Jubilee River – Operating Procedure to be examined
Predictably Environment Agency employees who have vigorously defended their Jubilee River Operating Procedure since the disastrous flooding downstream of Windsor in January 2003 appear to have had a dramatic change of opinion. A recent EA announcement at the Thames Flood Forum meeting (chaired by retired scientist Tom Crossett) revealed that the engineering firm WS Atkins have been contracted to thoroughly scrutinize the questionable procedure.
Ian Thompson of Thames Awash explained that at pre-determined intervals, rising flood water in the Thames upstream of Maidenhead is manually diverted into the Jubilee River flood channel at Taplow. He has suggested that Atkins’ analysis will reveal that the Taplow Control Structure gate movements are far too coarse. In accordance with the design intent, Thames flood water levels are reduced in the Maidenhead and Windsor reaches. Regrettably, the EA have repeatedly failed to accept that the unsynchronised re-convergence of the two water courses at Datchet results in significant superimposed flood water levels.
The Taplow Control Structure was designed without a stilling basin, and in common with other elements of the Jubilee River, sustained damage during the 2003 event. Having asserted sub-standard design, the EA are currently claiming success with a £2.75m out-of-court settlement. But be assured the EA have nothing to be proud of! The EA themselves are responsible for a £110m (public money) flood alleviation scheme that fell apart on first use and is still unable to carry its design capacity. The £2.75m compensation even failed to cover previously incurred repair costs, and to make matters worse, the probability of flooding appears to be increasing.
So why does it take four years before the JR Operating Procedure is subjected to proper independent scrutiny? Could it be that the EA had to ensure that any potential legal claims against them for operational mismanagement/negligence ran out of time?
Ewan Larcombe