EFRA Inquiry into Flooding
Comments from the Country Land & Business Association (CLA) Executive Summary
The CLA is the leading national organisation which represents and supports
businesses in rural communities, covering all aspects of land use and management.
Our comments are based on those received from our members and their collective
experience of the recent floods.
Rural communities have suffered significant losses and difficulties in the recent
floods. Farming has been particularly hard hit. Crops were destroyed or damaged
by flood water and the excess rainfall experienced, which will have a knock-on effect
on availability, quality and prices of a number of foodstuffs. Livestock farmers were
given little warning or advice before/during the floods and encountered severe
problems trying to move and house large numbers of animals at short notice. Grazing
and fodder crops were destroyed leading to longer-term difficulties for these farmers.
Many of the financial losses resulting from the flooding will not be met through
insurance, as premium costs are prohibitive, and will have to be borne by the
businesses themselves.
Accepting that the rainfall was abnormal, the primary causes for the severity of
flooding in rural areas, and the length of time the flood waters took to recede, was
lack of maintenance of river channels and flood defences, coupled with the difficulties
arising as a result of excess building on flood plains. Weed growth and overhanging
vegetation has been allowed to choke many watercourses, severely reducing flows,
leading to overtopping of river banks and defences. One of the causes of this lack of
weed cutting is the Environment Agency’s concentration on environmental/wildlife
priorities rather than flood protection. One suggestion is that the Environment
Agency concentrates on its water management and flood defence roles and achieve
a more sensible balance with its environmental champion role.
Flood defences and pumping equipment have not had the level of repair and
improvement needed in the past decade, and were not therefore fit for purpose.
Lack of personnel and resources, such as temporary flood barriers, were obvious in
the days leading up to the flooding. Rural populations have suffered particularly due
to lack limited resources and priority being given to urban areas. It is abundantly
clear that the level of spending on flood protection is woefully inadequate and will
need to be substantially improved if losses from future flood episodes are to be
minimised.
Future flood management needs to be based on a planned, catchment-based
approach, limiting further development in flood plains. Landowners have a role to
play in the creation of washlands sited to accept excess water and protect local and
downstream populations. However, they will need to be properly recompensed for
this benefit to wider society. We believe Internal Drainage Boards have the ability to
play a greater role in flood management, taking back responsibility for Critical
Ordinary Water Courses.
EFRA Inquiry into Flooding
Comments from the Country Land & Business Association
Background
The CLA is the leading national organisation which represents and supports
businesses in rural communities, covering all aspects of land use and management.
We represent the breadth of the rural economy and 38,000 members in England and
Wales between them own around 5 million hectares of rural land. Our members run
more than 250 different types of businesses in rural areas including agriculture,
forestry, fisheries, renewable energy, food, tourism, recreation and other rural
businesses. Availability of fresh water, flood and coastal defences are important
concerns for them, and are, in turn, influenced by their land management activities.
Our comments are based on those received from our members and their collective
experience of the recent floods.
Problems Encountered
1. Flood damage to property and buildings. Homes, business premises and
farm buildings were all subject to flooding with resultant damage and losses. Of
particular concern to farmers was damage to materials such as seeds, livestock
feedstuffs, fodder crops (hay) and farm produce – many of which are difficult to
replace due to the localised production of certain crops and the seasonal nature
of their production.
2. Damage to crops and longer term effects. Flood water that covered growing
crops, including grassland, for more than 48 hours generally resulted in the total
destruction of that crop, rendering it worthless. It is worth noting that in
circumstances where saline water covers crops the time before total damage is
incurred is significantly less (usually about 1½ - 2 hours). The result of crop
losses is economic loss, but unlike most domestic and business losses, crop
losses are more difficult to replace due to the seasonal nature of farming.
Loss of potatoes, peas, oilseed rape, etc will undoubtedly impact on food
availability and prices. Even areas that were not flooded have suffered from
reduced yields and lower quality crops as a result of the unusually high summer
rainfall so there are likely to be general shortages of many UK grown foods.
One vining pea farmer in Lincolnshire estimated his loss from the pea crop alone
of £410,000 - resulting from 42 acres of crop completely destroyed by flooding
from the local river, 360 acres partially flooded and the remainder damaged by
heavy rain leaving the crop unfit for vining. Two neighbouring members in
Lincolnshire lost 70 acres and 55 acres respectively of a borage, completely
destroyed by river flooding. They have estimated a net loss of £230/acre
amounting to £28,750 between them. Potato growers have also suffered
significant losses of crops from flooded crops. Where the floods receded more
quickly the result was much reduced quality produce.
