6. ISSUES
TO BE
ADDRESSED
6.1 Sea Level Rise
With the majority of the area of drainage districts being
below sea level, the concern over a rise in sea level is acute.
Any rise in sea level will have an adverse affect on the ability
to discharge water by gravity, or pumping, and it may be necessary
to provide additional pumping to serve areas previously drained
by gravity. This is a matter which Boards will address as needs
arise, and the positive position adopted by MAFF on sea level
rise is fundamental in responding to the increased threat. It
is of course vital that improvements to the sea and tidal defences
are carried out to counter the sea level rise, and that adequate
funding is made available for this purpose.
6.2 Maintaining Standards
The major schemes necessary to bring land into agricultural
production and developable use have been put in place and the
remit of IDBs is now substantially to maintain appropriate standards
of flood protection and land drainage. Expenditure on major works
will most likely in the future be limited to the replacement of
the present infrastructure, notably pumping stations and securing
the stability of channels and it is imperative that these continue
to attract MAFF grant aid.
Increasingly IDBs will, in seeking to maintain standards,
undertake works to facilitate new industrial, commercial and housing
developments, these being wholly or substantially funded by the
developers.
In maintaining standards the nation's quality agricultural
land and property is protected, economic rural life underpinned
and wide environmental interest sustained.
6.3 Integration of the Service
The situation where the areas of the country at potentially
greatest risk have proven over many years to be at the lowest
risk, is an indicator that the arrangements in place have worked
successfully. The IDBs and Agency need to keep under review their
respective operational activities and ensure that if opportunities
are available to benefit the service, these are taken.
The Association in 1992 extended Associate Membership to
local authorities and over fourty councils, situated particularly
in low lying areas, have taken up membership. This had provided
the forum through which links between IDBs and local authorities
can be developed, complementing the close ties already established
through membership and financing arrangements. IDBs work increasingly
with local councils in addressing urban drainage issues and matters
associated with planning and development control.
This integration with other bodies by IDBs ensures the delivery
of a cost effective service, fully reflecting the local interests.
6.4 Funding
The principle of beneficiaries paying, and being represented
on the body providing the service, is a fundamental principle
of local democracy and this must be maintained. The IDBs, on a
directly comparative basis, collect income in respect to all land
and property in the district which derives benefit, and whilst
the present Revenue Support Grant to district councils distorts
the "local" funding, to some extent the general principle
is not impaired. It is clearly a more efficient method of collection
than the direct billing of individual properties and should continue.
It is essential to maintain standards of flood protection
achieved through maintenance and replacement works, and this must
be underpinned with adequate funding. The annual expenditure of
IDBs represents excellent value for money, in that the £34.4
million protects land of an approximate value of £15 billion.
Add to this the value of the industrial, commercial, domestic,
agricultural buildings, highways, etc and the figure is increased
substantially. If the agricultural land became unusable the annual
value of crops lost would exceed £1 billion, the avoidance
of such a loss against the expenditure represents an astronomic
return on investment.
6.5 Membership
It is essential that as far as possible the full range of
interests are represented on IDBs, and to achieve this it will
be necessary for some councils to nominate from outside their
own councillors and officers. The nominated members are not protecting
the interests of the district councils but are members of a quite
separate body in which they have a shared responsibility to protect
people and property against flooding.
The Association would fully support the retention of the
Regional and Local Flood Defence Committees, they fulfil a similar
function to the boards, incorporating representatives of the owners
of the river system and local interests through the elected county
council members. The different requirements in drainage districts
has been outlined, and this applies to the regions of the Agency
where the needs in, for example Lincolnshire and Northumberland,
are far from similar. The Committees, through their local input,
assist in maintaining this distinction and ensuring that national
policies are implemented in a way commensurate with the needs
of particular areas.
6.6 Flood Defence/Land Drainage and the Environment
It is essential that flood protection standards are provided
whilst maintaining the correct balance between that objective
and IDBs meeting their duty to conservation, as set out in the
Land Drainage Act 1994.
To achieve this, a number of changes in operational practices
have been introduced over recent years, resulting from IDBs establishing
much closer relationships with conservation bodies. This is achieved
both externally and internally, the latter through employees of
English Nature and the RSPB becoming member of IDBs and making
a most positive input to the deliberations.
In the 1980s there was an inevitable conflict in interests
with the Government of the day promoting increased agricultural
production, coincident with a sharply increasing awareness of,
and concern for the environment. These days are historic and the
Association, and its IDB members, enjoy very good relationships
with conservation interests, particularly on the ground where
the real conservation work is achieved. On a number of issues
conservation groups with varying interests are not always able
to agree, and it is inevitable that on occasions the flood defence/land
drainage needs will not accord with particular interests. Such
cases will be marginal, will always remain and indeed are an important
element in establishing the optimum management balance.
As bodies with statutory responsibilities, the IDBs provide
the means whereby the wider interests in lowland areas can be
served, ensuring that the vital flood protection/land drainage
is provided at the same time maintaining habitat interests and
improving these independently or in co-operation with others where
opportunities arise. In pursuance of this, the IDBs respond to
the directives and initiatives promoted by MAFF, which in some
cases can be supported by grant aid. Even with grant aid, the
promotion of habitat improvement is still dependent upon a high
level of local funding which is not consistent with other protection/enhancement
schemes where the "local" is more usually the recipient
rather than payer. This is a situation which could be reviewed,
particularly where sites have national and international significance.
