CJL
Well-Known Member
Since the EA took over responsibility for the Thames in 1996 we have been told that dredging is both expensive and unnecessary because the Thames is self-scourging. This was of course contrary to all the previous experts from the previous navigation authorities who carried out a continuous capitol dredging program since 1949. I do not remember being told that governments would no longer fund Thames dredging. In 2002/3 the EA opened the alternative flood alleviation scheme for the lower Thames costing £100 million+ presumably the government authorised this expenditure. In 2009 the EA proposed the LTFRS, costed it and proved that it met the Government cost benefit guidelines. The Government effectively denied the expenditure in the 2010 spending review. Leaving the biggest undefended flood plain in England undefended is just not an option. Neither the EA nor the Government are without fault.
Are you suggesting that as soon as the EA took over, new staff came in and ignored all the previous ways of working? You do realise that the same staff from the predecessor organisations were taken on by the EA and used their previous experience to inform the new ways of working. Bottom line things have changed considerably from NRA days, the costs have sky rocketed and other drivers have come to the fore. Simply harking back to a very old historical position shows that you're not having an appreciation for the new demands that have to be considered when making decisions nowadays.
CJL
Last edited: