THANK you for the interesting article on the plans for preventing flooding in the Vale of York (November 8).

I was, however, dismayed to read the list of options ruled out included dredging river beds to increase capacity.

I would have thought that if the relevant agencies, including all the local councils, pooled their resources and brought a small dredger and barge with a grab, so that they could regularly dredge the rivers and clear them of debris, then the problem would have been partially solved for a minimum of cost.

How do you "modify bridges"? What are "new flood storage areas" other than reservoirs?

Can you imagine the legal tussles with the ecologists and preservationists, which will surely start when old buildings being scheduled for demolition, are likely to be 'bat and owl refuges'.

The widening of the rivers removes many habitats, including those of the housemartin, and meadows with rare wild flowers and that's apart from upsetting the local people who wish to preserve the buildings and thus seek to get them "scheduled" as being of architectural and historical interest.

This is surely a recipe for a lot of wrangling between statutory authorities and environmentalists and preservationists.

The main focus is, quite rightly, that of alleviating flooding, but the increasing use of the rivers and canals for both leisure and commercial traffic means that rivers, such as the Ouse, will have to be regularly dredged. So why on earth rule it out as an option?

Sometimes a cheaper option is the most cost-effective.

Anthony Martin,

Bishop River Waterway Centre Project,

Clarence Street, York.

Updated: 11:13 Thursday, November 18, 2004