DOCSLIB.ORG

Neil Edwards – Responsible Use of Rivers- V10final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Responsible Use of Rivers Neil Edwards AquaInform Ltd 29th April 2021 Is there such a thing as responsible use of rivers? Or is any use to be actively discouraged, minimised and ultimately phased out. if ‘no such thing’ Public Water Supply Drainage Recreation Routing and storage Flood management Angling Wastewater Agri/Food Walking margins Conveyor Irrigation In stream (kayaking, swimming, boating …) ‘self-purification’ Industry Commercial Fishing Navigation Hydropower Human transport Process water Trading Cooling 2 Case Study : Upland Interests, Lowland Interests & Perceived Change in Flood Risk 1878-9 3 Aspects of Responsible Use of Rivers Legal Framework Development The current water resource challenge in England Strategic decision making with some major implications Flavour of trade-offs in current water resource planning Scope Discussion Case Study – Upland Interests v Lowland Interests : Flooding Risk ❑ Main presentation – Neil Edwards (AquaInform) ❑ Active chat – Ben Williams (RWE Generation UK) ❑ Chat Themes – Ben will collate as necessary ❑ Discussion / Case Study – free for all + chat 4 Responsible Use of Rivers Responsible Use Rivers • Having obligation, authority • Abstraction • Water control, duty of care • Discharge • Banks & Bed • (to) being answerable to an • Drainage • Margins authority • Navigation • Flood plain • Primary cause, carrying blame • Fishing • Catchment or getting credit for something • In stream recreation • Morally accountable for • Margin Recreation behaviour • Structures/Buildings • Having good judgement and the ability to act correctly • (of a job) Having importance, independence or control • Capable of being trusted ‘Responsible’ involves ‘value’ Affected non-user parties judgment (morality, correctness) beyond mere ‘legal compliance’ Local interests View points on ‘values’ include … Non-local interests User Investors Other users Regulators User’s customers 5 Does Responsible Use of Rivers Need Controlling or Can Users ‘Sort it Out for Themselves’? Water Wars/Range Wars – ‘derogation’ of Need a future-facing system to deliver sufficient ‘existing water rights’ confidence for would be users to commit to invest in new activity/infrastructure & provide a Protection of environment degree of protection (but not fossilise) existing It can’t compete for itself users eg Agent(s) acting for environment (eg Environment against new (excessive) upstream consumptive Agency, Natural England, Rivers Trusts, Wildlife use, or diversion or excess Groups…) against new upstream (excessive) impairment of Social mechanisms tend develop to resolve quality dispute once dependence on rivers evolves eg ie Planning Risk of unavailability of water resource Anticipating problems and avoiding them Intrinsically uncertain subject to natural seasonal and weather related statistical distribution Towards ‘best’ use? Risk of Flood Risk of adverse water quality Intrinsically uncertain subject to natural seasonal and weather related statistical distribution 6 Illustration: Water Resource Management in England – Focus on Abstraction from Rivers 7 England – Water Resource Regulation Development 1930 (Land Drainage Act) 1948 River Boards Act <1878 2000-3000 individual •17 River Boards •47 of 100 identified Catchment ‘local’ Acts of Parliament 1878 River Conservancy Bill •Expanded to 32 Boards created 1945 (national policy on (Local Sanitary Authorities, – advocated integrated •Subsumed Fisheries Boards proper use of water Statutory Water water management at river resources) Undertakers, basin scale Conservancies) 1951 Rivers (Pollution 1963 Water Resources Act 1973 Water Act 1989 Water Act 1995 Environment Act Prevention) Act •27 River Authorities •10 regional Water Authorities •10 Water Companies (PWS) + 1 National •1 Environment Agency integrates 1 •Abstraction licensing (first come first Rivers Authority (Aq Env Regulation) National Rivers Authority with Her •discharge licences served) Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution and multiple Waste Authorities 2000-date Water Framework 1999-2013 various changes to 2017 Abstraction Plan replaces Directive River Basin Management water resource management 2013-2017 Reform Initiative to fix Planning planning and abstraction licensing abstraction licensing regime 2019 5 Regional Water •11 River Basin Districts (Eng & Wales) including all new licences to be perceived no longer fit for time limited to 12-24 years purpose Resource Planning Groups •14 Catchment Abstraction Management •Unsustainable abstraction to be remedied (England) introduced Strategy ‘areas’ •Catchment Based Approach (100+) •Each with several (3-10) Catchments Detail in supplementary slides 8 Key Regulatory Theme – Much