18/02/2014
In December 2009, the Environment Agency and Defra jointly published a
River Basin Management Plan for the Severn River Basin District and the
South West River Basin Management Plan. Taken together, they cover the North Moors, the Somerset Levels and the Parrett catchment area.
What is especially interesting about these documents is the identical section on pages 29/28 respectively, headed: "Flood risk and coastal erosion planning". It tells us that â¦
There is a separate planning process for flood and coastal erosion risk management introduced by the new European Floods Directive (Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks). This requires that the environmental objectives of the Water Framework Directive are taken into account in flood and coastal erosion plans. Implementation of the Floods Directive in England and Wales will be co-ordinated with the Water Framework Directive. The delivery plans and timescales for the two directives will be closely aligned.
There, in plain English, is as clear a statement as you can imagine on the link between EU Directives and flood management, and also a clear link between environmental objectives and flood planning (see below - click to enlarge).
Crucially, we see the Environment Agency stating that it plans its flood and coastal risk management capital investment through the "Medium Term Plan", which is a rolling five-year investment plan.
Using this, "it has identified flood and coastal risk management activities that will deliver one or more restoration or mitigation measures included in this plan".
"Although these activities will be carried out for flood risk management purposes, they will be carried out in such a way to ensure any impacts are minimised and that the ecology is protected", the EA goes on to say, with then yet another smoking gun: "Activities will not lower water body status unless fully justified under Article 4.7 of the Water Framework Directive".
This clearly indicates that EU law is the policy driver, making
Barroso out to be the liar that he is, with his glib denial that the floods had "anything to do with European regulations or responsibilities at all". How quick this man is to claim credit for things European, but then denies any responsibility when things go wrong.
Returning to the River Basin Management Plans, we see elsewhere the EU writ through the plan, like lettering through rock. As well as the Water Framework Directive, we see listed the Bathing Waters Directive, Natura 2000, the Drinking Water Directive, the Freshwater Fish Directive, the Shellfish Waters Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Urban Waste Water Directive, plus the Groundwater Directive.
Of course, one must also not forget Directive 2008/105/EC on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.
All these have and influence on the management of the river basins, but there is also
another document which gives insight into where the priorities of the Environment Agency lie, especially with regard to the "water body status" mentioned in the management plan.
This talks of the effect of flooding on the Levels on the quality of bathing water in Bridgewater Bay, and the need to hold back water from the Levels, to prevent it having an adverse effect on the water quality in the Bay, thus breaching the Bathing Water Directive and losing the chance to display the coveted "blue flag".
That this has been happening is evidence from this copy of the
Drainage Board Newsletter, which refers last year to "issues over water quality" delaying pumping out of the moors.
If the Environment Agency repeated this tactic this year, holding back the water to avoid missing EU quality targets in the Bay, it explains a great deal, particularly as to why some of the sluices draining into the sea don't seem to have been opened earlier in the year.
Having allowed the water to accumulate on the moors, it would appear that there was no reserve capacity when, contrary to Met Office predictions, the rains kept coming. By the time it was realised that there was a crisis, there was simply too much water for the EA to deal with. They had left it too late.
Thus, as the evidence stacks up, the only one thing we cannot say is that the EU is not involved in this flooding debacle. It is up to the top of its waders, and it is a sad illustration of the inadequacy of the contemporary media that it can't call out the European commission President when he is so obviously lying.
