bs_bs_banner

The impact of seasonal flooding on agriculture: the spring 2012

floods in Somerset, England
J. Morris1 and P. Brewin2
1 School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
2 Somerset Drainage Boards Consortium, Highbridge, UK

Correspondence Abstract
Joe Morris, School of Applied Sciences,
Cranfield University, Cranfield Campus, Exceptional rainfall in spring 2012 caused widespread flooding and damage to
Cranfield MK43 0AL, UK agricultural grasslands in Somerset in south western England, much of them
Email: j.morris@cranfield.ac.uk farmed under agri-environment agreements. The seasonal timing of the flood
and its relatively long duration (in excess of 4 weeks in some areas) led to a
DOI: 10.1111/jfr3.12041 serious loss of grazing and winter feed in 2012. A survey of farmers, combined
with the development of a framework to estimate the impact of seasonal flood-
Key words ing, identified the effects on farm businesses and the ways that farmers coped.
Costs; damage; economics; environment;
Impacts on agri-environment outcomes were valued at the cost of funding
farming; floods; grassland.
stewardship schemes. The methods and estimates can help inform strategies to
deal with changes in flood risk in areas of agricultural and environmental
interest, whether induced by changes in catchment land use or climate.

Introduction tant by the growing and sometimes competing concerns

about food security and environmental stewardship.
Exceptional rainfall in spring 2012 caused widespread flood-
In this context, using a case study of the spring 2012
ing and damage to agricultural grasslands in the Somerset
floods in Somerset, we report on (1) the impacts of seasonal
Levels and Moors in south western England, much of them
flooding on agriculture at the field, the farm and the sub-
farmed under agri-environment agreements. While flooding
catchment scales (flooded areas as a whole); (2) how farmers
in winter is a fairly common event, flooding in spring and
coped with the floods; and (3) the impacts on farmers
early summer is unusual and much more damaging. It is at
and the economy. We also describe the methodological
this time when grassland is at its most productive, when
framework developed for this purpose. The results and the
overwintered livestock is turned out or pastures are ‘close-
approach can be compared with those of the ‘Impacts of the
up’ so that grass can be cut in the early summer for winter
Summer Floods on Agriculture in England’, previously
feed. Whereas grassland can generally tolerate flooding
reported in this journal (Posthumus et al., 2009), and the
during the winter dormant period, this is not the case in
broader assessment of the summer 2007 floods in England
spring or summer, especially for ‘improved’ agricultural
across all sectors (Chatterton et al. 2010).
grasses.
Following a description of the flood event, the methods
Agricultural areas in flood plains could face greater expo-
used are summarised, followed by a description of land use
sure to flooding in the future due to changes in catchment
and farming systems. A framework developed to assess
land use that increase run-off and also due to climate change,
agricultural impacts is explained and applied, followed
including the increased intensity of rainfall events. At the
by a high-level assessment of agri-environmental impacts.
same time, agricultural, and particularly grassland areas, are
Results are aggregated to provide estimates at different
perceived to be of low priority when it comes to public
scales. The implications for flood risk policy are considered.
funding of flood protection relative to the priority given to
urban areas. Indeed, in some areas, agricultural land is inten-
tionally used to store flood water temporarily in order to
avoid urban flooding. For these reasons, there is a clear need
The spring 2012 flood event
to understand the implications of changes in flood risk for After a period of unusually dry weather, exceptionally heavy
agricultural land as part of a coordinated approach to sus- and prolonged rainfall at the end of April 2012 caused severe
tainable flood risk management. This is made more impor- flooding land in the Somerset Levels and Moors in south

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140
Impact of seasonal flooding on agriculture
west England. Exceptionally high river flows over many days
overwhelmed river embankments and resulted in wide-
spread flooding on about 5000 ha of farm land (Brewin,
2012). The Drainage District of Currymoor in the Tone
catchment (grid reference ST323273) was among the worst
affected areas with over 650 ha flooded for more than 2
weeks, in places to a depth of 2.5 m, and a further 150 ha
flooded for less than 2 weeks. Across the Somerset Levels and
Moors as a whole, an estimated 5000 ha were flooded for
more than 2 weeks, mostly in the Tone and Parrett catch-
ments (Brewin, 2012).
Under normal river conditions, Currymoor discharges via
a pumping station into the tidal River Tone, which joins the
River Parrett downstream at Burrowbridge. Overtopping on
the River Tone quickly filled and exceeded the 10 million m3
flood storage capacity on Currymoor, and waters spilled over
into the adjacent moors. There was significant disruption to
main and secondary highways. Residential properties were
not flooded.
High water levels in the Parrett and Tone prevented evacu-
ation of water from Currymoor for over 2 weeks, and in spite
of the installation of extra pumping capacity, it took a
further 2 weeks to reduce flood level and volume signifi-
cantly. As a result, flood waters on Currymoor turned
anoxic. When river levels dropped, pumping of anoxic water
from Currymoor was slowed to prevent damage to fish
stocks in receiving waters, extending the duration of flood-
ing on the lowest areas of Currymoor to a maximum of
6 weeks.
Large areas of Currymoor remained under water for
between 2 and 4 weeks, in some cases longer. ‘Improved’
grassland, intolerant to non-winter flooding, was severely
damaged with little prospect of recovery, confirming the
vulnerability of agricultural grassland systems to spring/
early summer floods of longer than 2 weeks in duration. The
floods also seriously damaged habitats, wildlife (including
soil invertebrates) and the natural environment in this inter-
nationally important wetland area.
There is concern, particularly expressed by farmers, that
the capacity of the main river channels has reduced over the
last 20 years due to a general cessation of dredging and
changes in maintenance regime. It is possible that changes in
urban and agricultural land use in the upper catchments,
combined with greater frequency of heavy rainfall events,
serve to increase the probability of peak flows and flooding
of the Moors, but this remains unsubstantiated.
Methodology
Following general reconnaissance of the flooded areas, farm
visits and semi-structured interviews, each lasting about 2 h,
were carried out at the end of May 2012, 4 weeks after the
onset of flooding. Nine farmers occupying about 880 ha in
J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
129
the Currymoor Drainage District were interviewed, account-
ing for over 80% of the area. Two farmers in adjoining moors
were also visited to determine whether impacts were similar.
Data on flood extent and duration were recorded by the
Somerset Drainage Board Consortium and the Environment
Agency. Information on agri-environment agreements was
obtained from Natural England.
The financial costs of agricultural flood damage incurred
by farmers were estimated according to the type of impact,
farming system and land use, and farmer coping strategies.
Costs were aggregated at the field, farm and flood area scales.
The loss of agri-environment benefits was also assessed in
terms of the values implicit in the European Union (EU)-
funded agri-environment payments and scheme administra-
tion costs (Natural England, 2009). An estimate was derived
of the cost of the flood event to the national economy which
can be used to assess the public worth of flood risk manage-
ment interventions (Environment Agency, 2010). The meth-
odology developed here, modified to suit local conditions, is
generally suitable for the assessment of seasonal flooding in
other predominantly grassland areas.
Land use and farming systems
Farming and land use on Currymoor are characterised by
grassland systems mainly supporting dairy production and
the fattening of dairy or beef cow calves and store cattle
(Table 1). The average area flooded per farm was 38 ha (96
acres), accounting for an average of 28% of farm total area,
although this proportion ranged from 18% to 52%. About
47% of the flooded grass areas were associated with dairy
production and 53% with mainly fat cattle, consistent with
the proportions of dairy and fatstock cattle numbers for this
part of Somerset (Defra, 2004). Most livestock farms in Cur-
rymoor were previously dairy farms, switching to less inten-
sive suckler beef and/or the fattening of store cattle in the last
10–15 years or so, in common with general trends in the
region.
The flood occurred during spring when fields dry out
after the winter, and stock are turned out to grass or pas-
tures are prepared for the conservation of winter feed.
For the most part, for logistical reasons, the Levels and
Moors are mainly used for the grazing of suckler beef and
fatstock (6–28 months), dairy replacements (6–26 months)
and some sheep with lambs. The conservation of winter
feed, mainly of baled hay and silage, is carried out in early
July.
Large parts of Currymoor are managed under Higher
Level Stewardship (HLS) (Natural England, 2010) that
targets priority environmental outcomes within the national
programme of Agri-Environment Schemes (AES). The latter
is supported by the Rural Development Programme for
England 2007–2013 with EU funding from the European
130 Morris and Brewin

Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, part of the

cattle: hay/silage for winter feed

cattle: hay/silage for winter feed

Grazing for dairy replacements:

Grazing for sucklers and store

Grazing for sucklers and store

Common Agricultural Policy (Natural England, 2009). The

and sale. Withy plantations

AES are voluntary agreements that pay farmers and other

hay/silage for winter feed

Land use in flooded area

Including withy plantations. Two additional farms were surveyed in adjacent Moors: 1 in Northmoor (arable and livestock, size: 240 ha, 13% flooded) and 1 in Wetmoor (size 100 ha, 60% flooded).
land managers to manage their land in an environmentally
sensitive way. The Higher Level Stewardship Scheme (HLS)
agreements on Currymoor prescribe conditions for fertiliser
use, stocking rates, grazing and grass-cutting dates, and in
some cases ditch and water management level conditions. In

and sale
this respect, the Levels and Moors are managed as relatively
extensive wet grasslands within dairy and fatstock farming
systems that usually also occupy adjoining land on higher
Range %
18–27%

19–45%

21–52%
ground.
Proportion of

The impacts of flooding are felt well beyond the geo-

farm flooded

graphical boundary of the flood plain themselves and

beyond the immediate period of flooding. As a consequence,
Average %

18%–52%
the impact of the flood on farms and the strategies to cope
25%

27%

36%

with it vary considerably according to farm type and circum-

stances. Farms with a greater proportion of their area subject
to flooding are clearly more vulnerable.
16–60 (40–150)

24–60 (60–150)
29–34 (72–85)
Area flooded per farm

28%
ha (acres)
Range

Types of impact
Flood impacts on agriculture were identified at the field and
16–60 (40–150)

farm scales. At the field scale, discussions with farmers iden-

40 (100)

31 (80)

39 (97)

tified the following main impacts:

ha (acres)
Average

• emergency evacuation of livestock;

Table 1 Farm characteristics in Currymoor Drainage District and spring 2012 flood areas

• prevention of access to spring grazed pastures, requiring

animals to be housed or relocated to other flood free areas,
88–232 (220–580)

76–152 (190–380)

108–148 (270–370)

• damage to pastures and grass production in the worst

affected areas involving complete loss of grazing or silage/
38 (96)

hay making for 2012.

ha (acres)

• loss of yield, and quality on willow (Salix) plantations and

Range
Farm size*

on arable crops were affected;

• damaged drainage systems and field infrastructure;
• loss of beneficial soil invertebrates, especially earthworms,
76–232 (190–580)

increased risk of animal disease, such as liver fluke infes-

161 (403)

114 (285)

121 (303)

tation ( fasciolosis).
ha (acres)
Average

At the farm scale, farmers identified a range of impacts

comprising extra costs, lost revenue and other impacts
(Table 2). Extra costs mainly involved the replacement cost
of grass feed for grazing or winter feed, the likely need to
137 (343)
surveyed
of farms
Number

reseed pastures in the most damaged areas, and replacement

4

cost of quality willow material. Losses of revenue were asso-

ciated with reduced net income from fatstock and reduced
Overall average and range

hay sales. Even where farmers ‘saved’ the costs of hay or silage
*Owned and tenanted land.

making, these savings represented losses in income for other

Arable† and livestock

local farmers providing contractor services. Virtually all

Livestock: cattle

reported agricultural losses were not insured. This is consist-

Mainly dairy

ent with observations from the 2007 floods in England

Farm type

where less than 5% of a total loss of £50 million was covered

by insurance, mostly for damage to buildings and machinery
(Posthumus et al., 2009).
†

