FLOOD DEFENCE CUTS Read it and weep.

 

For several hundred years Lock and Weir Keepers have been responsible for maintaining water levels on the River Thames. By correctly setting their weir they assist in maintaining water levels in time of drought and assist in reducing the risk of flooding during period of heavy rain. Due to recent climate change and ever increasing fluctuations in the level of the Thames the lock and weir keepers role has become ever more critical.

 

Often to prevent flooding weir gates need to be operated at night and this has historically been done by a Lock and Weir Keeper who lives on site. The resident lock keeper is able to respond within minutes not only to maintain river levels but also to assist the many boaters and other members of the public who get into difficulty on the river. Every year lock keepers pull men, women and children out of the water and rescue boaters trapped on the weirs.

 

The result of not having lock and weir keepers on site would be that more people would drown, more boats would sink and more property would be flooded.

 

The Environment Agency’s Waterways Management Team has recently decided that none of its lock houses are operationally necessary. Senior waterways managers claim that the advent of the car and telephone removes the need for onsite keepers. They have therefore proposed the sale of almost half of the 57 lock houses along the River Thames. The proposal has recently been approved by Barbra Young C.E.O of the Environment Agency.

 

All previous reports (the last carried out within the last 5 years) have concluded that resident lock and weir keepers were essential to minimise the risk of flooding. There have not been any fundamental changes in water level management which would support such a change in position. Surely the Environment Agency is aware that telephones and cars were in abundance ten years ago. Within the last ten years, when faced with the loss of the lock house at Maidenhead, a new property was purchased, as an operational necessity, less than a hundred yards away. When quizzed as to why the latest report contradicted previous reports, the Environment Agency waterways management team claimed that the previous reports had not been thorough or honest. Some of the managers responsible for the latest report were also responsible for previous reports which claimed the houses essential to operational needs.

 

The Environment Agency managers agreed that they needed to provide a structure capable of responding immediately so as to prevent flooding of homes or injury to the public however when asked how they intended to do this they admitted to not having investigated this yet. Their priority seemed to be to find out how many houses they could sell off without causing public outrage. When pressed on this point, the management team suggested a 6 man standby to deal with such emergencies.

 

At present 45 resident lock keepers respond to incidents with in 1 to 5 minutes. Using 6 men would mean a response time of several hours. Removing resident keepers will result in loss of life and increased flooding of property. Replacing 45 keepers who give an immediate response with a 6 man standby would be criminally negligent, endangering the lives of staff, the public and putting property at risk. 

 

Throughout the floods of last year Barbara Young and other Environment Agency officials warned the public of the increased likelihood of flooding. They warned that climatic changes would lead to river levels rising more frequently and more rapidly. In a recent survey carried out by the Environment Agency, many Thames users complained at the Environment Agency’s inept response to the July floods which meant members of the public were often stranded without food and water. The same report praised the conduct of the lock and weir keepers, who had responded quickly and professionally in difficult conditions and also used lock sites as a safe haven to boaters providing them with food at their own expense.

 

How can the Barbara Young warn against the increasing threat of flooding in the summer then, the following March sanction the loss of an immediate response to river fluctuations, which will make flooding inevitable? 

         

Lock and Weir Keepers basic take home pay is around £850 per month. The EA are aware if Lock and Weir keepers were no longer provided with accommodation then none of them could afford to remain in their job. Many of these men have 20 to 30 years service and knowledge. The management seemed quite content that they could be replaced by seasonal staff or people who had taken early retirement from other fields who could supplement their pension with a lock keepers wages. They seemed quite content to hand the safety of the public over to well meaning individuals with no experience of operating either locks or weirs.

 

EA plans are a recipe for disaster and what is worse is that they know it themselves!

 

Kim Benge. Cookham Lock, Odney Lane, Cookham, Berks. SL6 9SR

 

27/4/2008