Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Keeping flooding at the top of the agenda

Mark Hansford

“Where’s the Engineering Judgement?” That’s what NCE screamed from its front cover one year ago this week.

That cover was, of course, our frustrated response to a month of mounting political and media hysteria over the flooding of 40-odd homes on the Somerset Levels - while the aftermath of the inundation of 15,000 homes in Boston went unnoticed and unaddressed.

So has the passing of a year changed anything? Has engineering judgement saved the day?

At the time, the clamour was for dredging, dredging and more dredging as if it was a panacea to all of our winter woes.


Somerset pumping

And yes, some of Somerset’s £10M Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs emergency cash injection has gone into dredging an 8km long section of the River Parrett. And contrary to what some engineers think, the Environment Agency believes it was money well spent.

But dredging isn’t the only work that has been carried out in the area. This week we describe how critical highways have been raised, vulnerable villages have been protected by new defences and pumps to get water away from the Levels have been upgraded.

Yet there is still an underlying, inescapable truth that Somerset got more cash than it really deserved. As Environment Agency strategy and investment director Pete Fox tells us this week, the investment in Somerset was to meet a “particular priority” of the prime minister.

In fairness, Fox also points to the £297M pledged by the government to fund flood defences in the Thames Valley region just before Christmas as evidence that other areas aren’t being neglected - a sum that will protect 3,000 homes or more.

But that pledge is just that - a pledge.

And as we reported earlier this month, Boston is now looking well set to get its barrier - albeit not until 2019 at the earliest - with cash pledged there too. But again that pledge is just that - a pledge.

Both must survive a General Election and the Comprehensive Spending Review. Villagers on the Somerset Levels, meanwhile, are sorted, sitting pretty, protected by their much-upgraded flood defence infrastructure.

So what’s the lesson here? Certainly it’s hard to get past the old adage of he who shouts loudest wins. But it’s clearly more complex than that. In truth, the solutions for the Lower Thames Valley and Boston are technically, politically and environmentally complex, and there is a compelling logic in going for the quick wins in Somerset first. Better to be seen doing something than nothing.

And if in doing that, doing something for a cabinet minister like business secretary Vince Cable to go and see, keeps flood risk management near the top of the political agenda then - arguably - it will have been the right thing to do.

But if, and only if, it means that the people of the Lower Thames Valley get their defences and Boston gets its barrier. We mustn’t let the politicians forget them.

  • Mark Hansford is NCE’s editor

Readers' comments (2)

  • Pretty sensible Mark.
    Will pass on to fellow members of APPG for EBE inquiry

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • stephen gibson

    The real hope is for the Government to completely transform flood defence spending, into far more cost effective community led flood projects, where independent professional consultants work with the local community to mitigate flooding cost effectively. This would help Vince Cable on many fronts.

    This would enable the EA to take a regulator only role and not project manager role in flood mitigation. The inefficient national frameworks would be redundant. At my company ( we typically find we can have client water projects delivered for 60% less that the prices provide by national frameworks, with greater service levels. Key - is the lower overheads associated with small companies, increased innovation and greater competition.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.