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140
Impact of seasonal flooding on agriculture
Table 2 The main financial impacts on farm businesses of the
spring 2012 in Currymoor Drainage District and surrounding areas
Increased costs
• Costs of livestock emergency evacuation and relocation,
• Additional costs of livestock housing, yard feeding and
bedding, including labour and machinery
• Replacement cost of (1) grazed grass and (2) conserved grass
(baled silage/hay and clamp silage) and associated bought
feeds/rented keep/ modifications to diets
• Reseeding costs on damage pastures (possible reseeding
species rich grassland)
• Repairs to farm gates, ditches and structures
• Extra pumping costs: pump purchase, repairs and fuels
• Purchases and use of machinery to clear debris and surface
trash
• Purchases of substitute willow products to maintain supply
chain contracts
Loss of revenue
• Yield loss on cereal crops in some areas
• Premature sales of livestock for which feed is not available
• Reduced purchases of store cattle for grass fattening and
finishing
• Reduced sales of hay and rented keep
• Loss of contracting work as a source of revenue
Other impacts
• Reduced carrying of replacements for dairy herds, reduced
culling of older dairy cows
• Substitution of temporary leys (within and beyond flooded
area) with late drilled maize to increase output
• Increased inputs on parts of farm not flooded.
• ‘Savings’ in costs associated with reduced output and
operations, for example hay making
• Impacts on revenues and costs in subsequent years associated
with recovery of grassland, dairy and livestock production
Coping strategies
Farmers reported a range of actual or intended coping strat-
egies (Table 3) taken to lessen the impact of reduced avail-
ability of grass feed. Most perceived a need to purchase
replacement feed or to use hay normally sold off farm, or to
reduce purchases or make premature sales of store cattle for
fattening. In most cases, farmers reported a range of coping
strategies, reflecting variations in circumstances and prac-
tices. The type and efficacy of measures taken to cope with
the impacts of the flood will become more evident through
the year.
Impact scenarios and costs
Impacts and coping strategies provide the basis for estimat-
ing the financial consequences of the spring floods. The
event is treated here as a one-off extreme event that nega-
tively impacts on the farm production in 2012, with some
possible costs associated with full recovery and reinstate-
ment during 2013. In this respect, the flood is not associated
J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
131
Table 3 The main types of coping strategies taken or proposed by
farmers to mitigate the impacts of the spring 2012 flood in Cur-
rymoor Drainage District
Adjustment to livestock feeding regimes
• Extended offsite housing and yard feeding of stock
• Purchase of replacement feed
• Modifications to feeding regimes and rations
Adjustments grassland management
• Substitution of grassland use within the farm, using land
otherwise conserved for grazing
• Substitution of temporary grass with late planted silage
maize
• Temporary increased inputs on non-flooded grassland
• Whole crop harvesting of cereal crops for livestock feed
Adjustments to farm purchases and sales
• Modification to livestock purchase and sale regimes, including
breeding livestock
• Reduced off-farm sales of marketable surplus feeds
• Buy in replacement willow products to maintain supply chain
obligations
Other
• Increased private pumping and drainage works
• Changes to farm development, to accommodate flood
impacts
• Bank borrowing
with a permanent loss of production or changes in land use
and farming system. If such flood events are perceived to
occur more frequently, however, the latter may apply.
The general formula for estimating the costs of the spring
event is:
C farmflood = (Dcrops − Scrops ) + (L sales − Ssales ) + E production + Omisc
where
Cfarmflood = costs of the flood event at the farm scale
Dcrops = damage to crops and grass (e.g. loss of value of crop
yield and/or quality)
Scrops = savings in avoided costs of crops or grass production
(e.g. savings in silage making costs for farm consumption)
Lsales = lost revenues from sales (e.g. fatstock, hay, contracting
revenues)
Ssales = savings in avoided costs of sales (e.g. costs of hay for
sale, animal feeds)
Eproduction = extra production costs (e.g. animal housing,
reseeding)
Omisc = miscellaneous other costs (e.g. infrastructure
damage, clean-up, financing)
Costs can be estimated at the individual farm scale and
grossed up for the whole flood area. The spring flood also
seriously affected the HLS conservation areas. These losses
can be valued at the cost of providing these services, as
explained below.
At the time of the survey, it was not clear exactly what
actions farmers would take to reduce the impacts of the
flood on their businesses. Much depends on farm circum-
132 Morris and Brewin

stances and practices. Farmers may choose to replace lost
grass with bought feed, reduce sales of surplus hay or reduce
the number of fattened livestock. They may decide that a
combination of these actions is required.
For this reason, costs associated with each possible
response are considered separately in turn. Care must be
taken to avoid double counting. For example, if the entire
loss of grass is measured in terms of replacement feed, it is
inappropriate also to assume reduced revenue from cattle
sales, or vice versa. Also, farmers ‘save’ the costs of employing
contractors to harvest their grass feed when they purchase
replacement feed. Allowance is made for this accordingly.
These savings are, however, a loss of revenue (net of costs)
for farms providing contracting services that are no longer
required.
The spring flood is likely to impact on the productivity of
land and farm businesses beyond 2012 in those areas most
seriously affected, depending on the rate of recovery. Con-
sideration is given to these subsequent effects. The compo-
nents of flood damage costs are considered in turn.
Damage to crops and grass less savings in
avoided costs (Dcrops-Scrops)
Loss of energy from grass and associated costs
The spring floods completely destroyed the year’s growth of
grass in the worst affected areas. The potential energy from
grass depends on the quality of the site class for grass growth
as determined by soil and weather conditions, field drainage
conditions, nitrogen application and grazing/cutting
regimes (Doyle, 1982; Thomas and Young, 1982; Doyle and
Elliot, 1983; EBLEX, 2011a).
Estimates of dry matter production (tDM/ha) were
derived using functions reported by Doyle (1982) and
Thomas and Young (1982) for sites with ‘very good’ grass
growth potential and good drainage under normal condi-
tions (see Table 4 and supporting notes). This is done for the
three main observed grassland management systems that
differ in terms of fertiliser use (A, B, C), and whether grass is
grazed only (A1, B1, C1) or has one cut hay/silage plus

Table 4 Estimated grass energy production and loss of value for different grass management systems in Currymoor Drainage District due
to flooding exceeding 2 weeks duration in spring 2012
Land use A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Management regime HLS (Org) cut HLS (Org) grazed HLS cut HLS grazed Non-HLS cut Non-HLS grazed
Nitrogen on grass
Chemical kgN/ha 0 0 50 50 75 75
Organic kgN/ha 50 50 25 25 25 25
Total nitrogen kgN/ha 50 50 75 75 100 100
Grass yield* tDM/ha 4.7 4.7 5.5 5.5 6.2 6.2
% cut for hay/silage % area 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Grass grazed† tDM/ha 1.85 4.74 2.15 5.51 2.44 6.25
Grass cut† tDM/ha 3.79 0.00 4.41 0.00 5.00 0.00
Total DM tDM/ha 5.64 4.74 6.56 5.51 7.43 6.25
Grass energy‡ MJ/ha 46 370 37 181 53 898 43 217 61 071 48 969
Stocking rate§ LU/ha 1.39 1.11 1.61 1.29 1.83 1.47
Grass energy lost % MJ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Grass energy lost MJ/ha 46 370 37 181 53 898 43 217 61 071 48 969
Value of grass lost¶ (a) £/ha 561 450 652 523 739 592
Savings hay/silage costs|| (b) £/ha 133 0 154 0 175 0
Net cost (a–b) £/ha 428 450 497 523 564 592
Net cost: 50% cut, 50% grazed £/ha 439 510 578
Land use in flooded area % 15% 75% 10%
Av net cost weighted by area £/ha 506

Notes: HLS – Higher Level Stewardship Scheme, HLS (Org) – Organic option, Non-HLS – other. Units: N, nitrogen; tDM, tonnes dry matter; MJ, Megajules;
LU, grazing livestock unit (1 dairy cow = 1 LU equivalent).
*Estimates of grass yield tDM/ha based on Thomas and Young (1982); Doyle (1982). Assumes ‘very good’ site class for grass growth based on soil type and
climate. Assumes ‘good’ drainage conditions April to September. Grass yield (tDM/ha) = 0.0344199N - 0.000029N2 + 3.094, where N = kgN/ha chemical and
organic applied and as field dung.
†
DM production for single cut grass regime as a proportion of DM for grazed grass only: = 1.19, comprising 0.39 for aftermath grazing and 0.8 for cut grass
components, after Thomas and Young.
‡
Usable energy value of grass: grazed = 11 200MJ/tDM ¥ 0.7 utilisation factor = 7840 MJ/tDM. cut grass = 10 400MJ/tDM ¥ 0.8 utilisation factor = 8400
MJ/tDM.
§
Stocking rates: 1 LU = 33 400MJ/LU required from grass at typical diets (1 dairy cow equivalent).
¶
Replacement cost of grass energy £0.012/MJ based on barley equivalent.
||
Cost of hay/silage making £35/tDM all operations.

