As a farmer working the land in the Lyth Valley, I was saddened to read the misgivings of RSPB Conservation Officer Jeremy Sutton about the proposed drainage system Ourselves and many other farmers in the valley have worked with English Nature and RSPB representatives, putting some of our more marginal land into schemes for the benefit of wildlife.

This land has been successfully managed for bird habitat and numbers within the present drainage scheme by managing individual fields’ water levels, as opposed to an apparent wish of Mr Sutton to raise all water levels.

Surely working with the farmers and land owners to manage some important areas for bird life and other nature, while farming the best fertile land as now, not more intensively, would be the best option. The current scheme could, with everyone’s input, deliver this.

A wetter landscape may seem ideal to one RSPB representative, but would change what is already quite a diverse eco-system. Hedgerows we have spent years enhancing with fencing, laying and planting up, would be drowned out and wildlife such as hares, small mammals and ground nesting birds left coping with uncontrolled flooding.

The better farmland at present is able to produce good crops of grass with minimal input due to its fertile nature; outputs such as milk, processed in Kendal, lamb and beef can be locally utilised, giving local employment.

If this valuable land was to be rendered less productive by the so-called wetting up, where would this food come from?

Any public funding towards the current scheme would surely be paid back numerous times over, through local employment, farm products and support of local businesses.

Running the pumps with renewable energy will be a future aim as technologies evolve. To lose such a local asset as this productive farmland would seem an irreversible mistake.

Edward Sharp Lyth

Kendal