EXTENSIVE FLOODS. (Hansard, 14 March 1916)

§ Sir RICHARD WINFREY

This afternoon I put two questions to the Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, and I am afraid I cannot regard his replies as satisfactory. They had reference to a very serious flood which has taken place in my Constituency, and which has assumed such importance that I consider that it is now a question of national interest how quickly this flooded land can be brought back into cultivation. The first flood occurred in January, 1915, when there was a burst in the Little Ouse bank. No less than 25,000 acres of agricultural land were flooded, and the water reached a depth of between 7 ft. and 10 ft. before the breach in the bank was made up. The result was that the whole of the tenants of that 25,000 acres of land, including a colony of small holders, lost the greater part of their crops. At any rate, they lost all the corn that was still in the stack, hundreds of tons of potatoes, and hundreds of tons of roots and other agricultural produce. It was a very serious loss. The water remained on the land for no less than eight months, as the land is below the level of the river, and every gallon of water had to be pumped off. Therefore, they were not able to plant any crops or to grow anything in 1915. 'They lost part of their crops for 1914, and were not able to cultivate the land in 1915. Indeed, the 200 tenants had to go out of their houses. Owing to the water remaining there for such a length of time many of the houses are complete wrecks. In some cases the roofs have fallen in, in others the walls, and so on. The water was got off at a cost of £10,300. That is what it cost the three drainage authorities to clear the land of the water. In October last these tenants resumed possession. We got up a subscription in the city of Norfolk of something like £3,000 to help the small holders and some of the tenants to get reinstated in their holdings. Since October they have recommenced to cultivate the land. The wheat crops upon the land were looking in excellent condition up to a week last Sunday. But I regret to say the Little Ouse bank burst again very near the spot where it burst in January, 1915, and 2048 the water has since been pouring in there at a very great rate. I am informed that the whole of the land which was flooded in January, 1915, is again flooded, although not quite to the same depth as previously. The whole efforts of these tenants during the six months has once again been spoilt. They are hopeless and are again living in schoolrooms and in the surrounding districts wherever they can find a place to lay their heads. The Secretary to the Board of Agriculture, in reply to my questions, said it was no part of the business of the Board to help drainage trustees to protect their banks. No doubt that is so, but unfortunately in this case the innocent are suffering with the guilty, because the bursting of the bank in one district called the Hockwold Fen has not only flooded the district which belongs to the Hockwold Commissioners, but it has also flooded two other districts. Therefore the victims are these tenants who rented land from the county council and other landowners. They are suffering from the faults—if there are faults—of drainage commissioners over whom they have no control. and no power of interference with in tin,' way. This matter, during this War especially, is of national importance. The Board of Agriculture should assist us if possible to get this land back into cultivation before it is too late to sow spring crops. I have made some estimate, anti consider that if it were possible to get this land back into cultivation within the next six weeks, we might be able to grow something like 30,000 quarters of corn and 40,000 tons of potatoes on that land during the coming season. If that is so, surely it is a matter of national importance that we should help these poor people to reclaim this land!

There is another question arising out of this: not only is the water of the Little Ouse flowing into this lane, but unfortunately the waters of the Great. Ouse are coming back, and instead of flowing seaward at a point where the Little Ouse and the Great Ouse join the Brandon Creek, the Great Ouse is flowing back with the Little Ouse. These poor people are getting not only the water of their own river, but the water that is coming down from Huntingdon, St. Ives, and Cambridge. The Board of Agriculture recognised, when the last flood took place, that something ought to be done, because they established a new authority to deal with the out fall of the Great 2049 Ouse. There is no doubt these periodical floods are due to the fact that the water does not in times of excessive rainfall get sufficiently down to the sea. That is really the crux of the whole matter. If this authority which has been set up, and of which I understand Lord Ramsey has been appointed chairman, had fortunately got to work and been able to do something, or, at any rate, have made a beginning, I think these 200 tenants of whom I speak would probably have felt a little more satisfaction; but, up to the moment, so far as I can understand, it has not grappled with this question. The result is that, especially at spring tides, Danver Sluice has to be closed a great number of hours out of the twenty-four, and the water in the Great Ouse and Little Ouse is held up. These banks are not strong enough to hold the pressure, and the consequence is there is a bursting of the bank and the water overflows into this fen land, which has sunk a great deal during the last fifty years. It is peat land, and, owing to cultivation, it is certainly seven or eight feet lower than it was when I first remember it. Therefore, when there is a burst in the bank the water naturally rises and covers this land to a great extent.

