DOCSLIB.ORG

Coordinating New Approaches to Watercourse Management in Rural Catchments Is There a Case for a New Internal Drainage Board in Oxfordshire?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coordinating New Approaches to Watercourse Management in Rural Catchments Is There a Case for a New Internal Drainage Board in Oxfordshire? Coordinating New Approaches to Watercourse Management in Rural Catchments Is there a Case for a New Internal Drainage Board in Oxfordshire? National Farmers Union South East May 2015 Page 1 NFU Report Abstract – Key Messages This report is the culmination of a 6-month study, presenting the results of a series of questionnaires, interviews and stakeholder engagement events focussing on the River Ray (Oxfordshire); a small rural catchment with frequent rural flooding problems. Our study indicates that there is already a strong commitment to maintenance spending in the River Ray catchment and that higher levels of maintenance spending are associated with more favourable attitudes towards environmental objectives (i.e. entry into agri-environment schemes, favouring sediment control and habitat creation). This indicates that enabling watercourse maintenance may also generate more positive environmental outcomes in rural catchments. Our data suggest that there is financial justification for creating a formalised management group as there is a substantial level of cumulative spending power within the catchment that could achieve outcomes that are not possible for individual holdings or landowners. We estimate a potential cumulative contribution from farmland in this catchment of up to £221,173 per year for watercourse maintenance. This figure excludes potential contributions from urban areas, which could be of a similar magnitude if raised through a drainage levy. The study has also shown that there is willingness to participate in a collaborative scheme, such as the creation of local management groups or the creation of a new internal drainage board. The creation of two new management groups in Oxfordshire during this project, as well as several already in existence demonstrate the willingness of local communities to come together to manage flood risk issues. The public stakeholders that have contributed towards this study have also indicated willingness to participate in a collaborative management organisation, subject to there being a balance of priorities between nature conservation, protection of people and property alongside protection of productive agricultural land. One of the primary drivers behind interest in collaborative management is the perceived increasing flood risk from catchment urbanisation. Respondents to our survey identified management collaboration as a possible way to span the interaction between urban and rural flooding. The other primary drivers for management collaboration identified by our survey were to improve the frequency and coverage of conveyance management service provision and to decrease the duration/ extent of farmland flooding to retain agricultural productivity. There is only a low level of interest amongst land owners for catchment flood storage. Of the minority (12%) that see this in a favourable light, these tend to have land that already floods and may potentially consider enhancing that function. It is also clear from these favourable responses that any enhanced flood storage that is promoted would be more favourably accepted if it is designed to mitigate the growth of urban development. Survey responses also indicated that there should be a payment mechanism established where farms are flooded as a result of development. Feedback from the new management groups indicates that there is a need for better access to specialist machinery and better training to allow riparian landowners to manage their own watercourses. This work is only a first step towards understanding whether there are better ways to coordinate watercourse maintenance in rural catchments, however further work is required to work on the feasibility of management delivery mechanisms, to work up a detailed design and then deliver a robust partnership management organisation that would be able to self-finance management delivery within the catchments of Oxfordshire. Point of Contact and Main Contributor Tom Ormesher MCIEEM Environment and Land Use Adviser NFU South East Rotherbrook Court Bedford Road Petersfield GU32 3QG [email protected] Contributors: Tom Keen (NFU), David Clifford (NFU) Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Professor Joe Morris for guidance during this project. Also Peter Collins and Barry Russell at the Environment Agency, Kevin Rillie (NFU Mutual) and the helpful participation from the numerous individuals with an interest in the River Ray catchment. Cover Photo: Courtesy of Environment Agency (www.flickr.com) Page 2 NFU Report Executive Summary This report is the culmination of a 6-month study, presenting the results of a series of questionnaires, interviews and stakeholder engagement events focussing on the River Ray (Oxfordshire); a small rural catchment with frequent flooding issues. This largely rural catchment has national and international wildlife interest and at the same time has major pressure from development, particularly around Bicester, which the Oxfordshire LEP has identified as “a growth town that will play a key role in the economic growth of the County”i. The provision of rural flood risk management services is limited in the catchment; and a new way of delivering this maintenance service may now be required to balance the competing pressures from rural and urban flood water management. This report aims to investigate the opportunities for more collaborative working amongst local landowners and public stakeholders, to provision greater levels of spending power and make the catchment more resilient to future flooding. We consider some