Eden Catchment Flood Group-

Hi to All Eden Catchment Flood Group Representatives

I attach a brief resume of what has been happening, a list of 'Options' recently seen and initially discussed by the CMG [On the Eden Rivers Trust web site] and a further copy of the Eden Community Water Flow Map.

Please note an Environment Agency Newsletter will be winging its way to communities shortly informing of Options Meetings to be held with communities to discuss their options.

Therefore it is most important to check your options are up to date with what is/has been happening on your patch so the EA has your latest information to hand.

All Best Wishes for Xmas and 2018

Richard Milne

Community Representative - Eden Catchment CMG

Eden Catchment Management

Eden Management Report Progress

CFLAG John Kelsall gave a presentation to Andy Brown for the EA, and Jane Meek, Kieth Poole, Colin Glover and Darren Crossley for the City today, 13-12-2017

You can read more here. 

Carlisle Flood Action Group – Response to Environment Agency and Cumbria County Council July 2017

Carlisle Flood Action Group – Response to Environment Agency and Cumbria County Council

City of Carlisle - Option Meetings – Rivers Eden, Caldew and Petteril including Rickerby, 
Willowholme, Denton Holme and Caldewgate.

Environment Agency - Options Descriptions and Comment

River Eden Carlisle Flood Plain

Introduction

Following our members attendance at Appleby, Low Crosby and Warwick Bridge and latterly Rickerby, it was observed that many options [between 25 and thirty each] were side-lined resulting in only three options being put forward for each of Low Crosby and Appleby, and four options for Warwick Bridge. Decisions of this nature do not give the community chance to reflect adequately.

In respect of Carlisle there are some 30+ options for discussion, and already the Environment Agency has deemed some options unlikely, and more importantly other aspects of our Carlisle Flood Action Group [CFLAG] ‘Storm Desmond Report’ have been omitted, and others either misunderstood or plain ignored. The following document highlights and inserts some of these omissions for discussion. 

The lack of detail and accuracy of the options wording for Carlisle is questioned and therefore needs further detailed discussions. In addition it appears that the Durranhill Pumping Station works are in as an option, whilst publically we were informed this work has already been completed in early 2016.

Furthermore, options put forward appear in isolation to each other, and if realistically examined could be integrated together as an overall plan such as the Rivers Caldew /Eden confluence and upstream Caldew options. In the event of acceptance/rejection of individual options without the co-ordinated approach could miss opportunities. Small incremental gains can grow into a useful cumulative gain, and achieve a gradual undoing of past lack of maintenance such as river channel bed profiling as an example.

 Recent observations on the River Tyne at Haydon Bridge indicate substantial works are being carried out already. The Parish Council applied for a license and got their contractor in.  The local community created a lot of public pressure and for their sins ended up doing the job themselves. So this appears to be the DEFRA and Government way forward, let the citizens do the work and pay out of their own pocket – Treasury wins again?

What happened to joined up thinking? Where is the Catchment Management Plan, has that tool been conveniently forgotten? –  this issue was raised with Catherine Evans [EA] at the Stoney Beck Forestry meeting when she proposed splitting up the catchment groups into Upper, Middle and Lower, no doubt she was aware of such difficulties encountering the citizens, [that incidentally our member gate crashed and eventually got his name on the ‘invited list’], likewise the Cumbria Flood Partnership [that ship foundered very quietly] - CFLAG was actually refused attendance to the early meetings and again  gate crashed to get in! On the issue of address lists it beggars belief that John Kelsall [CFLAG Chairman and Paul Barnes [Farmers Group] were still not on any of the three lists until last week - come on who is pulling whose leg!

Digressing; Catchment Management Planning has been in our focus since very early 2016, evidence the River Eden Catchment Water Flow diagram and now the Derwent, with assistance to the Kent and Leven by way of the South Lakes Flood Partnership. Training tells us, to set up a project it is essential to know what you are looking at before any thought of work begins. It was stated at the first ‘Carlisle Options’ meeting that starting from 1^st principles is essential. The above also demonstrates CFLAG is a player supporting other county flood groups and river catchments, including a county wide Farmers Group. We have yet to see a clear Catchment Management Plan produced by the EA.

