Support quality, independent, local journalism…that matters

From just £1 a month you can help fund our work – and use our website without adverts. Become a member today

Natural Resources Wales defended issuing a flood warning while water was already a foot-deep in the streets of Pontypridd, raising the risk of “crying wolf” with false alerts.

The Senedd’s climate committee took evidence from NRW on March 12 as part of an inquiry on the response to storms Bert and Darragh, which hit Wales late last year.

Labour’s Julie Morgan asked about NRW issuing only 65 flood alerts before Storm Bert despite forecasts from the Met Office that 150mm of rainfall was possible in the valleys.

Jeremy Parr, head of flood risk incident management at NRW, explained the steep-sided valleys respond incredibly quickly to rainfall, giving a short lead time for warnings.

He said: “The key thing is the level of confidence and exactly where that rainfall will hit,” adding that NRW issued 68 flood warnings closer to Storm Bert.

‘Crying wolf’

Mr Parr stressed the need for a balancing act, raising the risk of “crying wolf” and people losing faith in NRW’s warning systems due to false alarms.

“If you do get sudden downpours … you can get a very rapid rise of rivers,” he said. “And that’s what happened, for example, on that Sunday morning on the Taff in Pontypridd.”

Ms Morgan raised evidence from Andrew Morgan, the leader of RCT council, who said NRW issued a flood warning after water was a foot deep in the streets of the town.

Gareth O’Shea, executive director of operations at NRW, said: “It’s not an exact science ….

“We know we issued the flood warning at 7.41am and our records would indicate the onset of flooding to properties was nearer 8am. There may have been water on the street, I don’t know the depths but we would judge it on when water enters the property.”

‘Risk to life’

Mr O’Shea told the committee: “We always want to give as much warning as we can.”

Tim England, operations manager for flood and water management, added that NRW has lowered the trigger level for warnings after the river’s rapid rise in Pontypridd.

He stressed that a flood alert, which covered highways, was issued on the Saturday, explaining that NRW’s flood warnings focus primarily on property-level flooding.

Asked why NRW does not use yellow, amber and red warnings like the Met Office, Mr Parr said: “I think there is a danger with any three-tier system that it’s almost seen as a traffic light system and it’s only when you get to the severe end of it that you need to take action.

“So, quite a lot of our messaging is: first off, flood alert, flooding is possible; flood warnings, flooding is expected in properties; and then severe is risk to life.”

‘Nobody taking responsibility’

NRW told the committee sign-up levels for free flood warnings in many parts of Wales are not as high as the organisation would like.

Committee chair Llŷr Gruffydd asked about NRW’s evidence that not all flood warning areas are covered by forecast models due to “technical viability, resources, costs and priorities”.

Mr Parr told the committee one in seven properties is at risk of flooding.

He said: “We offer a flood warning system but it’s important to note that’s not for all locations … because there are some isolated communities … where it’s technically quite difficult to provide that flood warning service and that’s just a reality.”

Mr Gruffydd later voiced concerns about the fragmentation of roles, adding: “Everybody’s saying there’s a job of work to be done but nobody seems to be taking responsibility.”

‘Money talks’

Labour’s Joyce Watson raised evidence of a growing gap between Wales and England in terms of investment and the technical capability of flood forecasting models.

Mr Parr said England has introduced computers to process information but “we do it a bit more manually, stressing that information used for flood warnings is essentially the same.

Asked about evidence of a lack of a seamless relationship between NRW and the Flood Forecasting Centre, NRW explained that the operational relationship is much the same.

But Mr Parr pointed out that the centre is predominantly funded by England’s Environment Agency, which can make a difference in terms of research, innovation and future priorities.

Mr Parr told the committee: “I think it’s true to say there is a bit more sway from the Environment Agency in England because they are a full partner in it.”

“Money talks,” Mr Gruffydd remarked.