I know the difficulties of the Board of Agriculture, but I do feel this is a case when, if assistance can be rendered, it ought to be rendered. As I have previously pointed out, the last break in this bank caused the various Commissioners £10,300, and they are at the present moment at their wit's end to know where to get the wherewithal to combat this new water, every gallon of which will have to be pumped out if this land is to be cultivated. I trust I have not exaggerated the case, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture will be able to give me a little more satisfactory reply than he gave this afternoon in answer to my question.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Acland)

My hon. Friend has made out an entirely Truthful case with regard to this area of 13,000 acres or so which is now unfortunately flooded. I think I can answer him—and I think he will accept my assurance—that the Board of Agriculture has no desire, if I may so put it, to increase the jurisdiction of the fishery part at the expense of the agricultural part of its 2050 operations. We do need every single acre to be under cultivation during this forthcoming agricultural season, and everything that can be done I feel quite certain we shall do. But I must make it clear that the Board of Agriculture has not, so to speak, a bottomless purse of its own. It is rather tempting—I know I have done it myself—to talk about the Government, or a Department of the Government, having money, whereas really it is the taxpayers' money, which cannot be spent without special and definite authority given for that purpose, and the Board of Agriculture, unfortunately in this case has not had at its disposal any part of the taxpayers' money for making good damage done by flood any more than it has money for making good damage done by hail, lightning, or any other of the dispensations of Providence. The difficulty is undoubtedly made worse by the fact that the bursting of the dam which runs alongside of the Little Ouse has flooded not only the area which ought to be looked after by the authority which is in control of the piece of the dam opposite the flooded area, but has flooded the area on certainly one, and I think my hon. Friend is right in saying two other drainage authorities. Of course that might have been kept out if the cross-bank between the area of the one drainage authority and that of the other had been high enough to keep the flood water out. That perhaps might have been done, but it would mean an expensive and big business, involving the strengthening and raising of a dam which I find, on looking at the map, is about four miles. Of course, it would have been very much better if the authority whose dam has already burst more than once, I think at nearly the same place at which it has burst this time, would or could have increased the height and strength of the dam, and in that way have kept the water off their own area and from flowing on to the area of the neighbouring authorities. We are in one or two small measures in a slightly better position than perhaps we might have been. First of all, the people of the district were able to obtain the help of soldiers who sank barges full of sand or gravel in the gap which the raging waters had caused, and I believe it is true to say that the actual breach will be closed to-day or to-morrow thanks largely to their efforts. I believe pumps are now in the area, part of the expense of which, I 2051 think, was borne by the Development Commissioners, which are very much stronger than any they have had before and which can deal even with this very great weight and volume of water which has flooded over this area. Anything which can be done under our Parliamentary powers and which the Development Commissioners can do I believe will be done, and certainly there will be no want of inquiry and good will and investigation into the matter if it is not done. But I cannot undertake to introduce any new principle in these matters. These various commissioners have been appointed to deal with their own area as best they can, and if they neglect their task after several warnings and floods have occurred and they do not raise the bank which is very vital and important I do not think the Board of Agriculture has any compulsory powers of making them attend to their work to prevent these occurrences in the future or any power of granting out of the taxpayers money any relief to the people affected. It is an engineering proposition, but I am sure that it is not so much a question of clearing the mud out 2052 of the Ouse as of increasing the strength and height of the dam where the breach has taken place. It is a fact that at spring tides particularly the Ouse has some difficulty in finding its way to sea and the sluice has to be closed, and with spring tides and the heavy flood water coming down the river and the water backing up from the Great Ouse it is a very difficult job. The water floods up and unless the bank is sufficiently high and strong this area is liable to flooding. We have had a report on the occurrence itself. The next thing will be to get a further report on how quickly the damage can be repaired, and these people can be put, as is most desirable in the national interests, in a state with which they will still be able to make something out of their agriculture in the coming season. I would ask my hon. Friend to trust us to do our best in that direction, and believe me when I say that we realise the extreme importance of getting every possible acre we can under cultivation in the present season.