Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Drainage Authorities (DFWMB 01)
The Association of Drainage Authorities (ADA)
is the membership organisation for those involved in water level
management. Its members include 152 Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs),
the Regional Flood Defence Committees in England and Wales and
the Northern Ireland Rivers Agency as well as 60 Associate Local
Authority members. ADA is involve in a wide range of work for
and on behalf of its members facilitating the exchange of ideas
and promoting discussions to solve common problems and/or introduce
new approaches to members' work. ADA responds to consultations
from the Government and other organisations either on behalf of
members or by facilitating individual member responses.
Figure 1
Indicative Flood Map from Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister presentation on PPS25 (2006)
Figure 2
Geographical Distribution of IDBs in England
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/studies/idbrev/map1.pdf
1. The flood events of Summer 2007 and Autumn
2000 emphasised the need for a review of current flood and water
management legislation in England and Wales, a recommendation
identified by Sir Michael Pitt's Review: Learned lessons from
the 2007 floods. The Government's Draft Flood and Water Management
Bill and associated Consultation Paper provide this review and
potentially represent a considerable modification to the functioning
of many of ADA's members. ADA hopes that the pre-legislative scrutiny
by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will ensure
any resultant legislation is suitable to meet the need for flood
and water management in England and Wales into the 21st century.
2. ADA recognises the limited timescale
between publication of the Draft Bill on Wednesday 21 April 2009
and the deadline for written submissions, Thursday 7 May 2009.
Therefore, ADA intends to focus on those sections of the Draft
Bill and associated Consultation Paper that directly impact the
operations, funding, administration and governance of Internal
Drainage Boards and Regional Flood Defence Committees within this
paper.
THE DRAFT
BILL
3. ADA welcomes the identification within
the Draft Bill of Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) playing "a
key role in local partnerships"[1]35
to deliver local flood risk management. IDBs are essential operating
authorities for the provision of flood risk management within
their drainage districts (areas of special drainage need). IDBs
cover an area of approximately 1.2 million hectares of England—representing
9.7% of the total land area (see Figure 2) and approximately 90%
of the indicative flood map zone 3 for England (see Figure 1).
IDBs maintain over 500 pumping stations, 22,000km of watercourse,
174 automated weed screen cleaners and have a part to play in
the flood risk management to 900,000 properties including a number
of key growth areas of England and Wales including the Thames
Gateway, Milton Keynes, South Midlands and the Humber Bank. ADA
supports the provision of IDBs with "updated powers to manage
the risk of flood and coastal erosion in line with local and national
strategies".[2]36
4. It is the view of ADA that water level
and flood risk management on a catchment basis should be the key
principle in determining a strategic approach to flood risk management.
Therefore, ADA believes the provision for upper tier authorities
to lead on local flood risk management within the Bill is likely
to present a number of issues. Specifically these will arise where
upper tier authorities have been identified as taking responsibility
for local flood risk assessment, and when delegating responsibilities
to lower tier authorities and IDBs to conduct mapping and planning
in relation to ordinary watercourses, surface run-off and groundwater.
5. ADA's key concerns relate to:
— the division of flood risk management
strategy within river catchments. Rivers are often boundaries
to a local authority's area, which is likely to result in the
divided management of catchments;
— many local authorities currently
lack the necessary expertise and resources to fulfil this role;
— the results of a survey conducted
by the Local Government Association in 2009 identifying 60% of
councils currently not having the necessary funds to fulfil their
current flood risk responsibilities;[3]
37 and
— the same LGA survey identifying a
quarter of councils struggling to recruit or retain the specialist
staff required for flood risk management.[4]
38
6. ADA strongly believes that if upper tier
authorities are to take responsibility for local flood risk assessment,
IDBs (where they occur) should provide them with a significant
level of guidance and technical knowledge and carry out delegated
work as described within the Draft Bill.
7. IDBs maintain strong ties with both the
upper and lower tier authorities across their drainage districts.
This especially applies to working closely on planning consent
issues in regards to flood risk management and PPS25. As a result
IDB will be well placed to "play a key role in local partnerships
led by local authorities." 38 ADA's members believe that
IDBs also have the appropriate skills and services to accept "delegated
work that best suits local needs and circumstances, making the
most effective use of the resources available".[5]39
It will be imperative that appropriate and sustainable funding
streams for any extension of the role and function to IDBs are
made available and secured long term to ensure the work can continue
to be delivered to the appropriate standard.
8. Within the context of the current Draft
Bill (accepting the enhanced function of local authorities in
regards to flood risk management) ADA supports the provision for
IDBs to:
(i) 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 EA);
(ii) 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
(iii) be required to co-operate and share information
with the EA and local authorities.
THE CONSULTATION
PAPER
2.7 Regional Flood Defence Committees
9. With reference to Question 55 and
Paragraphs 240, 241 of the Consultation Paper—ADA supports
the renaming of RFDCs as Regional Flood and Coastal Committees
(RFCCs) and agrees this would more accurately reflect the committees'
updated remit.
10. With reference to Question 56 and Paragraphs
240, 242-245 of the Consultation Paper—ADA strongly
disagrees with the move to alter the status of RFCCs from an executive
to an advisory role. Paragraph 240 states that "They (RFDCs)
ensure local democratic input into the decision making process",
so altering their role to an advisory one would diminish their
influence upon this process. RFDCs have already undergone a major
amalgamation from the previous Local Flood Defence Committees
and a further reduction in status is likely to undermine the ability
of RFCCs to act on the current key strengths that they hold. It
is also likely to deter Local Authority Councillors and others
from joining the Committees if they are merely advisory. ADA supports
the retention of executive powers for the RFCCs to set levies
and to decide where levy funding should be spent.
