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