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140
Impact of seasonal flooding on agriculture
aftermath grazing (A2, B2, C2). Farm surveys indicated that
systems A, B and C accounted for about 15%, 75% and 10%,
respectively, of the total farmed area subject to long-duration
flooding in Currymoor. The method can be adapted for
other grassland systems.
Using this method, estimated dry matter (DM) conserved
hay/baled silage yields range between 3.8 and 5 tDM/ha. This
accords reasonably well with estimates provided by farmers,
based on numbers and weights of bales, of 2–2.5 t wet matter
(WM)/acre, equivalent to 4.3–5.4 t/ha DM (although there
was some uncertainty about the actual weights of individual
bales).
Estimated grass tDM was converted to utilisable grass
energy MJ/tDM assuming grazed grass at 11 200 MJ/tDM
and 70% utilisation by animals, and conserved grass at
10 400 MJ/tDM and 80% utilisation. Field observations con-
firmed the likelihood that the entire year’s grass energy pro-
duction would be lost, of which about 50% is grazed and
50% is cut by area.
Grass energy was valued at the cost of replacement barley
feed (£0.012/MJ as fed). Estimated damage cost ranges
between about £440/ha and £580/ha (net of savings in
avoided hay/silage making costs), depending on potential
grass yield (Table 4). Weighting by area of grassland systems
gives an estimated average cost of just over £500/ha.
Lost revenues from sales less savings in avoided
costs of sales (Lsales–Ssales)
Loss of sales from hay and withy production
A number of farmers reported lost sales of high-quality hay
for the equine industry. Assuming relatively firm prices at
£90/t WM, the loss of sales at typical yields (5.8 tWM/ha),
Table 5 Estimating losses from reduced fatstock sales due to grass shortages
Grass yields (usable)
Grass energy as fed
Value of replacement feed
Beef price
Average live weight
Grass feed
Feed per day
Live weight gain
Live weight gain
Live weight gain
Live weight gain
Margin over feed costs
Other finishing costs
Adjusted grass energy value
Value added (before hay making costs)
Saved hay/silage costs (direct costs)
Net margin lost
Feed and live weight gain estimates based on EBLEX (2011b) for beef fatstock and financial estimates based on Nix, 2011.
J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
133
less saving in hay making costs (£123/ha), is about £400/ha.
Adding the value of aftermath grazing at £50/ha for late-
season rented ‘keep’ gives a total cost of about £450/ha for
this land use scenario.
About 32 ha (80 acres) of willow plantations for charcoal
and weaving products were flooded in Currymoor. Produc-
tion for the coming year has been stunted, equivalent to an
estimated loss of about 15% biomass according to the pro-
ducer. As a result, there will be a shortfall in stem quality to
meet charcoal grade. Replacing this loss by imported raw
material to maintain supply chain commitments will cost
£16 000, equivalent to £500/ha. This is similar in magnitude
to the losses incurred on grassland valued either for hay sales
(plus aftermath grazing) or at replacement cost of feed.
Loss of revenue from cattle sales
Some farmers reported loss of revenues due to premature
sales of store cattle or reduced purchases of cattle for fatten-
ing and finishing. Assuming average live weight at 450 kg/
head, relatively strong current beef prices, average live weight
gain at grass of 1 kg/day and DM/day grass consumption at
0.02 of body weight (EBLEX, 2011b) give a loss of margin
equivalent to about £780/ha net of savings in costs (Table 5),
ranging between about £670 and £870/ha for the land man-
agement options in Table 4. Financial returns from fattening
of store cattle, however, vary considerably according to man-
agement practices (Nix, 2011).
Loss of revenue from contractor services
Most hay/silage making in Currymoor is undertaken by con-
tractors, many of whom are local farmers providing services
as a supplementary farm-based business. ‘Savings’ to farmers
a tDM/ha 5.3
b MJ/tDM 10 400
c £/MJ 0.012
d £/kglw 1.75
e kglw/hd 450
f kgDM/kglw/day 0.02
g = e*f kgDM/day/head 9
h kglw/day 1.0
i = d*h £/day 1.75
j = i/g £/kgDM fed 0.194
k = j/b*1000 £/MJ 0.019
l = k/c - 1 % 56%
m % beef price 15%
n = k*(1 - m) £/MJ 0.016
o = a*b*n £/ha 876
P £/ha 93
q=o-p £/ha 783
134 Morris and Brewin

in expenditures on contractor services due to loss of hay/
silage constitute a loss of income to contractors. One farmer
contractor reported a £30 000 loss of income while leasing/
depreciation charges on equipment and staff wages remain
to be paid. This probably accounts for a loss of £20 000 after
allowance for reduced fuel, maintenance and repair bills.
Contractor charges typically range between about £65/ha
for baling only through to £150/ha for cutting and carting
clamp silage. Assuming 85% and 15%, respectively, and that
33% of costs are operating costs that can be avoided if work
is not carried out, this equates to a loss in contractor services
of about £52/ha per ha conserved. Assuming half the area is
cut results in a loss in net income of £26/ha of grass
destroyed by flooding: about £17 000 over the 680 ha seri-
ously affected.
Extra production costs (Eproduction)
Costs of reseeding pastures
The ‘improved’ grasslands of Currymoor are intolerant to
long-duration spring flooding. It is likely that they will
require reseeding, at costs of about £63/ha for contractors
and £155/ha for seeds: £218/ha in total. More expensive
species-rich seed mixtures may be required for HLS areas.
The value of lost grazing days
The spring floods prevented the turnout of stock to grass, in
some cases by up to 4 weeks, during which time they were
housed and yarded. Subsequently, many cattle were put to
grass on land intended for winter feed conservation. The
costs of losing a grazing day is estimated to be about £1.5/
day/head animal of about 12–15 months old, equivalent to
about £2.17/day/livestock grazing unit (LU – a dairy cow
equivalent) (Table 6). Assuming average stocking rates of
about 1.5 LU/ha across the whole flooded area generates
about £3.15/ha per grazing day lost: about £47/ha and
£95/ha for 2 and 4 weeks loss of grazing, respectively. In
some extreme cases, some cattle may have been yarded or
located elsewhere for up to 6 weeks.
Other costs (Omisc)
Overall, farmers reported that, as far as they could tell at this
stage, there was limited damage to field infrastructure, such
as drains, ditches, culverts, fences and gateways, although
this is difficult to assess until flood waters have fully receded.
One farmer estimated infrastructural damage at £68/ha, but
this was an exception. Two farmers purchased new machin-
ery to clear spoiled grass. One farmer reported private
pumping costs of about £28/ha to evacuate excess flood
water on 60 ha. Where reported, average clean-up costs were
about £15/ha for labour, tractor and trailer.
Lost revenues and extra costs have an effect on cash flows
for farm businesses, in some cases requiring extra borrow-
ing. Although circumstances vary among farms, a 5% charge
was levied to represent the opportunity cost of reduced rev-
enues to farm business.
The spring flood caused much distress among the farming
community. No additional allowance is made for this here,
but the disruption, extra time commitments and general
burden placed on farmers probably added a further 20% to
the estimates of losses made here. This is noted but not
included in the estimates.
Flood damage in areas subject to flooding of
less than 2 weeks duration
Short-duration flooding occurred in Currymoor on about
148 ha of higher ground to the west and around the margins
of the lower, most seriously affected areas. Estimates of
reductions in grass energy yields due to flooding of between

