UKC

United Utilities plan to remove the weir at Crummock Water. The level will drop by 4.6 feet. It change the ecology which has developed there over the last 100 years.

If you are unhappy about the proposal please sign the petition below

Thanks

Phil

https://www.change.org/p/stop-united-utilities-ruining-crummock-water-s-uni...

.

Why are they doing it?

Historically how many days a year is it at max capacity anyway? 

 4.6 feet. 

4' 7.2" ?

Or 4' 7 1/5" ?

Or four and a half feet?

They are doing it to reduce their liability.

Once its done, the lake is no longer their responsibility.

I agree that it is likely to make the view less attractive in the short term. But I've no idea what the best long term management plan is. 

There's some info on here if you click on the boxes, why, when, where etc.

https://www.unitedutilities.com/Crummock/

I guess it’s 4 feet 18 cm.

I don't like or trust United Utilities. They take money from me every month and deliver minimal service as far as I can tell. I think they should be nationalised with a substantial "haircut".

But whats the alternative here? Their website says they have an agreement with the govt to stop abstracting water from Crummock Water. And they say that if they dont remove the weir then it'll need to be replaced with something more intrusive to remain compliant with legislation. So I dunno.

Drastic environmental change is always concerning, especially when its driven by a parasitic business like UU. But I'm not sure what the alternative is.

I did sign the petition though.

So I guess like any "active" (ie not insolvent or defunct) business they have a responsibility for the remediation of land or a facility which made money for them.*

 They just need to properly remediate the full length of the foreshore back to pre reservoir days? Should be possible with a few £m in say 5 years or so?

*potential herring alert,  making money or not isn't a consideration specific to the responsibility to make good what your business activity has ruined, it's the activity itself??

The proposal is rather what you would expect from UU, they are simply trying to wash their hands of something they no longer want as cheaply as possible with no regards to nature. The Environment Agency are against it due to increased flooding downstream, that’s not when the dam is released but throughout the year due decreased storage in the catchment - UU’s answer, well just flood some farmers fields - that’s gone down well! The Forestry Commission are against it as they plan on hacking down loads of ancient, irreplaceable forest to get their machines in.

The environmental “experts” UU brought in have suggested for remediation putting bat boxes under the roof tiles and leaving gaps in mortared walls - good idea except there are no roofs or walls, copy and paste at its finest!

They have no intention of making good and returning it to its original form as the original outflow would have had a boulder stream bed which would have kept the lake level much higher than it will be if the weir and retaining walls are simply removed. Natural bunds would have retained water in flood areas which are home to bog myrtle and many other rare - to England - species. This will be simply drained destroying thousands of years old habitat.

That’s just for starters, the consultation on planning documents (99 of them) went out over Easter when everyone was away and the closing date for objections is 30th April - how very convenient!

I’ll be signing, be good if as many people as possible do even if it just means UU actually have to try and help minimise the potential environmental disaster they will happily create just to save some money they can then pass onto shareholders (not the bill payers that’s for sure!)