Digging deep to beat floods

It is four years since the River Ouse reached record levels, burst its banks and inundated hundreds of homes, streets, factories, roads and farmland in the York and Selby area.

The floods of November 2000 were a devastating experience for those directly affected, and left many asking: what is going to be done to prevent it ever happening again?

Today, after a lot of behind-the-scenes work, the Environment Agency revealed which options might be pursued - and which ones will not - as it tries to develop a formal Ouse Flood Risk Management Strategy.

The agency was launching a consultation exercise over environmental issues raised as it suggest a number of "big" solutions which might regulate the river's flow as well as more localised defences, such as floodwalls and embankments.

The agency's Scoping Report reveals that several suggested solutions have been ruled OUT, including creating artificial channels to divert flood water, pumping water out of the river and discharging it at an alternative location, and placing a barrier across the river to hold back floodwaters.

The agency has also said no to another solution which has often been suggested by people in York and North Yorkshire: dredging. It says this option, involving the mechanical removal of sediment from the river bed to increase capacity, should not be considered further unless new evidence is produced.

"It is considered that a large-scale dredging of the Ouse ...is not sustainable."

Other discounted options include using existing reservoirs to store water during periods of heavy rainfall, and modifying or removing weirs to speed up water flow or lower water levels.

But it has outlined many more options which it believes should be carried forward for further consideration.

These include creating new water storage areas upstream of York, modifying or replacing bridges to reduce flow constrictions, widening the river channel, changing land use to reduce the amount and rate of run-off of water and restoring woodland or forest in floodplains to aid the retention of floodwater.

Other options include the selective abandonment and demolition of properties, with those affected relocated, and the flood-proofing of individual properties. It also suggests raising existing flood defences or building new ones.

The report examines in some detail the impacts, opportunities and constraints of each option. For example, it says that creating new upstream storage might require very significant areas of land, and have an impact on ecology, agriculture and heritage, and on recreational and navigational uses of the river. But it might also create fisheries and opportunities for irrigation. At the same time, there could be a risk of contamination from sediments, particularly lead and zinc, during flooding.

It says a number of upstream sites are currently being assessed for their potential to provide storage.

It calculates that between one and two million cubic metres of storage immediately upstream of York could reduce peak levels in the city during a one-in-100 year flood by between 15 and 20cms.

But the further upstream that a storage area is, the larger it will need to be to have a significant effect on flood levels in York, says the report.

It reveals that the agency has examined the possibility of diverting the river or building bypass channels. "One possible route could be to the west or south of York, from upstream of Poppleton to downstream of Bishopthorpe."

But there would not be significant benefits in many areas, and such a solution would be unlikely to prove economic.

The agency has also modelled the widening of the Ouse between Millennium Bridge and the A64. It says that lowering of the foreshore could result in an average drop in water levels in York of 5cms. "Channel widening is, therefore, an option especially if used in conjunction with other proposals."

It says lowering Naburn Weir could reduce water levels, but with purely local benefits, and it would not provide significant flood benefits.

Modifying bank arrangements near bridges such as Clifton, Millennium and Naburn Bridges could bring about some reductions in water levels upstream.

So what happens next - and when can flood victims hope to see the agency actually taking action to prevent it happening again?

Improvements engineer Mike Dugher said the agency will now consult on the Scoping Report with dozens of organisations from local authorities and farmers' organisations to rowing clubs and wildlife societies.

Individual members of the public can also study the report and give their views via the agency's website, www.environment-agency.gov.uk, and clicking on "consultations".

As well as listening to people's views and investigating the impact on the environment, the agency will also look at whether options are technically feasible and also economically justified. Preferred options will then be chosen and more detailed work carried out, before a draft flood risk management strategy is published next spring. After further consultation, the formal strategy should be published by this time next year.

But decisions on what action should then be taken, and when, will be determined according to national prioritisation formula laid down by the Government.

MP calls for better deal for victims of flooding

A NORTH Yorkshire MP has made a plea to insurers and risk assessors to give flood-hit homeowners a better deal.

Ryedale MP John Greenway, who is chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Insurance and Financial Services, made the appeal at a workshop held by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the National Flood Forum, aimed at devising ways of improving help, advice and support to householders on efforts to reduce the impact of their own flood risk.

He said householders did need better advice, but both insurers and the Government needed to better to understand the barriers which prevent property owners from taking the action which could reduce damage and losses.

"The town of Pickering remains unprotected because it has not, as yet, proved possible to design a workable scheme within the constraints of funding and cost benefit rules set down by the Government," he said.

"Neither the Government, whether at a national or local level, nor the insurance and risk management industry should abandon these people to their fate.

"The Government has made significant extra funding available for new defences. It was right to prioritise on those schemes which could deliver protection to the biggest number of people. When such schemes are completed it is time to turn our attention to those places which haven't qualified up to now, such as Pickering, because of cost, complexity, or a combination of the two.

"The people affected shouldn't be ignored and simply left to experience the horrors of regular and repeated flooding of their homes."

Mr Greenway said the Government would continue to refine the funding arrangements for flood defences so that schemes were not shelved because of a lack of political will or other priorities for local authorities. Further work on planning guidance and river management and maintenance would also be carried out, he said.

Mr Greenway has worked closely with the ABI in the development of its policy on flood insurance.

He believes that this has been effective in persuading the Government to build flood defences and has strengthened planning guidance on new development in flood risk areas.

The ABI has also clarified its position on insuring at risk properties and providing continuing cover for properties which have been previously flooded.

Updated: 10:41 Monday, November 08, 2004