The Canal & River Trust FRE0125
Canal & River Trust submission to the Flood Resilience Inquiry
The Canal & River Trust (CRT) is pleased to respond to the Environmental Audit Committee’s Call for Evidence on flood resilience in England.
As the UK’s largest canal charity, we care for and bring to life 2,000 miles of canals and rivers across England & Wales. We own and operate over 10,000 individual assets and structures including bridges, lock gates, aqueducts and reservoirs, many of which are up to 250 years old.
We are custodian to 71 large reservoirs, 12 smaller ones, and thousands of pieces of infrastructure that contribute to flood alleviation or mitigation across England and Wales. The canal network plays a relatively limited but still significant role in keeping the country resilient from flooding – whether that is by providing drainage channels for excess water, moderating flows and moving water away from affected areas, providing physical barriers to water, or helping to avert a build-up of surface water which causes flooding.
Flood protection offered by our embankments and reservoirs protects many households, properties, a wide range of businesses, telecommunications and utilities, as well as other national infrastructure, such as electricity sub-stations, transport and schools. These structures protect over 150 schools, 600 railways and 130 motorway locations, 200,000 properties and half a million people from the impacts of excess water and flooding.
Amongst the many statutory obligations undertaken by the CRT are reservoir safety provisions; ensuring our 71 large reservoirs adhere to the Reservoirs Act including in terms of inspection and safety. These measures, which account for a substantial and increasing proportion of the CRT’s annual spend, are essential components of resilient waterways infrastructure and flood protection.
We believe that the CRT, and the waterways we care for, can play a positive role in flood resilience. Within this submission we make suggestions around:
However, the rising cost of maintaining our ageing canal network and the impact of climate change present a very challenging prospect, putting the future of the canal network in jeopardy.
Strengthening flood resilience
1, To what extent are current flood resilience assets and interventions fit-for-purpose and what are the strengths and weaknesses?
-Are there alternative approaches from across the UK and elsewhere which could help inform improvements and innovation?
As noted above, the CRT owns and operates an interconnected system of 250-year-old waterways infrastructure across England and Wales, including 10,000+ major assets and some of the oldest reservoirs in the country. There are huge strengths across these assets, though challenges also exist which must be considered.
Maintained by the CRT, the canal infrastructure – including its high reservoir dams, the Tees barrage, 782 major embankments, 827 major cuttings, 1,954 culverts and thousands of sluices and locks – provides a vast physical protective network to households, businesses and utilities, as well as to natural habitats and other national infrastructure such as electricity sub-stations, transport infrastructure and schools.
The Trust’s assets are engineered channels that cut across natural drainage paths and thus have the potential to intercept and redirect flows and move water away from areas that are flooding or have the potential to flood. Our canals act as a ‘bypass’ for extra water that would otherwise increase river levels and contribute to flooding. Some recent flooding events have been mitigated by using the canal network to control flows (please see below for examples).
We have monitoring in place across the canals and rivers to see what is happening in specific areas. If water levels rise, the monitoring system sends an alert. We aim to alleviate issues in a number of ways.
-We try to manage water away from flooded areas or areas where water levels are rising, using the structures in the canal such as lock gates and sluices; and discharge the water in an unaffected location. In this way the canal network, where it exists and as long as it is maintained, can prevent increases in water levels or minor flooding from becoming major flooding incidents.
-Sluices, culverts, and pumping stations are used by the CRT to manage water flow and try to avoid flooding in vulnerable areas. The integrity of these systems is critical to prevent flood events.
-We actively monitor and manage water levels in our reservoirs in anticipation of excess rainfall, so as to accommodate extra water when required.
-Some of the CRT’s infrastructure, including dams and barrages, are specifically designed to manage water levels and prevent flooding. These structures are critical in regions prone to high rainfall or sudden storms.
-We work with landowners to discharge their site stormwater into the network, where agreements are in place.
One clear weakness of these assets is their age. Many date back to the early 1800s and some even earlier. Their increasing age, combined with increasing pressure as a result of more frequent and intense extreme weather events, means both the requirement for and cost of maintenance is increasing.
Approximately 6.1 million people in the UK currently live in flood prone areas, and there have been significant increases in the severity of flooding in many parts of the UK in recent decades.
In 2023/24 the network was battered by 12 storms causing significant harm to the network, with an aggregated impact of around £10 million in emergency works.
The examples below demonstrate how existing assets offer clear strengths, alongside the associated challenges listed above:
Ageing assets:
-Slaithwaite Reservoir in Huddersfield was completed in the late 1700s by engineer Benjamin Outram to supply water to the Huddersfield Canal. The CRT is currently undertaking maintenance work which will protect the structure against the impacts of climate change whilst allowing it to hold more water to improve flood protection value.
-Toddbrook Reservoir’s auxiliary spillway was damaged in 2019, leading to the evacuation of thousands from the town of Whaley Bridge. This was an apt reminder of the vulnerability of these structures. The highly complex restoration project is still ongoing, with project costs estimated at around £50 million.
Increase in extreme weather events:
-Gloucester & Sharpness Canal has been used to alleviate serious flooding in Gloucestershire from the River Severn, by lowering the water level in the canal and allowing floodwaters in Gloucester to be pumped into it. The canal is used to route the water to the south (at Sharpness) and out to the Severn Estuary. This was feasible due to the large size of the canal itself and the presence of large volume pumps at Gloucester. Continued maintenance work is required to the canal banks to ensure the canal remains resilient and able to perform this role.
-Chesterfield Canal, during Storm Babet in October 2023, we were able to take extra water into the Chesterfield Canal at Worksop, supporting the Environment Agency to reduce levels in the River Ryton and prevent it from bursting its banks.
