Bishop Hill Follow the money
Feb 10, 2014 Climate: WG2 Environment Agency The torrent of claim and counterclaim about the floods continues apace. Last night Twitter was abuzz with environmentalists trying to defend Lord Smith, the head of the Environment Agency, while those of a more sceptical bent (myself included) were furiously pointing out some of the flaws in the argument.
Some have been making the claim that dredging would not have prevented the floods on the Levels, but as David Rose pointed out in the Mail on Sunday yesterday, not all of the area is a dredging-free zone.
Dramatic confirmation can be seen just a few miles away, in the northern part of the Levels.
At the Gold Corner pumping station, three giant pumps are still lifting the waters from the rivers Axe and Brue up seven feet into the Huntspill Drain – an artificial watercourse about 100ft wide which runs straight to the sea.
But unlike the southern Levels rivers, the Huntspill is not silted up. The land for miles around is just as low-lying as the drowned villages and fields near the Parrett, but the flooding is far less severe.
This seems to me to be strong evidence that the Environment Agency has made things considerably worse than they needed to be.
The argument that these floods can be pinned to climate change is also looking increasingly thin, particularly after the reminder that just a couple of years ago DEFRA was warning us that drought was the "new normal". The focus of the EA's defence therefore seems to have shifted somewhat to its finances (or the alleged lack of them).
It looks as if the argument is going to come down to whether allegations that the EA has splurged money on water voles, corruption and general wastefulness win out over claims that it is underfunded. That being the case, it will be interesting to see if someone can get hold of documentary support for Richard North's story about the absurd costs claimed by the EA for dredging. Given all the stories swirling around at Inside the Environment Agency, I have little doubt that it is true.
So who should carry the can? Chris Smith, as EA chairman, is probably just a grossly overpaid public relations man. It's hard to believe that he was privy to any of the day-to-day decisions that took place inside the agency. But then again he is placed in the EA to represent the public interest. The fact that he is an enthusiastic environmentalist as well, and would therefore have presumably been happy to see water voles given preference over taxpayers, only adds spice to the story. And besides, there were floods in the Levels last year and Smith was out in public trying to put them down to the "wrong kind of rain".
There was perhaps an echo of this last month when Lord Smith, chairman of the Environment Agency, incautiously blamed recent flooding on “increasing instances” of “convective rain, which sits in one place and just dumps itself in a deluge over a long period of time.” Not only did this sound to annoyed flood victims and their MPs as an excuse; it drew a sharp rebuke from the veteran weather forecaster Bill Giles, who said “There is nothing new about convective rain. Perhaps next time he should get a meteorologist to check his answers.”
It's all getting very interesting.
Bishop Hill
Jonathan Leake tweets that Defra slashed (slashed!!!) EA spending on flood defences by £60m. That's enough to dredge 18 miles of river at EA rates.*
*Assuming Richard North's source is right.
Reader Comments (82)
Mike Jackson:
I am no particular apologist for the EU but many of its interfering Directives are . . . not intended for the purpose to which the British civil servant chooses to apply them
Richard North's political opinions, however strongly he holds them, are irrelevant here but my experience is that his research is a deal more accurate than most when it comes to EU-related issues.
Whatever, the Habitats Directive, which is unarguably central to the Somerset Levels case, is not only mandatory - it's a Directive, not a set of "Guidelines" - but has been more or less correctly transposed into UK law.
For some insight into the Directive, see:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/wetlands.pdf
(Other Directives covering allied topics, such as the EIA Directive, were - IMHO deliberately - improperly transcribed into Scottish law by the leaving of loopholes that permit wind-power and similar developments that significantly breach its terms but that's another story.)
My experience of wind farm campaigns and of research into wind power's EU dimension is that when this or that environmental Directive threatens to restrict the construction of projects on perfectly proper environmental grounds and thereby put at risk the meeting of EU-Directive-imposed renewables "targets", then envirocrats and Eurocrats alike simply ignore the environmental Directives and plump for the renewables one and that, when Joe Soap complains, they ignore him too however well-informed his complaints.