Simplified Institutional arrangements New integration requirement via Water Framework Directive (2000) 1879-1973 - towards functional integration at river basin scale : Integrated Management Planning at River Basin District scale with Environment Agency as Competent Increasing geographic scale to whole watersheds Authority controlled by a single institution Requires public participation Across sufficient range of interrelated issues and Balance of costs and benefits in setting targets services including PWS 2000-2015 RBDLP Liaison Panels (acting as critical = Integrated river basin management friend to EA) Knowledge Dismantled in 2016 to focus at catchment scale Power/Authority New National and Regional Water Resource Planning initiatives Funding Water Company and Environment Agency dominated Culminating in the Water Authorities of 1973 as public bodies Consideration of non-Public Water Supply interest 1973-date – ‘oscillation on scale’ and more emphasis on ‘economics’ principles : Water Authorities dismantled in privatisation of 1989 (economics principles applied in many settings not just ‘water’) Separation of regulation & ‘activity’ 9 Primary features of an abstraction licence (England) & factors influencing determination Features Protected Area requirements Abstraction position / (area) Biota Protection Abstraction volume flows permitted for purpose(s) Entrainment/impingement/ modification of flows … Instantaneous, hourly, daily, [weekly], Annual User protection Possibly linked to river flow/level Against derogation (of existing licence right) Hands Off Flows (HOF) Reasonable need and efficient use test Hands Off Levels (HOL) For the purpose Reporting requirements Does not consider the ‘worth of the purpose’ Compliance System does not always result in economic efficiency of use of scarce water resource Information Is First Come First Served (FCFS) {Biota Protection Provisions eg behavioural deterrents, fish recovery and return arrangements} But not all non-trivial abstractions require an abstraction licence! [formerly included specification of land on which use takes place] Coastal waters out of scope of abstraction licensing Factors Aquatic environmental protection (Water Resources) Environmental Flow Indices (EFI) 10 Does compliance with a licence constitute responsible use of water? With a reputable licensing system, what can possibly go Agri/food – market develops to favour more water intensive wrong…? products Would be users with higher economic value purposes … change eg appear Technology/techniques evolve to be more water efficient if all available rights have been issued then barrier to their market entry What was reasonable need when granted may no longer be reasonable for the purpose role for markets/trading to supplement or replace existing water resource allocation? Production/demand tails off but leaks/losses/inefficiencies develop Climate May not be cost efficient for user to fix leaks if cost of fixing > Timing, frequency, duration and intensity of rainfall events cost of water eg long period until leak fix project payback changing differently in different areas affecting water supply and storage Views on environment needs change Changing snow occurrence and snow melt timing Higher allocation to environment now thought desirable or become legally required What was once appropriate allocation of water More licencing might have been issued than is now thought resource (and implied use of rivers) may not continue consistent with desired environment protection to be as things change Could imply occurrence of environmental damage (in fully licenced scenario) if nothing is done on licensing/restricting actual use Growth in demand from existing users PWS- Population growth and change in affluence leads to demand outstripping improvements in household water use efficiency 11 ‘Jaws of Death’ Speech 2019 James Bevan (EA Chief Exec, March Assumptions for power/energy based on DECC 2011 (pre net zero/hydrogen …!) 2019) ‘Abstractors should not assume they can Action is needed to avoid demand for water always meet future growth using volumes exceeding supply in the next few decades of water held on their licences but as a result of … historically unused’ Climate change Context indicates because of EA view of environmental pressures & WFD no deterioration Population growth interpretation Environmental ambition Not all required reductions are currently quantified EA National Framework for Water Acknowledges uncertainty in projecting Resources (March 2020) non-PWS future water demand Defines Regional Planning including Creating challenges and opportunity in ‘alignment’ between regions regional planning EA assess there is enough water for each ?What is a ‘valid’
Recommended publications
  • Belper Parks Local Nature Reserve & Manor Recreation Ground Management Plan

