Minutes:
(1) The Chairman thanked Romney Marshes Area IDB on behalf of the Committee for providing such a splendid venue for the meeting.
(2) Mr Nick Botting from Romney Marshes Area IDB gave a presentation which had originally been prepared by Mr David Oliver (who had been obliged to present his apologies at this point in the meeting).
(3) Mr Botting said that the Romney Marshes Area IDB had been formed in April 2001 as an amalgamation of the Denge and Southbrooks, Pett, Romney Marsh Levels, Rother and Walland Marsh IDBs. These had been formed in the 1930s by the Land Drainage Act 1930. This Act had created an integrated drainage system in the lowland areas of Kent to be under the control of Catchment Boards (now the Environment Agency) who were responsible for the larger watercourses (Main River) and the sea defences. Land within an Internal Drainage District fell under the control of the IDBs, who were made responsible for managing effective drainage.
(4) Mr Botting went on to define an Internal Drainage District as a low lying area of land which was prone to flooding and where, consequently, works had to be undertaken to protect land and property. The current Romney Marshes Area IDB functioned under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
(5) Mr Botting next described the IDB’s administrative area. It covered over 33,000 hectares (82,000 acres). Its catchment area (land draining into the district) was 94,000 hectares (232,000 acres). Much of the marsh land was Grade 1 arable land, but the IDB’s area also covered the river valleys of the Rother, Brede, Tillingham and other tributaries.
(6) Most of the marsh was below mean tide level, which meant that it would be under water most of the time if it was not protected by the sea wall. Land levels in Romney Marsh were about 2 to 3 metres above Ordnance Datum Newlyn (AOD) (the main sea level to which all levels in the UK were related). In Walland Marsh, the levels varied between 5 metres AOD at Lydd and Midley to about 1 metre AOD at Fairfield. The soil on the marsh was quite varied. It was mainly alluvium, but also ranged from light sandy soil (which drained freely but did not hold water) to clay in the river valleys (which could cause flooding problems through rapid run-off). In many areas, the underlying stratum of peat from the ancient forests was quite close to the surface, leading to possible settlement problems when the land was drained.
(7) Mr Botting then said that the Romney Marshes Area IDB was one of about 150 boards in low-lying areas of the country. It was a self-funding public body, comprising 21 members elected by agricultural ratepayers and 22 members nominated by those Councils which paid levies to the Board. The Board employed a Clerk/Engineer, an Assistant Clerk/Engineer, a Water Bailiff and a part time Rating Officer. Contractors were employed to undertake maintenance work.
(8) Rates were collected by setting an agricultural rate paid by the occupiers of agricultural land and a special levy on the District Councils. These rates were used to pay for the maintenance or improvement of watercourses and structures. The IDB also paid a precept to the Environment Agency for the maintenance of their watercourses and sea defences as well as for administration of functions such as the Flood Warning Service. The Environment Agency in turn made a contribution to the IDB for accepting water from the catchment into the lowland area.
(9) The IDB maintained some 350 km of watercourses (petty sewers) and also owned and maintained 5 pumping stations. All of these watercourses discharged into main rivers maintained by the Environment Agency. The IDB owned none of these watercourses and its powers were permissive. This meant that it did not have to maintain them. The ultimate responsibility for maintenance lay with the riparian owner. The basic law of land drainage was that a person had to accept the natural flow of water from upstream and could not obstruct it. Under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991, it was an offence to cause an obstruction or alter the flow of any watercourse without the written consent of the IDB.
(10) Mr Botting next said that maintenance of watercourses was done by “brushing” to clear the channel of weed growth. This took place annually in the late summer and autumn in order to remove vegetation, allow free drainage of the winter rains, minimise re-growth and to allow nesting birds to rear their young successfully. Brushing was carried out by excavators fitted with mechanical weed-cutting baskets. Since this mechanised system had been developed in the 1960s, dredging of the watercourses to remove the build up of silt needed to be undertaken less than once a decade.
(11) Stop boards were placed in structures across the watercourses during spring time to hold the water at a higher level in the summer. This water was used as wet fencing for livestock and for irrigation. Some of the stop boards had been in existence for hundreds of years. Since the Second World War, there had been an increase in arable farming over grazing. Because graziers generally required higher water levels than arable farmers, this meant that compromise and diplomacy was at a premium.
(12) Irrigation could place demands on water levels. Most farmers now had storage ponds for their irrigation needs; however some still had licences of right which permitted them to draw water direct from watercourses without compensation from their own reserves. During the summer months, evaporation could reduce water levels by as much as 9mm each day, and the Environment Agency provided summer feeding of water to the marsh in order to combat this effect. Water could be moved from the Rother, which usually had a steady flow of water from the upper reaches all year round. By pumping and opening sluices, it was possible to feed water from the Rother into the Royal Military Canal and then onto the marsh, thereby supplying water which would otherwise simply flow into the sea.
(13) Mr Botting concluded the presentation by saying that conservation played an important part in the IDB’s work. The Land Drainage Act specified that due consideration had to be given to enhancing conservation wherever possible. There were several SSSIs within the district requiring special consideration before a licence could be granted for the IDB to undertake its work.
(14) RESOLVED that Mr David Oliver be thanked for preparing a very informative presentation on the work of the Romney Marshes Area IDB.