|
DEFRA still has a long way to go if it is to introduce into Parliament a comprehensive Flood and Water Management Bill of which it can be proud. The current draft is a confusing mix of measures, many of them poorly drafted; a patchwork that seeks to address individual identified problems, rather than deriving from a coherent and comprehensive strategy to implement the vision set out in Future Water. That lack of a comprehensive approach makes scrutiny more difficult. That difficulty is compounded by omission of the secondary legislation required to implement the full provisions of the Bill. It is also not helped by the fact that many policies are still under development, which could lead to significant additions or alterations to the Bill.
Given the limited Parliamentary time available before the next general election, we question whether such a lengthy Bill could reach the statute book in this Parliament. We are aware of the ground clearing work which the Environment Agency are already carrying out to start the development of flood and surface water management strategies. They report good progress with this work. With this in mind we conclude that there is therefore no need rush a piecemeal Bill through the House when there is a risk of losing the opportunity to introduce a truly comprehensive water management Bill. The uncertainty about the fate of the Bill affects the ability of stakeholders to plan and allocate resources.
The unlikelihood that a comprehensive Bill can be completed in the available time does present the Department with the opportunity to consolidate its thinking and consultation so as to present a comprehensive sustainable water management Bill in the next Parliament. That delay would give the Department an opportunity to further develop and refine the contents of the Bill.
The approach taken in the draft Bill with regard to flood and coastal risk management is over centralising: all power and monies will be concentrated in the Environment Agency with the roles of existing Regional Flood Defence Committees and Internal Drainage Boards being downgraded. Power will be taken from democratically accountable bodies and shifted to the Environment Agency, with local decision making over priorities substantially reduced. Local flood risk management strategies are required to be consistent with the national strategy prepared by the Agency but there is a void in the draft provisions with regard to both the content of that strategy and the extent of stakeholder engagement in its development. This overly centralising approach creates the real danger that local communities will see the only scope for involvement in the decisions as being through court action and that they will regard the Agency as an adversary. Instead, we consider that the local authority proposal for catchment flood management boards has much to recommend it. In addition, we consider it vital that the Internal Drainage Boards' experience and expertise in preserving high quality agriculture land be maintained.
Flood risk management is ultimately about spatial planning and management; it is land form and land use that determines the proportion of precipitation that becomes runoff, with the potential to result in flooding. The draft Bill adopts piecemeal measures; sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) for new urban development are to be promoted and Defra is consulting upon whether new statutory nuisances should be created or local authorities be given the power to designate Run-Off Reduction Zones. We would like to see a clear definition of rights and responsibilities for land owners and others with regard to land drainage and the maintenance of watercourses. Furthermore, the provisions on SUDS leave questions unanswered. It is desirable that the different varieties of spatial plans required under this Bill be integrated with the existing spatial planning process established under planning legislation.
One purpose of the Bill is transpose the EU Floods Directive into domestic legislation; we recommend that Defra make it clear to the European Commission the benefits of including the provisions of the Directive in comprehensive legislation whilst indicating that the process is not an exercise in procrastination.
The draft Bill proposes several new powers, particularly for the Environment Agency. Where a body has been given powers, we consider it essential that counterbalancing safeguards should be included, such as provisions providing for appropriate appeals procedures.
We consider the reservoir safety provisions have the potential to add an unnecessary administrative burden on owners of small reservoirs. We recommend Defra reduce the burdens associated with small reservoirs and consider applying existing structures to achieve the same ends.
We conclude that the Impact Assessments underpinning the changes in responsibilities, particularly for local authorities, are not robust.
In our report on Ofwat's 2009 price review, we concluded that the regulatory mechanism provided insufficient incentives to achieve the relatively modest targets for water efficiency set out in Future Water; the Bill offers an opportunity to introduce such incentives.
| 
