There’s been quite a lot of comment on Facebook recently about the river. This has included quite a few statements by others about what HEAT has or has not done, or does or does not think should happen. Not all of these have been that accurate, so I thought it might be useful to share my own personal experience of what HEAT’s river group  has been up to over the  last 3 years or so.

Since 2021 I’ve been one of the members of the HEAT river group that has been monitoring the state of the river at 6 points between Chelsworth and Shelley and feeding this data into the national database .  These 6 points have been sampled 64 times in the last 2 ½ years with scoring (EA recognised invertebrate counting method) between 2 and 13. Above 15 would be great for a Suffolk River. So, the Brett scores are  okay, but could be better. This track record of practical data collection means that  when we find a low score the EA responds quickly and  investigates it.  HEAT has also taken basic E.Coli measurement from the river which have not shown any real problem although  recently published data has shown an increase in untreated sewage being released into the Brett (downstream to Toppesfield Bridge) in 2023, and we are preparing to carry out another series of E.Coli tests. All this means that while it is hard to improve water quality, HEAT take pride, on behalf of the Hadleigh community, to be “on watch” for a potential future big systemic problem in the Brett.

Over this time  HEAT’s  river group also convened a river stakeholder group that meets every 6-8 weeks on Zoom to share information about the Brett.  When HEAT set up this group we invited a range of people including the EA, water companies, Babergh, the angler’s association and the sea scouts and other voluntary organisation carrying out similar river monitoring activities. Some of these stakeholders have come regularly, others occasionally or not at all.  This group is entirely for sharing information about the river and does not take decisions.  The last time it met was in early April, only four people attended of whom two were from HEAT and (for the avoidance of any doubt) as in every previous meeting, no decisions were taken and HEAT was not asked for, and did not voice,  any opinion about what  the level of the river should be.   HEAT also attends meetings of  the Essex and Suffolk River trust which is the body that coordinates interagency action across the catchment areas of the Brett, Stour and many Essex rivers. Again this is an information sharing, not a decision taking, meeting.  Through these meetings I’ve learnt just how complicated river management is, and just how many different people and organisations are involved.

Through all this we have built a relationship with the EA, as they have guided and trained us in “Citizen Science” water monitoring techniques. Citizen Science (public volunteering) is an important augmentation to the underfunded resources of the EA whose budget for environment and river protection has been cut by 56% since 2010.

HEAT itself does not have a single settled view about what the best level for the river should be. Afterall we are just a collection of individuals with different views about whether we should be concentrating on wildlife, flood mitigation or collecting good quality data about the river itself. This is one reason why we have not joined in many of the debates on Facebook.  

Throughout this whole time  HEAT has never been asked  either formally or informally about what we think the level of the river should be. Neither  has HEAT has  been involved in any way in the recent decisions to raise or lower the sluice gates and  we were  just as surprised as the rest of the town each time the gates have been lowered or raised. Personally, I think this lack of consultation is understandable because the  EA has to take decisions in relation to the whole catchment area not just Hadleigh, and in relation to many different, often conflicting needs, not just the climate change and biodiversity issues that are the reason for HEAT’s existence.  In reaching its decisions it should listen to everyone equally. HEAT does not have, and should not have, any right to be more consulted than say the anglers, or those at risk of flooding, or those who are concerned about preserving the wet woodland area.

What I have learnt from all this is that understanding the river is really complicated. Flood control is really complicated. Promoting wildlife is not straightforward since one ecosystem (for example preserving the wet woodland) may only be possible by having a deep slow river that is very prone to duckweed in late summer. The EA’s role in balancing all these different needs is also complicated. 

Others have suggested that the gates could be operated by a group of trained volunteers working under the direction of the EA and this may well be a good way forward but again it  is definitely complicated: Any system needs to be failsafe, to have insurance, and limited liability for the organisation running it (what if flooding occurred and someone sued?) Just wishing these things would happen or  criticising from the side-lines when they don’t, is very different from actually making them happen. But I’m sure that other communities have these problems and  have solved them in ways we can learn from.

But beyond all these complications two things have become really apparent to  me in all this. Firstly, I think is becoming clearer each year is all this is going to get worse. The climate really is changing and as a community we will be faced with more floods, more droughts and probably  other crises too. And whoever wins the election it is very unlikely that there will be more money so being able to work together rather than shout at each other is going to become more important, not less.

Secondly everyone I’ve ever met in my discussions about the river has been acting for good and understandable reasons. There are no bad guys in all this – we  all want a better healthier river that can be enjoyed by the local community  and that’s a great place to start from, even if we disagree along the way about what that means and the best way to get there. The way forward is discussion, learning about how we each see things and respect for each other, even when we are disagreeing.

Such discussions are often more productive when they are face to face rather than on social media. Why don’t we meet up sometime and  walk the river together and just talk about what we love about it, what we are worried about? Perhaps  we can learn from each other about its history, its fish, its wetland habitats, its possibilities. What do you think? If you’re interested in something like this then email me via the heat email hadleighheat@hotmail.com and lets see if it we can make it happen.