of the background issues relevant to whether new models of funding and maintenance delivery can address this market failure; and whether better collaboration between stakeholders can bring out closer coordinated activity to allow any limited local spending power to go further. Background Flood management priorities have shifted in focus in England and Wales since the food shortages and rationing experienced at the end of the Second World War, such that many lowland rural catchments do not receive the same level of river maintenance service provision compared to previous decades. The Environment Agency now prioritises maintenance expenditure towards areas where the probability of flooding, economic damage and risk to life are greatest and this tends not to favour productive farmland. In most rural catchments this puts the focus for any required river maintenance work onto individual riparian landowners, who must navigate through the complexities of flood defence consenting, avoidance of criminal liability under UK law (e.g. the Wildlife and Countryside Act), plus the technical challenge of completing maintenance work to the required design standards within a safe working environment. Previously the skill sets required to complete these activities has largely been provided by the public sector but this option is increasingly less available; and maintenance delivery has largely stalled in many lowland rural catchments. The cleaning of watercourses from obstacles and vegetation to allow faster flows is particularly crucial for the maintenance of productive arable and livestock systems; however farmers in the Thames Basin have reported that they are often inundated for much longer than necessary during flood events. This comes at a time when floodplains previously protected for agriculture have been under review where a change (or relaxation) in management could enhance their flood storage potential; however the circumstances under which such a change in management might be brokered is relatively unchartered territory. This report also therefore considers the attitudes of farmers towards flood storage as this may be of relevance to future policy making decisions. Data on Cost of Flooding and Maintenance Expenditure Respondents from our questionnaire reported up to 2,541 acres of flooding (10.3km2), approximately 4% of total farmland area in the Ray catchment or up to 13% of all flood affected land within the catchment. 65% considered that the character of flood events had changed in living memory in terms of duration, extent and frequency. There was a broad correlation between the length of watercourse network within the farm holding and the area of reported flooding; such that the data indicates how watercourse network function plays a determining factor for those areas that experience frequent flooding. At least 85% of respondents report some level of spending on annual watercourse maintenance, with the majority evenly distributed between the ‘up to £500’ (30%), £501-1000 (32%) and £1001-5000 (21%) intervals. Roughly 15% (9 respondents) spent nothing. This amounts to approximately £137 per km or £3.73 per acre already committed on maintenance spending. This spending is influenced slightly by the area flooded, but more so by the lengths of watercourse within the holding and the type of farming practice, with arable farms spending more on average compared to livestock farmers. Assuming a total farmed area of 59,284 acres or 462km of watercourse within the Ray catchment, the figures suggest a potential “catchment spending power” of £221,173 per year on an acreage basis; and £63,300 per Page 3 NFU Report year on a per length of watercourse basis. These figures exclude potential contributions from urban areas, which could be of a similar magnitude if raised through a drainage levy. Forty eight respondents reported approximately £109,322 of flood damage during the winter 2013/14 event, much of which was uninsured. This has been calculated as a broad
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Scanned PDF[7.83
    aedings of osium on Engineering and the Environment: Harmony or Conflict? The Institution of Water Engineers and Scientists SYMPOSIUM ON ENGINEERING AND THE ENVIRONMENT: HARMONY OR CONFLICT? i PROCEEDINGS OF SYMPOSIUM HELD IN . LONDON, ENGLAND, on 6th and 7th DECEMBER 1978 ANY CORRESPONDENCE relating to the papers appearing in this publication should be addressed to the Secretary, The Institution of Water Engineers and Scientists, 6-8 Sackville Street, London W1X 1DD, England. (Telphone: 01-734 5422.) © Copyright reserved by The Institution of Water Engineers and Scientists. The Institution is not responsible as a body for the opinions advanced in any of the papers comprising this symposium. The comments made by the authors and by the contributors to the discussions on the papers are the personal comments of the individuals, and do not necessarily reflect the views of their employing authorities. PREFACE The general theme of this Symposium is the environmental and sociological implications of major engineering works and how these influence the promotion, design, construction, and operation of such works. Within this theme an attempt is made to identify the role which is or should be played by the water services industry and to illustrate this by examples from overseas and the United Kingdom. Thereafter, an attempt is made to examine the way ahead. Problems and public concern relating to pollution of the environment are not new and it could be said that the water industry has a long history of concern for the environment. Be that as it may there have been rapid and dramatic changes in our life style in recent years and the public generally now have a greater awareness and interest in the impact of change and development on the environment which is resulting from the increasingly complex society in which we live.
