6. KEY
ISSUE—ORGANISATION
6.1 Floods are a local issue, but have national
importance, and their magnitude requires a national overview,
with the setting of national priorities. In addition, a nationally
consistent approach to dealing with flooding problems is needed,
as currently the standard of protection provided to property at
risk can depend as much on who the operating authority is, or
its Region, as on any guidelines or economic appraisal.
6.2 Perhaps the main reason is that flood
and coastal defence in England and Wales is a very fragmented
business. The Environment Agency is a structured national organisation,
but is only responsible for designated "main river"
watercourses, and for sea defence (work to reduce the risk of
flooding by the sea or tidal rivers). It is therefore not able
to use its permissive powers for flood defence to address all
types of flood risks.
6.3 Other watercourses may be the responsibility
of Internal Drainage Boards, where these exist, but in all other
areas such "ordinary watercourses" are the responsibility
of the local authority, for whom flood defence is not usually
part of their "core business". If there were to be a
single Flood and Coastal Defence Authority the need for "main
river" designation, and its sometimes arbitrary application,
would be obviated. However, if such a designation of watercourses
is to remain then guidelines are needed, agreed by all parties,
on the criteria for "main river" watercourses.
6.4 Coastal defence responsibility is just
as fragmented, as the Environment Agency is only responsible for
sea defence, with coast protection (prevention of erosion and
encroachment by the sea where this is deemed necessary) being
the responsibility of the relevant maritime authorities, of which
there are many. A good interface between all coastal operating
authorities is essential, as the effect of works on one shoreline
can have severe effects some distance along the coast. Such interfacing
and co-ordination of works is not always possible, perhaps because
of individual funding constraints, or alternatively local pressure
to carry out works independently.
6.5 The involvement of MAFF in flood and
coastal defence originates from the days when the nation needed
to produce greater quantities of food, and so agricultural production
was increased by draining large areas of wet or marginal land,
and improving the drainage of existing farmland. However, the
emphasis has now changed from land drainage to flood defence,
where reducing the risk of flooding to people and property is
the prime aim. The main operating authority is now the Environment
Agency, a regulatory body, reporting to the Department of Environment,
Transport and the Regions (DETR). We believe the continuing role
of MAFF and the Environment Agency in flood and coastal defence
should be critically examined, with a view to moving responsibility
from MAFF to DETR.
6.6 The MAFF approval process tends to duplicate
those of the operating authorities, especially the Environment
Agency, and it must be questioned whether it is appropriate to
have a government department vetting a large part of the expenditure
of another government agency. This is especially pertinent as
the Treasury take an overview of all Environment Agency expenditure.
6.7 The issue of local funding has been
addressed above. In the Environment Agency flood defence funding
is mainly the responsibility of individual Regional Flood Defence
Committees (RFDCs), who approve where the (ostensibly) locally
raised funding is to be spent. (There are, however, differences
between Regions). The RFDCs comprise a majority of local authority
members, in order to safeguard the proper usage of levy funding
raised by those local authorities as part of the council tax.
The RFDCs have a statutory role, but their boundaries, and possibly
their policies, are no longer always coincident with those of
the Environment Agency.
6.8 If central government funding were to
be instigated for a national Flood and Coastal Defence Authority
the RFDCs would become advisory bodies, albeit with a wider remit
than their current limit of "main rivers". However,
as such an authority would be responsible for the flooding problems
currently addressed by local authorities the current membership
would still seem appropriate.
6.9 In areas of the country where there
are special drainage needs Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) have
been set up. In many cases these provide the means of drainage
for areas below adjacent river levels, or below sea level, either
by pumping or by intermittent gravity discharges. These are locally
run and obtain most of their revenue funding locally, although
significant proportions of capital funding are from external sources
such as MAFF.
6.10 IDBs are generally seen as carrying
out excellent work, and are locally accountable to the residents
and businesses in the area that they cover. It is suggested that
no change is needed to the organisation of the IDBs, although
their relationship to other bodies, and their sources of funding,
should be reviewed.
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 CIWEM welcomes the opportunity to present
evidence to the Agriculture Committee, and considers that while
the flood defence and coastal protection of England and Wales
has been successfully implemented in the past, a review of the
current structure and funding of the business is appropriate.
7.2 CIWEM considers that social and environmental
aspects of flooding and flood defence works should be given much
greater recognition in project appraisal, to complement the current
emphasis on an economic analysis that only measures the more tangible
aspects of flood damage.
7.3 CIWEM recommends that a national Flood
and Coastal Defence Authority should be considered, with central
government funding for all flood and coastal defence capital and
maintenance works, and that this Authority should have Executive
Committees with local accountability. Internal Drainage Boards
should remain, but their relationship with any new body, and their
funding sources, should be reviewed.
7.4 CIWEM further recommends that the national
Flood and Coastal Defence Authority should have powers to oversee
all watercourses, thus obviating the need to designate some as
"main river", as at present, and thereby providing a
"one stop shop" for problems of flooding from natural
watercourses.
April 1998
