Flood victims tell Environment Agency bosses to hand back five-figure bonuses
Last updated at 10:07am on 30.07.07
Bonus: Baroness Young
They are furious that the executives, who are responsible for flood defences, are cashing in while householders face higher bills to avert future disasters.
The agency has been severely criticised for failing to deal with what have been the worst floods in modern history.
Yet its bosses have won performance payments for hitting targets on water management, flood defences and pollution levels.
Baroness Young, the agency's chief executive and a Labour peer, is believed to have been paid the biggest bonus - an extra £24,000 on top of her £163,000 salary.
A further eight senior executives also gained - pocketing an average bonus of between 10 and 15 per cent of their annual salaries last month.
Seven people have died and thousands of homes and businesses have been wrecked by flooding. More than 140,000 people in Gloucestershire still lack running water. Although their supply is expected to be restored by Thursday, it could be another two weeks before the water is safe to drink.
Scroll down for more...

Stranded: Tewkesbury Cathedral in Gloucestershire
John Edwards, 63, who spent yesterday morning queuing for water in Quedgeley, near Gloucester, said the bonuses were "disgusting".
"They should hand it back and use the money for flood defences or to help people who have lost everything," he said.
Another Quedgeley victim, Dave Calcutt, 33, said: "These bonuses are really going to annoy everyone.
"There's been a lack of investment in the infrastructure and flood defences and for them to pay themselves a big bonus is a bit cheeky."
Professor Dieter Helm, a flood expert at Oxford University, said: "The management of flood defences in recent years has been a sorry tale of budget cuts, failure to act on planning policies and inadequate precautionary measures.
"At the centre of this lies the Environment Agency."
Baroness Young has warned that water bills are likely to rise in order to protect against further flooding.
She insisted that infrastructure - including switching stations and water plants - had to be protected, saying: "Utilities will have to pay for this protection and undoubtedly they will have to pass that on to their customers."
An agency spokesman said last week's storms were much more severe than could reasonably have been expected.
She said the agency planned for conditions that would be seen once a century - but that last week's weather was likely to be experienced only every 400 years.
"The demand for flood defences continues to outstrip the finances we have to build with," she added.
Peter Ainsworth, Tory environment spokesman, said: "The timing of these bonuses is unfortunate to say the least but it's clear that the agency recognised that flood defences are not up to scratch and their principal failure was their inability to persuade the Government of the seriousness of the situation and to be able to handle it."
In the past ten years, 25 official reports have called for tougher flood defences. However, in real terms, funding has fallen 15 per cent.
Estate agents are warning that flood-hit homes could fall in value by up to 80 per cent.
Insurers may start to refuse to cover properties in flood zones, making them much harder to sell.
Chris Jordan, of Bureau Insurance, said: 'Those who have been hit by the recent floods won't have problems now - it's when they come to renew their insurance or sell their houses that they'll face big problems."
• The chief constable of Gloucestershire Police called on the Government to make a "special exception" of the emergency services to help them pay for the cost of the floods clean-up operation.
The county is finally beginning to return to normality as water is restored to tens of thousands of homes for the first time in over a week.
The county council last week estimated the cost of repairing the region's battered roads and public buildings at £50 million, while the emergency services also face huge bills.
Tim Brain, who has co-ordinated the relief effort, said today all the agencies involved needed financial help.
"This is going to be recorded as the largest peacetime operation the country has seen.
"We've played a crucial role in that operation. There are special grants available, which mean organisations like ourselves are expected to bear the first few hundred thousand pounds or possibly million in this case in costs.
"That's a very large sum of money to be taken from our annual budget. I'm hoping for the police and other emergency services that these rules are waived because of the extraordinary nature of this emergency."
The police officer also warned the cost of the crisis, which left 140,000 homes without water after a treatment plant flooded, would have funding implications for years to come.
"I'm hoping we will be treated as a special case for the funding for 2008/09," he said.
"We have got every indication from central government that they will give the support and help we need and I hope that continues."
The Prime Minister has already pledged to compensate councils affected by floods for the full cost of the clean-up.
Around £46 million had also been made available by the government in the immediate future.
Reader views (9)
How are "flood victims" so knowledgeable now, that they can advise on salaries and bonuses? They are the same people who sunk (literally) their money in property barely above the water table.
- Dave, Cornwall, 30/07/2007 21:56
Report abuse
This really is disgusting!!The Environment Agency was the cause of much suffering here and has certainly cost us millions of pounds.They gave no prediction or clear warning to the people in Tewkesbury before the flood water reached the valley floor.The Met Office had correctly forecast the rain the day before.Water was flowing on the hills and it took more than FIVE hours to reach the town.No warning was given when it was blindingly obvious that a huge flow of water was approaching Tewkesbury.Were the EA incompetant or just plain idle?There must be an enquiry and this could lead to criminal charges against the EA!
To award such bonuses to these people is beyond belief.
- Michael Parkinson, Tewkesbury England, 30/07/2007 21:26
Report abuse
Baroness Young gets paid £163k /yr for her "job", she gets enough money from the taxpayer.
Surely it would be better to give bonuses to frontline staff like nurses, firemen and coppers.
- Andy, london, 30/07/2007 18:17
Report abuse
I live in the affected area, but I’m not bitter. The bonuses were paid for last years performances, and last year the Environmental Agency did some very fine work indeed. Let’s not get heavy on these guys – they really are doing all they can to help the sodden masses. Also, I am pretty certain that the directors aren’t actually responsible for what’s happened.
- Clovis Mackintosh, Worcester, 30/07/2007 16:04
Report abuse
I don't really know whats going on here.
As I heard the queen is sitting on some 300 billion pounds.
How about giving some to the people back and spend 50 billion on flood defenses.
I have nothing against the queen but the queen wouldn't have all this money without Loyal citizens.
The queen has a good life and right at her door there are english citizens who really need help.
Why make them more suffer.
Why make people who suffer also pay for it.
It's not the Queen who gets wet feet it is the poor citizens.
Get out of your for walls and Help.
Please do not understand me wrong.
I have nothing at all against the queen and I respect her very much but in times like this we should open our heart and Help.
- Khalid, London, 30/07/2007 13:53
Report abuse
I cannot believe the nerve of this woman [Young] proposing last week that we all have increased water bills, when she's pocketing this sort of undeserved and, quite frankly, obscene amount in a bonus. How dare she. Her salary in itself is ridiculously high - I certainly haven't seen any evidence that she's done anything to deserve that sort of high salary let alone any sort of bonus.
- Geraldine, London, 30/07/2007 12:59
Report abuse
If you buy a house on a flood plain, then you must expect from time-to-time to get flooded (that's what floodplains do)- the concept is not that difficult to work out. The article says that some people have lost everything - if there has been a loss of life, then my sympathies are with those families. However, material goods are insurable and if you pay for good quality insurance you should get everything replaced, rather than try to cut corners by underinsuring with a budget insurance company. Too many people want something for nothing in this world and you get what you pay for...then moan afterwards when it doesn't live up to expectations. The environment agency didn't choose homes for those that got flooded.
- Carl, London, 30/07/2007 11:38
Report abuse
I want a job where I get paid nearly £200k per year for telling people that my department isn't good enough and we'll need more money from them to make it better.
- Trevor Roll, London, 30/07/2007 11:07
Report abuse
They should also be made to hand back their salaries for the past five years, because quite obviously, they haven't been doing their jobs properly.
- Lezli, London/UK, 30/07/2007 02:20
Report abuse
Morning:
8°c





