by Dr Chrysoula Papacharalampou A visit to the Bath Record Office Archives and Local Stories (or Bath Record Office for short) of the Bath & East Somerset (B&NES) Council will reveal a hidden treasure of documentary evidence relating to the evolution of local flood policy (Figure below). This includes notes from the Council’s (Major’s) meetings, articles in the local press, correspondence between local stakeholders, industrial actors and citizens, extensive inventories/catalogues of on-site inspections and compensations bills. Figure. Photos from archive search in the Bath Record Office The available evidence suggests that major historical flood events have been catalysts for policy change at the city level. A range of local policies, mainly focussing on a post-event response, were initiated and implemented by local stakeholders or ‘policy entrepreneurs’ (i.e. advocates for proposals) following the major flood events. This local and post-event policy development and implementation was due to the absence of government authorities for flood management in the United Kingdom until 1930, when the Land Drainage Act was enforced. The policy entrepreneurs for the City of Bath included the Mayors of Bath, members of the local Council, engineers and local industry. The severity of each individual event in terms of its impact on the local communities appears to have shaped the action planning and decision-making. Public opinion and concern regarding flood events and their impact seem to have influenced the implementation of plans requiring local investment. The policy actions relate to three main areas: (1) citizen’s relief, (2) infrastructure development, and (3) institutional change. A number of initiatives to alleviate the distressed local population were launched mostly as an immediate response to major flood events. Flood management in the 19th centuryRelief funds and actions of social and corporate responsibility are extensively documented after the flood events of 1882 and 1894. The Mayor’s Relief Fund following the 1882 flood, served to the provision of food supply, compensation for losses of assets and partial restoration of households. Evidence of the distribution of these relief funds can be retrieved in the Bath Record Office, inclusive of letters to the Flood Relief Committee (established as a response to the 1823 flood) requesting refunds for cattle which drowned during the event. Local industry showed their corporate responsibility by offering accommodation and tons of coal, whilst the police force made a public appeal for food and clothing supplies. The floods of 1894 (13th and 15th November, two distinct floods three-days apart) reported as ‘most serious and calamitous’ on record, had socio-economic impacts on the population: properties, business and trade stock were inundated, washed away or destroyed. These events triggered social response and raised actions of high social responsibility from citizens, local tradesmen and the policy force. The local authorities formulated an emergency committee aimed at relieving the distress. Similarly to past policies, actions of immediate relief included distribution of food (i.e. bread, cheese, coffee) distributed in baskets (kind offer of local bakeries and tradespeople/shops), offer of meals in public spaces, provision for accommodation and coal tickets, as the city experienced a complete gas and lighting cut-off. Two separate relief funds were raised (i.e. St James Relief Fund, Public Relief Fund), both aimed at alleviating the ones affected. Next to the measures for alleviating stress, post-flood policies relate to the safety of the local society at large, in the more recent years: after the 1960 flood, a Major Disaster Plan (outlining managing options for severe events) was assembled and new jobs were created within the local police force. The historical records indicate flood mitigation in the City of Bath has mainly been focussed on engineering/infrastructure solutions. Reports for infrastructure projects were commissioned at multiple points in history, mainly triggered from a severe flood event, but implemented only when economic incentives and availability of public funds allowed. These reports outlined a series of preventive measures, including the replacement of bridges and the widening of the riverbanks. Available records of the reports show converging expert opinions on the mitigation solutions. For example, the 1823 flood resulted in the commission of an engineering report to the city engineer Thomas Telford in 1824, which recommended the removal of obstruction across the river channel and the replacement of the Old Bridge by a single arch bridge. The total estimated costs for the solutions proposed (£50,000) did not lead to its fruition. Similarly, after the flood event in November 1875, further engineering recommendations were made in a report published by Alferd Mitchell, who suggested the use of weirs across the length of River Avon. The recommendations were aimed to increase the discharge capacity of the water system, but no further actions were taken at the time. In 1892, a decade after the ‘surprising’ 1882 devastating flood event, a new report outlined a series of infrastructure measures for future flood defence. The estimated cost (£100,000) of the flood defence measures was deemed immoderate to proceed with the implementation of the plan. The catastrophic events of 1894 resulted in the commission of yet another engineering report commissioned (1896) to G. Remington. This report outlined a radical suggestion: diversion of part of the floodwater of the River Avon through a tunnel of 86 sq. ft. (approx. 8m2) cross-sectional area. The estimated cost of the plan reached £69,300 and public concern regarding the impact of floods had grown, supporting a proactive approach to the mitigation of flooding. Yet, no plans were taken forward for implementation. Flood management in the 20th centuryIn the beginning of the 20th century, a series of flood incidents were reported in Bath (1903, 1925, 1932, 1935, and 1936). There is limited documentary evidence on the impact or alleviation policies following the events. Nonetheless, these incidents coincide with the enactment of the Land Drainage Act (1930). This was aimed to launch a new set of administrative structures to effectively manage the drainage of low-lying land at a national level. As a result of its implementation at a local level, the Bristol Catchment Board was established as the first government authority managing the River Avon Catchment. Shortly after it was founded, the Bristol Catchment Board adopted a proactive approach to flood management. In addition, the launch of the Inland Water Survey in 1935 marked the beginning of data-driven flood management, with several gauging stations being installed across the country. In Bath, the gauging station of St James (central Bath) started its operation in 1939, as proven by the available records of daily flow. ConclusionConsidering the flood policy development in the City of Bath, a pattern emerges: throughout the 19th century, and despite the severity, impact and frequent of flood events, no coherent or preventive policy was implemented due to a lack of funds and sense of urgency among the citizens. The emergence of a government authority responsible for mitigating flood impacts, coupled with the convergence of public opinion and political priorities enabled the development and implementation of prominent and potent policy agenda. Sources
A record of the Great Flood in Bath and the surrounding district (1882). Special Issue of The Bath Herald. Bath: William Lewis and Son. A record of the Great Flood in Bath and the surrounding district (1894). Special Issue of The Bath Herald. Bath: William Lewis and Son. Buchanan, R.A. (1988). The Floods of Bath. In: B.B. Buchanan (Ed.), Bath History Volume VII 1998. Bath: Millstream Books, pp.167-185. Coode, Son and Matthews (1892). Bath Floods Prevention Report. Bath. Gallois, R.W.(2006). The Geology of the Hot Spring at Bath Spa, Somerset. Geoscience in south-west England, 11, pp. 168-173. Greenhalgh, F. (1974). Bath Flood Protection Scheme. Bath: Wessex Water Authority. Kingdon, J. W.(1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, pp. 13-39. (Boston, MA: Little, Brown). Land Drainage Act (1930). First Schedule Minor Amendments, part I. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk Mainwaring, R. (1838). Annals of Bath from the year 1800 to the Passing of the New Municipal Act. Warner, R. (1801). The History of Bath. Wood, J. (1742). A Description of Bath. 3rd edition, Bath, 1765; reprinted Bath, 1969.
32 Comments
|