The opposite seems to have happened in this case. Eager to meet "targets" imposed by the Habitats Directive, consequences were improperly thought through at least in this instance (that notorious "just add water" quip). Stir into the mix weak political oversight (Smith was re-appointed EA chair by Tory Caroline Spillam despite the EA bureaucracy reportedly running amok), the usual bureaucratic hauteur and a bevy of ideologues unhindered by any real conservation skills etc etc etc and something akin to the present fiasco was bound to happen sooner or later.
As a result, a system that seems to have worked pretty well since the Middle Ages (drainage of the Levels was escalated in the time of Charles I but it had been going on for centuries prior) has been overturned in a matter of a few years in an effort to "restore" what essentially disappeared centuries ago.
We are all aware of the disastrous effect of the EU's renewables directives on energy supply and on the environment. What this case reminds me of is that the EU's environmental Directives also carry a significant element of risk. Were it not for the Habitats Directive, the current scandal would not have occurred.
@Cassio
I'm confused. If the local Drainage Board in Somerset (e.g. the Huntspill drain) and the Norfolk Broads Authority are both still doing a competent job and dredging waterways, how can we or the EA put the blame on EU rules?
Feb 10, 2014 at 12:43 PM | Keith Macdonald
One might blame the EU; but I was simply pointing to the evidence that demonstrates the influence of EU Directives (and possibly Regulations) on the management of the Somerset Levels, influence which must be recognised in any debate on the pros and cons of government policy.
The EA is of course the UK government body which helps to draft, and then applies, the UK Regulations which put into effect the EU's Floods Directive (and the consequent UK Regulations) -
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/125459.aspx
It has not (yet) drawn the EU into the debate, perhaps preferring to avoid discussion of its nature-friendly practices in the Somerset levels, although it might choose to do so in due course, relying on the "it's not me, Guv" defence.
It's a good question why these other bodies appear not to be affected by the UK Regulations, to which I do not know the answer. Perhaps they are exempt because they are dealing mainly with man-made waterways, or perhaps they are ignoring some part of the Regulations.
Guido Fawkes joins the debate
The EA employs 11,200 people.
Spends £395 million on staff (£592 million including pensions).
£20M on maintaining rivers,
£2.7M£2.4M on PR.All this flooding is a chimera:
IT COULD NOT HAPPEN
Didn't the MET Office said so:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/8/A3_plots-precip-DJF-2.pdf
From which:
The weakening of the prevailing westerly flow means that the normally wetter western or northwestern parts of the country may see a significant reduction in precipitation compared to average, while the east or southeast may be closer to average. However uncertainty in this regional pattern of precipitation is large.
I think that it might be a little unfair to blame the dredging fiasco on Lord Smith. He only took over the EA recently. The response to the FOI request submitted to the EA via the brilliant Whatdotheyknow website, "Dredging the River Thames above Oxford" indicates that the decision to abandon dredging for flood mitigation happened in 1996 when the EA was handed responsibility for maintaining our rivers. Note in particular the answers to Qs 2, 6 and 7 and especially Q2: "The dredging or de-silting of the River Thames is now carried out for
navigation purposes on a risk based approach.
Dear Mr Salisbury
Our Ref Wir 30503
Thank you for your further enquiry of 22 May 2009 and your subsequent
email dated 28 May, regarding your request for information in relation to
dredging practices.
We think it may be helpful to make you aware of the changes in
responsibility for the River Thames.
The Environment Agency was formed in 1996. Prior to this the
responsibility for dredging was with the National Rivers Authority (1989 -
1996) and before this the responsibility was with the Regional Thames
Water Authority (1974-1989).
The last widespread dredging of the Thames was carried out in the mid
1980s. Although records are not precise it is understood that two or three
dredgers were used.
Under the Thames Conservancy Act 1932 the Environment Agency are empowered
to `dredge cleanse and scour the Thames for the purpose of maintaining
and improving and freeing or keeping free from obstruction the
navigation'. Dredging in the River Thames is primarily carried out for
navigation reasons.