Table 6 Estimated value of a grazing day by type of stock

Replacement dairy cows Suckler cows Finishing cattle
DM intake a kgDM/kglw 0.02 0.02 0.023
Live weight b kg/head 400 600 550
Required DM c=a*b kg DM/day 8.00 12.00 12.65
DM conserv costs d £/head/day 0.28 0.42 0.44
Straw e £/head/day 0.36 0.36 0.36
Labour and machinery f £/head/day 1.00 1.00 0.35
Total costs g=d+e+f £/head/day 1.64 1.78 1.15
LU Equivalent h LU/head 0.70 0.80 0.60
Total costs i = g/h £/LU/day 2.34 2.23 1.91
Cattle proportions j % of total head 46% 20% 34%
weighted estimate k=I*j £/type 1.08 0.45 0.65
Weighted average l = sum k £/LU/day 2.17

Note: assumes livestock housed/yarded, includes feeding and bedding, and extra hay making/silage costs, excludes other grass production costs, based on farmer
survey and Nix (2011).

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140
Impact of seasonal flooding on agriculture 135

Table 7 Estimated loss of grass energy, grazing days and other costs on areas flooded for between 1 and 2 weeks in early May in
Currymoor Drainage District
Case A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2
Management regime HLS (Org) cut HLS (Org) grazed HLS cut HLS grazed non HLS cut non HLS grazed
Grass energy* MJ/ha 46 370 37 181 53 898 43 217 61 071 48 969
Grass energy lost† % MJ 29% 15% 29% 15% 29% 15%
Grass energy lost MJ/ha 13 447 5 577 15 630 6 483 17 711 7 345
Value of grass lost‡ £/ha 163 67 189 78 214 89
Savings hay/silage costs§ £/ha 55 0 64 0 72 0
Net cost £/ha 108 67 125 78 142 89
Total 50% cut: 50% graze 88 102 115
Extra production and other costs
Grazing days lost¶ £/14 days 0 45 0 45 0 45
Stock relocation £/ha 0 10 0 10 0 10
Clean up £/ha 12 12 12 12 12 12
Subtotal £/ha 12 67 12 67 12 67
Total £/ha 120 134 137 145 154 156
Total 50% cut: 50% graze £/ha 127 141 155
Weighted by area £/ha 140

Notes:
*From Table 4.
†
Based on Morris and Hess (1988) for seasonal floods.
‡
Valued at £0.012/MJ.
§
Based on reduced tDM cut.
¶
Loss of grazing days of stock turned out in spring and other costs based on farm survey.

1 and 2 weeks during the individual months of the year are
available from Morris and Hess (1988) for Somerset condi-
tions. Estimates of the loss of grass energy due to a flood
occurring in the month of May are 15% and 29% of annual
grass energy yields for grazing and hay/silage, respectively.
Most of the areas subject to short-duration flooding are
farmed relatively intensively, often with temporary grass leys.
Estimated flood damage costs, valuing loss of grass energy at
replacement feed cost, is between £88/ha and £115/ha, with
an area weighted average of £141/ha allowing for loss of
grazing and other costs (Table 7). This cost equates to
around £23 000 for the 148 ha flooded, and about £25 000 if
additional allowance is made for generally high stocking of
grazing pastures in spring. It is assumed that these areas will
fully recover in the following season.
Summary of agricultural costs at the farm
scale (Cfarmflood)
Table 8 summarises the main cost components for the spring
2012 flood, where they apply for the range of land uses
referred to earlier. The central estimate is based on the area
weighted averages of costs referred to earlier. It is noted that
the cost items in Table 8 are not additive at the farm scale.
Farmers may adopt a combination of responses, some of
which can only be confirmed at the end of the current pro-
duction cycle. For example, a farmer may decide to replace
all lost grass with purchased feed, or alternatively sell cattle
before finishing them rather than buying feed, or possibly a
mixture of the two approaches. It is noted that per hectare
loss of output such as cattle sales (and hence loss of value-
added) is higher than loss associated with the cost of replac-
ing grass energy production inputs.
For this reason, estimates of loss are presented according
to ‘loss scenarios’, whether farmers replace feed at cost,
reduce hay sales or reduce cattle sales. The central estimate of
loss varies between about £850/ha and £1120/ha on areas
subject to long-duration flooding, and between about
£660/ha and £1380/ha across the range of low and high
estimates.
The range of low to high estimates in Table 8 reflects
possible variation around the central estimate, and repre-
sents a sensitivity analysis of major assumptions on damage
costs. A range of ⫾ 25% of the central estimate is taken for
major cost items, such as grass energy costs and reductions
in sale revenues, whether due to variation in physical ele-
ments (e.g. tDM/ha, LU/ha) or unit prices (e.g. £/MJ,
£/kglw). Other cost items, such as reseeding and clean-up
costs (£/ha), were assumed to range by ⫾ 10%.
There was considerable uncertainty about the prospect of
grassland recovery during 2012, and the ‘knock-on’ effects
on production costs and sales for 2013. Discussions with
farmers in early summer suggested that a 25% reduction in
2013 production was likely due to reduced grass energy,
especially if grass recovery or reseeding was delayed. Further-
more, reduced overwintering of young stock because of

