Reform UK’s proposal to de-fund the Somerset Rivers Authority prioritises a dogged determination to cut costs at the risk of flooding our local communities.
The SRA was created after the devastating Somerset floods of 2013–2014, when around 150 km² of land was submerged, hundreds of homes were affected, and economic losses ran into hundreds of millions of pounds.
Firstly, removing funding ignores why the SRA exists: it coordinates multiple agencies to deliver dredging, land management, and resilience projects that individual bodies cannot manage alone. Without this integrated approach, flood mitigation becomes fragmented and less effective.
Secondly, the financial argument is short-sighted. Flood damage is vastly more expensive than prevention. Evidence from past events shows that failing to invest in flood defences leads to severe economic and social disruption. Critics have warned that stripping funds could result in flooding “as bad as 2014,” illustrating the real risk of reversing progress.
Finally, Reform UK’s broader scepticism toward climate policy weakens its case. Increased rainfall and flood risk linked to climate change mean that reducing resilience spending is poorly aligned with emerging environmental realities.
Local campaigner Graham Godwin-Pearson says, "I'm sure that if Nigel Farage lived on the Somerset Levels he would not want to de-fund the Somerset Rivers Authority.
"Reform's narrow view of short-term savings is poorly researched and potentially dangerous: long-term flood protection is needed to protect our communities."
