Memorandum submitted by the Country Land
& Business Association (CLA) (FL 68)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The CLA is the leading national organisation
which represents and supports businesses in rural communities,
covering all aspects of land use and management. Our comments
are based on those received from our members and their collective
experience of the recent floods.
Rural communities have suffered significant
losses and difficulties in the recent floods. Farming has been
particularly hard hit. Crops were destroyed or damaged by flood
water and the excess rainfall experienced, which will have a knock-on
effect on availability, quality and prices of a number of foodstuffs.
Livestock farmers were given little warning or advice before/during
the floods and encountered severe problems trying to move and
house large numbers of animals at short notice. Grazing and fodder
crops were destroyed leading to longer-term difficulties for these
farmers. Many of the financial losses resulting from the flooding
will not be met through insurance, as premium costs are prohibitive,
and will have to be borne by the businesses themselves.
Accepting that the rainfall was abnormal, the
primary causes for the severity of flooding in rural areas, and
the length of time the flood waters took to recede, was lack of
maintenance of river channels and flood defences, coupled with
the difficulties arising as a result of excess building on flood
plains. Weed growth and overhanging vegetation has been allowed
to choke many watercourses, severely reducing flows, leading to
overtopping of river banks and defences. One of the causes of
this lack of weed cutting is the Environment Agency's concentration
on environmental/wildlife priorities rather than flood protection.
One suggestion is that the Environment Agency concentrates on
its water management and flood defence roles and achieve a more
sensible balance with its environmental champion role.
Flood defences and pumping equipment have not
had the level of repair and improvement needed in the past decade,
and were not therefore fit for purpose. Lack of personnel and
resources, such as temporary flood barriers, were obvious in the
days leading up to the flooding. Rural populations have suffered
particularly due to lack limited resources and priority being
given to urban areas. It is abundantly clear that the level of
spending on flood protection is woefully inadequate and will need
to be substantially improved if losses from future flood episodes
are to be minimised.
Future flood management needs to be based on
a planned, catchment-based approach, limiting further development
in flood plains. Landowners have a role to play in the creation
of washlands sited to accept excess water and protect local and
downstream populations. However, they will need to be properly
recompensed for this benefit to wider society. We believe Internal
Drainage Boards have the ability to play a greater role in flood
management, taking back responsibility for Critical Ordinary Water
Courses.
CLA COMMENTS
Background
The CLA is the leading national organisation
which represents and supports businesses in rural communities,
covering all aspects of land use and management. We represent
the breadth of the rural economy and 38,000 members in England
and Wales between them own around 5 million hectares of rural
land. Our members run more than 250 different types of businesses
in rural areas including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, renewable
energy, food, tourism, recreation and other rural businesses.
Availability of fresh water, flood and coastal defences are important
concerns for them, and are, in turn, influenced by their land
management activities. Our comments are based on those received
from our members and their collective experience of the recent
floods.
Problems Encountered
1. Flood damage to property and buildings.
Homes, business premises and farm buildings were all subject to
flooding with resultant damage and losses. Of particular concern
to farmers was damage to materials such as seeds, livestock feedstuffs,
fodder crops (hay) and farm produce—many of which are difficult
to replace due to the localised production of certain crops and
the seasonal nature of their production.
2. Damage to crops and longer term effects.
Flood water that covered growing crops, including grassland, for
more than 48 hours generally resulted in the total destruction
of that crop, rendering it worthless. It is worth noting that
in circumstances where saline water covers crops the time before
total damage is incurred is significantly less (usually about
1.5-2 hours). The result of crop losses is economic loss, but
unlike most domestic and business losses, crop losses are more
difficult to replace due to the seasonal nature of farming.
Loss of potatoes, peas, oilseed rape, etc will
undoubtedly impact on food availability and prices. Even areas
that were not flooded have suffered from reduced yields and lower
quality crops as a result of the unusually high summer rainfall
so there are likely to be general shortages of many UK grown foods.
One vining pea farmer in Lincolnshire estimated
his loss from the pea crop alone of £410,000—resulting
from 42 acres of crop completely destroyed by flooding from the
local river, 360 acres partially flooded and the remainder damaged
by heavy rain leaving the crop unfit for vining. Two neighbouring
members in Lincolnshire lost 70 acres and 55 acres respectively
of a borage, completely destroyed by river flooding. They have
estimated a net loss of £230/acre amounting to £28,750
between them. Potato growers have also suffered significant losses
of crops from flooded crops. Where the floods receded more quickly
the result was much reduced quality produce.
