Memorandum submitted by the National Farmers'
Union (FL 106)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1. The National Farmers' Union represents
the interests of some 55,000 businesses which are engaged in a
diverse range of agricultural, horticultural and related activities
throughout England and Wales. We welcome the opportunity to present
our views on the recent flooding to the EFRA Committee as many
of our members have been severely impacted by these floods and
have strong views on lessons that can be learned.
1.2. The NFU do not dispute that given the
extreme weather in June and July there would have been extensive
flooding. Evidence from our members shows that the investment
and maintenance in flood protection and watercourses has been
inadequate to deal with this type of severe event. Increased investment
could have reduced the severity and the duration of the floods:
the combination that has caused livestock losses, crop damage,
complete crop loss and subsequent impacts on fodder availability.
We have attached as an appendix a summary of the type of flood
damage that occurred this summer.
1.3. We have received information from many
hundreds of farmers who have been affected by the flooding this
summer, in addition we have comprehensive written and photographic
evidence from over 50 members. It is clear the impacts on agriculture
and horticulture have been severe. The evidence has provided us
with some key areas of concern which we would like considered
in your inquiry.
1.4. The losses faced by farmers in different
regions, and therefore nationally, as a result of the flooding
are difficult, if not impossible to quantify. In many cases you
would not know until a rain affected crop was harvested. They
have been in vegetables (carrots, peas, cauliflowers, broccoli,
cabbages, leeks and salad crops) and potatoes and combinable crops
(wheat, barley and oilseed rape) and grass where rain fell heaviest
and floods were greatest. Farmers cannot insure against these
losses—their livelihoods, their employees and processors
as well as those further along the supply chain are all affected.
No compensation for crop loss is available from central government
or the EU.
1.5. Key problems raised include problems
with flood warnings, lack of information following and during
flood events, exacerbated flooding due to insufficient watercourse
management, inadequate funding of Environment Agency (EA) flood
risk management and lack of planning to prevent a crisis due to
damage to utilities and infrastructure.
1.6. We have identified a need for a change
in flood risk management, not least a need to undertake research
and apply measures on flood risk on a catchment scale. Urban and
rural areas should not be segregated, land use change in either
can influence flood generation and risk which makes the categorisation
of high to low flood risk nonsensical. We must ensure we are not
apportioning blame but finding solutions especially as flooding
events are likely to be on the increase with climatic change.
1.7. Farmers can help reduce flood risk,
particularly with temporary flood storage areas on land with the
right financial support. However, highlighting that farming practices
cause floods, as has been seen in the press, is neither helpful
nor based in research at the scale of the floods we have seen.
We know land management practices can impact on very local scale
floods but little can be done to mitigate against the kind of
extreme rainfall through changes in agricultural practice alone.
Indeed this could actually increase flood risk in rivers downstream
if flood peaks from tributaries reach the main channel at the
same time. Further research is needed on flood generation and
mitigation at a catchment scale assessing all land uses and any
impacts of changes.
2. PROBLEMS RAISED
2.1. A number of farmers who had signed
up for flood warning did not receive a warning or did so too late.
Had the flood warning system worked properly, farmers would have
had some prospect of rescuing their livestock. Some 950 sheep
and lambs from just two farms were lost in the Tamworth area alone.
One lost 600 and the other 350. A third farm lost more than 220
sheep. In the same area crops such as potatoes have been lost.
It is understood that the River Tame Flood Alert system did not
provide adequate warning. One member, who would normally be alerted
by phone, reports that he did not receive a call at any time while
the flood waters were rising. Others received a text message on
the Saturday morning to say that the flood warning of the previous
day was being withdrawn as the flood waters were receding.
2.2. We have received considerable evidence
about poor maintenance of infrastructure from all regions and
it is considered in the cases presented that this lack of maintenance
contributed to the extent or duration of flooding. Individual
cases include:
2.2.1. Near Wantage about 300 acres of land
was still underwater on 18th August as a result of the flooding
at the end of July. The reason is that the river involved (the
Millbrook, a tributary of the Thames) is blocked. We have been
informed that the EA has done little in recent years to dredge
or clear weeds and debris. The farmers have paid for a basic survey
that shows a fall of 5 metres from the flooded area to the Thames
but yet the water is still not able to get away. This additional
duration of flooding has causes considerable additional damage
to the land and crops.