Since 1996 dredging of the Upper Thames has focused on the removal of
specific critical shoals which constitute a hazard to navigation. The
shoal locations are identified by survey work, reports from lock keepers
and boaters. Any hazards to navigation are prioritised according to the
risks posed. The prioritised shoal locations are de-silted rather than
dredged, although the term dredging is still used as it is more widely
understood. De-silting is a similar activity to dredging but only
involves the removal of relatively soft accumulations of silts and
sediments from the waterways.
Changes to Waste Regulations have lead to previous practices being
uneconomical or not feasible. Previous agreements with some landowners for
disposal of dredging are less attractive when in competition with
conservation scheme financial incentives.
The section of river between Osney bridge and Wolvercote bridge, as
mentioned in your e-mail, is a relatively wide section of the river where
boats can pass each other easily; hence very few navigational problems
have been reported to the Environment Agency.
In response to your specific questions raised in your email of 22^nd May
2009:
1. What is the policy on dredging?
As explained in our earlier e-mail dated 15 May 2009, there is no national
dredging policy. There is guidance on dredging and on channel maintenance
which we provide for our in-house staff and riparian owners. This
guidance is published on our website and the link has already been
supplied to you.
2. What is the cause of the change in practice of mechanical
dredging upstream from Oxford?
The dredging or de-silting of the River Thames is now carried out for
navigation purposes on a risk based approach. Critical navigation areas
are identified and prioritised. Consultation with our internal
departments, including Operations, Fisheries and Conservation is carried
out to decide the best course of action to deal with these critical areas.
3. What happened to the dredger seen regularly on the river above
Osney?
There are 2 dredgers available for working on the river between Lechlade
and Hurley. One is used for works on the Upper Thames and the other for
works on the Middle Thames, from Oxford downstream.
4. Where is the dredger kept that is in use and how often is it in
use? The dredger is not just used for dredging. It is also used for other
maintenance work on the River Thames, and therefore does not have a single
storage location.
5. Is there the capacity in equipment and human resources to carry
out routine dredging even if it was deemed to be required?
Should we be in a position where we need additional resource to undertake
our maintenance activities, we are able to use external contractors.
6. Why was routine dredging abandoned?
Due to changes in waste management legislation, the ability to dispose of
dredged material has become more constrained over recent years. Although
this is a factor that we consider when undertaking dredging operations, it
does not prevent us from carrying out essential works where these are
necessary. In making these decisions, we consider the environmental,
operational, financial and sustainability issues before undertaking any
works.
7. When was the decision made about abandoning routine dredging?
Since the inception of the Environment Agency in 1996, the Upper Thames
has been routinely dredged for navigational purposes only - this is done
on a reactive basis.
The Lock Keepers' records of sluice movements (lowering and raising sluice
gates) are held centrally in our Reading Office. If you would like to see
these records, please let us know the lock sites and the time period
required.
We have attached an excel spreadsheet showing the peak levels for the
River Thames at Osney and Godstow Locks since our records began. More
detailed explanation of this data is contained within the spreadsheet.
We have also attached a spreadsheet showing the peak tail water levels for
the weirs through Oxford for all the flood events above `typical low flood
levels'. These levels are collated from data collected by the Lock
Keepers and show the peak levels recorded in each of these events plotted
against time, over the period for which we have records. Tail levels are
used as they are less affected by the operation of, and changes to, the
weirs. Please note that excel cannot cope with dates prior to 1900 which
is why some of the columns are filled with hash symbols.
We trust this provides you with the information you are seeking in
relation to your request.
Please may we draw your attention to our attached standard notice, non
commercial, for the permitted use of our data.
Yours sincerely
External Relations Team
Environment Agency
West Area
Red Kite House
Howbery Park
Wallingford
OX10 8BD.
Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally
privileged. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify
the sender immediately, delete it and do not copy it to anyone else.
We have checked this email and its attachments for viruses. But you should
still check any attachment before opening it.
