largely insignificant to Keswick’s flood risk. Wetland improvements are trumpeted with X cubic metre capacity without an honest explanation that such volumes only represent a few seconds of the flows down the Greta during Desmond. Trees can hold water and transpiration also has benefits but in the winter months growth is slowed and the number of trees lost in the catchment is not offered up as a balance to the new ones planted (which will take many years to make anything like a difference in comparison with the forests loss through commercial logging/ash dieback and so on). Some honesty is needed into the scale of the problem the effectiveness of NFM measures in the light of that scale AND whether the saplings littering the fellsides in their green plastic sheaths will compensate for the daily loss of mature trees in the catchment. We believe in a full catchment approach but, realistically, the area is so large, the rainfall so intense and prolonged in winter storms that the only real solution to long-term flood risk reduction is significant upstream storage. “Slowing the flow” is not the whole story. “Managing peak flows” is, in KFAG’s view, the best way to reduce flood risk. Greta Bridge is a throttle, indeed all the bridges in Keswick are, and so we need to get the water efficiently through these constrictions as the flows will slow when the water spreads across the Howrah’s and on into Bassenthwaite. Thus the risk is not passed on downstream to communities in the west. Similarly, it does not make sense to slow all tributaries down, holding as much water in the upper catchment to reduce all the tributaries of the Greta peaking at the same time reduces the strain on the river defences. KFAG, the community, do not want to live behind higher walls. Thirlmere could and should provide a solution. We are still calling for legislation to manage the reservoir for flood prevention. Dr Ed Henderson and Al Cook gave a good deal of their time and expertise to produce a Water Balance Model for Thirlmere which used the data from Storm Desmond and showed that, had there been the sort of management regime for which KFAG has campaigned over many years, Keswick would not have flooded from the river even in Storm Desmond. Frankly we are no further forward than early 2010 from when we had negotiated trigger levels to try to create storm space in the reservoir. The lack of success in no way reflects the time and effort that KFAG have put in to make our community safer. In 2020 KFAG produced a memorandum which uses Ed and Al’s work to set out what is needed to better protect the community. It had the full support of both Keswick Town and Allerdale Borough Councils. The KFAG Memorandum A statement of 3 targets for Thirlmere reservoir which we feel we need to give Keswick, and the Derwent catchment the best chance of reducing flood risk: 1. United Utilities to use the two lower valves at Thirlmere reservoir (which have been upgraded) to let out the combined maximum of circa 700 Ml/d to try to get some storm space before this next event and for this to be the routine response ensuring flood protection takes precedence over all other considerations. 2. United Utilities to invest in upgrading the two upper valves at Thirlmere to enable their intermittent use to allow greater releases between storms to achieve space in Thirlmere between weather events (since we know that use of the two upgraded lower valves will not provide sufficient flows to keep up with incoming rainfall). 3. The schedule of "Trigger Levels” to be viewed as intended "Maintenance Levels" and these to be increased by 1m for some winter months: December from 2m to 3m and for January/February from 1m to 2m. Despite the clear link between flood risk and storm capacity in Thirlmere reservoir, the EA has only been able to develop a new S20 based on habitat regs. There is, however, no consideration for the environmental impacts of excessive overspills. Whilst UU are paying for a catchment manager to oversee environmental impacts over the coming years when relatively insignificant trial releases are to made (545 Ml/d when in overspill events in excess of 2000 Ml/d can flow through the catchment, Storm Desmond was >10,000 Ml/d, and bank-full is around 700 Ml/d). KFAG and the community are the only witnesses to the destruction of land/the environment/homes when reservoir overspills occur and flood risk is exacerbated. Frankly there is far more to consider than waterlogged fields and the loss of habitats with destructive flood flows and yet there is no ambition to investigate this damage as a balance to additional releases for storm water storage. The Environment Agency is trying to make itself “Carbon Neutral”. We would suggest that there is no willingness to account for or take ownership of the further environmental damage which results from the vast amounts of property from a multitude of homes and businesses that goes into skips - and then landfill - from a major flood event, from the production and transport of replacement white goods etc., the impact on energy wastage from weeks of dehumidifiers and heaters working 24/7 in houses to circulate warm air in the drying process that can take many months. If the EA is to truly be a Flood Risk Management Authority then all that carbon footprint should be firmly laid at their door. Effective management of Thirlmere could buy time for Keswick to move towards realising a plan for significant, temporary upstream storage on the Glenderamakin alongside effective reservoir management at Thirlmere. Managing flows upstream can benefit everyone from Low Briery, the Forge, Penrith Road and help protect community facilities in Fitz Park. Flows would be less likely to throttle at Greta Bridge and the western part of town would be safer. In the long term this really is the only solution – the question is how many times must we flood before this is accepted and acted upon? Revised September 2021

THE KESWICK FLOOD ACTION GROUP MEMORANDOM

ABOUT-01