J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
136 Morris and Brewin

Table 8 Agricultural flood damage costs by type of damage and loss scenarios for 2012 spring floods in Currymoor Drainage District
Damage costs by flood duration
Flooding 2–4 weeks or more Flooding < 2 weeks
Types of flood damage Central £/ha Range* £/ha Central† £/ha
Damage to crops and grassland (D)
Loss of grass energy (D1) 506 383–638 102
Loss of sales (L)
Loss of hay sales/withy sales materials (L1) 450 338–564
Fat cattle sales (L2) 783 589–979
Contractor services (L3) 26 23–29
Extra costs (E)
Reseeding costs (E1) 218 168–273
Loss of grazing Days (E2) 95 86–105 45
Other costs (O)
Clean-up 15 13–17 7
Repairs to field infrastructure 20 18–22 5
Other 5 4–6 10
Financing 25 22–28 5
Management burden n/a n/a
Total other costs (O1) 65 59–72 27
Loss scenarios for 2012
Long-duration flooding
Grass energy loss D1 + L3 + E1 + E2 + O1 845 655–1043
Hay loss L1 + L3 + E1 + E2 + O1 789 610–968
Fat cattle loss L2 + L3 + E1 + E2 + O1 1122 860–1384
Short-duration flooding
Grass energy loss D1 + E2 + O1 174

Note:
*Range assumes: ⫾ 25% for grass energy, hay sales and fat cattle, and ⫾ 10% for other items.
†
Range for short-duration flooding +25%.

limited feed could reduce numbers for early turnout in 2013.
For these reasons, a +25% loading on losses for the high
estimate seems reasonable and possibly modest. As events
transpired, extremely wet conditions in 2012 (the second
wettest summer period on record in the UK) and early onset
of winter flooding have delayed grass recovery and reseed-
ing, suggesting that carryover effects into 2013 will be con-
siderable. Some of these cumulative effects, however, are not
entirely attributable to the spring floods themselves, but to
the post-flood conditions of persistent waterlogging that
prevented recovery. It seems likely, however, that the ‘high’
range of cost estimates will apply to much of the worst
affected areas in Currymoor because the impacts of the
spring flood have been exacerbated by subsequent wet
summer conditions.
Estimated farm scale damage costs are high relative to
average farm family incomes of about £500/ha and £200/ha
for lowland dairy and livestock farms, respectively, in South-
west England in 2010/2011. This includes average non-
production single (farm) payments and agri-environment
payments of £220/ha and £32/ha on dairy farms, respec-
tively, and £219/ha and £60/ha, respectively, on livestock
farms (FBS, 2012). Thus, the per hectare losses on the farms
affected by the 2012 spring floods in Currymoor, incurred
on an average 28% their individual areas, are significant by
any measure. Increased exposure to risk of this magnitude
would quickly render farming non-viable.
Discussions with farmers suggested a likely mix of
responses to loss of grass energy across the area as follows:
about 50% (by area) would be replaced by purchased
feed, 20% would take the form of a loss of hay sales, and
30% would result in reduced cattle fattening and sales. On
this basis, the central estimate of losses on land subject
to long-duration flooding is about £920/ha (Table 9).
Estimated average damage costs range between about
£710/ha and £1130/ha, the latter equivalent to an assumed
carryover effect of a 25% fall in grass production and/or
sales into 2013. These estimates are similar in magnitude
to average damage costs of £730/ha (in 2012 prices) on
lowland livestock farms and £1240/ha on dairy farms
flooded in the summer 2007 floods in England (Posthumus
et al., 2009).
Aggregating farm scale damage costs across the affected
areas for long (649 ha at £920/ha) and short (148 ha at £174/
ha) duration flooding gives £595 000 (⫾ £140 000) and
£26 000 (⫾ £6000), respectively.

© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140
Impact of seasonal flooding on agriculture 137

Table 9 Estimated spring flood damage in Currymoor Drainage District according to farmer responses
Impacts characteristics Flooding 2–4 weeks or more Flooding < 2 weeks
Damage to crops and grassland (2012 only) Central Range Central*
Scenario and weighting by % of area
Grass energy loss 50% £/ha share 423 328–522
Hay loss 20% £/ha share 158 122–194
Fat cattle loss 30% £/ha share 337 258–415
Weighted loss 100% £/ha 917† 708–1130 174
Areas affected ha 649 649 148
Total for flooded areas £’000 595 459–734 26

Note:
*Range ⫾ 25% range.
†
Grass loss at 50% for 2013 increases costs to £1170/ha.

Table 10 Annual losses to agric environmental outcomes based on HLS areas and payments in Currymoor Drainage District
HK10 HK15 HK10 + HK19
Maintenance of wet Maintenance of Ditch As per HK10 plus
grassland for wintering habitat for aquatic winter inundation
HLS prescription waders and wildfowl flora and fauna grassland supplement Average or total
Area ha 167 327 18 512
Payment £/ha 255 130 340 178
Administration charge £/ha 51 26 68 36
Total £/ha (⫾ 25%) 306 156 408 214 (160–268)
Area total £ (⫾ 25%) 51 100 51 000 7 400 109 400 (82 000–137 000)

Loss of environmental stewardship value 2002). For this reason, a ⫾ 25% variation in the estimate is
assumed: a 25% increase in damage costs reflecting a carryo-
The spring flooding resulted in long-duration inundation by
ver effect into 2013, which seems likely. Species-rich reseed-
anoxic water of the Sites of Special Scientific Interest areas,
ing could in some places, however, provide an environmental
compromising the conditions required to sustain the envi-
enhancement. Estimated average of the environmental
ronmental features of value, namely ditch flora and fauna,
damage costs of the spring 2012 flood on the 512 ha under
habitats for breeding waders, and associated field features.
the HLS agreements are £214/ha (⫾ £54), £109 400 in total.
Field observations suggest serious damage to habitats and
It is noted that valuation based on the costs of securing
wildlife, including loss of voles, ground nesting birds, and
environmental outcomes provides a minimum order indica-
invertebrates, especially earthworms.
tion of economic costs of environmental damage. A more
From an economics perspective, the environmental loss
robust and complete estimate, which goes beyond the scope
due to flooding can be measured in terms of the annual
here, would involve ‘willingness to pay’ for site-specific
payments made to farmers under the AES agreements
wetland services (see Turner et al. 2008), or estimates of
(Rouquette et al., 2009; Natural England, 2009), which indi-
benefits ‘transferred’ from other surveyed sites (Morris and
cate the value of intended environmental outcomes for the
Camino, 2011). The permanent loss of wetland environmen-
areas affected (Table 10). The average annual costs of admin-
tal services in Currymoor due to repeat flood events would
istering the HLS agreements (excluding information tech-
require such an evaluation of benefits foregone. For the pur-
nology) was 15% of the total payments to farmers between
poses of assessing the impacts of a one-off flood, a cost-
2007/2008 and 2011/2012 (Natural England, 2012). A 20%
based approach is deemed adequate on the assumption that
charge is applied here to reflect the likely extra costs of
full recovery is achieved in a relatively short time period.
administering the HLS arrangements under the circum-
stances. There may also be some additional costs of restora-
tion with species-rich seeds, the cost of which is not yet
known (conventional grass topping and reseeding have been
Combined agricultural and
charged separately above).
agri-environment damage costs
The full extent of the damage is not yet known, and natural Combining central estimates of agricultural flood costs (at
communities will take some time to recover (Gowing et al., £621 000) and damage to agri-environment outcomes (at

