IN RESPONSE to the latest letter (September 4) from Steve Tuck of Thames Water, I think that the issue of water supply, aquifers, over-abstraction, excessive building projects and of course the ecological degradation of one of Cirencester’s loveliest brooks deserves more serious attention than seems to be given by those with power and legal responsibility.

Once again, Thames Water has provided an inadequate response and appears to be ‘passing the buck’ to the Environment Agency and those who operate the sluice gates at the Gloucester Street interchange.

Steve Tuck’s latest letter answers one of my questions only and repeats another statement. We now know that Thames Water abstracted up to 18.5 million litres of water a day from the Baunton aquifers - this we are told has now been reduced to five–eight million litres a day, which is still large. There is a discrepancy here as Mr Tuck’s original reply implied that before 2008, Thames Water abstracted six million litres of water a day and now that is reduced by an average of five million gallons a day – which by my maths means that one million litres are still being extracted – confused? I certainly am.

We are also told that when the River Churn has low flows (for which no benchmark figure for action is given) abstraction stops completely. Mr Tuck’s original letter said that this happened this year on July 30. But the Gunstool Brook had dried up long before then, so Thames Water must have still been abstracting water while the Brook was being destroyed as an ecosystem. This does not seem to me to be a very accurate monitoring of river flows – how is it undertaken?

My last letter went on to ask questions including: Why did Thames Water allow the Gunstool Brook to stop flowing in the first place? What is Thames Water’s policy on water management? What are they going to do to meet the considerable increase in demand from Cirencester’s projected housing projects? And a request for precise figures about demand.

If Thames Water is trying to shift the blame onto the Environment Agency, then I would like to ask, through your column,s what the Agency’s explanation is for this serious situation. Further, whoever is controlling the Gloucester Road sluice gates (I am surprised Thames Water don’t seem to know) may also wish to provide an explanation of their policy and practice.

The truth of the matter is that there currently isn’t enough water to go round, either by lack of adequate management or excessive demand. Despite having had a very wet winter with flooding in the Abbey Grounds, which must have filled the Baunton aquifers, and a summer that has not been particularly dry, the Gunstool Brook has still been allowed to become an empty, muddy ditch. The main river is now also visibly low and still falling.

Must we resign ourselves to the Gunstool Brook becoming a‘winterbourne’ only? It is not helpful simply to be shunted off to Thames Water’s website for an answer.

Rather there is a need for all the agencies involved to get into serious public consultation as ever more housing and demand for water is anticipated in the near future. I call therefore upon our elected representatives on the Cotswold Council to become involved, to set up a public consultation and to insist that the major water agencies ensure that the present sorry state of affairs is not repeated.

NICHOLAS HENDERSON

Cirencester