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk De-Maining Project - Consultation Response Document
    Rationalising the Main River Network (RMRN): Suffolk De-maining Project - Consultation Response Document We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment. We help people and wildlife adapt to climate change and reduce its impacts, including flooding, drought, sea level rise and coastal erosion. We improve the quality of our water, land and air by tackling pollution. We work with businesses to help them comply with environmental regulations. A healthy and diverse environment enhances people's lives and contributes to economic growth. We can’t do this alone. We work as part of the Defra group (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs), with the rest of government, local councils, businesses, civil society groups and local communities to create a better place for people and wildlife. Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon House, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: [email protected] or our National Customer Contact Centre: www.gov.uk/environment-agency T: 03708 506506 Email: [email protected]. © Environment Agency 2017 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency. 2 of 22 Foreword We are committed to working with local organisations, landowners and communities to ensure the right organisations are managing the right watercourses. The 3 de-maining pilots that we consulted on nationally in January/February 2018 are an important step in making this happen. We are a national organisation and our focus is on managing watercourses where the flood risk is greatest to people and property, therefore in some locations we are not best placed to lead and manage flood risk.
    [Show full text]
  • March East Internal Drainage Board
    MARCH EAST INTERNAL DRAINAGE BOARD At a Meeting of the March East Internal Drainage Board held at the Middle Level Offices, March on Thursday the 6th June 2019 PRESENT C E Martin Esq (Chairman) R D Gladwin Esq C W Albutt Esq (Vice Chairman) J E Heading Esq J F Clark Esq D J Henson Esq M Cornwell Esq C Marks Esq A Dunham Esq R E Mason Esq G C Dunham Esq D S Morris Esq A J N Gee Esq F H Yeulett Esq Miss Samantha Ablett (representing the Clerk to the Board) and Mr Morgan Lakey (representing the Consulting Engineers) were in attendance. Apologies for absence Apologies for absence were received from A W Coulson Esq, P G Hayes, and Councillor M Purser. B.1260 Declarations of Interest Miss Ablett reminded Members of the importance of declaring an interest in any matter included in today’s agenda that involved or was likely to affect any individual on the Board. B.1261 Confirmation of Minutes RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board held on the 7th June 2018 are recorded correctly and that they be confirmed and signed. B.1262 Land Drainage Act 1991 Board Membership – Fenland District Council Miss Ablett reported that Fenland District Council had re-appointed Councillors J F Clark and M Cornwell and appointed Councillors C Marks, D Divine, M Purser and F Yeulett to be Members of the Board under the provisions of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Miss Ablett also reported that Councillors Mrs M Davis, S Court and A Pugh were not re- appointed.
    [Show full text]
  • 150 Autumn News 2009 the Bulletin of the Association for Industrial Archaeology Free to Members of Aia
    INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY 150 AUTUMN NEWS 2009 THE BULLETIN OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY FREE TO MEMBERS OF AIA Pontcysyllte is new World Heritage Site G Fe09 Conference at Coalbrookdale G Longdendale Water Heritage at Risk G Stretham engine G Leeds towers G regional news G publications The Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal World Heritage inscription at Seville On 27 June the 33rd session of the World which discussions might reach the level of the Heritage Committee meeting in Seville inscribed complexities of the comparative terminologies INDUSTRIAL the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal (United between the English and French translations. Kingdom) on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. The Friday and Saturday in this vast dark air- ARCHAEOLOGY new World Heritage Site is 11 miles (18 conditioned space came and went with the Chair kilometres) long, with all but half a mile in Wales. of the World Heritage Committee up on stage NEWS 150 It follows the waterway from its feeder at the flanked by serried ranks of ICOMOS global site Autumn 2009 Horseshoe Falls on the River Dee above research specialists and raconteurs with Llangollen to Gledrid Bridge near Rhoswiel. While dictionaries, backed by five vast screens centred Honorary President the star attraction is the famous Pontcysyllte on the personage talking with alternate English Prof Angus Buchanan 13 Hensley Road, Bath BA2 2DR Aqueduct across the Dee near Wrexham, it also and French screens showing the inscription texts Chairman includes the Chirk Aqueduct and Tunnel. being examined paragraph by paragraph, and Tony Crosby Congratulations to the three lead organisations, clause by clause, in both languages 261 Stansted Road, Bishop’s Stortford, Hertfordshire CM23 2BT Wrexham County Borough Council, British simultaneously.
