Our main argument: Land drainage was first undertaken to feed a growing urban population. We have some of the most economic and fertile farmland in the country. The farms in this area still supply a large urban population - Manchester for instance would probably not have been able to develop as it has, without this plentiful supply of food. The distance to the urban areas we supply is short; this must be good for the planet (emissions etc).

Environment Agency plans to flood farmland and reduce pumping: this will not reduce the water running into our area and would create more problems than it would solve. The government policy to defend urban areas before rural areas and not to fight the sea is in general sound given our extensive coastline, but we do not live in a salt marsh we live in a very fertile growing area that feeds a huge urban population.

The idea that stopping drainage and pumping would save the country money is ridiculous. It would be a disaster for our area and a huge financial loss to the country. It is believed that a local farmer called John Webster was awarded an OBE by the government of the day some time ago, for his work on drainage in our area.

There is a lot more technical stuff which is interesting (although not needed at this stage) but the question about peat misleads as all our moss land equates to about one percent (1%) of all the peat in the country and only a fraction of that may be eroded?

As to who pays; every one should - i.e. the big urban areas that consume the food and us who live in this area, though local farmers do believe that the Environment Agency could operate a lot more effectively than they do now.

We live in the 21st century and technology has become ever more awesome. However the Environment Agency tells us what it can't do and yet preceding generations seemed to have been able to accomplish a stable and very efficient growing environment without the technological advantages we have now.

John Gordon
Rufford & Holmeswood Parish Council