APPENDIX 41
Memorandum submitted
by the Easter Floods 1998 Review Team (F67)
When we met during your recent visit to the
Environment Agency's offices at Peterborough you agreed to accept
a brief memorandum of evidence from the Easter Floods Review Team.
That evidence is enclosed for the consideration of your Committee.
We have focused on the national organisation
of flood defence because we believe that the system should be
overhauled. If defending people from the devastating effects of
flooding, such as that experienced in central England at Easter,
is a priority then the existing organisation will not effectively
and efficiently provide that protection. Several of the failures
of planning, preparation and response that we will describe in
our final report are a direct consequence of the present confused
and confusing arrangements.
We trust that this evidence will assist the
Committee in making recommendations for essential improvements
in the effectiveness of flood defence.
Independent Review of the Easter 1998 Floods
We are pleased to respond to the Committee's
invitation to comment on the aspects of the Review which appear
relevant to your Enquiry.
You will appreciate that the Review is presently
at the middle stage and that the opinions we express at this point
may be revised as our work progresses. We have taken the opportunity
in the light of the exposure we are having to flood defence work
in the round, to offer comment beyond the immediate scope of the
Review.
Taking a detached view of the process for delivering
flood defence (including warning) services, we conclude that it
is over complex and difficult for the public to understand.
You will be aware that the present arrangements
for flood defence in England and Wales are founded on those which
emerged from the Royal Commission on land and drainage in the
late 1920s. A priority for the nation at the time was the need
for increased home production of food to lessen the impact of
naval blockade in the event of war. The Commission addressed the
key issue of improving land drainage to achieve more productive
agriculture on fertile flood plains.
The Commission recognised that downstream urban
flood risks might arise from better defending agricultural land.
Hence, the legislation which followed in 1930 incorporated provisions
for remedying such problems.
Food production is today a matter for consideration
in the context of the CAP, and no longer raises the concern it
did in earlier decades. The land use priority is now urban and
flood defence may be regarded as an infrastructure issue relevant
to revitalising developed areas. The over complexity of the current
arrangements for flood defence appears to arise, at least in part,
from this shift of emphasis without sufficient accompanying legal,
financial and organisational change.
Our understanding of the present arrangements
is briefly described below and it is on this basis that we suggest
the need for rationalisation.
The Environment Agency and three other types
of authority are involved with the provision of flood defence
in the following ways.
1. The Agency is responsible for river and
sea and tidal defences which are of strategic importance.
2. Internal drainage boards are responsible
for watercourses in certain low lying areas.
3. District, unitary or metropolitan councils
may carry out flood defence works on minor watercourses and on
sea defences as well as work to control coastal erosion.
4. Local authorities (or the Agency) other
than district councils may promote schemes for the drainage of
small areas of agricultural land.
The MAFF and the Welsh Office are responsible
for high level policy and for grant aid, at widely varying rates,
towards the cost of approved capital schemes.
Although generally supervising all matters,
the Agency's own powers to carry out improvement or maintenance
work are confined to watercourses designated as main river
and to sea defences. Other watercourses, except those managed
by IDBs, are the responsibility of riparian owners. However, district
councils have power to carry out work on these ordinary watercourses
for the purpose of flood defence.
The areas drained by ordinary watercourses managed
by IDBs are known as internal drainage districts. They are often
areas of high grade agricultural land requiring good standards
of drainage in order to be used productively. The boundaries of
drainage districts are related to known flood levels and do not
accord with catchment or local authority boundaries.
With the exception of the Agency's Thames and
North West Regions, where IDBs no longer exist, the boards may
be regarded as the second tier organisations on fluvial flood
defence. The Agency operates at the top level with drainage boards
mirroring its main river activity with their attention to ordinary
watercourses within drainage districts. IDBs normally rely on
Agency operated main rivers to remove excess water from their
areas.
In the North West region, all IDBs opted for
abolition about 20 years ago at the time of North West Water Authority's
responsibility for flood defence. The drainage systems of the
boards were designated as main river, and the Authority took over
the related pumping stations and other works—including the
largest non main river pumping station in the country. As NWWAs
successor, the Agency now provides flood defence and land drainage
services without direct charge to farmers, growers and others
who formerly paid drainage rates to the IDBs.