6.7 Research and Development
IDBs have been responsible for much of the technological
advancement within land drainage operations, being the first to
install fully automatic pumping stations and telemetry systems
to enable remote monitoring and control. They have also been instrumental
in developing new approaches to the control of the annual vegetation
growth within channels, which is a major requirement in the limitation
of flood risk. Whilst, in an operational sense, flood defence
and land drainage is low-tech, it is essential that best practices
are used to improve operational efficiency and to ensure that
the maintenance of the drainage system is carried out whenever
possible in a way compatible with other interests. IDBs, support
the Centre for Aquatic Plant Management and the Environment Agency's
programme, to which they are contributors, and will continue to
review their operations and ensure that improvement opportunities
are taken.
6.8 Legislation
With Land Drainage Acts of 1991 and 1994 an outsider could
gain the impression that IDBs were operating under modern legislation.
The reality is that this legislation was introduced to incorporate
specific changes, in 1991 to include the special levy funding
and council nominee membership, and in 1994 to confirm the conservation
duties of IDBs. The basic principles in the legislation are carried
forward from earlier Acts, and whilst the Association for some
years sought some `updating' to the legislation, the view is now
held that the current legislation works very well and that revisions,
which may be necessary to reflect changing conditions, will not
add to its effectiveness and implementation.
Much of the success of land drainage legislation is in the
flexibility of its interpretation, enabling, as it does, all problems
to be addressed within a broad framework. The permissive powers
to do works, and the regulatory powers to control activities,
are adequate, and there is no case to reconsider the general principles
of the law, although future consideration should be given to some
updating on matters such as electoral procedures and strengthening
IDBs' role within the planning process. Land drainage law is seldom
tested in the courts, an indication that it can be applied in
what is accepted as a reasonable and practical way confirming
its effectiveness.
Under the legislation, IDBs are under the control of MAFF,
and they have supplemented the legislation through the provision
of a range of guidelines and, in more recent years, interpretation
of European directives. This association is part of the success,
and with flood defence/land drainage and land management inextricably
linked, there is a strong case that MAFF should continue as the
responsible Government Department. Whilst the highest priority
is to protect against urban flooding, the majority of flood defence/land
drainage operations are, and will continue to be, undertaken on
agricultural land. Work in such areas, be they pumping or channel
maintenance, can often be remote from the urban areas which they
wholly or partly protect. The strong linkage between the service
and agriculture will remain, and the owners of the system, whose
co-operation is vital, provide this in the knowledge that the
government understand their own interests.
SUBMISSION 3
Inquiry relating to Flood and Coastal Defence Issues
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
FLOOD EVENTS—EASTER
1998 (ASSOCIATION OF
DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES)
The flooding over the Easter period commencing on the 9th
April 1998 and in some parts of East Anglia continuing at the
time of report writing, the 16th April 1998, has been a major
event, resulting in tragic loss of life, human suffering and extensive
damage and losses. It was not a national flood event, in that
the rainfall which generated the high flows, whilst covering an
extensive area, was limited to the centre of the county, extending
southwards to the River Thames and into East Anglia.
In many locations, including drainage districts, the worst
recorded flood conditions were experienced and in others certainly
worse than the exceptional nationwide flooding in 1947. All flood
events have their own characteristics but widespread and "large"
river flooding in April is unusual, occurring at a time of year
when ground conditions tend to have become drier and more localised
showery rainfall is the more likely weather pattern.
The systems in many drainage districts were under intense
pressure in dealing with the inflow into the district, coupled
with the high water levels in adjacent rivers into which the IDB
discharged its water.
In considerable areas of Cambridgeshire the position was
so acute that it became necessary for IDBs to cease pumping to
relieve the pressure on the receiving waterways, which were at
risk of overspilling embankments, with the high probability of
resultant breaching. In the Middle Level of Cambridgeshire, extending
to over 40,000 hectares, such actions became necessary and this
and other local management decisions enabled the flood to be contained.
In a flat area of which much is below sea level, despite in places
being some 80 km from the sea, land levels do not limit the extent
of flooding and as such the area of inundation far exceeds that
in more natural river valley situations.
Had overspilling and any resultant breaching occurred this
area would have unquestionably featured on the TV coverage, with
very substantial damage and disruption and further lives at risk.
This situation was repeated on a smaller scale elsewhere,
but despite the severity of the conditions, relatively small areas
of flooding occurred within drainage districts, with only a few
pockets of property affected. The full picture has yet to emerge,
but a rapid survey reveals that the substantial majority of IDBs
coped with the situation without problem. Others faced conditions
which stressed systems to the limit and some experienced localised
flooding to land, with property flooding occurring within no more
than five drainage districts and totalling no more than fifty.
Against the magnitude of the event over this period the people
and property in drainage districts were afforded a high level
of protection, demonstrating that without the local service as
provided by the IDB the flooding throughout the county would have
been substantially worse, with the commensurate increase in human
misery, disruption and losses.
16 April 1998
