The bad one
Well-known member
It would appear with the disarray in the Tory party over flooding this winter and the latching on to Local Drainage Boards as being a better entity from time past in dealing with these issues. Therefore it might just be in the offing to take away the responsibility for flooding from them.
So is this a step forward or a backwards one?
Before a reveal my hand on it, a little history of how we arrived at having the EA as we do now.
Back when I was a kid and first stared fishing late 1950s we had what were called River Boards who’s main remit was to manage rivers for flooding, angling and fisheries was a distant secondary consideration. Then about 1973 the responsibilities were handed over to what were publicly owned and funded water companies. In my region it was Northwest Water Authority. Their function/remit was the same with bits added, treatment of sewage, etc. And angling/fisheries move slightly up the pecking order.
In 1989 the National River Authority was formed to give a more coherent nation plan to water.
Though out this history various Acts were brought in to improve on what had gone before, allegedly!
Then in 1996 the EA came into being with a remit of a holistic approach to land, water and air, as it was recognised the connectivity of each to the other. Ironically it was a Tory Govt that created the EA and driven by John Gummer. Him of feeding hamburgers to his kids during the BSE crisis. But lets not hold that against him!
So that is a potted history of how we got to where we are now.
However, through out all of the bodies up and until today and the EA there was open warfare between the competing bodies eg - sewage dischargers, flood defence, fisheries and the emerging environmental movements all arguing against each others proposals and usually flood defence winning out, with the attitude we need to build straighter, wider and higher rivers with all obstacles removed from the channel including the dredging of the channels. Much of this was based on the Dutch model at the time, as they were the experts it was thought of taming the rivers to man’s will.
Ironically again the Dutch have moved on from the above attitude and are spending billions on remodelling their rivers to put back the menders and twists and turns they engineered out for well over a 100 years.
With the creation of the EA a more enlightened and scientific approach came into being, a holistic approach if you like, where all aspects are considered fully before any action is taken. Flood defence is no longer King and has to argue its case scientifically with evidence to get its way. A position I reckon many of the Engineers don’t like.
Now if we go down the road of handing back to the local drainage boards the flood defence aspect of rivers, we will in my view be back to a point of the old river boards and all the competing angst that went on in those days. One things for sure angling, fisheries and the aquatic life and realm will be the losers with a big L in any move back to this position.
Discuss
So is this a step forward or a backwards one?
Before a reveal my hand on it, a little history of how we arrived at having the EA as we do now.
Back when I was a kid and first stared fishing late 1950s we had what were called River Boards who’s main remit was to manage rivers for flooding, angling and fisheries was a distant secondary consideration. Then about 1973 the responsibilities were handed over to what were publicly owned and funded water companies. In my region it was Northwest Water Authority. Their function/remit was the same with bits added, treatment of sewage, etc. And angling/fisheries move slightly up the pecking order.
In 1989 the National River Authority was formed to give a more coherent nation plan to water.
Though out this history various Acts were brought in to improve on what had gone before, allegedly!
Then in 1996 the EA came into being with a remit of a holistic approach to land, water and air, as it was recognised the connectivity of each to the other. Ironically it was a Tory Govt that created the EA and driven by John Gummer. Him of feeding hamburgers to his kids during the BSE crisis. But lets not hold that against him!
So that is a potted history of how we got to where we are now.
However, through out all of the bodies up and until today and the EA there was open warfare between the competing bodies eg - sewage dischargers, flood defence, fisheries and the emerging environmental movements all arguing against each others proposals and usually flood defence winning out, with the attitude we need to build straighter, wider and higher rivers with all obstacles removed from the channel including the dredging of the channels. Much of this was based on the Dutch model at the time, as they were the experts it was thought of taming the rivers to man’s will.
Ironically again the Dutch have moved on from the above attitude and are spending billions on remodelling their rivers to put back the menders and twists and turns they engineered out for well over a 100 years.
With the creation of the EA a more enlightened and scientific approach came into being, a holistic approach if you like, where all aspects are considered fully before any action is taken. Flood defence is no longer King and has to argue its case scientifically with evidence to get its way. A position I reckon many of the Engineers don’t like.
Now if we go down the road of handing back to the local drainage boards the flood defence aspect of rivers, we will in my view be back to a point of the old river boards and all the competing angst that went on in those days. One things for sure angling, fisheries and the aquatic life and realm will be the losers with a big L in any move back to this position.
Discuss