REPRESENTATIVES of the residents of Stamford Bridge are welcoming Environment Minister Elliot Morley's undertaking to review the plans for flood defences in their village.

It seems, in their opinion, that the defences, designed to avoid a repeat of the catastrophe of last winter, would actually have made some people's situation worse. Stamford Bridge was as badly affected as anywhere in those dreadful floods.

Few things are more soul destroying than the inexorable rise of floodwater. Many of us have experienced a burst pipe, especially when, as recently, we have a spell of hard frost. That is bad enough. Normally it is restricted to part of the house, and the water is clean. Dehumidifiers can work wonders.

Floods are in a different league altogether. To start with they are often a while in coming. They first threaten from some distance away and defences can be organised. We all saw the frenzied filling of sand bags which were carefully erected into walls. They did some good in some places. Mostly they delayed the problem, but they did not prevent it altogether. And the water is dirty. Decorations and plaster are ruined.

Whenever there is any sort of flood, one's first thought is to get the water away. Only then can the drying begin. It is all right having a flood plain for the water to be stored on a temporary basis. In the end it has to be removed completely.

Agricultural production is no longer paramount in this country. There is not a threat of people starving. An amazing variety of food is available, cheaply, throughout the year. Of the countries presently in the European Union, the UK and Germany spend the lowest proportion of their income on food. We have always been a trading nation and have, historically, been used to bringing in food from all over the world, which in years gone by signified the Empire.

Wars, however, entailed blockades. In the days before air freight was so readily available, the sea was the only way of getting cargoes here. There was always a major incentive for production to be maintained in this country. To this end huge areas were drained, so that food could be more efficiently produced. Some of this drained land, together with land claimed from the sea, is among the most productive.

In the last 15 or 20 years, the food produced has become less badly needed. Less and less attention has been paid to the condition of the drainage systems. This applies just as much to the rivers and streams between the fields as it does to the underground systems below them.

There has been an additional factor at work. Certain highly influential lobby groups have been arguing that, in order to preserve wildlife habitats, rivers should not be dredged or kept clear of trees and other obstructions. Many of the rivers in this country can no longer accommodate the flow of water that once they could. Admittedly in those pre global warming days they did not need to take such amounts of water. Now however they need to work at maximum efficiency. Such a river is the Derwent.

Casual inspection of the river in stretches below Malton and below Stamford Bridge indicate the extent to which the flow is now restricted. The water just cannot get away. The wildlife reserves of the lower Derwent, we are constantly told, are of international importance.

The taxes of the residents of Stamford Bridge support those who should be keeping the water flowing. I wonder whether they think that the correct balance is being struck.

Updated: 11:02 Tuesday, January 22, 2002