11. With reference to Question 60 and Paragraphs
242-245 of the Consultation Paper—The suggestion that
RFCCs should become advisory highlights the lack of flood risk
representation at EA Main Board level. 50% of the Agency's funding
and work is devoted to this activity and to have only one Board
member to represent it needs correcting. Therefore, ADA believes
that regardless of any undesirable reduction in executive powers
currently held by RFDCs there should be an increase in flood risk
management representation at Environment Agency Board level.
12. With reference to Questions 57,
58 and Paragraphs 242-247 of the Consultation Paper—ADA
is content with the focus and roles described for RFCCs in paragraphs
242-245 and the alterations to membership as proposed in the Draft
Bill and outlined in paragraphs 240, 246-247.
13. With reference to Question 59 and
Paragraphs 248, 249 of the Consultation Paper—ADA supports
the provision of RFCCs with levy-consenting powers for coastal
erosion issues in line with expanding their role to include coastal
erosion risk management.
3.1 Possible reforms to the role and governance
of Internal Drainage Boards
14. With reference to Questions 92,
93, 94 and Paragraphs 373, 374 of the Consultation Paper—ADA
wishes to highlight the urgent need for IDBs to be provided with
powers to share services, form and participate in consortia and
form limited companies/limited liability partnerships for the
purposes of sharing services. These powers are currently expressly
provided to the other operating authorities (Local Authorities
and Environment Agency) within their governing legislation. IDBs
currently only have limited powers under the Land Drainage Act
1991 to form consortium arrangements and no expressed provisions
to form limited companies/limited liability partnerships. Following
Ministerial encouragement a number of IDBs across England and
Wales have adopted consortia arrangements to facilitate more strategic
action on wider issues and provide efficiency savings in their
administration by sharing costs and expertise. ADA considers the
absence of any provision to address this important matter a serious
omission from the Draft Bill.
15. With reference to Questions 108-112 and
Paragraphs 402-422 of the Consultation Paper—It is imperative
that IDBs maintain their financial independence to provide certainty
over future delivery in the most vulnerable areas of the country
(see Figures 1 and 2). ADA is currently developing further detailed
views with specific reference to these questions and would appreciate
the opportunity to revisit them shortly with the Committee.
16. With reference to Questions 89,
90, 91 and Paragraphs 371, 372, 373 of the Consultation Paper—ADA
believes that IDBs need to retain their supervisory role on all
matters relating to the drainage of land within their district.
IDBs currently use these powers to enable them to give advice,
mediate, respond to consultations and respond to planning applications
and queries etc. Within their drainage districts IDBs are the
water level management experts, and as such are best placed to
provide the functions described above. ADA does not believe this
necessarily needs to be inconsistent with IDBs having due regard
for the new local authority local leadership role or the supervisory
role upper tier local authorities may have over IDBs in the future.
17. With reference to Question 98 and
Paragraphs 380-384 of the Consultation Paper—ADA believes
that the expanded role of local authorities within the Draft Bill
will result in a greater requirement for assistance to local authorities
from IDBs (where they occur) who currently hold the flood risk
management skills and expertise required. The current Draft Bill
partially addresses this by enabling IDBs 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 EA). However, ADA believes
the skills set held by IDBs is likely to make them the most appropriate
body to manage water levels and flood risk to land surrounding
their drainage district. Enabling IDBs to expand their boundaries
within a catchment could assist those local authorities who lack
the appropriate resources and skills to perform the functions
bestowed by the Draft Bill and enable a more strategic and holistic
management of catchments by IDBs.
18. Therefore, ADA strongly supports paragraphs
380-382 of the Consultation paper and believes the principles
of the Medway Letter should be relaxed allowing IDBs to expand
their boundaries beyond their traditional areas in order to meet
the water level and flood risk management needs of communities
and the environment in the 21st century.
19. Furthermore, ADA believes there may
be a number of situations across the country where local authorities
or land owners may wish to consider creating new IDBs to manage
the flood risk which they now face owing to a reduction/removal
of Environment Agency maintenance on watercourses or a lack of
resources on the part of a local authority. One of the recommendations
to emerge from the Hull City Council's independent review of the
June 2007 floods was to advise the installation of an independent
drainage board to manage flood risk. It is imperative that the
Draft Bill has provisions for the creation of new IDBs on a catchment
basis in areas of flood risk in the future.
20. These comments have been drawn from
comments received, especially from Internal Drainage Boards, during
and after the Summer 2007 Flood Event, during the Pitt Review
(http://www.ada.org.uk/documents/pittresponse.pdf)[6]
40 and during the Defra Review of Internal Drainage Boards.
21. Please find in Annex A (page 5) a list
outlining the points raised at an extra meeting of the ADA Executive
Committee, 22 October 2008 to discuss the necessary measures that
Operating Authorities and in particular Internal Drainage Boards
(IDBs) will require to further develop and enhance their role
in the 21st Century, for the benefit of water level and flood
risk management in England and Wales.
May 2009
1 35http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/flooding/flow/sectors/flood.htm Back
2
36http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/flooding/flow/sectors/flood.htm Back
3
37http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1821968 Back
4
38http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=1821968, Back
5
39http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/flooding/flow/sectors/flood.htm Back
6
40http://www.ada.org.uk/documents/pittresponse.pdf Back
| 