Loss of hay/silage crops can only be replaced by buying in materials from other
areas, with the resultant countrywide shortages and higher prices further affecting
businesses already devastated by flooding.
Grazing land is particularly difficult to replace especially where significant areas
of grassland were affected. It is both costly and practically difficult to move herds
any distance from the farmstead. Insurance is not available to cover these
losses.
The flood waters not only damaged the economically important crops but many
environmental stewardship strips, field corners and natural meadowland. In
several places, land that had been deliberately converted to flood alleviation
grazing meadows under an ESA scheme - but is usually only waterlogged over
winter - was badly affected leading to concerns about environmental stewardship
payments and the impact on flora and fauna.
Rotting crops, especially grass that had been cut for hay or silage started to
ferment and polluted the flood waters and resulted in several local complaints
that farmers had emptied their effluent pits into the floods. In winter floods the
water is colder and there are no fleshy crops, thus this problem does not normally
occur.
3. Particular problems for livestock farmers. In addition to the obvious
difficulties of finding higher ground/available empty buildings, moving substantial
numbers of livestock and finding replacement feeds/fodder crops in a very short
time scale, there were a number of welfare and bureaucratic issues following the
floods. In several instances, cattle had to be moved from flooded land onto
grassland allocated for second-cut silage, thus the second-cut silage crops were
lost. In addition some farmers had to start feeding first-cut silage to young stock
because of lost grazing. Several members have reported having to reduce stock
numbers due to lack of winter feed stocks.
Having to move livestock away from the main farm results in higher costs and
less opportunity to keep watch over them – contrary to the advice given in the
Animal Welfare Regulations. One farmer on the banks of the River Severn had
to find accommodation for 1000 sheep and 500 cattle in less than 24 hours – and
is now left with the difficulty of finding grazing and fodder for them as all his crops
were destroyed. Neighbouring farmers do not have the necessary ‘spare’
grazing land.
Many livestock farmers cited lack of help and advice in dealing with animal
movement records and other bureaucratic requirements. The recent restrictions
on animal movements due to FMD will have further compounded problems for
many farmers suffering lack of grazing and fodder.
4. Lack of flood warnings and advice. Many CLA members commented that
whilst flood warnings were generally adequate, little help and advice was
available for businesses/farmers. Because of the problems noted above,
particular priority needs to be given to issuing warnings to livestock farmers. We
understand that in past this was the case but that was not the experience in the
recent floods.
5. Disruption to water supplies following the floods and resulting problems.
Following disruption to fresh water supplies, housed livestock and dairy herds, in
particular, had great difficulties, resulting in distress to animals. Whilst
emergency supplies for domestic use were being provided, little was forthcoming
for farmers. There was no point of contact to obtain help or advice on this or
other matters.
6. Insurance. In common with domestic premises in flood plains, farm insurance is
either very costly or not available. It is prohibitively expensive to get insurance
cover for damage to growing crops, grass, fodder, etc so these losses will have to
be borne by the farming business. Livestock farmers, already under pressure
financially, will suffer severe hardship in bearing these losses and these floods
may result in them going out of business. It is hoped that giving the affected
localities Disaster Area status will allow EU funds to be made available to those
businesses that have suffered catastrophic losses.
Underlying reasons for the problems
7. Lack of maintenance of flood defences and river channels. In rural areas the
main reason cited for the severity of recent floods was lack of maintenance of
flood defences and lack of clearing rivers and watercourses of vegetation. Many
defences overtopped where they had been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair,
and once the water got through, further damage to the defence resulted. The
lack of basic repairs and maintenance to defences has resulted from inadequate
funds and resources, coupled with excess emphasis on habitat protection.
Farmers and the rural population feel strongly that defence of their land and
properties is being neglected in favour of larger urban areas as funds are
inadequate. The poor state of some of the pumping stations and the bureaucratic
delays in getting authorization to pump were also cited as contributing to the
severity of flooding.
Some members commented on the policy of maintaining high water levels in
certain watercourses – for example the Ankeholme - to allow recreational
navigation. This, of course, reduced the ability of the water course to cope with
extra rainfall.