We may have to make this message and any reply to it public if asked to
under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or for
litigation. Email messages and attachments sent to or from any
Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the
sender or recipient, for business purposes.
If we have sent you information and you wish to use it please read our
terms and conditions which you can get by calling us on 08708 506 506.
Find out more about the Environment Agency at
[1]www.environment-agency.gov.uk
References
Visible links
1. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/
<quote>
These Environmental Pacifists seem to have no stomach for a fight to save and protect the people they are meant to be serving. More likely they are now too busy adopting a "Posterior Protection Policy" and a fight to save their jobs.
</quote>
I'd take a different view - they're Fabians, harassing normal society and ensuring that it cannot function.
The Independent says:
"Mr Pickles has taken over control of the Government’s emergency flood response after Environment Secretary Owen Paterson had to have emergency eye surgery. Yesterday he blamed bad Environment Agency advice for the scale of the damage to the Somerset Levels and declined to dismiss calls for the former Labour cabinet minister to resign.
“We made a mistake, there's no doubt about that and we perhaps relied too much on the Environment Agency's advice,” Mr Pickles told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show. “I am really sorry that we took the advice ... we thought we were dealing with experts.”
Is this the first sign of a new Exit Strategy?
"We thought we were dealing with experts."
Should be written on a banner and displayed outside many Quangoes.
There is an interesting article over at the ConservativeHome website by a Dr Martin Parsons on the subject of flooding and flood control. He points out that it is the EA which has the statutory responsibility for flood protecion - but with little or no accountability. He says that the CEO (Paul Leinster) recently told a select committee that he decides wether to let an area flood or whether to build flood protection measures. It is not decided by the minister. The quango is funded by the government but is not directly controlled by it.
He draws attention to
(1) the EU Habitats directive - which requires equivalent habitats to be created to replace major developments but also to replace habitats lost by coastal erosion! Evidently human habitats do not get a look in.
(2) The 2010 Flood and Water Management Act which was rushed through Parliament (without proper scrutiny) just before the 2010 election. Apparently section 38 gives the EA the statutory right actually to create flooding, raise the water table or create coastal erosion; all the EA needs to do vis a vis local interests is to"consult".
I note in passing that Baroness Young, EA Chair from 2000-2008, was formerly CEO of the RSPB.
There is a clear pattern at work. Special interest groups, NGOs and the like lobby/cajole/enlist political support for changes they want made in society. If they are fortunate they get grant funding to promote the cause more widely and to create an apparent change in public opinion. Politicians "respond" by drafting legislation (sometimes it is drafted by the campaigners themselves - eg the Worthington example and the Climate Change Act) which creates the law and supporting statutory bodies (quangos) to implement the changes. The quangos are stuffed with the true believers, with tax payers money and statutory protection for what they do. I think it was no accident that the 2010 Flood and Water management Act was rushed through in the way it was.
As we thunder down to the new iceage they will ALL hv thought they were dealing with experts..
JuliaSlingo will have thought she was dealing with experts
The experts themselves will have thought they were reading experts'reports.
So this will go down to Muzumbeke Kokolullu who just upwardly scaled from Benefits Street to clean the toilets, and HE will be fired over it.
High fives all round!
MK: Sir ! But I DID flush sir, madam!
JS: Yes but not enough as it purveyed now get out, my limousine is waiting..
"To carry out its field duties, the EA operates a fleet of 4,747 company cars funded on contract hire with full maintenance (at high expense, along with the documented abuse of the mileage claim back system highlighted in this blog), with an additional 1,920 badged 4x4s. That's nearly 7,000 vehicles (plus trucks) - that's more than one official vehicle for every two employees... which does seem quite high - no?"
If the figures are correct, then this is one of the most obscene waste of public resources -in relative terms- that I've ever heard of. 7000 vehicles (plus trucks) for an anti-CO2 agency that employs less than 12000 people is beyond belief. If true, then practically each and every one of non-administrative EA employees gets a car as part of their employment at EA.
Unbelievable.