Loss of hay/silage crops can only be replaced
by buying in materials from other areas, with the resultant countrywide
shortages and higher prices further affecting businesses already
devastated by flooding.
Grazing land is particularly difficult to replace
especially where significant areas of grassland were affected.
It is both costly and practically difficult to move herds any
distance from the farmstead. Insurance is not available to cover
these losses.
The flood waters not only damaged the economically
important crops but many environmental stewardship strips, field
corners and natural meadowland. In several places, land that had
been deliberately converted to flood alleviation grazing meadows
under an ESA scheme—but is usually only waterlogged over
winter—was badly affected leading to concerns about environmental
stewardship payments and the impact on flora and fauna.
Rotting crops, especially grass that had been
cut for hay or silage started to ferment and polluted the flood
waters and resulted in several local complaints that farmers had
emptied their effluent pits into the floods. In winter floods
the water is colder and there are no fleshy crops, thus this problem
does not normally occur.
3. Particular problems for livestock farmers.
In addition to the obvious difficulties of finding higher ground/available
empty buildings, moving substantial numbers of livestock and finding
replacement feeds/fodder crops in a very short time scale, there
were a number of welfare and bureaucratic issues following the
floods. In several instances, cattle had to be moved from flooded
land onto grassland allocated for second-cut silage, thus the
second-cut silage crops were lost. In addition some farmers had
to start feeding first-cut silage to young stock because of lost
grazing. Several members have reported having to reduce stock
numbers due to lack of winter feed stocks.
Having to move livestock away from the main
farm results in higher costs and less opportunity to keep watch
over them—contrary to the advice given in the Animal Welfare
Regulations. One farmer on the banks of the River Severn had to
find accommodation for 1000 sheep and 500 cattle in less than
24 hours—and is now left with the difficulty of finding
grazing and fodder for them as all his crops were destroyed. Neighbouring
farmers do not have the necessary "spare" grazing land.
Many livestock farmers cited lack of help and
advice in dealing with animal movement records and other bureaucratic
requirements. The recent restrictions on animal movements due
to FMD will have further compounded problems for many farmers
suffering lack of grazing and fodder.
4. Lack of flood warnings and advice. Many
CLA members commented that whilst flood warnings were generally
adequate, little help and advice was available for businesses/farmers.
Because of the problems noted above, particular priority needs
to be given to issuing warnings to livestock farmers. We understand
that in past this was the case but that was not the experience
in the recent floods.
5. Disruption to water supplies following
the floods and resulting problems. Following disruption to fresh
water supplies, housed livestock and dairy herds, in particular,
had great difficulties, resulting in distress to animals. Whilst
emergency supplies for domestic use were being provided, little
was forthcoming for farmers. There was no point of contact to
obtain help or advice on this or other matters.
6. Insurance. In common with domestic premises
in flood plains, farm insurance is either very costly or not available.
It is prohibitively expensive to get insurance cover for damage
to growing crops, grass, fodder, etc so these losses will have
to be borne by the farming business. Livestock farmers, already
under pressure financially, will suffer severe hardship in bearing
these losses and these floods may result in them going out of
business. It is hoped that giving the affected localities Disaster
Area status will allow EU funds to be made available to those
businesses that have suffered catastrophic losses.
Underlying reasons for the problems
7. Lack of maintenance of flood defences
and river channels. In rural areas the main reason cited for the
severity of recent floods was lack of maintenance of flood defences
and lack of clearing rivers and watercourses of vegetation. Many
defences overtopped where they had been allowed to fall into a
state of disrepair, and once the water got through, further damage
to the defence resulted. The lack of basic repairs and maintenance
to defences has resulted from inadequate funds and resources,
coupled with excess emphasis on habitat protection. Farmers and
the rural population feel strongly that defence of their land
and properties is being neglected in favour of larger urban areas
as funds are inadequate. The poor state of some of the pumping
stations and the bureaucratic delays in getting authorization
to pump were also cited as contributing to the severity of flooding.
Some members commented on the policy of maintaining
high water levels in certain watercourses—for example the
Ankeholme—to allow recreational navigation. This, of course,
reduced the ability of the water course to cope with extra rainfall.
8. Building in flood plains. The failure
of planners and developers to heed the Environment Agency's advice
about building homes and associated roads/hard surfaces in flood
plains is generally regarded as one of the main reasons for the
severity of the flood problems encountered. It puts at risk those
properties in the flood plain as well as those further downstream
which suffer because the ground is covered in hard impermeable
surfaces which have a very much reduced capacity to absorb water.
