Dear Minister,

The Flood and Water Management Bill is due for Second Reading in the House of Lords on 24 February.

Resulting from Pitt, the F&WMB was supposed to cater for almost all types of flooding.

I responded to the consultation document last year, and have looked at all 650 responses to that consultation.

I attended one day of the Commons Committee Stage and also the entire Report and Third Reading in the House of Commons.

I am concerned about the groundwater element of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 No 3042 (as transposed from the EU Floods Directive 2007/60/EC) that became effective on 10 December 2009.

These two pieces of legislation should be mutually supporting, but FRR2009 allows the lead local flood authority to ignore a medium or high probability flood caused only by groundwater.

You may remember that I submitted Memorandum FW20 to the Flood and Water Management Bill Committee and I have reproduced the essential information from FW20 as follows:-

2. I am concerned that the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 allow the lead local flood authority to ignore a medium or high probability flood caused only by groundwater.

3. According to FRR 2009 (clause 20 (3)a) the lead local flood authority is able to ignore a medium or high probability flood caused only by groundwater.

In my village on low-lying flood plain above gravel strata, rising flood water permeation leads to the flood water just 'popping up' out of the ground when the Thames rises. This visible water (which I would call groundwater flooding) is as wet and harmful as the other types of flood water, but the FRR 2009 legislation clearly states that flood caused only by groundwater may be ignored.

Surely the primary purpose for producing the flood risk maps, flood hazard maps and flood risk management plans is undermined if the lead local flood authority is allowed to ignore a particular type of flooding? 

Dithering by the Environment Agency as to whether or not the newly opened £110m Jubilee River flood alleviation scheme provided the protection for 200 homes in Datchet (as promised at the 1992 Public Inquiry) has already enabled new houses to be built below the recognised flood level.

Therefore if you have no logical and rational explanation as to why flood caused only by groundwater may be ignored by the lead local flood authority, is there any hope of putting this anomaly right please?

Regards

Ewan Larcombe