J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
138
Table 11 Summary of the agricultural and agri-environment
related costs of the spring 2012 floods in Currymoor Drainage
District
Impacts Central Range
Agricultural Impacts
Long-duration flooding £’000 595
Short-duration flooding £’000 26
Agricultural subtotal £’000 621
Agri-environment impacts £’000 109
Total for Currymoor spring flood £’000 730
Average cost long-duration flooding £/ha 1085
on 649 ha
Average cost short-duration flooding £/ha 174
on 148 ha
Average cost on total 797 ha flooded £/ha 916
areas
Note: based on preceding tables, rounded for summary.
£109 400 based on scheme costs) gives an estimate for total
damage costs of £730 000 (⫾ 170 000) for the Currymoor
floods (Table 11). It is noted that carryover impacts into
2013 would result in costs towards the higher estimate.
Combined damage cost are equivalent to about £1090/ha
(⫾ £250) on the 649 ha worst affected areas, and about
£920/ha (⫾ £210) over the total 797 ha flooded on
Currymoor.
The key assumptions and uncertainties throughout the
analysis relate to (1) the counterfactual productivity and
profitability of grassland systems (and associated prices of
agricultural commodities); (2) the extent of loss of annual
grass energy production (assumed to be total here); (3) the
scope for farmer mitigation of flood impacts; and (iv) pos-
sible carryover effects into subsequent years. Variation in
these assumptions, accommodated in the ranges shown,
leads to proportionate variations in the estimates of damage
costs. These sources of uncertainty are priority areas for
research to improve appraisal methods.
Flooding on other parts of the Somerset
Levels and Moors
The above estimates are indicative of the order of costs for
similar types of flooding experienced on other parts of the
Moors and Levels during spring/early summer 2012. As
reported earlier, a further 4000 ha were flooded on other
Moors, much of this, probably 90% by area, for durations
of about 2 weeks for this particular flood event but without
the severe damage to grass swards observed in Currymoor.
Thus, flood damage costs are likely to be about £175/ha
on 3600 ha, generating an additional total cost of about
£630 000. Assuming 10% (i.e. 400 ha) were flooded for
between 2 and 4 weeks at a cost of about £920/ha, as
observed on Northmoor for example, adds a further
© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Morris and Brewin
£370 000: about £1 million in total for agricultural costs in
other Moors.1
Much of the long-duration flooding on other moors
occurred on areas managed under environmental steward-
ship programmes similar to those at Currymoor, although
459–734 details are not known. Assuming 400 ha of long-duration
21–30
flooding at a similar damage cost to that at Currymoor, that
480–764
is £214/ha, gives an extra agri-environment cost of about
82–137
562–901 £86 000. On this basis, the total costs of the spring event
833–1342 across the reported 5000 ha subject to spring flooding in
Somerset are likely to be approaching £2 million (⫾ £0.5
131–219 million).
705–1130
Economic losses to the nation
The UK Government uses three scenarios to test the eco-
nomic value of agricultural flood risk to the national
economy and by implication the justification for public
investments to alleviate it (Penning-Rowsell et al., 2005).
These scenarios involve (1) complete and permanent loss of
agricultural land; (2) one-off, infrequent flood events; and
(3) permanent reductions in standards of flood risk man-
agement associated, for example, with increased flood
frequency.
The spring 2012 event is classified under type (2) above.
Economic appraisal requires that the incremental effects of
floods are identified and expressed in monetary terms, based
on costs to farmers, excluding taxes (such as value added tax)
and subsidies (such as commodity support). A change in the
European Common Agricultural Policy since 2005 has sim-
plified the economic assessment. Farm subsidies are now
mainly incorporated in single payments received annually by
farmers, not linked to production. Payments received by
Currymoor farmers are independent of flood impacts, and
are therefore excluded from both the financial assessment of
costs to farmers as well as an economic assessment. Some
government support for the livestock industry remains, but
particularly in the light of strong international prices, these
are small and are not included here.
Economic appraisal of flood impacts also requires adjust-
ment for the so-called additionality and substitution effects
(HMT, 2011), recognising that some of the losses due to
flooding in one area might be temporarily or permanently
offset by production of goods and services elsewhere. The
economic losses from the temporary closure of a race course
or golf course due to flooding, for example, might be par-
tially substituted by relocation of recreational activities onto
other courses. In the agricultural case, this implies that eco-
nomic damage costs might be confined to losses in the costs
1
Continuous heavy rainfall during summer 2012 subjected many of these
areas to persistent flooding and waterlogging for many months, severely
constraining farming throughout the season.
J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140
Impact of seasonal flooding on agriculture
of production (e.g. grass energy) rather than losses in the
gross value of sales (e.g. crops or cattle).
In the case of floods on agricultural land however, there is
limited scope to switch crops such as wheat or potatoes
elsewhere in the same farming year. The same is probably
true for dairy production where farmers are committed to
target breeding, feeding and yield games, at least in the short
term. There may be more scope for offsetting in the case of
fatstock, possibly with farmers carrying more or heavier
stock, but generally, within a given production cycle, supply-
side responses will be constrained. Furthermore, the more
widespread is the flooding (and associated waterlogging)
problem, the more difficult is offsetting. The farmers inter-
viewed here showed a range of responses, which for the most
part tried to minimise damage costs by maintaining output
levels and the value of sales, incurring additional costs in the
process. For these reasons, the estimates of financial impacts
to agriculture derived here are deemed indicative of eco-
nomic impacts of one-off infrequent flood events, such as
the spring 2012 floods.
There is concern, however, that the frequency of extreme
events generating non-winter flooding is likely to increase
due to changes in land management in the catchment and
climatic conditions. Farmers recall that the last serious non-
winter flood in Currymoor occurred in August/September
1968, 44 years ago. The prospect of a permanent increase on
flood risk would switch the appraisal assessment to scenario
(3) above. Indeed, more frequent and widespread flooding
and waterlogging may call for a review of Defra’s current
guidance that assumes that agricultural production perma-
nently lost in one place can be readily offset by relocation
