The Guardian, a national UK newspaper, today (21st July) carried a letter from Chris Smith, Chair of the UK Environment Agency, saying that it had seriously misrepresented his views on the Severn tidal power scheme in an article it published last Friday (17th July). In the article, Severn tidal power scheme should not go ahead, warns Environment Agency, written by the paper's environment editor, John Vidal it was reported that Chris Smith said that the scheme "should not be built because it would be so ecologically destructive."

The piece went on to directly quote Chris Smith as saying; "There must be ways of harnessing tidal power from the estuary without the gross impacts that the Weston scheme would have. I regret that we are not putting as much effort as we could into tidal reefs and defences. We should be addressing the possibility of tidal power around the country. Tidal energy should be one of the key ways of generating electricity."

However, in the letter published today the Environment Agency said; "John Vidal's article (Guardian, Saturday 18 July) on the Severn Barrage seriously misrepresents (by omission) my view, and that of the Environment Agency.  I believe strongly in the need to harness the tidal power of the Severn Estuary for the generation of renewable energy. Indeed, wave and tidal power have to be a major component of Britain's energy production in the years to come.  But the original proposal for a wall across the estuary from Cardiff to Weston-super-Mare has serious drawbacks, and we have indeed pointed these out forcefully to the Government: the damage to the ecology of the entire river catchment would be severe.  

"We are however actively engaged in seeking alternative ways of using the rise and fall of the Severn to generate electricity: tidal reefs and fences, free-standing lagoons, and other ideas all need to be seriously considered, and it may be that more than one option should be adopted.  So, we fully support the UK's renewable energy targets; we want to see the Severn play its full part in achieving those; but we have genuine doubts that the original barrage is the best way to do so."

The letter from the Environment Agency was carried without comment by the paper.