We're hearing a lot about dredging and this is understandable but what happens to the material removed by this dredging?
Does it end up on the riverbank, out at sea, on farmland or landfill or at a mixture of destinations.
From the little understanding of the process I have, it may initially be dumped by the side of the river and then moved elsewhere and, presumably, at additional cost/benefit.
Is this silt transfer constrained by environmental regulations and costs that make it more difficult to permit dredging?
As an infrequent gardener, I discovered that the most expensive part of landscaping was with the disposal of unwanted material rather than its immediate removal.
It's restrained by environmental regulations - classed as a waste. Just shows how non-sense some of the regs are
That's part of the problem. They are allowed to dump it on the banks where it just ends up back in the channel.
If they move it, it is categorised as waste, charged landfill tax and has to be disposed of as waste.
I haven't yet seen anyone ask Cameron or Pickles what they intend to do about that.
I don't hold out much hope, when the landfill tax was introduced I heard a government spokesman interviewed on the radio. The presenter kept asking him what they were going to do about the increase in fly tipping as a result of the tax and he kept saying that their studies said it wouldn't happen.
Not very far from the truth.
Indeed, these clowns are of the same ilk, the ones who clamoured for war against Bashar al-Assad without knowing who they would be aiding [Al Qaeda and the enemies of the West] and the ones who deigned to force Afghanistan kicking and screaming into the clutches of modern society - cultural Marxism aka 'nation building'.
So, a metaphor for all of the administration but most definitely not an excuse to laugh - because we are the fools who bestow on these whelks, the veneer of democratic legitimacy.
Thanks for that SSN and NW, the costs of silt disposal may well be worthy of examination by some enterprising journalist.
In this age of sustainability and recycling, I'm a bit surprised that silt should be classed as waste, as if from an industrial process, rather than as a valuable reclamation product.
I would have thought that the reuse of rich agricultural soil would be seen as more a positive than a bad thing. Perhaps someone could disabuse me of this view?
Does anyone have figures that could demonstrate, in layman language, how silt disposal costs add to the dredging process?
Think I've just found some facts about costs of silt disposal on the Richard North 'EU Referendum' blog.
Here's a short extract:
An example was given by my Drainage Board source. To dredge a 1.2-mile section of the Parrett, they got a quote of £7,500. For five miles dredging of the same river, the Environment Agency claims it will cost £4 million. By then assessing the economic cost of flooding agricultural land as zero, it is then very easy to show that flood prevention is not "cost effective".
Not least of the problems is the disposal of the dredged spoil. Under EU rules, it can be placed on the bank side but if it is double-handled – i.e., moved again – it becomes controlled waste and must be removed to landfill at a cost of £140 per cubic metre.'
These figures astound me. Forget about the dredging comparison, however jaw dropping it may be, but look at the quoted landfill cost.
£140 per cubic metre and piled on top of an old mattress, rusted 2CV and flood damaged furniture no doubt!
Surely there has to be a widening of public awareness about this;David Rose, anyone?
I can only give the link to the main site
Http://www.eureferendum.com/
The article is titled EU Policy: Just add Water and is dated Feb 5: 2014
Chris Smith also rAn the Milleniun Dome another fiasco he got sacked for that as well.
Then they sold it and its now the O2 Arena the most successful music venue in Europe.
For those still wondering how the system works, take a look at this paper written by Christopher Snowden:
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-sock-doctrine-what-can-be-done-about-state-funded-political-activism
It is the third in a series which also included Sock Puppets and Euro Puppets. These papers go a very long way to explain how we are run these days and how difficult it will be to break this system. Difficult because it has become embedded in Acts of Parliament, regulations and quangos funded by very large dollops of taxpayers money. The Somerset Levels fiasco is but the latest example of how wrong and utterly useless this system is proving to be.
Another interesting observation. The EA has done nothing for the sea defences along the Norfolk coast saying that they would be too expensive and the coast line should be allowed to flood as necessary. The interesting thing is that much of this is very close to the Norfolk Broads which are not under the EAs control.