elsewhere. This requires a strategic assessment of flood
impacts on agriculture and food supply at the regional and
national scales.
With respect to environmental losses, valuation based on
the costs of securing environmental outcomes provides a
minimum order indication of economic costs of environ-
mental damage. A more robust estimate, which goes beyond
the scope here, would, as referred to earlier, involve ‘willing-
ness to pay’ for site-specific wetland services or estimates of
benefits ‘transferred’ from other surveyed sites (Morris and
Camino, 2011). This prospect of permanent changes in flood
risk will call for this more complete economic assessment
(Posthumus et al., 2010; Rouquette et al., 2011).
Conclusions
The costs of flooding on agricultural land can be substantial
especially when flooding occurs during the most productive
periods of the farming year. This case from Somerset shows
the wide range of impacts of flooding during spring and
early summer on the farm business, and depending on cir-
cumstances, the ways that farmers cope. Flooding in spring
J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140 © 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
139
can result in very high financial costs to lowland livestock
systems due to loss of grass production and associated costs
of replacement feed or reduced output. The survey and esti-
mation methods applied to this specific English case can
provide a framework for assessment of flood impacts on
agricultural grasslands in other contexts.
The Somerset case shows that even in areas that are
farmed relatively extensively under agri-environment
arrangements, ‘out of season’ flooding can cause substantial
losses for already vulnerable small enterprises. Flooding can
also prevent the achievement of agri-environment objec-
tives: thus, both agricultural and environmental interests can
be simultaneously compromised.
While monetary agricultural and agri-environmental
damages are a fraction of those that would occur in an urban
setting, the costs of non-winter flooding, here exceeding
£900/ha on grassland farms, can be significant at the farm
and catchment scales. Changes in the intensity and seasonal
distribution of flooding, due to changes in climate and/or
changes in catchment land use, will require a rethink about
the approach to the appraisal and management of flood risk
in rural areas This challenge has heightened resonance given
current concerns about food security and rising food prices,
rural employment, and habitat protection. It is important to
have a clear understanding of the impacts of flooding on
agricultural land, even where farmed extensively. Otherwise,
many rural areas could become flood risk ‘Cinderellas’,
neglected and potentially exploited.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Somerset Drainage Board Consortium for
sponsoring this enquiry, and to the farmers in Currymoor
Drainage District and elsewhere for willingly participating in
the study during a difficult and challenging period.
References
Brewin P. Somerset levels flooding. ADA Gazette, Summer 2012,
p18. Association of Drainage Authorities, Surbiton, 2012.
http://www.ada.org.uk/gazette.html.
Chatterton J., Viavattene C., Morris J., Penning-Rowsell E. &
Tapsell S. The costs of the summer 2007 floods in England.
Science Project SC070039. Environment Agency, 2010.
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/
SCHO1109BRJA-e-e.pdf.
Defra. District and regional statistics from the agricultural census,
2004. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural
affairs, 2004.
Doyle C. Modelling the determinants of grassland stocking rates
on dairy farms in England and Wales. Agric Syst 1982, 9,
83–89.
140
Doyle C. & Elliot J.G. Putting an economic value on increases in
grass production. Grass Forage Sci 1983, 38, 169–177.
EBLEX. Making grass silage for better returns, beef and sheep BRP
manual 5. Better returns programme. Huntingdon: EBLEX
Ltd, 2011a, http://www.eblex.org.uk/betterreturns.
EBLEX. Feeding growing and finishing cattle for better returns,
beef BRP manual 7. Better returns programme. Huntingdon:
EBLEX Ltd, 2011b, http://www.eblex.org.uk/betterreturns.
Environment Agency. Flood and coastal risk management and
appraisal guidance. Bristol: Environment Agency, 2010.
FBS. Farm business survey. Region reports. South West England.
Nottingham: Rural Business Research University of Notting-
ham, 2012, http://www.farmbusinesssurvey.co.uk/.
Gowing D.J.G., Tallowin J.R.B., Dise N.B., Goodyear J., Dodd
M.E. & Lodge R.J. A review of the ecology, hydrology and
nutrient dynamics of floodplain meadows in England. Research
Report Number 446, Peterborough: English Nature, 2002.
HMT. The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central gov-
ernment. Her Majesty’s treasury. London: The Stationery
Office, 2011.
Morris J. & Camino M. Economic assessment of freshwater,
wetland and floodplain ecosystem services. Working Paper.
UK National Ecosystem Assessment, UK National Ecosystem
Assessment, WCMC Cambridge, 2011. http://uknea.unep-
wcmc.org/.
Morris J. & Hess T.M. Agricultural flood alleviation benefit
assessment: a case study. J Agric Econ 1988, 1988, (39), 402–
412.
Natural England. Farming with nature: agri-environment schemes
in action. Peterborough: Natural England, 2009.
Natural England. Higher level stewardship, environmental stew-
ardship handbook, 3rd edn. February 2010, Peterborough:
Natural England, 2010.
© 2013 The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Morris and Brewin
Natural England. Annual report and accounts, 1 April 2011 to 30
March 2012. Peterborough: Natural England, 2012.
Nix J. John Nix farm management pocket book, 42nd edn. Melton
Mowbray: ABC Ltd, 2011.
Penning-Rowsell E., Johnson C., Tunstall S., Tapsell S., Morris J.,
Chatterton J. & Green C. The benefits of flood and coastal risk
management, a manual of assessment techniques. Enfield,
London: Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex Univer-
sity, 2005.
Posthumus H., Morris J., Hess T.M., Neville D., Phillips E. &
Baylis A. Impacts of the summer 2007 floods on agriculture
in England. J Flood Risk Manage 2009, 2009, 1–8.
Posthumus H., Rouquette J.R., Morris J., Gowing D.J.G. & Hess
T.M. A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods
and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England.
Ecol Econ 2010, 65, 151–1523.
Rouquette J.R., Posthumus H., Gowing D.J.G., Tucker G.,
Dawson Q.L., Hess T.M. & Morris J. Valuing nature conser-
vation interests on agricultural floodplains. J Appl Ecol 2009,
46, (2), 289–296.
Rouquette J.R., Posthumus H., Morris J., Hess T.M., Dawson
Q.L. & Gowing D.J.G. Synergies and trade-offs in the man-
agement of lowland rural floodplains: an ecosystem services
approach. Hydrolog Sci J 2011, 56, (8), 1566–1581.
Thomas C. & Young J.W.O., eds. Milk from grass. ICI/Grassland
Research Institute joint publication. Cleveland: Billingham
Press Ltd, 1982.
Turner R.K., Georgiou S. & Fisher B. Valuation of ecosystem
services: the case of multi-functional wetlands. London: Earth-
scan Publications, 2008.
J Flood Risk Management 7 (2014) 128–140