Memorandum submitted by Peter Mills (FL
167)
THE PITT
REVIEW
I have read with interest the review document
and I am somewhat disappointed to observe that some aspects of
the role of the Environment Agency in the general flood scenario
have been somewhat overlooked. I would like to make the following
points:
1. As a flood victim in the Thames flooding
of 2003 I believe that the EA should be tasked with the responsibility
for flood defence. It is very unrealistic for such an organisation
to take the easy option of claiming that they are responsible
just for flood risk management and to ignore the real problem
of flood defence.
2. In the case of the Thames, it is ludicrous
to have the EA responsibility for navigation as its only statutory
responsibility when the number of vessels on the Upper Thames
has reduced over the years to an all time low at the current time.
This "statutory responsibility" probably dates back
to the time when the Thames was the main artery for goods/freight
carrying in the Thames Valley. Nowadays, the few remaining vessels
on the Upper Thames are private, shallow draft pleasure vessels.
Whilst the EA is hiding behind this responsibility the real problem
of flood defence has been overlooked.
3. It has been proved that the silt levels
in much of the Upper Thames have increased and this impacts on
the capacity of the river to carry flood water away. In spite
of this, the EA persistently refuses to carry out dredging in
the areas most affected.
4. The EA is not held in high esteem by
those who have been most impacted by flooding. The main reason
for this is the attitude displayed when any major flooding occurs.
A large organisation such as this should, reasonably, be expected
to be supportive of local organisations who represent local views.
In my experience, the whole effort of the EA seems to be one of
defensiveness in order to avoid any risk of accountability.
Yours Faithfully
Mr P C Mills
March 2008
| 
