Memorandum submitted by Graham Shelton
(FL 52)
As an Oxfordshire farmer severely affected by
the flooding I believe that the following should be examined.
1. The flooding was unprecedented winter
or summer; was the weather unprecedented or just wet for the time
of year? Despite popular myth, my information is that it was only
the 23rd wettest July in Oxford (Radcliffe Meteorological Station,
University of Oxford).
2. Was the farmland unusually saturated before
the flood (thereby reducing its "sponge" capacity)?
4. When were ditches, brooks and waterways
last effectively cleared of vegetation and silt?
5. Were flood ditches and banks adequately
maintained?
6. What were the costs to the farms and communities
of these floods compared to the costs saved in not maintaining
the waterways silt-free?
7. Is the land still unusually saturated?
8. How can it be effectively drained?
9. How will the Environment Agency prevent
further flooding this winter and beyond?
10. Does the Environment Agency have any
plan to drain the Thames Valley effectively or will it just hope
that it doesn't rain?
May I offer my answers to the questions I raised?
I do this from personal observation in the Oxfordshire flood plain.
1. The weather was NOT unprecedented, although
it was undoubtedly pretty wet.
2. The water levels were very high throughout
the Spring and early Summer and the soil was saturated a little
below the surface but workable around us.
3. No effective clearance of the waterways
around us has been done by the EA for at least 5 years. We are
not allowed to interfere with the key brooks that feed into the
Thames, and the EA has allowed them to become seriously overgrown.
They therefore have massively reduced flow rates, the more so
because the vegetation collects silt which further impedes the
flow. As a result, the drainage is impaired. It is no wonder,
therefore, that the ground was saturated before the heavy rains.
Its sponge capacity was already fully used and there was none
spare to take the extra water. We clear our own ditches, and at
the peak of the flood they ran backwards as they filled up from
below.
4. There has been no effective dredging
of the Thames around us for years and no effective clearing of
key channels by the EA for a similar period.
5. Flood ditches and banks have not been
maintained adequately.
6. Don't know the overall costs. On our
500-acre livestock farm we estimate the cost at in excess of £10,000
already. I have provided to James Paice a detailed breakdown of
these costs. This will ensure that we make a loss this year and
will make the business unsustainable if it is a frequent occurrence.
7. The land is still saturated, as the water
has still not drained out completely, killing grass, killing worms
and leaving bare mudflats. This has never happened before, winter
or summer. This is not because the soil in unusually compacted.
It is because of the impaired drainage.
8. It is self-evidently the case that the
drainage is inadequate to take the flows of water required. If
the inflow to the bath is greater than the outflow then overflow
is inevitable. We cannot alter the inflow and therefore flooding
can only be avoided if we increase the outflow.
9. We can do this quickly and restore to
pre-flooding levels by reversing the EA policy of not clearing
and dredging. Longer-term, further drainage channels and banks
may be needed. Achieving sufficient flow of water throughout the
year is key. I understand that there is a drop of over 160 metres
from the source of the Thames to the sea, this should allow sufficient
flow to avoid most problems if the channels are kept clear.
10. We cannot change the weather and it
is unreasonable to blame it for a management failing. We need
to change our policy from a flooding policy to a drainage policy.
I look forward to hearing the full results and
actions arising from your inquiry.
Graham Shelton
August 2007
| 
