IN response to Mr Barker's letter (Chronicle, April 21). It was not my intention to respond to, or write any further letters to the press. Largely because editing can portray a totally different picture than the author intended.

This may well be the case here but if it is accurate, then it is clear to me that Mr Barker has limited knowledge of the aquatic environment. I will try to reply to his comments as they are written.

l Contrary to what he may believe, I think it is a brilliant idea to open the river up for navigation and it should not be rejected out of hand without proper consultations, some of which are currently under way.

However, it appears I do have a little more appreciation of the environment than Mr Barker, having spent 37 years of my working life on the local rivers and therefore have the benefit of experience. A brilliant idea it may be but having the benefit of that experience and after due deliberation, I find the cost to the environment is too high.

l The shallow stretches (riffle and pool) are an essential part of the system. The riffle and pool system is far more biologically productive than impounded sections and the gravel shallows provide areas for gravel spawning species of fish that dominate the river.

l Irrefutable evidence can be produced to illustrate that impounded sections of the watercourse are not as productive as riffle and pool and contrary to Mr Barker's thoughts, the total fish biomass will not necessarily increase if the river is made a uniform depth.

l I totally agree with the comments "the river does not belong to you; you are only part of the great scheme of using natural resources." All of us should have this uppermost in our minds and the word "using" should not become "exploiting".

l It is precisely this type of project that on the basis of sound scientific investigations throughout the world are not condemned as too degrading to the natural water resources; in some countries efforts are being made to reverse the effects of such projects allowing the watercourse to revert to its natural state. We have the benefit of hindsight, learn from it.

Should the scheme be approved, the impact on the environment will not be apparent in the short term; I estimate it will be 12 to 15 years before the true extent will the known.

Mr Barker, I have no reason to doubt your integrity and your letter, whilst not a fully accurate appraisal, is probably the opinion of many residents not in possession of specialist knowledge; hence the reason for my response.

It is not my intention to ridicule Mr Barker in any way; he like myself is entitled to an opinion. There will come a time when individual opinions, backed with sound evidence, will determine whether this project will be approved. I personally hope it will not and no, Mr Barker, I am not an angler.

Derek Lippett

Fisheries Management Officer (ret)

Coughton Lane

Coughton