2.2.2. On 25th June after the heavy rains
a member in North Lincolnshire had 90 acres under water on one
farm, approx 18 inches deep. The drains had all backed up and
overtopped. The Internal Drainage Board's pumps were working flat
out and reduced the levels over 10-12 days. It was on the 6th
July that a 12 m breach was found in the Winterton Beck, the responsibility
of the EA which had flooded the low lying surrounding land. A
month later, his fields are still saturated, which he believes
is because the drains are full of weed, restricting water flow.
2.2.3. A sluice gate at Kirkham Abbey on
the Derwent used to be capable of being lowered by about 6 feet
at times of high water to aid flow but cannot be lowered because
the electric motors have burnt out. Our member was informed it
would cost over £100,000 to repair and so this has not been
done. In addition, members have provided pictures of an oak tree
which has fallen across the Derwent between Crambeck and Kirkham
Abbey and nearly blocked the surface channel and has not been
removed. This is apparently typical of stretches of the Rivers
Derwent and Rye.
2.2.4. One member in Holderness comments
that whilst the farm dykes and drainage board ditches are well
maintained each year the EA maintained high level drains were
unable to transport the water away causing flooding back onto
rural properties and land.
2.2.5. A member grazes his cattle on some
low-lying meadows on the river Crane. At one point there is a
weir to divert water away from the farmhouse. The EA have blocked
the storm channel, so all the storm water now rushes over the
weir or down the old mill race, which the member considers inadequate,
overgrown and in definite need of maintenance. He is also concerned
about the low productivity of the EA staff sent out to do work
and does not consider this is value for money as a taxpayer.
2.2.6. Another member farms on the Thame
River which used to be dredged every 5 to 10 years but he believes
it has not been dredged for 20 years. There are three trees that
have fallen into the river within a mile of where he farms which
have been there for 2 years. He is used to the Thame flooding
but lately he reports its pattern of flooding has changed: usually
it takes 3 days after a heavy rain but this winter it came up
overnight, which seems to be due to reduced capacity of the channel
to hold the water.
2.2.7. In addition, he highlights local authority
maintenance of gullies on the side of the road is insufficient.
Consequently when it rains rather than a trickle every so often
soaking into the field a torrent runs down the road and into the
drains, brook and eventually adds to the water and floods in the
rivers. Local Authority maintenance of roadside drains and ditches
needs to be examined.
2.3. In all of these examples listed above
it seems that the EA, and local authority, have inadequate funding
to carry out the level of work that is needed. This suggests that
the flood defence budget is simply too small or an insufficient
proportion is spent on maintenance. In addition we believe, and
our members report that this reduction in maintenance is due to
environmental constraints. It is considered that the frequency
of weed cutting and whether sites are dredged or not is undertaken
to protect habitats and wildlife, which results in a reduction
in maintenance that would otherwise be carried out for land drainage
or flood defence reasons alone.
2.4. We also have evidence where the EA
have insufficient funds to remove a flood defence structure where
they are causing a greater flood risk problem:
2.4.1. Approximately 18 years ago the predecessors
of the EA upgraded a dysfunctional weir in Shropshire which originally
provided water to local meadows but with the introduction of water
tanks, the sluices became redundant and were filled in. The weir
was rebuilt bigger and higher so the banks of the river upstream
were built up to contain higher water levels. This worked well
for many years until the river changed course and moved beyond
these heightened banks. Now the river flows just below the bank
top and with any excess rainfall it bursts its banks, flooding
the village of Walford, its houses and three busy main roads and
has done so on five occasions in 2007. A Parish Councillor and
local farmer proposed the reduction or removal of the weir. This
was originally accepted 5 years ago by the EA. However, after
numerous conversations and more floods he was advised that they
did not have the funds to undertake the job.
2.4.2. We also have evidence that Internal
Drainage Board (IDB) maintenance may have caused flood problems,
with a member suggesting that due to environmental policy this
has reduced the amount of maintenance the IDBs can undertake.
