I WAS sorry that the Environment Agency has finally decided to allocate funds, up to two years hence, towards the considerable cost of attempting to constrain the extent of any future overfull Derwent River by the construction of up to five feet high riverside barriers including embankments, piling and walls.

In the first place, action should surely be starting in 2001 and not in 2002 and then taking us in to 2003, and perhaps beyond before completion?

Secondly, such barriers would not be able to prevent the flooding of low-lying areas of both Norton and Malton towns by a present-day Derwent in full spate. This would be principally because effects of the sheer volume of water accumulating in our catchment area would be exacerbated by the numerous river-flow constraints that are currently in place.

However, such an effectively waterproof barrier as proposed would serve a useful purpose along the northern riverbank of the Derwent at Old Malton, and this is surely a realistic and wise proposal for something which could be done with immediate effect.

Thirdly, the two bridges linking Malton and Norton are primary flow-restricting bottlenecks and their capacity should be increased to make floodwaters dissipate more rapidly than they have been able to in the past.

Fourthly, the two roadway river crossings could not conveniently be floodwater-sealed by, say, five feet high walls. They and the railway line would still be flood routes carrying river water on to the low-lying commercial and residential areas of Malton and Norton.

Effectively and adequately raising road, rail and low-lying areas of Norton and Malton by some five feet or so would, of course, be impracticable.

There has been talk of flood barriers in Norton town and the pumping of surplus water back into the river. I find it hard to give this concept credence and I suggest that it would be better to have floodwaters limited by recreating the prehistoric area's natural drainage and riverbed profiles.

I advocate that we:

1. Double the underflow capacity of the two bridges.

2. Remove the obstructing effect of the Kirkham Priory weir which no longer serves its once-useful purpose and which continues to restrict the ability of the Derwent to clean itself of some of the silt and both natural and man-made jetsam which has accumulated for centuries.

3. Remove the massive foundations and parts of the embankment of the abandoned railway river crossing to the east of Old Malton as this is a major flood flow constraint.

4. Clear the river of its islands and other material obstructions in order to maximise the effectiveness of river flood flow in our area of the Derwent River, from the confluence of the rivers Rye and Derwent to Kirkham Priory and beyond.

I commend our decision-makers to do as I have done in the past 11 years and travel by boat up and down the river from the rivers Rye and Derwent confluence, to the weir just beyond Kirkham Priory. This would enable the group to assess the reasoned validity of my recommendations. I would be pleased to be invited to accompany them.

It would thus be possible for our decision-makers to visualise the River Derwent returning to the natural gradient it had before it was substantially bridged and, further back in time, to before the Kirkham weir was built.

Updated: 08:56 Thursday, March 29, 2001