    Further ongoing discussion of this document comment will be welcomed.

Commencing Downstream and working Upstream for clarity

Introduction

The whole purpose of considering all options is to follow an overall Catchment Management Plan and not ‘cherry pick’ to suit to whom is pulling the management strings at the EA. Then the CFLAG premise of small incremental gains can be managed into an overall positive cumulative effect.

The Rivers Eden, Caldew, and Petteril current peak flood water levels are critical to understand how the River Eden Management Plan may be constructed and developed with particular emphasis on timing of the peak arrivals with the River Eden. 

Options and Options missed comment [THIS LIST IS NEITHER COMPLETE OR EXHAUSTIVE BUT SERVES TO INDICATE POTENTIAL SHORTFALL IN THINKING

Grinsdale loop – Extensive Gravel – Option Missed 

• This is an area where EA Fish counts are taken. Maintaining river flow over low gradients is essential not to hold up the upstream flow.

Option CC_E.06B - A689 Northern Carlisle By-pass Eden Crossing

• Option to improve the effectiveness of flood relief culverts below A689 at Stainton
• Possible
• Restrictions created by the bridge crossing embankment, and culverts appear to be semi-superfluous.
• No documentation available regarding potential flooding considerations made in the design process. A review of this detail is required.
• It is believed that in the design process that there was a possible 1 metre reduction in peak water level of the Eden Carlisle Flood Plain.  

Option CC_E.03B – Eden West Coast Mainline [WCML] Crossing Bridge

 To increase conveyance through the West Coast Main Line crossing bridge by cutting back the left hand bank.  

• There is also an option of opening up an existing culvert [Network Rail Bridge 4_4a] beneath the railway embankment.
• It is alleged that the condition of the bridge and structural features causing turbulence – as this bridge is a National Critical Infrastructure for the West Coast England/Scotland Interconnector. Suitable review is required to ascertain the structural integrity and fitness for purpose by the CSFP through its strategic partner links as a priority project

River Eden/River Caldew confluence – Flow Conveyance restriction

• The above confluence gravel shoals were highlighted in the ‘CFLAG Desmond Report’ which may have significant influence on Caldew peak water levels upstream under flooding conditions.
• The Caldew immediate upstream weir has also been removed by the Rivers Trust. What benefits accrued for this work and how was it funded.

CC_E.3A - Option to increase conveyance of the river through Eden Bridge by opening up the right hand arch.

• Assume right hand is looking downstream – What about the other arch on the ‘Sands’ left-hand side with the tree and build-up of silt etc. needing removal.
• Establish the original river bed post 50s/60s dredging era. Examination of the original architect drawings of the Eden Bridge shows maximum predicted height of water level as only halfway up the arches instead of top of the arches during ‘Desmond’, therefore it can be assumed that the bridge is operating beyond its designed criteria. The drawing also indicates that bedrock is some 3 metres below the current river bed level. Assume the real river bed is halfway between the two, the potential gain of 1.5 metres increase to the arches cross-sectional area and increase of conveyance.
• What discussion has taken place regarding future flooding and potential permanent closure of the A7 Eden Bridge as a main regional and local communications infrastructure and potential planning for a second crossing? 

No lessons learned from the catastrophic failure of the Cloffocks Bridge in Workington and the Ove Arup ‘Investigation into highway bridge damage and failures during November 2009 Cumbria flood event’ published in ‘Forensic Engineering: Informing the Future with Lessons from the Past’ published by the Institution of Civil Engineers Publishing and presented at the Proceedings of the 5^th International Conference on Forensic Engineering in 2013.

• Weir upstream of Eden Bridge – to what purpose does it serve as it is a ‘slowing the flow’ feature where ‘smoother conveyance’ is desirable?
• A recent EA communication provided a graph of river bed cross-sections with no drawing of where the cross sections relate. A drawing was requested by John Kelsall and Richard Milne. In a further response, it was suggested to make this exercise useful, core samples should be taken to establish the original river bed levels and compare the two to establish actual river bed rise. No response has been received to either question. The reality is ‘the river bed rises due to lack of realistic maintenance, therefore the river channel conveyance capacity is reduced, hence, more water overflows onto the flood plain. 
• ‘River Bed-Rise’ is a ‘National’ public topic appearing in numerous written evidences submitted to the EFRA Select Committee including the River Thames, and many other UK Main Rivers. It appears that such questions are beyond the thinking capacity of its EA Officers and their re-wilding policies. Where river channels have been engineered such as bridge crossings, then these structures and the river channels must require to be maintained

River Eden - Rickerby Park – Memorial Bridge – No option recorded. 

