Misinformation on flooding

A National Audit Office (NAO) report says the Environment Agency needs another £20m each year to protect against flooding, claims the BBC.

This would be an odd conclusion for an audit function to reach. So to the NAO's site, where its own summary says

The Agency estimates that, owing to climate change and ageing defences, an increase of £20 million is required on average each year between 2011 and 2035 to maintain the current level of flood protection.

My bold. Doubtless the element required to combat "global warming" is - ahem - highly speculative. They may have a point on ageing defences, but how much of the estimate was due to those? How much could be found from cutting or closing other programmes with a lower priority?

It's always easier to say instead that you need more taxpayers' money. Labour of course picks up the claim of the Labour head of the Public Accounts Committee:

By cutting too far too fast, the government will leave communities blighted, with homeowners unable to insure, mortgage or sell their homes after 2013, when Labour's deal with the insurance industry runs out.

Yes, you can never ever cut any spending.

The Environment Department say they will "give local people greater choice and control over protecting their community from flooding". This is not without problems, say the NAO.

Local knowledge of surface water flood risk is far less advanced than national information on risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. Local authorities are experiencing difficulty in recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified staff. Only 30 per cent of the local authorities the NAO spoke to thought they had the required technical expertise. Local decision-making is hampered by the need to cross-refer between nearly 20 different plans that affect local flood risk management. It is not yet clear how the Department and the Environment Agency will provide assurance nationally that arrangements are working.

Nearly 20 different plans!

Sounds like this devolution's going to be really cost effective.

The NAO also found that local bodies will be hard-pressed to plug any funding gap while under pressure to deliver a number of other newly devolved responsibilities. And, it adds,

The Department's plans to encourage more local funding could see some defence schemes that have attracted private or other funding going ahead in advance of schemes elsewhere that provide greater benefits.

That's localism for you. But the centre always knows best, doesn't it.