9. Flood defence vs habitat protection.
Numerous members suggested that many watercourses were not being
kept clear of vegetation to the same extent as in previous decades—and
most believed this was because the Environment Agency is jointly
responsible for flood and environment protection, leading to conflicts
of interests within the one organization. Whilst East Anglia did
not suffer severe flooding on the scale experienced in Gloucestershire,
there have been numerous cases where grazing meadows have been
flooded and have failed to drain away quickly (resulting in lost
grazing) —all as a result of rivers being infested with
weeds. The local Agency personnel have stated that they were unable
to undertake adequate weed cutting early in the season because
of having to protect nesting birds and other wildlife.
10. Lack of resources and manpower. In the
days leading up to the floods, and subsequently, the lack of adequate
personnel within the Environment Agency was manifestly obvious.
Operational teams have been greatly reduced in recent years and
they were clearly unable to cope with the emergencies. In this
situation the resources were, understandably directed at larger
areas of population, leaving isolated rural communities and farmers
more vulnerable.
One example occurred north of Welshpool where
the Environment Agency had just started renewing a flood embankment
using its own workforce. They had removed 500 mm from the top
of the old defence and had started building the new embankment
on a new line set back from the river. A flood warning was issued
on Thursday 19th July, with a further two flood warnings the next
day at which time there were no Agency in-house work force available
as they were all south of Worcester. On the Friday evening the
Field Team Manager had to obtain some (inexperienced) private
digger drivers to try to rebuild 1,480 metres of partially demolished
flood defence. On Saturday morning it failed and the embankment
overtopped. The area defended is 1,500 acres with 29 dwellings,
including 7 dairy farms, resulting in much unnecessary damage.
Firstly, the Environment Agency should have heeded its own flood
warnings and started the repair 24 hours earlier when the first
flood warning was issued. Secondly, the in-house Operations Delivery
Team of 16 (originally 22) are responsible for not only work in
Upper Severn Wales but also for erecting flood barriers in Shrewsbury,
Ironbridge, Bewdley and Worcester. They were away doing this as
well as assisting in the Tewkesbury area with the defence of electricity
substations. They were stretched beyond what was humanly possible.
The reliance on temporary barriers for flood
protection clearly relies on adequate barriers being in the appropriate
place and adequate manpower to erect them. In some places there
appears to be lack of clarity between local Councils and the Environment
Agency about responsibilities for storage and erection of these
barriers and post-flooding clear up. As an example, the Environment
Agency decided that temporary flood barriers were the solution
in places such as Shrewsbury, Ironbridge, Bewdley, Worcester and
Upton on Severn. It decided it would retain the responsibility
for the erection and storage of the equipment rather than delegate
this to the local councils. The policy of retaining control of
the barriers caught it out at Worcester and Upton on Severn. The
barriers are kept at Kidderminster, upstream of Worcester and
again it did not respond to its own Thursday Flood Warning. The
men started moving the equipment on Friday and got caught in the
local flooding on the M5 and local roads. They never got to Worcester
or Upton.
11. Failure to consider whole catchment.
Flood management has historically been looked at on a fairly local
basis, especially with regard to individual development proposals.
It clearly needs to be considered on a much wider scale. Whilst
some of the recent problems undoubtedly arose due to local "flashy"
watercourses and inadequate drainage systems, many problems arose
due to water rushing downstream—there being inadequate upstream
areas to absorb the excess water.
12. Piped ditches and culverts. Many of
the recent problems in urban areas resulted from inadequate drainage
capacity. Within rural areas the increased use of piped roadside
ditches and culverts —to save Highway's maintenance costs—was
cited as adding to local problems coping with the excess rainfall.
Piping reduces the area of land that can receive the floodwater
and directs it to the nearest stream, and so the road and nearby
properties flood.
13. Debris and rubbish. Many members noted
that a number of bridges, culverts and rivers with overhanging
trees were blocked as a result of debris and rubbish being carried
in the flood water and building up around obstructions—both
in rural and urban locations. One member noted a local factory,
located in a floodplain that had pallets and wagon bodies stacked
up in the yard. The flood took all this material and piled it
against the nearby railway bridge, blocking it and creating a
massive localised flood.
Suggestions for future improvements to flood management
14. Better maintenance of flood defences
and water courses. Without doubt the reduction in basic maintenance
and repairs to flood defences and reduced clearing of watercourses
contributed significantly to the degree and extent of flooding.