    Belper Parks Local Nature Reserve & Manor Recreation Ground Management Plan

    Belper Parks Local Nature Reserve & Manor Recreation Ground Management Plan Amber Valley Borough Council 1 Belper Parks LNR & Manor Recreation Ground Amber Valley Borough Council Management Plan 2018 – 2023 Document History Date Written Description Author (s) November 2006 Management Plan 2007 - 2012 AVBC – Wildlife Trust – Groundwork Trust November 2011 Management Plan 2012 - 2017 AVBC – Wildlife Trust – Groundwork Trust January 2018 Management Plan 2018 – 2023 AVBC – Wildlife Trust – Groundwork Trust Contact: Richard Hodgkinson Open Spaces Officer Amber Valley Borough Council Landscapes, Growth & Community Safety Town Hall Ripley Derbyshire DE5 3BT Direct Line Tel: 01773 841320 Main Switch Board: 01773 570222 Website: www.ambervalley.gov.uk Email: [email protected] 2 Contents Page Executive Summary Chapter 1. Introduction, background & context 1.0 Introduction & background 6 2.0 Vision 6 3.0 Aims 6 4.0 Site name 7 5.0 Location & size 7 6.0 Site description 8 7.0 Land tenure 13 8.0 Legal factors 13 9.0 Local demographics 14 10.0 History 15 Chapter 2. Where are we now? 11.0 Introduction 19 12.0 The Green Flag Award 19 13.0 A welcoming place 19 14.0 Healthy, safe and secure 22 15.0 Well maintained and clean 25 16.0 Environmental Management 26 17.0 Biodiversity, Landscape and Heritage 28 18.0 Community involvement 38 19.0 Marketing and Communication 41 20.0 Management 42 Chapter 3. Where do we want to go? 21.0 Introduction 44 22.0 Aims and objectives - Action Plan 44 23.0 Conservation Maintenance 48 Additional information
  • Opzet Draaiboek STAR-FLOOD

    Opzet Draaiboek STAR-FLOOD

    Strengthening and Redesigning European Flood Risk Practices Towards Appropriate and Resilient Flood Risk Governance Arrangements Analysing and evaluating flood risk governance in England – Enhancing societal resilience through comprehensive and aligned flood risk governance arrangements Alexander, M., Priest, S., Micou, A.P., Tapsell, S., Green, C., Parker, D., and Homewood, S. Date: 31 March 2016 Report Number: D3.3 Milestone number: MS3 Due date for deliverable: 30 September 2015 Actual submission date: 28 September 2015 STAR-FLOOD receives funding from the EU 7th Framework programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 308364 Document Dissemination Level PU Public Co-ordinator: Utrecht University Project Contract No: 308364 Project website: www.starflood.eu ISBN: i Cover photo left: Thames Barrier (Dries Hegger, 2013) Cover photo right: City of London (Dries Hegger, 2013) Document information Work Package 3 Consortium Body Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University Year 2016 Document type Deliverable 3.3 Date 11th September 2015 (With amendments made in February 2016) Author(s) Alexander, M., Priest, S., Micou, A., Tapsell, S., Green, C., Parker, D., and Homewood, S. Acknowledgement The work described in this publication was supported by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project STAR-FLOOD, Contract 308364. We would like to acknowledge and offer our gratitude to the flood risk professionals and academic experts who participated in this research. We also appreciate the valuable critique provided by Prof. Edmund Penning-Rowsell. Disclaimer This document reflects only the authors’ views and not those of the European Union. This work may rely on data from sources external to the STAR-FLOOD project Consortium.
  • Battle for the Floodplains