8. Building in flood plains. The failure of planners and developers to heed the
Environment Agency’s advice about building homes and associated roads/hard
surfaces in flood plains is generally regarded as one of the main reasons for the
severity of the flood problems encountered. It puts at risk those properties in the
flood plain as well as those further downstream which suffer because the ground
is covered in hard impermeable surfaces which have a very much reduced
capacity to absorb water.
9. Flood defence vs habitat protection. Numerous members suggested that
many watercourses were not being kept clear of vegetation to the same extent as
in previous decades – and most believed this was because the Environment
Agency is jointly responsible for flood and environment protection, leading to
conflicts of interests within the one organization. Whilst East Anglia did not suffer
severe flooding on the scale experienced in Gloucestershire, there have been
numerous cases where grazing meadows have been flooded and have failed to
drain away quickly (resulting in lost grazing) - all as a result of rivers being
infested with weeds. The local Agency personnel have stated that they were
unable to undertake adequate weed cutting early in the season because of
having to protect nesting birds and other wildlife.
10. Lack of resources and manpower. In the days leading up to the floods, and
subsequently, the lack of adequate personnel within the Environment Agency
was manifestly obvious. Operational teams have been greatly reduced in recent
years and they were clearly unable to cope with the emergencies. In this
situation the resources were, understandably directed at larger areas of
population, leaving isolated rural communities and farmers more vulnerable.
One example occurred north of Welshpool where the Environment Agency had
just started renewing a flood embankment using its own workforce. They had
removed 500mm from the top of the old defence and had started building the new
embankment on a new line set back from the river. A flood warning was issued
on Thursday 19th July, with a further two flood warnings the next day at which
time there were no Agency in-house work force available as they were all south
of Worcester. On the Friday evening the Field Team Manager had to obtain some
(inexperienced) private digger drivers to try to rebuild 1,480 metres of partially
demolished flood defence. On Saturday morning it failed and the embankment
overtopped. The area defended is 1,500 acres with 29 dwellings, including 7
dairy farms, resulting in much unnecessary damage. Firstly, the Environment
Agency should have heeded its own flood warnings and started the repair 24
hours earlier when the first flood warning was issued. Secondly, the in-house
Operations Delivery Team of 16 (originally 22) are responsible for not only work
in Upper Severn Wales but also for erecting flood barriers in Shrewsbury,
Ironbridge, Bewdley and Worcester. They were away doing this as well as
assisting in the Tewkesbury area with the defence of electricity substations. They
were stretched beyond what was humanly possible.
The reliance on temporary barriers for flood protection clearly relies on adequate
barriers being in the appropriate place and adequate manpower to erect them. In
some places there appears to be lack of clarity between local Councils and the
Environment Agency about responsibilities for storage and erection of these
barriers and post-flooding clear up. As an example, the Environment Agency
decided that temporary flood barriers were the solution in places such as
Shrewsbury, Ironbridge, Bewdley, Worcester and Upton on Severn. It decided it
would retain the responsibility for the erection and storage of the equipment
rather than delegate this to the local councils. The policy of retaining control of
the barriers caught it out at Worcester and Upton on Severn. The barriers are
kept at Kidderminster, upstream of Worcester and again it did not respond to its
own Thursday Flood Warning. The men started moving the equipment on Friday
and got caught in the local flooding on the M5 and local roads. They never got to
Worcester or Upton.
11. Failure to consider whole catchment. Flood management has historically
been looked at on a fairly local basis, especially with regard to individual
development proposals. It clearly needs to be considered on a much wider scale.
Whilst some of the recent problems undoubtedly arose due to local ‘flashy’
watercourses and inadequate drainage systems, many problems arose due to
water rushing downstream – there being inadequate upstream areas to absorb
the excess water.
12. Piped ditches and culverts. Many of the recent problems in urban areas
resulted from inadequate drainage capacity. Within rural areas the increased use
of piped roadside ditches and culverts - to save Highway’s maintenance costs was cited as adding to local problems coping with the excess rainfall. Piping
reduces the area of land that can receive the floodwater and directs it to the
nearest stream, and so the road and nearby properties flood.
13. Debris and rubbish. Many members noted that a number of bridges, culverts
and rivers with overhanging trees were blocked as a result of debris and rubbish
being carried in the flood water and building up around obstructions – both in
rural and urban locations. One member noted a local factory, located in a
floodplain that had pallets and wagon bodies stacked up in the yard. The flood
took all this material and piled it against the nearby railway bridge, blocking it and
creating a massive localised flood.