• The Memorial Bridge is sited at the confluence of the River Eden and the River Petteril.
• The Memorial Bridge has over a long period suffered from the river cutting into the right hand immediate upstream bank and requiring reinforcement.
• Recently the bridge has been closed for repairs. At this time no explanation has been given.

LC.06, LC 15, LC 07 Low Crosby –Option to create floodplain storage by removal of the Warwick Holmes third party embankments ensuring sufficient new protection is provided for Warwick Holmes properties

Comment: Overall Eden Catchment Planning - This option can have a significant effect on the overall Carlisle, Rickerby, Low Crosby, and Warwick Bridge communities by way of potential lowering the Peak Flood Water Levels – if it increases the area available to out of channel flood water common sense indicates lowering of water level dependant on design and conclusion. [Small incremental gains can add up to a significant positive cumulative effect for the whole Carlisle River Eden Flood Plain.

River Eden/River Petteril Confluence – No option recorded

• The immediate River Petteril channel is almost entirely overgrown and is now in need of clearance to enable any realistic conveyance.
• The Lower River Petteril downstream of the Botcherby Bridge has a series of footbridge crossings giving access to the golf course, the bridges are almost completely choked to river flow conveyance. Furthermore it is believed that storage of material on the Carlisle United property has been allowed to collapse into the river and has been reported with it is believed no EA action.
• Most of the Lower River Petteril river banks are owned by Carlisle City Council and Carlisle United as Riparian owners and as such it is assumed they have responsibility to make reparations where necessary. So now the thorny question – riparian owners do not wish to commence their responsible actions for the following reasons:

• Permit paperwork, associated costs, and beaurocratic nightmares.  
• Responsibility for upstream and downstream damage incurred with associated costs claims.
• Environmental re-wilding solutions are trying to replace many generations of standard maintenance practice. Engineered suburban watercourses must be maintained budget or no budget – rewilding is only part of the answer. Generations of riparian owners have responsibly maintained conveyance but are now put off by the bureaucratic process, expense, and the threat of prosecution.

CC_C.03A - Option to increase conveyance through the Caldew Bridge by opening up the right hand arch.

• The river area of the Caldew Bridge/Bridge Street Crossing has been reviewed with Andy Brown. A number of issues were observed regarding the above proposed arch conveyance improvement, and more importantly Network Rail rejection of additional protection of the flood defences protecting against flooding the rail line post 2005, and the knock on effect of water flow along the rail bed into the Lower Viaduct Business Park area.
• No mention in the options of anything to do with the Little Caldew and its effects on Willow Holme and Caldewgate. 

CC_C05B, CC_C 05A1, CC_C05A2, CC_C.05B STRENGTHENING DEFENCES

• The above may be affected by Eden downstream and Caldew confluence conveyance improvement options.

CC_C.03b Option to increase conveyance of the channel at Skew Bridge

• Unlikely – there is sufficient capacity at this bridge for most flood flows [‘most’ would it is presumed not a ‘Desmond’ event]. 
• As we are all aware whilst there may only be marginal gains to be had at individual points in a river channel system, these marginal gains can bring a potentially significant cumulative benefit and must be explored by way of an integrated approach to benefits and dis-benefits.

CC_C.06B - Option to create flood storage between Denton Holme and Cummersdale on the River Caldew.

• Possible
• Looking at the map reference position there appears to be a further much larger option downstream and upstream of the former Cummersdale weir and the source of the former mill-race. Commencing to south of the Network Rail Caldew crossing bridge. This option has been discussed at meetings and maybe overlooked. The Council member for Dalston is aware of more detailed potentials. 

