House of Commons - The Draft Flood and Water Management Bill - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

The Draft Flood and Water Management Bill - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents

7 Flooding issues consulted on but not included in the draft Clauses

Reform of the Internal Drainage Boards

79. Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) are independent statutory bodies responsible for land drainage in areas of special drainage need. The Land Drainage Act 1930 established the principles governing the boundaries of IDBs areas.[130] IDBs have powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 to undertake work to secure drainage and water level management of their districts, including flood defence works on ordinary watercourses. Much of their work involves the improvement and maintenance of rivers, drainage channels and pumping stations.[131] Part 1 of the draft Bill includes some changes to the powers and duties of IDBs in line with the overall flood and coastal erosion risk management approach. Paragraphs 364 to 401 of the consultation document discuss possible further reforms to Internal Drainage Boards. Concern has been expressed about the potential loss of IDB's levying powers allied to the removal of their supervisory role. Furthermore, the requirement that IDBs will have to seek consent from the Environment Agency for basic maintenance work is unnecessarily restrictive.

80. Under existing legislation the Secretary of State has the powers to alter, by way of secondary legislation, the boundaries of individual IDBs. The consultation document seeks views on whether the Secretary of State should have powers to reform the structures, size and shape of IDBs as a whole rather than in a piecemeal way.[132] The consultation document proposes that: IDBs have additional powers to undertake work on surface water and groundwater at the request of the county or unitary local authority (and on main river and sea flooding and coastal protection at the request of the Environment Agency); continue to lead on managing water levels and flood risk in their areas, but subject to a duty to be consistent with any strategy or supplementary guidance issued by the county or unitary local authority; and be required to co-operate and share information with the Environment Agency and local authorities. The consultation document also proposes changes to the membership of IDBs, so that there would be no limit to the number of local authority representatives on Boards.[133]

81. According to Defra, "there have been concerns in recent years that some IDBs operate solely or primarily for the benefit of farmers, focusing on effective land drainage and hence agricultural efficiency, to the detriment of nature conservation. …Their accountability and accessibility have also been questioned"^.[134] The National Trust and RSPB put that case more strongly. They both welcomed the proposal to recast IDBs as Water Level Management Boards.[135] The National Trust's evidence stated that:

IDBs are statutory bodies with a history rooted in single-minded pursuit of agricultural land drainage. Even today, after numerous attempts at reform, their environmental performance remains poor. Re-constituting IDBs as Water Level Management Boards in both name and practice would be a key step in reforming these statutory bodies.[136]

82. The National Farmers' Union defended the existing composition of IDBs:

We are concerned that if taken up in their entirety, the Government's proposals could severely curtail the ability of IDBs to fulfil their role. We are referring in particular to the proposed changes to the IDBs' supervisory role over land drainage and their control over funding; it is the cumulative effect of the proposals that is worrying. … the proposed removal of the limit on the number of local authority representatives on IDB Boards has the potential to reduce the effectiveness of decision-making. It is the farmer members of Boards who have the expertise and local knowledge which is vital to sound planning in this somewhat specialist area.[137]

The Campaign to Protect Rural England were also concerned about the consequences of possible changes in priorities of the IDBs:

Change will need to be managed carefully and the investment cycle of the farming community taken into account. We are concerned that the discussion about a shift needed from the Boards' historical drainage function to a broader flood risk management role does not give due weight to protecting high quality farmland for food production. … The IDBs need to reconcile nature conservation interests with the protection of high quality farmland and settlement protection, and should not automatically give primacy to one over the other.[138]

83. The Association of Drainage Authorities thought the Government's proposals represented "a considerable modification" of the functioning of IDBs.[139] They welcomed the prospect of IDBs having powers to share services, form and participate in consortia and form corporate bodies. This, they told us, was an urgent requirement, and the absence of appropriate provisions in the draft Bill itself is "a serious omission".[140] The Association noted the strong ties IDBs have across local government and in particular with planning authorities.

84. The relationship between IDBs and local authorities remains crucial to effective local flood risk management. Defra's proposals are a blunt instrument if the intention is to enhance IDBs' environmental protection role and give local authorities greater say over the work of IDBs. While we accept the importance of IDBs working with local authorities to deliver local flood and coastal erosion risk management strategies, it is vital that IDBs' experience and expertise in preserving high quality agricultural land is maintained. Defra should consult with local authorities to establish whether the statutory framework governing IDBs provides sufficient flexibility to enable them to work effectively.

Reducing property owners' and occupiers' impact upon local flood risk

85. The consultation document discusses whether the failure to maintain the flow of water through watercourses (paragraphs 482 to 486) or allowing flooding from surface run-off (paragraphs 488 to 490) should be described in law as a statutory nuisance; and if so whether the provisions should be administered by local authorities or Agricultural Land Tribunals.

86. The National Farmers' Union acknowledged the reasons for the Government's proposals but did not consider that failure to maintain the flow of water through a watercourse was comparable to the existing statutory nuisances, such as those caused by noise or smoke. The NFU stated that "blockages along stretches of watercourse are more complex; there may be various contributory factors in play and action by one responsible party may not solve the problem".[141] The NFU were also concerned that against the backdrop of the contribution of surface run-off to the 2007 floods, enforcing authorities might "over-react" to the risk posed by run-off from agricultural land and "rush to enforce rather than encourage" run-off reduction zones and better land management practices.[142] Mary Dhonau of the National Flood Forum strongly favoured the creation of a statutory nuisance provision, because at the moment "so many people are flooded by other people and there is nowhere for them to go; there is no redress".[143]

87. There is a compelling argument that those who cause flooding should bear some responsibility for their actions, or failure to act. We recommend that Defra should include provisions in the Bill to encompass causing flooding as a statutory nuisance. Those provisions should provide the necessary protection for householders, while not creating an overly proscriptive regime for the farming community. Defra should ensure farmers and landowners have clear guidance and advice on the practicalities of minimising flood risk from their land.

88. The consultation document (paragraphs 449 to 451) notes that while the Environment Agency deals with the maintenance of most 'main rivers', the management of 'ordinary watercourses' relies more heavily on the active involvement of riparian owners. The consultation document poses a question as to how riparian owners might be made more aware of their responsibilities. Those responsibilities exist under Common Law (where riparian owners have a duty to keep watercourses free of obstruction) and under the Land Drainage Act 1991(which refers to riparian owners' responsibilities for non-main rivers). Laurence Waterhouse of the National Flood Forum wanted to see much more clarity in the regulations on riparian ownership and also on responsibilities.[144] We recommend that Defra provide clear guidance on the obligations and responsibilities of riparian owners and provide practical advice on how they can meet their responsibilities for the maintenance of watercourses, rather than leaving these to emerge only through case law.

RESILIENCE

89. Establishing a statutory nuisance provision might serve to reduce the likelihood or severity of flooding, but it was clear from the National Flood Forum that those at risk wanted also to take control of their own destiny as much as possible. People wanted to protect their homes from flooding, and if that were not possible then to make them resilient to its effects. Our National Flood Forum witnesses impressed us with their own resilience, not just in their own personal stories of flooding but also in terms of their determination to battle the system to get flood defence and resilience moved up the agenda.

90. Mary Dhonau had concluded that for homes at risk no amount of flood barrier would provide protection for ever—she wanted to "ban the sandbag".[145] The focus needed to be more on 'resilience' than on 'resistance', but for resilience "there is very very little information [and] evidence out there".[146] Laurence Waterhouse was concerned about the utility of some flood defence products on the market:

…we are getting round to the sort of double glazing scenario of the sixties and seventies where flood products, food resilience products, et cetera, are seen as the new double glazing in some respects. Many, many people try to get in on the market. Many thing are good, many things are bad, obviously, and there is a need for much more advice, much more regulation.[147]

91. Our NFF witnesses highlighted the high cost of getting solutions 'kite-marked', and indicated that as important was good advice on what things worked and what did not.[148] They told us that they had discussed the possibility of becoming something akin to a 'consumer association' but they were a small organisation needing resources to undertake their work.[149]

92. Defra should do more to promote flooding resilience at the most local level. The Bill should include a requirement on the Environment Agency and local authorities to include in their flood risk management plans a duty to promote resilience.

93. The National Flood Forum is an example of what ordinary people can and will do to influence and control their flood risks. Those at risk of flooding need good information about what products and advice are available. Defra should consult the National Flood Forum and other local groups about the scope for more comprehensive advice for those at risk of flooding. The Department should explore the scope for these groups developing, with Defra funding if necessary, a system for reviewing and rating the effectiveness of flood defence products.

130 Commonly in non-tidal areas agricultural land up to the 8 feet about the highest known flood level and up to flood level in urban areas. In urban tidal areas up to the level of the ordinary spring tides and for agricultural land in tidal areas up to 5 feet above that level. Land above these levels may be included in a drainage district under the principles set out in the 'Medway letter'. See Cm 7582, pp 74-75 Back

131 Draft Flood and Water Management Bill, Cm 7582, April 2009, consultation document, p 72. Back

132 Ev 115 Back

133 Draft Flood and Water Management Bill, Cm 7582, April 2009, consultation document, paras 388- 391. Back

134 Draft Flood and Water Management Bill, Cm 7582, April 2009, consultation document, para 366. Back

135 Evs 148, 151 Back

136 Ev 148 Back

137 Ev 137 Back

138 Ev 172 Back

139 Ev 131 Back

140 Ev 133 Back

141 Ev 138 Back