Memorandum submitted by The Natural Environment
Research Council (DFWMB 07)
1. The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
is one of the UK's seven Research Councils. It funds and carries
out impartial scientific research in the sciences of the environment.
NERC trains the next generation of independent environmental scientists.
2. Details of NERC's Research and Collaborative
Centres and Major programmes are available at www.nerc.ac.uk.
3. NERC's comments are based on input from the
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the British Geological Survey
and NERC Swindon office.
COMMENTS ON
DEFINITIONS
4. The definition of flood is pragmatic and realistic,
including a range of sources of flooding, fluvial marine and dambursts
or any combination. It explicitly excludes burst water mains and
sewer flooding not generated by increased rainfall. From an environmental
management perspective, this distinction is realistic and practical.
5. The definition of flood as expressed in 3(1)
of the Bill may require some refinement, regarding the timescales
over which land not "normally covered by water" is defined
(as it is "normal" for any part of a floodplain to be
inundated).
6. The term "significant risk" is used
throughout the Bill in relation to flooding. Although "flood
risk" is defined, there is a need to be clear what is meant
by significant flood risk.
Q1. Are the powers in the Draft Flood and
Water Management Bill sufficient to enable full implementation
of the Pitt Review recommendations?
1.1 The emphasis on the catchment and source
aspects of flooding is certainly in the spirit of the Pitt review.
In many circumstances, the better the fit of the basic spatial
units of management to integration at catchment scales, the easier
it becomes to apply hydrological and ecological science understanding
to the protection of river ecosystems (including physical condition,
habitat diversity and water quality).
Q2. Does the draft bill achieve the right
balance between protecting the environment and protecting homes
and businesses from flooding?
2.1 We are in agreement with the placing
of the risks associated with adaptation to Climate Change within
the wider context of risks, rather than separated from the other
drivers. The impacts of climate change are often in combination
with other factors. In many circumstances, changes in land use
(particularly urbanisation) may be as significant as potential
changes in weather or climate patterns in altering the frequency
and/or magnitude of flooding. Therefore amongst the provisions
of the bill, the focus upon sustainable drainage in Section 5,
which sets out the requirement for standards in sustainable drainage
is also very welcome.
2.2 Measures to reduce flood risk are likely
to change hydrological regimes locally. There is limited understanding
of the needs of floodplain ecology in terms of the requirement
for flood inundation and depths of groundwater, both of which
may be affected by flood risk management measures. Without clarity
on hydrological targets, assessment of management options is very
difficult.
Q3. Are the proposals contained in the draft
bill necessary, workable, efficient and clear? Are there any important
omissions in the Bill?
3.1 The links between implementation of
Water Framework Directive (WFD) and this Bill will highlight an
operational challenge (see also paragraph 4.1). Although much
of the approach, drivers and managed outcomes of WFD work relate
to catchments and rivers, the management of floods presents further
issues.
3.2 Preliminary assessment of flood risk, as
described in the draft Bill, may be based on catchments and subcatchments.
However, to ensure successful outcomes, the management of flood
risk often needs to be undertaken in administrative units which
are not integrated within (or entirely ignore) obvious hydrological
units, such as river or groundwater catchments. This will therefore
remain a major challenge for the Environment Agency.
3.3 There is an emphasis within the Bill
on Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). SUDS have the potential
for detrimental impacts locally on groundwater quality and on
groundwater levels, increasing the risk of groundwater flooding.
Where the subsurface is less permeable, the systems may not be
effective. There is concern that in promoting this technique strongly
these impacts will be ignored.
3.4 The approach taken within the Bill,
giving the Environment Agency and local authorities the discretion
to determine whether or not to produce flood maps is supported.
For example, in the Floods Directive the need for groundwater
flood mapping is only where this has a low probability (ie resulting
from an "extreme event" with a return period significantly
greater than 100 years). This threshold does not reflect the significant
risk from groundwater flooding recognised within the UK.
3.5 One small point is with regard to the
consultation paper Section 1.4 which highlights Cross Border issues,
particularly with refence to England and Wales. This may also
be notable in the case of the Tweed, which straddles the England/Scotland
(Environment Agency/Scottish Environment Protection Agency) boundaries.
Q4. Is the proposed institutional framework
appropriate and sufficient for the enforcement of measures contained
in the draft bill?
4.1 The merits of the Environment Agency
taking on the strategic overview role is logical and yields many
benefits, not only in ensuring clear lines of responsibility,
but also ensuring the planning and investment in flood risk is
joined up and integrated across the many local bodies currently
engaged in floods issues. The proposed linkage between the draft
legislation and the approach/implementation of the WFD regarding
environmental impacts is very worthy. The lead role of the Environment
Agency in both areas of responsibility maximises the potential
for links between WFD activities and flood risk assessment, as
flagged in several places in the draft Bill.
4.2 Mechanisms to ensure that the Environment
Agency and Local Authorities are able to access all of the appropriate
science skills/advice will be an important consideration. Further
improvements to the evidence base on land use impacts are also
needed.
4.3 The Bill makes a clear distinction between
the responsibilities of the Environment Agency, in addressing
flooding associated with main rivers, and those of local authorities,
associated with local surface water and groundwater flooding.
In the case of groundwater, in certain physical settings this
distinction may not be clear, with heightened main river levels
causing groundwater flooding. The allowances made within the Bill
for the Environment Agency to work with the local authorities
to develop local flood risk management plans under circumstances
such as these is essential.
4.4 The understanding of the controls and,
in turn, the timing and location of groundwater flooding is still
relatively limited. There may not be the capacity within local
authorities to map areas at risk or to make decisions on how to
manage this risk. Again, the role of the Environment Agency is
crucial in the development of guidance, in providing technical
support and in bringing experience in techniques applied in other
local authorities.
Q5. Is the balance struck between what has
been included on the face of the draft bill, and what goes into
Regulations and the Code of Practices right?
5.1 No comment.
Q6. What are the likely financial resource
implications of the draft bill?
6.1 No comment.
Q7. Has the Government analysed the effects
of the draft bill adequately, and has it taken sufficient account
of consultation?
7.1 No comment.
May 2009
| 