CC_R.01 - Option to raise defences at Rickerby

Possible – No comment as Rickerby Action Group will no doubt represent their interest fully. For the record CFLAG and Rickerby are in dialogue regarding their problems and have now had several useful knowledge sharing meetings. [Who says flood affected communities do not network. CFLAG has attended many S19 Investigation Meetings and the recent closed doors meetings to assess how the overall County Council and Environment Agency are representing the flood affected communities.

River Petteril

CC_P05 Option to raise defences at Melbourne Park – the operative statement should include ‘extend’ as well as raise to the same height as the East side defences.

• Question: Why are the defences lower on the West Bank of the river than the East Bank, some 12 hours difference between East and West Warwick Road flooding?
• As has been accepted by the EA and Cumbria County Council the West side defences were out-flanked and ultimately overtopped.
• For the record the River Petteril outflanked the defences on the West side of Warwick Road at 9pm Saturday 5^th December 2015. The East side at approx. 9am on the 6^th December. 

DRAINAGE 

• Warwick Road West experienced a series of drainage/sewerage surcharges commencing at Mid-day 5^th December and 4pm resulting in flooding of property in Greystone Road, and the lower end of Brunton Crescent – the matter has been reported in writing and discussed at Carlisle Flood Forum [S19 Investigation]meetings. Raw sewage flooded into 26 Brunton Crescent driveway, garage and gardens.
• Discussion with Mr D Coyle of Cumbria County Council has explained that substantial amounts of silt has been removed from the drainage system by United Utilities, but no explanation has been received how the silt had accumulated. This despite upgraded drainage system installed in 2008/9, could this be due to lack of maintenance. Numerous other drainage problems exist across the Warwick Road West area without rectification.
• Discussion of raw sewage in flooded properties is dismissed out of hand – ‘No the river water will dilute it – No, it does not’ and ‘It is the cause of much ill health and poor well-being. [Aberystwyth University] 

CC_O7 - ‘TO WHAT DOES THIS REFER?’

• CC.07 - It is assumed this item refers to the River Petteril?? Does it!

CC_P.03 – Option to increase the frequency of Dredging on the River Petteril at Warwick Road

• Surely this must mean ‘starting’ dredging from a maintenance perspective, apart from post Desmond, no known dredging has taken place.

Option - To lower the river bed level by dredging upstream of Botcherby Bridge to the weir in Melbourne Park. 

• Comment – The CFLAG wish to record whatever options are put forward, the Long Term replacement of the existing Botcherby Bridge must be the end solution.
• It is appreciated that this is a potential complex and expensive project that will take time, in the meantime most options can only be considered as palliative measures putting off the inevitable solution.
• The immediate options have been already discussed with the EA project manager and CH2M consultant as follows:

• River bed cross-sectional surveys [similar to ones you have carried out on the River Eden] to establish where the current river bed level is.
• Followed by core samples of the river bed following general geomorphological principles to establish the actual earlier river bed post 1968 alterations.
• Draw up a river bed profiling project.

• As described earlier the River Petteril must be considered for this project as follows:

The River channel is now in such a devastated state that it must be cleared and restored from its confluence with the River Eden of all blockages and bank collapses, extensive vegetation, storage of materials collapsing into the channel, and extensive rubbish. How that is achieved with the riparian owners of Carlisle City Council and Carlisle United is for the EA and the third parties to sort out and is long overdue. It is suggested this project is an ideal starter for each of the agencies to demonstrate common purpose and act as a pilot for other similar situations, No ‘Us and ‘Them’ messing about, get your backs into it and gain some community backing into the bargain. The communities are well aware of degraded water courses and the need for restoration.

Commencing downstream of Botcherby Bridge at a convenient access, a catch pit must be located [and not immediately downstream of the bridge]. From that point downstream of the bridge river bed profiling [to the calculated original river bed level] will be carried out under the Botcherby Bridge and up to a point at the upstream end of Melbourne Park where a further catch pit will be located [ideally as near the last upstream bend as possible to facilitate efficient and appropriate gravel sediment extraction. The gravel catch pits to be emptied at regular intervals of say every 2 years once the river has recovered its ecology status. Despite protests from the environmental brigade such action will eventually benefit the local habitats – currently the habitats are wiped out during flooding. Questions have been asked about ponds being excavated for introduction of cray fish, this has been denied. Such potential cavalier actions that would hold up river channel maintenance and profiling could invite serious public unrest.