    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.
  • An Introduction to Internal Drainage Boards (Idbs)

    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).
  • An Assessment of the Impact of Regulatory Models for Drinking

    An Assessment of the Impact of Regulatory Models for Drinking

    An Assessment of the Impact of Regulatory Models for Drinking Water Quality In the UK by Annabelle May Submitted for Doctorate of Philosophy School of Engineering University of Surrey September 2007 © Annabelle May 2007 ProQuest Number: 27607843 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 27607843 Published by ProQuest LLO (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLO. ProQuest LLO. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.Q. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 Abstract The main objectives of this study were to assess the influence of regulation on drinking water quality and to explore how drinking water quality regulation is practiced in other countries to establish if the regulatory paradigm in England and Wales and the regulatory mechanisms used by the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) have been effective, and finally, whether potential for Improvement exists. Drinking water quality data from Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales was used to aid an assessment of the three regulatory models found in the United Kingdom. The assessment was also Informed by knowledge acquired through practical observation of regulators, interviews with key personnel and a literature review.
  • FSH:LE:02 Statutory Instruments 1950-1993 : (Collection O AGFV C. 1 Ac .00

    FSH:LE:02 Statutory Instruments 1950-1993 : (Collection O AGFV C. 1 Ac .00

    Fisheries statutory instruments 1950-93 [collection of salmon and fisheries legislation with special respect to Cumbria] Item Type monograph Publisher National Rivers Authority Download date 28/09/2021 23:30:37 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/24872 FSH:LE:02 Statutory instruments 1950-1993 : (collection o AGFV c. 1 ac .00 SCHEDULE 1 OFFICERS OF COUNCILS OF ADMINISTRATIVE COUNTIES, COUNTY BOROUGHS AND COUNTY DISTRICTS Article 6(D) . V SCHEDULE I—Continued SCHEDULE I—Continued SCHEDULE 1—Continued SCHEDULE l-Contlnued SCHEDULE I—Continued SCHEDULE 2 OFFICERS OF AUTHORITIES FOR WATER SUPPLY, ETC Article 8(4) 19 SCHEDULE 3 OFFICERS OF OTHER BODIES Article 9(1) SCHEDULE 3—Continued SCHEDULE 3-Continued SCHEDULE 3—Continued SCHEDULE 3—Continued Anthony Crosland, Secretary of State for the Environment. 19th March 1974. ' John Morris, Secretary of State for Wales. 19th March 1974. EXPLANATORY NOTE (This Note is not part of the Order.) This Order makes general provision for the transfer to the authorities estab­ lished by or under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Water Act 1973 of persons employed by local authorities and other bodies which cease to exist by virtue of those Acts, and for the protection of the interests of those persons. Copies of the "Appeals Memorandum" may be obtained from the Local Government Staff Commission for England, 20 Grosvenor Hill, London, W.I., and the Local Government Staff Commission for Wales, Pearl Assurance House, Greyfriars Road, Cardiff. Copies of the "Water Staffs Appeals Memorandum" may be obtained from the Water Services Staff Commission for England and Wales, 20 Grosvenor Hill,.
  • Flood Risk Management in Kent Select Committee Report 2007

    Flood Risk Management in Kent Select Committee Report 2007

    Flood Risk Management in Kent Select Committee Report 2007 Kent County Council County Hall Maidstone ME14 1XQ 08458 247247 [email protected] 2 Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................... 5 1 Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Committee membership ..................................................................................... 7 1.2 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................... 7 1.3 Evidence gathering............................................................................................ 8 1.4 Visits .................................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Glossary of terms and acronyms........................................................................ 9 1.6 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 11 1.7 Summary of Recommendations ....................................................................... 13 2 National Policy Development.................................................................................. 17 3 Organisational Responsibilities............................................................................... 21 4 Funding for flood defences ....................................................................................
  • Sanitary Reform of London: the Working Collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, Ca

