NEMT NEWS

Proposed Improvements to the Water Pipeline Through Glen Einich.

NEMT founder, Drennan Watson provides the following concerns about a public consultation on the water supply from Glen Einich:

There are three separate but connected issues regarding the Badenoch and Strathspey water supply from Glen Einich:-

• the possibility of increased extraction from the loch to meet future increased demand;
• whether Scottish Water will continue in the long term to extract water from the loch;
• the proposal to renew the pipeline over large sections of the glen to improve the reliability of the current water supply and the efficiency of the pipeline and associated works.

The first two are properly considered within the arena of the Spey Catchment Management Plan and, later, planning under the Water Framework Directive. The third is significant for several reasons:-

• while the engineering involved is relatively straightforward, the potential to do environmental damage and, during construction at least, disrupt recreational use of an important area, is very considerable;
• much of the area traversed is within Natura 2000 sites, which are protected to a high standard and, in these early days of much of this legislation, the standards of environmental management of projects such as this are still significant in establishing standards of environmental management Natura 2000 sites;
• the area now lies within the Cairngorms National Park and the question of the standards of environmental management that will be acceptable within the park is now arising.

The problem of the repair of this supply system presented on one side the need to provide water to thousands of people and on the other the need to avoid damaging a highly protected and valued environment. It seemed to me therefore that it potentially had the makings of a classic Cairngorms conflict, yet one that could be avoided with careful planning and environmental management of the work and well managed consultation and dialogue with interested parties. For this reason, given my longstanding concern for the Cairngorms, I was interested in being involved in managing the public consultation in my professional capacity and was subcontracted to do this as an independent contractor by the environmental consultants in the project Environmental Network Ltd (ENL). I carried through the early stages of this consultation some time ago. A breakdown in working relations between the engineering consultants on the project, Faber Maunsell, and ENL has terminated this arrangement.

I have two reasons for writing:-

• I have absolutely no responsibility for the standards of consultation that take place from now on, including those recently started;
• The consultation procedures that now seem to be being followed strike me as quite inadequate. A clearly mapped out public consultation strategy was left in place by myself. Included in this were:-

  a) Direct approaches to major environmental and recreational stakeholders, particularly in the voluntary sector;
  b) Provision of site visits;
  c) Access where requested to the draft Integrated Environmental Impact Assessment;
  d) A consultation document that drew out clearly the problems of potential environmental damage and hindrance to recreation.

These were in line with the standards of cooperation with stakeholders that the then North of Scotland Water Authority publicly committed itself to, at a public meeting in Kincraig, regarding water engineering works in sensitive areas, and specifically in Glen Einich. So far as I an aware, a, b, and c have not been fulfilled and in that case the procedures would certainly fall far below the standards of cooperation promised by the water authority and what I would consider an adequate standard.

The control of environmental damage to vulnerable soils, vegetation and wildlife and hazard to recreation require detailed planning of the works, and careful observance and skilled supervision of well worked out protocols during the actual work. Having read the consultation document handed out at the CRAG meeting, it is impossible to realise the environmental damage and recreational difficulties that operations could potentially create. Nor is the rationale on which key decisions regarding whether to go ahead with the works and how to design them must be based presented in the document.

I strongly recommend therefore that no consultee should respond to these engineering proposals on the strength of this document and on the basis of the consultation procedures brought to my notice. A consultee doing so and assenting to the proposals might later find he or she had assented to inadequate on-site work procedures or apparently accepted impacts on environment and/or recreation later found unacceptable.

If you should wish to discuss any of the above points with me, I would be happy to do so.

Drennan Watson, 24th April 2003

Please let the webmaster know if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they contain.

Page updated 31-May-2008