2.5. During the flooding in Gloucestershire,
water supplies were cut off in some areas. Water companies do
not have a duty to provide water to non-domestic customers and
so livestock farmers were not provided with water. Given that
many of the livestock in the affected areas were housed as the
ground was flooded or too wet to allow them out, mains water supply
was for many the only source of water for their livestock. The
NFU contacted Severn Trent who had no interest in assisting. The
NFU worked hard sourcing tankers to ensure supplies for these
farms immediately after the water was cut off and organised sharing
of water between farmers. After subsequent negotiations, Severn
Trent are now in the process of reimbursing the cost of the emergency
tankered supplies. We would like to think in this situation, assistance
from Severn Trent could have been more forthcoming as the NFU
undertook both the organisation and management of the supplies.
We consider on animal welfare grounds, in these kind of emergencies,
water companies should have a plan to enable them to work and
make decisions quickly to ensuring no time is lost and animal
health put at risk.
3. SUGGESTED
IMPROVEMENTS
3.1. Riparian livestock farmers should be
warned about potential floods for obvious animal welfare reasons.
The NFU are keen to work with the EA to improve lists and methods
of communication. Also, after the deluge there is a need for those
who continue to be affected (some farmers had feet of water in
standing crop for days after the rainfall) to talk with someone
in the EA who knows what is happening and why. The single switchboard
number provided by the EA is not able to provide local and useful
information.
3.2. We must ensure rural and urban areas
are not treated as separate units with regards to flood risk,
but water is managed from a catchment perspective, catchment flood
management plans (CFMPs) do not address that if defences are strengthened,
or reduced in one area it will have a knock on effect elsewhere.
There seems to be little current appreciation about how the elements
of a catchment interact. If the water cannot get away it will
cause flooding, equally put in too many "hard" defences,
and the water will be channeled downstream to flood. This is not
helped with the simple high, medium and low categorisation of
flood risk that the EA use to determine maintenance programmes.
Low levels of maintenance simply stores up problems upstream.
3.3. If we are to "work with natural
processes" as advocated by Defra's Making Space for Water
Policy, we need to think about innovative flood storage and solutions
in both urban and rural areas and not use it as a justification
to reduce spend on maintenance in rural areas. This policy and
EA's allocation of flood defence expenditure also needs to factor
in the anticipated increase in residential and urban development
and urban densities, as these inevitably place a greater surface
water/storm sewage loading on already under-managed drains and
watercourses.
3.4. Protection of rural areas is not just
for the needs of the agricultural community. Rural areas support
many businesses, rural communities are more likely to severely
affected if cut off due to their fewer amenities.
3.5. Protection of infrastructure such as
roads, railways and utilities which may well pass through predominantly
rural areas is vital to ensure economic activity can continue
during extreme events. Greater protection is needed of utilities,
including electricity supplies and sub-stations, water supply
and water treatment works to prevent the power cuts and water
cuts experienced during this summer.
3.6. We consider a comprehensive and transparent
assessment is needed by the EA of the performance likely to be
offered by their flood risk management assets and infrastructure.
If it is decided that maintenance, or a particular level of service
should reduce then local stakeholders must be informed. At present
there is little or no notification to changes in level of service
and this leaves local stakeholders both angry and confused. It
must also be clear as to whether changes in service are as a result
of real budgetary constraints or for environmental benefit. At
present, is seems that one reason is used as a smokescreen for
the other. If genuine environmental benefits are required this
should be monitored and costs and benefits to society need to
be weighed up.
3.7. Drainage systems are considered to
be restricted in rural areas as there is the desire to manage
all watercourses to benefit the environment and wildlife, allowing
silting up and reed bed formation which has the long term effect
of restricting water flow, with the effect is all too often felt
further upstream. There is a genuine concern from people on the
ground that problems are being stored up for the future.
