Flood funding

Written evidence submitted by Ewan Larcombe

My name is Ewan Larcombe and I live in Datchet – on the Thames just downstream of Windsor – and am very interested in flooding.

 

I am the leader of the National Flood Prevention Party and operate the Jubilee river web site.

 

I notice that Lord Smith and David Rooke are giving evidence at next weeks Select Committee hearing and wondered whether they could be questioned in detail about river dredging for the purposes of both conveyance capacity maintenance and conveyance capacity improvement.

 

The Thames is not a natural river.  Over the years the highly engineered River Thames has suffered neglect.  Flood arches have been lost and both bed levels and water levels have risen over time.  The EA has a duty to maintain main rivers for navigational purposes, but no corresponding duty to maintain the channels for water conveyance purposes.

 

Even for navigational purposes - only the central third of the main channel is kept clear while the backwaters have been abandoned altogether.

 

The fleet of Thames dredgers (and the operators) that were used by the National Rivers Authority were disposed of WITHOUT CONSULTATION after the EA took over in 1995/6.

 

Furthermore, local CoWs (Critical Ordinary Watercourses) taken over since 1996 and re-designated as main rivers have been totally abandoned!

 

I have attached my recent submission to the EA/NE Triennial Review (including images) you may find enlightening.

 

My point is that the EA now lacks in-house expertise.  Outside contractors are predictably jostling to design and construct new flood alleviation schemes while any possibility of improving existing drainage capacity is not even considered.  We should be looking at the feasibility of improved conveyance capacity in existing watercourses BEFORE raising embankments and building upstream storage and bypass channels etc. etc.

 

Hereabouts the £250m Lower Thames Flood Risk Management Strategy project is on the drawing board but stalled and awaiting funding.  Also known as the Lower Thames Flood Alleviation Scheme, I have no confidence that the proposed bypass channels will perform any better than the flawed and sub-standard Jubilee River that is still unable to carry its design capacity of 215 cumecs some ten years after construction.  Even the Inspector at the 1992 MWEFAS Public Inquiry reported that the hydraulic models were optimistic and that it would be embarrassing to all concerned if the new channel failed to convey its design capacity.

 

Finally – in my opinion Lord Smith (and in particular David Rooke) need to be rigorously cross-examined as to why it appears that the dredging and/or re-profiling of existing main rivers is not even a considered option when looking at reducing the probability of flooding.

February 2013