The UK Government has endorsed the House of Commons  Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee  view that investment in flood prevention is preferable to spending on clean-up.

The comment forms part of the Government’s formal response this morning to the Committee’s report on winter floods 2013–14 which was published in June this year:

 “We endorse the Committee’s view that investment in flood prevention is preferable to spending on clean-up, which is why the Government is spending more than £3.2 billion over the course of this parliament on flood and coastal erosion risk management (between 2010/11 to 2014/15) and has made an unprecedented six year commitment to record levels of investment in improving flood defence up until 2021.”

The paper offers a robust response on behalf of the Government to concerns the Committee had raised about a number of flood risk defence and management issues – including funding, Environment Agency budget cuts, the need for increased maintenance and dredging and the division of responsibilities between flood authorities.

Dredging should be "appropriately funded with a clear division of responsibilities"

The response says the Government agrees with the Committee on the importance of maintenance work, including dredging of watercourses where that is the most effective option, and on the need to ensure that this is appropriately funded with a clear division of responsibilities.

The Government is now planning to introduce a new, streamlined consenting system for river maintenance to be introduced by the end of 2015 and will consult on the proposals in winter 2014/15.

A series of one-year river maintenance pilots were launched in October 2013 to remove red tape and help farmers in seven areas of England manage their own watercourses and the scheme was extended in May to two new pilot areas. The nine river maintenance pilots in England will continue to run until March 2015.

The Committee had urged Defra and the Environment Agency to relax the regulatory position and implement the piloted system across the country as soon as is reasonably practicable if an independent evaluation supported deregulation following completion of the pilots.

The Government said it would now take into account lessons learnt from the pilots which would enableit  to relax regulation wherever the evidence demonstrates that this is justified, with regulatory effort focused on higher risk activities. The integration of Environment Agency flood defence consents into the environmental permitting framework would enable it  to introduce a variety of different permits:

• exclusions (very low risk activities which the landowner may undertake without any permit);
• exemptions (lower risk activities which the landowner undertakes after registering, registration will be free);
• standard rules permits (standard requirements and conditions for the relevant activities are set out so that applicants can see in advance whether the permit is applicable to their proposals);
• and bespoke permits (permits written specifically for activities which are unique or of higher risk).

The Government said it is already receiving information from the river maintenance pilots to inform which type, or types, of permit will be appropriate for dredging to remove silt.

Commenting on the Committee’s support for the introduction of public sector co-operation agreements between the Environment Agency and Internal Drainage Boards, the Government said the agreements are being rolled out increasingly widely to enable flexible joint working. There are now 14 PSCAs in place between the Environment Agency and IDBs and a further 29 have been agreed in principle. The Environment Agency is proactively promoting PSCAs across the country and is looking to establish agreements with all IDBs in the near future.

EA “ takes rigorous account in decision-making of all damages avoided in terms of flood risk”

In response to the Committee’s concern that the current method for allocating flood defence funding fails to recognise the economic and social value of agricultural land and recommendation that Defra revisits its policy for flood and coastal risk management funding allocation, the Government says:

“The Environment Agency takes rigorous account in its decision-making of all damages avoided in terms of flood risk, including damage to farmland and agricultural businesses. Improved land drainage is a positive outcome from many Environment Agency flood risk management schemes and maintenance activities.”

On the allocation by Defra of an extra £70m to the Environment Agency for asset maintenance work over the next two years, the response says £9m will be invested in additional dredging at over 270 locations, covering 93km and benefiting around 2,000km of watercourse. The Environment Agency is currently developing its 2015/16 programme of work, which will include further additional dredging activity.

“an ongoing commitment is …needed for dredging to be effective in managing flood risk”

The Government agreed with the Committee that the effectiveness of dredging in managing flood risk varies substantially for each stretch of river. The response says that in some areas dredging is the most cost effective approach, while in others it would divert resources away from other flood risk management activities which are more beneficial to local communities, such as maintaining pumps, sluice gates or raised embankments, or could even increase flood risk downstream. The response states:

“We recognise that for dredging to be effective in managing flood risk an ongoing commitment is generally needed to ensure that accumulations of silt do not build up again over time, restricting flow in the channel. The Environment Agency will undertake dredging as part of ongoing routine maintenance where the evidence shows that this is sufficiently beneficial in reducing the risk of flooding compared with other flood risk management techniques.”

