Memorandum submitted by Farm Crisis Network
(FCN) in Yorkshire (FL 74)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We are chiefly concerned with the East Riding
of Yorkshire, the flood plain of the River Hull in an area stretching
from Driffield to the City of Hull.
In the majority of the farmers visited the cause
of the flooding was the dykes, which run parallel and adjacent
to the river, "backing up" because the water is normally
pumped up and into the River Hull by a whole series of pumping
stations. Evidence suggests that the pumps were not on to prevent
flooding in the City of Hull and the Kingswood Estate in particular.
The Kingswood Estate was built in the last 3-4 years on an area
that was known to flood.
On various farms it was approximately 16 days
before the water started to drain away which suggests that the
pumps were not operating.
Whilst we accept the need to protect large urban
conurbations such decisions need to be transparent and there is
a compelling case for compensation to those whose land is more
seriously affected as a consequence of flood management strategy.
During this episode FCN have handled 26 cases
due to the flooding in East Yorkshire of which 11 are in the area
described above and we are aware that there are many others in
this area who have been affected but who have not applied to FCN
or ARC-Addington for help and assistance. To put our figures into
context the local authority in the area puts the scale of the
loss to farmers in the region of £14 million. Other partners
working in the area such as The Royal Agricultural Benevolent
Institution (RABI) will also have attended cases in this area.
Paradoxically those whose businesses sustained the greatest financial
loss may not have contacted either FCN or RABI since the amounts
of financial help on offer were far too small to make much difference.
We are also aware that many farmers have been
affected by this years weather although they are not in areas
that were known for flooding.
DETAILED BREAKDOWN
1. In the cases visited there were broadly
2 effects of the flooding. The first was visible flooding where
large areas of land were covered with water and in other cases,
water "backed up" the drainage pipes and the water moved
upwards destroying the root structure of the crops. Crops affected
by direct flooding can survive longer than crops affected by this
indirect flooding due to oxygen being captured in the former case,
and forced out in the latter. One of the key factors in the level
of damage to crop and soil was the length of time that land was
under water, the longer this went on, the higher the crop loss.
In the instances where water did back up the drainage pipes the
resulting back flow may have caused these pipes to become silted
up in which case they will require extensive jetting and repair
This table gives a brief outline of the cases
from this particular area showing the amount of land affected
by flooding.
|
| Acres
| What type of farm |
Outcome |
|
| Case 1 | 168
| Beef and Sheep | 90% flooded
|
| | |
| 500 sheep moved
|
| Case 2 | 260
| Suckler Cows | 60 acres lost
|
| | |
Beef/Arable | All cattle having to be housed
|
| Case 3 | 300
| Beef/Arable | Lost 80 acres of wheat
|
| Case 4 | 30
| Dairy | Field flooded for 3 weeks
|
| Case 5 | 560
| Pigs/Arable | Loss of 30 acres of borage
|
| Case 6 | 200
| 30 acres of barley |
|
| | |
170 acres Woodland diversification
| 60-70 acres affected |
| Case 7 | 200
| Grass Land | Lost 50-60 acres—under water for 4 weeks
|
| | |
Suckler Cows |
|
| Case 8 | 60
| Hay and straw and contract pigs
| Lost growing crops and crops "in store"
|
| Case 9 | 80
| Hay and straw and contract pigs
| All lost |
| Case 10 | 300
| Pigs/Arable | Lost 60 acres
|
| Case 11 | 200
| Grazing | Loss of grazing and costs of concentrate
|
|
2. The losses due to this flooding take various forms:
A Total loss of cash crop eg wheat, barley, potatoes
B Loss of forage crop and animal bedding
C The cost of buying in replacement forage crops eg silage
D Provision of concentrates (cereals) for livestock housed
due to the flooding of fields
E Cost of alternative grazing including transport
F Lack of employment opportunities for contractors
G Reseeding and establishment of replacement grass crops
including liming.
H Possible soil contamination with heavy metals and the
cleanup
I Cost of removing spoilt crops
The above financial implications take no account of the associated
stress and local socio-economic factors.
3. Although historically the major drains have been well
maintained by the environmental agency, in recent times there
appears to have been a shift in emphasis to environmental protection,
which may have resulted in a reduction in water movement capacity.
The River Hull, which is a major outlet for water has been neglected
as evidenced by the presence of sunken boats and barges. This
can be seen at various places eg Bethels Bridge near Hempholme.
One of the compilers of this submission Mr M Doyle has seen this
first hand.
4. Longer term effects on farm businesses
The farms concerned could in some cases suffer longer term implications
including:
A Potential impact on value of land that is known to be
a part of a flood management strategy
B The impact on costs of production of shortage of and
increased cost of feed and bedding
C Impact of fixed price contracts with supermarkets
D The impact on insurance premiums for buildings and livestock
Farm Crisis Network (FCN) in Yorkshire
August 2007
| 