    [Show full text]
  • DSV Spring Crop Plots
    400 700 20 401 702 800 806 900 24 701 40 17 17 18 Lemken Harper Adams 807 20 Omex 501 Landquip Crop 15 15 1107 14 500 Househam Sprayers Ltd 802 804 University J Brock & Sons 901 1100 Alpler Agricultural Sprayers Billericay Farm 202 201QPH 203 9 10 10 Catering 2 100 Ltd 8 Altek-Lechler 8 8 8 Soil Association KRM Ltd Machinery LH Agro Services Griffith Elder 6 Shufflebottom 6 6 / Certification Microgenetics 10 108 54 36 36 36 280 600 425 216 135 360 300 375 330 64 56 225 150 300 160 120 260 102 18 9 6 6 6 20 25 25 27 15 20 25 22 8 7 15 15 20 15 26 13 18 12 40 10 12 120 12 12 15 10 40 1 101 204 2 205 402 3 403 502 4 503 704 5 6 809 902 7 903 1002 8 1003 1102 9 6 Creagh 6 Catering 3 17 Basak Concrete 10 10 10 10 Atlantis Tanks Products36 11 11 Barclays 12 12 Tractors Group Ltd 15 Strutt & Parker 15 15 15 16 Fruehauf 16 15 McConnel 15 905 15 McHale 15 Miedema 120 AHDB 100 143 6 Challow 6 20 Mercer 20 170 505 Chafer 144 Products 24 24 36 Machinery 103 207 Machinery 8 104 270 600 180 906 225 Isuzu Offroad Driving 6 Weirbags 6 Wilson 256 10 Extenda Line 10 907 60 60 6 10 10 402A 10 36 Wraight 706 54 206 9 9 1004 Course 7 Roythornes 7 504 150 12 12 200 105 80 Hugh Crane 106 Solicitors AHDB Pentair Terrington 77 15 15 45 45 10 (Cleaning 10 12 12 72 10 1005 507 Hypro EU 288 Machinery Tilhill 209 Spring Crop Plots - I Equipment) 96 12 12 6 6 Nuffield Forestry MHA MacIntyre Theatre 909 Farming 12 208 Hudson 100 100 42 72 811 908 10 15 15 Cleveland 14 14 10 CLA 10 600 508 Joskin SA 6 6 7 7 13 1006 72 708 Alliances 13 60 60 72 211 40 6 Sentry 6 Dual 36 NAAC Drainage Area 6 ODA UK 6 6 Pumps 6 42 107 150 36 Limited 10 108 Ltd 36 36 84 225 910 213 813 104 210 510 100 12 Fram Farmers 12 6 De Lacy 6 710 7 7 1007 Executive 509 911 Oil NRG 15 36 42 1008 Concept Karcher Farm 13 Lycetts 13 215 10 10 6 Miles 12 12 120 Drainage Machinery Centre JHS Team 912 Ltd 7 Laurence 7 1800 20 20 13 13 Ltd 36 2400 Gould 18 18 Sprayers 7 7 109 100 225 156 42 405 1010 72 1109 217 49 9 EPR Ely 9 511 110 216 MOBA 104 1009 6 Mobile 6 914 6 6 Landmark William Morfoot Eternit 7 72 R.A.B.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Battle for the Floodplains
    Battle for the Floodplains: An Institutional Analysis of Water Management and Spatial Planning in England Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the for the Degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Karen Michelle Potter September 2012 Abstract Dramatic flood events witnessed from the turn of the century have renewed political attention and, it is believed, created new opportunities for the restoration of functional floodplains to alleviate the impact of flooding on urban development. For centuries, rural and urban landowning interests have dominated floodplains and water management in England, through a ‘hegemonic discourse alliance’ on land use development and flood defence. More recently, the use of structural flood defences has been attributed to the exacerbation of flood risk in towns and cities, and we are warned if water managers proceeded with ‘business as usual’ traditional scenarios, this century is predicted to see increased severe inconveniences at best and human catastrophes at worst. The novel, sustainable and integrated policy response is highly dependent upon the planning system, heavily implicated in the loss of floodplains in the past, in finding the land for restoring functioning floodplains. Planners are urged to take this as a golden opportunity to make homes and businesses safer from flood risk, but also to create an environment with green spaces and richer habitats for wildlife. Despite supportive changes in policy, there are few urban floodplain restoration schemes being implemented in practice in England, we remain entrenched in the engineered flood defence approach and the planner’s response is deemed inadequate. The key question is whether new discourses and policy instruments on sustainable, integrated water management can be put into practice, or whether they will remain ‘lip-service’ and cannot be implemented after all.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Internal Drainage Boards (Idbs)
    An introduction to Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) Association of Drainage Authorities The national representative of IDBs in England & Wales What is an Internal Drainage Board? An Internal Drainage Board (IDB) is a local public authority that manages water levels. They are an integral part of managing flood risk and land drainage within areas of special drainage need in England and Wales. Each IDB has permissive powers to undertake work to provide water level management within their Internal Drainage District (IDD), undertaking works to reduce flood risk to people and property and manage water levels for local needs. Much of their work involves the maintenance of rivers, drainage channels, outfalls and pumping stations, facilitating drainage of new developments and advising on planning applications. They also have statutory duties with regard to the environment and recreation when exercising their permissive powers. The forerunners of today’s IDBs date back to the time of Henry III who established a Commission for drainage of Romney Marsh in Kent in 1252. Most IDBs today were established by the Government following the passing of the Land Drainage Act 1930. The activities and responsibilities of IDBs are currently controlled by the Land Drainage Act 1991 as amended by subsequent legislation. IDBs are also defined as Risk Management Authorities within the Flood & Water Management Act 2010 alongside the Environment Agency, local authorities and water companies. Today, there are 121 IDBs in Great Britain, 120 in Geographical distribution of England and 3 in Wales (2 IDBs cross the border). IDBs IDBs in England & Wales cover 1.2 million hectares of England (9.7% of England’s (Source: Sharon Grafton, ADA) total land area) and 28,500 hectares of Wales (1.4% of the Wales’ total land area).
