ON BBC Radio Oxford on Friday morning (June 14), Ed Turner, deputy leader of Oxford City Council, said it had been proactive in preventing flooding – how?

He then went on to state it was disappointing the council didn’t get Government cash it they tried to claim for clearing up after flooding.

Apparently the Government has £250,000 set aside for flooding issues.

Mr Turner also suggested the level of council tax payments should increase, so money could be set aside to deal with future flooding problems.

Then Barry Russell from the Environment Agency spoke, stating the previous provision providers, Thames Conservancy’s work involving dredging silt, removing branches etc, was not cost effective.

Instead the agency liaises with landowners who are expected to fund and complete maintenance.

I think both views are short-sighted, failing to actively prevent flooding.

It’s not fair to expect landowners who are closest to waterways to be responsible for all maintenance.

The Environment Agency should not just be an advisory and information gathering service but instead effectively manage the movement of water, minimising floods.

They need the power and funding to return to effective traditional methods.

Invest in machinery and staff. The costs may be high but will be offset by drastically reducing the probability of flooding – removing the need to spend money and time clearing up – repairing water damage. It will stop inconvenience, disruption and heartache for residents.

Government money put aside for flooding issues could instead be funding dredging.

Simple suggestions to a successful solution?

ELAINE BENNETT, Marston Road, Oxford