Warwick Road West – Drainage and Sewerage Surcharges

As described elsewhere this item has been omitted from the Options List and must be included as follows:

• The matter has been discussed with Mr. Doug Coyle of the Cumbria County Council and United Utilities has carried out a major desilting of the combined drainage system. Whilst this is positive progress it does not answer why such quantities of silt had accumulated in the system in the first place. Was it because of lack of routine maintenance, or was there system failure?
• It is appreciated drainage, groundwater and surface water matters fall with the County Council and United Utilities, and therefore it is incumbent on the Environment Agency to ensure seamless communication, coordination and completion of such serious problems into a satisfactory solution.

It must be underlined - THIS IS A TEMPORARY MEASURE AND NOT THE PERMANENT SOLUTION 

The Botcherby Bridge is the major restriction on the River Petteril and must be replaced.

As stated in an earlier option the current flood defences also require to be reviewed and rectification of the discrepancy in levels from West to East whereby Warwick Road West flooded some ten hours before Warwick Road East as a matter of urgency.

CC_DB.03B, CC_DB.06, and CC_E.05A - Option to increase the capacity of Durranhill Beck storage Basin,  Option to extend the downstream storage lagoon, and Option to raise flood defences at Tesco to prevent the River Eden flooding Warwick Road East.

Comment – Is supported

Caveat - the Durranhill Pumping Station works are in as an option, whilst publically we were informed this work has already been completed months ago please confirm that the option is valid and not double counting. Please give advice of any other double counting in all options across the three main catchments.

Carlisle Flood Action Group – ‘Storm Desmond’ Report 2^nd December 2016

The Report has been recognised by the Environment Agency and Cumbria County Council [LLFA] and has been granted status as an appendix to the Carlisle S19 Investigation Report. Within this report is highlighted on page 19 of the report with a ‘River Eden Flood Plan – National, Regional and Local Strategic Infrastructure’.

Business Case and Funding 

All works relating to flooding must present a business case that the benefits from the expenditure, are cost effective, and positively contribute to the National Economy. The following headings directly relate to the National Economy and identify clearly with the M6 River Eden Crossing, the West Coast Mainline, and the Carlisle-Settle line as critical to the everyday economies of England and Scotland. It is not widely known that the Eden flooded the M6 carriageway north of Junction 43 and was witnessed. Imagine the M6 closed for a couple of days and the ensuing chaos, and the disruption to ‘just in time’ business of both countries.

The plan identifies the following items: What progress has been made on these Critical items of Infrastructure with Highways England, Network Rail, United Utilities, Education Authorities etc., regarding future protection and Central Government support?

1. M6 - River Eden Crossing – Water level onto the highway
2. Rail – West Coast Mainline as mentioned as an option
3. Electricity Sub-Station Willowholme inundated and hampered Carlisle Flood Recovery
4. Carlisle Main Water Treatment Works inundated and back up of raw sewage.
5. Eden Bridge closed causing major Carlisle Regional and Local disruption
6. Due to Eden Bridge Closure Carlisle North/South Communities communication failure
7. Richard Rose Academy – flooded and Long Term closure
8. Newman and Trinity Schools – Newman School now abandoned, and Trinity School affected.
9. McVitie’s Biscuit Factory – Major City employer major damage a disruption of production.
10. Cumberland Infirmary – Onto Standby Generators – All operations and Appointments cancelled – Emergency only if you could get there!

Plus some 2200+ residential properties and small businesses flooded in Carlisle 

Not on the list - Carlisle City Council Headquarters – Disruption of local government function

To conclude as stated earlier in this brief report/response on Carlisle ‘Options’, it is neither complete, nor exhaustive with plenty more reservations to come across the whole River Eden Catchment, and the rest of Cumbria.

Carlisle Flood Action Group

Attachments

• Carlisle Flood Action Group Report 2^nd December 2016 [1^st Anniversary of ‘Storm Desmond’.

‘Storm Desmond’ Carlisle 12 months on…

‘A Report - Into the cause and effect of the extensive flooding in the City of Carlisle, from an Atlantic Storm on the 5^th and 6^th December 2015’

• River Eden Catchment Water Flow Diagram highlighting the City of Carlisle and its surrounding villages receive all water flows from the entire catchment

Carlisle Flood Action Group

20^th July 2017

December 2017,  2  years since..... 