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Drainage District Boundary Review Consultation
    Internal Drainage District Boundary Review - Glossary This document provides an overview and clarification of the terms used within the consultation documents for the Internal Drainage District Boundary Review consultation. Term Definition Biodiversity The variability among living organisms from all sources, including terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. Catchment An area of land where water collects when it rains, often bounded by hills. Drainage channels Ditches and watercourses within an IDD. Internal Drainage District Advisory A group of people who live and work within an Group IDD who provide NRW with expert advice to ensure high quality and appropriate service in the IDD. FCERM Flood and coastal erosion risk management. Flood defence structure Any permanent works constructed, operated or maintained by the regulator for the purposes of managing flood risk. Groundwater flooding Occurs when water levels in the ground rise above the natural surface. Low-lying areas underlain by permeable strata are particularly susceptible. Hydrology The study of water. Internal Drainage District (IDD) Areas of land where there is a particular need for drainage and water level management. IDDs are operated in accordance with the Land Drainage Act 1991. Internal Drainage Board (IDB) The Board that operates and manages the IDDs. In Wales, NRW’s Board acts as the IDB for all IDDs. Main river A watercourse shown as such on a main river map and includes any structure or appliance for controlling or regulating the flow of water into, in or out of the channel which: (a) is a structure or appliance situated in the channel or in any part of the banks of the channel; and (b) is not a structure or appliance vested in or controlled by an internal drainage board.
    [Show full text]
  • Bovine TB Partnership Members List
    Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Bovine TB Partnership members biographies February 2021 Contents John Cross – Chair .............................................................................................................. 3 Members .............................................................................................................................. 3 Stephanie Young .............................................................................................................. 3 Paul Westaway (High Risk Area) ..................................................................................... 3 Di Wastenage (High Risk Area) ....................................................................................... 4 David Barton (High Risk Area) ......................................................................................... 4 Phil Latham (Edge Area) .................................................................................................. 4 Chris Addison (Low Risk Area) ........................................................................................ 4 Professor Rosie Woodroffe .............................................................................................. 5 Dr Sue Mayer ................................................................................................................... 5 Dr Andy Robertson ........................................................................................................... 5 Dr Gareth Enticott............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the an English Agribusiness Lobby Group
    Understanding the NFU an English Agribusiness Lobby Group Ethical Consumer Research Association December 2016 Understanding the NFU - an English Agribusiness Lobby-group ECRA December 2016 1 Contents 1. Introduction – The NFU an English Agribusiness Lobby group 3 2. Economic Lobbying – undermining the smaller farmer 2.1 NFU and farm subsidies – promoting agribusiness at the expense of smaller farmers 11 2.2 NFU and TTIP – favouring free trade at the expense of smaller farms 15 2.3 NFU and supermarkets – siding with retailers and opposing the GCA 17 2.4 NFU and foot and mouth disease – exports prioritised over smaller producers 20 3. Environmental Lobbying – unconcerned about sustainability 3.1 NFU, bees and neonicotinoids – risking it all for a few pence more per acre 24 3.2 NFU and soil erosion – opposing formal protection 28 3.3 NFU and air pollution – opposing EU regulation 31 3.4 NFU, biodiversity and meadows – keeping the regulations away 33 3.5 NFU and Europe – keeping sustainability out of the CAP 41 3/6 NFU and climate change – a mixed response 47 3.7 NFU and flooding – not listening to the experts? 