ES.47 Our analysis shows that dredging and
other maintenance is important, but not the
complete answer many people believe. We
have no significant evidence that insufficient
maintenance had any major impact on last
summerís events. The Environment Agency and
local authorities make substantial investment
in maintenance, and we believe it is generally
sufficient to deliver the necessary work.

ES.46 Funding from all sources needs to
be spent effectively. Many of the responses
received by the Review have blamed the extent of the flooding last year on rivers no longer being dredged and vegetation and debris being allowed to build up.

ES.48 However, we do believe that the work
carried out by the Environment Agency is not
as transparent as it could be. Many responses
stated that they never see the Environment
Agency clearing rivers of vegetation or
dredging, despite the fact that we know the
works have taken place. The Agency should
publish its schedules of work, along with
internal drainage boards and local authorities,
to ensure that the maintenance work that they
perform is recognised.

ES.45 We have seen and heard of many local
groups who want to take action to alleviate
fl ood risk in their communities. At the moment,
this kind of scheme can end up being too low
a priority for the Environment Agency. The
Government should be encouraging more local
communities to promote innovative schemes,
including contributing towards the costs
themselves, with appropriate technical support
from local authorities and the Environment
Agency. Locally funded fl ood defences should
become a bigger feature of this countryís fl ood
risk management, not an exception brought
about through unusual circumstances as they
are now.

Other nearby paragraphs

From The Pitt Report Forward Executive Summary

These are the only bits I can find about clearing the rivers. It is a pity that the rivers keep filling up with gravel, silt and manmade blockages.
If Pitt is to be believed, I am barking up the wrong tree.