Memorandum submitted by Local Government
Flood Forum (DFWMB 22)
INTRODUCTION
The Local Government Flood Forum (LGFF) is intended
to be the grass roots voice of local government, it will be working
to ensure that the Draft Floods and Water Bill gives local government
a fair deal. The LGFF will be a medium term task and finish group
focused on the publication of the draft Floods and Water Bill.
The stated aim of the LGFF will be:
The secretariat of the LGFF is the Local Government
Information Unit (LGFF) and the Forum has over 30 local authority
members who are cross party.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The LGFF welcomes government action to solve
the widespread problems associated with flooding with the publication
of the Draft Floods and Water Bill. The Bill comes at a key point
with the after affects of the 2007 floods still being felt, and
local councils having to prepare for a future of increased flooding
events without the necessary infrastructure or funding to deal
with the issues. This sits within the larger debate on the need
for climate change adaptation alongside the recent measures to
cut carbon in the UK.
The LGFF favour clear but flexible structures that
reflect the seriousness of this issue strategically and operationally.
There are questions remaining in the Draft Bill about accountability
at a local level. The Bill will need to answer this, and the issue
of geographic and administrative boundaries which it currently
omits. Catchments are used by the Environment Agency, yet they
do not necessary fall under one council's responsibility.
The government should recognise that a "step
change" is needed in the way that flooding is managed and
advocate the establishment of "Joint Flood Management Boards".
This solution would create a system of accountability, and strategic
planning.
The government is committed to market mechanisms
to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the UK. A
proportion of the money generated in carbon "cap and trade"
could be made available to fund climate change adaptation. LGFF
believe that there will not be enough money for local authorities
given their new responsibilities and powers.
Are the powers in the Draft Flood and Water Management
Bill sufficient to enable full implementation of the Pitt Review
recommendations?
1. While the draft Bill recognises the contention
of riparian ownership, there is a need to ensure that the state
has the power to step in when riparian responsibilities are unclear.
2. Water companies should be statutory consultees
in the draft Bill process.
Does the draft bill achieve the right balance
between protecting the environment and protecting homes and businesses
from flooding?
Are the proposals contained in the draft bill
necessary, workable, efficient and clear? Are there any important
omissions in the Bill?
3. The Bill will not be workable if it omits
the issue of geographic and administrative boundaries. Many local
authorities manage areas that cross over two catchment areas.
Catchments are used by the Environment Agency, yet they do not
necessary fall under one council's responsibility. The draft Bill
needs to provide clarity on how these crossovers of geographic
and administrative boundaries and responsibilities are managed
between relevant authorities and organisations.
Is the proposed institutional framework appropriate
and sufficient for the enforcement of measures contained in the
draft bill?
4. There is a lack of clarity in the Bill around
accountability at the local level. The management of flood risk
at the local level is a complicated process involving many different
organisations and stakeholders. There is a need for the government
to recognise a governance model of flood risk management that
will give greater local accountability to the community.
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?
What are the likely financial resource implications
of the draft bill?
5. We feel that there will not be enough money
for local authorities given their new responsibilities and powers.
If this is so, the sensible solution is to promote and support
local funding mechanisms.
6. The draft Bill concluded that local flood
risk management will yield a net benefit. However, the "benefit"
will need to be further disaggregated as it surely varies between
the organisations involved in this process. As the lead authority
responsible for delivering local flood risk management, it would
be useful to know how this impact on local authorities as this
could affect their investment choices.
Has the Government analysed the effects of the
draft bill adequately, and has it taken sufficient account of
consultation?
7. No. We acknowledge that the draft Bill
was put together in a short time period. This is why the Local
Government Flood Forum is set up to feed into the consultation
process.
May 2009
| 