Two Years and Counting – is anybody making a note?

Thoughts upon post “Desmond” Flood Risk Management progress by John Kelsall, Chair of the Cumbria River Authorities Governance Group (CRAGG)

Not all anniversaries hold happy memories.  Certainly not for the many thousands of people affected by Storm Desmond on 5 December 2015 and the ensuing damage and destruction revealed at dawn on 6^th across the County.  The statistics appeared to be off the scale, highest peak levels, greatest damage, most bridges lost, greatest recovery cost – the list goes on,  but then they would be, because it appears such statistics are not recorded and retained anywhere except by exceptional research, and this has become a recurrent theme of incredulity between residents, businesses, authorities and stakeholders.  The wisdom gathered following two years of investigation is that there has been no wisdom.

History tells us Desmond was an extreme weather event but not that it was “unprecedented”.  The Armageddon imagery is as untrue as it is unhelpful. Records were broken largely because no one is keeping a record so there was little or nothing to break other than what sits within ‘living-memory’ ie 2005, 2009 and may be stretching to 1968 etc.  Carlisle, as the County example with probably the most records, we know flooded in a similar scale to Desmond on 10 previous occasions since 1771.  So if someone is going to keep a note a bit of historical documentation would not go amiss to set the correct context. 

So what does that tell us?  Well, essentially we are not that good at Flood Risk Management.  It seems on every such occasion there is some twiddling with the edges of the issue but no fundamental strategy emerges perhaps because the problem is deemed too big to tackle, too expensive, financially and in human effort and anyway by the time it happens again we will have moved to higher ground or, maybe it won’t happen again!!

History, however also tells us that flood risk management was actually far more productive and effective between the mid 19^th century and the 1960’s.  Farmers gathered together with local authorities to dig out gravel ‘catch pits, keeping the rivers un-choked, improving the fish habitat and gaining useful building material into the bargain.  Where has this practical self-help gone?  It’s gone to the sword of regulation.  Miss-placed environmental regulation, not least recent European Directives have strangled the small local systems, that were at least doing their bit, into non-existence.  Gone has the priority of “People-Property-Environment Betterment” to be replaced by a system that largely works in reverse.

Whether it is because the image and memories of such extreme flood events are so painful and debilitating that they are deliberately suppressed in order to ‘get on with life’ or that it falls to the remit of no particular agency to make an honest and frank archive of such events, is debatable but what is for certain is that the recurrent theme of resilience in the face of disaster and indomitable public spirit saving the day are themes that stick in my throat and I’m sure of many others to.  This is not being pessimistic, negative or devoid of community spirit, it is pure observational experience.  The authorities, and I include local and national Government, the Environment Agency, DEFRA as well as the wider media, are all guilty of misinterpreting the brave smile of a resident standing thigh deep in their soaked possessions that was once a home as stoic resilience in the face of adversity but it is not really the face of “resilience” it is a mask to hide a deep vulnerability.

As a society we seem to be unable to find the right words or do the right thing and the words used become crass, meaningless and ultimately hurtful.  People carry on but ‘on the edge’.

This is not resilience, people do not just ‘bounce back’ they are emotionally variable, they do not get their guts and ability to take hard times from their environment or their gene pool – they are not hardy or weak they are just people with all the mental and physical variables of being human – end of.  The beaming smile of the flood victim covers the tears and breaking emotions within – a glossy spin emerges to appalling devastation when no words can express such circumstances.

These are the main reasons why, for example, Carlisle Flood Action Group (CFLAG) came into being and another 50 or so similar groups set up or re-ignited across the county, each with different emphasis on individual issues but all united that the repeated occurrences of serious flooding was simply not acceptable, reasons had to be brought out into the open and a serious public debate commenced to engender real change.  Waiting for ‘living-memory to placate was not an option.

