Libdem Bethia Thomas and Andy Cooke’s Opposition to Vital Reservoir: A Short-Sighted Threat to Our Future

Bethia Thomas and Andy Cooke, Lib Dem Councillors of the Vale of White Horse**, are currently leading the charge against the proposed South East Strategic Reservoir Option (SESRO) — a £1.2 billion project that aims to secure the UK’s water supply for the next 50 years. Their opposition, driven by a narrow focus on the carbon footprint of the reservoir’s construction, risks jeopardizing a critical infrastructure project that is essential not only for human consumption but also for the health of our environment.

What is the SESRO?

The SESRO is a proposed large-scale reservoir planned by Thames Water, intended to be built on a 4.5 square mile site between East Hanney and Drayton, near Abingdon, Oxfordshire. The reservoir is designed to meet the water demands of the South East of England, a region that is already experiencing significant pressure on its water resources due to population growth, climate change, and increasing water usage.

The project is intended to serve around 15 million customers across Thames Water, Southern Water, and Affinity Water networks. The goal is to provide a sustainable and reliable water supply, reducing the need for water abstraction from rivers, which has been identified as a critical issue contributing to the degradation of the UK’s natural water ecosystems.

The Case Against the Reservoir

Thomas and Cooke have been vocal in their opposition to the SESRO, citing the carbon emissions associated with its construction as their primary concern. In a letter to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, they argued that the reservoir would undermine the district’s ability to become carbon neutral by 2045. Their stance suggests that the environmental costs of building the reservoir outweigh its potential benefits.

But this reasoning is dangerously myopic.

Why We Need the SESRO

The SESRO isn’t just another infrastructure project; it’s a lifeline for our over-abstracted rivers and water systems. The South East of England is one of the driest regions in the UK, and its rivers are already under severe stress from over-extraction. This has led to significant ecological damage, threatening biodiversity and the health of aquatic ecosystems.

By providing an alternative water source, the SESRO would alleviate the pressure on these rivers, allowing them to recover and thrive. This is not just beneficial for wildlife — healthier rivers also mean better water quality for human use, more resilient ecosystems, and ultimately, a more sustainable environment.

The Carbon Cost Argument: A Flawed Perspective

Yes, building the SESRO will generate carbon emissions, as any large construction project would. However, the long-term environmental benefits far outweigh these short-term costs. By ensuring a stable water supply, the reservoir will reduce the need for emergency measures that are often more carbon-intensive, such as over-abstraction or the construction of smaller, less efficient reservoirs.

Moreover, protecting our rivers and natural water systems is itself a significant step towards reducing overall environmental degradation and supporting biodiversity — both of which are crucial components in the fight against climate change.

The Bigger Picture

Thomas and Cooke’s opposition, while perhaps well-intentioned, fails to consider the broader context. Their focus on immediate carbon costs is an example of narrow thinking that ignores the long-term benefits of sustainable water management. The SESRO is not just about securing water for today; it’s about ensuring that future generations inherit a country where rivers still flow, ecosystems still function, and communities have the resources they need to thrive.

This kind of leadership — one that prioritizes short-term political gains over long-term environmental sustainability — is not what the Vale of White Horse, or the country as a whole, needs. We need leaders who understand the importance of thinking beyond the next election cycle, who are willing to make difficult decisions that will benefit society in the long run.

Conclusion

The SESRO represents a crucial investment in our future, one that balances the immediate need for water with the long-term health of our environment. To oppose it on the grounds of carbon costs alone is to miss the forest for the trees — or, more aptly, the river for the water.

Bethia Thomas and Andy Cooke’s stance is not just short-sighted; it’s a threat to the sustainability of our society and our natural world. We must move past this kind of limited thinking and embrace the broader, more complex solutions that projects like the SESRO represent. Our rivers, our ecosystems, and our communities depend on it.