Interorganisational
procedures and dissemination of flood warnings
113. In the Environment Agency's Flood Warning Strategy
for England and Wales, the importance of providing timely and
effective warnings is emphasised: "Do flood warnings get
to the right people...? Are flood warnings accurate? Is sufficient
warning time given to take effective action? Are the people at
risk and the emergency services prepared?"[181].
We heard that during April's floods in areas where the Environment
Agency had responsibility for flood warning dissemination, a combination
of telephone, fax and radio media were used to convey warnings
to the emergency services and the general public[182].
However, it is apparent that significant problems were experienced
by the Environment Agency and local authorities in their efforts
to transmit such warnings to the public. In Northampton's case,
no such warning was issued. For example, during our visit to the
Environment Agency's regional headquarters at Orton Goldhay, we
heard from a representative of Northampton residents affected
by the flood that there was no warning given to people in the
St James area of the town; on the night of 8 April, in just two-and-a-half
hours, flood waters rose five-and-a-half feet. In Northampton's
case, the problem appears to have arisen because of the unpredicted
intensity of the rainfall, leading to significant overland flow
of water, which bypassed the Environment Agency's telemetry equipment.
We recommend that in future the Environment Agency takes a
strategic approach to managing runoff within whole catchments
as part of LEAPs, treating it as a cause of flooding rather than
a consequence of it. Furthermore, in our opinion a contingency
fund should be established by MAFF with funds disbursed to local
authorities to meet the longer term costs associated with the
disruption to persons and property after catastrophic flooding
events have occurred.
114. The Independent Review Team also commented on
the range of different procedures and protocols in place governing
the dissemination of flood warnings across the country, and the
lack of quality assurance in the updating of these procedures.
According to the review team, these lapses were "not conducive
to good performance on the issue of warnings"[183],
while the Agency itself recognised that problems were experienced
in contacting relevant local authorities and in transmitting flood
warnings to the public which were then acted upon[184];
in this context Dr Geoff Mance noted phlegmatically that "Having
100 per cent [of telephone warnings] received but only five per
cent [of recipients] actually doing anything is not very constructive"[185].
Significantly, the Independent review team also noted that service
delivery may have been impaired as "Some Agency staff involved
with the warnings appear[ed] to be unclear about the relevant
powers and duties of their own organisation...some have poor awareness
of the roles, organisational arrangements and flood related procedures
in other bodies"[186].
Flood warning is the Government's main priority: we believe
more must be done to standardise interorganisational procedures
for flood warning, both regionally and nationally. Co-ordination
between the Environment Agency, local authorities and emergency
services, although good, must be further improved. We believe
a crucial element in improving dissemination is to raise public
awareness of the inherent risks of living in flood prone areas,
and to provide accurate, straightforward information to people
on what to do and whom to contact in the event of a flood emergency.
We were particularly surprised that it is not already obligatory
for all local public and commercial radio and television stations
to carry flood warnings on air, and would urge MAFF to make this
a requirement in future.
167 
