Careful now, you are going to harsh the righteous indignation with your facts and context.
I mean, the agency doing nothing for so long does deserve some righteous indignation. Keep your pitchforks and torches, just make sure you torch for the right reasons.
The headlines should reflect that better though.
I won’t argue the poor headline at all.