51 4. Animal interventions – keeping protection to a minimum 4.1 Farm animal welfare – favouring the megafarm 53 4.2 NFU, badgers and bovine TB – driving a cull in the face of scientific evidence 60 4.3 The Red Tractor label – keeping standards low 74 5. Social Lobbying – passing costs on to the rest of us 5.1 NFU and Organophosphates in sheep dip – failing to protect farmers’ health 78 5.2 NFU and road safety – opposing regulations 82 5.3 NFU and workers’ rights – opposing the Agricultural Wages Board 86 5.4 NFU and Biotechnology – Supporting GM crops 89 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Drainage in England and Wales
    -69- LAND DRAINAGE |N ENGLAND AND WALES R.W. Irwin Schoo] of Engineering University of Guelph Britain is generally thought to be a small, highly industrialized country which relies on the rest of the world for the food it uses, This is a misconception, Jt has a highly developed agriculture. A comparison with Ontario is shown below. England & Wales Ontario Total improved land (ac) 14,000,000 10,865,000 No. of farm workers 647,000 392,000 No. of full time farms 165,000 95,000 WATER ORGANIZATION PRIOR TO APRIL 1974 Arterial Drainage Law pertaining to arterial drainage dates from the 12th century. In 1918 the drainage legislation was reviewed and new concepts were introduced which proved to be unsatisfactory in certain regards, The 1918 Act gave Drainage Commissioners the option of laying drainage rates on an acreage basis or on annual value. In 1918 the Ministry decreed that lands which could be rated for direct benefit were the agricultural land below the 8ft (based on 8 ft of wheat roots) contour above the highest known local flood level; urban property was set at flood level. Agricultural land assessment at the coast was based on 5ft above spring tide level for benefit, The Act also set out the flood benefit criteria lines, Rates were usually established on the acreage basis as it was easier to administer. |t was difficult to raise sufficient money under that arrangement, Only lands which received benefit paid prior to 1930. The Land Drainage Act of 1930 (1) created one authority (Catchment Board) for each main basin; (2) departed from the principle of assessing all the cost of drainage against land in proportion to direct benefit; and (3) established the principle of government grants-in-aid for agricul tural land, There were 20,000 miles of main river.
    [Show full text]
  • Flooding Survey June 1990 River Tame Catchment
    Flooding Survey June 1990 River Tame Catchment NRA National Rivers Authority Severn-Trent Region A RIVER CATCHMENT AREAS En v ir o n m e n t Ag e n c y NATIONAL LIBRARY & INFORMATION SERVICE HEAD OFFICE Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury. Bristol BS32 4UD W EISH NRA Cardiff Bristol Severn-Trent Region Boundary Catchment Boundaries Adjacent NRA Regions 1. Upper Severn 2. Lower Severn 3. Avon 4. Soar 5. Lower Trent 6. Derwent 7. Upper Trent 8. Tame - National Rivers Authority Severn-Trent Region* FLOODING SURVEY JUNE 1990 SECTION 136(1) WATER ACT 1989 (Supersedes Section 2 4 (5 ) W a te r A c t 1973 Land Drainage Survey dated January 1986) RIVER TAME CATCHMENT AND WEST MIDLANDS Environment Agency FLOOD DEFENCE DEPARTMENT Information Centre NATONAL RIVERS AUTHORrTY SEVERN-TRENT REGION Head Office SAPPHIRE EAST Class N o 550 STREETSBROOK ROAD SOLIHULL cession No W MIDLANDS B91 1QT ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 0 9 9 8 0 6 CONTENTS Contents List of Tables List of Associated Reports List of Appendices References G1ossary of Terms Preface CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY 1.1 Introducti on 1.2 Coding System 1.3 Priority Categories 1.4 Summary of Problem Evaluations 1.5 Summary by Priority Category 1.6 Identification of Problems and their Evaluation CHAPTER 2 THE SURVEY Z.l Introduction 2.2 Purposes of Survey 2.3 Extent of Survey 2.4 Procedure 2.5 Hydrological Criteria 2.6 Hydraulic Criteria 2.7 Land Potential Category 2.8 Improvement Costs 2.9 Benefit Assessment 2.10 Test Discount Rate 2.11 Benefit/Cost Ratios 2.12 Priority Category 2.13 Inflation Factors
    [Show full text]