This needs to be addressed as the first priority.
15. Greater spending on flood and coastal
defences. The lack of maintenance of flood defences is largely
a result of under-funding flood (and coastal defence) spending—something
highlighted in the Foresight Report in 2004. At present levels
the total flood spending equates to three days spend on the Health
Service. In view of the enormous economic and human cost of the
recent floods, this would seem wholly inadequate.
16. Less building in flood plains. Clearly
development in flood plains is a significant factor in both exacerbating
flooding and putting more homes/business premises at risk of flooding.
Development needs to be curtailed in flood plains and that which
is permitted needs to include better provision for the absorption
of water (permeable surfaces, etc) and compensatory flood provisions.
In addition any building in flood plains (including farm buildings)
may need to consider incorporating flood resilience measures and
better provision for drainage—eg SUDS.
One suggestion is to levy a developers' charge
or bond to be used towards flood defence funding/creation of compensatory
flood plains.
17. Environment Agency to concentrate on
flood role. The EA should concentrate on delivering water management
and flood protection, reducing the emphasis on its environmental
champion role. The conflicting roles of the EA in delivering both
flood and environmental protection has resulted in reduced clearing
water courses and has a similar adverse effect on the provision
of coastal defences.
Whilst generally providing adequate flood warnings
in domestic situations, better provision for livestock farmers
and general post-flooding advice is needed. The bureaucratic nature
of the EA makes it extremely difficult to find a local contact
who can help in any given situation.
18. Make better use of the Internal Drainage
Boards. There is a good case for strengthening the IDB responsibilities
as their record of water level management, and keeping drainage
channels clear, is highly regarded. It would be worth re-assessing
whether IDBs should be given back responsibility for maintaining
Critical Ordinary Watercourses. The efficiency of IDBs seems to
have prevented serious domestic flooding and their recent record
in low-lying areas would seem to be a lot better than in those
areas "protected" by the EA. IDBs have good local knowledge
which is valuable in prioritizing the necessary maintenance and
improvements to flood defences. Giving the IDBs greater flood
protection responsibilities, rather than burdening them with the
extra "public accountability" work would make a valuable
contribution to flood protection.
19. Catchment based approach to flood management
and use of natural washland. The recent emphasis on catchment
based flood management plans is a good one and needs to be extended
to development proposals. During the late 1980's/1990's EA embarked
on a series of maintenance works increasing height of the banks
alongside the River Severn, only to realise this was causing even
more flooding downstream. A holistic catchment approach may have
forseen these problems.
Landowners have a significant role to play in
providing natural flood plains/washlands where water can be held
rather than it rushing downstream and causing flooding to towns
and villages. However, in order for this to happen there needs
to be suitable recompense for the affected landowners whereby
the government purchases the land for this purpose or compensates
for any loss of income as a result of this land being used for
the public benefit—as occurred in some places, eg the Lincolnshire
Washlands Scheme. Historically, environmental stewardship has
been proposed for this purpose, and whilst being a suitable mechanism
there is insufficient in the budget to be widely used. However,
proper provision for livestock evacuation needs to be incorporated
in any agreement as much of this washland would be grazed during
the summer months, the expectation being that only winter flooding
would occur.
20. Clarity of roles and emergency planning.
In the light of, for example, the difficulties encountered when
erecting temporary flood barriers and delivering fresh water after
the floods, there needs to be greater clarity of roles between
the EA, local councils and the emergency forces.
Better planning with regard to protecting and
restoring basic infrastructure such as electricity and water is
needed.
Specific points of contact are needed where,
for example, livestock farmers can obtain help and advice.
21. Greater controls on rubbish near water
courses. Whilst retaining trees in the floodplain may have some
benefits in reducing flows, it is clear that fallen trees and
other debris were washed downstream to become lodged in the next
bridge, causing localised flooding or damage to the bridge. River
banks and the adjacent floodplain should not be used to store
any materials and fallen trees should be removed from the river
and the adjacent fields.
22. Insurance cover/financial support for
hardship cases. The recent floods have again highlighted the very
real difficulties that homeowners have with regard to getting
adequate insurance cover if the home is situated in a flood risk
area. Insurance is even more costly and difficult to obtain for
many businesses and farmers. Greater government help is needed,
either in the form of supported insurance or hardship funding
to help with economic losses due to flooding.
CLA
August 2007
| 