From Mike Post (above)
Can someone buy an English Dictionary for the Environment agency? They don't appear to know the meaning of the work routine.
Anyone see the TV interview with the Dutch engineer last night.
Paraphrasing rom memory "I feel so sorry for your people. After the floods of the 1950s we decided it must never happen again so we built up the dykes to give 10,000 year protection. Now we have no flooding problems. I just can't believe it when I see pictures of your Somerset Levels - it seems so primitive".
Bear in mind this is a small country with about 10% of our population.
Feb 10, 2014 at 2:52 PM | SSN
Christopher Booker reported on a case a few years back of an enterprising small company which was developing a small incinerator that would produce hot water (and possibly generate electricity - I've forgotten the details) from burning waste cardboard. The target market was industrial and trading estates, where resident companies would be spared the disposal costs of the cardboard and get useful hot water. The company received some development grants from one government department, and the device met all the emissions standards. But development was stopped because another government department decided that because the cardboard was deemed a waste product, they weren't allowed to burn it because to do so would be against the EU Wastes Directive. Total madness.
Just in case anybody is interested, here is their Annual Report for 2012.
It mentions "climate change" 19 times.
Floods, drought, snow, cold, warm.
It seems now everything is caused by
witchesclimate change.Do we really live in enlightened times? Or have politicians, the media and the general public simply reverted to the fear and superstition of a new dark age?
The [Environment] Agency states that they take a "leading role in limiting and preparing for the impacts of climate change." (Wikipedia)
"We thought we were dealing with experts."
Your favourite Environment Minister is being condemned as " climate-stupid" by his colleagues. Another head likely to roll?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555684/Environment-Secretary-Owen-Paterson-dismissed-stupid-complains-Number-10-attacks-Environment-Agency.html
The interaction of EU regulations on waste,contaminated soil and water often make cost-effective work impossible.
Arthur Peacock
"The [Environment] Agency states that they take a 'leading role in limiting and preparing for the impacts of climate change'".
_______
I wonder if that really is the brief or charter granted to them on behalf of UK voters and taxpayers, or have they appointed themselves to this role?
From the Daily Mail
The tragedy is that even the intended beneficiaries of the agency policy have suffered.
‘Any time you went for a walk in the Levels, you’d hear plopping – the sound of the water voles diving into the rivers,’ said farmer Edwin White. ‘I haven’t seen a vole for ten years. They’ve all been drowned.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554940/Agency-flooding-puts-greater-water-parsnips-voles-local-people.html#ixzz2sxljH0Fm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
As a retired engineer, I can vouch for the fact that 'maintenance' is seen as something which can be sacrificed by company bean-counters.
I recall one particular meeting with the director to whom I reported, who happened to be the finance director. He was happily putting a blue line through my maintence budget for the next financial year, while interrupting the meeting to take a returned call from his garage, to complain that one of the wipers on his company car was causing him some distress...
Lack of maintenance has come back to bite the Environment Agency, and by extension the Treasury...
There's a lot of rubbish swirling around in these waters, from both sides.
First of all, it's not just about Somerset, where the flooding is. Dredging was cut country-wide, and obviously it's not the whole country that's flooded. The cost-benefit analyses only factoring in the cost of dredging in the one place we've had flooding don't present a true picture.
I'm also yet to hear mention of scouring - when running water deepens a channel. That's something we'd expect to see under flood circumstances in the main channels if the drainage is working. If it's not happening, it strongly suggests that dredging wouldn't have helped significantly. If it is happening, it'll go on until the channel is deep enough to handle the floodwaters, so subsequent dredging won't be necessary.
All that said, it seems the EA is as monumentally incompetent as one might expect.
MDGNN 12:24..."Also Datchet floods are caused by lack of dredging in that non-tidal part of the Thames."
There has been quite a lot of comment attributing much of Datchett's problem to the "Jubilee River" which was built to take flood waters away from Maidenhead's flood plain with the diverted flow rejoining below the town. Without the buffer effect of the floodplain, the downstream sections are more vulnerable to flooding.