FURTHER to my letter regarding the Environment Agency's treatment of businesses on the Weaver compared to the rules on expenditure for Bottom flash, Winsford. The agency replied to me but only explain how the 1:8 ratio of cost to benefit is arrived at, to not dredge Bottom flash.
They do not explain the arbitrariness of the six times harsher ratio whereby they require private businesses to invest, nor the adjustment to get a positive ratio to impose that burden.
There is a more immediate problem, from the Agency's attitude to Bottom flash.
Are their rules to model the Weaver wrong? The current model does not test the assumption that all the Weaver silt is washed down to the Ship Canal.
So is the £7m for the levees around Northwich the right solution to protect the town from flood?
Will Charlton Winsford
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel