Pitt Review

I have read with interest the review document and I am somewhat disappointed to observe that some aspects of the role of the Environment Agency in the general flood scenario have been somewhat overlooked. I would like to make the following points:

1. As a flood victim in the Thames flooding of 2003 I believe that the EA should be tasked with the responsibility for flood defence. It is very unrealistic for such an organisation to take the easy option of claiming that they are responsible just for flood risk management and to ignore the real problem of flood defence.

2. In the case of the Thames, it is ludicrous to have the EA responsbility for navigation as its' only statutory responsibility when the number of vessels on the Upper Thames has reduced over the years to an all time low at the current time. This 'statutory responsibility' probably dates back to the time when the Thames was the main artery for goods/freight carrying in the Thames Valley. Nowadays, the few remaining vessels on the Upper Thames are private, shallow draft pleasure vessels. Whilst the EA is hiding behind this responsibility the real problem of flood defence has been overlooked.

3. It has been proved that the silt levels in much of the Upper Thames have increased and this impacts on the capacity of the river to carry flood water away. In spite of this, the EA persistently refuses to carry out dredging in the areas most affected.

4. The EA is not held in high esteem by those who have been most impacted by flooding. The main reason for this is the attitude displayed when any major flooding occurs. A large organisation such as this should, reasonably, be expected to be supportive of local organisations who represent local views. In my experience, the whole effort of the EA seems to be one of defensiveness in order to avoid any risk of accountability.