Some groups took on local problem issues, some concentrated upon safety plans and some property protection measures.  Carlisle, as the scale of the problem was so large, could only see benefit in a whole catchment strategic solution.  CFLAG’s post-Desmond first anniversary action was to assemble observations in a report “Desmond 12 months on” (available via the CFLAG website).  This report and the visions it contained pulled no punches and remains virtually as valid now as it was 12 months ago, an informing read it has been read across the country by ministers and government and copies and discussion has even been witnessed being debated internationally.  So, to mark this dark 2^nd anniversary I write, hopefully, with some positivity of how the community in the county is able to now speak with one voice, even if that voice is echoing what most community groups and individuals are saying – “where are the flood risk management projects we need and why is it taking so long?”  Where is that long overlooked strategy to minimise the misery?

Carlisle Flood Action Group’s first AGM was opened out to any other groups who were interested in the strategic debate.  Representatives from the Derwent and South Lakes catchments attended but a major issue was how to find contact details for other groups to discuss common issues. Casting the knowledge net as wide as we could a total of 7 groups attended a meeting in Penrith in January 2017 but they crucially also represented most of the worst affected locations including Keswick, Workington and Kendal.  Those that attended that meeting unanimously voted to amalgamate a group across the county to carry a united front for community expectation across the county.  The Cumbria Rivers Authorities Governance Group (CRAGG) was born representing all flood victims across the county via their local groups, farmer links and Parish Councils.

The Environment Agency and the County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, are required by the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) to involve the community in their decisions and processes.  CRAGG was eventually recognised as a ‘community voice on flooding’ for the county and members were elected to join the new Cumbria Strategic Flood Partnership and the three Catchment Management Groups.  All have the three catchment communities represented where they can hopefully influence the urgent need for the flood risk management projects in direct discussion with the Environment Agency, LLFA and all river and water implicated stakeholders.

The CRAGG group is, however, very conscious that the Cumbria Strategic Group, currently chaired by the LLFA, does not make all the decisions.  The EA as part of DEFRA and the LLFA have their own limits to their remit.  It is felt, generally, that flood risk is not high enough on the Environment Agency’s own agenda and political-will to increase the emphasis is a priority.  So, as well as working with the agencies strategically in the county to “current rules”, as well as having representation on the North West Flood and Coastal Committee regionally, CRAGG also lobby for change direct through the 5 local MPs to the Secretary of State and have given evidence to the EFRA Committee at Westminster.  CRAGG believe the national DEFRA rules on flood project funding is grossly inappropriate for the severe issues experienced in Cumbria.  The group is currently lobbying for a ‘special case’ for funding in Cumbria in recognition of –

• The difficult topography.
• High susceptibility to western storm fronts causing the highest rain run-off in any county in England.
• Main infrastructure vulnerability – risking separation between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland.
• Vulnerability of the energy coast and health response facilities.
• Fragility of the County’s economic base.
• Proportion of properties prone to ‘deep’ flooding.
• Danger to dispersed communities and the vulnerable.
• Risk to maintaining UNESCO Heritage status.
• Large geographic area leaves essential communication networks poorly funded.
• Risk to the 4 Special Areas of Conservation rivers located in the County.

The group wants fully coordinated catchment management of rivers, water courses, land porosity and underground water levels not simply isolated projects.  Every point on a river should have a designed peak level limit and all works geared to achieving this goal.

Recognition of this special case is needed to free up the bureaucratic and limiting ‘business case formula’ that is currently laid down by DEFRA – this, and the checking that no positive actions will have negative repercussions elsewhere, is why the EA have had very few projects as yet on the ground.  CRAGG find this, whilst understandable, still unacceptable.  Many projects of repairing or tuning defences do not require such long term modelling assessment.  There are many “quick-win” projects that could have progressed on the ground months ago.  The Cumbria flooded community understand the issues but have to say we have much higher expectation.  The CRAGG union across the county has come a long way in 11 months but as yet sees little to prompt optimism.  ‘Talk and more talk’ is not as good as ‘talk and do’ and there is precious little of the latter.  The delay loses focus and the ‘living memory’ carrousel starts to turn again.

The brave face of the resident wading through their lost home for a third or fourth time will represent no facsimile of resilience only pure depressed resignation to a failed system and a spirit totally broken.  Another statistic to be left to erode and to be lost as living memory moves on.

John L Kelsall

Chair, Carlisle Flood Action Group

Chair, Cumbria Rivers Authorities Governance Group