The Agency can require riparian owners to maintain
any watercourse and may exercise control over the construction
of culverts, bridges and other works. IDBs can act similarly within
internal drainage districts. However, these powers can only be
used in relation to flood defence and drainage.
Erosion affecting rivers and watercourses is
a matter for riparian owners but any action taken must have the
consent of the Agency or the IDB if within a drainage district.
The Agency, IDBs and local authorities are empowered to act only
when erosion threatens flood defence or related works.
On the coast, district councils have powers
to construct and maintain works to prevent or control erosion.
The Agency's powers are restricted to situations where erosion
threatens its sea or estuary flood defences.
The Agency exercises its powers through statutory
regional and in some regions local flood defence committees. There
are 30 committees in total. The statutory committess have executive
powers to undertake capital and maintenance works and the other
activities referred to above, and to raise the necessary funding.
As such, they do not appear to be subject to formal direction
by the Agency's board or the Minister.
For instance, the Agency cannot prepare, fund
and implement nationally, a plan for systematically improving
the flood warning service to a clear consistent set of priorities.
Under the present system it can only proceed at the pace each
individual flood defence committee is prepared to fund.
The present regional and local committee arrangements
broadly reflect the land drainage committee structures of the
catchment based river boards which ceased in 1965. Some Agency
regions cover more former river board areas than others. This,
in part, explains the differing committee structures currently
in place. Another factor explaining the differences is that, in
some regions, committees have merged, accepted abolition or changed
from statutory to advisory status. Due to the foregoing, the regional
dissimilarities in flood defence committee arrangements are considerable.
The current administrative structure is not only cumbersome but
must be expensive to operate.
The complicated, confusing for the public and
regionally varying arrangements described above are, in our opinion,
not conducive to the provision and operation of flood warning
and defence in a manner maximising efficiency and effectiveness.
They also prevent the allocation of funds to clear national priorities
such as flood warning and flood plain mapping.
As we see it, improvement can be brought about
by either completely redesigning the arrangements from government
level down or progressively further modifying the existing arrangements.
The former is well beyond the scope of the Review and, therefore,
the following suggestions affecting the Agency relate to changes
more or less within the existing framework, which could initiate
ongoing progressive change.
(1) Rationalisation of the Agency's flood defence
committee structure—one RFDC per region without local or
advisory committees would appear appropriate.
(2) Removal of regional ring fencing of revenue
to permit resources to be used flexibly in the content of national
priorities.
(3) Creation of a national flood defence committee
with authority to direct the regional committees and allocate
resources.
(4) Replacement of scheme specific grant aid
from the MAFF and the WO with block grants.
(5) Redefinition of the Agency's policy on enforcement
in respect of ordinary watercourses to bring about more effective
action by riparian owners or local authorities.
(6) Strengthening of the Agency's position in
relation to preventing new development in flood plains and in
securing substantial funding from developers for compensatory
works for the hydrological consequences in extreme flood conditions
of green field developments. These measures might in addition
encourage brown site redevelopment as opposed to green field new
development, with resulting environmental benefits.
(7) Giving the Agency powers to require information
from owners of existing flood defence structures and a system
of statutory improvement notices to ensure the proper maintenance
of such structures.
During the Review, we have become aware of much
good progress by the Agency, for example;
— placing the management of its assets
on a sound basis;
— ensuring costed plans are in place
for the improvement of flood warnings;
— increasing the effectiveness of capital
procurement;
— prioritising expenditure needs on
a national basis.
The current fragmented structure for the funding
and delivery of flood defence could prevent the full benefits
of this progress being realised for all of England and Wales.
In short, a radical overhaul, commencing as
outlined above, seems necessary for a system designed for protecting
and improving agricultural production but now focused on protecting
a much larger urban population.
In addition to the foregoing, we have no reason
to doubt the Agency's expressed view that to properly develop
and maintain its flood defence assets in the short and medium
terms, extra funding is required in the order of £40 million
per annum.
Legislative change would appear necessary for
implementation of some of these proposals.
We trust that the foregoing will be of some
assistance to the Committee.
30 June 1998
| 