Critically, and as has become evident during recent flooding in the UK, these assets can contribute to drainage, taking away water overflows from built up areas and reducing the risk of flooding. As such, they are an additional means to direct water from ground and river, and can provide a cost-effective solution without the need to build new infrastructure.
-Brent Reservoir, which the Trust actively manages, showcases an excellent example of vital flood alleviation by the canal network infrastructure. Heavy rainfall is channelled into the reservoir with excess volumes being managed actively into the River Brent and the Grand Union Canal at Hanwell, ultimately mitigating the flood risk in Brentford.
Funding constraints mean the CRT is not usually in a position to invest in significant upgrades to allow such infrastructure to be used to its full potential, so we would recommend that this route be considered. At a time when we are faced with increasing impacts of climate change, we must ensure we do not overlook the potential of our existing, interconnected canal network to offer creative solutions. We would be delighted to work with the Committee in exploring how this potential can be utilised.
Coordination of flood resilience
5. How effectively and how frequently do flood risk management authorities work together to tackle flooding issues and do they have sufficient resources and skills available to carry out their work?
While not a flood risk management authority itself, the CRT works with a range of authorities, including local authorities and flood risk management authorities including the Environment Agency (EA), and other agencies such as Natural England.
During flood events, we work closely with the EA, in particular, on flood management, using our canal structures and reservoirs where possible to control water levels and reduce flood risks in areas downstream.
While collaboration is generally strong at a strategic level, several challenges exist in terms of resources and skills. Reductions in government funding place strain on the ability of these entities to maintain infrastructure, carry out flood prevention measures, and upgrade systems to handle increasing flood risks – at a time when risks are growing and costs are increasing.
Additionally, managing flood risks in the context of waterways requires specialised knowledge and skills in areas like water management, engineering, and environmental science. While the CRT has a skilled workforce, the ageing infrastructure it maintains, along with the new challenges brought by climate change, requires a continuous supply of expertise and updated training.
Adequate funding including for climate adaptation strategies would help to improve the resilience of the UK's flood risk management system.
6. What should the key priorities be for the Flood Resilience Taskforce, and how can it enhance coordination and improve flood resilience?
We welcome the announcement of the Flood Resilience Taskforce by Government. The construction, maintenance and repair of key flood defence infrastructure is surely one of the most pressing priorities for the UK and we are grateful for the focus and sector engagement for this critical issue. However, this must be backed up by effective action.
The success of the Taskforce will be contingent on ensuring that all organisations and authorities that alleviate flood risks across the country – including the CRT – are involved and attend the periodic meetings. It would be beneficial for the Taskforce to understand the potential of the extensive and integrated canal network, if adequately supported, in contributing to flood resilience, and to better facilitate collaboration between the CRT, EA, local authorities, and water companies to create shared flood risk management plans.
As outlined above, we would recommend the Taskforce consider how existing infrastructure can be properly utilised and upgraded to cope with extreme weather events, rather than necessitating the construction of new infrastructure.
The maintenance of flood defence infrastructure, by its very nature, is costly. Whilst we understand that the Government is currently facing financial strain, continued support and funding from Government is needed to maintain this infrastructure for effective water management and delivery of statutory obligations – in so doing allowing the protection of public safety.
We would recommend involving a wider set of organisations, such as ours, in discussions with forums such as the Flood Resilience Taskforce. We are pleased to have received an invitation to the January Taskforce following discussing with the Minister for Flooding and Water. We look forward to attending. We would also encourage the Taskforce, and associated Ministers, to consider the realistic cost of the maintenance and upgrade of flood resilience assets, as well as the consequences should this not be addressed.
Resources, funding and support for flood resilience
8.1 Is there sufficient government support and funding for the maintenance of flood defence and resilience assets?
From the CRT’s perspective, the greatest risk is our capacity to maintain key flooding infrastructure amid the reduction of Government funding outlined in the post-2027 funding settlement.
When the CRT was established in 2012, the Government agreed to provide an annual grant over an initial 15-year period. During this time, we have successfully reduced our reliance on government funding and reduced the proportion of our total income provided by Defra to under a quarter of our operating revenue. We have also grown income from other sources. The Government also highlighted recently that the CRT provides value for money.
However, the grant has been frozen with no allowance for inflation for a number of years, already reducing its value significantly. In 2023 a decision was made to further decrease the grant, with annual payments reducing by 5% each year between 2027 and 2037. In total, this means the CRT is facing a real-terms cut of £320m, halving public support for waterways.
The failure of the Trust’s Defra grant funding to keep pace with inflation (as measured by CPI) has cost the Trust over £23m so far. Had the grant been subject to inflation it would have been £63.7m in the year ended 31 March 2024, rather than the £52.6m the Trust received. This gap will continue to grow each year that inflation is positive, with the gap accelerating post 2027 under the proposed new arrangements announced in July 2023. We also recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear during the Budget that flood resilience funding would be reviewed.
Within this is a clear issue, in that over the last five years alone we estimate the cost of maintaining and repairing our major infrastructure has risen by around 50% due to both the increase of extreme weather events and inflation.
The CRT has implemented a 20-year programme of works to improve the resilience of the interconnected infrastructure assets. This is a significant additional cost: we have estimated investment of over £100 million is needed to address reservoir resilience alone by 2027 (as required by the Reservoirs Act 1975), with higher levels of spend needed beyond 2027 to continue to mitigate long-term infrastructure risk.
The reduction in Government funding means that we may have to scale back routine maintenance on the network of canals, reservoirs, locks, and flood defences. The funding cut will also exacerbate our maintenance backlog, leading to delayed repairs and a higher risk of critical infrastructure failures in the future.
We hope to work with the Government in an active partnership. It would be useful for the Committee to consider the impacts of the funding agreement on future maintenance of key assets.
January 2025