Future Flood and Water Management Legislation
Memorandum submitted by Tim Farr (FFW 33)
Executive Summary
1 General
Many aspects of flood risk management at the more parochial and local levels need to be addressed, especially the institutional arrangements and the opportunities available in utilising, extending and formalising the existing institutions.
2 Environment Agency ("EA")
Much of what was required in respect of the EA has already been enacted in the FWMAct, 2010.
3 Regional Flood & Coastal Committees ("RFCC")
RFCCs will address the democratic deficit and provide the LLFAs with a forum and a formal link to the EA and national FRM strategy. Representation, catchment boundaries, a bottom up approach to FRM, strategic and operational considerations and identifiability to the LLFAs are issues that need to be conclusively defined.
4 Lead Local Flood Authorities ("LLFA")
LLFAs have increased and direct local accountability but instinctively direct their attention down the flood chain towards District and Parish Councils, communities and Internal Drainage Boards Clarity is required in respect of governance, LLFA’s capacity to manage their own FRM affairs through bodies that bring the constituent local elements together and representation on IDBs.
5 Internal Drainage Boards ("IDB")
Several aspects of IDBs would benefit from legislation, offering opportunities to utilise existing institutions (as well as to allow for their expansion or clearly scoped creation) to further the local element of flood risk management.
The issues of size (£500,000 annual income) and governance are being addressed, but the use of consortia should be secondary to IDB size
By expanding the role, remit and breadth of IDBs (a working and practical template for generating local funding) can put them to better public use and remove the urban / rural dichotomy.
IDBs could prove to be useful maintenance operators of Sustainable Drainage Systems
Internal Drainage Districts needs to be simplified and the bureaucracy reduced, and the principles laid out in the Medway Letter updated.
(f) IDBs remain at the behest of LLFAs and District Councils yet can also avoid competing with the non water related spending of those authorities by virtue of their independent means of funding.
EFRA Committee Review of Floods & Water Legislation – 2010
1 General
The Flood and Water Management Act ("FWMA") passed in April has covered most of the higher level and strategic issues highlighted by the flooding of 2007 and referred to in the ensuing report by Sir Michael Pitt. There still remain many aspects of flood risk management ("FRM") at the more parochial and local levels that need to be addressed, especially when considering the institutional arrangements and the opportunities available in utilising, extending and formalising the existing institutions. Many of the organisational and institutional arrangements that have emerged since 2007 have not depended on legislation, but some would benefit from the protection of certainty that legislation would afford and others would require legislation to enable them.
2 Environment Agency ("EA")
Much of what was required in respect of the EA has been identified in the FWMA has already been enacted and is in the process of implementation.
3 Regional Flood & Coastal Committees ("RFCC")
These bodies will address the democratic deficit, allow LLFA thinking to feed into EA and national FRM strategy and provide the Lead Local Flood Authorities ("LLFA") with a forum and a formal link to the EA and national FRM strategy. However, some points remain to be clarified:
(a) all LLFAs should be directly represented on at least one RFCC;
(b) RFCCs should retain their catchment boundaries, allowing the choices made concerning representation to define the RFCC area as covered by administrative boundaries (its "public face"); (c) RFCCs should reflect a bottom up approach to FRM, regardless of the size of EA Regions, bringing together the representative, strategic and operational aspects within a catchment (based around EA Areas) that is readily identifiable to the LLFAs comprising much of each RFCC. These features would be best implemented via the secondary legislation currently being developed post FWMA, but it would help if the EFRA Committee added its view of their importance.
4 Lead Local Flood Authorities ("LLFA")
FWMA introduced the concept of increased and direct local accountability through LLFAs. What has become evident since is how instinctively LLFAs direct their attention down the flood chain towards District and Parish Councils, communities and Internal Drainage Boards ("IDB") (a natural tendency to consider issues within their own boundary) and again clarity is required in respect of: (a) governance – Defra / EA should remain responsible for water management bodies (IDBs, Water Companies, noting the direct representation of District Councillors on IDBs) to ensure a consistent approach to water level management and FRM;
(b) LLFA’s capacity to manage their own FRM affairs through local flood management boards (or bodies that bring the constituent local elements together), to be encouraged but also to be set in the context of Defra / EA national FRM strategy and central funding constraints;
(c) LLFAs should have direct representation on IDBs.
5 Internal Drainage Boards ("IDB")
The consultation document prior to FWMA envisaged legislation on IDBs, but time did not allow it to reach the statute book. There are consequently several aspects of IDBs that would benefit from legislation. These generally offer opportunities to utilise existing institutions (as well as to allow for their expansion or clearly scoped creation) to further the local element of FRM envisaged by Sir Michael Pitt. The range of proposals pertaining to IDBs is summarised below.
(a) The Defra sub catchment review of IDBs, currently being implemented, addresses their size (£500,000 annual income) and governance and has also allowed amalgamations that rationalise administrative as well as hydraulic boundaries, making IDBs more compatible with District Councils. Where it does not substantially reduce local representation, this needs to be implemented as a matter of priority to give IDBs the critical mass to take on some of the EA assets, watercourses and other future maintenance liabilities which will probably be divested from central funding during the introduction of the spending review over the next four years.
(b) The scope for consortia introduced by FWMA should be secondary to IDB size, but will still be especially useful for groups of smaller IDBs unable to meet the size threshold, as well as bringing economies of scale to the use of a range of skills and services occasionally required by all IDBs.
(c) IDBs already exist as public bodies and as a working and practical template for generating local funding for asset and watercourse maintenance. Both the principles of local accountability and funding by the beneficiaries are enshrined within them, even though there are aspects of these that the review seeks to improve. By expanding the role, remit and breadth of IDBs, they can potentially be put to better public use and remove the urban / rural dichotomy brought about by their primary role as land drainage bodies.
(d) IDBs could prove to be useful maintenance operators of Sustainable Drainage Systems ("SUDS"), and may offer LLFAs (and SABs) a reasonable option when establishing SUDS in certain instances. This may even extend to the use of IDBs for gully cleaning and maintenance (a service that in recent years has been deleteriously neglected), given the scope of IDBs to investment in manpower and machinery and the environmental limitations imposed on their rural activity at certain times of the year.
(e) The establishment and alteration of IDBs and their Internal Drainage Districts ("IDD") needs to be simplified and the bureaucracy reduced. The principles of IDD definition laid out in the Medway Letter (a 1930s ministerial advisory note) need to be modernised and their scope extended to allow for currently perceived aspects of flood risk and for the approval by local bodies in their application and extent.
(f) IDBs can fund and manage a range of local water related activities, at the behest of LLFAs and District Councils. To some extent reducing the vulnerability to the prevailing political climate, IDBs can also avoid competing with the non water related spending of those authorities by virtue of their independent means of funding which is set by the IDB itself (noting the Local Authority majority on their boards).
T. H. Farr
Chairman, Severn Trent (Midlands) RFDC
October 2010
|