The Environment Agency is planning to hold meetings during the autumn with local interests across the country to explain its current maintenance plans. The response says this will give stakeholders “the opportunity to challenge and contribute to these and influence the maintenance programme for the year ahead.”

Commenting on the split of responsibilities between flood authorities, the Government says it is important that the Environment Agency should focus its efforts and resources on those areas where the risk or consequences of flooding for communities, businesses, property and infrastructure are greatest.

In other areas, where the flood risk implications for communities and property are less significant, the Government considers that responsibility for watercourse management sits more appropriately with expert local bodies, including local authorities and IDBs as well as riparian owners, commenting:

 “We are keen to facilitate maintenance activities by local bodies or individuals in areas where these are not a priority for the Environment Agency in terms of flood risk management, but are regarded as important locally. Funding for such work would need to come largely from local sources. We are, however, currently working across government to identify any barriers to the local fundraising needed to support such flood risk management activities, and to consider how these can best be addressed. “

“Defra has a robust mechanism for allocating and reallocating budgets”

The Government however has taken issue with the Committee’s view that a large proportion of the additional funding announced earlier this year referred to as “additional” should have been more accurately described as “reallocated”. Where funding is reallocated from within an existing budget, The Committee had called for Defra to ensure that the process is completely transparent and provide a clear and detailed accompanying explanation which sets out what activities are receiving less funding as a result.

The response states:

“Defra has a robust mechanism for allocating and reallocating budgets and has a clear audit trail of where, when and why budgets are changed.”

The comment is accompanied by a detailed explanation of how the final budgets are arrived at – including their allocation to the Oracle financial system – with the budget management process is an decribed as “an on-going exercise and involves many lines of expenditure codes which are aggregated for overall budgetary control purposes.”

On the Committee’s view of capital versus revenue funding and its recommendation  that the Government should assess the possibility of a transition to a total expenditure classification for flood and coastal risk management funding to allow funding to be targeted according to local priorities, the Government said that programming of work is already based on priority and need and not on the nature of the budget. The response states:

“The Environment Agency absolutely does not allow its assets to decay in order to access funding.”

In response to the Committee’s comment that funding for maintenance is at a bare minimum and needs to increase in line with funding for new capital schemes  and call for Defra to immediately draw up fully funded plans to address the maintenance backlog, the Government says:

“Revenue funding for the Environment Agency’s asset maintenance work has been increased by £35 million in 2014/15 and 2015/16. This will enable the Agency to ensure that 97% of its defences in high consequence areas are at target condition as soon as possible following the damage done over the winter. Decisions on revenue budgets beyond 2015/16 will be made at the next spending review.”

“The case for central government spending on flood risk management assets lies in the economic damages avoided to the nation as a whole. Accordingly, Defra funding is prioritised and allocated to those activities which most cost effectively reduces flood risk. “

The response also reiterates the Committee’s recognition that responsibility for maintaining water courses ultimately lies with riparian landowners and the costs of ongoing maintenance of flood risk assets and watercourses is not for government alone.

The Government says a new multi-objective environmental land management scheme (NELMS) for delivery under the next Rural Development Programme will allow farmers and land managers to contribute to delivery of outcomes for soil and water, including flood risk. Although biodiversity will be a priority under the new scheme, the Government said it is “seeking to maximise opportunities to deliver biodiversity, water quality and flood risk benefits together” via catchment partnerships which offered the potential to contribute further alongside current flood risk management schemes.

Environment Agency funding cuts

Commenting on the Committee’s recommendation that frontline services in flood and coastal risk management must not be reduced, the Government response says :

“The Environment Agency continues to maximise benefits for every pound of funding and is looking to achieve efficiencies across the organisation, through new ways of working, to reduce impacts on front line delivery whilst ensuring the organisation as a whole can deliver within available resources. The Environment Agency will ensure it has the right people, in the right places, with the right skills.”

The Government says that the Environment Agency’s move in April from a three tier (national, regional and area) to a two tier (national and area) structure would achieve efficiencies while protecting the front line. The response says:

“Like the rest of the Public Sector, the Environment Agency is playing its part in reducing the deficit and delivering savings. The Environment Agency will look to achieve further efficiencies across the organisation through new ways of working to reduce impacts on front line delivery. “

“The Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, Paul Leinster, has been clear that the planned reduction in posts, necessary to ensure the Agency has an affordable organisational structure, will not affect its ability to respond to incidents including flooding.”

Click here to read the Efra Committee's report 1st Report - Winter floods 2013-14

Click here to download the Government response