SOMERSET councillors have urged the Environment Agency (EA) to rethink its planned cuts to flood prevention work on the Levels and Moors.

The EA announced in mid-August that it would stop maintaining a significant proportion of Somerset’s rivers and waterways, having received only 60 per cent of the funding it had requested from the Treasury.

Following an emergency meeting of the South West Association of Drainage Authorities (SWADA) on August 18, local councillors and drainage board representatives passed a motion calling on the EA to reconsider this decision.

The Somerset Rivers Authority (SRA) has now added its voice to this call, with board members saying the changes had “infuriated” landowners who were unable to carry out the necessary work under their own steam.

The EA has responded that the cuts represent the work with the least benefit to Somerset residents and would not lead to any significant increase in local flood risk.

The rivers in West Somerset affected by the EA’s announcement include The River Avill near Minehead and The Doniford Stream near Watchet.

SRA board chairman Councillor Mike Stanton presented a motion calling for the EA to “reverse its recent letters to landowners announcing the withdrawal of maintenance of watercourses” and to reinstate this maintenance until further assessment and consultation with the drainage boards had taken place.

Councillor Ros Wyke (Liberal Democrat, Mendip West) said that landowners in her division (which borders Glastonbury, Street and Wells) were “infuriated” by the EA’s attitude to this issue.

Piers Hooper, the EA’s operations manager for Wessex west flood and coastal risk management, said that the agency would continue to manage and operate Somerset’s key flood prevention assets, and that the cuts would not put residents at significant risk.

He said: “It’s important to note that we still do spend many millions of pounds every year across Somerset.

“We maintain hundreds of assets, maintaining water level control structures, sluices, weir, pumping stations and our flood warning service. We do also consider the amount of proactive maintenance.

“These notices don’t actually represent the further deterioration in the programme.

“These notices are to reflect the existing reality that this work is unlikely to be funded again in future, because it does represent the lowest cost-benefit work for which we bid.

“The question really is: do we continue to bid for this work, or do we say this is highly unlikely under the current funding arrangements and stop bidding for it?”

Mr Hooper also claimed EA has historically received “between 40 per cent and 60 per cent” of the money for which it applied to central government – meaning that decisions over which projects are prioritised are familiar and inevitable.

The EA has offered the SRA and drainage boards the opportunity to take part in further consultation over the sites where maintenance will be withdrawn.

Mr Hooper added: “We’re absolutely up for making sure that we consult and take all available views into consideration.”

The motion was unanimously backed by voting members of the SRA board.