    Sanitary Reform of London: the Working Collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, Ca

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/ft3x0nb131 No online items Guide to the Sanitary Reform of London: The Working Collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, ca. 1785-1969 Processed by Special Collections staff. Department of Special Collections Green Library Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 Phone: (650) 725-1022 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/spc/ © 2002 The Board of Trustees of Stanford University. All rights reserved. DA676 .S26 1785 1 Guide to the Sanitary Reform of London: The Working Collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, ca. 1785-1969 Collection number: DA676 .S26 1785 Department of Special Collections and University Archives Rare Book Division Stanford University Libraries Stanford, California Contact Information Department of Special Collections Green Library Stanford University Libraries Stanford, CA 94305-6004 Phone: (650) 725-1022 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/depts/spc/ Processed by: Special Collections staff Encoded by: Steven Mandeville-Gamble © 2002 The Board of Trustees of Stanford University. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Sanitary Reform of London: the working collection of Sir Joseph Bazalgette, Date (inclusive): ca. 1785-1969 Collection number: DA676 .S26 1785 Creator: Bazalgette, Joseph Extent: 455 items Repository: Stanford University. Libraries. Dept. of Special Collections and University Archives. Abstract: The collection documents the history of the sanitary evolution of London from the 1840s to the early twentieth century. Some 4500 separate printed, typescript, and manuscript items trace the stages by which the drainage and fresh water supply for London was introduced-- in its time perhaps the greatest feat of urban civil engineering that had ever been undertaken.
  • THE DEVELOPMENT of the WATER INDUSTRY in ENGLAND and WALES Cover Photograph: Ryburn Dam, Yorkshire

    THE DEVELOPMENT of the WATER INDUSTRY in ENGLAND and WALES Cover Photograph: Ryburn Dam, Yorkshire

    THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WATER INDUSTRY IN ENGLAND AND WALES Cover photograph: Ryburn Dam, Yorkshire. Courtesy of Yorkshire Water Services Limited. This document sets out our understanding of the development of, and of some of the legal provisions affecting, the water industry in England and Wales. Every reasonable effort has been made to make the information and any commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by the Office of Water Services. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person, nor is it a substitute for the relevant legal provision. Anyone in doubt about how they may be affected by any of the legal provisions referred to in the document should seek legal advice. CONTENTS 1. OVERVIEW 1 1.1 GOVERNMENT POLICY 1 1.2 EARLY CONSOLIDATION 1 1.3 RESTRUCTURING 2 1.4 PRIVATISATION 3 1.5 THE INDUSTRY TODAY 3 2. INITIAL CO-ORDINATION OF WATER RESOURCES IN ENGLAND & WALES 5 2.1 INTRODUCTION 5 2.1.1 Water supply 5 2.1.2 Sewerage & sewage disposal 6 2.1.3 Other interests in water resources 7 2.2 WATER RESOURCES ACT 1963 8 2.2.1 Background 8 2.2.2 River Authorities 8 2.2.3 Water Resources Board 9 2.2.4 Central government 9 2.3 MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES UNDER THE 1963 ACT 10 2.4 SERVICE DELIVERY 11 2.5 THE NEED FOR CHANGE 11 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE WATER AUTHORITIES 12 3.1 INTRODUCTION 12 3.2 WATER ACT 1973 12 3.2.1 Policy proposals 12 3.2.2 Functions of the water authorities 15 3.2.3 Financial arrangements 16 3.2.4 Constitution of the water authorities 16 3.2.5 Board structure 17 3.2.6 Role of central government 18 3.2.7 National Water Council 19 3.2.8 Household water bills 19 3.2.9 Statutory water companies 20 3.2.10 Pollution control 20 3.3 THE POST 1974 OPERATING ENVIRONMENT 22 3.3.1 Access to finance 22 3.3.2 Environmental performance 26 3.4 WATER ACT 1983 27 3.4.1 Constitutional changes 27 3.4.2 Financial changes 28 3.5 THE NEED FOR CHANGE 28 4.
  • Drainage Institutions in the Netherlands