3.8. There is a spectrum between environmental
and flood defence concerns to consider. Historically, the balance
was tilted towards flood defence so that riverbanks were regularly
mown to remove vegetation and rivers were dredged to clear out
channels, regardless of the needs of wildlife. The balance is
now in the other direction with environmental interests dictating
that watercourses be maintained for the benefit of wildlife. We
are firmly convinced that there needs to be a review of this prioritisation,
not simply to reduce biodiversity prioritisation, but to ensure
that the drainage system and flood protection levels we have in
place is fit fir purpose in view of the future challenges of climate
change.
3.9. It has been suggested that spend on
maintenance of waterways has reduced, or has certainly reduced
over time as a proportion of overall spend by the Environment
Agency. After prolonged investigations, it was realised these
figures cannot be obtained. We consider that spend on different
elements of the EA's as well as IDB's flood management budget
over time should be publicly available and scrutinised.
3.10. We understand that there are full
reports by the EA on proposed water storage schemes on the Rivers
Ancholme, Bain and Witham in Lincolnshire which would have helped
considerably in the recent floods. In these cases, farmland is
deliberately flooded to protect other land and property and the
farmers affected are compensated accordingly. They were not put
into operation and washlands were not created because of lack
of resources. We see distinct advantage in schemes such as these
that can use farmland in a planned and compensated way as a soft
flood defence. We would contrast this to the unmanaged flooding
of land and property caused by breaches and overtopping that creates
de-facto storage areas to the benefit of other members of the
community but without recognition of the difficulties these present
to farmers and growers.
3.11. The practice in rural areas of creating
gulley pots from roadside ditches when housing is built has two
effects. Open deep ditches act as storage in extreme events often
holding significant volumes of water, potting and filling them
in reduces that storage feature. Secondly, flow in potted ditches
is thus restricted to the width of the pot and its eventual outflow.
Often these potted ditches are in rapidly developing rural areas
and the effects of this together with the accelerated run-off
from the development means the system can no longer take water
away quick enough. This can cause problems in the case of normal
rainfall but in extremes can result in serious flooding.
3.12. We can not afford to lose the benefits
of the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) structures. There is no replacement
for local knowledge and nobody better wants to see their land
drained correctly than local landowners, we should also remember
that as a result we are draining local communities. While moves
to centralise the IDBs should be discouraged we should maybe favour
a move for increased co-ordination and consultation between the
EA and local authorities, particularly when new development is
planned.
4. CLOSING REMARKS
4.1. The NFU is acutely aware that as climate
is changing we all have to adapt to this change, both as individual
businesses and as a society, and that includes adapting to a greater
risk of droughts and floods. Urban development too can only increase
the severity of storm water run-off, we are concerned that new
development is plumbed into drainage systems mindful of downstream
impacts for farmland and town and cities and drainage systems
which are ultimately sustainable. We must also recognise that
the potential of our land for the production of food—and
indeed for the mitigation of climate change—will be needed
as never before over the years to come.
4.2. Farmers are prepared to play their
full part in reducing the flood risk. The creation of temporary
flood storage areas has obvious potential, but this needs to be
planned and rewarded. Changing the way land is managed can also
help reduce the severity of floods at a local level and there
are many successful examples of this around the country, all based
around the voluntary co-operation of farmers and landowners. There
is little evidence to date to suggest that this could make a difference
at a catchment scale, and it is of less importance in mitigating
major flood events, such as seen recently, than adequately funded,
well-designed, properly maintained flood defences and drainage
systems. Focus must also lie on sustainable drainage systems in
all paved areas. A recent report suggests that the catchment upstream
of Ripon would need to have an unreastically high 35-70% of the
soil in the catchment degraded to produce any detectable increase
in flood flow at the catchment level suggesting land management
practices may only have limited influence on floods.
4.3. Further investment is needed in research
to determine how land management practices, including urbanisation,
influence flood generation and damage at a catchment scale. At
present studies focus only on urban areas or agricultural practices,
this is wholly inadequate and misses the influences of a multitude
of changes to land use, including paving and drainage as well
as increasing urbanisation in more rural catchments. We cannot
and should not look at flooding in specific areas in isolation.
4.4. We must appreciate that water level
management and flood defences are part of our national asset that
generations before us worked hard to ensure that land, properties
and businesses were viable and protected. We want to make sure
these assets continue to perform their function into the future.
NFU
September 2007
| 
