National flood review: Short term solutions that miss wider flood risk

Print This Post

12 September 2016


Stuart Pearce

Stuart Pearce, managing director at GeoSmart

The latest DEFRA review on the UK’s flood defences has underlined that more than a short term fix is required with flood management for people and property – yet this is what it is proposing right now.

The review underlines already well understood predictions of greater, more frequent flood events. The review only examined river and coastal risk and is specifically focussed on measures that will protect critical infrastructure.

The proposed £12.5M of investment on temporary flood defences for these assets will provide some degree of protection, but they are of little value on their own and will do nothing against other types of flooding, crucially missed from the Review – groundwater, surface and sewer flooding. .

It was again disappointing to note that groundwater was largely omitted as a consideration in the Review. It provides a signature to many flood events but remains little understood, partly due to fragmented regulatory structure.

The high profile 2014 flooding in the Thames basin was a good example of how groundwater multiplies flood risk.  Flooding occurred at excessive levels, and yet it would have been a normal flood event, had it not been driven by already high levels of groundwater flooding in the catchment.

The role of groundwater in contributing to peak flooding at the surface, and its impacts at the property level remain largely forgotten.  There is an understandable focus on potential loss of life as a priority, but groundwater significantly prolongs flood damage to infrastructure and property.

In response to the review, Stuart Pearce, managing director at GeoSmart said:

“The review has focused on short term resilience measures for critical infrastructure, in recognition of the overwhelming evidence of more frequent, larger flood events.

While the government clearly notes this is just part of the solution, all flood risks must be considered to provide holistic solutions.  We look forward to working with regulators, authorities and industry to bring groundwater flood risk into the heart of enhanced modelling, so these are better understood. Our groundwater flood risk map is already proving vital in completing the picture for our clients.

We also welcome the Review’s reference to the review of planning policy on natural flood management and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). This will create a greater impetus for these to be implemented across developments and communities for the longer term.”

 

 

 



Associate News is provided by Legal Futures Associates.
Find out about becoming an Associate



Legal Futures Blog

Rating lawyers by their wins and losses – a good idea?

Robert Ambrogi

Lawyers will give you any number of reasons why their win-loss rates in court are not accurate reflections of their legal skills. Yet a growing number of companies are evaluating lawyers by this standard – compiling and analysing lawyers’ litigation track records to help consumers and businesses make more-informed hiring decisions. The shortcomings of evaluating lawyers by win rates are many. Not least of them is that so few cases ever make it to a win or loss. Of equal concern is that, in the nuances of law practice, it is not always obvious what constitutes a win or a loss.

February 22nd, 2017