EFFECTIVENESS
In evaluating the effectiveness of policy and
delivery of land and coastal defences, the CLAs objective is to
seek appropriate protection for agricultural land and rural property
from fluvial and tidal inundation. To secure this, we need to
be assured of adequate programmes of capital and maintenance on
arterial channels and coastal defences in rural areas.
In concluding this submission, we would add
the following points for consideration by the Committee:
The flood defence and land drainage
service provided by the operating authorities, and in pursuance
of MAFF and other Government Departmental policies, has been maintained
to a good standard. We do have grave concerns that rural areas,
and their drainage infrastructure, are being left behind by the
current priority system.
There is no case to make substantial
changes to the way in which the service is managed. Policy making,
strategic planning, and operational activities have combined to
deliver a service from which the public have derived considerable
benefits.
MAFF have provided the necessary
incentive through grant aid to ensure that an adequate response
is made when standards of protection are exposed as being inadequate.
Equally, issues such as land tilt and sea level rise have been
embraced within design standards ensuring that longer term flood
risks are appropriately addressed and standards maintained.
National benefits arise from flood
and coastal defence works and it is entirely appropriate that
central grant funding remains available. We would not want to
see any further reduction in resource allocation.
The EA and IDBs have provided an
independent, yet fully integrated, service; the former managing
strategic issues, coastline and other defences, and major river
systems, with the latter providing the more detailed water level
control in the low-lying, particularly sensitive, areas.
The two-tier approach of the EA and
the IDBs to flood defence works well, without any duplication
of effort or cost, and ensures appropriate levels of management
input against varying circumstances. An integrated approach between
sea defences and coastal defence is essential and there may be
some for rationalisation the relationship between the EA and LAs
in promoting coastal defence works.
The service of land drainage/flood
defence is unique in that it is provided for the public good using
an infrastructure which is substantially in private ownership.
The EA and IDBs own virtually no lengths of the river/drainage
system, and it is essential to the success of the service that
the closest links are established between landowners and operating
authorities. This is substantially achieved with landowners representatives
on both the EA's flood defence committees, the IDBs, the RFDCs
and the LFDCs.
It is important to maintain the good
working relationships which exist between drainage authorities
and the owners of land through which the channels flow and upon
which defence works are established. It is essential that these
links are maintained. The present membership of flood defence
committees and IDBs, combining councillor and ownership interest,
are models which have proved to be successful.
The relationship between operating
authorities and Central Government is of paramount importance,
and whilst there might be a case for a policy leadership role
by the DETR, there is a stronger case for flood defence and land
drainage to remain with MAFF. Whilst flood protection to urban
areas is currently the priority, the commitment by both the EA
and IDBs to protect agricultural areas must remain. Certainly
the considerable majority of site activity will take place on
agricultural land through which much of the protection to urban
areas is provided. The sea and tidal defences, which are predominantly
earth embankments, are sited on privately owned land, the vast
majority being part of agricultural holdings.
MAFF policies in recent years have
sought to serve all interests. They have prioritised urban needs,
placed conservation duties on the operating authorities and are
aware the national and local importance of agriculture (notwithstanding
our concern of the impact of the priority system). They have presided
over possibly the best examples of sustainable development where
protection works, many firstly in place centuries ago, continue
to provide the benefits initially sought. The current arrangements
work and the CLA support the retention of flood and coastal defence
as a MAFF function.
Whilst capital schemes are the focus
of attention, the most important aspect of flood defence and land
drainage systems is their maintenance. Flood protection gives
a confidence which leads to investment in areas resulting in large
numbers of people and property being dependent upon that protection.
Once this signal has been given, and reacted to, it is imperative
that the operating authorities maintain the standards of protection
to that installed. The funding of maintenance is therefore just
as important as achieving new standards of defence or flood warning.
It is vital that funding for maintenance
and capital works in rural areas is at an adequate level and there
is evidence that in some cases this needs increasing. The funding
of flood and coastal defence improvements and flood warning schemes
should not deplete that necessary for this purpose. The present
income sources should be sustained, including that recovered from
ratepayers and drainage charge payers.
The CLA would be pleased to submit further information
should the Committee so wish.
24 April 1998