Written evidence submitted by the National
Farmers Union (NFU)
The NFU represents 55,000 farm businesses in
England and Wales involving an estimated 155,000 farmers, managers
and partners in the business. In addition we have 55,000 countryside
members with an interest in farming and the country.
EFRA COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO
FUTURE FLOODS
AND WATER
MANAGEMENT LEGISLATION
The National Farmers' Union (NFU) welcomes the
opportunity to respond to the EFRA committee's call for written
evidence on the outstanding legislative measures required to implement
effective flood and water management policies in England and Wales.
Which of the key issues covered by the consultation
into the draft Flood and Water Management Bill and by the Walker
and Cave reviews should be taken forward as legislative priorities
Key issues relevant to NFU members include the
reform of the Internal Drainage Boards and extending the application
of Time Limiting of Water Abstraction licences. Our views on these
two areas are as follows:-
Internal Drainage Boards (IDB's)
The NFU believe a radical reform of IDBs is unnecessary
and should not be a legislative priority for the new administration.
Defra's original consultation contained proposals to change the
governance structure of IDB's. These proposals were, in our view,
a blunt instrument and we believe that while there is scope for
better engagement by and with the IDB's; their successful track
record of practical delivery of water level management speaks
for itself. IDB's have successfully delivered water level management
in over 9% of England's land area that is at greatest risk from
flooding.
Time limiting abstraction licences
The NFU believe further time limitations on
abstraction licences should not be a legislative priority at this
time. Defra's proposals in the Floods and Water Management
Bill for extending the scope of time limiting licences (first
introduced in the 2003 Water Act), were not "fit for purpose"
or compliant with the rules of better regulation. The NFU acknowledges
there is a need to secure and allocate water resources in a fair
and transparent way for everyone but the proposals made were far
from adequate or well thought through in terms of their impact
on particularly the farming sector. We would welcome the opportunity
to work in partnership with Defra to develop appropriate and relevant
proposals that identify:
— The scale and impact the proposals seek
to address;
— The scale of key monetized benefits by
main affected groups will be;
— The description and key monetized costs
by main affected groups;
— How available water resources will be
allocated among the water using sectors.
Which further policies which are required to ensure
flood and water management which delivers optimum social, economic
and environmental outcomes?
Food policy should be made a material consideration
in the FRM (Flood Risk Management) decision making process through,
for instance providing a specific outcome measure for Flood and
Coastal Risk Management in relation to food security.
75% of land in England and Wales is agricultural.
Farmers' involvement in the management of flood risk is crucial,
but services they can offer do not come without a cost. Agricultural
land should not be viewed as a free resource (eg for temporary
storage of floodwaters). The NFU welcome the inclusion of sub-clause
7(3)(g), "making arrangements for financial or other support
for action taken by persons in respect of a risk of, or in preparing
to manage the consequences of, flooding or coastal erosion",
within the list of things that might be done to manage risk.
Scale and impact of the national and local strategies
on the best and most versatile land in England and Wales in the
FRM decision making process.
The Floods and Water Management Act emphasises
an underlying weakness in the current FRM approach which does
not consider the scale and impact of proposals on the ability
to produce sustainable food in England and Wales. 57% of Grade
1 agricultural land lies below the five metre contour and approximately
40% of vegetables produced in England and Wales come from the
low lying fens. The protection and resilience of these areas must
figure in both high-level strategies and local flood management
programmes. This means in some areas of England and Wales the
need to maintain domestic food production may have to take precedence
over environmental enhancement if sustainable food production
and associated processing businesses are not to be lost. Yet while
environmental enhancement features strongly and consistently throughout
the Act as a required consideration, food policy is not mentioned.
This issue needs to be addressed.
Cross boundary delivery
A policy approach based on river catchments
is needed to achieve close cooperation between legislative bodies
in England, Scotland and Wales.
Decision making frameworks
Measures are needed requiring decision making
bodies to provide publically available "decision making frameworks"
to transparently show how decisions are made and how any advice
from regional advisory bodies is taken into account, (or reasons
for rejecting it). Such transparency will help deliver the Governments
preferred partnership approach to co-delivery.
Adequate powers need to be provided for the Environment
Agency to address misconnections to foul sewers and surface water
drainage.
The consultation document:
— estimated that there may be around 300,000
households misconnected currently, rising to around 500,000 by
2015, without taking account of non-domestic misconnections.
— proposed the grant of additional powers
to water companies to deal with misconnections. (These provisions
were not included in the 2010 Act).
Misconnections are of concern to agriculture
as the pollution they cause may be attributed to farming activities.
The provision of adequate powers to address different sources
is important to delivery of Water Framework Directive objectives.
As management of the quality of watercourses is the responsibility
of Environment Agency rather than water companies, the government
should look at providing adequate powers to the Environment Agency.
This was not addressed in the consultation document.
Any issues related to the Flood and Water Management
Act 2010 (including sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) and the
transfer of private sewers and lateral drains).
Governance
NFU believe a priority for the new administration
is to ensure adequate, "Checks and balances" and scrutiny
of the new powers given to designating authorities. The Floods
and Water Management Act confers substantial powers on designating
authorities ie it is "power heavy and duty light". Defra
need to publish details of how the National Flood and Coastal
Erosion Risk Strategy will be prepared scrutinised and how, and
over what cycle, it will be reviewed. The NFU also believe more
checks and balances are needed to ensure efficient, effective
and democratic implementation of the Act, such as a legislative
mechanism allowing local strategies to vary from the national
strategy where there is good reason, would be highly beneficial
to successful delivery of the Flood and Water Management Act's
objectives.
Reservoir clauses
The NFU believe provision to exempt small
on farm "of line" reservoirs from the obligation and
liability of onerous and potentially costly inspections and procedures
is a priority and that the administration costs of doing this
must not be transferred to the reservoir owners. The Floods and
Water Management Act contained clauses introducing a risk based
approach to Reservoir Safety. The NFU are concerned about the
potential Impact of these clauses on small farm reservoirs specifically
the potential for full cost recovery and retrospective designation.
Flood Risk Assets
Greater legislative clarity is needed about
what could be designated as a Flood Risk Asset, how the designating
authorities would coordinate with one another and how differences
of opinion between designating authorities would be resolved.
HYDROMORPHOLOGY
Land drainage needs should be fully protected
in the exercise of any new (or existing) powers by the Environment
Agency. The 2009 consultation proposed the granting of additional
powers to the Agency to carry out works on the physical structure
of water courses and other water bodies in order to help achieve
Water Framework Directive objectives. However, whilst the Directive
contains express provision to protect land drainage, the consultation
gave no recognition to the need to protect land drainage.
October 2010
| 
