I am somewhat disturbed by the response from the Environment Agency that the mineral oil slick visible on the River Kent “caused no impact on the environment and the effect was visual” (Gazette, July 23, 'Colours in river spark inspection').

The “small amount of oil washed out of a drain”, started around the back of the Court buildings at the upstream end of Busher Walk, covered half the river surface on the right bank, stretched through the town and lasted at least two hours.

One would think that dippers, if they could speak, would argue the impact on their plumage is environmental damage. The few remaining small trout in the Kent sucking down insects trapped in the oil film may also suffer damage, not to mention the dead insects themselves.

Were samples taken from the water? Was there any meaningful investigation as to the origin of the mineral oil? If the answers are no, perhaps the Environment Agency would like to establish guidelines of how much oil is acceptable in a Grade A salmonid river which is failing rapidly.

A report in the same Gazette highlighting the problems of declining salmon and trout populations in the River Kent ('Trust is fishing for river views') ought to prompt a robust response from the Environment Agency rather than the bland “don’t worry we’ve seen it” message conveyed by their reply to the Gazette.

R. Brockbank

Kendal