Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ...

3.5. The Pitt Review noted that other countries are far more willing to share informationabout critical infrastructure than the United Kingdom. In France, there is a generalopenness about risk information. Local city mayors, responsible for public safety,have access to potentially sensitive information on critical infrastructure in order todevelop suitable local emergency plans in which utility operators are also involved.Even countries which were previously reluctant to disclose information on criticalinfrastructure, and the impact of its failure from flooding, are beginning to see thecounterargument for putting information in the public domain. The United StatesArmy Corps of Engineers (USACE), the federal body whose responsibilities includeengineering projects to mitigate flooding, has recently overcome its previousreluctance to publish inundation maps of dams. Maps are now published becausethis enables the USACE to warn the public to take the risk of dam failure seriouslyand prepare themselves accordingly.3.6. The Task Group believes cooperation and the sharing of information to be vital toeffective flood risk management. The Task Group heard from various responsibleparties that much work had already been done to collect and record datasets relatingto flood forecasting and modelling. These now need to be integrated to fully realisethe benefits. Thames Water is a fundamental part of this process. The Task Groupwere somewhat disappointed that Thames Water was not more forthcoming inoffering to share meaningful information with the Council, particularly whencompared to their more cooperative approach with Northamptonshire CountyCouncil. Nonetheless the Task Group appreciated the commercial and legalproblems faced by Thames Water, although felt these problems were surmountable.The Task Group noted with interest the success Northamptonshire County Councilhad by agreeing a Memorandum of Understanding between themselves andresponsible parties, including Thames Water, as well as employing the ChathamHouse Rule to promote open and frank discussions.3.7. The Task Group was not only concerned about what data could be shared betweenresponsible parties, but also what format this data would be provided in. The TaskGroup heard from Ms. Bateman that Northamptonshire County Council hadrequested data in “mapping pro-layer” format as this was compatible with thesoftware management tool they had developed, funded by a grant from DEFRA.However the data they were provided was not in this format, forcing them to extractthe data into the format they needed, which took six months. The Task Group heardhow Thames Water used a geographic information system (GIS) to identify areas ofrisk in London.Recommendation Ten: Information SharingIt is recommended that the Council engage directly with Thames Water to seek tocome to arrangement to allow for the sharing of all relevant information to enableboth parties to better fulfil their responsibilities under the Flood Water ManagementAct and the Flood Risk Regulations.3.8. It is suggested that the Council and Thames Water examine in detail theMemorandum of Understanding used by Northamptonshire County Council as abasis for this information sharing, and that Chatham House Rules are used indiscussions between the parties.- 27 -Page 186