    Drainage Institutions in the Netherlands

    Drainage Institutions in Public Disclosure Authorized Western Europe: England, the Netherlands, France and Germany Niranjan Pant Public Disclosure Authorized Irrigation and Water Engineering Wageningen University The Netherlands November 2000 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized © International Bank for Reconstruction & Development, 2002 Rural Development Department 1818 H Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 This paper was commissioned by the World Bank through the World Bank-Wageningen University Cooperative Programme. It was first printed in India as a CWP Working Paper Series. This paper carries the name of the author and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the author’s own and should not attributed to the World Bank, its Board of Directors, its management, or any member countries. Preface This paper is one of a series of products created under a collaborative work program between the Rural Development Department of the World Bank, Washington D.C., and the Irrigation and Water Engineering Group at Wageningen University, the Netherlands. The program ran from 1999 to 2002 and was headed by Dr. Geert Diemer (World Bank) and Dr Peter P. Mollinga (Wageningen University). Dr. Mollinga served as primary editor for the series of products coming from this program. The activities in this program focused on participatory irrigation management. Through this cooperative program, Wageningen University staff participated in the Training of Trainers programs organized by International Network on Participatory Irrigation Management (INPIM) in Bari, Italy. The views expressed in the research papers are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the program coordinators; Wageningen University; or the World Bank or its Board of Executive Directors.
  • Draft Flood and Water Management Bill Cm 7582

    Draft Flood and Water Management Bill Cm 7582

    Draft Flood and Water Management Bill April 2009 Cm 7582 £42.55 Draft Flood and Water Management Bill April 2009 Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs By Command of Her Majesty April 2009 Cm 7582 £42.55 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR Telephone 020 7238 6000 Website: www.defra.gov.uk © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected] Information about this publication and further copies are available from: Flood and Water Management Bill Team Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Area 2C Ergon House London SW1P 2AL Email: [email protected] This document is available on the Defra website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/floodsandwaterbill.htm Published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ISBN: 978-0-10-175822-2 2 CONTENTS Number of pages Consultation Paper 160 Draft Flood and Water
  • Internal Drainage District APPENDIX B , Item

    Internal Drainage District APPENDIX B , Item

    APPENDIX B Information report Changing the management of two internal drainage districts near Gravesend April 2014 Contents Page Introduction 5 Purpose 5 Rationale 5 Timeline 6 National Background 7 Definitions: IDDs, IDBs and watercourses 7 History 8 Current governance 9 Local Background 11 Definitions: IDDs and IDBs west and east of Gravesend 11 History 11 Current governance 13 Roles, powers and responsibilities 14 Introduction 14 IDBs 14 Environment Agency 15 LLFAs 16 District Councils 16 Landowners 16 Strategic context 18 Introduction 18 North Kent Rivers Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) 18 Thames Estuary 2100 Plan (TE2100) 20 Habitat Creation Programme 21 South Thames Estuary and Marshes Water Level Management Plan (WLMP) 21 Nature Improvement Area 22 Local Flood Risk Management Strategies 22 Profile of the West of Gravesend IDD 24 Introduction 24 Watercourses within the IDD 25 Archaeology and historic monuments 25 Profile of the East of Gravesend IDD 26 Introduction 26 Watercourses within the IDD 27 Statutory designated sites 27 The future of the district 30 Archaeology and historic monuments 30 Financial information 31 Introduction 31 Income – grants and contributions 31 2 Income – drainage rates and special levy 32 Income – Higher Land Water Contributions (HLWC) 34 Additional funding 34 Expenditure – Environment Agency precept 36 Expenditure – maintenance 37 Annual report 37 Operation and maintenance 39 Assets 39 Asset inspections 39 Maintenance 40 Maintenance standards 40 IDB maintenance 41 Environment Agency maintenance