EU policy, deliberately flooding the Somerset levels

 

Alvechurch Bugle 4 - 008 ( 4 – 1 – 14 )

Somerset drowning, in EU waters.

The current crisis on the Somerset Levels , is a personal tragedy for its residents, and an event which has brought this little known corner of England to the nation's attention, and simultaneously turned the spotlight on those who must accept some part of the blame.

It will surprise no one to learn that the bungling, overpaid occupants, of London centric government, are more than a minor part of the problem.

Their failure to observe what the EU is deciding in Brussels, and implementing in the UK, without 95% of our : Lib Lab Con M.E.P.s and M.P.s even noticing, is central to understanding the situation.

Lib Lab Con have, for forty years, been very reluctant to make themselves conspicuous in Brussels, or question what goes on there, for fear of drawing attention to the fact that all three were party to the events of 1972/73, when they turned a blind eye to Heath’s treasonous activities, and ever since as a result, have totally failed to act in the best interests of the British electorate.

Today’s crisis in the West Country is we learn, not entirely unconnected with our cripplingly expensive involvement with the EU and its flawed environmental policies, in this case, via a conference in Warsaw in 2003 , and Directive No. 2007/60/EC.

How could anyone expect Lib Lab Con to be aware of this, when they are so deeply engrossed in pretending that our EU membership is legal, and good value for money ? - - WHICH IT ISN’T.

Hence super quango : The Environment Agency, under pressure from : over borrowed – cash strapped Westminster, dutifully slashed their departmental spending with little regard for the catastrophic effect this would have on those who reside in Somerset, and pay their taxes .

Lord Smith predictably, has made a puerile attempt to throw the blame back onto the electorate by piously declaring that :

We must make difficult choices, and decide whether we protect town or country - we can’t afford to do both !

We could of course if we stopped sending £ 50 million a day to unaudited Brussels.

The simple choice for the British electorate, is to cease to vote for Lib Lab Con in all future elections at every level, for to do otherwise, so is to vote for more of the same, something we can’t afford and don’t want.

A much used short phrase in recent times, has been : REGIME CHANGE, and it is usually applied to troubled nations far away, but no nation ever needed this to happen to them, more than we do at this time.

Ed. - - - - Bromsgrovia.

Click here: Inside the Environment Agency - Welcome to Inside the Environment Agency

Dr Richard North explains the EU angle to the Flooding story. Strange that no one else seems over inclined to point this out.

No surprise that the pro EU Westminster troika forget to mention it. Nor is it any surprise that the
media fails to point this out. But what about EUKIP? Any comment from UKIP's MEP's? If there have been they've kept it very quiet - haven't they!

EU policy: deliberately flooding the Somerset Levels

 

Monday 3 February 2014

 

It is all very well for Chris Smith, Chairman of the Environment Agency, to prattle on about "difficult choices", and to tell us that "more must be done to protect the Somerset Levels". But in the flooding crisis over which he is presiding, there is one which Smith's Agency, at the behest of the EU, deliberately allowed to happen.

Allowing the flooding is a matter EU policy, introduced by a 2007 Directive and consciously adopted by the Environment Agency in 2008, which then sought to increase the frequency of flooding on the Somerset Levels.

What then makes it impossible for the people on the spot, like Owen Paterson, is that they are having to deal with decisions made years ago. Only now are the consequences of those decisions becoming evident, while the people (or agencies) who contributed to this disaster are entirely invisible.

In the "invisible" class is that classic elephant in the room, the European Union, which was behind the last great change in British strategy, heralded by a Defra consultation document in July 2004 called "making space for water", introducing "a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England".

The clue as to its provenance came on page 23, under the heading "European Dimension", which told us that flood risk management was being discussed at the EU level, and the themes under discussion were "all consistent with this consultation and the current approach in England".

The outline of the EU approach had in fact been published in a COM final, (2004)472, the very same month as the Defra document, signalling the "European" interest and warning of further activity to come.

At the time, Charles Clover, writing in the Telegraph was very far from being impressed. He complained that, while Defra calls it "Making Space for Water", others called it "flooding". And, in those few words, the future government policy was revealed. Flood defence was to give way to "management".

Government consultation continued into 2005, making it very clear that a "new strategic direction" was involved, one which involved changing the emphasis from flood protection to allowing certain areas to flood.

For Somerset, this had already been spelled out in an EU-funded conference in Warsaw in 2003. Flood defence for farm land, along with high levels of subsidies, was for many years an important element of Britain's production-orientated agricultural policy, wrote the authors. Many floodplain areas benefited from publicly-funded flood defence and land drainage schemes which reduced crop damage and facilitated a change to more intensive farming systems.

Recently, however, they continued, policy emphasis has been placed on environmental enhancement, on greater diversity of economic activity as a basis for sustainable rural livelihoods, and on public enjoyment of the countryside. Funds previously committed to support farm output are increasingly diverted to encourage land managers to deliver environmental benefits.

In this context, we were told, there is reduced justification for high standards of flood defence for agriculture. Indeed, there may be substantial benefits if some floodplain land is returned to its previous unprotected, un-drained condition.

Therein lay the death knell for the Somerset Levels, as a new term was to dominate policy: "Washland". This was an area of the floodplain that was to be allowed to flood or was deliberately flooded by a watercourse for flood management purposes.

Unacknowledged by either government, the media or even Chris Smith in his current diatribe, this policy was given legislative force, not by the Westminster parliament but by an EU directive 2007/60/EC of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks.

There, in recital 14, we saw spelled out the requirement that flood risk management plans should focus on prevention, protection and preparedness. But, "with a view to giving rivers more space, they should consider where possible the maintenance and/or restoration of floodplains, as well as measures to prevent and reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity".

There, writ large, was Defra's "making space for water" policy and all that was needed for an already Green-dominated Environment Agency to abandon the Somerset Levels.

The shift in policy can be seen with brutal clarity on the Coimmission website which gives priority to the "environment", citing a raft of EU measures, including the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. The Floods Directive, we are sternly warned, has to be implemented by 2015.

Just so that there should be no doubts as to where the policy thrust law, DG Environment in 2011 issued a note, stressing that flood risk management "should work with nature, rather than against it", building up the "green infrastructure" and thus offering a "triple-win" which included restoration (i.e., flooding) of the floodplain.

By then, the Environment Agency needed no encouragement. In its March 2008 plan it had decided that, "providing a robust economic case for maintenance works on the Somerset Levels and Moors remains a challenge" (p.131).

We believe, the Agency said, that "it is appropriate to look again at the benefits derived from our work, particularly focussing more on the infrastructure and the environmental benefits, which previous studies have probably [been] underestimated".

We have, they said, "international obligations to maintain and enhance the habitats and species in the Somerset Levels and Moors, and it is within this context that all decisions have to be made".

And, with that, they were "doubtful that all the pumping stations on the Somerset Levels and Moors are required for flood risk management purposes. Many pumping stations are relatively old and in some cases difficult to maintain. It is necessary to decide which ones are necessary particularly in the context of redistributing water".

Of six policy options, the Agency thus adopted the sixth, to: "Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere, which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction". This policy option, they said, "involves a strategic increase in flooding in allocated areas" (p.141). The Levels were to be allowed to flood, as a matter of deliberate policy.

Thus, when the BBC reported that the government had been "slow to act", it could not have been more wrong. It had been there years before, planning to make the disaster that has overtaken the people of that part of Somerset a routine occurrence, not so much man-made as made by government.

By the time Owen Peterson arrived to try to deal with the situation, he was years too late. Between the EU, the previous Labour government and the Environment Agency, the damage had already been done.