Suggestions for future improvements to flood management
14. Better maintenance of flood defences and water courses. Without doubt the
reduction in basic maintenance and repairs to flood defences and reduced
clearing of watercourses contributed significantly to the degree and extent of
flooding. This needs to be addressed as the first priority.
15. Greater spending on flood & coastal defences The lack of maintenance of
flood defences is largely a result of under-funding flood (and coastal defence)
spending – something highlighted in the Foresight Report in 2004. At present
levels the total flood spending equates to three days spend on the Health
Service. In view of the enormous economic and human cost of the recent floods,
this would seem wholly inadequate.
16. Less building in flood plains. Clearly development in flood plains is a
significant factor in both exacerbating flooding and putting more homes/business
premises at risk of flooding. Development needs to be curtailed in flood plains
and that which is permitted needs to include better provision for the absorption of
water (permeable surfaces, etc) and compensatory flood provisions. In addition
any building in flood plains (including farm buildings) may need to consider
incorporating flood resilience measures and better provision for drainage – e.g.
SUDS.
One suggestion is to levy a developers’ charge or bond to be used towards flood
defence funding/creation of compensatory flood plains.
17. Environment Agency to concentrate on flood role The EA should
concentrate on delivering water management and flood protection, reducing the
emphasis on its environmental champion role. The conflicting roles of the EA in
delivering both flood and environmental protection has resulted in reduced
clearing water courses and has a similar adverse effect on the provision of
coastal defences.
Whilst generally providing adequate flood warnings in domestic situations, better
provision for livestock farmers and general post-flooding advice is needed. The
bureaucratic nature of the EA makes it extremely difficult to find a local contact
who can help in any given situation.
18. Make better use of the Internal Drainage Boards There is a good case for
strengthening the IDB responsibilities as their record of water level management,
and keeping drainage channels clear, is highly regarded. It would be worth reassessing whether IDBs should be given back responsibility for maintaining
Critical Ordinary Watercourses. The efficiency of IDBs seems to have prevented
serious domestic flooding and their recent record in low-lying areas would seem
to be a lot better than in those areas ‘protected’ by the EA. IDBs have good local
knowledge which is valuable in prioritizing the necessary maintenance and
improvements to flood defences. Giving the IDBs greater flood protection
responsibilities, rather than burdening them with the extra ‘public accountability’
work would make a valuable contribution to flood protection.
19. Catchment based approach to flood management and use of natural
washland The recent emphasis on catchment based flood management plans is
a good one and needs to be extended to development proposals. During the late
1980’s/1990’s EA embarked on a series of maintenance works increasing height
of the banks alongside the River Severn, only to realise this was causing even
more flooding downstream. A holistic catchment approach may have forseen
these problems.
Landowners have a significant role to play in providing natural flood
plains/washlands where water can be held rather than it rushing downstream and
causing flooding to towns and villages. However, in order for this to happen there
needs to be suitable recompense for the affected landowners whereby the
government purchases the land for this purpose or compensates for any loss of
income as a result of this land being used for the public benefit – as occurred in
some places, e.g. the Lincolnshire Washlands Scheme. Historically,
environmental stewardship has been proposed for this purpose, and whilst being
a suitable mechanism there is insufficient in the budget to be widely used.
However, proper provision for livestock evacuation needs to be incorporated in
any agreement as much of this washland would be grazed during the summer
months, the expectation being that only winter flooding would occur.
20. Clarity of roles & emergency planning In the light of, for example, the
difficulties encountered when erecting temporary flood barriers and delivering
fresh water after the floods, there needs to be greater clarity of roles between the
EA, local councils and the emergency forces.
Better planning with regard to protecting and restoring basic infrastructure such
as electricity and water is needed.
Specific points of contact are needed where, for example, livestock farmers can
obtain help and advice.
21. Greater controls on rubbish near water courses Whilst retaining trees in the
floodplain may have some benefits in reducing flows, it is clear that fallen trees
and other debris were washed downstream to become lodged in the next bridge,
causing localised flooding or damage to the bridge. River banks and the adjacent
floodplain should not be used to store any materials and fallen trees should be
removed from the river and the adjacent fields.
22. Insurance cover/financial support for hardship cases The recent floods have
again highlighted the very real difficulties that homeowners have with regard to
getting adequate insurance cover if the home is situated in a flood risk area.
Insurance is even more costly and difficult to obtain for many businesses and
farmers. Greater government help is needed, either in the form of supported
insurance or hardship funding to help with economic losses due to flooding.
September 2007